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

Thursday, May 26, 2016

The #MilRight is inevitable

Even Rod Dreher, among the cuckiest of cuckservatives, sees that civilization's hope rests upon the Alt Right.
Middle-class male culture, at least white male culture, doesn’t know how to nurture a healthy masculinity. The middle-class white American church certainly doesn’t. Eventually, the provocations of Social Justice Warriors, especially when they are race-based, is going to empower the militant whites, especially those drawn to pagan masculinity, and they are going to do what the rest of us would not do: Fight. This, because the best — that is, those who want peace, civility, and tolerance — lack all conviction to defend the conditions under which we can have those things against their enemies.

Trump is a vulgar, crass, alpha-male brute. But he doesn’t care what SJWs and liberals say about him. He fights, and sometimes fights as dirty as they do. That’s not nothing. White liberal middle-class society and many bourgeois conservatives have demonized within themselves, collectively and individually, the instinct that would have given them the strength to fight civilization’s enemies on the Left and on the Right.
Forget the cucks, forget the Churchians, forget the equalitarians, forget the Constitutionalists, forget the conservatives, forget the nice people, and forget the tolerant. They are worse than useless; they are the Sarumans who counsel submission and surrender due to their lack of courage and their fear of being called bad things.
The answer to this racist SJW garbage is not to embrace white supremacy! But without a forceful, effective, unambivalent response to the unhinged militant left, sooner or later the forces of white supremacy are going to organize the dispossessed, demoralized, chaotic white rabble, and the SJWs, as well as the Washington elites, aren’t going to know what hit them. God knows I’m not saying I want this to happen, but I think it probably will happen if we continue on this current trajectory. Slouching rough beasts and all that. It’s Weimar America.
The answer isn't white supremacy because white supremacy simply isn't true. Whites are not superior, but whites are the only tribe willing and able to maintain Western civilization because they are the only tribe that truly values it. The answer for those who support Western civilization, regardless of sex, color, or religion, is to embrace white tribalism, white separatism, and especially white Christian masculine rule.

Detroit is what happens when white rule is abandoned. The migrant invasion of Europe is what happens when masculine rule is abandoned. And the EU is what happens when Christian rule is abandoned.

The other tribes have been playing "who, whom" for decades. It is time for whites to understand that the rules have changed and begin playing accordingly.

But don't get too carried away by Dreher's post. He's still a cuck. "I would much rather my kids marry Ethiopians who were believing Orthodox Christians than marry fellow white people who aren’t. I really mean that."

I believe he does. And that's why he is still a dyscivilizationist.

Labels: ,

266 Comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266
Blogger Ron Winkleheimer May 26, 2016 6:08 PM  

Western Civilization, who even talks that way among the mainstream?

And that would be the problem.

Blogger Chris Mallory May 26, 2016 6:11 PM  

@195 By the very act of having priests, the Catholic Church rejects the Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is a pagan organization opposed to Christianity.

Blogger Trid May 26, 2016 6:20 PM  

"no Christian worthy of the name can be anti-Semitic after Auschwitz. "

Could someone explain this to me? They aren't called Christ killers for nothing

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 26, 2016 6:26 PM  

"I'm convinced for example that slavery is actually a process that speeds up the rate at which a given people can be civilized."

Absolutely not. First, Africans were civilized. They met the criteria. They assuredly did not want to be ripped from their homeland and be "taught" how to "properly" live. Second, the method by which slavery in the South and by their northern acolytes was imposed was uncivilized. Where was their liberty to come and go as they please?

"Look at the black population of america in say the early 1900s. It was well on its way... much further than is mere 100 years should have produced."

Really, Nate? Black primary schools were woefully underfunded. Complete separation from the political system. Blacks were generally tied to the land as sharecroppers and tenant farmers. Right, this is "civilized" living.

If you want to continue to embarrass yourself, be my guest.

Blogger kurt9 May 26, 2016 6:27 PM  

The election in Austria was swayed by women. The phenomenon of women voting left in general does merit discussion. You see, women, wby and large, are attracted to men with money. Women are often gold diggers. Given this trait, one would think that women would support free-market capitalism and limited government, since this is the socio-economic policies that allow for the greatest amount of wealth creation among the most number of people (especially guys). More wealth, more reward for the gold digger women. Yet women usually vote left more than guys. This is a logical contradiction.

I actually had this discussion with my wife while on holiday last year. She agreed with me that this is a logical contradiction and one that women are very susceptible to. My wife, on the other hand, is not since she actually does believe in free market capitalism as much as I do. My wife, who is Japanese, thinks socialism is a dumb system and that Western liberals are generally dumb people.

Anonymous patrick kelly May 26, 2016 6:29 PM  

@204 "First, Africans were civilized..."

hahahahahahahahahhahaha......

You have to really dumb down and broaden the definition of civilization to come close to that conclusion. Now that's comedy.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 26, 2016 6:32 PM  

Rhetoric Man

So naked tribalist Animists living in mud huts and hunting each other for food in the jungles of Africa were civilized, but ordinary working lower-class Blacks living upright Christian lives in the US were not.

Does reality ever intrude into your spite?

Anonymous Eduardo May 26, 2016 6:52 PM  

Patrick Kelly

I think he means egyptians and Numedians.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 26, 2016 6:57 PM  

Egyptians and Numedians were not carried to the US as slaves.

Anonymous Eduardo May 26, 2016 7:00 PM  

Oh that is not what I mean. I meant they were Africans and build a civilization that was really successful. Well the Numedians not THAT much.

Anonymous Eduardo May 26, 2016 7:05 PM  

Well well. Yes you are right Snidely. They were not brought as slaves to ... Anywhere I think.

But maybe Rhetoric is trying to say that being civilize has more to do with social dynamics.

=___= yesh maybe that is really what he meant.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 26, 2016 7:17 PM  

@Eduardo
Numedians were more-or-less Berber. Egyptians were Copts and Arabs.
Neither has anything to do with "African" in the racial sense, only geographical.

Blogger Trid May 26, 2016 7:28 PM  

"no Christian worthy of the name can be anti-Semitic after Auschwitz. "

Could someone explain this to me? They aren't called Christ killers for nothing

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 26, 2016 7:59 PM  

“So naked tribalist Animists living in mud huts…”

You really ought to read. This civilization meets the standard criteria—populated settlements, specialized occupations, surplus food, origins of science, development of art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nok_culture

“and hunting each other for food in the jungles of Africa were civilized.”

You must get your information from old Tarzan movies. Certainly, there was cannibalism in parts of Africa, but no direct evidence of rampant, pervasive, tribalistic cannibalism as you believe.


“You have to really dumb down and broaden the definition of civilization to come close to that conclusion.”

No dumbing down at all. The definition of civilization does not exclusively equate to European, or Christian, or white, or technologically based. Are you that ignorant?

Blogger Moon Man May 26, 2016 8:05 PM  

The idiots who want to stop Trump at all costs don't understand that if he loses the election, what will come after that in terms of future candidates (who will win) will make them wish they just suspended the election and appointed Trump emperor for life.

They still don't realize that they are a minority who have outsized influence. And they've yet to grasp they we are not locked in here with them. They are locked in here with us. And when the time comes, we will make it hurt.

Anonymous BGKB May 26, 2016 8:13 PM  

Yet women usually vote left more than guys. This is a logical contradiction.

Few men other than TRUMP can guarantee lifetime payments on par with the government.

I think he means egyptians and Numedians.

They were not actually black we have art from them, and the mummy DNA is closer to Europeans than the current population of Egypt. No groid looks like the bust of Cleopatra. The reason a European had to go translate the Rosetta stone, was the same phenomena which had Detroit lose its ability to read.

but no direct evidence of rampant, pervasive, tribalistic cannibalism as you believe.


A few years ago it was in the news that doctors traveling to Africa found a strange disease with neurological effects that primarily hit children. Turned out knowledge of Kuru was memoryholed for do gooder doctors.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 26, 2016 8:37 PM  

@Rhetoric Man
You are undoubtedly the least appropriately named poster to this forum.
The point wasn't whether there were Black civilizations in Africa. Ethiopia has been a going concern for about 3500 years.
The question is whether the people imported as slaves were civilized, which is a whol ldifferent question.
The POINT was that the poster immediately went on to call American civilization in the inter-war years, particularly as pertained to Blacks, as uncivilized. Sharecropping may not be the greatest life, but compared to typical existence of Blacks EVEN NOW in Africa, it is the epitome of freedom and luxury.

Anonymous Anonymous May 26, 2016 8:50 PM  

Rod responds to a relayed snippet from vox's commentary,
Vox Day says about Rod:
“[Rod is a ] Sarumans who counsel submission and surrender due to their lack of courage and their fear of being called bad things”
“Vox, have you read any of Dreher’s Benedict Option posts?

A few. It’s a Churchian attempt to avoid a conflict that is unavoidable. Basically, it means that he sees what is happening, but he is unwilling to fight because that would mean dirtying his lily-white hands.

I understand the temptation. I really do. But it’s a) cowardly and b) futile.”

[NFR: Yeah, well, Vox Day. He’d happily be a lay chaplain to the Brownshirts. — RD]

Did he meet rhetoric with rhetoric?

Blogger tz May 26, 2016 8:50 PM  

Speaking of DNAial, I'm watching the scripps national spelling Bee and 80% are Indians (Bombay, not Cherokee).

@199 - No, the RCC was very corrupt. But revolution is not reformation. The problem today is that Protestants need reformation even more than the RCC did then. And who will make it happen?

@197 - Treat them as evil; In the case of both Libertarians and Atheist, it is sexual moral relativism and they see Castro (or worse, Folsom) street in SF as the pinnacle of liberty. They want neither church, God, or government to tell them where they can and can't put their penis.

@188 Melanin kills IQ? Simple solution, but why are African Albinos not gifted with 7SD IQs?

IQ is not a virtue. The Devil himself probably has an IQ exceeding the sum of all the posters on this thread. I don't know where the line between will and intellect is, but is is probably below 80. The problem is not that they cannot maintain Western Civilization, it is that they don't really want to. A second critical point is the original one I made - you cannot have Christendom without Christ, and most want a technocratic semi-amoral paganism, whether their IQ is 85 or 135. But that won't sustain civilization. One can succeed as a sheep in the flock of the Good shepherd. One cannot even as a wolf for very long.

@187 - American Exceptionalism is their humility and submission to God The problem is with those who try to make it independent and militant.

@215 - precisely.

@216 - See Stephen Molyneux videos on why Women vote left.


Anonymous Anonymous May 26, 2016 8:52 PM  

sorry dialectic with rhetoric?

Blogger tz May 26, 2016 8:53 PM  

When ! was working for an automotive company, I found there were millwrights who were (furniture) movers.

#MilRight is a shadow of John #MillWright which grinds slow but exceedingly fine.

Blogger OneWingedShark May 26, 2016 9:33 PM  

> Forget the cucks, forget the Churchians, forget the equalitarians, forget the Constitutionalists, forget the conservatives, forget the nice people, and forget the tolerant.

VD, why do you include Constitutionalists here?

It seems to me that they're "the odd man out" on this list, and (IMO) Constitutionalist thought would run directly to disbanding and possibly prosecuting federal organizations not directly commissioned/authorized by the Constitution (or indirectly serving federally delegated powers; eg: the Secret Service is for investigating counterfeiting [and that's the *only* Constitutional justification for existence, so cut out *ALL* other functions]).

The disbanding of these unauthorized governmental agencies would completely cut off SJW usage of these agencies; imagine, if you will, a federal government only comprised of the Army, Navy, Dept of Transportation (w/ reduced scope), Secret Service (reducing scope only to counterfeiting), IRS, Post Office, Treasury, Customs, & Immigration. -- Such a vast reduction in the scope of the federal government would completely alter the power-landscape and rid us of many abusive and/or SJW-converged organizations, as well as greatly reduce the amount of corruption in the government.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 26, 2016 10:07 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:VD, why do you include Constitutionalists here?

It seems to me that they're "the odd man out" on this list, and (IMO) Constitutionalist thought would run directly to disbanding and possibly prosecuting federal organizations not directly commissioned/authorized by the Constitution (or indirectly serving federally delegated powers; eg: the Secret Service is for investigating counterfeiting [and that's the *only* Constitutional justification for existence, so cut out *ALL* other functions]).

Because Constitutionalists have not, will not and never intend to do any such thing. Just like Cuckservatives should be willing to take on the Left when they impose their agenda, but never actually do so, My Constitutionalists can give you a thousand examples of Federal overreach, but not any examples where they actually stood up to the Left, except by going to court, and then meekly accepting the court's diktat when they are shot down. Except with gun rights, the Muh Constitutionalists have ceded all authority and will never win a fight. And I'm pretty sure they don't really want to, if it involves actual, you now, fighting and stuff.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 26, 2016 10:11 PM  

And, if the gun rights absolutists had not made it clear that they will NEVER submit their rights to the court, the court would have claimed stare decisis and left the status quo ante. And the Muh Constitutionalists would have bent over for that usurpation too.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 27, 2016 1:14 AM  

Sharecropping may not be the greatest life, but compared to typical existence of Blacks EVEN NOW in Africa, it is the epitome of freedom and luxury.

Maybe ol' Rhetoric Man is trying to claim the reason modern Africa is so barbaric is that slavers kidnapped all the civilized Africans 400 years ago and made them sharecroppers in Georgia, leaving the barbarian ones behind. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Blogger ray May 27, 2016 2:19 AM  

#128 now serving #128 -- "Compare to the Western settlers who responded to vicious attacks from nomadic tribes of American Indians who scalped them with a corresponding viciousness."





Thank you very much. I've warned about these savages before, people seem to think I'm joking.

Scalping theeving sneeking Injuns. Viscuous, exactly like you said. Completely without scruples unless theeving is a scruple.

Told you they were forming-up again. Out on their reservations, scheming. Now somebody else here sees it too, and more will follow. Blackjack and slot machines my ass.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 5:34 AM  

Rhetoric Man wrote:No dumbing down at all. The definition of civilization does not exclusively equate to European, or Christian, or white, or technologically based. Are you that ignorant?

The root of civilisation is the city-state; not pottery. The Nigerian area includes a number of relatively intelligent tribes that could have been derived from the Nok culture. None of them built cities.

Who's dumbing down the definition now?

Im not faulting Africans for not building cities. Africa, especially West Africa where America's slaves originated, has a massive problems with disease that makes building a city impossible without modern medicine and plumbing.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 5:44 AM  

@227

Rusty Fife's rules for civilisation:

1) Build a wall; keep the Barabarians from stealing your stuff
2) Keep the poop out of the food; disease will kill you before the crops come in
3) Have or create a steady source of food; there was a neat article somewhere about stored grains being the reason for the walls in the first place

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 27, 2016 8:53 AM  

Chris—“By the very act of having priests, the Catholic Church rejects the Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is a pagan organization opposed to Christianity.”

Tell that to those adherents and see what is their reaction. Lord knows you need some saving.

Snidely—“The point wasn't whether there were Black civilizations in Africa.”

It is precisely the point, given the fact your statement about “naked tribalist Animalists who hunted each other for food” was proven to be other than accurate.

“The question is whether the people imported as slaves were civilized.”


And the answer is yes, African slaves were civilized.

“Sharecropping may not be the greatest life, but compared to typical existence of Blacks EVEN NOW in Africa, it is the epitome of freedom and luxury.”

[Whoosh] That’s the sound of the point going right over your head. Who gamed the system in sharecropping? Who ensured their former darkie field hands would remain other than free?

tz—“…you cannot have Christendom without Christ, and most want a technocratic semi-amoral paganism, whether their IQ is 85 or 135. But that won't sustain civilization.”



There are numerous historical examples of civilizations that were non-Christian and thrived.

Jack—“Maybe ol' Rhetoric Man is trying to claim the reason modern Africa is so barbaric is that slavers kidnapped all the civilized Africans 400 years ago and made them sharecroppers in Georgia, leaving the barbarian ones behind.”


As Steve Sailer elucidated, invade the world, invite the world. That would be the mantra of Europeans in the 1400, 1500, and 1600’s.

Rusty…

“The root of civilisation is the city-state; not pottery. The Nigerian area includes a number of relatively intelligent tribes that could have been derived from the Nok culture. None of them built cities.”

The argument could be made that the root of ADVANCED civilization is the city-state. Nok culture was more than pottery—advanced metalworking skills, tradition of naturalistic portraiture, stone house bases, highly developed administration system.

“Im not faulting Africans for not building cities.”


Investigate Timbuktu and get back to us.

“makes building a city impossible without modern medicine and plumbing.”



Ever think for once that African societies thrived without the need for elaborate urban areas? No, that would require additional intellectual horsepower on your part.


“Who's dumbing down the definition now?”



Who’s narrowing the definition to suit their narrative?

“Rusty Fife's rules for civilisation…”

Which observably are a personal preference.

Blogger Matamoros May 27, 2016 9:55 AM  

Lame Cherry has a post that sounds like deja vu all over again:

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2016/05/when-truth-comes-marching-home.html

Blogger Student in Blue May 27, 2016 9:56 AM  

@229. Rhetoric Man

A simple question that should get to the heart of this matter. Were the Africans who were brought over to America more civilized or less civilized after 200 years, than their counterparts who stayed in Africa? Why or why not?

Blogger Chris Mallory May 27, 2016 10:38 AM  

"Tell that to those adherents and see what is their reaction. Lord knows you need some saving."

I just did. The Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon headed by a false prophet. We have only one priest, the Lord Jesus Christ and Him crucified. All who are born again can go boldly before the throne of God, we have no need of the child molesters in black.

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 27, 2016 10:56 AM  

brought over to America more civilized or less civilized after 200 years, than their counterparts who stayed in Africa? Why or why not?”


Actually, this line of inquiry is unrelated to the claim made by some posters here that Africans were other than civilized. Africans were indeed civilized, with some of its peoples demonstrating characteristics of advanced civilization. Europeans, generally speaking, had advanced civilization. Now, how did Europe become advanced? Was it purely due to their DNA, or was it the result of several genetic and environmental factors? Was “Western Civilization” completely unique, or were a number of aspects taken from different groups and augmented to suit their needs, including Asians and Africans, not just Greeks and Romans? Have certain contributions been overhyped or glossed over?

Of course, from the European point of view, Africans in America became more civilized compared to Africans in Africa because Europeans generally thought they knew what was best for other groups of people. Europeans were simply expanding their sphere of influence like any other group of people throughout human history. Call it the paternal instinct—Africans in America learned the “King’s English”, were taught Christianity, and were exposed to “modernity”. Was this a willing process? Was it coercive? Was this process civilized or uncivilized?

In Africa during this same time period, Africans continued with their “barbaric practices” and “heathen lifestyles”, which Europeans generally found abhorrent. Were Africans in Africa living how they preferred to live civilizing to them, while considered uncivilized to others? What do “civilized” and “uncivilized” even mean? Does context even matter?

From the vantage point of Africans in America, they would argue they were other than civilized—in reality, dehumanized and devalued—for their society and culture was declared “inferior” by hordes of Europeans, who invaded the world and invited the world in the name of God and mammon.

Clearly, African slaves in America were brought up in a society that was more technologically advanced than their ancestors in Africa, but does this fact alone make African slaves in America decidedly “more civilized”?

Blogger kurt9 May 27, 2016 10:59 AM  

But don't get too carried away by Dreher's post. He's still a cuck. "I would much rather my kids marry Ethiopians who were believing Orthodox Christians than marry fellow white people who aren’t. I really mean that."

I believe he does. And that's why he is still a dyscivilizationist.


Ah yes! The old nature vs. nurture debate where nature trumps nurture. HBD trumps religion.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 12:07 PM  


Rhetoric Man wrote:Investigate Timbuktu and get back to us.



"Starting out as a seasonal settlement, Timbuktu became a permanent settlement early in the 12th century." 12th freaking century, all that contact with the Cartaginian allied Berbers wouldn't have had anything to do with it?

Seriously, 'civi' is the Latin root for city-state. Ergo, un-civilised doesn't mean idiocracy; it means not city builders.

There is a different skillset to be a Mongol yak herder from a Thai king.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 12:20 PM  

@229 Rhetoric Man

Your problem is that you mistake technology and culture for civilisation. Mogadishu was founded in 500BC by Berbers. Carthage was founded in 900BC by Lebanese on Berber land. So after 400years of contact. A historically large empire ruling city runs 100k+. City states 25k-75k.

The Africans brought to the Americas were definitely not civilised, no matter how complex their culture.

Anonymous Farinata May 27, 2016 3:23 PM  

@227 - and re: modern plumbing, ya know, the Romans had running water before the virgin Mary was a twinkle in her daddy's eye. It's not like that's unpossible in premodern states.

Blogger OneWingedShark May 27, 2016 3:34 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:OneWingedShark wrote:VD, why do you include Constitutionalists here?

It seems to me that they're "the odd man out" on this list, and (IMO) Constitutionalist thought would run directly to disbanding and possibly prosecuting federal organizations not directly commissioned/authorized by the Constitution (or indirectly serving federally delegated powers; eg: the Secret Service is for investigating counterfeiting [and that's the *only* Constitutional justification for existence, so cut out *ALL* other functions]).


Because Constitutionalists have not, will not and never intend to do any such thing. Just like Cuckservatives should be willing to take on the Left when they impose their agenda, but never actually do so, My Constitutionalists can give you a thousand examples of Federal overreach, but not any examples where they actually stood up to the Left, except by going to court, and then meekly accepting the court's diktat when they are shot down. Except with gun rights, the Muh Constitutionalists have ceded all authority and will never win a fight. And I'm pretty sure they don't really want to, if it involves actual, you now, fighting and stuff.


I disagree, just because someone claims to be a Constitutionalist doesn't mean that they are; furthermore, the legal system is pretty well-designed in denying real Constitutionalist arguments that could do damage to the powers that be (I refrain from using the term "established powers" because they were not established by the Constitution), as an example consider the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause:

It is part of the clause which delegates power to regulate commerce with both foreign nations and domestic nations (the Indian tribes), as such it is the exact same power in all those cases. Now, if we consider what would happen if the Federal government declared that it could regulate commerce inside foreign countries like it does with intrastate commerce then at best they would be a laughingstock, though far more likely to be considered a declaration of war... the only time that such an asserted power would be at all valid is if that foreign country were defeated and the right of the victor applied... therefore, to assert the federal government does indeed have the right to impose upon intrastate commerce is to assert that the federal government is at war with (or has already conquered) the several states.

This is something that strikes to the core of federal overreach; how do you think the federal court-system would respond to this line of reasoning? -- And do you think that the majority of Americans would believe that court, or me? (They'd probably dismiss it as "crazy conspiracy-theorist type crap".)

Such an attitude is clearly insane -- as Jesus said, "the servant is not greater than the master, nor the messenger than the one who sends him" -- but the federal government has spent YEARS indoctrinating and mis-educating the people in these sorts of matters twisting the "supremacy clause" to mean "anything the federal government says, even outside the explicitly delegated powers, is superior to anything the States say" and "the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does".

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 3:56 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:the only time that such an asserted power would be at all valid is if that foreign country were defeated and the right of the victor applied...

I think the Southerners would argue that is the exact premiss under which the federal empire has been behaving since 1865.

Blogger OneWingedShark May 27, 2016 3:56 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Ron Winkleheimer wrote:Nonetheless, the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt and needed reformation.

Try again.

Indulgences in theory are not contrary to Christian thought.


I think Peter, James and John would disagree with you:

See 1 Peter 2:16; 2 Peter 1:4-8 (esp considering James 1:12-16); 2 Peter 2:20-22
See James 4:1-10
See 1 John 3:4-8; 1 John 5:18; 2 John 1:9-11; 3 John 1:11

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 4:02 PM  

Farinata wrote:@227 - and re: modern plumbing, ya know, the Romans had running water before the virgin Mary was a twinkle in her daddy's eye. It's not like that's unpossible in premodern states.

That's my point. Building a city is not a massive hurdle. However, only Berber derived Africans have pulled off developing them. Then only after having centuries of contact with Carthage. Millenia of contact with Egyptians apparently didn't help.

Blogger OneWingedShark May 27, 2016 4:06 PM  

Rusty Fife wrote:OneWingedShark wrote:the only time that such an asserted power would be at all valid is if that foreign country were defeated and the right of the victor applied...

I think the Southerners would argue that is the exact premiss under which the federal empire has been behaving since 1865.


That's probably true; but I wonder how many of them would back a person making that claim in court.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 4:44 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:

That's probably true; but I wonder how many of them would back a person making that claim in court


Nobody wants to say it out load; then there would only be one way out from under the yoke of defeat...victory.

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 27, 2016 5:51 PM  

Listen, I get it, Rusty Fife, you are part of the C team of the Dread Ilk and are seeking to move upward, but in the end, you'll always be a gamma.

“Seriously, 'civi' is the Latin root for city-state. Ergo, un-civilised doesn't mean idiocracy; it means not city builders.”

Again, you are narrow in your definition. Civilization entails more than the development of city-states. Why should YOUR definition supersede every other definition established by, say, cultural geographers or anthropologists?

“Your problem is that you mistake technology and culture for civilisation.”

The definition of civilization is “the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.” Technology and culture are features, not bugs, of civilization.

“The Africans brought to the Americas were definitely not civilised, no matter how complex their culture.”

Africans in America were civilized, as I laid out previously, despite your online temper tantrum. Do you need a safe space and your blue blankie to calm you down?

“12th freaking century, all that contact with the Cartaginian allied Berbers wouldn't have had anything to do with it?”

Undoubtedly there is going to be contact with outsiders. But Timbuktu was a city within the Mali Empire which, under the direction of Mansu Musa, expanded, with an elaborate palace, university, and library.

“However, only Berber derived Africans have pulled off developing them.”

Sergio Domian, an Italian scholar of art and architecture, wrote of Mansa Musa: “Thus was laid the foundation of an urban civilization. At the height of its power, Mali had at least 400 cities, and the interior of the Niger Delta was very densely populated.”

Blogger Unknown May 27, 2016 8:30 PM  

I followed Vox's link to Rod Dreher's post and left a few comments. Rod doesn't tolerate much heterodoxy, nor much reality. RD seems desirous of remaining willfully ignorant about what Trump really represents, he is desperate to believe that it's just some methbillies hit on hard times and acting out; it will pass, it will pass. Here is one of the comments he refused to approve (perhaps I'll have better luck with VD):


Declining and stagnant incomes only explain a part of the populist wave that Trump is riding. The wave is propelled by a culture of anti-white hatred that infects the news, TV shows, textbooks, movies, corporate giving, print media, social media, advertising, judicial decisions…lets just say the zeitgeist. After all, poor blacks have been treated no better by the illegal immigrant economy than have poor whites, yet you will look in vain for the tidal wave of poor black Trump supporters. Poor blacks are not targeted by Jim Crow type laws, affirmative action, disparate impact, and the section 8 Nazis that deliberately implanted ghetto blacks into white neighborhoods because they were too white. Poor blacks are not targeted by a constant stream of cultural messages designed to morally kneecap whites; think “12 Years as a Slave”, the orgy of hate known as “Django Unchained”, or the laughable elevation of the Ta hyphen moron, a bigot of mediocre talents, to a place of prominence in American life.

It ain’t the crappy jobs, though that is part of it. What unifies the $24,000 working class Appalachian Trump supporter with the $100,000 anywhere Trump supporter? It’s the Hatred, stupid.

Though Trump himself has said nothing about championing whites, downtrodden or otherwise. But that is another topic.

Blogger kurt9 May 27, 2016 8:45 PM  

Again, you are narrow in your definition. Civilization entails more than the development of city-states. Why should YOUR definition supersede every other definition established by, say, cultural geographers or anthropologists?

“Your problem is that you mistake technology and culture for civilisation.”

The definition of civilization is “the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.” Technology and culture are features, not bugs, of civilization.


I have a more basic definition of civilization. A civilization is defined by the ability to do complex tasks and to create complex artifacts. As such, the defining functional characteristic of civilization is the performance of maintenance. People who do not do maintenance cannot be considered civilized.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 8:50 PM  


Rhetoric Man wrote:Again, you are narrow in your definition. Civilization entails more than the development of city-states. Why should YOUR definition supersede every other definition established by, say, cultural geographers or anthropologists?

What like the ones quoted in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article on...civilization? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

"A civilization (US) or civilisation (UK) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite."

"Characterized by urban development"...what could that phrase possibly mean? The brain strain is getting to me.

Seriously, by harping on Timbuktu (300AD at the earliest) you are ignoring the various Berber kingdoms that Stretched from Mauritania to Somalia starting in 200BC.

Starting to lose on facts so you head for the insults. I've never seen that move before. *shocked face*

You rabbitty mind control rhetoric tricks don't work on me. Pull another lever.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 27, 2016 9:04 PM  

@244 Can't stand to lose Man

Here are the 6 Cradles of Civilization:
4 Old World
4.1 Mesopotamia
4.2 Egypt
4.3 Indus Valley
4.4 China
5 New World
5.1 Central Andes
5.2 Mesoamerica

Note the only African one on there is Egypt.

If you go to the Norte Chico civilization; you will see they don't date it as 'Civilization' until AFTER the cities are built in 3500BC. The culture existed from 9210BC. 6000 freaking year difference numbnuts.

"The radiocarbon work of Jonathan Haas et al., found that 10 of 95 samples taken in the Pativilca and Fortaleza areas dated from before 3500 BC; the oldest, dating from 9210 BC, provides "limited indication" of human settlement during the Pre-Columbian Early Archaic era. Two dates of 3700 BC are associated with communal architecture, but are likely to be anomalous. It is from 3200 BC onward that large-scale human settlement and communal construction are clearly apparent.[7] Mann, in a survey of the literature in 2005, suggests "sometime before 3200 BC, and possibly before 3500 BC" as the beginning date of the Norte Chico formative period. He notes that the earliest date securely associated with a city is 3500 BC, at Huaricanga, in the Fortaleza area of the north, based on Haas' dates."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norte_Chico_civilization

Blogger John Rockwell May 27, 2016 11:44 PM  

I will leave this here for all who claim that protestantism led to our current predicament:
https://praiseoffolly.wordpress.com/does-progressivism-grow-out-of-protestantism/

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 27, 2016 11:48 PM  

Kurt--”I have a more basic definition of civilization. A civilization is defined by the ability to do complex tasks and to create complex artifacts. As such, the defining functional characteristic of civilization is the performance of maintenance. People who do not do maintenance cannot be considered civilized.”

What are complex tasks? What are complex artifacts? What are the metrics for performance of maintenance?

Your definition is not that basic.


Rusty...

“What like the ones quoted in the very first sentence of the Wikipedia article on...civilization.”



You have significant difficulties with reading comprehension. You are the one harping about city-states as being the overriding factor for civilization. Direct quote--”The root of civilization is the city-state”. I reiterated that the definition of civilization entails MORE than this one particular aspect, which means I already have acknowledged its relative importance in relation to the other factors. You proceed to offer a wikipedia definition of civilization, which only supports my contention in that civilization is BROADLY BASED, with urban areas duly noted.

“Seriously, by harping on Timbuktu (300AD at the earliest) you are ignoring the various Berber kingdoms that Stretched from Mauritania to Somalia starting in 200BC.”



Strawman. I haven’t ignored anything. I merely pointed out that Timbuktu was a city constructed by Africans, with a notable contribution by the Mali Empire, which is evidence that destroys your claim that “none built cities”.

“Starting to lose on facts so you head for the insults.”



The only fact is that you are caught between a rock and a hard place, with the only way out being capitulation on your part. Otherwise, the verbal shiving will not be a clean cut. It will be jagged and bloody.

“Seriously, by harping on Timbuktu (300AD at the earliest) you are ignoring the various Berber kingdoms that Stretched from Mauritania to Somalia starting in 200BC.”



Just because I did not comment on the importance of the Berbers does not mean I ignored their contribution. I made no reference to them to focus on the topic at hand, to destroy your claim that no Africans built cities. One need only refer to the the Benin Empire...

“A series of walls marked the incremental growth of the sacred city from 850 AD until its decline in the 16th century. In the 15th century Benin became the greatest city of the empire created by Oba Ewuare. To enclose his palace he commanded the building of Benin's inner wall, a seven-mile long earthen rampart girded by a moat 20 feet deep. This was excavated in the early 1960s by Graham Connah. Connah estimated that its construction, if spread out over five dry seasons, would have required a workforce of 1,000 laborers working ten hours a day seven days a week. Ewuare also added great thoroughfares and erected nine fortified gateways.”

“Here are the 6 Cradles of Civilization”

Congratulations, you are able to conduct basic research. Stay on point. Africans clearly met the definition of civilized as you offered by wikipedia, as referenced by the Mali Empire, as referenced by the Nok culture. If you scroll down using the link, there is a separate category regarding “African Civilizations”. Again, the development of city-states is ONE among several criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Medieval_to_Early_Modern

Anonymous Healthy Skeptic May 28, 2016 4:03 AM  

@234 kurt9: Ah yes! The old nature vs. nurture debate where nature trumps nurture. HBD trumps religion.

Spiritually unregenerated people of the flesh surely believe this.

Vox, a silly and fundamentally dishonest IQ fetishist, is as much of a genuine Christian as Anders Breivik.

Anonymous Healthy Skeptic May 28, 2016 4:16 AM  

@234 kurt9 wrote:But don't get too carried away by Dreher's post. He's still a cuck. "I would much rather my kids marry Ethiopians who were believing Orthodox Christians than marry fellow white people who aren’t. I really mean that."

I believe he does. And that's why he is still a dyscivilizationist.


Ah yes! The old nature vs. nurture debate where nature trumps nurture. HBD trumps religion.

Spiritually unregenerated people of the flesh surely believe this.

Vox, a socially/emotionally retarded, fundamentally dishonest IQ fetishist, is as much of a genuine Christian as Anders Breivik.

Anonymous Detective Instinct May 28, 2016 5:58 AM  

@234 kurt9 wrote:But don't get too carried away by Dreher's post. He's still a cuck. "I would much rather my kids marry Ethiopians who were believing Orthodox Christians than marry fellow white people who aren’t. I really mean that."

I believe he does. And that's why he is still a dyscivilizationist.


Ah yes! The old nature vs. nurture debate where nature trumps nurture. HBD trumps religion.

Spiritually unregenerated persons of the flesh surely believe this.

By Vox's reasoning, Jesus Himself is a cuck and dyscivilizationist.

Vox thinks he has more authority than Jesus. Vox, a social/emotional retard and IQ fetishist, is as much of a genuine Christian as Anders Breivik.

Blogger Detective Instinct May 28, 2016 6:39 AM  

@234 kurt9 wrote: But don't get too carried away by Dreher's post. He's still a cuck. "I would much rather my kids marry Ethiopians who were believing Orthodox Christians than marry fellow white people who aren’t. I really mean that."

I believe he does. And that's why he is still a dyscivilizationist.


Ah yes! The old nature vs. nurture debate where nature trumps nurture. HBD trumps religion.

Spiritually unregenerated persons of the flesh surely believe this. By Vox's reasoning, Jesus Himself is a cuck and a dyscivilizationist.

Apparently, Vox thinks he has more authority than Jesus. Vox, a racial/social/emotional retard and an IQ fetishist, is as much of a genuine Christian as Anders Breivik.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 28, 2016 8:20 AM  

Rhetoric Man wrote:I merely pointed out that Timbuktu was a city constructed by Africans, with a notable contribution by the Mali Empire, which is evidence that destroys your claim that “none built cities”.

You are correct Tibuktu was built before the Atlantic slave trade by Africans. I sperged on the Cradles of Civilization and lost track of time.

Blogger kurt9 May 28, 2016 2:40 PM  

And Christianity could not care less about things like small government, free speech, or many other things that we Men of the West value. Keep that in mind when you blithely appeal to Christianity as the answer to earthly ills.

Which is why I wonder why so many of you are obsessed with the necessity of Christianity as a basis of Western civilization.

BTW, I too lived in Japan and other east Asian countries for 10 years. I can definitely tell you that the fundamental difference between East Asians and Westerners is that the former do not have a pioneering bone in their body, a sentiment that my Japanese wife completely agrees with.

It is pioneering as a cultural value in it own right that makes Western civilization worth protecting. Without pioneering, Western civilization is nothing. Pioneering and relentless technological innovation. I would not want to live in any society that lacked these values. I certainly wouldn't fight for one.

Blogger kurt9 May 28, 2016 2:46 PM  

True, but that's not a Western concept per se. That's an English/American concept. Don't confuse the U.S. Constitution with Western Civilization. It is a small subset of it.

Point taken. We can call this Anglo/American civilization. Does anyone care to tell me why Western civilization as something separate and distinct from Anglo-American civilization is worth saving at all? I think its not.

Blogger kurt9 May 28, 2016 2:52 PM  

Pioneering is exclusively an Anglo-American concept as well. The rest of the world completely lacks this value. I agree with Robert Zubrin that all non-pioneering cultures are ultimately dysfunctional.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx May 29, 2016 12:34 AM  

kurt9 wrote:Pioneering is exclusively an Anglo-American concept as well. The rest of the world completely lacks this value. I agree with Robert Zubrin that all non-pioneering cultures are ultimately dysfunctional.

That would make for a great book- Grow or Die.

Blogger Unknown May 29, 2016 1:29 PM  

Rhetoric Man is either a paid CIA disinfo agent or smoking crack. Mud huts that would be poorer in construction to beaver dams hardly bespeak of intelligence or capacity. Oh you darn White Supremacists, can't you see this cheap pottert is just like Greeks? Uh, no. It looks like crap grade schoolers make in art class you fruity monkey lover.
Go to Africa and stay for dinner. Idiots like you are the kosher bacon they add to mud stew.

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 29, 2016 4:34 PM  

Healthy Skeptic...

“Vox, a socially/emotionally retarded, fundamentally dishonest IQ fetishist, is as much of a genuine Christian as Anders Breivik.”

Why don’t you actually try to engage in substantive debate rather than take the typical SJW or Alt-Right verbal shiv route? That’s really gay of you.

kurt9...
“between East Asians and Westerners is that the former do not have a pioneering bone in their body, a sentiment that my Japanese wife completely agrees with.”

Depends on how one looks at the term “pioneering”. The Japanese kept to themselves for thousands of years. It was only until American intervention in their commercial affairs in the 1850’s was Japan motivated to become an industrial nation that built up its military and engaged in imperialism. Those actions would be considered pioneering. Moreover, the Japanese are pioneers in numerous technologies. For example...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-34272425

“It is pioneering as a cultural value in it own right that makes Western civilization worth protecting.”

Most Americans aren’t concerned with Western civilization. They are more focused on American civilization.

“We can call this Anglo/American civilization.”

YOU call it this way.

“Pioneering is exclusively an Anglo-American concept as well.”

Patently false. Pioneering is a HUMAN endeavor. One need only look to Mesopotamia, or the Indus Valley, regarding their “pioneering” spirit.

Blogger IreneAthena May 29, 2016 10:03 PM  

@258kurt9 wrote:Pioneering is exclusively an Anglo-American concept as well. The rest of the world completely lacks this value.

Consider the possibility that you might be wrong about that.
Consider the languages spoken in the "New World." They are the languages spoken by the pioneers who settled there.
North America: USA - mostly English (with dialects influenced by Dutch, Spanish, German, French)
Canada - French and English
Mexico - Spanish
Central America: Spanish and Portuguese
South America: Spanish and Portuguese

And isn't just the Anglo and non-Anglo whites who had the pioneering spirit. Polynesians built boats, crossed a wide Pacific ocean and settled in Hawaii (and other islands) long before Captain Cook "discovered" it.

Blogger IreneAthena May 29, 2016 10:18 PM  

Ya, and I forgot to mention the the Svee-dish pioneers. I'll reckon it took more pioneering spirit to settle in the brutal climate of areas around the northern Great Lakes than it ever took to settle in relatively temperate New England.

Blogger IreneAthena May 29, 2016 10:38 PM  

Wait, the "Anglo-Saxons only" might let the Swedes stay because of their being Vikings. It gets complicated on these threads. Sometimes "Anglo-Saxon enough to be considered a true American" means "coming from the British Isles and we don't mean Ireland." Then someone with a German heritage heritage will pipe up about his ancestors having been in the US for generations, and then a silly argument will ensue.

Anonymous Rhetoric Man May 30, 2016 2:36 AM  

"Pioneering is exclusively an Anglo-American concept as well."

That is completely false. One need only look to the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and the Chinese, for starters, regarding their spirit to explore and "tame" their environment.

Blogger Detective Instinct May 30, 2016 6:06 AM  

Rhetoric Man wrote:Healthy Skeptic...

“Vox, a socially/emotionally retarded, fundamentally dishonest IQ fetishist, is as much of a genuine Christian as Anders Breivik.”


Why don’t you actually try to engage in substantive debate rather than take the typical SJW or Alt-Right verbal shiv route? That’s really gay of you.

Why don't I do what you would like? I'm familiar with Vox's imperious style. Arguing with arrogant, abusive liars isn't a smart move. And it appears you lack sufficient intelligence to understand this.

I don't punch down. Rework your approach (drastically) if you want my respect and and time.

(I was/am Healthy Skeptic. Apologies for my glut of posts. I wasn't immediately aware of how the posting process works here.)

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts