ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, August 10, 2018

Why the Right fails

This little anecdote at Steve Sailer's describes, in a nutshell, why the proudly individualistic Right has been consistently failing for decades.
reminds me of something that happened at jury duty. I was sitting there, trying to figure out how to get out of jury duty, and telling the judge that I had urgent responsibilities, blah, blah..

This was a trial where some young guy had used a gun for to warn off some rivals for his girl, or something. But it revolved around the (non-lethal, in this case) use of a gun. (horrors, I know)

Anyways, the judge was getting clearly annoyed that a few other jurors also didn’t want to participate in the farce. (I’m not a big fan of courtroom “justice” ; )

And he lectured us and then made the mistake of asking a leading question..

(clearly expecting to hear a ‘trial by jury’) he asked the assembled prospective jurors, ‘What is the main right that protects all your other rights from abuses of the government?’

Whereupon I blurted out very clearly and loudly, “The Second Amendment!”

There was a hush in the chamber. A pall had come over the room.

The judge sat for a moment speechless, and then asked the attorneys to approach the bench. There was some serious looking glances and whispers, and then eventually we were all told we could go.

Just like that.

From what I’ve glimmered, I had ‘tainted’ the jury when I said ‘the Second Amendment’. The prosecutor was likely intending to use the gun itself as the crime. And by proclaiming that our right to own guns was the very cornerstone of American freedom, I guess the prosecutor felt the trial was lost before it even began.

[heh]
What a smugly stupid moron! He portrays his self-serving, narcissistic behavior as a triumph of some sort, when in truth it is a disastrous, self-inflicted defeat for both justice and a free society. If this jackass is ever arrested, karma will be well-served if he finds himself facing a jury of avid gun controllers and is convicted on every count. Instead of doing his civic duty and upholding the Second Amendment he cited with such self-satisfaction, he ensured that the prosecution would get a second crack at packing a jury with anti-gun jurors.

The Right's idolatry of individualism is shortsighted and strategically disastrous. It is the philosophy of the crack addict, the rent boy, the cam whore, and the flytipper. It is the mindset of the parasite and the grasshopper. And it is not compatible with civilization, let alone advanced Western civilization.

Not all collectivisms are equal. Identity politics are not communism. Defending your family and your nation, and working to advance their interests, is not wrong, it is the very sort of normal human behavior that created Western civilization. I could not have created Infogalactic alone. I could not have built Castalia House alone. Arkhaven is a collective effort.

We cannot save civilization by running around like a bunch of headless chickens doing our best to avoid any and every responsibility to others.

Labels: , ,

114 Comments:

Blogger Steve August 10, 2018 8:06 AM  

(I’m not a big fan of courtroom “justice” ; )

[heh]

Gamma tells, or mangina tells?

Blogger Robert Divinity August 10, 2018 8:19 AM  

Spot on. Jury nullification is a readily available tool to protect our countrymen against their oppressors.

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 8:19 AM  

@3 Flair1239

As a midwit, how do you reconcile commenting here?

Blogger Steve August 10, 2018 8:20 AM  

What are the odds this actually happened though? It reads like one of those tales that usually end in everyone applauding and Albert Einstein giving the storyteller a $100 bill.

Blogger seeingsights August 10, 2018 8:24 AM  

Recently I've been advocating that populist/nationalists should be like the Communists of decades ago in one respect: be secret operatives. It would have been better for that Second Amendment supporter, then, to infiltrate the judicial system by keeping his political views to himself.
I've acted like an secret operative in a way. Some here might remember my posts about me doxxing a left wing employee. He lost his job because of my doxxing. After about a year, it seems though he might be working at least part time. I intend to find out.

Blogger Menter August 10, 2018 8:26 AM  

@Flair1239

Refusing to do your duty in the society you choose to live in is completely different from choosing to move to a different society.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 8:28 AM  

How do you reconcile calling The commenter a Narcissist for avoiding his civic duty, when you have chosen to self exile from the US?

You're banned, Flair1239. Don't comment here again. Attempting to make a subject about me is an insta-ban offense.

Blogger SemiSpook37 August 10, 2018 8:35 AM  

@5

Keeping views to one's self is a blessing, I've discovered. There's been many a time where I've wanted to admonish some leftist because of their inane views, but then I pause and think, "You know what? I'm going to let them hoist themselves on their own petard. I don't need to help them out with that."

Additionally, doing that allows for some pretty decent cover when your livelihood is affected.

Blogger Shimshon August 10, 2018 8:40 AM  

I was called up for jury duty when I was back in fellow white country for a time around 2000. It was for a shoplifting case IIRC. The wife desperately wanted me to get out of it because [redacted]. I wasn't trying to, but it was around the time I was starting to become more aware, and had just learned about nullification.

I was questioned at some point and as an experiment I mentioned I had read about it and considered it sensible. I'll never forget the judge's reaction. He paused, sighed, then paused again, and took off his glasses, straight out of a courtroom drama. He pulled out one of the pamphlets the JN crowd distributed outside (I got my info on the net, not from a pamphlet), started waving it around, and gave some drumming down spiel, and asked if I could honestly discharge my duties for THIS case. I said I could. The prosecutor nixed me his next turn. At least I didn't DQ the whole group. My wife was grateful.

Blogger Thumos August 10, 2018 8:42 AM  

This is like non-fiction Navy Seal copypasta

Blogger Uncle John's Band August 10, 2018 8:45 AM  

@4. Steve

That struck me too. All that was missing was the 'and they all clapped/cheered' punch line.

The larger point is sound though. Understand the scale and nature of the conflict.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey August 10, 2018 8:47 AM  

@5 @8
Yeah, it's not entirely clear how much of the problem here is that the guy's trying to weasel out of jury duty, and how much is that he just "needed" to blurt out his opinion, to be "right"

But that's narcissism too, I guess.

Blogger Shimshon August 10, 2018 8:52 AM  

I should add that if it were for something more edgy, like a firearms case like the OP, I would've kept my mouth shut. I figured it was simple vibrant shoplifting, in the Beverly Hills branch of the Los Angeles Superior Court. I would've as likely convicted. I was curious what would happen.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 8:52 AM  

Gamma tells

Yes, although more in the quantity of the parentheses than the actual usage. Parentheticals are used by gammas to provide you with more information about themselves.

You can also perceive the midwittery in the ungrammatical use of words like "glimmered" instead of "gleaned". You can have a glimmering, but you cannot glimmer an inkling.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 10, 2018 8:52 AM  

If he had kept his mouth shut, he might have had comedy gold in the judge's response.

Blogger lpdbw August 10, 2018 9:01 AM  

@1: (I’m not a big fan of courtroom “justice” ; )

Gamma tell, or someone with experience as the victim of a black-robed tyrant?

I am sure I still have some gamma traits (I'm a work in progress), but I know how it feels to be screwed by the justice system.

Blogger lpdbw August 10, 2018 9:03 AM  

@14 @16

Nothing quite like typing a comment that demonstrates Vox's point while he's still making the point.

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 9:04 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger wreckage August 10, 2018 9:07 AM  

@16; in a jury trial, you only know YOU aren't a tyrant, so getting yourself kicked is irresponsible.

Remember when the right was all about duty and honour?

Blogger Colin Flaherty's baby momma August 10, 2018 9:13 AM  

Don't you stupid goyim bigots know that identity politics is evil? You've been constantly reminded by your leaders Ben Shapiro, JBPeterless, Alex Jones, Molyneux, et al. - Only jews & their tools are allowed collective identity interests to fight against you, mass murder brown people on their walled border, and have their own country, orgs, schools. When white people do it, it's KKK Nazi.

As George Soros' son recently told you, your diversity is jews' strength:
Alex Soros told me that for many years, his father had not been eager to advertise his Judaism because “this was something he was almost killed for.” But he had always “identified firstly as a Jew,” and his philanthropy was ultimately an expression of his Jewish identity, in that he felt a solidarity with other minority groups and also because he recognized that a Jew could only truly be safe in a world in which all minorities were protected.

Explaining his father’s motives, he said, “The reason you fight for an open society is because that’s the only society that you can live in, as a Jew — unless you become a nationalist and only fight for your own rights in your own state.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/magazine/george-soros-democrat-open-society.html

Blogger Isaac Miller August 10, 2018 9:18 AM  

Laws do not protect people. People who respect the natural law protect people. Laws get abrogated, ignored, distorted, and reinterpreted. Only a collectivist society that has loyalties to *something* can possibly have a real legal system.

Blogger ace August 10, 2018 9:19 AM  

"Mr. Sailer squandered an opportunity..."

More reading comprehension issues. I think the problem is getting worse.

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 9:22 AM  

@22 ace ...

Yep. Read too fast and didn't hit the link ... thanks.

Blogger Ken Prescott August 10, 2018 9:22 AM  

@18

One problem with jury duty is that for a lot of the folks we want sitting in that jury box, losing a week's wages is a financial problem.

Losing a month's wages is a financial crisis.

Losing six months' wages (the worst case) is a financial calamity.

That issue needs to be addressed.

Blogger Attila is my bro August 10, 2018 9:24 AM  

I have to side with Sailer on this one, for different reasons maybe. I was divorce raped and I honestly can say the inside of a court room make me want to vomit. The whole system can go to hell, as if it hasn't already. There's no possibility of justice, so why participate? Even if he held his tongue and made some shenanigans in the jury room, the court would nullify the proceedings on a hung jury and start over with a normie jury just like what happened without wasting his time sitting there for days before the inevitable. I'm not generally a black piller, but I know I wouldn't hesitate to do the same thing under those same circumstances.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 9:25 AM  

I am sure I still have some gamma traits (I'm a work in progress), but I know how it feels to be screwed by the justice system.

1. I count = four in one sentence.
2. Self-referring parenthetical in a sentence about himself. It's very important to not only talk about himself, but clarify any possible misconceptions that someone might have in response to his initial statement about himself.
3. This is all in response to something that has literally nothing to do with him.

Verdict: with all due respect, dude, you've got more than "some gamma traits". If you want to improve your life, stop talking about yourself. No one - literally no one - is as interested in the subject as you are.

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 9:25 AM  

The Right's idolatry of individualism is shortsighted and strategically disastrous.

Indeed.

This type of individualism is simply self-serving at the end of the day.

We are not only to look out for our own interests, but the interests of others as well. Our main purpose in this world is to live in the service of our Creator and one another.

We would do well to follow the lead of the One Who came not to serve Himself or to be served, but to serve. This is surely an example that is worthy of imitation.

Do you want to be truly great? Then serve. This is no time to be lazy and afraid.

“Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.’

“But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.

'For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’(cf. Matthew 25).

May we always be mindful of the Master whose interests we serve.

Blogger John August 10, 2018 9:28 AM  

Just be clear—the correct move is to tell whatever lies are necessary to get on the jury, and then preach the Constitution and jury nullification during deliberations.

Yes?

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 9:31 AM  

@28 John

How is remaining silent and not blurting out, "The 2nd Amendment" lying?

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 9:38 AM  

wreckage wrote:@16; in a jury trial, you only know YOU aren't a tyrant, so getting yourself kicked is irresponsible.

Remember when the right was all about duty and honour?

This is true; the only time I've been called for jury-duty, I remember wanting to serve, I was in college taking a hard load (18 ch/hrs, IIRC) and so wouldn't have been able to do both and do a good job with both.

It's always bothered me how eager people are to get out of Jury duty: this is the place that the people can most easily screw over tyrannical rule, be it law or judge. (IIUC, the semi-recent Bundy Ranch trial would have been a solid Not Guilty from the jury because of the dirty tricks and blatant lies on behalf of the prosecution.)

Blogger tuberman August 10, 2018 9:50 AM  

This is insightful, as that guy should have kept his mouth shut and voted his conscious on the jury when the time was right. We all know that today. Speak and act when the time is right to do the right things.

People can see this constantly from so-called right wing people, running away from responsibility while cloaking it as something heroic. Moving out of areas to areas more White, signaling, "Not racist" for everyone to hear.

This guy never cared about the Truth in this trial, or what he could do to help the Truth come forward. It was about him getting his moment of attention, then escaping all responsibility.

Blogger veryfunnyminion August 10, 2018 9:55 AM  

"Defending your family and your nation, and working to advance their interests, is not wrong, it is the very sort of normal human behavior that created Western civilization."

Vox for Holy Roman Emperor!

How's about a Cryptofashion shirt, SDL for HRE? In Imperial Purple, of course.

Blogger tuberman August 10, 2018 10:02 AM  

This is why Christianity has to come back to lead Western Civilization. Integrity comes through religion, and the Culture Wars needs that integrity. Duty is not empty when these are combined...deep meaning come about.

Blogger Salt August 10, 2018 10:09 AM  

‘What is the main right that protects all your other rights from abuses of the government?’

Whereupon I blurted out very clearly and loudly, “The Second Amendment!”


True statement, flippant as hell, and off the jury he goes. He could have easily said Jury Nullification and would again have been correct and with the same result from a pissed off judge. Of course the judge was seeking the civic answer, to be a jurist, which is not an answer in truth to his question as the prosecution wants to pack the jury with people of its liking, guaranteeing a conviction. Yes, he did squander an opportunity to try and work within a corrupt system, favoring instead a big FU to the Court.

What's of interest here, though, is this - "There was some serious looking glances and whispers, and then eventually we were all told we could go." Evidently the judge and prosecutor thought the prospective jurors to be tainted. But tainted with what? The truth perhaps? I wonder how many people walked out after dismissal with a new understanding?


Blogger Hunsdon August 10, 2018 10:16 AM  

Attilaismybro:

Bro, reading is your friend. The comment wasn't by Steve Sailer, and it wasn't appended to a Steve Sailer post. It was at Unz.com, but it was by commenter Rurik on a post by Kevin Barrett.

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 10:18 AM  

@34 Salt

I wonder how many people walked out after dismissal with a new understanding?

Probably none. They were all just delighted to get out of jury duty. No serious reflection required.

Blogger Random #57 August 10, 2018 10:19 AM  

@28 John

Just be clear—the correct move is to tell whatever lies are necessary to get on the jury, and then preach the Constitution and jury nullification during deliberations.

That could get you removed from the jury, or prosecuted for contempt of court, judges like to feel they're in complete control. Keep your damned mouth shut about higher level issues like nullification or the Constitution, see also recommendations in that link for quiting organizations so you don't have to lie during jury selection, and vote for acquittal resulting in a hung jury if necessary.

Blogger Duke Norfolk August 10, 2018 10:21 AM  

"Not all collectivisms are equal."

Yes. The reflexive negative reaction from the right against "collectivism" has always irritated me. It's mindless nonsense and has become dogma.

In a similar vein, the dismissal of "It takes a village to raise a child" bothered me too. Of course I understand that agreeing with Hilary about anything is generally distasteful, but having your thinking ruled by the heuristic of opposing EVERYTHING your enemy thinks/says is stupid.

Of course the nuances of her idea of what that means differs from mine. The village should be made up of your people; especially your extended family. Anybody who's lived in good small town America (and no doubt parts of Europe) understands the dynamics well.

But too many on the right bought into the totally atomized, disconnected, deracinated existence. And it's killing us.

Blogger haus frau August 10, 2018 10:24 AM  

"Anyways, the judge was getting clearly annoyed that a few other jurors also didn’t want to participate in the farce. (I’m not a big fan of courtroom “justice” ; )"

So because he's to good to spend his invaluable time on "courtroom justice" so he's smugly leaving this guy out to hang. This is a second amendment advocate who will never fire his weapon ever because it will never be his problem.

Blogger L August 10, 2018 10:25 AM  

I've been warning Conservative/Right friend who has small children about messages coming from Disney/Marvel/DC movies and comic books. And we've discussed the damage done by SJW's at our work place. His usual response is, "I just want to be left alone." I swear that, as long as the Left allows conservatives/libertarians to keep their guns, the Left could take away every other right granted by the Constitution, including trial by jury, and only get a token fight.

Blogger Shimshon August 10, 2018 10:27 AM  

In a play for nullification never bring it or the constitution up. Run for foreman and steer discussion towards doubt. Unless you know you have allies.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 10:27 AM  

Ken Prescott wrote:@18
One problem with jury duty is that for a lot of the folks we want sitting in that jury box, losing a week's wages is a financial problem.
Losing a month's wages is a financial crisis.
Losing six months' wages (the worst case) is a financial calamity.
That issue needs to be addressed.

Absolutely and totally agreed. There's an interesting solution here [PDF page 7; see section IV], which makes it the responsibility of the officers of the court to pay wages of the national average to each juror after the case takes too much time (6 months, in this case) — I can contact the author for editing this if need be — I'm fairly sure that just having this on the table would, by its mere existence, encourage speedy trials.

VD wrote:I am sure I still have some gamma traits (I'm a work in progress), but I know how it feels to be screwed by the justice system.

1. I count = four in one sentence.

2. Self-referring parenthetical in a sentence about himself. It's very important to not only talk about himself, but clarify any possible misconceptions that someone might have in response to his initial statement about himself.

3. This is all in response to something that has literally nothing to do with him.

Verdict: with all due respect, dude, you've got more than "some gamma traits". If you want to improve your life, stop talking about yourself. No one - literally no one - is as interested in the subject as you are.

You're wrong on that Vox: God is quite interested in the subject, enough that Jesus died to break the chains of sin and death for him, and us... and it doesn't stop there: the whole purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead Christians to truth (John 16:13).

Rabbi B wrote:@28 John

How is remaining silent and not blurting out, "The 2nd Amendment" lying?

I've heard tales of "have you heard of jury nullification?"-style questions. If that were put directly to me, I'd have to answer in the affirmative, lie, or perhaps ask "is that some tin-foil crazy-talk?" in response.

This is rather germane, as the jury summons I've seen have a line to the effect of "even though I may not agree with the law, I must find guilty when the the conditions are met" -- IOW, a sneaky trick to signing away the right to nullification. (Though that itself is felonious, as per, 18 USC 242.)

Blogger Robert What? August 10, 2018 10:28 AM  

@Vox, in this case how would you have recommended he respond to the question? Or just keep quiet?

Blogger Nick S August 10, 2018 10:28 AM  

Although a simple enough concept, this is another one of Vox's posts that deserves a significant explication for the normal people.

Blogger Matthew McDaniel August 10, 2018 10:28 AM  

Damn, the knives are OUT in these comments. Although I can only read half of them due to deletions & retractions. LOL.

Blogger Phil Mann August 10, 2018 10:29 AM  

"It was about him getting his moment of attention, then escaping all responsibility."

True. Lawyers know this and use it all the time to ferret out bias in prospective jurors trying to hide it. It takes a strong, disciplined person not to blurt out the plain truth that only he can see when the lawyer (or judge) lobs one right over the plate and just begs him to knock it out of the park. Saving it for when it counts is harder than it sounds.

Blogger Salt August 10, 2018 10:31 AM  

Rabbi B wrote:Probably none. They were all just delighted to get out of jury duty. No serious reflection required.

M.P.A.I. And to think, they'd have made up a jury of his peers.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 10:37 AM  

You're wrong on that Vox: God is quite interested in the subject, enough that Jesus died to break the chains of sin and death for him, and us... and it doesn't stop there: the whole purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead Christians to truth (John 16:13).

I'm sure we're all very impressed with your Christian virtue-signaling. Why don't you say a few prayers in public to show everyone how holy you are while you're at it?

And God is going to damn him to Hell if he fails to repent, so I fail to see how your pious appeal to theology disproves my point at all.

Blogger Damelon Brinn August 10, 2018 10:40 AM  

The rule about talking to cops is probably a good one for talking to any state official, including judges: keep your mouth shut expect to answer direct questions when required. The judge doesn't want to be your friend.

Blogger Blaidd August 10, 2018 10:40 AM  

L wrote:"I just want to be left alone."

The difficulty is in making people realize that to be left alone requires you to act in a way that discourages people from screwing with you. Hiding in the corner doesn't work.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 10:47 AM  

Random #57 wrote:@28 John

Just be clear—the correct move is to tell whatever lies are necessary to get on the jury, and then preach the Constitution and jury nullification during deliberations.

That could get you removed from the jury, or prosecuted for contempt of court, judges like to feel they're in complete control. Keep your damned mouth shut about higher level issues like nullification or the Constitution, see also recommendations in that link for quiting organizations so you don't have to lie during jury selection, and vote for acquittal resulting in a hung jury if necessary.

Thank you for sharing that link; I find it rather interesting that Libertarian Party affiliation is listed in the organizations to quit.

Shimshon wrote:In a play for nullification never bring it or the constitution up. Run for foreman and steer discussion towards doubt. Unless you know you have allies.
Why is the Constitution off limits? How can "rendering a verdict according to the law" be justified if the supreme law of the land is disregarded? -- The real 'why' is obvious: because it would strip the government (prosecutors and courts) of a LOT of power.

Blogger Attila is my bro August 10, 2018 10:49 AM  

And that's more relevant than a simple autocorrect typo to the topic in what way, exactly? On error next resume.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 10:57 AM  

VD wrote:You're wrong on that Vox: God is quite interested in the subject, enough that Jesus died to break the chains of sin and death for him, and us... and it doesn't stop there: the whole purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead Christians to truth (John 16:13).

I'm sure we're all very impressed with your Christian virtue-signaling. Why don't you say a few prayers in public to show everyone how holy you are while you're at it?

And God is going to damn him to Hell if he fails to repent, so I fail to see how your pious appeal to theology disproves my point at all.

Certainly he will go to hell if he fails to repent, that's the whole point! John 3:17-18 clearly says that we're condemned already and God sent his Son to save us from that.

As to your accusation that I am virtue-signaling; I am not. I am attempting to offer a bit of gentle correction to a brother in the faith. If you choose to ignore it as me being off-base, that's fine: I have no authority over you, nor responsibility for you [other than what I've already done], and I may well be misreading it.

Blogger S. Misanthrope August 10, 2018 10:58 AM  

Potential jurors in California are required by law to disclose if they make any donations to organizations that seek to influence legislation, including (the judge specifies) the NRA. Luckily I was not an NRA member at the time, but I was struck by the defense anyway. I was only asked one question during selection, something about “If you heard X, what would you conclude?” My answer was that I would need more information to conclude anything.

MPAI but most selected jurors barely have the IQ required to keep breathing. I’d rather face the Antfa mob again than a jury of my peers. At least the mob is honest about what it is.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 10, 2018 11:01 AM  

OneWingedShark wrote:As to your accusation that I am virtue-signaling; I am not. I am attempting to offer a bit of gentle correction to a brother in the faith.Keep lying to yourself. You were demonstrating to everyone here just how much more Christian you are than they were. Why else bring the subject of the fellow's salvation up at all? It's not germane to the topic, and frankly not our business.

Blogger Salt August 10, 2018 11:03 AM  

OneWingedShark wrote:Why is the Constitution off limits? How can "rendering a verdict according to the law" be justified if the supreme law of the land is disregarded? -- The real 'why' is obvious: because it would strip the government (prosecutors and courts) of a LOT of power.

With the need for knowledge (powers of jurors etc) greater than ever, it's up against the trainwreck of exactly why we're in this situation to begin with.

Blogger Rabbi B August 10, 2018 11:05 AM  

I am attempting to offer a bit of gentle correction to a brother in the faith.

No. You really weren't. And everyone here knows it.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 11:09 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:OneWingedShark wrote:As to your accusation that I am virtue-signaling; I am not. I am attempting to offer a bit of gentle correction to a brother in the faith.Keep lying to yourself. You were demonstrating to everyone here just how much more Christian you are than they were. Why else bring the subject of the fellow's salvation up at all? It's not germane to the topic, and frankly not our business.
Go back and re-read; I didn't bring up the topic of any particular person's salvation: not lpdbw, not VD's, not my own. I brought up the subject of salvation at all being proof that God cares about us as individuals.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 11:17 AM  

Salt wrote:OneWingedShark wrote:Why is the Constitution off limits? How can "rendering a verdict according to the law" be justified if the supreme law of the land is disregarded? -- The real 'why' is obvious: because it would strip the government (prosecutors and courts) of a LOT of power.

With the need for knowledge (powers of jurors etc) greater than ever, it's up against the trainwreck of exactly why we're in this situation to begin with.

A trainwreck would be easier to deal with than the mess the Judiciary is. It's angering, saddening, and disgusting how little Justice is in our system; how little regard there is for even something as simple as consistency. (Unless you're willing to count endless games of "Heads I win, Tails you lose" consistency.)

Blogger Moritz Krämer August 10, 2018 11:20 AM  

This begs the question: how do we train this pathological individualism out of the right? We know it exists, even if OP is made up. Other than mocking lolbertarians and JBP's cultists, what is there that can be done?

Blogger John August 10, 2018 11:20 AM  

@29 I apologize, my comment did come across as flippant. Hindsight.

@37 Thanks for the link and the advice. The one jury I was on never got to deliberations, the guy changed his plea. It wasn't on nullification issue anyway.

Putting aside giving a direct false answer to the questions during jury selection (which I didn't do), in a broad sense, I am still concealing that I know about jury nullification and the fact that I know that judges and lawyers hate jurors who know about jury nullification. The topic never came up.

Also, I thought that deliberations were secret? How would the judge know unless there was tattletale? Stupid question maybe.

@41 "In a play for nullification never bring it or the constitution up. Run for foreman and steer discussion towards doubt. Unless you know you have allies."

Makes sense. Play the game to win.

@42 ""even though I may not agree with the law, I must find guilty when the the conditions are met""

The judge said something pretty close to that when I went.

Blogger Blaidd August 10, 2018 11:22 AM  

S. Misanthrope wrote:“If you heard X, what would you conclude?” My answer was that I would need more information to conclude anything.

Just that level of critical thought is enough for most lawyers to dismiss you. In general, lawyers don't want jurors who can think for themselves because that means they won't take everything the lawyer tells them as fact and less likely to be influenced by their emotions.

As our host often points out, dialectic and rhetoric have their places. Jury trials are places of rhetoric.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 11:22 AM  

As to your accusation that I am virtue-signaling; I am not. I am attempting to offer a bit of gentle correction to a brother in the faith.

You most certainly are virtue-signaling. And I am not ignoring, I am REJECTING your obnoxious, sanctimonious attempt to publicly correct me in clear violation of the Bible instructions on how to do so.

Don't do it again.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 11:29 AM  

VD wrote:As to your accusation that I am virtue-signaling; I am not. I am attempting to offer a bit of gentle correction to a brother in the faith.

You most certainly are virtue-signaling. And I am not ignoring, I am REJECTING your obnoxious, sanctimonious attempt to publicly correct me in clear violation of the Bible instructions on how to do so.

Don't do it again.

Understood.
You are right about the biblical correction procedures; I ask your forgiveness.

Blogger Warunicorn August 10, 2018 11:33 AM  

That reminds me: I have jury duty next month. >:D

Out of all the times I've been summoned, I've never served. I'd go there, wait a few hours and then be sent home because I wasn't needed or I'd call the night before and find out I wasn't needed. :(

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 11:33 AM  

S. Misanthrope wrote:Potential jurors in California are required by law to disclose if they make any donations to organizations that seek to influence legislation, including (the judge specifies) the NRA. Luckily I was not an NRA member at the time, but I was struck by the defense anyway. I was only asked one question during selection, something about “If you heard X, what would you conclude?” My answer was that I would need more information to conclude anything.

MPAI but most selected jurors barely have the IQ required to keep breathing. I’d rather face the Antfa mob again than a jury of my peers. At least the mob is honest about what it is.

This is so sad to hear; I knew it was bad, but this just rubs it in.
Blaidd wrote:S. Misanthrope wrote:“If you heard X, what would you conclude?” My answer was that I would need more information to conclude anything.

Just that level of critical thought is enough for most lawyers to dismiss you. In general, lawyers don't want jurors who can think for themselves because that means they won't take everything the lawyer tells them as fact and less likely to be influenced by their emotions.

As our host often points out, dialectic and rhetoric have their places. Jury trials are places of rhetoric.

This is an interesting observation: the mere ability to say "I need more information to decide X" being more critical thought than 'allowable' makes me wonder how fragile the house of cards is.

Blogger Warunicorn August 10, 2018 11:34 AM  

Anno Ruse wrote:How do you reconcile calling The commenter a Narcissist for avoiding his civic duty, when you have chosen to self exile from the US?

It's like you want to be banned. Do you not know how this works?

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 11:35 AM  

Warunicorn wrote:That reminds me: I have jury duty next month. >:D

Out of all the times I've been summoned, I've never served. I'd go there, wait a few hours and then be sent home because I wasn't needed or I'd call the night before and find out I wasn't needed. :(

Congratulations!
I hope you can get in this time.

Blogger Lance E August 10, 2018 11:37 AM  

Jury duty has the same fundamental asymmetry as activism in general; the right tends to be middle class and thus has significantly less time to invest, especially without financial support from the mostly-progressive elite. Leftist foot soldiers are cheap and desperate for any sliver of authority they can grab.

But like anything else in life, you tend to get what you pay for. The lumpenproles are low-IQ, low-information and extremely ineffective considering their numbers. A dozen quality individuals on the right, working together, can win most confrontations against hundreds of shrieking, crying leftists. They just have to actually work together. Individualism means respect for the systems that allow people to lead reasonably free lives and a willingness to defend them; it's not an excuse for a lack of empathy or refusal to cooperate with others.

Blogger Blaidd August 10, 2018 11:38 AM  

@68

Don't touch the poop, mate.

Blogger Warunicorn August 10, 2018 11:43 AM  

OneWingedShark wrote:Warunicorn wrote:That reminds me: I have jury duty next month. >:D

Out of all the times I've been summoned, I've never served. I'd go there, wait a few hours and then be sent home because I wasn't needed or I'd call the night before and find out I wasn't needed. :(


Congratulations!

I hope you can get in this time.


Thanks! It should be interesting as the courthouse I'm going to handles the bigger cases around here...like murder. >.>

Huge question for anyone that knows: I recently went and applied for my license to carry. I have no priors, no arrests, no tickets, etc. This was after I received the jury duty summons. Will they know anything about this during the selection process? I'm assuming yes but this is government we're talking about here. Things tend to fly underneath the radar, as we've all seen all the time.

Blogger The Gray Man August 10, 2018 11:52 AM  

OneWingShark,

You may have good intentions but you are coming across with gamma traits.

This blog is mostly filled with extremely well read Christians and many of then have had so many discussions on it.

I recommend you don't try to interject theology that we all know, read more Vox posts from the past and ask questions instead of contributing for a while.

Last, please don't use any smiley face emojis. Every once na while one happens, but for some reason gammas love to put them in posts where they feel they have a winning moment.

I think you are able to recognize that and move forward with us.

Blogger Salt August 10, 2018 11:57 AM  

Whereupon I blurted out very clearly and loudly, “The Second Amendment!”

Would this be a case of dialectic and rhetoric being one in the same?

Blogger Johnny August 10, 2018 12:05 PM  

For some reason, following WWII law enforcement became progressively more obsessed with procedure, which is to say the particulars of how the system operates. And if the true purpose of our legal system is to protect the innocent while convicting the guilty, it appears to have made things worse.

What is at least part of the problem is that they have made getting a conviction so difficult and expensive that trials are now avoided whenever possible. The usual method is for prosecutors to overcharge and commit extensive resources to any trial that occurs. This pressures almost all defendants, guilty or innocent, into plea bargaining. Thus instead of a better trial that protects their rights, they get no trial at all.

Blogger Stilicho August 10, 2018 12:12 PM  

Teamwork does not equal socialist collectivism. The former is a matter of working together to achieve common goals while the latter is a matter communal ownership and control over what rightfully belongs to the individual (be it rights or property).

Blogger FP August 10, 2018 12:28 PM  

"Thank you for sharing that link; I find it rather interesting that Libertarian Party affiliation is listed in the organizations to quit."

For about 14 years, I was registered as "non affiliated voter" aka independent and thus I got called by my county for jury duty like clockwork every 2 years or so. So far since going back to the GOP for the 2016 primaries, no jury notices and one was due late last year. If you want to serve on juries, become average everyday joe who doesn't care about anything.

I was picked for grand jury duty first time out early in the Dubya years (never since when called in later) and served two weeks. People have and will call me a cop hater these days for daring to criticize police and I enjoy telling them about my experience on grand jury duty. It was one brief interaction with an assistant DA that made me truly realize how corrupt and worthless the system generally is. All because the ADA was pissed that we on the jury tossed out 1 of 2 charges on a case. We took away her precious plea bargaining chip on a trumped up riot charge in an apparent fist fight.

You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich is true, the system is designed that way.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 10, 2018 12:36 PM  

Warunicorn wrote:It's like you want to be banned. Do you not know how this works?
He's been begging to be banned for a couple of weeks. I'm not sure if it's just that he wants to confirm his unjustified opinion of Vox, or if he's looking for some sort of merit badge to show off to his "friends".

Johnny wrote:And if the true purpose of our legal system is to protect the innocent while convicting the guilty, it appears to have made things worse.


The purpose of the justice system is to enrich lawyers.
And to protect criminals from direct retributions, because that's so unseemly.
But mostly the lawyer money thing.

Blogger Azimus August 10, 2018 12:40 PM  

It seems to me that the American model is something like "conditional collectivism" - that in times of need, Americans set aside their differences, come together, and do what needs to be done. Citizen soldier, volunteer firefighter, disaster relief worker, poll worker, jury duty, they all follow this model. The problem w/2018 and the years building up to it, is that no one has been able to rally the people to rise up to meet the need, or rather, so many people have made so many rally cries, often for polar opposite reasons, that the machine is broken. Desensitization was the term they used to use.

Blogger OneWingedShark August 10, 2018 12:41 PM  

Johnny wrote:For some reason, following WWII law enforcement became progressively more obsessed with procedure, which is to say the particulars of how the system operates. And if the true purpose of our legal system is to protect the innocent while convicting the guilty, it appears to have made things worse.

What is at least part of the problem is that they have made getting a conviction so difficult and expensive that trials are now avoided whenever possible. The usual method is for prosecutors to overcharge and commit extensive resources to any trial that occurs. This pressures almost all defendants, guilty or innocent, into plea bargaining. Thus instead of a better trial that protects their rights, they get no trial at all.

A friend and I were talking about this; he'd read A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America [which I have not yet read] and we were discussing some of the ideas in it, and I asked about "mandatory minimums [in sentencing]" and if that was an instance of the Boomer mentality. He replied "Absolutely!" and related how there's a typical curve for a generation's population and crime-rate: it goes up in the teens, then drops down [about the time they start having families]. Well, apparently the Boomers never really did that, and so the crime appeared to be on the rise because as the younger generation following the normal curve was additive with Boomer 'misbehavior'. (It's also the Boomers that ushered in the War on Drugs; which both expands government power and creates tons of lawbreakers.) The mandatory minimums removed a lot of the ability of a judge to be lenient and show mercy, sort of a generational "laws for you, but not for me!"

When you consider the policies and institutional changes the Boomers have pushed and the resulting effects on our society/country it's angering and saddening both.

Salt wrote:Whereupon I blurted out very clearly and loudly, “The Second Amendment!”

Would this be a case of dialectic and rhetoric being one in the same?

Probably so; the problem is that the whole line of thought is [essentially] forbidden in the courtroom. This is why they had to consider the entire jury pool tainted: a pure-dialectic argument would be brushed off as "that argumentative arse, thinking he's better than the lawyer/judge/system" and summarily dismissed from their minds. / What makes this one so good rhetorically is that it's an honest, logical answer to the question that really can't be shot down without abandoning the emotive rhetoric-land and trying for mental sleight-of-hand -- which is a losing proposition for them.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 10, 2018 12:47 PM  

@42


OneWingedShark wrote
:
> VD wrote:
>> Verdict: with all due respect, dude, you've got more than "some gamma traits". If you want to improve your life, stop talking about yourself. No one - literally no one - is as interested in the subject as you are.


> You're wrong on that Vox: God is quite interested in the subject, enough that Jesus died to break the chains of sin and death for him, and us... and it doesn't stop there: the whole purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead Christians to truth (John 16:13).


Shark.... Dude... the guy was writing to us, not God.

Not a single person reading this blog is interested in his gammatude, let alone what specific shade of gamma he currently is.

Blogger DangerSemiconductor August 10, 2018 12:51 PM  

An informative brochure on jury nullification, how to get on a jury, and how to be allowed to vote one's conscience once on a jury is available at fija.org . The full link is https://fija.org/file_download/inline/cf38da2e-bbb0-4941-b4e3-27df1e18e72d

Blogger Moondog August 10, 2018 12:52 PM  

There's a time to speak up, and there's a time to shut up.

The gentleman passed on the time to do the latter, and thus put the accused--who arguably committed no crime--in jeopardy.

Blogger Unknown August 10, 2018 1:04 PM  

Vox blogspot is owned by GOOGLE...how long do you think until the decide to shut your web site down?

Blogger John August 10, 2018 1:04 PM  

@77 "For about 14 years, I was registered as "non affiliated voter" aka independent and thus I got called by my county for jury duty like clockwork every 2 years or so."

Interesting. I must register as an independent.

Blogger Matthew McDaniel August 10, 2018 1:26 PM  

Argh!!! He’s addressed this multiple times. Search the blog or his YouTube yourself.

Blogger db4805 August 10, 2018 1:34 PM  

Random #57 wrote:@28 John

Just be clear—the correct move is to tell whatever lies are necessary to get on the jury, and then preach the Constitution and jury nullification during deliberations.

That could get you removed from the jury, or prosecuted for contempt of court, judges like to feel they're in complete control. Keep your damned mouth shut about higher level issues like nullification or the Constitution, see also recommendations in that link for quiting organizations so you don't have to lie during jury selection, and vote for acquittal resulting in a hung jury if necessary.


Im an admitted Gamma, but even I know just keep your mouth shut until asked a direct question. Then "let the chips fall where they may".

Blogger Random #57 August 10, 2018 1:39 PM  

@80 OneWingedShark

When you consider the policies and institutional changes the Boomers have pushed....

Let's be careful with causality here, the first of the Baby Boomers could vote in 1967, if you take 1946 as the first year in which they were born. Eisenhower and a Republican Senate appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court in 1953, the older Baby Boomers were 7 at the time.

They, or at least the loud mouthed ones, supported the poz, but it was already game over by the time they had direct political power.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 1:44 PM  

Vox blogspot is owned by GOOGLE.

Wait, what? It is? OH NO! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd August 10, 2018 1:45 PM  

Unknown wrote:Vox blogspot is owned by GOOGLE...how long do you think until the decide to shut your web site down?

Wow! It sure is a good thing you noticed that. I bet Vox never thought to look at who is behind Blogspot. I bet he never thought to have a Plan B, either. You better suggest to him that he have back ups, and maybe even some sort of plan for migration.

After all, one achieves success by overlooking the obvious and trusting to luck, so successful people are least likely to plan ahead.

Blogger Ledford Ledford August 10, 2018 1:46 PM  

The system of trial by jury is running into the dysgenic trends noted in Mr. Day's recent post. Also juries are increasingly composed of people from lands where the legal system is entirely different (and has to be).

Unfortunately, everything is politics now (and has to be). If you refuse to participate, you let down the side.

Blogger VD August 10, 2018 1:46 PM  

I ask your forgiveness.

Ego te absolvo.

Blogger Patrick Kelly August 10, 2018 2:18 PM  

Is it the intent of "trying to figure out how to get out of jury duty..." that taints his actions?

The end result is someone who (allegedly) displayed a gun to wave off competition for his woman may not face trial or jail. Performing jury duty could have the same end result, whether or not nullification is a factor.

RE: "The Right's idolatry of individualism is shortsighted and strategically disastrous."

We have had "rugged individualism" as a virtue drummed into our heads since we were born. It is difficult to pull your head out of a comfortable, familiar dark place and face an initially painful and disruptive light.

And how can abandoning it not inherently lead to some kind of collectivism and group think?

Blogger riffer73 August 10, 2018 2:46 PM  

100% agree with VD on this. I was aghast when I read that idiots post.

I have to admit that I have no chance of ever being picked (occupation that requires intelligent, analytical people with good judgement), but I always clear the schedule and show up.

Blogger SDaly August 10, 2018 3:37 PM  

Here's another reason the right has failed. It projects the qualities of Europeans onto the masses of the world.

Discussing the rape of a 5-year old in Philadelphia by an illegal immigrant protected under the city's sanctuary policies, the moron at Powerline blog writes:

JOHN adds: Amen. I would add that those most likely to be hurt by the Democrats’ fecklessness when it comes to law enforcement are not the upper-class whites who run the Democratic Party. The Democrats could be in for a nasty shock when they learn how Hispanic and African-American citizens feel about crimes like rape and murder that are needlessly inflicted on them because of the Democrats’ political strategies.

They're still on the Dems are the real racists track. You can only comment on that blog through Facebook, but I wanted to write back, Hispanic and African countries (and Hispanics and blacks in U.S. Cities) are long accustomed to high rates of violence, it doesn't seem to bother them much or cause them to demand Republican-like government.

Blogger LRN_News August 10, 2018 3:47 PM  

Individualism and mainstream conservatism is watered down globalism. It baffles me that so many people fail to comprehend something so simple.
If you do not make efforts to preserve your nation, you are therefore allowing and upholding globalism.
There's no middle ground. The only opposition to globalism is nationalism and not civic nationalism, but true nationalism.
The issue is globalism vs nationalism, radical individualism is our enemy.
These people are either unknowingly or knowingly upholding the very system that threatens the existence of our nations.

Most people don't even know the definition of "nation" anymore. Multiculturalists consistently misuse the word, such as the slogan "We are a Nation of immigrants" what the f**k is a Nation of immigrants? If the demographics of a country is diverse, it longer qualifies as a Nation.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 10, 2018 3:51 PM  

@83

"Vox blogspot is owned by GOOGLE...how long do you think until the decide to shut your web site down?"

Dude... the first rule of contingency plans in case of enemy action is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT THEM IN PUBLIC.

When the time comes to execute the plan, you'll find out what to do. You know OTHER places to get communication from Vox, and you know how to use duckduckgo.com in the even that every reference of him is memory-holed by google's search engines.

Now, stop worrying your pretty little head. He's got it covered.

Blogger SirHamster August 10, 2018 4:10 PM  

We cannot save civilization by running around like a bunch of headless chickens doing our best to avoid any and every responsibility to others.

Fortnite is not the solution.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener August 10, 2018 4:37 PM  

Serving on a jury is the greatest opportunity that average citizens will ever have to make their voices heard in political matters. On the other hand, if you do want to serve on a jury you probably don't want to come across as too eager.

In the last jury selection I went through there was a defendant accused of child rape, and the defense allowed several people to serve as jurors who openly stated that they could not be impartial, while they rejected many of us who said we would be as impartial as possible and judge the case based on the facts. It was a strange outcome.

Blogger SirHamster August 10, 2018 4:58 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:I've heard tales of "have you heard of jury nullification?"-style questions. If that were put directly to me, I'd have to answer in the affirmative, lie, or perhaps ask "is that some tin-foil crazy-talk?" in response.

*furrowed brow* - "What's that?"


Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:the defense allowed several people to serve as jurors who openly stated that they could not be impartial, while they rejected many of us who said we would be as impartial as possible and judge the case based on the facts. It was a strange outcome

Sounds like they filtered for emotional over rational. Easier to manipulate that jury with emotional arguments and make the facts irrelevant.

Blogger Pepper August 10, 2018 5:18 PM  

I have to agree.

Although it would feel good for a moment to own the judge in such a manner, the appropriate thing would be to keep one's mouth shut until the jury is sent to deliberate - then volunteer as foreman and make that announcement to the other jurors. Debate until *that* is settled, then discuss the actual case as presented.

Blogger CM August 10, 2018 6:14 PM  

This blog has made me very anti-enlightenment. Shunning of wisdom, community, and social responsibility are favored by those who consider enlightenment ideals sacrosanct.

Blogger Doktor Jeep August 10, 2018 6:37 PM  

I find solace in the fact that I have never had an original idea in my life.
And with that, I not been able to avoid, for some years now, the realization that the main reason why the left beats us like a drum is because they are so damned lockstep even to a very obvious fault while the right was always like "herding cats".
Since around 2012 whenever hearing the usual rhetoric about the greatness of individuality, and usually from self-absorbed people trying to be political, I would think "yeah paying attention to only yourself and whatever you feel like caring about works perfectly, right up to the moment you are getting forced into that boxcar".
Could such thoughts be spreading into normyland? Pray that "individuality" is starting to be seen out there for what it really is - and who really pushed it.

Blogger Dangeresque August 10, 2018 7:17 PM  

Might have to chalk this one up to gamma. The "Ooh, ooh, I know the right answer, teacher!" reflex.

Blogger AnvilTiger August 10, 2018 7:31 PM  

There may be a relationship between individualism and introversion, also perhaps the tendency towards individualism is genetic. Think hunter gatherer tribes (collectivists) but they needed scouts. Much later as America was being settled think: fur trappers, mountain men, frontiersmen, and wagon train scouts. So both individualism and collectivism are human survival traits, with individualism being much lower as a percentage of society, yet being more inclined to risk taking.

Blogger TimovK August 10, 2018 8:17 PM  

I've been called for, and dismissed immediately from, jury duty many times over the years. This is due to my answer to the question of vocation: Bi-Vocational Pastor. Lawyers seem to not like folks such as myself...

Blogger justaguy August 10, 2018 11:26 PM  

# 79: ignoring the irrelevant Boomer accusation and looking at mandatory minimum sentences- it was a legislatures attempt to overcome liberal judges who were blaming society for criminals ills from letting serious crimes basically go unpunished. It may not be the best policy, especially in today's we can make everyone or anyone a criminal world, but it was an attempt to actually punish during a period of rising crime. Remember Clinton put the sentencing on cocaine against the "super-criminals".

Blogger CM August 10, 2018 11:30 PM  

So both individualism and collectivism are human survival traits, with individualism being much lower as a percentage of society, yet being more inclined to risk taking.

There is a tension between individualism and communion (I think that might be a better word for the non-political variety).

On one hand, individuals are held to account in law and sin. If you break the law, your family is not thrown in jail. But your actions do hold consequences for them. You being in jail will deprive them of whatever benefit you bring to the family.

My new pastor had a great sermon on this a couple weeks ago - that individualism has its place - you are responsible for your salvation, actions, words, etc. But your presence in the body of Christ is critical. The church could be missing a hand, a foot, a mouth... and not even know it. So we have individual responsibility and a responsibility to our community.

Individualism places all the emphasis on the individual and acts like the greater community has no bearing.

*I have a new church! I have officially left the Episcopal church. At first, it was really difficult, but 3 weeks in, and I don't know why it took so long.*

Blogger tz August 11, 2018 12:05 AM  

@24 - Wheres the federal minimum wage much less the $15/hr the left wants?

I can go either way on this. If a stupid judge tries to herd sheep, and one bleats something un-PC, which unexpectedly shatters the illusion, I'm not sure it is a bad thing.

And the Judge would just have him replaced with one of the alternates to avoid a mistrial. That would be less that is happening with Manafort or had happened with the Bundy Ranch / Malheur protesters.

Blogger Станислав Бартошевич August 11, 2018 6:53 AM  

I do believe that the modern "Right" fundamentally misunderstands (let's be generous to them) what individualism is and where it leads. For an example of a society of deeply individualistic men you don't need to look further than Far East. In spite of the common Western myth, Chinese are naturally individualistic, selfish people, regularly looking for opportunities to get ahead at the expense of others, as any sort of business interaction with them can quickly confirm. The same is only less true for Japanese or South Koreans insofar as they are heavily westernized now.

Why China, Japan, etc, traditionally were, or currently are, heavy-handed empires with strict pyramids of power? Because that's the only way for a society of individualists to rule itself, once it constituents get tired of war of all against all. Unless there is a clear power structure where the top rules strictly over the bottom on each tier, and which metes out heavy punishment for socially disruptive behavior, a society where everyone pulls into his own direction and is unwilling to compromise for the sake of common good cannot function. Individualism leads to genesis of a Hobbesian Leviathan.

It is hardly a coincidence that every major Leftist project, starting with the French Revolution, involved a determined attack against communities, ostensibly for the sake of the rights of individual citizens.

Blogger CM August 11, 2018 7:46 AM  

It is hardly a coincidence that every major Leftist project, starting with the French Revolution, involved a determined attack against communities, ostensibly for the sake of the rights of individual citizens.

It's interesting that some of the major enlightenment thinkers were instrumental in the French revolution - Locke, Adams, etc.

Those who were critical of it but involved or influenced America's thinkers (like Burke) have a far more balanced ideal of the enlightenment.

Some libertarian named Salerno has been going around saying nationalism is the individual's defense against foreign entities that would seek to rule him, quite essentially pointing out that the individual needs a vested group to protect his own rights. Today's individualists reject nationalism because it comes with communal or collective obligations - the social contract? And anything that requires some sacrifice from the individual to the group is anathema.

I'm surprised by the China thing. I thought the ties to their elders would make them a bit more communal, but I suppose an individual's family ancestors need not translate into a nationalistic web-like connection to those around you.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd August 11, 2018 8:42 PM  

CM wrote:I'm surprised by the China thing. I thought the ties to their elders would make them a bit more communal, but I suppose an individual's family ancestors need not translate into a nationalistic web-like connection to those around you.

It definitely does not in Confucian society. If you ain't family, you ain't shit, even today.

My East Asian history prof pushed the idea that nationalism was an import from the West; pre-Sun Yat Sen, you were a Wong or a Huang, not a Chinaman.

Blogger Anno Ruse August 11, 2018 10:11 PM  

It's like you want to be banned. Do you not know how this works?

About like this. Vox says very loudly that he wants to ban (and "spam!") you. Then he does nothing becuase his blog runs on 1996 software and he can't figure out how to properly ban a guy.

This from the genius who supposedly invented AI or something. Who the fuck knows he brags about everything lol what a loser this vox day is

Blogger Dirk Manly August 12, 2018 10:57 AM  

@112

"About like this. Vox says very loudly that he wants to ban (and "spam!") you. Then he does nothing becuase his blog runs on 1996 software and he can't figure out how to properly ban a guy."

You know ONLY PARTIALLY of what you speak.

Blogger Dirk Manly August 12, 2018 10:58 AM  

by the way, "ls" is 1970 software, and it's foundation level in every Unix and Linux system out there (basically, 80% of the internet).

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts