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

Friday, December 04, 2015

Did I not say as much?

I have never claimed to be a conservative or a Republican. For some reason, a fair number of people seem to have trouble grasping this. But the real self-proclaimed conservatives don't seem to have any trouble doing so, such as Mr. Marcus from yesterday's post concerning his Federalist article.
David Marcus ‏@BlueBoxDave
So @voxday did a portrait of me, the good news is he disavows conservatism as there is no place in it for him.

Vox Day @voxday
You're absolutely right. Unlike conservatives, I have principles beyond "don't get called racist" and "incoming, surrender!"

David Marcus ‏@BlueBoxDave
Good luck with your American Nationalist movement. I can't wait to see the outfits.

Vox Day @voxday
It's fascinating to see conservatives devolve to imitating the left. You've got nothing they don't do better. #cuckservative

David Marcus ‏@BlueBoxDave
Opposing racial discrimination is not a leftist position. It's an American position.

Vox Day ‏@voxday
That's absolute ahistorical bullshit. Anti-racism is anti-nationalism. Which, by definition, is anti-American. Your position is opposed to Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, just for starters.

Labels: ,

143 Comments:

Anonymous Homesteader December 04, 2015 1:07 PM  

The American Cuckservative-

Standing athwart history yelling "Please don't stop!"

Anonymous 334 December 04, 2015 1:08 PM  

Beautiful. Totally undressed him.

Anonymous Wyrd December 04, 2015 1:09 PM  

OT but related to yesterday's NYDN post:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/ny-daily-news-doubles-down-after-attacking-christians-they-equate-nra-chief-with-islamic-terrorists/

SJWs always double-down

Anonymous Toddy Cat December 04, 2015 1:10 PM  

If opposing racial discrimination is "an American position" it's funny that no one noticed this until about 1957 or so, 180-odd years into our country's history. You see this with a lot of people claiming that this or that liberal position is "Christian". Yeah, you bet, funny how people have been reading the Bible for hundreds of years, and never noticed that it required open borders, tranny acceptance, or whatever the lunacy of the week is.

The only conclusion a good liberal can come to is that Jesus was un-Christian, and that the Founding Fathers were un-American. Good luck with that...

Anonymous whtbread December 04, 2015 1:12 PM  

I see that he is now quoting the Declaration of Independence as proof of his position of being the real "American." How f*cking stupid is this guy?

Anonymous 0007 December 04, 2015 1:14 PM  

If he ever comes back(which I doubt), you might ask him for an example of any member of any other race besides white being called out as a racist by his media friends.

Blogger Salt December 04, 2015 1:14 PM  

Opposing racial discrimination is not a leftist position. It's an American position.


Vox, you should invite him out for a little firewater and a rain dance, perhaps at the Little Big Horn.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) December 04, 2015 1:18 PM  

Progs are stupid. They can't imagine more than 2 sides to an issue.

I'd never had guessed that the conservative movement's founding ideals were so vague or that their constant rolling over, backing up, and giving in started in their early days and have continued to the present.

Starting Monday, people are going to get a dose of history and abandon the movement. The Left will claim victory, thinking they've destroyed conservatives, themselves, not realizing those not served by it's weakness have formed a harder, leaner movement, unable to be shamed, not afraid to fight.

Blogger Chris Mallory December 04, 2015 1:19 PM  

Is his use of the Declaration of Independence an attempt to make a statement about VD?
From the 29th Paragraph of the Declaration:
"He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That sounds almost racist or something.

Blogger glad2meetyou December 04, 2015 1:21 PM  

Well said. Dave begged VD to play the red card.

Anonymous Jack Hanson December 04, 2015 1:23 PM  

The Federalist has always been a joke with the same claque of DC insiders from Falls Church writing preening virtue signaling articles to try and get into the big boy papers.

So far been blocked by Tracinski, Harsanyi, Malor, and a few others on twitter when you reveal their intellectual paucity and the sheer ridiculousness of their articles. I remember when Ben "The Plagiarist" Domenech wrote his piece about "America must choose between liberty and white nationalism" and never could forment a reply on when he was writing "Israel must choose between liberty and jewish nationalism".

Blogger bearspaw December 04, 2015 1:26 PM  

Marcus' real job, when he is not telling us what conservatism should be, is "artistic Director" of some Brooklyn theatre group. Their website reads like the wet dream of SJWs the world over.

Blogger El Borak December 04, 2015 1:26 PM  

there is no place in it for him.

Good grief, they even copy the rhetoric of the SJWs.

Anonymous Soga December 04, 2015 1:27 PM  

@10

Huh... that about describes Vox. Undistinguished destruction of SJWs/cuckservatives/asspies of all ages, sexes (all fourteen of them!), and conditions.

The founding fathers had Vox's kind pinned.

Anonymous Toddy Cat December 04, 2015 1:33 PM  

I also really like the inane crack about uniforms. Hell, I'm so old, I can remember when only lefties called everyone a Nazi...

You also gotta love the implication that anyone who is a nationalist is a Nazi, don't you? That's cuckservative logic, for ya. George Washington? "Nazi!" Teddy Roosevelt? "Nazi!!!" John F. Kennedy? "NAZI!!!" Ronald Reagan? "Nazi!" Pope John Paul II? "Nazi!"

What a doofus...

Anonymous 11B December 04, 2015 1:34 PM  

Vox, you could always introduce him to the First Naturalization Act of 1790. Passed by the First Congress comprised of many Founders, and signed into law by the greatest Founder of all George Washington, this act limited naturalization to free white people of good moral character.

Blogger IM2L844 December 04, 2015 1:43 PM  

The Vox-in-a-Box is a cryptid.

And here I was thinking we were gonna have to wait 'til Monday to see any fireworks. I Should have known better.

Blogger Ceasar December 04, 2015 1:44 PM  

I have come to the conclusion that the term conservative has been so bastardized by left insurgents that it has become meaningless. This writer obviously lacks experience living with and around other minority groups. If he did, he would know all groups prefer themselves to others. Everyone judges others..EVERYONE. Besides there is really nothing left to conserve...its time to build..without cuckservatives.

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 04, 2015 1:50 PM  

It has to make life easier once you can simply predict their behavior. The American "conservative" is a horrible slur - it just means you're a liberal that's slow on the uptake.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 04, 2015 1:51 PM  

The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.

Reading the text of the 1802 law, it looks like the requirement that they be white didn't last long. Admittedly it also says that the registry wasn't open to Africans until 1870, but most of the Founders were still around in 1802.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 04, 2015 1:51 PM  

@20

Sorry, not the text, the Wiki description. Wiki doesn't have the text.

Blogger Ceasar December 04, 2015 1:55 PM  

I have come to the conclusion that the term conservative has been so bastardized by left insurgents that it has become meaningless. This writer obviously lacks experience living with and around other minority groups. If he did, he would know all groups prefer themselves to others. Everyone judges others..EVERYONE. Besides there is really nothing left to conserve...its time to build..without cuckservatives.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 2:03 PM  

A lot of the problem here seems to me to be in definitions. What's "racist" for example? To the left, pretty much anything they want it to be, however they can prostitute the term for tactical advantage, and with no necessary component of race to it at all. To me, it has to be genetically based, to admit of no exceptions, to be morally dispositive, and false. It it not racist, for example, to say blacks are darker than I am; it's just true. It's not racist to observe they have much higher crime rates; it's just true. It's not racist to observe that they do relatively poorly, on average, on various standardized tests, since that, too, it true.

It would be racist to apply the average to the individual, and deny the existence of some rather bright black folks. It might be racist to assume that IQ testing is all there is. (As previously mentioned, I don't have to pull a hat down low over my eyes, turn the collar of my coat up, and slink from shadow to shadow in the vicinity of any IQ dick measuring contest, with very nearly anyone. And I am extremely skeptical of them.) It would be racist to assume that there's no common humanity there, no possibility of a white meeting any black, hands extended, as friends. I _know_ that's possible.

And then, what does conservative mean. Vox and I are not that far apart and I define myself as conservative. I do not necessarily define NR as conservative, even if we don't bother to note what fucking abject cowards run the publication. One can be a conservative and be a coward, I am sure. However, to me, if you answer the question, "Nature or nurture," with, "Both, in unknown proportions, but neither predictably, reliably, nor all the usefully," and your answer is honest, you've already got the foundation that will lead to basic conservatism.

Anonymous Bobby Farr December 04, 2015 2:03 PM  

The most disturbing part of this election cycle has been seeing the complete convergence between the rhetoric of the Jeb Bush establishment Republicans and the left.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 04, 2015 2:07 PM  

You could ask the man to give an intellectual discourse on Magic Dirt. Or is Magic Dirt now racist?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 04, 2015 2:08 PM  

What's "racist" for example? To the left, pretty much anything they want it to be, however they can prostitute the term for tactical advantage, and with no necessary component of race to it at all.

This, for me, is the assumption I have to make when Vox talks about racism this way: that what he's describing as "anti-racism" is what the Left defines as "anti-racism", and idiots like Jeb swallow whole. I won't hesitate to acknowledge that I prefer to be around like-minded people, I've never much cared what they look like or how they sounded. But that's not what the Left means when they say "racism". They mean anything that makes brown people look bad, including - as you mention - things that are true. Like the crime rate.

Blogger VD December 04, 2015 2:10 PM  

This, for me, is the assumption I have to make when Vox talks about racism this way: that what he's describing as "anti-racism" is what the Left defines as "anti-racism", and idiots like Jeb swallow whole.

I always use words as the person using them defines them. That's why I force people to define their words for me before I will engage substantively with them.

That being said, I also don't believe in any form of human equality. It does not exist materially, legally, spiritually or in any other regard.

Blogger VD December 04, 2015 2:12 PM  

Vox and I are not that far apart and I define myself as conservative.

Well, you're certainly far more pro-crucifixion than I am. Then again, only Crassus was more pro-crucifixion than you.

Anonymous Mitchell December 04, 2015 2:13 PM  

Think of all the lefties that he's invited to ravish him over the years, and how they constantly rejected him for being gross.

Then Vox comes in and slaps him down like this and makes him feel all warm and cucky and confused.....

Mr. Marcus will be right back with us, as soon as he puts on a dry pair of panties.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 04, 2015 2:13 PM  

American Nationalist movement.

Leaning more left, I'm surprised to hear a so-called conservative use this as mocking. Conservatives that aren't for US nationalism? wtf?

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 04, 2015 2:19 PM  

@27

That being said, I also don't believe in any form of human equality. It does not exist materially, legally, spiritually or in any other regard.

Well, I'm not going to argue the notion that equality doesn't exist in fact, especially not materially or spiritually, and that fact doesn't bother me at all. Whether or not it exists legally depends, as you say, on how you define the terms. Obviously rich people with lots of resources are going to better be able to bring their will to bear against any given society, so if that's what you mean, no argument there.

And if you mean in terms of legal *rights*.... well, again, that depends on how you defines your terms. So I definitely have no argument with your policy of insisting on using your opponent's terms.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) December 04, 2015 2:22 PM  

A lot of the problem here seems to me to be in definitions. What's "racist" for example?
To a Prog, racist = poopy head. Arguing with a Progressive is like arguing with a 5 year old.

Blogger CM December 04, 2015 2:23 PM  

Conservatives that aren't for US nationalism?

I grew up conservative and have privately identified as nationalist since US History in HS (what alternative to globalism is there?)

Conservatives have had a very loose relationship with nationalism that doesn't go much further than skin deep patriotic displays. The "nation of immigrants" trope has played hard and heavy on conservatives for most (if not all) my life at the very least.

Blogger RobertT December 04, 2015 2:33 PM  

Anyone who's married to his political affiliation is a mind numbed robot. I gave up on the republican party while I was running for office as a republican. The older I get, the more sense that makes. After all, how would you like to belong in the same pot as this ninny?

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales December 04, 2015 2:36 PM  

What's the correct response to cuckservatives who say:

"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

Blogger Artisanal Toad December 04, 2015 2:37 PM  

Crucifixion has its place in the grand scheme of things. The medium is the message.

Blogger Carl Philipp December 04, 2015 2:42 PM  

@30 "Leaning more left, I'm surprised to hear a so-called conservative use this as mocking. Conservatives that aren't for US nationalism? wtf?"

"Conservatives" have shifted left due to failing to conserve. What we need is a regressive movement. Let us all move backwards to sanity and freedom.

Blogger Danby December 04, 2015 2:44 PM  

@35 Emmanuel
What's the correct response to cuckservatives who say:

"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”


It's diversity that makes the police state necessary. Without Moslems, why would we need to search people at airports? if we were sensibly willing to profile, wwe could eliminate half the police presence in the country.

Anonymous 11B December 04, 2015 2:47 PM  

@ White Knight Leo #0368

Here is the text to the Naturalization Act of 1802.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That any alien being a free white person may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States or any of them on the following conditions and not otherwise

I did not read all the sections, so I may be wrong. But it appears the limitation to free whites was still in effect.

Blogger Stephen Ward December 04, 2015 2:49 PM  

@35 Emmanuel

"The only reason we need a police state is because the Muslims can't play nice with the rest of us." then roll your eyes and say "duuuuuuuuh"

Anonymous Mathias December 04, 2015 2:49 PM  

@35

I don't know, how do you like your daughters and sons raped and beheaded? How do you like praying a mandatory 5 times a day? Do you think Sharia law promotes freedom? Also, once that police state consists of Whites and only Whites, what do you think it's character will be vs a brown Muslim run police state? Some fates are worse than death, and some political situations are worse than a police state run by your own. Such as living in a police state run by somebody else.

Blogger Dexter December 04, 2015 2:50 PM  

"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

Answer: Was America a police state before 1965, when it effectively had no Muslims in it?

(Or pick your date... you could probably even go as late as 1990...)

Anonymous Toddy Cat December 04, 2015 2:52 PM  

“How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

Just fine, thanks. By the way, you have been reported for seditious behavior and undermining the foundations of the State, the security forces are on the way.

Seriously, people who have destroyed freedom of association, freedom of speech, and are working as hard as they can to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, all in the name of some fictional utopia, talking about a "police state" is really rich. Project much, cuckie? Besides, Franklin Roosevelt did something similar to the Niesi, so it must be OK, right?

Blogger Dexter December 04, 2015 2:55 PM  

Seriously, people who have destroyed freedom of association, freedom of speech, and are working as hard as they can to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, all in the name of some fictional utopia, talking about a "police state" is really rich.

Lefties who have destroyed the Constitution ask, in all apparent seriousness, "how will you ban Islam or deport Muslims" (or whoever) "without violating the Constitution?"

(facepalm)

OpenID genericviews December 04, 2015 2:55 PM  

“How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

Then just deport all the non-citizen moslems. That won't take a police state. Probably ought to exclude any more from coming here as a start. A border fence might help. It won't be 100% effective, but it will send a message. 95% effective is pretty good for any government program.

Blogger Noah B #120 December 04, 2015 2:55 PM  

"Your position is opposed to Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, just for starters."

Most on the left see these great men as just dead white slave owners, but they still worship Lincoln. So it throws them into total panic to quote choice moments of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Anonymous Mathias December 04, 2015 2:56 PM  

@42

I don't think dialectic will be effective against his target audience, he should hammer his point home with some hard-hitting rhetoric that cuts his audience off at the emotional knees.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 2:56 PM  

And who was the first American president to send marine overseas to fight Berber Muslims on their own soil? Now, let's not always see the same hands.

"Conservatives that aren't for US nationalism?"

That's right. We drove the Torries to Canada and ultimately rejected Hamilton's Federalist model. Within the context of American political philosophy the conservative view is Confederationalist.

That's why every state has a complete system of government able to maintain rule of law independently of the Federal government.

Blogger Noah B #120 December 04, 2015 2:56 PM  

@Dexter

Taqiyya is not just for muslims.

Blogger ray December 04, 2015 3:03 PM  

Back in the Paleolithic, when I began confronting my prog friends with the hypocrisies and coercions of feminism, their response was always the same: but, but, you don't want RONALD REAGAN [or fill in blank] to get back into office, do you?! Then they'd stare at me aghast, awaiting a retraction of the truth that never came. Great, my choice is either Harvey Milk and Sistah Hitlah, or the Repugnicants.

They could, and still can, only see a stark dualist world consisting of political conception and action, in which if one didn't go along with your beatdowns by Oppressed Females, well then, you must be an arch-conservative. These people would run this game even knowing I despised 'conservatism' and had never voted. But it reveals the infantilism and permanent lockdown of their minds. It also revealed their collectivist and bullying tactics.

May disease consume both their houses.

Anonymous tublecane December 04, 2015 3:08 PM  

"I'd never have guessed that the conservative movement's founding ideals were so vague or that their constant rolling over, backing up, and giving in started in their early days"

There's been a conservative movement since FDR, I'd say, in the same sense that there's been one Republican party since the 1850s. Which isn't to say that there's been much continuity besides the name and their main opponent (Democrats in the latter case, leftists in the former). There've been three main phases in the so-called conservative movement: the Old Right (anti-New Deal), the New Right (Buckleyism), and neoconservatism (world domination). Buckley set in the rot, in my opinion, and neocons were simply leftists. There are all manner of heroes to be uncovered from the Old Right, which wasn't always right but was definitely not what "conservatism" has come to mean (i.e. aside from war-mongering and tax cuts the Washington Generals of American politics).

Anonymous The other robot December 04, 2015 3:09 PM  

It seems that the FBI has declared the San Bernadino Christmas Party Disagreement to be a terrorist event.

This can only help Trump, it seems to me.

Blogger IsMishe December 04, 2015 3:11 PM  

There are no conservatives, just men of principle.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 04, 2015 3:17 PM  

“How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

No police state needed. All Trump would have to do is get on TV and say "I will pardon anyone who kills an illegal alien felon, drug dealer, child rapist, or jihadist." If you thought Perot had a great sucking sound any camera on the border will seem to be playing Bennie Hill.

Blogger Martin X December 04, 2015 3:22 PM  

Anti-racist simply means anti-white.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 3:25 PM  

"Well, you're certainly far more pro-crucifixion than I am. Then again, only Crassus was more pro-crucifixion than you."

A lot of the beauty in life disappeared when we stopped nailing up the wicked. Make one _measley_ little mistake, crucify the wrong Son of God just _once_, and there goes a fine form of punitive correction.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 3:27 PM  

"That being said, I also don't believe in any form of human equality. It does not exist materially, legally, spiritually or in any other regard."

One would hope for equality before the law, but that's a pretty forlorn hope. That said, there are blacks and hispanics infinitely better than some or even many whites.

Anonymous Randy M December 04, 2015 3:30 PM  

Re: "Nation of immigrants"

In my view, being an immigrant or descendant of immigrants is more cause to be indebted to, and thus have preference for, the founding people than to future immigrants generally.
Also, as, first, people are not interchangeable in nearly any capacity, and, second, the available resources and open space of the country has chaged, there is no reason for the nation to think that because one group of immigrants was not a disaster others will be likewise neutral or beneficial.

And of course one can argue as Vox does that those immigrant groups may not have been net positive, but that is the more difficult case to prove, especially rhetorically to a group including their descendants.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 3:32 PM  

"One would hope for equality before the law . . ."

I know what you mean by that, which is a bit of alright. The only problem is that I also know what they mean by that, which ain't.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 3:32 PM  

"Answer: Was America a police state before 1965, when it effectively had no Muslims in it?"

That's not quite the right question, Dex. It isn't the presence or absence of Moslems (fuck 'em, I spell it as I wish) that makes the police state. It's that we've gone so far now that only a police state will get rid of them, and the lefties who will surely, in ineffectually, resist, and that, at this point, it's unclear how we get rid of that once it's done its job. Doesn't mean we can;t get rid of it - looking southward a lot of countries have, eventually - but we don't have a good plan, for ourselves, now.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 3:36 PM  

"I always use words as the person using them defines them. That's why I force people to define their words for me before I will engage substantively with them."

There is a problem with that approach, you know. Think here: Corcyra.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 3:38 PM  

"I know what you mean by that, which is a bit of alright. The only problem is that I also know what they mean by that, which ain't."

Yes, they mean equality of outcome in everything.

Anonymous Geoff December 04, 2015 3:39 PM  

Interesting conversation. Sort of a mix of rhetoric and dialectic.

Blogger Feather Blade December 04, 2015 3:43 PM  

@43 Franklin Roosevelt did something similar to the Niesi, so it must be OK, right?

Just for clarity's sake, are you saying this sarcastically, or are you genuinely trying to use FDR as a reasonable authority to which to appeal?

Anonymous ThirdMonkey VFM #337 December 04, 2015 3:50 PM  

@60 Kratman

It won't take a police state to get rid of them. It will take a police state to look the other way while the citizenry takes care of it. There are plenty of American Nationalists in police and military uniforms who will not only do that, but will actively take part when they are off the clock. As Glenn Reynolds pointed out, the police don't exist so much for the law-abiding as they exist to protect the criminal from the citizenry throwing thieves in gutters and hanging murderers from lamp posts. And at this point, we don't even have to use force. We just need to have the following conversation with every foreigner we meet:

"Where are from?"
"I am from Xistan"
"When are you going back home?"

Say it as politely as possible, without malice, and walk away. Plant the seed in their mind that this is not, and will never be, their home.

Blogger pyrrhus December 04, 2015 3:54 PM  

@57 "One would hope for equality before the law, but that's a pretty forlorn hope. That said, there are blacks and hispanics infinitely better than some or even many whites."
Obviously, but not very relevant to a population issue. In fact, as people like DuBois were well aware, only about one black person in 10 is as intelligent as the average northwest european, the founding stock of our country.

Blogger kmbr December 04, 2015 3:57 PM  

**You're absolutely right. Unlike conservatives, I have principles beyond "don't get called racist" and "incoming, surrender!"**

That is awesome.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 3:57 PM  

"Yes, they mean equality of outcome in everything."

Everyone must finish the 100 yard dash (forgive the cultural parochialism, or not, I don't care) in exactly the same time as the legless 'tard who can't even keep track of which direction she's supposed to be dragging herself in.

And even that wouldn't be so bad if they didn't then award her first prize anyway, for equality, because oppression.

Anonymous Susan December 04, 2015 3:58 PM  

@61

After looking that name up, I find you have raised an interesting little element to the argument.

Anonymous Randy M December 04, 2015 3:58 PM  

"Within the context of American political philosophy the conservative view is Confederationalist."

This is missing the point of arguing for American Nationalism. In the sense it is used today, with rightists arguing for and leftists arguing against, it doesn't mean an all powerful federal government, but a government and people that puts its citizens welfare above outsiders.

Think "Nationalists vs Internationalists" not "Federalists vs Anti-federalists." We can shoot for a confederacy of nations, but if all we get is a nation of subsequent states, that is still better than being ruled by a globalist oligarchy dedicated to spreading vibrancy and diversity in order to entrench their power.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 4:06 PM  

" . . .the police don't exist so much for the law-abiding as they exist to protect the criminal from the citizenry throwing thieves in gutters and hanging murderers from lamp posts."

Outlaws have been outlawed.

Anonymous Athor Pel December 04, 2015 4:08 PM  

"35. Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales December 04, 2015 2:36 PM
What's the correct response to cuckservatives who say:

"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”"



All you need is one word.
Liar.

But a couple more words wouldn't hurt.
Operation Wetback.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 04, 2015 4:09 PM  

Police states are not bad when they look out for the interest of the main citizens, or as we are discussing here, whites, or white men in specific.

The version of the police state we have now does not look out for those interests, It looks out for the interest of the politically connected, wealthy, or powerful. It's supposed championing of the victim classes is just show, as minorities who get out of line discover.

The nationalism we here are discussing would require a high level of security (or aggressiveness) at the start. It would not be pleasant. It would also require a majority participation by the required demographic; i.e. armed white citizens, or citizens of other ethnicities that think and act white, and teach that to their children, forsaking all other parts of their ethnic culture. Civilization is not solely about color, but the adoption of a culture so completely that any original ethnicity is left behind in favor of that civilization's culture.

The challenge with any such police state is ensuring that it does not creep back to control on behalf of a limited elite. That has never been done successfully on a long term basis in history.

Blogger B.J. December 04, 2015 4:14 PM  

Jeez, this is why the right is getting steamrolled nationally even while they win locally. He's completely conceded to the left's position; only disagrees on implementation. Fucking moronic.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 4:19 PM  

"This is missing the point of arguing for American Nationalism."

I think there is value in knowing where we have been in order to better know where we should be going.

"Think "Nationalists vs Internationalists" not "Federalists vs Anti-federalists." "

If we could reasonably assure that everyone agreed with that interpretation of "Nationalist" I might well agree, but I do not believe we can do anything of the kind. I actually mean anti-Federalist, that the United States of America never was, nor should it ever be, a nation state.

" . . .but if all we get is a nation of subsequent states, that is still better than being ruled by a globalist oligarchy dedicated to spreading vibrancy and diversity in order to entrench their power."

With that I can agree. I can't say I foresee that though. I see a breakup and multiple nation states. The North East, the South East, Texas, Chiland, the North West and Neo-New Mexico.

I can foresee Vermont making a bid for Independence from the North East, but given its geographical situation, I don't think they could make it work.

Blogger Cail Corishev December 04, 2015 4:28 PM  

What's the correct response to cuckservatives who say:

"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”"


In person, my first response would be a puzzled look as I tried to parse out the logic of that, then changing to incredulous. Then something like, "Are you f---ing kidding me? Remember the Patriot Act, which you rightly hated? Where do you think that came from? Even if you believe that it was really a Republican plot to take away our freedoms and Islamic jihad was just the excuse -- why do you want to keep giving your enemy more excuses to take away your freedoms? Don't you want to repeal things like the Patriot Act? Isn't that gonna be kinda hard to do if we keep bringing in Moslems who do things to make Americans fear them and want to track them? More Moslems means more police state. Are you too stupid to recognize simple cause and effect?"

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 04, 2015 4:30 PM  

@39

That any alien being a free white person may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States or any of them on the following conditions and not otherwise



That seems pretty straightforward. I doubt there was a legal definition of "white person" at the time, but I'm not going to quibble over that. I should make it clear that I don't agree that this was a good idea, but in the context of the time it was an understandable one: one of the overriding desires re:immigrants in 1802 was to not destabilize the political situation with the South. Admitting free blacks as citizens, potentially with the voting franchise, would not have helped the situation. Moreover, this was not an era in which a "free black" might have been likely to be a doctor, an engineer, or otherwise an educated person. If he was immigrating from Europe, then maybe, but if he was African, than clearly no.

I don't have to condemn my forefathers for making decisions that I don't like or agree with, or even that I don't understand. I don't remember exactly who said it, but someone said that you shouldn't tear anything down unless you know what it was there for (the actual saying was about a fence). So I can certainly see what they were going for with this.

I remember reading that Ben Franklin was once asked about immigration to the US, and he didn't seem to think it was a pressing issue, because the domestic population had grown something like 30% in the previous 20 years. We weren't, in a word, hurting for new laborers.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 4:32 PM  

"Are you too stupid to recognize simple cause and effect?"

Yes. Do the questions get harder as they go on?

Blogger Pseudotsuga December 04, 2015 4:38 PM  

I just got blasted on a Facebook post regarding the San Bernardino terror shootings. The original poster (a touchy-feely Christian) moaned about what we (i.e. Americans have learned from this), and I replied that one thing the Western world has learned is what Muslims actually believe. Some woman got her dander up and huffed about how you can't judge all Muslims because of a few, like you can't judge Christians by the actions of the Westboro Baptist "church" and it's ignorant to do that.
I spun the rhetoric wheel and pointed out to her that it is equally ignorant to assume she knows what all Muslims believe.
I'm curious to see where this will go next.

Blogger VD December 04, 2015 4:40 PM  

What's the correct response to cuckservatives who say:

"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”"


You have it backwards. If you fail to deport them, you will get both a police state AND a civil war.

Blogger Wormwood December 04, 2015 4:50 PM  

"David Marcus ‏@BlueBoxDave
Good luck with your American Nationalist movement. I can't wait to see the outfits."



The American Nationalist movement candidate is leading the polls in the Republican party, so I'd say it's going okay.

Anonymous old man in a villa December 04, 2015 4:51 PM  

@73 "That has never been done successfully on a long term basis in history."

One of the oldest refrains in human history.

NOTHING has ever been done successfully on a long term basis. A new car is a new car until it isn't anymore. Forests sprout, throw fruit, decay and return to the soil. It's what happens to all things.

The idea is to optimize, to seek that which is healthy and vigorous, to prune away the twisted and diseased and to seek the closets thing to Nature's intent for as long as that may be.

Perhaps there is a reason why so many cultures construct pyramids. Symbolic perhaps?

Anonymous omar's running shoes December 04, 2015 4:52 PM  

"David Marcus ‏@BlueBoxDave
Good luck with your American Nationalist movement. I can't wait to see the outfits."

At least it won't be assless chaps and rainbow afro wigs, like your'n.

Anonymous The other robot December 04, 2015 5:21 PM  

You have it backwards. If you fail to deport them, you will get both a police state AND a civil war.

Correct, and I think we are going to see that in France soon.

What is their percentage of Moslems?

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 04, 2015 5:35 PM  

@84

Birthrate is at least 40% muslim, not sure on total population.

Anonymous The other robot December 04, 2015 5:45 PM  

To answer my own question, Wikipedia, that ever reliable source of all knowledge estimates 5-10%.

Given the nature of the religion and the adherents, that is a problem.

We already know that they know how to get guns and RPGs and such.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 5:46 PM  

" . . .not sure on total population."

No one is, but it may be as high as 10%, so out breeding the natives by at least 4 to 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHg9TADZyA

Blogger Matamoros December 04, 2015 5:50 PM  

The Donald opens a new front:

Donald Trump to Republican Jews: You Can’t Buy Me

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/03/trump-to-republican-jews-you-can-t-buy-me.html

Blogger Culture War Draftee December 04, 2015 5:51 PM  

Definition of racist? I think I have it: a white person a leftist disagrees with.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 5:58 PM  

Racist, misogynist, cis-scum, shitlord, redneck, Islamophobe; they all mean the same damn thing.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 04, 2015 6:08 PM  

@88

Which is why the political machine hates Trump, as well.

Blogger Sean December 04, 2015 6:15 PM  

You cannot be a conservative when there is nothing left to conserve. Mainstream conservatives need to wake up and realise they are just the Vichy French of American politics.

OpenID sigbouncer December 04, 2015 6:20 PM  

I wonder how many times BlueBallsDave sphincter painfully contracted during that short exchange? I'd put the over/under at 6.

Anonymous 11B December 04, 2015 6:24 PM  

That seems pretty straightforward. I doubt there was a legal definition of "white person" at the time, but I'm not going to quibble over that. I should make it clear that I don't agree that this was a good idea,

@77

Why would you not agree with this? Looking back this was very open minded and progressive of our Founders. Which European countries, let alone non-European ones at that time were taking in people from different ethnic groups who spoke different languages and practiced different religions? Catholics, Protestants of all stripes, and even Jews were allowed in. This law was very progressive at that time and is nothing to be ashamed of.

Seeing what is happening today in Europe and the USA it seems like they were pretty astute in limiting naturalization to immigrants similar to themselves. I imagine if the Founders could have foreseen the year 2015, they'd have hard-coded the free white person provision into the Constitution.

Blogger rcocean December 04, 2015 6:29 PM  

"Your position is opposed to Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, just for starters.

And FDR, Truman and Ike. None of these guys had any personal problem with immigration restriction or racial segregation.

OpenID simplytimothy December 04, 2015 6:31 PM  

You made him position himself with the Left. He put you to his Right. Now he's just another leftist troll.

Blogger rcocean December 04, 2015 6:38 PM  

1. The left through there control of the media and academia define the words used in public discourse.

2. The word 'racist' now means anything the Left wants it to mean.

3. By being "anti-racist" you're against the Left wants you to be against.

Anonymous tublecane December 04, 2015 7:01 PM  

"One would hope for equality before the law"

Equality before the law is a false hope, and if it could be achieved I wouldn't want it. Law is impossible without drawing distinctions, and our Anglo-American (or whatever you call it) tradition is all about distinctions; we make millions of them every day. In no way are men and women equal before the law, for instance, or adults and children, citizens and aliens, residents and non-residents of a state, people who earn this much income and people who earn that much income, and I'm merely scratching the surface.

What people mean by equality before the law, I guess, is equal treatment of equal things. What's equal to what? I think I know, but that's really a matter for practical politics. How insane is it to hold up equality as some ideal when there are countless ways in which inequality before the law is just.

Maybe they just want "equity," which we can call "fairness" and leave as a comforting abstraction floating in the ether. Sorta like "democracy," which means "good government," whatever the actual form it takes, when most people use it.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 7:04 PM  

"Equality before the law is a false hope . . ."

But, like, ya know, doesn't Loretta have a right to have a baby?

Blogger James Dixon December 04, 2015 7:20 PM  

> The most disturbing part of this election cycle has been seeing the complete convergence between the rhetoric of the Jeb Bush establishment Republicans and the left.

Then you haven't been watching every national election since 1988.

> What's the correct response to cuckservatives who say:

We've already got a police state. One which servers its citizens would be better than one which doesn't.

Anonymous tublecane December 04, 2015 7:21 PM  

"Think "Nationalists vs Internationalists" not "Federalists vs Anti-federalists."

I don't want to think like that. Who gave us the UN, anyway? Nation states. Look at the history of nationalism; it's full of a lot of the right kind of liberals, some other of my kind of people, but mostly, I think, it was leftists: jacobins, centralizers, levellers, socialists, what we'd now call "activists" and militants. The nation state to me seems to be too large, too unwieldy. There are some of a perfectly natural size, with homogeneous populations, a shared culture and history, and common interests for at least a majority of citizens. The U.S. had for a while some of those qualities, but utterly failed four score and something years into its reign, obviously. That it's gone on to grow in wealth, power, and pretty much every other way is one thing, but it's not the same nation. It's not a nation I can get behind, except that things could be worse and it's better than being run by the New World Order. That doesn't make me a nationalist.

Anonymous The other robot December 04, 2015 7:27 PM  

Donald Trump to Republican Jews: You Can’t Buy Me

Is it too soon to proclaim him a modern martyr?

Blogger Sam Lively December 04, 2015 7:31 PM  

I don't think being anti-anti-racism is all that strong rhetorically.

Gotta hit them at the core weaknesses of cuckservatism - cowardice and treason.

Blogger automatthew December 04, 2015 7:44 PM  

TinTin was Tad.

Tad, please stop commenting here. You are not welcome, and you have been told this many times.

Blogger CM December 04, 2015 7:44 PM  

Look at the history of nationalism; it's full of a lot of the right kind of liberals, some other of my kind of people, but mostly, I think, it was leftists: jacobins, centralizers, levellers, socialists, what we'd now call "activists" and militants.

It also had Imperialsts and Royalists. Monarchies and Chinese/Japanese Empires were very Nationalist.

Austria was also Nationalist... as was France, Spain, and England at the heights of their history. 20th century Nationalism was hitched to some interesting ideologies, but that's not the fault of Nationalism.

OpenID joeholocaust December 04, 2015 7:47 PM  

So much scorn for 'leftists' and 'the Left' and yet, if the prevailing view here is pro-nationalism then you must realize that there is a huge segment of the population that are true-blue right wingers that would call all of you leftists on the basis of your nationalism alone. Previous threads here have looked at Free Trade and correctly concluded that Free Trade means maximum economic freedom of movement of goods, capital AND LABOUR and that approaching a state of true 'Free Trade' will automatically also effect a corresponding dissolution of a nation's borders, people and sovereignty.
Promoters of free trade offer many benefits to persuade others to support moves to further liberalize trade but as nice as they may be, nationalists do not feel that they are worth it for what would be lost. The real conflict in white nations is between the forces of cosmopolitan globalism and nationalism. In non-white nations, nationalism is already entrenched in their mindsets and the only role of global engagement is to extract handouts from white nations. It is a zero-sum game of clashing civilizations. Left vs. right is a poor way of identifying allies and enemies. There are enemies of white nations just like the enemies to the US Constitution from within and abroad at each end of the left-right political spectrum. The feature that distinguishes allies from enemies is whether they are nationalists (for your nation or fellow anti-globalists in friendly other nations) or internationalists, whether that means free traders, communists, UN style Marxist socialists, multi-national corporations, etc.
Grinder

Blogger Cecil Henry December 04, 2015 7:50 PM  

Yeah. Sometimes I sound conservative.

But there is no way cuckservatives and the equally noxious 'respectable conservatives'

They know nothing about what to conserve. Let alone build.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 7:50 PM  

Nationalism can work very well for a country in which 100 miles is considered a long distance and 100 years a short time.

It can only work rather badly for a country in which 1000 miles is considered a short distance and 100 years a long time.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 04, 2015 8:03 PM  

@71 kfg

Outlaws have been outlawed.
---

It's fun history to read in the old west days where there was never enough lawmen to keep up with all the criminal and vigilantes. Some accounts would have a big mob go and yank a dude right out of jail, drag him to the town nearby that he did some other crime, and hang him.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 04, 2015 8:07 PM  

@75 kfg

I can foresee Vermont making a bid for Independence from the North East, but given its geographical situation, I don't think they could make it work.
----

Isn't Vermont the home of socialist Bernie Sanders? Why would it begin to think of breaking from the north east?

Blogger Were-Puppy December 04, 2015 8:12 PM  

@82 old man in a villa

Perhaps there is a reason why so many cultures construct pyramids. Symbolic perhaps?
---

For those who think the Goa'uld are a hoax, it is believed that many ancient cultures devised pyramid grain silos in fear of future manmade global warming.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 8:34 PM  

@109: Of course vigilantism is a crime. An outlaw has to be declared so by judgement of the court. Now considered a cruel and unusual punishment (and it can be pretty nasty) I've never been able to quite figure out why.

It seems an entirely natural and the most appropriate punishment for a wide swath of serious crimes, particularly for chronic offenders, which don't quite rise the hanging level.

If you cannot restrain yourself to live within the law, you have no standing to call upon it. What could possibly be more fair and just and, for that matter, more likely to result in rehabilitation?

As for Vermont, it would want independence for much the reason Texas would. It fought a civil war (against New York and New Hampshire) to gain it and has always half regretted giving it up.

Perhaps you have had to live there to understand it. Yes, it is liberal, but outside of Burlington, Rutland and maybe Brattleboro it is still fiercely independent Classical Liberal, and the cities have only gone to the contemporary idea of liberalism because of the large number of aliens that have migrated there (principally New Yorkers).

Note that every attempt to reject constitutional carry has been firmly rejected.

They don't like Bernie because Vermont is full of socialists. They like Bernie because he's a pain in the ass to the Federalists, and Vermonters hate Federalists even worse than they hate New Yorkers.

Note the Vermont semi-official response to the Federal gun free school zone law:

"If the feds want to enforce it, they can come here themselves and give it a try."

Blogger The Other Robot December 04, 2015 8:49 PM  

Note that every attempt to reject constitutional carry has been firmly rejected.

Whoa! You mean you are required to carry a copy of the constitution around with you in Vermont?

Blogger FP December 04, 2015 9:12 PM  

Trump rally in Ohio: Trump supporters vs Bernie supporters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKIZ72LONZ8

"Don't be a chump, vote for Trump!"

Blogger ScuzzaMan December 04, 2015 9:21 PM  

"Your position is opposed to Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, just for starters. "

Ah, history. The progressive's problem with history is not that they don't know it, it is that they don't like it. It reveals all their pretensions as dangerous fantasies.

It's like Orwell's line about the certain kind of embittered atheist who doesn't so much disbelieve in God's existence, but personally dislikes him.

The progressive cannot ever accept that human affairs only ever exist in a delicate balance which it is perilous to disturb. They are adolescents with guns who charge bull-like into this finely balanced equilibrium and deliberately push it as far off axis as possible.

They like to pretend that the inevitable slowing of their momentum, the inevitable reversal, and equally inevitable accelerating lashback, will never happen. Even as it is happening they continue to protest its impossibility and the inevitable victory of their ideological convictions over the windmill of history at which they tilt them.

They like to pretend that the chaos and slaughter their idiocies produce when put into action, are the fault of their victims. They can never admit to themselves that they are merely vandals with philosophic pretensions, willfully ignorant fools struggling mightily to convince themselves of their own virtue.

As Vox observed in a recent column here, they have a pronounced habit of speech that countenances no challenge to their presumption, not by reality itself and certainly not by any mere mortal such as you or I.

David Marcus starkly demonstrates that this habit of speech, and the habit of thought which lies behind it, is not confined to the Left. The Right has its own progressive element who continue to believe in the inevitability of their own ideological convictions even as they are being out-thought and out-fought by their leftist doppelgangers.

But it really doesn't matter which ideologically driven fool smashes the egg of your civlisation trying to make themselves an omelette, You still get eaten.

This insight reveals, as clearly as day, the absolute mirror image quality of the two major political ideologies that infest modern politics and have done since at least the 1500's. It shows up the siamese twinned reality behind the pretense of philosophical opposition which so bamboozles most of the voting citizenry.

The next step in that train of thought is to realise that this (deception of the voters) is its very purpose. The Punch and Judy show of Red vs Blue, Right vs Left, Conservative vs Liberal, Tory vs Whig, etc ad nauseum, is/was consciously designed to maintain the power of those who mean to rule over us, who mean to over-rule us in our own heads, while providing a plausible fiction of representative governance.

Dont get me wrong; it is not so designed by the majority of fools who inhabit it. No, like the UN, another horrific yet useful fiction in which most of the participants are true believers, most of the political class believe they really are providing representation to their constituents and they really are philosophically opposed to the other side.

That's the evil genius of the design.

Of course it helps them to foster and maintain their own belief that they profit greatly from participating, and that their success in the game is directly determined by their apparent sincerity of belief in their borrowed philosophies.

None of that necessitates that any sane and intelligent person believe them.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 9:30 PM  

@113: But bear in mind that it's the state constitution, not the Federal.

When a Vermonter talks about his right to keep and bear arms, he is not invoking the Bill of Rights unless he is talking to a Fed who is trying to abridge it.

Anonymous Godfrey December 04, 2015 10:19 PM  

These people stand for nothing. They don't defend culture. They don't defend borders. They don't defend natural law. The ONLY thing they're willing to defend is Israel. That's the ONLY time you see them get excited and passionate.

Anonymous Godfrey December 04, 2015 10:23 PM  

I stand corrected. They WILL defend borders. They'll defend the borders of Israel.

Anonymous Godfrey December 04, 2015 10:37 PM  

Israel has a wall. Are they racists?

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 10:59 PM  

"Obviously, but not very relevant to a population issue. In fact, as people like DuBois were well aware, only about one black person in 10 is as intelligent as the average northwest european, the founding stock of our country."

That's not quite what was meant by "talented tenth."

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 11:01 PM  

I didn't raise it, Susan; Thucydides did.

Anonymous kfg December 04, 2015 11:04 PM  

"The progressive cannot ever accept that human affairs only ever exist in a delicate balance which it is perilous to disturb. They are adolescents with guns who charge bull-like into this finely balanced equilibrium and deliberately push it as far off axis as possible."

Oddly enough, you've just described medical doctors with equal accuracy.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 04, 2015 11:09 PM  

Tublecane, is there some special reason why you redacted the full sentence then repeated the essence of what I wrote that you had cut out? Or is there some meaning to "forlorn hope" if which I am unaware?

Blogger Groot December 04, 2015 11:39 PM  

Pew (I know, but still):

"Germany and France have the largest Muslim populations among European Union member countries. As of 2010, there were 4.8 million Muslims in Germany (5.8% of the country’s population) and 4.7 million Muslims in France (7.5%). In Europe overall, however, Russia’s population of 14 million Muslims (10%) is the largest on the continent."

Fertility Rates:

France: Muslim: 2.8; Non-Muslim: 1.9.
Germany: Muslim: 1.8; Non-Muslim: 1.3.

There really does appear to be a racial death-wish over there.

OpenID Jack Amok December 04, 2015 11:54 PM  

the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”

The proper response is to point out the nearest lamp post ask the guy if it makes him nervous. If he answers "no", nod your head and say "interesting..."

Blogger IM2L844 December 05, 2015 12:15 AM  

@115

+1

Blogger The Other Robot December 05, 2015 12:17 AM  

Hmmmm, interesting goings on in Iraq ...

Turkey has troops in Iraq and now Baghdad is calling it an incursion and they seem to have asked the Russians for help against ISIS. They also have complained about the US sending troops to Iraq.

This could end badly.

Some of it is here: Iran ready to present proof that ISIS is shipping oil via Turkey.

Anonymous tublecane December 05, 2015 12:24 AM  

Tom Kratman-

There isn't any reason I truncated your sentence aside from the fact that I was typing on an unfamiliar device and instead of using cut and paste I memorized an easy block of words and copied it out the long way. Your point wasn't much different from mine; I used you as a jumping off point because I agreed with you and felt like belaboring. "False" is slightly preferable to "forlorn," though. Forlorn hope could be like a lost puppy out in the rain. Equality before the law is not merely sad and abandoned; it is a positively bad idea.

Blogger bob k. mando December 05, 2015 1:23 AM  

35. Emmanuel Mateo-Morales December 04, 2015 2:36 PM
"Deporting all Muslims “could” stop Islamic terrorism in the U.S., but again, the question then becomes, “How do you like your police state, Mr. American?”




what the fuck does a 'police state' have to do with deporting enemy combatants.

hell, we've got WAY more justification to deport all Muslims than we do to deport illegals ... does the desire to enforce the fucking LAW against illegals require a 'police state'?

Blogger Groot December 05, 2015 1:54 AM  

I'm not a knee-jerk fan of Lincoln, but I think he has this right: He said that the authors of the Declaration of Independence:
"intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where."

Justice is typically depicted as wearing a blindfold, blind to irrelevant differences, mindful of important commonalities. Human dignity — and all humans deserve human dignity — still demands justice. A crime, whether you are a king or a pauper, merits justice. Declaring only mercy to be justice is a mother's bleat, and, though heartbreaking, deprives society of humanity, etiolating a necessary strength. A crime unpunished is injustice, an insult to us all, a shame upon us all. Even if your great-great-grandparents were slaves.

Anonymous VFM 261 December 05, 2015 2:49 AM  

Remember the selection process:
"The cowards never went, the weak died on the way"- Heinlein on pioneers

The settling slaves were the losers who were enslaved and sold by their neighbors. The stupid, weak, slow and vanquished.

Blogger SciVo December 05, 2015 4:46 AM  

Kfg, you're exaggerating but not wrong. 150 miles each way can be a day trip in America -- I've done that many times -- but not 1000. But that doesn't negate your point at all.

Blogger SciVo December 05, 2015 5:09 AM  

Dammit man, it's harder for me to look words up on my mobile. So etoliation (which of course a tree would understand) is how plants raised in darkness get long and weak, with small leaves. So it's kind of a synonym for dissipation. Makes sense.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 05, 2015 8:17 AM  

Tublcane:

Okay, but the effect of how you did it, however unintentionally, tends to make you look a little discreditable where you don't deserve it. For your enlightenment and aedification, there's a better way to have done what you wanted to the effect you wanted. Just add an elipsis - ... - at the end, inside the quotes, to indicate there's more, that you're aware of it, and that you truncated only for convenience. It also puts the reader on notice that there's more. lastly, it may help focus your argument.

Anonymous kfg December 05, 2015 8:37 AM  

"Kfg, you're exaggerating . . ."

Of course, but not by all that by much.

"150 miles each way can be a day trip in America -- I've done that many times . . ."

I've done 100 each way, between breakfast and dinner, with time to do lunch in between, by bicycle - but that's my reasonable limit.

Back in the day when getting on a plane was little more complicated than getting on a bus, traveling 1000 miles and back for a lunch meeting was principally a financial matter, so long as it didn't involve crossing a frontier.

Anonymous Boris December 05, 2015 10:58 AM  

"Pro-racism is Pro-America" would be a good slogan for your what nationalist movement.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 05, 2015 1:07 PM  

@El Borak
Imagine being Vox Day and being kicked off a sinking ship (sinking because it's crew insists on scraping icebergs below the water line, because the other ships are doing it.)

Oh, the humiliation.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 05, 2015 1:18 PM  

That being said, I also don't believe in any form of human equality. It does not exist materially, legally, spiritually or in any other regard.

Reality is blasphemy in the Universalist Cathedral. Evidence abounds that a substantial # of people are silent heretics who are rapidly crowding toward thought leaders who confirm the evidence of their own eyes.

Reality never confirmed Cathedral Dogma, but as the interpretation of that Dogma skews toward total inversion of reality, heretics multiply exponentially.

Left-collectivists are driving heresy by their own folly.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 05, 2015 1:30 PM  

One would hope for equality before the law, but that's a pretty forlorn hope. That said, there are blacks and hispanics infinitely better than some or even many whites.
Why, you Heretic! It is blasphemy to argue in favor of judging human beings by their individual attributes & actions.

The Universalist Cathedral only recognises that all people are the same, so judging people as individuals would obscure the pervasive sins of racism & intolerable intolerance.

Our world is full of sin in need of the Total State, acting as Holy Agent of the Cathedral, to remake Mankind in God's perfect image.

Get with the program.

Anonymous Anonymous December 05, 2015 4:00 PM  

"Anti-racism is anti-American."

You know what else is "anti-American"? Christianity. Vox is just as much a traitor to this nation as any "cuckservative". Even more so, considering the fact that he's not even a pure-blooded white European (what with his claims of having Mexican and Native American ancestry).

Side note: All of you backseat modders on this pathetic excuse for a blog slamming me for being "anonymous" can burn in hell with the rest of the slave owning cracker Founders. LOL

Blogger Feather Blade December 05, 2015 4:53 PM  

@102 Is it too soon to proclaim him a modern martyr?

Has to be dead to be a martyr, so yes.

Blogger Tom Kratman December 05, 2015 5:05 PM  

Bob:

What a police state has to do with it is that there are none of them over the age of may seven that we could be sure were not at least larval stage terrorists. We'd have to round all the ones over that age up, and that would require police work - ask the Gestapo - camps to guard them in until they could be exiled or disposed of (euphemism alert!), police to either run networks of informers or be informers themselves, more of the same to go through libraries public and private to confiscate and burn all copies of the Quran, the Hadiths, anything covering the Sunna. We would need police action to round up the lefties who are the core of the problem, and especially the small minority of lefties given to direct action, plus even those - INMSHO misguided in this case - strict constitutionlists who really do think the constitution is a suicide pact.

The other alternatives, making it legal to kill or enslave them, are not a lot more attractive than setting up a police state, though at least there we could expect most of them to self deport. Even self deportation is a problem, though, because Moslem raised here can very likely return and blend in until it's time to attack.

Blogger Akulkis December 05, 2015 11:55 PM  

"Who gave us the UN, anyway? Nation states."

Bzzzt! Wrong.

The correct answer is: "Alger Hiss, Chief of Staff in the socialist FDR Whitehouse & paid agent of Stalin), and 50 of his most trusted Commie assistants.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts