The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
White Slavery Is Back in England
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Slavery Ensnares Thousands in U.K. Here’s One Teenage Girl’s Story.
By CEYLAN YEGINSU NOV. 18, 2017

… A report by a British government commission on modern slavery and human trafficking, released last month, described a sprawling practice that ensnares tens of thousands of people in Britain.

Many are immigrants. But the high number of victims from Britain was an unexpected shock — cases involving British citizens like the teenage girl were the third-largest grouping, after those involving Albanians or Vietnamese.

A majority of child-trafficking victims were also found to be British. …

“We kind of let it slip that we have vulnerable people in our own communities,” Kevin Hyland, Britain’s first independent antislavery commissioner, said in an interview. …

Then, during the school holidays in July last year, the teenager disappeared. It was not until seven months later, after her mother said she had resigned herself to the fact that her daughter might be dead, that a detective told her that she had been kidnapped and enslaved.

“Enslaved?” the mother, whose identity is also being concealed to protect her daughter, recalled asking the officer. “I just kept repeating that word. I didn’t understand it,” she said in a London park where she often goes to try to manage a panic disorder that developed after her daughter’s disappearance.

During the months when her daughter was missing, “I thought about every possible scenario that could have happened to her,” her mother said. “But slavery? I didn’t even know that happened in England.”

Britain recorded 2,255 modern slavery offenses across England and Wales last year, a 159 percent increase from the previous year. According to the government commission, the rise suggests that, while slavery might be increasing, so is awareness among the police and public. …

The man was grooming the teenager to “go country,” meaning that she would become a drug runner. While most British citizens are trafficked for labor or sex, an increasing number of young people are being drawn into the drug world because of the relatively new phenomenon of distributing narcotics from urban hubs to small towns. …

The man, whom she knew as Ziggy, took her phone and money. He then drove her to a dark, squalid garage with no windows, where she lived for the next seven months with various drug addicts.

“Everything changed,” the girl recalled. “Ziggy started to beat me and told me I wasn’t worth anything to them anymore.” …

When members of the gang and different drug addicts started to rape her every night, she finally decided that nothing could be worse.

Did Ziggy look more like Ziggy Stardust or Ziggy Marley, or somebody in-between? There’s no mention in the article of the ethnicity of the grooming gang.

On a Sapir-Whorf note, the English-speaking world used to have a term for this, but now we don’t: white slavery. Not surprisingly, England now has more white slavery than back when everybody knew the term. From Wikipedia:

White Slave Traffic Act of 1910

To battle sex trafficking in the United States, in 1910 the US Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act (better known as the Mann Act), which made it a felony to transport women across state borders for the purpose of “prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose”. Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking, particularly sexual trafficking. As more women were being trafficked from foreign countries, the US began passing immigration acts to curtail aliens from entering the country. Several acts such as the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 were passed to prevent emigrants from Europe and Asia from entering the United States. Following the banning of immigrants during the 1920s, human trafficking was not considered a major issue until the 1990s.

 
Hide 204 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Whiskey says: • Website

    A society run by the whims, and for the whims, of Upper Class White women will ALWAYS favor White slavery. Its victims tend to be potential competitors — young, pretty working class White women who the Gentry ladies HATE HATE HATE with a passion.

    Consider Sarah Palin, object of ritual hate for being “country.” Ditto back in the early 2000′s Britney Spears, the usual line being to paint Spears as a crass, trailer trash bimbo ignoramous. True enough, but that puzzled me at the time for a while — the energy being expended by various comediennes on a frankly boring target.

    Yes of course native working class White girls are being enslaved and that is the whole point of having Muslims and Africans and making them untouchable in the first place. The real Race War is being waged by the Upper Class Whites against the “dirt people” who are their cousins.

    Read More
    • Troll: Roderick Spode
    • Replies: @Lagertha
    so true
    , @Olorin

    Consider Sarah Palin, object of ritual hate for being “country.” Ditto back in the early 2000′s Britney Spears, the usual line being to paint Spears as a crass, trailer trash bimbo ignoramous. True enough, but that puzzled me at the time for a while — the energy being expended by various comediennes on a frankly boring target.
     
    IIRC the vanguard of these particular Two Minutes' Hateses was not "upper class whites" or "gentry ladies," but the (((MSM))).

    "Comediennes" for instance are unlikely to draw their paychecks nor their audiences from "gentry." They are paid by the (((infotainment industry))) to signal this season's fashions in genetic competition and white hatred.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/white-slavery-is-back-in-england/#comment-2084424
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. nigel says:

    Where is Charles Martel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    This is the age of Soros. Martel has been replaced by Merkel, and someone has already made plans for you.

    They only want what's best for you, after all, and you just need that helping hand.

    They're only making plans for Nigel.
    , @Kevin C.

    Where is Charles Martel?
     
    Saint Denis Basilica in Paris, over twelve centuries dead, and his likes never to be seen again.
    , @Neoconned
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stereogum.com/1972241/morrissey-defends-kevin-spacey-and-harvey-weinstein-saying-victims-shouldve-known-what-could-happen/news%3famp=1#ampshare=https://www.stereogum.com/1972241/morrissey-defends-kevin-spacey-and-harvey-weinstein-saying-victims-shouldve-known-what-could-happen/news/

    Morrissey defends Kevin Spacey, among others. You know it didn't occur to me until I read this.... Spacey never explicitly admitted the encounter.

    Morrissey asked where were the boys parents? Indeed.....

    Anyway....it's an interesting read and reminds me why I love Morrissey....he brings grey context to attempts to paint the world black & white.....
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Where is Charles Martel?
     
    Charles is on the way. The only question right now is how long will it take him to arrive.
    , @Amasius
    "Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=100&v=xVEYcTyj1Do

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. And white people are still waiting for the law to protect them, the messiah politician to be elected and make it all go away.

    Wish in one hand, shit in the other, then tell me which one fills up faster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Gotta love Wikipedia. Seriously.

    The last few sentences you quote seem so… un-pc that I checked if there was a citation. And indeed there are two, with seemingly fairly pc titles, even.

    * Candidate, Jo Doezema Ph.D. “Loose women or lost women? The re-emergence of the myth of white slavery in contemporary discourses of trafficking in women.” Gender issues 18.1 (1999): 23-50.

    * Donovan, Brian. White slave crusades: race, gender, and anti-vice activism, 1887-1917. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Dan Hayes says:

    Steve,

    “There’s no mention in the article of the ethnicity of the grooming gang.”

    Whereas the New York Times is purposefully oblivious of their ethnicity, the Daily Mail provides plenty of references to the ethnicities of the many grooming gangs (note plural). Not surprising about the NYT’s purposeful obtuseness!

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    Earlier this year, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    I often turn to the Daily Mail as a first choice to get a quick idea about a news story. I like that they include text and pictures and video that get straight to the point.

    I understand that they may be sometimes sensational or unreliable, but I still read them.

    So I’m not sure if Daily Mail really does give me better info or if I’ve just become a deplorable bottom-dwelling Neanderthal.

    Probably a bit of both. Can I blame Trump?

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

    , @Colleen Pater
    Yeah well the Times,Back in the late 70s on my 21st birthday hanging out with a bunch of adults including my 36 year old girlfriend being a precocious lad, i got into a political argument with several of the guests.I was raised by my parents and the zeitgeist to be pretty liberal socially, but someone had called me the rock and roll republican since my hair was down to my belt and i sort of looked like robert plant. Anyway despite my woke thinking on civil rights i wasn't an idiot i was a race realist I mean all new yorkers are. My girlfriend and many of her and my own friends were jews, But when one of them cited the NY Times as an appeal to authority in their argument I sneered "The jew York Times?" I could and still can get away with that sort of stuff, last year at a dinner party flirting banter I asked this beautiful black model if she wanted to play Sally and Thomas, LOL the cucks all froze it was hilarious You could have heard a pin drop for a split second But i knew i was fine i know women, she burst into laughter and turned purple yes blacks can blush.and the other women also laughed almost as quickly because they fist had to wonder why i hadn't asked them to play slave games. The point is even at 21 I understood the New York Times was a jewish propaganda outlet, that jews despite being funny and smart were at intellectual war with us, And having been educated by jesuits I was pretty sure they didnt have a chance. Of course I was wrong the jesuits fell them the entire church and the jews are winning, Im confident we could easilly beat them if we would just fight back but our elites are taitorous cuks that will sell out their nations for shekels from jews.
    , @Rosamond Vincy
    Rotherham was just the tip of the iceberg. HUNDREDS of known cases there were covered up so there wouldn't be "hate." Now think about the unknown cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Mr. Anon says:

    The man, whom she knew as Ziggy, took her phone and money. He then drove her to a dark, squalid garage with no windows, where she lived for the next seven months with various drug addicts.

    Sounds pretty much like a scene in Taken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Which suggests the remedy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Do you suppose we’ll come to a point where white people are condemned for having ended slavery?

    I mean that was Eurocentric white morality.

    Slavery was a universal thing all around the world, and it was accepted as anything from tolerable to even moral and sanctioned by the divine.

    So, who were these Europeans to force their moral imperialism on others?

    When we look at South Africa, lots of traditional superstitious stuff is making a comeback, and it’s justified on grounds that it’s native and being revived as an act of defiance against the cultural imperialism of the West.

    For the most part, non-whites have adopted white morality — slavery is evil — and blame whites for having enslaved others. But as white power and prestige keeps decreasing in the West and as non-whites keep exerting their different or multi-culti way of doing things, maybe there will be a huge paradigm shift. The great white evil was not trading in slaves but in having ended slavery and then forced all the world to stop practicing it as well.

    Maybe the return of slavery is a kind of reconfiguration of the world to its original state before white powers decided to transform so much and force its moral imperatives on other peoples.

    As whites lose the power and will to repress, the world finds a way to regress.

    I can just see it now… some black guy pens an article defending slavery… at least as long as it’s a local affair. So, if Africans enslave Africans, it’s just their culture.

    Look at Libya. Slave trade has returned there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That has already started. Muslims in the West leading the charge. http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/georgetown-professor-under-fire-for-statements-on-islam-and-rape-slavery
    , @Anonymous
    Wherever there are too many people there will always be slavery, even if it's not called that. This slavery won't be entirely involuntary either. It's better to serve than to starve.
    , @Jack Hanson
    The Hoteps are pretty vocal about the Libyan slave stuff.

    The MSM has no idea how to process blacks off the mental reservation tho so you hear nothing about them.
    , @biz
    This! Very insightful comment.

    Already back in the 90s when I was in middle school one of my afrocentric teachers pushed the point that while it was Africans who sold their own slaves to Europeans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery in Africa was "not as bad" as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters. We also learned about the king Mansa Musa who had 1,000 or maybe it was 10,000 "subjects" carrying his gold to Mecca and I remember thinking that somebody who is forced to carry gold across the desert sure sounds like a slave to me and that seems just as bad as being forced to work in a cotton field.

    Anyway, that guy sure wasn't trying to push a re-introduction of slavery, but my point is that even by then, two decades ago, the propaganda groundwork had been laid to view American slavery as uniquely bad in world history, and African slavery as much more benign.

    After several decades of that propaganda, who knows where we might stand now. Islam apologists like that Georgetown prof are currently pushing their own whitewash of Islamic slavery, even including the rape-y parts. Given the speed with which the Left is now abandoning its historical commitments to individual rights and equality in the name of supporting Islam and any people perceived as being "non-white" I think that slavery in certain contexts could be accepted very soon. We already have prominent feminists saying that burkas are "liberating," so is saying that slavery is liberating far behind?
    , @Laugh Track
    Plenty of SM submissives find slavery sexy and emotionally satisfying. LGBTQ tolerance demands hands off the leather community. Ergo, slavery is fine, as long as it is consentual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Yeah but we know the real issue is “sectarian talk” on the train.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. The same thing happens with diseases.

    It’s critical mass again. Moderate numbers of immigrants from shitty places can be assimilated, but once you exceed a certain level, you get things that were eradicated long ago, like slavery and terrible illnesses.

    From Breitbart 19 June 2016:

    Six Diseases Return To US as Migration Advocates Celebrate ‘World Refugee Day’

    The returning diseases are:

    1. Tuberculosis
    2. Measles
    3. Whooping Cough
    4. Mumps
    5. Scarlet Fever
    6. Bubonic Plague

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    FWIW, bubonic plague is endemic to the SW United States.
    , @Frau Katze
    There are vaccines for measles, mumps and whooping cough. They’ve been around for a while.

    My kids, born in the 1970s, were vaccinated. My own age group (boomers) had measles and mumps as children. Not sure about whooping cough.

    These diseases are making something of a comeback due to anti-vaccination sentiments.

    No question that importing huge numbers of third world people will bring with them many diseases thought to be over. But at least for those three, make sure you and your children are vaccinated.

    Other people have commented on bubonic plague: it does exist in North America in some animals and occasionally someone will catch it.

    TB began making a comeback in the days of AIDS. Sufferers with weakened immune systems caught it readily if exposed. But it too is being brought by immigrants.

    At one point I had Google alert going for “tuberculosis”. Every few months there was a story of some school age kid catching it and exposing his whole class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The ever-Correct DW‘s Focus on Europe (on PBS) had a slavery story recently (http://www.dw.com/en/modern-slavery-in-britain/av-40782420).

    Suffice it to say the victim is non-white and the only perpetrators shown are white (an extended Rooney family — Travelers presumably).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. wren says:

    WTF?

    Where is Britain’s leader who will say “That’s not who we are?”

    Or maybe that is who the new cool Britannia is? Or, I suppose a result of it or Blair/Labor?

    Sad, sad, sad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Where is Britain’s leader who will say “That’s not who we are?”
     
    Saying, "This is what you will be."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. wren says:
    @nigel
    Where is Charles Martel?

    This is the age of Soros. Martel has been replaced by Merkel, and someone has already made plans for you.

    They only want what’s best for you, after all, and you just need that helping hand.

    They’re only making plans for Nigel.

    Read More
    • Agree: bomag
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Hah! Spot-on lyrical reference.

    Here's a UK police recruitment pitch:

    Come and join the federation
    We could have communication
    You can have your application
    Be inside the battle station
    Could this be your fascination
    Look out for hallucinations
    Stick right to the regulations
    Must keep down the population
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofCqEgYdcXs
    , @Ganderson
    Nice Al Kooper reference there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn’t live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn’t help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It’s like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they’d done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It’s one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it’s all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there’s the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading ‘gay marriage’ is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it’d be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be ‘western’ today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in ‘gender studies’. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Logan, Laugh Track, EdwardM
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Christianity was better than most religions
     
    Please provide the list of those religions better than Christianity. Stop a three if it becomes tedious.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate.
     
    Australia just went for S&M-- excuse me, SSM. Voluntarily. So the only English-speaking countries with sane marriage laws are the black ones. Great.

    I'm glad we have never had a national electorate in this country.
    , @Malla
    "But then, whites began to lose moral confidence."

    Yep, Marxism in general and Cultural Marxism was created by the chosen people for just that. White people may have conquered the world but the individualist Whites forgot or did not do enough to protect their media, universities, schools, churches and economies from parasitic outsiders and their poisonous ideas. And that has been to the bane of the entire world (the other races have not realized it yet), not only Whites. People like Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx are destroyer of Worlds.
    , @Malla
    "Christianity was better than most religions"
    Christianity is good but Zoroastrianism is better, closer to the Aryan soul and does not have the self hate 'born a sinner' mentality of Christianity. Christianity is good but you just cannot remove the Semitic crap at it's core.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/04/immortality-and-the-eternal-quest-for-excellence/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/01/03/is-god-the-mirror-image-of-man-in-zoroastrianism/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/08/12/the-poetic-gathas-according-and-will-to-become-godlike/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/11/22/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-the-innocent-and-the-good/

    This religion is Aryanism concentrated and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/10/17/ayathrima-the-last-autumnal-thanksgiving-festival-and-celtic-samhain/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/07/13/avestan-airyaman-irmin-got-as-a-name-of-odin-and-the-irish-eremon/
    , @Anonymous
    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can't be worse than what we have now.
    , @Kevin C.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery.
     
    More like will revert. And while I have much to say in favor of many things that are often described as "medievalism", the price will be the permanent loss of technological (Industrial revolution) civilization, like Derbyshire talked about here.
    , @Stan Adams
    You're not going back far enough. The seeds of our modern malaise were planted at least a century ago.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.
     
    What were the two world wars, if not orgies of medievalism, barbarism, and savagery?

    Whatever was left of the white world's soul after World War I was decisively obliterated in World War II. The onslaught of decadence and degeneracy that began (in earnest) in the '60s was a direct result of the hollowing-out of the Western spirit. The boomers grew up in a moral abyss.

    Don't forget that, in the '50s and '60s, kids in America (and elsewhere, I guess) were subjected to regular nuclear-war drills ("duck and cover"). Everyone expected the bombs to fall sooner or later. In the face of seemingly-imminent apocalyptic doom, an "anything goes" philosophy was bound to prevail.

    If you were taught as a kid that the world was probably going to end in your lifetime, would you have developed a strong desire to uphold the old ways? (Never mind that those ancient traditions were being undermined by rapid and dramatic technological developments, such as the Pill.) Not likely. By the time you were a young adult, you would have said, "Screw it," and abandoned yourself to the hedonistic frenzy. Hence, the sexual revolution.

    The normalization of perversion that began in the late '60s has continued unabated since then.

    There is a saying that, for every cockroach that you see in your home, there are at least ten lurking around that you don't see. (I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio is more like one to one hundred.) The roaches started breeding in the aftermath of World War I. By the '60s, they were crawling out into the open. Today they are everywhere.

    Now, I'm not even getting into the Frankfurt School and other related subjects. I could write a book (a whole library of books, even) about all of this.
    , @dfordoom

    Now, it’d be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values.
     
    But wasn't it the western humanist value system of the 50s that led directly to decadence and degeneracy? The western humanist value system of the 50s contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    It would actually be best if the West returned to the genuinely sane value system of pre-Enlightenment days. The Enlightenment gave the West liberalism and liberalism was always going to destroy us.

    The values we so cherish - democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, capitalism, mass education, tolerance, openness - these are the poisons that have destroyed us.

    By the 1950s we were already a long way down the slippery slope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Svigor says:

    To battle sex trafficking in the United States, in 1910 the US Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act (better known as the Mann Act), which made it a felony to transport women across state borders for the purpose of “prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose”. Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking, particularly sexual trafficking. As more women were being trafficked from foreign countries, the US began passing immigration acts to curtail aliens from entering the country. Several acts such as the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 were passed to prevent emigrants from Europe and Asia from entering the United States. Following the banning of immigrants during the 1920s, human trafficking was not considered a major issue until the 1990s.

    But don’t worry, prostitution provides no incentive (none, you got that?) for human traffickers. And there would be no incentive (none, got it?) for human trafficking if we just made prostitution legal.

    Also, making human trafficking legal would clear up this victimless crime. No human being is illegal!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Do you suppose we'll come to a point where white people are condemned for having ended slavery?

    I mean that was Eurocentric white morality.

    Slavery was a universal thing all around the world, and it was accepted as anything from tolerable to even moral and sanctioned by the divine.

    So, who were these Europeans to force their moral imperialism on others?

    When we look at South Africa, lots of traditional superstitious stuff is making a comeback, and it's justified on grounds that it's native and being revived as an act of defiance against the cultural imperialism of the West.

    For the most part, non-whites have adopted white morality -- slavery is evil -- and blame whites for having enslaved others. But as white power and prestige keeps decreasing in the West and as non-whites keep exerting their different or multi-culti way of doing things, maybe there will be a huge paradigm shift. The great white evil was not trading in slaves but in having ended slavery and then forced all the world to stop practicing it as well.

    Maybe the return of slavery is a kind of reconfiguration of the world to its original state before white powers decided to transform so much and force its moral imperatives on other peoples.

    As whites lose the power and will to repress, the world finds a way to regress.

    I can just see it now... some black guy pens an article defending slavery... at least as long as it's a local affair. So, if Africans enslave Africans, it's just their culture.

    Look at Libya. Slave trade has returned there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. From the Wikipedia article, “… in 1910 the US Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act (better known as the Mann Act), which made it a felony to transport women across state borders for the purpose of ‘prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose’.”

    That “for any other immoral purpose” is pretty broad; it includes any crime at all, as well as all non-crime immoralities (such as, some would say, not living up to your full potential). But the ironically named Mann Act does not apply to any man. So any woman can escape the reach of the Mann act by transsexually declaring herself to be a man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. The answer is not to target the perps directly. Instead, we should target the enablers. The NYT for sure, but in the UK it has to include the higher ups in their police force.

    But what surprises me is when the Brits (and even Aussies) bitch about us keeping our guns. For the whinging lot of them, here is our response courtesy of Peter Quill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Instead, we should target the enablers. The NYT for sure, but in the UK it has to include the higher ups in their police force.
     
    It has to include the entire British establishment. Parliament, the BBC, the Church of England, the Conservative Party, the whole sorry lot of them. The British establishment's hatred of ordinary Britons and the things that ordinary Britons cherish is breathtaking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    Christianity was better than most religions

    Please provide the list of those religions better than Christianity. Stop a three if it becomes tedious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Greek Mythology

    Judaism(though it's only for Jews) as combo of universal truth and tribal-ancestor-appreciation(if not worship)

    Chrislam, if it ever takes off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Luke Lea says:

    A terrible story. Makes me ill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The story makes me ill, too. It's horrifying and disgusting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Can several people really live in a garage with no windows for months on end? No mention of whether the garage had a bathroom or shower, but I did read some time ago that it is fairly common in parts of London for people to have secret rental apartments in converted garages that do not have the required conversion permits (known in the UK as Planning Permission), so there might be something underlying this story. though I don’t know what kind of slave labor would be performed there.

    I would guess that the kidnapper was probably Haven Monahan or part of his family.

    Not clear whether she was able to lead police to the garage once she made her escape, so that the rapists and slavemasters could be rounded up and transported to Botany Bay. From the NYT article, it appears that the gang is still on the loose.

    Of course one should not laugh at these matters, and organized crime and abuse of young runaways IS a serious matter, but perhaps the term slavery is a bit of a stretch in this context.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. donut says:

    Let’s fiddle while Rome burns .

    What a golden future dies with us .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. the relatively new phenomenon of distributing narcotics from urban hubs to small towns. …

    The Walmarting of Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    The "Nayariting" of Britain.

    https://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2016/04/04/from-nayarit-to-your-neighborhood-heroins-path-to-a-ready-local-market/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @wren
    WTF?

    Where is Britain's leader who will say "That's not who we are?"

    Or maybe that is who the new cool Britannia is? Or, I suppose a result of it or Blair/Labor?

    Sad, sad, sad.

    Where is Britain’s leader who will say “That’s not who we are?”

    Saying, “This is what you will be.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    Yeah, see my reply to #1 Nigel.

    He likes to speak and he loves to be spoken to.

    1979.

    https://youtu.be/mfsYSPCNWCw
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Do you suppose we'll come to a point where white people are condemned for having ended slavery?

    I mean that was Eurocentric white morality.

    Slavery was a universal thing all around the world, and it was accepted as anything from tolerable to even moral and sanctioned by the divine.

    So, who were these Europeans to force their moral imperialism on others?

    When we look at South Africa, lots of traditional superstitious stuff is making a comeback, and it's justified on grounds that it's native and being revived as an act of defiance against the cultural imperialism of the West.

    For the most part, non-whites have adopted white morality -- slavery is evil -- and blame whites for having enslaved others. But as white power and prestige keeps decreasing in the West and as non-whites keep exerting their different or multi-culti way of doing things, maybe there will be a huge paradigm shift. The great white evil was not trading in slaves but in having ended slavery and then forced all the world to stop practicing it as well.

    Maybe the return of slavery is a kind of reconfiguration of the world to its original state before white powers decided to transform so much and force its moral imperatives on other peoples.

    As whites lose the power and will to repress, the world finds a way to regress.

    I can just see it now... some black guy pens an article defending slavery... at least as long as it's a local affair. So, if Africans enslave Africans, it's just their culture.

    Look at Libya. Slave trade has returned there.

    Wherever there are too many people there will always be slavery, even if it’s not called that. This slavery won’t be entirely involuntary either. It’s better to serve than to starve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    You are describing US Labor Markets...It’s called wage slavery....

    The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=Nonwhite Scab Labor

    The scale of nonwhite Scab Labor in US Labor Markets=Nonwhite Legal Immigrants+their US Nonwhite geneline in US Labor Markets since 1965.....

    The amount of nonwhite Scab Labor in US Labor Markets post-1965 monumentally enormous.....


    Try to achieve a level of economic growth needed to make everyone happy...and America is blacktopped and paved over...This is what Trump is attempting to do....America will be a hellish place to exist in...


    GROWTH DOESN’T PAY FOR ITSELF...y’all understand this obvious point?..Right?...And your water supply.....Mt Kisco NY...will be a victim of Donald Trump’s economic externalities....as in golf course pesticide runoff into your Town-Cities reservoir....I was-am a living breathing witness to Donald’s Mount Kisco shennanigans.....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate.

    Australia just went for S&M– excuse me, SSM. Voluntarily. So the only English-speaking countries with sane marriage laws are the black ones. Great.

    I’m glad we have never had a national electorate in this country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    “But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.”

    Yep, Marxism in general and Cultural Marxism was created by the chosen people for just that. White people may have conquered the world but the individualist Whites forgot or did not do enough to protect their media, universities, schools, churches and economies from parasitic outsiders and their poisonous ideas. And that has been to the bane of the entire world (the other races have not realized it yet), not only Whites. People like Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx are destroyer of Worlds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. donut says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “White paedophile ring held girl hostage and forced her into prostitution”

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/16/white-paedophile-ring-held-girl-hostage-and-forced-her-into-prostitution-7084115/

    Three men have been told to expect lengthy prison sentences after they forced a teenage girl into prostitution.

    They were found guilty of child sexual exploitation after putting an advert for the 14-year-old girl on an adult contact website.

    West Midlands Police said Jake Cairns, Brandon Sharples and Jack McInally plied the victim with drugs and held her at an address in Coventry for five days.

    The force said Cairns took explicit photos of the teenager and posted them on an escort site before she was made to have sex with around 20 ‘clients’ in the summer of 2015.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Too bad Miss Hynde fille has taken her YT page dark. I’d like to see what she’d have had to say about this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. syonredux says:

    Several acts such as the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 were passed to prevent emigrants from Europe and Asia from entering the United States. Following the banning of immigrants during the 1920s, human trafficking was not considered a major issue until the 1990s.

    Immigrants were not banned in the 1920s; their numbers were reduced and national origin quotas were established.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Now, THAT is not a hoax.

    But how many leaders will step forth eloquently to lead a crusade?

    But then, the ONLY effective way to end such is to say NO to colonization and ‘diversity’.
    No doing there as Diversity is the new religion of the West.

    Speaking of hoaxes, Alan Sokal pulled off a brilliant one. But he did it to prove a point, i.e. post-modern theories are mostly word games in a bubble with no relevance to truth or reality.

    It’d be fun if someone did a Sokal of ‘hate hoaxes’.

    These ‘hate hoaxes’ are not really hoaxes because they weren’t done in jest or amusement. They were done to really defame people and cause harm. Calling them ‘hoaxes’ imply they are like pranks. It’s really more like hate-arson.

    Now, suppose someone could cook up a Sokalian stunt, the mother of all ‘hate hoaxes’.
    This would be a genuine hoax since it would have been devised as such. And whoever did it would have intended to reveal himself in the end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Zoroastrianism, like its contemporary Buddhism in India, was derived racially not from the Aryan invaders but rather from the native sources reacting against the brutality of these invaders. This is shown notably by their common rejection of blood sacrifices and their common appeal to the brotherhood of man. It is also indicated by two traditionally accepted circumstances. First, that Zoroaster's teaching arose in the country of the Medes at the same time that they were being attacked and subdued by the Assyrians. And, secondly, that Zoroaster was himself expelled from his homeland to take refuge in the east.
     
    The Evolution of Man and Society, C.D. Darlington
    , @Anonymous
    Only problem is that you have to be born a Parsee to be a Parsee.
    , @Karl
    28 Malla > This religion is Aryanism concentrated


    if it was....


    > and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul

    then it would have been
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Christianity was better than most religions
     
    Please provide the list of those religions better than Christianity. Stop a three if it becomes tedious.

    Greek Mythology

    Judaism(though it’s only for Jews) as combo of universal truth and tribal-ancestor-appreciation(if not worship)

    Chrislam, if it ever takes off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You're going to explain that, or I'm just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be "better."

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I'm not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being "better" than anything.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    I was about to write "you cannot be serious." But after reading Chesterton I am sure you are.

    Greek mythology, and its "sacred texts," the Iliad and the Odyssey, celebrated vice; Judaism is a tribal religion, and tribalism is the formula for perpetual suffering, war, slavery, and greed. Chrislam is the most incoherent religious idea fabricated in any fevered mind since the Moloch worship of the Punic diaspora.

    You either don't understand what you have posted, or you have sold your soul.

    I'll come down to watch you stand before The Great White Throne. And I'll be happy to argue that you were just stupid in this life. But I wouldn't want to you on that day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Anon
    Do you suppose we'll come to a point where white people are condemned for having ended slavery?

    I mean that was Eurocentric white morality.

    Slavery was a universal thing all around the world, and it was accepted as anything from tolerable to even moral and sanctioned by the divine.

    So, who were these Europeans to force their moral imperialism on others?

    When we look at South Africa, lots of traditional superstitious stuff is making a comeback, and it's justified on grounds that it's native and being revived as an act of defiance against the cultural imperialism of the West.

    For the most part, non-whites have adopted white morality -- slavery is evil -- and blame whites for having enslaved others. But as white power and prestige keeps decreasing in the West and as non-whites keep exerting their different or multi-culti way of doing things, maybe there will be a huge paradigm shift. The great white evil was not trading in slaves but in having ended slavery and then forced all the world to stop practicing it as well.

    Maybe the return of slavery is a kind of reconfiguration of the world to its original state before white powers decided to transform so much and force its moral imperatives on other peoples.

    As whites lose the power and will to repress, the world finds a way to regress.

    I can just see it now... some black guy pens an article defending slavery... at least as long as it's a local affair. So, if Africans enslave Africans, it's just their culture.

    Look at Libya. Slave trade has returned there.

    The Hoteps are pretty vocal about the Libyan slave stuff.

    The MSM has no idea how to process blacks off the mental reservation tho so you hear nothing about them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. wren says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Where is Britain’s leader who will say “That’s not who we are?”
     
    Saying, "This is what you will be."

    Yeah, see my reply to #1 Nigel.

    He likes to speak and he loves to be spoken to.

    1979.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    XTC - a band perpetually on the verge of 'making it' but never quite getting there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Actually, the phenomenon of black gangs pushing drugs in the English county towns is nothing knew.
    London is more or less ‘bombed out’ in the sense that apart from an ultra wealthy elite, it’s packed with millions upon millions of poor people – just like The Economist wanted.
    Now, London’s super-rich are a damned lucrative market for the black drug gangs, but that market has be sewn-up years ago. The untold millions of paupers, of all ethnicities, likewise have been saturated and sewn-up, so the cunning blacks, knowing ‘where the money is’ have targeted the county towns, the still pleasant places of England, which still have value-adding industry and a prosperous, but somewhat naive white English working class. Places such as Worcester, Salisbury, Cheltenham etc etc. Places packed with naive young whites with money in their pockets desperate to be ‘trendy’ by taking drugs. As I said, there’s a damned big, lucrative market in those parts with no competition.
    - and I’ve read that the London blacks have even targeted the richer parts of Scotland such as Aberdeen.

    ‘Cunning as serpents’ the gangs get dumb young white women ‘hooked’ in more ways than one by ‘loss-leading’ them drugs at a discount. The same ‘white bitches’ , as they are termed, are used as go-betweens in the county towns as they are inconspicuous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    If this has been going on awhile why haven't the country folk wised up to it yet? Why are adults not instilling their children (and especially their girls) with a healthy dose of cynicism? Are the gangs targeting broken homes only?

    I think what would help the West more than anything would be young people learning survival skills. Scouting but tougher and less dorky. People fall for tricks because they are iphone-addicted zombies who don't go outside and have never been forced to struggle and think on their feet. Also going outside would cure depression and listlessness, thus the whole reason for drugs being attractive in the first place. My teenage cousin has a vitamin D deficiency and is depressed, but his weak-willed parents won't make him go outside to help alleviate the problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can’t be worse than what we have now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Naturally, eunuchs are 'above and beyond' 'temptations of the flesh' - and to appease the feministas - Weinsteinism, and therefore more or less incorruptible. Also by having the hard, analytical and problem solving male mind and energy devoted, more or less, to the great matters of state, the mind being focused, razor-sharp, as it were, on government matters to the exclusion of all else, in theory, at least, an intelligent, diligent eunuch simply cannot be beaten as a wise, capable and just administrator. They were, essentially, married to the state and devoted to the state.

    In the final analysis, surely, government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine - which is the sad truth of today's f*cked-up world.

    'Tis better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains.
    , @Laugh Track

    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can’t be worse than what we have now.
     
    I thought that was what we do have now. e.g. Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Macron, Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker, et al. And let's not forget Graham Norton.
    , @Daniel H
    >>Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west,

    Well, we have a start with Jared. Let's see how that works out
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Can’t be worse than what we have now.
     
    It can always be worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. gcochran says:
    @Mr. Anon

    The man, whom she knew as Ziggy, took her phone and money. He then drove her to a dark, squalid garage with no windows, where she lived for the next seven months with various drug addicts.
     
    Sounds pretty much like a scene in Taken.

    Which suggests the remedy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Indeed. The only remedy that would really work.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @wren
    This is the age of Soros. Martel has been replaced by Merkel, and someone has already made plans for you.

    They only want what's best for you, after all, and you just need that helping hand.

    They're only making plans for Nigel.

    Hah! Spot-on lyrical reference.

    Here’s a UK police recruitment pitch:

    Come and join the federation
    We could have communication
    You can have your application
    Be inside the battle station
    Could this be your fascination
    Look out for hallucinations
    Stick right to the regulations
    Must keep down the population

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    London is drowning, and I live by the river.

    https://youtu.be/EfK-WX2pa8c

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. White Slavery Is Back in England

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Malla
    "Christianity was better than most religions"
    Christianity is good but Zoroastrianism is better, closer to the Aryan soul and does not have the self hate 'born a sinner' mentality of Christianity. Christianity is good but you just cannot remove the Semitic crap at it's core.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/04/immortality-and-the-eternal-quest-for-excellence/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/01/03/is-god-the-mirror-image-of-man-in-zoroastrianism/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/08/12/the-poetic-gathas-according-and-will-to-become-godlike/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/11/22/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-the-innocent-and-the-good/

    This religion is Aryanism concentrated and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/10/17/ayathrima-the-last-autumnal-thanksgiving-festival-and-celtic-samhain/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/07/13/avestan-airyaman-irmin-got-as-a-name-of-odin-and-the-irish-eremon/

    Zoroastrianism, like its contemporary Buddhism in India, was derived racially not from the Aryan invaders but rather from the native sources reacting against the brutality of these invaders. This is shown notably by their common rejection of blood sacrifices and their common appeal to the brotherhood of man. It is also indicated by two traditionally accepted circumstances. First, that Zoroaster’s teaching arose in the country of the Medes at the same time that they were being attacked and subdued by the Assyrians. And, secondly, that Zoroaster was himself expelled from his homeland to take refuge in the east.

    The Evolution of Man and Society, C.D. Darlington

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism? Can you explain why the Vikings were called Al Majus by Muslims while no other people were called so besides the Persians.

    Buddha is called Sakyamuni, Sakya or Sacas from the Scythians amd Muni means sage/hermit.

    Scythians were blond/red haired blue eyed White people
    FROM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians
    "In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting European traits.[128] In Histories, the 5th-century Greek historian Herodotus describes the Budini of Scythia as red-haired and grey-eyed.[128] In the 5th century BC, Greek physician Hippocrates argued that the Scythians have purron (ruddy) skin.[128][129] In the 3rd century BC, the Greek poet Callimachus described the Arismapes (Arimaspi) of Scythia as fair-haired.[128][130] The 2nd century BC Han Chinese envoy Zhang Qian described the Sai (Scythians) as having yellow (probably meaning hazel or green), and blue eyes.[128] In Natural History, the 1st century AD Roman author Pliny the Elder characterizes the Seres, sometimes identified as Iranians (Scythians) or Tocharians, as red-haired and blue-eyed.[128][131] In the late 2nd century AD, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria says that the Scythians are fair-haired.[128][132] The 2nd century Greek philosopher Polemon includes the Scythians among the northern peoples characterized by red hair and blue-grey eyes.[128] In the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, the Greek physician Galen declares that Sarmatians, Scythians and other northern peoples have reddish hair.[128][133] The fourth-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that the Alans, a people closely related to the Scythians, were tall, blond and light-eyed.[134] The 4th century bishop of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired.[135] The 5th-century physician Adamantius, who often follow Polemon, describes the Scythians are fair-haired."

    and some of them ruled India and settled in India as royal Kshatriyas
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

    Physical characteristics of the Buddha
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha
    Characteristics 29: Deep Blue Eyes


    You will get more details about it here
    http://thaimangoes.blogspot.in/2009/08/h9.html
    , @Malla
    Actually the real native reaction to the invading Aryans is the Hinduism we know today which is predominantly Puranic Hinduism and not Vedic Hinduism. The Vedas are kept because they are the oldest written texts in the subcontinent but besides that nobody really bothers with them. This Puranic Hinduism which was formed about 4 centuries after Christ keeps some Vedic Aryan traditions and the Vedic books but is actually formed from a mixture of Central Asian Aryan, Babylonian, Tibetic/East Asian and the native tribal religions of the subcontinent by the new mixed population. Thus many of the Aryan gods like Indra, Varuna, Mitra etc... were demoted and new Gods were made more important in their place during this period, which is still the case today in Hinduism.
    , @Malla
    I see why Mr. Darlington came to that conclusion as far as Buddhism is concerned. That is because the Buddha rejected the Vedas and Brahmin superiority (That is why Brahmins played a big role in the destruction of Buddhism in India and the violence against Buddhist). But maybe Mr. Darlington was unaware of the Scythian (and thus Central Asian White) lineage of the Buddha. And even if the Buddha rejected the Vedas, Hinduism at his time was a deteriorated version of the original Vedic Hindusism and there was nothing Aryan like (nobleness) in the behaviour of the Brahmans anymore. The Budhha himself was more Aryan then them in manner and nature.
    Even if Zoroastrianism arose from the natives, they overwhelmingly borrowed from the Aryan past. And I believe by this time, the Aryans had already become the Natives or mixed with the earlier natives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Malla
    "Christianity was better than most religions"
    Christianity is good but Zoroastrianism is better, closer to the Aryan soul and does not have the self hate 'born a sinner' mentality of Christianity. Christianity is good but you just cannot remove the Semitic crap at it's core.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/04/immortality-and-the-eternal-quest-for-excellence/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/01/03/is-god-the-mirror-image-of-man-in-zoroastrianism/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/08/12/the-poetic-gathas-according-and-will-to-become-godlike/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/11/22/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-the-innocent-and-the-good/

    This religion is Aryanism concentrated and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/10/17/ayathrima-the-last-autumnal-thanksgiving-festival-and-celtic-samhain/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/07/13/avestan-airyaman-irmin-got-as-a-name-of-odin-and-the-irish-eremon/

    Only problem is that you have to be born a Parsee to be a Parsee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    The Parsis are a bunch of Persians who came to India to escape the Muslims, no one knows what place they had in Persian society and a lot of their behaviour is Jewish. The Portuguese described them as European like and Jewish like but the truth is most Parsis today have Indian ancestry in them from their female line. Besides that, the Parsi Dasturs had virtually no real deep knowledge of their books and just like the degraded Hindus around them, their religion had became wholly ritual. It were the Europeans who studied their texts in deep and researched the theology of Zoaraster. Same with Hinduism. Most Indians had no knowledge of their history, of their own Emperor Ashoka until the British scholars told them. Most of what we know of Indian history is because of the British officers of the East India company.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    "There's no mention in the article of the ethnicity of the grooming gang."

    Whereas the New York Times is purposefully oblivious of their ethnicity, the Daily Mail provides plenty of references to the ethnicities of the many grooming gangs (note plural). Not surprising about the NYT's purposeful obtuseness!

    Earlier this year, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    I often turn to the Daily Mail as a first choice to get a quick idea about a news story. I like that they include text and pictures and video that get straight to the point.

    I understand that they may be sometimes sensational or unreliable, but I still read them.

    So I’m not sure if Daily Mail really does give me better info or if I’ve just become a deplorable bottom-dwelling Neanderthal.

    Probably a bit of both. Can I blame Trump?

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Jimbo the Wimbo maybe wants to make sure the cheques comes in?

    (... apparently there is plenty of cash while Wikipedia is still asking for handouts every year? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ )
    , @Anonymous
    Wikipedia lefties were angry about the election and lashing out at an easy target.
    , @Eagle Eye

    Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.
     
    Daily Mail still publishes news items that contravene The Narrative, e.g. on issues such as immigration, Muslim rape gangs, etc.

    This is why NSA/Wikipedia banned DM.

    A real online encyclopedia would look at the reliability of news sources case-by-case.

    As part of the same effort to gradually bring Wikipedia in line with The Narrative, Wikipedia's internal structure has been revamped with the establishment of cooperating cabals of "admins" and editors who zealously guard the purity of "their" content. Even edits in line with the ideological leanings of article authors are routinely deleted within seconds to protect the turf and exclusive control of the establishment cabal.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Can I blame Trump?
     
    Yes, but you should thank him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @wren
    Yeah, see my reply to #1 Nigel.

    He likes to speak and he loves to be spoken to.

    1979.

    https://youtu.be/mfsYSPCNWCw

    XTC – a band perpetually on the verge of ‘making it’ but never quite getting there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @wren
    Unlike England, which once "made it," but since then seems perpetually on the verge of never quite getting back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. El Dato says:

    Citizen 1: What happen ?
    Citizen 2: Somebody set up us the population bomb.
    Citizen 3: We get signal on TV.
    Citizen 1: What !
    Citizen 2: 22-inch china-made flatscreen turn on.
    Citizen 1: It’s you !!

    Cosmo-Pols: How are you gentlemen !!
    Cosmo-Pols: All your base are belong to us.
    Cosmo-Pols: You are on the way to destruction.

    Citizen 1: What you say !!

    Cosmo-Pols: You have no chance to survive make your time.
    Cosmo-Pols: Ha ha ha ha …

    Citizen 2: Citizen 1 !!
    Citizen 1: Take off every ‘ZIGGY’!!
    Citizen 1: You know what you doing.
    Citizen 1: Move ‘ZIGGY’.
    Citizen 1: For great justice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. wren says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Hah! Spot-on lyrical reference.

    Here's a UK police recruitment pitch:

    Come and join the federation
    We could have communication
    You can have your application
    Be inside the battle station
    Could this be your fascination
    Look out for hallucinations
    Stick right to the regulations
    Must keep down the population
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofCqEgYdcXs

    London is drowning, and I live by the river.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    The Clash were big enough to play Shea Stadium http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIFublvDes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. El Dato says:
    @European-American
    Earlier this year, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    I often turn to the Daily Mail as a first choice to get a quick idea about a news story. I like that they include text and pictures and video that get straight to the point.

    I understand that they may be sometimes sensational or unreliable, but I still read them.

    So I’m not sure if Daily Mail really does give me better info or if I’ve just become a deplorable bottom-dwelling Neanderthal.

    Probably a bit of both. Can I blame Trump?

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

    Jimbo the Wimbo maybe wants to make sure the cheques comes in?

    (… apparently there is plenty of cash while Wikipedia is still asking for handouts every year? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It takes some gall to pester for money people who work for you for free.

    How about Wikipedia instead starts paying a wage to all the drudges who work to keep it going?
    , @European-American
    Thanks, that's an interesting article about Wikipedia finances. That was from 5 years ago, but it was apparently more of the same last year:
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_promise/

    I wouldn't mind at all if Wikipedia was flush with cash, except insofar as a pile of cash can lead to excess. I think it deserves to be rich, given the service it renders to billions of people. A service it renders apparently without any of the common privacy-killing deals with the devil that other big web entities make. And without depending on government handouts. It's a miracle, really. Far better that it have too much money than it go bankrupt and die like so many nice ideas.

    But yeah, it's a tricky path for Wikipedia to follow. At least as worrisome is all the incomprehensible bureaucracy and insider politics in the management of Wikipedia, even at the volunteer level. I've tried to look into it occasionally, for example when asked to vote for Wikipedia officers, but it has left me baffled. But bureaucracy and insiderness may be inevitable. Hopefully it won't choke the goose with the golden eggs (pardon the mixed-up metaphor).

    And then there is the danger that pc (or other nefarious forces such as corporations, lobbyists, government services, spammers, ...) will take over everything, like elsewhere. But so far it has done ok, not perfectly, but ok, so I will keep hoping the best for it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. wren says:
    @Anonymous
    XTC - a band perpetually on the verge of 'making it' but never quite getting there.

    Unlike England, which once “made it,” but since then seems perpetually on the verge of never quite getting back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Karl says:
    @Malla
    "Christianity was better than most religions"
    Christianity is good but Zoroastrianism is better, closer to the Aryan soul and does not have the self hate 'born a sinner' mentality of Christianity. Christianity is good but you just cannot remove the Semitic crap at it's core.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/04/immortality-and-the-eternal-quest-for-excellence/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/01/03/is-god-the-mirror-image-of-man-in-zoroastrianism/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2013/08/12/the-poetic-gathas-according-and-will-to-become-godlike/
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/11/22/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-the-innocent-and-the-good/

    This religion is Aryanism concentrated and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/10/17/ayathrima-the-last-autumnal-thanksgiving-festival-and-celtic-samhain/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/07/13/avestan-airyaman-irmin-got-as-a-name-of-odin-and-the-irish-eremon/

    28 Malla > This religion is Aryanism concentrated

    if it was….

    > and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul

    then it would have been

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    It would have been great if you would have gone through those links before commenting. People rarely got a chance to choose from a range of options what religion they would want to choose. It is forced upon them or they are ignorant of other choices in the world. Were the Saxons who Charlemagne defeated given a choice between Christianity and Confucianism? Were the North Africans defeated by the Arabs given a choice between Islam and Shinto? I think not.
    Anyways Christianity (Catholicism or Orthodoxy) only survived in Europe because they had adopted many European pre Christian concepts and festivals in the new religion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUDT1L2Iy9I
    , @Logan
    It is generally conceded that early Catholicism adopted a great deal from Zoroastianism in its Mithraist version.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can't be worse than what we have now.

    Naturally, eunuchs are ‘above and beyond’ ‘temptations of the flesh’ – and to appease the feministas – Weinsteinism, and therefore more or less incorruptible. Also by having the hard, analytical and problem solving male mind and energy devoted, more or less, to the great matters of state, the mind being focused, razor-sharp, as it were, on government matters to the exclusion of all else, in theory, at least, an intelligent, diligent eunuch simply cannot be beaten as a wise, capable and just administrator. They were, essentially, married to the state and devoted to the state.

    In the final analysis, surely, government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine – which is the sad truth of today’s f*cked-up world.

    ‘Tis better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine
     
    Excellent.
    , @Anon
    "better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains"

    And no-heart.
    , @Logan
    I don't think anyone who's looked into the history of eunuch government would say such a thing. It generally coincided, at least in China, with truly spectacular levels of corruption and hence the approaching loss of the Mandate of Heaven and collapse of a dynasty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Sex slavery seems to be very much Muslim-run, except for the Thai brothels which I think tend to be run by indigenous white criminals, rather than east-Asian gangs. Most victims are young indigenous white girls and some Sikh girls to a lesser extent (Sikhs are targetted but generally less accessible).

    Labour slavery seems to be mostly Irish Travellers enslaving ‘vulnerable’ indigenous men.

    Of course rich foreigners also bring in their own indentured servants/slaves, and immigrant-import gangs make their illegals work to pay off their smuggling fees. These are by ethnicity; Vietnamese smuggler gangs ‘own’ Vietnamese illegals etc. A lot of these cases are marginal in terms of what counts as slavery; they tend to rely on threats to the family back home to prevent runaways.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @European-American
    Earlier this year, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    I often turn to the Daily Mail as a first choice to get a quick idea about a news story. I like that they include text and pictures and video that get straight to the point.

    I understand that they may be sometimes sensational or unreliable, but I still read them.

    So I’m not sure if Daily Mail really does give me better info or if I’ve just become a deplorable bottom-dwelling Neanderthal.

    Probably a bit of both. Can I blame Trump?

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

    Wikipedia lefties were angry about the election and lashing out at an easy target.

    Read More
    • Agree: European-American
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. El Dato says:
    @Anonymous
    Naturally, eunuchs are 'above and beyond' 'temptations of the flesh' - and to appease the feministas - Weinsteinism, and therefore more or less incorruptible. Also by having the hard, analytical and problem solving male mind and energy devoted, more or less, to the great matters of state, the mind being focused, razor-sharp, as it were, on government matters to the exclusion of all else, in theory, at least, an intelligent, diligent eunuch simply cannot be beaten as a wise, capable and just administrator. They were, essentially, married to the state and devoted to the state.

    In the final analysis, surely, government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine - which is the sad truth of today's f*cked-up world.

    'Tis better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains.

    government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine

    Excellent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Kevin C. says:
    @nigel
    Where is Charles Martel?

    Where is Charles Martel?

    Saint Denis Basilica in Paris, over twelve centuries dead, and his likes never to be seen again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @El Dato
    Jimbo the Wimbo maybe wants to make sure the cheques comes in?

    (... apparently there is plenty of cash while Wikipedia is still asking for handouts every year? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ )

    It takes some gall to pester for money people who work for you for free.

    How about Wikipedia instead starts paying a wage to all the drudges who work to keep it going?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Kevin C. says:
    @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery.

    More like will revert. And while I have much to say in favor of many things that are often described as “medievalism”, the price will be the permanent loss of technological (Industrial revolution) civilization, like Derbyshire talked about here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Neoconned says:
    @nigel
    Where is Charles Martel?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.stereogum.com/1972241/morrissey-defends-kevin-spacey-and-harvey-weinstein-saying-victims-shouldve-known-what-could-happen/news%3famp=1#ampshare=https://www.stereogum.com/1972241/morrissey-defends-kevin-spacey-and-harvey-weinstein-saying-victims-shouldve-known-what-could-happen/news/

    Morrissey defends Kevin Spacey, among others. You know it didn’t occur to me until I read this…. Spacey never explicitly admitted the encounter.

    Morrissey asked where were the boys parents? Indeed…..

    Anyway….it’s an interesting read and reminds me why I love Morrissey….he brings grey context to attempts to paint the world black & white…..

    Read More
    • Agree: Thea
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Muslims in Europe frequently whine that they’re the “new Jews”. That’s kind of true, but not in the way they mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Zoroastrianism, like its contemporary Buddhism in India, was derived racially not from the Aryan invaders but rather from the native sources reacting against the brutality of these invaders. This is shown notably by their common rejection of blood sacrifices and their common appeal to the brotherhood of man. It is also indicated by two traditionally accepted circumstances. First, that Zoroaster's teaching arose in the country of the Medes at the same time that they were being attacked and subdued by the Assyrians. And, secondly, that Zoroaster was himself expelled from his homeland to take refuge in the east.
     
    The Evolution of Man and Society, C.D. Darlington

    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism? Can you explain why the Vikings were called Al Majus by Muslims while no other people were called so besides the Persians.

    Buddha is called Sakyamuni, Sakya or Sacas from the Scythians amd Muni means sage/hermit.

    Scythians were blond/red haired blue eyed White people
    FROM

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

    “In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting European traits.[128] In Histories, the 5th-century Greek historian Herodotus describes the Budini of Scythia as red-haired and grey-eyed.[128] In the 5th century BC, Greek physician Hippocrates argued that the Scythians have purron (ruddy) skin.[128][129] In the 3rd century BC, the Greek poet Callimachus described the Arismapes (Arimaspi) of Scythia as fair-haired.[128][130] The 2nd century BC Han Chinese envoy Zhang Qian described the Sai (Scythians) as having yellow (probably meaning hazel or green), and blue eyes.[128] In Natural History, the 1st century AD Roman author Pliny the Elder characterizes the Seres, sometimes identified as Iranians (Scythians) or Tocharians, as red-haired and blue-eyed.[128][131] In the late 2nd century AD, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria says that the Scythians are fair-haired.[128][132] The 2nd century Greek philosopher Polemon includes the Scythians among the northern peoples characterized by red hair and blue-grey eyes.[128] In the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, the Greek physician Galen declares that Sarmatians, Scythians and other northern peoples have reddish hair.[128][133] The fourth-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that the Alans, a people closely related to the Scythians, were tall, blond and light-eyed.[134] The 4th century bishop of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired.[135] The 5th-century physician Adamantius, who often follow Polemon, describes the Scythians are fair-haired.”

    and some of them ruled India and settled in India as royal Kshatriyas

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

    Physical characteristics of the Buddha

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

    Characteristics 29: Deep Blue Eyes

    You will get more details about it here

    http://thaimangoes.blogspot.in/2009/08/h9.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    Moslem voyagers, traders, and theologians from the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties/caliphates, came into contact with the Vikings during their visits to trading centers such as Kiev and Novgorod, part of the “Volga Trade route.” Moslems appeared to have become very familiar with the Old Norse kinsfolk and their belief systems during these visits.

    Moslems classified the Vikings as Majūs or “heathen Zoroastrians,” since they thought them to be very much like Zoroastrians of pre Islamic Iran/Persia.

    Majūs, plural majūsī, from Greek Mágos μάγος, Latin Magus, is a term that goes back to the Avestan magá, referring to the Zoroastrian shaman warriors.

    According to Ibn Rustah’s (10th century,) Vikings accorded great respect to their ‘shamans’ [attibah] who had great authority over their chieftain.

    In almost all moslem accounts, reference to the Vikings starts with the phrase: “al-Majus (Vikings/Zoroastrians) – May God curse them!” Moslem envoys referred to the Viking chiefs/kings as malik al-majūs, and to the Viking lands as bilād al-majūs.

    Regarding Christianized Vikings, Moslem accounts state: Norse men were Majusi “Zoroastrian heathens,” but they now follow the Christian faith dīn al-naṣranīya, and have given up fire-worship and their previous religion, except for the people of a few scattered islands of theirs in the sea, where they keep to their old Majusi (Zoroastrian) faith.

    Moslem accounts to the Vikings include Al-Ghazal’s (8th – 9th Century, Al-Andalus) entitled “embassy mission to the Vikings,” originated within Al-Muqtabis fi tarikh al-Andalus of Ibn Hayyan (The collected knowledge on the history of Al-Andalus.)

    The most extensive account on the Vikings by Moslems is that written by Ibn Fadlan (10th Century, Baghdad.)

    The notion that the Moslem classification of the Vikings as Majusi “Pagan Zoroastrians,” was simply a case of mistaken identity is highly unlikely. Majus as Zoroastrians appears many times in hadith (words ascribed to Mohammad,) and once in Quran 22.17. In fact, moslem use of the designation Majus in the new context of the Norse people, proves that they were very conscious/aware of the meaning of the term.



    Prophet Zarathustra, in his poetic gathas calls his fellowship airyá “noble, honorable, Aryan,” or magá “magnificent, mighty, of masterful powers/abilities.”

    Émile Benveniste believed that Avestan term magá– signified a priestly or shamanic-warrior clan among the ancient Aryans/Iranians, renowned for their “mightily powers and abilities,” (Benveniste, 1938, pp. 13, 18-20.)

    Accordingly, Avestan magá is cognate with Old Church Slavonic mogo “to be able” Germanic magan, English may “enable, make possible,” Greek mekhos, all going back to the reconstructed Indo-European root *magh.

    Moslems recognized early on the great similarity between the Norse beliefs and Ancient Zoroastrianism. Both Zoroastrianism and Norse beliefs go back to a common Indo-European/ancient Aryan heritage.

    However, within the Indo European world, ancient Zoroastrianism and Old Norse beliefs show a much greater similarity and closer kinship to each other.

    Zoroastrian and Viking apocalyptic literature are almost identical. Both frašö-kart and Ragnarök foretell a series of future events, including a great battle that ultimately will result in the splendid renewal of the god powers and the worlds. In both traditions, mortal men are the allies and friends of the Immortal gods in this impending battle.

    In both, the Immortal Gods, the ahûrás and the æsir are “god beings who embody “the cosmic order, and the quest for excellence.”

    Both define their faiths as steadfast allegiance to the ahûrás (ahûra–tkaæšö) and/or true faith in the aesir. Interestingly, neither the term ahûrá nor the æsir was ever adopted in islamic Persia or christian Scandinavia.

    Both ancient Zoroastrianism and Norse accounts are characterized by an underlying duality between the “evolving, creative consciousness of the god beings, the ahûrás and the æsir,” verses the “inertia, gloom, stagnation,” of the daævás “diabolic forces” in the Avesta, and monster giants in the Eddas.

    For the god-powers ignite life energy and creativity into the universe, while the anti-gods have no vital or creative energies, and are devoid of any genius or meaningful imagination in both traditions.

    Odin or Óðinn like Mazdá, the supreme ahûrá Of Zoroastrianism, is the chief among the aesir. Both Mazdá and Óðinn are the “essence of godhood” present in all life forms. They both represent higher wisdom and the odyssey, progress of consciousness/mind power, and are not static, but eternally evolving and perfecting themselves.

    Odin’s discovery of the runes of wisdom in “nine days and nights,” is identical to the Zoroastrian purification and pondering period of 9 days and nights for the Zoroastrian priests.

    While Mazdá is etymologically related to Greek Muses “Inspirational sources of creativity, knowledge and wisdom,” however, among the Indo European Gods, Mazdá is undoubtedly the closest to/identical to Óðinn.

    Óðinn in the sense of “sacred vision and shamanic wisdom” is derived from the root wōthuz, a cognate of Old Church Slavonic aviti and Avestan vaiti.

    The root vaiti appears in the poetic gathas in Yasna 44.18, 4th rhymed verse line in the sense of “having insight, sacred vision of wholeness, healing powers.”

    The root vaiti comes again in the form of vátö in the gahic Yasnna 35.6, and in the form of váté in the gathic Yasna 35.7. In the younger Avesta, the root appears in Yasna 9.25 and Vendidad 9.2, 9.47, 9.52.

    Last but not least, Herodotus maintained that the Magá were a hereditary priestly clan among the ancient Zoroastrians. It turns out that the very rare haplogroup I L41 or I-M170 appears in high frequency in Iran, only among some Zoroastrian Iranian priestly families, in the Caspian mountains (the last stronghold of Zoroastrianism in Iran,) and among some isolated group of mountainous Kurds. Otherwise, Haplogroup I, is found almost exclusively today in the Dinaric Alps, and in Northwestern Europe or Scandinavia.

    I L41 or I-M170 is a defining SNP for haplogroup I, and contains individuals directly descended from the earliest members of Haplogroup I, bearing none of the subsequent mutations. In other words, it is Proto Old Norse and Proto South Slavic.

    Before taking My genetic Natgeo2 test, I thought for sure, that I must definitely belong to haplogroup R1a, the most common haplogroup among ancient Iranians, and many Eastern and some Northern Europeans of today. It turned out that my haplogroup is I L41 or I M170 shared by 0.03 percent of all participants in the Natgeo2 project.

    This genetic connection to pagan Europe, strongly suggests more than a close kinship of ideas, but old blood ties among priestly clans of ancient Zoroastrian Iran, and shamans of pagan Europe.

    After all, the other common term for priests in the Avesta is āθra.van “Keeper of family hearth or flame.”
    , @Anon

    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism?
     
    Yeah. There aren't that many and those that exist are borrowed at second hand from Christianity.

    Christian influence is pretty easily discernible.
    Odin pierced by a spear and hanging from a tree? I mean, c'mon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Malla says:
    @Malla
    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism? Can you explain why the Vikings were called Al Majus by Muslims while no other people were called so besides the Persians.

    Buddha is called Sakyamuni, Sakya or Sacas from the Scythians amd Muni means sage/hermit.

    Scythians were blond/red haired blue eyed White people
    FROM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians
    "In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting European traits.[128] In Histories, the 5th-century Greek historian Herodotus describes the Budini of Scythia as red-haired and grey-eyed.[128] In the 5th century BC, Greek physician Hippocrates argued that the Scythians have purron (ruddy) skin.[128][129] In the 3rd century BC, the Greek poet Callimachus described the Arismapes (Arimaspi) of Scythia as fair-haired.[128][130] The 2nd century BC Han Chinese envoy Zhang Qian described the Sai (Scythians) as having yellow (probably meaning hazel or green), and blue eyes.[128] In Natural History, the 1st century AD Roman author Pliny the Elder characterizes the Seres, sometimes identified as Iranians (Scythians) or Tocharians, as red-haired and blue-eyed.[128][131] In the late 2nd century AD, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria says that the Scythians are fair-haired.[128][132] The 2nd century Greek philosopher Polemon includes the Scythians among the northern peoples characterized by red hair and blue-grey eyes.[128] In the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, the Greek physician Galen declares that Sarmatians, Scythians and other northern peoples have reddish hair.[128][133] The fourth-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that the Alans, a people closely related to the Scythians, were tall, blond and light-eyed.[134] The 4th century bishop of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired.[135] The 5th-century physician Adamantius, who often follow Polemon, describes the Scythians are fair-haired."

    and some of them ruled India and settled in India as royal Kshatriyas
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

    Physical characteristics of the Buddha
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha
    Characteristics 29: Deep Blue Eyes


    You will get more details about it here
    http://thaimangoes.blogspot.in/2009/08/h9.html

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    Moslem voyagers, traders, and theologians from the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties/caliphates, came into contact with the Vikings during their visits to trading centers such as Kiev and Novgorod, part of the “Volga Trade route.” Moslems appeared to have become very familiar with the Old Norse kinsfolk and their belief systems during these visits.

    Moslems classified the Vikings as Majūs or “heathen Zoroastrians,” since they thought them to be very much like Zoroastrians of pre Islamic Iran/Persia.

    Majūs, plural majūsī, from Greek Mágos μάγος, Latin Magus, is a term that goes back to the Avestan magá, referring to the Zoroastrian shaman warriors.

    According to Ibn Rustah’s (10th century,) Vikings accorded great respect to their ‘shamans’ [attibah] who had great authority over their chieftain.

    In almost all moslem accounts, reference to the Vikings starts with the phrase: “al-Majus (Vikings/Zoroastrians) – May God curse them!” Moslem envoys referred to the Viking chiefs/kings as malik al-majūs, and to the Viking lands as bilād al-majūs.

    Regarding Christianized Vikings, Moslem accounts state: Norse men were Majusi “Zoroastrian heathens,” but they now follow the Christian faith dīn al-naṣranīya, and have given up fire-worship and their previous religion, except for the people of a few scattered islands of theirs in the sea, where they keep to their old Majusi (Zoroastrian) faith.

    Moslem accounts to the Vikings include Al-Ghazal’s (8th – 9th Century, Al-Andalus) entitled “embassy mission to the Vikings,” originated within Al-Muqtabis fi tarikh al-Andalus of Ibn Hayyan (The collected knowledge on the history of Al-Andalus.)

    The most extensive account on the Vikings by Moslems is that written by Ibn Fadlan (10th Century, Baghdad.)

    The notion that the Moslem classification of the Vikings as Majusi “Pagan Zoroastrians,” was simply a case of mistaken identity is highly unlikely. Majus as Zoroastrians appears many times in hadith (words ascribed to Mohammad,) and once in Quran 22.17. In fact, moslem use of the designation Majus in the new context of the Norse people, proves that they were very conscious/aware of the meaning of the term.

    [MORE]

    Prophet Zarathustra, in his poetic gathas calls his fellowship airyá “noble, honorable, Aryan,” or magá “magnificent, mighty, of masterful powers/abilities.”

    Émile Benveniste believed that Avestan term magá– signified a priestly or shamanic-warrior clan among the ancient Aryans/Iranians, renowned for their “mightily powers and abilities,” (Benveniste, 1938, pp. 13, 18-20.)

    Accordingly, Avestan magá is cognate with Old Church Slavonic mogo “to be able” Germanic magan, English may “enable, make possible,” Greek mekhos, all going back to the reconstructed Indo-European root *magh.

    Moslems recognized early on the great similarity between the Norse beliefs and Ancient Zoroastrianism. Both Zoroastrianism and Norse beliefs go back to a common Indo-European/ancient Aryan heritage.

    However, within the Indo European world, ancient Zoroastrianism and Old Norse beliefs show a much greater similarity and closer kinship to each other.

    Zoroastrian and Viking apocalyptic literature are almost identical. Both frašö-kart and Ragnarök foretell a series of future events, including a great battle that ultimately will result in the splendid renewal of the god powers and the worlds. In both traditions, mortal men are the allies and friends of the Immortal gods in this impending battle.

    In both, the Immortal Gods, the ahûrás and the æsir are “god beings who embody “the cosmic order, and the quest for excellence.”

    Both define their faiths as steadfast allegiance to the ahûrás (ahûra–tkaæšö) and/or true faith in the aesir. Interestingly, neither the term ahûrá nor the æsir was ever adopted in islamic Persia or christian Scandinavia.

    Both ancient Zoroastrianism and Norse accounts are characterized by an underlying duality between the “evolving, creative consciousness of the god beings, the ahûrás and the æsir,” verses the “inertia, gloom, stagnation,” of the daævás “diabolic forces” in the Avesta, and monster giants in the Eddas.

    For the god-powers ignite life energy and creativity into the universe, while the anti-gods have no vital or creative energies, and are devoid of any genius or meaningful imagination in both traditions.

    Odin or Óðinn like Mazdá, the supreme ahûrá Of Zoroastrianism, is the chief among the aesir. Both Mazdá and Óðinn are the “essence of godhood” present in all life forms. They both represent higher wisdom and the odyssey, progress of consciousness/mind power, and are not static, but eternally evolving and perfecting themselves.

    Odin’s discovery of the runes of wisdom in “nine days and nights,” is identical to the Zoroastrian purification and pondering period of 9 days and nights for the Zoroastrian priests.

    While Mazdá is etymologically related to Greek Muses “Inspirational sources of creativity, knowledge and wisdom,” however, among the Indo European Gods, Mazdá is undoubtedly the closest to/identical to Óðinn.

    Óðinn in the sense of “sacred vision and shamanic wisdom” is derived from the root wōthuz, a cognate of Old Church Slavonic aviti and Avestan vaiti.

    The root vaiti appears in the poetic gathas in Yasna 44.18, 4th rhymed verse line in the sense of “having insight, sacred vision of wholeness, healing powers.”

    The root vaiti comes again in the form of vátö in the gahic Yasnna 35.6, and in the form of váté in the gathic Yasna 35.7. In the younger Avesta, the root appears in Yasna 9.25 and Vendidad 9.2, 9.47, 9.52.

    Last but not least, Herodotus maintained that the Magá were a hereditary priestly clan among the ancient Zoroastrians. It turns out that the very rare haplogroup I L41 or I-M170 appears in high frequency in Iran, only among some Zoroastrian Iranian priestly families, in the Caspian mountains (the last stronghold of Zoroastrianism in Iran,) and among some isolated group of mountainous Kurds. Otherwise, Haplogroup I, is found almost exclusively today in the Dinaric Alps, and in Northwestern Europe or Scandinavia.

    I L41 or I-M170 is a defining SNP for haplogroup I, and contains individuals directly descended from the earliest members of Haplogroup I, bearing none of the subsequent mutations. In other words, it is Proto Old Norse and Proto South Slavic.

    Before taking My genetic Natgeo2 test, I thought for sure, that I must definitely belong to haplogroup R1a, the most common haplogroup among ancient Iranians, and many Eastern and some Northern Europeans of today. It turned out that my haplogroup is I L41 or I M170 shared by 0.03 percent of all participants in the Natgeo2 project.

    This genetic connection to pagan Europe, strongly suggests more than a close kinship of ideas, but old blood ties among priestly clans of ancient Zoroastrian Iran, and shamans of pagan Europe.

    After all, the other common term for priests in the Avesta is āθra.van “Keeper of family hearth or flame.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Malla says:
    @Anonymous
    Only problem is that you have to be born a Parsee to be a Parsee.

    The Parsis are a bunch of Persians who came to India to escape the Muslims, no one knows what place they had in Persian society and a lot of their behaviour is Jewish. The Portuguese described them as European like and Jewish like but the truth is most Parsis today have Indian ancestry in them from their female line. Besides that, the Parsi Dasturs had virtually no real deep knowledge of their books and just like the degraded Hindus around them, their religion had became wholly ritual. It were the Europeans who studied their texts in deep and researched the theology of Zoaraster. Same with Hinduism. Most Indians had no knowledge of their history, of their own Emperor Ashoka until the British scholars told them. Most of what we know of Indian history is because of the British officers of the East India company.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Freddy Mercury was a Parsi. So is Zubin Mehta. It is said that the Parsis will be extinct in a few generations because 1) they don't accept converts, and 2) to be a Parsi, both parents must be Parsis, yet many Parsis are marrying outside the group.

    They are a merchant/professional minority. They are generally much more successful than the surrounding community.
    , @Daniel H
    Freddy Mercury was a Parsi. So is Zubin Mehta. It is said that the Parsis will be extinct in a few generations because 1) they don't accept converts, and 2) to be a Parsi, both parents must be Parsis, yet many Parsis are marrying outside the group.

    They are a merchant/professional minority. They are generally much more successful than the surrounding community.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Zoroastrianism, like its contemporary Buddhism in India, was derived racially not from the Aryan invaders but rather from the native sources reacting against the brutality of these invaders. This is shown notably by their common rejection of blood sacrifices and their common appeal to the brotherhood of man. It is also indicated by two traditionally accepted circumstances. First, that Zoroaster's teaching arose in the country of the Medes at the same time that they were being attacked and subdued by the Assyrians. And, secondly, that Zoroaster was himself expelled from his homeland to take refuge in the east.
     
    The Evolution of Man and Society, C.D. Darlington

    Actually the real native reaction to the invading Aryans is the Hinduism we know today which is predominantly Puranic Hinduism and not Vedic Hinduism. The Vedas are kept because they are the oldest written texts in the subcontinent but besides that nobody really bothers with them. This Puranic Hinduism which was formed about 4 centuries after Christ keeps some Vedic Aryan traditions and the Vedic books but is actually formed from a mixture of Central Asian Aryan, Babylonian, Tibetic/East Asian and the native tribal religions of the subcontinent by the new mixed population. Thus many of the Aryan gods like Indra, Varuna, Mitra etc… were demoted and new Gods were made more important in their place during this period, which is still the case today in Hinduism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Do you have any references for what you have written?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @El Dato
    Jimbo the Wimbo maybe wants to make sure the cheques comes in?

    (... apparently there is plenty of cash while Wikipedia is still asking for handouts every year? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ )

    Thanks, that’s an interesting article about Wikipedia finances. That was from 5 years ago, but it was apparently more of the same last year:

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_promise/

    I wouldn’t mind at all if Wikipedia was flush with cash, except insofar as a pile of cash can lead to excess. I think it deserves to be rich, given the service it renders to billions of people. A service it renders apparently without any of the common privacy-killing deals with the devil that other big web entities make. And without depending on government handouts. It’s a miracle, really. Far better that it have too much money than it go bankrupt and die like so many nice ideas.

    But yeah, it’s a tricky path for Wikipedia to follow. At least as worrisome is all the incomprehensible bureaucracy and insider politics in the management of Wikipedia, even at the volunteer level. I’ve tried to look into it occasionally, for example when asked to vote for Wikipedia officers, but it has left me baffled. But bureaucracy and insiderness may be inevitable. Hopefully it won’t choke the goose with the golden eggs (pardon the mixed-up metaphor).

    And then there is the danger that pc (or other nefarious forces such as corporations, lobbyists, government services, spammers, …) will take over everything, like elsewhere. But so far it has done ok, not perfectly, but ok, so I will keep hoping the best for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Wiki is always rattling its tin cup for donations, but it is HQ'd in the country's richest region, home to untold numbers of tech billionaires.

    It is not reputable, and alongside Twitter, a worthy candidate for nationalization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Malla says:
    @Karl
    28 Malla > This religion is Aryanism concentrated


    if it was....


    > and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul

    then it would have been

    It would have been great if you would have gone through those links before commenting. People rarely got a chance to choose from a range of options what religion they would want to choose. It is forced upon them or they are ignorant of other choices in the world. Were the Saxons who Charlemagne defeated given a choice between Christianity and Confucianism? Were the North Africans defeated by the Arabs given a choice between Islam and Shinto? I think not.
    Anyways Christianity (Catholicism or Orthodoxy) only survived in Europe because they had adopted many European pre Christian concepts and festivals in the new religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I believe Christianity survived in Europe because it was supposed to survive in Europe.

    Anyhow, I clicked on one of those links and the first thing I read is that food and drink are supposed to be consumed in silence, without conversation or argument. I'm out. Not only do I find conversation a great part of a meal, I think the combination of discussion and eating is so integral to European (maybe all) cultures--pre-dating Christianity--that I don't see any past or future for Zoroastrianism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. eah says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Report: Schools Must Teach Britain Is an ‘Immigration Nation’ to Fight Islamophobia

    The government should empower NGOs and race activists to police the media to ensure ethnic minorities are not portrayed in a bad light, and the school curriculum must be changed so that every child is taught Britain has no native population, according to a new report on Islamophobia...In Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All, “race relations” think tank the Runnymede Trust alleges that “anti-Muslim racism” is responsible for all inequalities between Muslims and other groups in Britain “across a range of outcomes, from health, housing and environment to education, employment and criminal justice”.

    The Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jews.

    https://twitter.com/AJObserver/status/931972194078478336
    , @wren
    Yikes, the Joe Strummer Subway?

    Looks more like an "underpass."

    http://landobreaks.blogspot.com/2012/11/joe-strummer-subway-edgware-road.html

    Apparently, he busked there back before the Clash.

    It is now known for flooding, homeless sleeping rough, and, I suppose, Syrian refugees lurking in the underpass and pouncing on terrified victims.

    London is drowning, and I live by the river.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    The Brits need an American Revolution. Sweep the parasite class away, and reclaim the rights our founders knew they were endowed with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Naturally, eunuchs are 'above and beyond' 'temptations of the flesh' - and to appease the feministas - Weinsteinism, and therefore more or less incorruptible. Also by having the hard, analytical and problem solving male mind and energy devoted, more or less, to the great matters of state, the mind being focused, razor-sharp, as it were, on government matters to the exclusion of all else, in theory, at least, an intelligent, diligent eunuch simply cannot be beaten as a wise, capable and just administrator. They were, essentially, married to the state and devoted to the state.

    In the final analysis, surely, government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine - which is the sad truth of today's f*cked-up world.

    'Tis better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains.

    “better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains”

    And no-heart.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Brutusale says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    the relatively new phenomenon of distributing narcotics from urban hubs to small towns. …
     
    The Walmarting of Britain.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. iffen says:

    Most would consider slavery as a bad thing but we live in a complex society and have to make hard choices. As with any issue there is a trade-off to be made and thoughtful people need to consider all the consequences of a particular course of action:

    KENT, England — Fruit grower Tim Chambers left 150 tons of raspberries, worth just over $1 million, to rot on the bush in June. With too few laborers to pick produce on his farms, he also decided not to plant a good portion of the late-season raspberries that he usually harvests in the fall.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/british-fruit-left-rot-looming-brexit-squeezes-seasonal-labor-n820161

    The raspberries! Think of the raspberries!

    They really are tasty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    "There's no mention in the article of the ethnicity of the grooming gang."

    Whereas the New York Times is purposefully oblivious of their ethnicity, the Daily Mail provides plenty of references to the ethnicities of the many grooming gangs (note plural). Not surprising about the NYT's purposeful obtuseness!

    Yeah well the Times,Back in the late 70s on my 21st birthday hanging out with a bunch of adults including my 36 year old girlfriend being a precocious lad, i got into a political argument with several of the guests.I was raised by my parents and the zeitgeist to be pretty liberal socially, but someone had called me the rock and roll republican since my hair was down to my belt and i sort of looked like robert plant. Anyway despite my woke thinking on civil rights i wasn’t an idiot i was a race realist I mean all new yorkers are. My girlfriend and many of her and my own friends were jews, But when one of them cited the NY Times as an appeal to authority in their argument I sneered “The jew York Times?” I could and still can get away with that sort of stuff, last year at a dinner party flirting banter I asked this beautiful black model if she wanted to play Sally and Thomas, LOL the cucks all froze it was hilarious You could have heard a pin drop for a split second But i knew i was fine i know women, she burst into laughter and turned purple yes blacks can blush.and the other women also laughed almost as quickly because they fist had to wonder why i hadn’t asked them to play slave games. The point is even at 21 I understood the New York Times was a jewish propaganda outlet, that jews despite being funny and smart were at intellectual war with us, And having been educated by jesuits I was pretty sure they didnt have a chance. Of course I was wrong the jesuits fell them the entire church and the jews are winning, Im confident we could easilly beat them if we would just fight back but our elites are taitorous cuks that will sell out their nations for shekels from jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Somewhere out there there is a young man, child of a midwestern family, graduate of a state university engineering school, and either he doesn't have a penny to his name, or he's up to his knees (but not his waist like a private-school humanities major) in debt.

    Somewhere out there there is a WASP scion of parents and grandparents who are land holders, ETF or mutual fund managers, private equity or hedge fund managers, on corporate boards, endowment fund managers, or simply the happy, quiet owners of assets all bound up in the same.

    The latter want you to see the former and think "privilege, white privilege!" They don't want you thinking about them and their privilege.

    And I am pretty sure, that with your Jesuit education, you know what's going on there - why it is happening, how its been happening since the Bronze Age, and why it's wrong.

    So let's not turn around and notice some elites misbehaving, who happen to be Jewish instead of WASPs, and hold an entire demographic responsible for their behavior. Let's bone up a bit when calling out their bad behavior if they hide behind a "magic amulet" (h/t Steve Sailer) of "anti-semitism!", but be classy about it. Be like Jeremy Piven calling out false accusations - he acknowledges the legitimate pain of legitimate victims, and segues from there to call out that the abuse of the appeal to shared victimhood hurts the legitimate victims. The legitimate victims of anti-semitism are hurt by powerful elites who hide behind antisemitism as a slur used against those who would hold them accountable.

    It's a test. Your Jesuit education should have taught you this. It's a test - and you are failing the test. All you have to do is disagree - you disagree by acknowledging the legitimate victims of anti-semitism and the legitimate problem of anti-semitism, and you move on to keep condemning the guilty, brushing it off as if nothing happened, making clear that you will prosecute your legitimate case even while you are illegitimately libeled with the anti-semitism label.

    When you fail the test, you out yourself as anti-semitic, your prosecution collapses and you empower the abusers because it gives others a reason to close ranks - and pitchfork wielding masses and all - there is good reason to close ranks when that is the issue.

    When you pass the test - you divide the opposition and you force the opposition to make a moral choice.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. According to one estimate, there may be up to 13,000 slaves in the UK.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/13000-slaves-uk-four-times-higher-previously-thought

    As many as 13,000 people in Britain are victims of slavery, about four times the number previously thought, analysis for the government has found.

    More interesting information below.

    https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/slavery-uk/

    Most people are trafficked into the UK from overseas, but there is also a significant number of British nationals in slavery. The most common countries of origin are Albania, Vietnam, Nigeria, Romania and Poland.
    Most commonly people are trafficked into forced labour in industries such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, manufacturing and car washes. Many women and girls are trafficked for sexual exploitation.
    Many people, again mostly women and girls, also end up in domestic slavery. Others, particularly children, are forced into crime such as cannabis production, petty theft or begging.

    According to one study called the “Global Slavery Index,” there are 8,300 slaves in the UK. America has 60,000.

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

    The UK actually has one of the lowest slavery rates in the world, if the above study is to be believed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Logan says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The same thing happens with diseases.

    It's critical mass again. Moderate numbers of immigrants from shitty places can be assimilated, but once you exceed a certain level, you get things that were eradicated long ago, like slavery and terrible illnesses.

    From Breitbart 19 June 2016:

    Six Diseases Return To US as Migration Advocates Celebrate ‘World Refugee Day'

    The returning diseases are:

    1. Tuberculosis
    2. Measles
    3. Whooping Cough
    4. Mumps
    5. Scarlet Fever
    6. Bubonic Plague

    FWIW, bubonic plague is endemic to the SW United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    FWIW, bubonic plague is endemic to the SW United States.
     
    I guess I know, because my family's veterinarian in Colorado contracted the disease in the late 1970s or early 1980s. (I can't remember exactly when.)

    He got infected with the bubonic plague by picking a dead squirrel off the road while he was making his daily run near our house in the mountains, in preparation for the Boston Marathon, which he missed because of the illness.

    This was so shocking and serious that it made the newspapers.

    The disease was "endemic," as you say, in animals like dead squirrels in places like Colorado, in such rarity that it made news when it infected humans like my dog's doctor. (He said he just wanted to remove the squirrel from the road out of respect. He really loved animals.)

    Now the number of cases is increasing, because the disease is also coming in via immigration. That's a fact.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Logan says:
    @Anonymous
    Naturally, eunuchs are 'above and beyond' 'temptations of the flesh' - and to appease the feministas - Weinsteinism, and therefore more or less incorruptible. Also by having the hard, analytical and problem solving male mind and energy devoted, more or less, to the great matters of state, the mind being focused, razor-sharp, as it were, on government matters to the exclusion of all else, in theory, at least, an intelligent, diligent eunuch simply cannot be beaten as a wise, capable and just administrator. They were, essentially, married to the state and devoted to the state.

    In the final analysis, surely, government by Eunuch is preferable to government by Economist magazine - which is the sad truth of today's f*cked-up world.

    'Tis better to be governed by no-balls rather than no-brains.

    I don’t think anyone who’s looked into the history of eunuch government would say such a thing. It generally coincided, at least in China, with truly spectacular levels of corruption and hence the approaching loss of the Mandate of Heaven and collapse of a dynasty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Logan says:
    @Karl
    28 Malla > This religion is Aryanism concentrated


    if it was....


    > and can be easily adopted by the European mind and soul

    then it would have been

    It is generally conceded that early Catholicism adopted a great deal from Zoroastianism in its Mithraist version.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. El Dato says:

    Another day, another protest in France:

    https://www.rt.com/news/410314-protest-libya-embassy-slavery/

    Carrying signs reading “No to slavery in Libya,” the demonstrators gathered in front of the Libyan Embassy on Saturday afternoon before marching towards the Champs-Elysees, where they were stopped by riot police cordons.

    Paris – Forte mobilisation devant l’ambassade de Libye contre l’Esclavage après la diffusion d’images montrant la vente aux enchères de migrants.

    La foule criant : « Libérez nos frères ». pic.twitter.com/ywmE1u8pmj
    — Remy Buisine (@RemyBuisine) 18 ноября 2017 г.

    “Free our brothers,” “Let’s liberate Africa,” “We are black, we are human!” the demonstrators chanted.

    Clashes broke out as police moved to disperse the protest. Some activists began hurling rocks at police, who responded with tear gas.

    A Ruptly crew was on the spot to film as activists attempted to break through metal barriers erected by police.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Malla
    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism? Can you explain why the Vikings were called Al Majus by Muslims while no other people were called so besides the Persians.

    Buddha is called Sakyamuni, Sakya or Sacas from the Scythians amd Muni means sage/hermit.

    Scythians were blond/red haired blue eyed White people
    FROM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians
    "In artworks, the Scythians are portrayed exhibiting European traits.[128] In Histories, the 5th-century Greek historian Herodotus describes the Budini of Scythia as red-haired and grey-eyed.[128] In the 5th century BC, Greek physician Hippocrates argued that the Scythians have purron (ruddy) skin.[128][129] In the 3rd century BC, the Greek poet Callimachus described the Arismapes (Arimaspi) of Scythia as fair-haired.[128][130] The 2nd century BC Han Chinese envoy Zhang Qian described the Sai (Scythians) as having yellow (probably meaning hazel or green), and blue eyes.[128] In Natural History, the 1st century AD Roman author Pliny the Elder characterizes the Seres, sometimes identified as Iranians (Scythians) or Tocharians, as red-haired and blue-eyed.[128][131] In the late 2nd century AD, the Christian theologian Clement of Alexandria says that the Scythians are fair-haired.[128][132] The 2nd century Greek philosopher Polemon includes the Scythians among the northern peoples characterized by red hair and blue-grey eyes.[128] In the late 2nd or early 3rd century AD, the Greek physician Galen declares that Sarmatians, Scythians and other northern peoples have reddish hair.[128][133] The fourth-century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that the Alans, a people closely related to the Scythians, were tall, blond and light-eyed.[134] The 4th century bishop of Nyssa Gregory of Nyssa wrote that the Scythians were fair skinned and blond haired.[135] The 5th-century physician Adamantius, who often follow Polemon, describes the Scythians are fair-haired."

    and some of them ruled India and settled in India as royal Kshatriyas
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

    Physical characteristics of the Buddha
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_characteristics_of_the_Buddha
    Characteristics 29: Deep Blue Eyes


    You will get more details about it here
    http://thaimangoes.blogspot.in/2009/08/h9.html

    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism?

    Yeah. There aren’t that many and those that exist are borrowed at second hand from Christianity.

    Christian influence is pretty easily discernible.
    Odin pierced by a spear and hanging from a tree? I mean, c’mon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    "There aren’t that many and those that exist are borrowed at second hand from Christianity."

    There aren't not many?????? Did you even read the links???

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    The worship of waters in Zoroastrianism, the fiery grandson/nephew of waters apam napát, and the kinsman of the sea sævar niðr in Norse Mythology
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/11/06/the-worship-of-waters-in-zoroastrianism-the-fiery-grandsonnephew-of-waters-apam-napat-and-the-kinsman-of-the-sea-saevar-nidr-in-norse-mythology/

    Frya or love in the gathas, Old Norse Freya and Frigg
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    Battle in the poetic gathas, ancient Zoroastrianism, and comparison with the Norse einherjar
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/12/15/battle-in-the-poetic-gathas-ancient-zoroastrianism-and-comparison-with-einherjar/

    Avestan Druj “distortion, devastation, lie,” Old Persian Drauga, and Old Norse Draugr
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/22/avestan-druj-distortion-devastation-lie-old-persian-drauga-and-old-norse-draugr/

    The shining Twin Yima, Vedic Yama and Old Norse Ymir
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    What does the common Vedic Yama, Persian Yima and Norse Germanic Ymir have to do with Christianity????

    The god-force of waters ahúrání and the Norse sea-god ægir
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/10/28/the-god-force-of-waters-ahurani-and-the-norse-sea-god-aegir/

    Vohü Manö, “passion, spirit,mind” and the Old Norse Vili and Vé
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/02/10/vohu-mano-passion-spiritmind-and-the-old-norse-vili-and-ve/

    The Aryan Archer Arakhsh, Tirgan festival, Zoroastrian mid-summer celebrations and the Norse rune Týr.
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/07/03/the-aryan-archer-arasharakhsh-tir-gantyr-gan-mid-summer-festival-and-the-norse-rune-tyr/

    mazdá or ma(n)zdá, the GD of Genius; the norse rune mannaz, greek métis and vedic medhá
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/05/26/mazda-or-manzda-the-gd-of-genius-the-norse-rune-mannaz-greek-metis-and-vedic-medha/

    Indeed it is Judaism which has copied a lot from the Aryan Persians and recycled it back into Europe

    The ancient Iranian or Indo-Aryan influence on Judaism through the Babylonian Talmud
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/09/08/the-ancient-iranian-or-indo-aryan-influence-on-judaism-through-the-babylonian-talmud/

    Indo-European Ashem “Virtue, Excellence” NOT Hebrew HaShem “the Name”
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/06/05/indo-european-ashem-virtue-excellence-not-hebrew-hashem-the-name/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Ganderson says:
    @wren
    This is the age of Soros. Martel has been replaced by Merkel, and someone has already made plans for you.

    They only want what's best for you, after all, and you just need that helping hand.

    They're only making plans for Nigel.

    Nice Al Kooper reference there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. biz says:
    @Anon
    Do you suppose we'll come to a point where white people are condemned for having ended slavery?

    I mean that was Eurocentric white morality.

    Slavery was a universal thing all around the world, and it was accepted as anything from tolerable to even moral and sanctioned by the divine.

    So, who were these Europeans to force their moral imperialism on others?

    When we look at South Africa, lots of traditional superstitious stuff is making a comeback, and it's justified on grounds that it's native and being revived as an act of defiance against the cultural imperialism of the West.

    For the most part, non-whites have adopted white morality -- slavery is evil -- and blame whites for having enslaved others. But as white power and prestige keeps decreasing in the West and as non-whites keep exerting their different or multi-culti way of doing things, maybe there will be a huge paradigm shift. The great white evil was not trading in slaves but in having ended slavery and then forced all the world to stop practicing it as well.

    Maybe the return of slavery is a kind of reconfiguration of the world to its original state before white powers decided to transform so much and force its moral imperatives on other peoples.

    As whites lose the power and will to repress, the world finds a way to regress.

    I can just see it now... some black guy pens an article defending slavery... at least as long as it's a local affair. So, if Africans enslave Africans, it's just their culture.

    Look at Libya. Slave trade has returned there.

    This! Very insightful comment.

    Already back in the 90s when I was in middle school one of my afrocentric teachers pushed the point that while it was Africans who sold their own slaves to Europeans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery in Africa was “not as bad” as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters. We also learned about the king Mansa Musa who had 1,000 or maybe it was 10,000 “subjects” carrying his gold to Mecca and I remember thinking that somebody who is forced to carry gold across the desert sure sounds like a slave to me and that seems just as bad as being forced to work in a cotton field.

    Anyway, that guy sure wasn’t trying to push a re-introduction of slavery, but my point is that even by then, two decades ago, the propaganda groundwork had been laid to view American slavery as uniquely bad in world history, and African slavery as much more benign.

    After several decades of that propaganda, who knows where we might stand now. Islam apologists like that Georgetown prof are currently pushing their own whitewash of Islamic slavery, even including the rape-y parts. Given the speed with which the Left is now abandoning its historical commitments to individual rights and equality in the name of supporting Islam and any people perceived as being “non-white” I think that slavery in certain contexts could be accepted very soon. We already have prominent feminists saying that burkas are “liberating,” so is saying that slavery is liberating far behind?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    slavery in Africa was “not as bad” as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters.
     
    I'm beginning to hear these kinds of apologetics from leftists. Western slavery was wicked because slaves were treated as objects, but African/Islamic slavery was not so bad because slaves were just like members of the family etc. Slavery is going to become like pedophilia and polygamy: only a crime when white people do it.
    , @El Dato
    Well, the frankly mythical exploitin' by non-black Pharaoh of people with weird noses from faraway can't have been all that bad either, I reckon.

    What is the totem pole of slavery evil?

    Maybe the Aztecs top it... pulling hearts till blood covers the pyramid out is pretty radical.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Anon
    Greek Mythology

    Judaism(though it's only for Jews) as combo of universal truth and tribal-ancestor-appreciation(if not worship)

    Chrislam, if it ever takes off.

    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You’re going to explain that, or I’m just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be “better.”

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I’m not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being “better” than anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You’re going to explain that, or I’m just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?
     
    Trying to claim the universal moral high ground with the Old Testament is a losing battle- don't.

    Anyway, the content of Greek Mythology is the Gods are the incarnation of various ideals (meaning the ignorant believe they are real people and the educated show how much smarter they are by believing they aren't 'real' but still exist). The virtues are also ones that people can achieve and are necessary to prevent civilization from collapsing into anarchy.

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be “better.”
     
    The parts that make Judaism function were never subsumed into Christianity.

    Judaism deals with a problem fundamental to humans- people want power. And they gain/demonstrate power by breaking the rules society has. Eventually this causes society to break down which is bad.

    To deal with this, we have the Law. A bunch of rules from God, the most important individual ever, who can read your mind and will judge you at the end of days and who has promised that if the Jews follow the Law, they will prosper and survive. So Jews spend their time obeying/arguing/interpreting/finding loopholes in divine will instead of destroying society. And low and behold, Jews prosper and survive- as long as they follow the Law.

    If you get rid of the Law, it doesn't work. If you don't have Jews, it doesn't work.

    Some people don't like this and talk about morality and goodness. Those people tend to live in societies that are currently committing suicide to show how moral and good they are. The purpose of religion is not to make oneself feel good or to show everyone how special you are- it is to use those desires to get people to make sure society continues.

    If you want to have God's favor you are going to have to determine what your own people's equivalent of the Law is and follow and obey it. The purpose of the Jews is to show obedience to the Law to the nations of the world, not to convince everyone to be Jews.

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I’m not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being “better” than anything.
     
    It sounds like one of the sources rejected from the formation of the Orange Catholic Bible for being heretical nonsense.
    , @Anon
    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    Not 'with abandon'. They got their reasons. Also, there is balance. So, when some gods are against you, others can be for you. And because the gods are not perfect and have failings, they are more understanding of people. Also, the Greek mythological world is like poetic mapping of the mind. Every facet of human psychology is represented.
    In contrast, Christianity repressed too much to over-emphasize an impossible virtue of pacifism.. and that turns everyone into a rank hypocrite since no one can survive by heeding Jesus' message.

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be “better.”

    Like Greek mythology, there are contrasting views of God and His design. That allows for more thought and debate whereas Christianity, like Islam, claims to have solved the riddle. Religion as riddle or maze is more interesting than religion as answer. Christianity is like a cheat sheet that gives you all the answers, so all you need is trust and faith.
    Also, Judaism isn't just about an idea but about blood and soil and history.

    This is why I think there is yet another opportunity to develop a new spin on monotheism.

    So, far it was (1) one God for one people or (2) one God for all peoples, the core principle of Christianity and Islam.

    But what hasn't been properly explored is One God for Each People, meaning all people should worship the same God but have their own special covenant with him. So, a kind of Judaism-for-each-people.

    Aren't Jews, on a pound for pound basis, stronger than any Christian group or Muslim group because they have the Covenant? So, even as Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe, more or less, in the same One God, Jews feel special and focused whereas Christians and Muslims just feel generic and blurry. I mean a white Christian is supposed to see an African Christian and Asian Christian as a bigger fellow brother than his ethnic kin.

    Covenantism is the way to go.

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is.

    Chrislam combines the virtues of Christianity with the warrior cult of Islam.
    In Islam, a Muslim is expected to be both saint and warrior.
    In Christianity, a good Christian is only supposed to be a saint. But no people could survive without warriors. So, Christian order came to rely on warriors for power. But because of core Christian teachings, the reliance on warriors to protect the West and expand Western power came to be seen as a betrayal of Jesus' teachings. So, we get all this guilt and apologies and etc. Weakness.

    In contrast, Chrislam imagines Jesus and Muhammad having lunch together and negotiating a new religion whereby Jesus admits the flaws in Christianity. And Muhammad admits maybe he was wrong on some things too.
    So, it combines the virtues of Christianity with virility of Islam.

    Maybe this can arise in Russia where Orthodox Faith and Chechen warrior cult can be combined.

    But I still think Covenantism is better. Each people will have to further the sacred texts by producing their own heroes and prophets. It's like what Joseph Campbell said. Every culture used to have individuals who journeyed further in spirit and mind and returned with vision and wisdom that he shared with his folks.

    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Go beyond Plato and Aristotle - which are the only ones I can safely bet (with still a likelihood that I'm wrong) were included in your education.

    Spend a year on the Stoics: Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus ... those are the big 3 but there's more. Really I'm completely serious, like: I don't even know you but if you read a sentence or paragraph out of each like you would a verse out of Proverbs, once a day, for a year - it will change your life.

    As you do this you'll pick up things about the Epicureans which are more difficult to study because not as much lit survives, but still important, and then after a year of it, go back over what you thought you knew about Plato and Aristotle - now you'll find yourself knowing 3-4X more.

    Then with all of that go back and try your Greek mythology again, and then - judge Greek mythology versus the Bible. The latter still has its place in the modern canon, but you'll realize we threw the baby out with the bathwater somewhere along the way.

    Heh - and remind all the Teuton admirers and wannabees here that Zeus, Indo-European though he was, belonged to the Mediterranean eons before we heard about Odin in north central Europe - Zeus and all the culture, technology and wisdom that surrounded him.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Her mother acknowledged neglecting her daughter at times, occasionally staying away from their home for several nights at a time and ignoring calls from her daughter’s school reporting that she had failed to attend.

    And no father at all. When White British culture has debased itself this far, I’m not sure it deserves to be saved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Tiny Duck says:

    It’s about time the shoe was on the other foot. Maybe white “people” shouldn’t have committed such heinous colonialism and murder

    Read More
    • Replies: @fish

    Ohs Tinys.....deys be no ends to yous self hayt.....

    Lenter “I be’s doktorb” Pit
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Malla
    It would have been great if you would have gone through those links before commenting. People rarely got a chance to choose from a range of options what religion they would want to choose. It is forced upon them or they are ignorant of other choices in the world. Were the Saxons who Charlemagne defeated given a choice between Christianity and Confucianism? Were the North Africans defeated by the Arabs given a choice between Islam and Shinto? I think not.
    Anyways Christianity (Catholicism or Orthodoxy) only survived in Europe because they had adopted many European pre Christian concepts and festivals in the new religion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUDT1L2Iy9I

    I believe Christianity survived in Europe because it was supposed to survive in Europe.

    Anyhow, I clicked on one of those links and the first thing I read is that food and drink are supposed to be consumed in silence, without conversation or argument. I’m out. Not only do I find conversation a great part of a meal, I think the combination of discussion and eating is so integral to European (maybe all) cultures–pre-dating Christianity–that I don’t see any past or future for Zoroastrianism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. “We kind of let it slip that we have vulnerable people in our own communities,” Kevin Hyland, Britain’s first independent antislavery commissioner, said in an interview. …

    Yeah. Whoopsies. Just kind of “let it slip” during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable.

    Looking back on the 80′s, it’s obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade. We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60′s and 70′s, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned. Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves.

    This has all happened in my lifetime. I find it astounding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @oddsbodkins
    "This has all happened in my lifetime. I find it astounding."

    Not in regards to faith. The greatest blow against faith in Britain was the first world war. Even prior to that, thinking people were taking Christianity less and less seriously, just as Nietzsche said they would.
    , @Corvinus
    "Just kind of “let it slip” during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable."

    The mistake is believing that these "alien peoples" are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    "Looking back on the 80′s, it’s obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade."

    For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism.

    "We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60′s and 70′s, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned."

    You mean the lessons to simply act like a human being?

    "Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves."

    Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Anon
    Do you suppose we'll come to a point where white people are condemned for having ended slavery?

    I mean that was Eurocentric white morality.

    Slavery was a universal thing all around the world, and it was accepted as anything from tolerable to even moral and sanctioned by the divine.

    So, who were these Europeans to force their moral imperialism on others?

    When we look at South Africa, lots of traditional superstitious stuff is making a comeback, and it's justified on grounds that it's native and being revived as an act of defiance against the cultural imperialism of the West.

    For the most part, non-whites have adopted white morality -- slavery is evil -- and blame whites for having enslaved others. But as white power and prestige keeps decreasing in the West and as non-whites keep exerting their different or multi-culti way of doing things, maybe there will be a huge paradigm shift. The great white evil was not trading in slaves but in having ended slavery and then forced all the world to stop practicing it as well.

    Maybe the return of slavery is a kind of reconfiguration of the world to its original state before white powers decided to transform so much and force its moral imperatives on other peoples.

    As whites lose the power and will to repress, the world finds a way to regress.

    I can just see it now... some black guy pens an article defending slavery... at least as long as it's a local affair. So, if Africans enslave Africans, it's just their culture.

    Look at Libya. Slave trade has returned there.

    Plenty of SM submissives find slavery sexy and emotionally satisfying. LGBTQ tolerance demands hands off the leather community. Ergo, slavery is fine, as long as it is consentual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Anonymous
    Actually, the phenomenon of black gangs pushing drugs in the English county towns is nothing knew.
    London is more or less 'bombed out' in the sense that apart from an ultra wealthy elite, it's packed with millions upon millions of poor people - just like The Economist wanted.
    Now, London's super-rich are a damned lucrative market for the black drug gangs, but that market has be sewn-up years ago. The untold millions of paupers, of all ethnicities, likewise have been saturated and sewn-up, so the cunning blacks, knowing 'where the money is' have targeted the county towns, the still pleasant places of England, which still have value-adding industry and a prosperous, but somewhat naive white English working class. Places such as Worcester, Salisbury, Cheltenham etc etc. Places packed with naive young whites with money in their pockets desperate to be 'trendy' by taking drugs. As I said, there's a damned big, lucrative market in those parts with no competition.
    - and I've read that the London blacks have even targeted the richer parts of Scotland such as Aberdeen.

    'Cunning as serpents' the gangs get dumb young white women 'hooked' in more ways than one by 'loss-leading' them drugs at a discount. The same 'white bitches' , as they are termed, are used as go-betweens in the county towns as they are inconspicuous.

    If this has been going on awhile why haven’t the country folk wised up to it yet? Why are adults not instilling their children (and especially their girls) with a healthy dose of cynicism? Are the gangs targeting broken homes only?

    I think what would help the West more than anything would be young people learning survival skills. Scouting but tougher and less dorky. People fall for tricks because they are iphone-addicted zombies who don’t go outside and have never been forced to struggle and think on their feet. Also going outside would cure depression and listlessness, thus the whole reason for drugs being attractive in the first place. My teenage cousin has a vitamin D deficiency and is depressed, but his weak-willed parents won’t make him go outside to help alleviate the problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Scouring but tougher and less dorky.
     
    Eagles are apex predators.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Maj. Kong says:
    @European-American
    Thanks, that's an interesting article about Wikipedia finances. That was from 5 years ago, but it was apparently more of the same last year:
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_promise/

    I wouldn't mind at all if Wikipedia was flush with cash, except insofar as a pile of cash can lead to excess. I think it deserves to be rich, given the service it renders to billions of people. A service it renders apparently without any of the common privacy-killing deals with the devil that other big web entities make. And without depending on government handouts. It's a miracle, really. Far better that it have too much money than it go bankrupt and die like so many nice ideas.

    But yeah, it's a tricky path for Wikipedia to follow. At least as worrisome is all the incomprehensible bureaucracy and insider politics in the management of Wikipedia, even at the volunteer level. I've tried to look into it occasionally, for example when asked to vote for Wikipedia officers, but it has left me baffled. But bureaucracy and insiderness may be inevitable. Hopefully it won't choke the goose with the golden eggs (pardon the mixed-up metaphor).

    And then there is the danger that pc (or other nefarious forces such as corporations, lobbyists, government services, spammers, ...) will take over everything, like elsewhere. But so far it has done ok, not perfectly, but ok, so I will keep hoping the best for it.

    Wiki is always rattling its tin cup for donations, but it is HQ’d in the country’s richest region, home to untold numbers of tech billionaires.

    It is not reputable, and alongside Twitter, a worthy candidate for nationalization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @European-American
    I’d understand wanting to nationalize Facebook or Google, though sadly I’m not sure I’d trust any government to run them. Maybe some kind of clever breakup and regulation?... But how would a nationalized Wikipedia be an improvement?

    Not to mention that Wikipedia is a truly international institution. Would the US also run the German, Russian, French, Serbian, etc. Wikipedias?

    And what would be the reason to nationalize? Too much tin cup rattling? That hardly seems a significant problem. Excessive bureaucracy? The government can help with that, haha. Bias? Sure, that’s an issue, but would nationalization solve it? It’s like nationalizing the press to ensure fairness... Not a great solution...

    A government-based remedy for Wikipedia bias might be to name someone eminent who cares about the excessive and one-sided politicization of everything, like Jonathan Haidt, to head a group of editors whose task would be to define, measure, and fight bias as objectively as possible, à la Heterodox Academy. Such a government-sponsored “Wikipedia Corps” might be able to do some good. One can dream...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Anonymous
    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can't be worse than what we have now.

    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can’t be worse than what we have now.

    I thought that was what we do have now. e.g. Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Macron, Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker, et al. And let’s not forget Graham Norton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Your list of enemies of the American people would have to up their game to rise to the levels of eunuchs. And even if they do, then they will be pathetic eunuchs. On second thought, pathetic eunuchs is what they already are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Pat Boyle says:

    OT

    This morning I read that Robert Mugabe has been replace by Emmerson ‘Crocodile’ Mnangagwa.

    Lucky for him that’s just a nickname. Charles Taylor, Bokassa, and Idi Amin all fed their political opponents to real crocodiles. It was once popular for African liberators to establish private zoos to deal with people who foolishly had divergent ideas about national policy. They claim that Imin had 4,000 (or was it 14,000?) opponents fed to the big reptiles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    This morning I read that Robert Mugabe has been replace by Emmerson ‘Crocodile’ Mnangagwa.

    Lucky for him that’s just a nickname.

    Yeah, I'm sure Mnangagwa is just an icon of civilized virtue, just like Mugabe....

    ... ah, yes, in the second paragraph of his Wikipedia entry:

    After Zimbabwe was recognized in 1980, Mnangagwa held a series of senior cabinet positions under Mugabe, including as minister of state security during the Gukurahundi massacres in which thousands of Ndebele civilians were killed. Mnangagwa blamed the army for the massacres and continued to hold senior cabinet positions, though he is widely believed to be responsible.

    Fantastic. We can certainly look forward to a new era of enlightenment and prosperity in Zimbabwe.

    Any failure to achieve such is obviously the White Man's fault.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Dan Hayes
    Steve,

    "There's no mention in the article of the ethnicity of the grooming gang."

    Whereas the New York Times is purposefully oblivious of their ethnicity, the Daily Mail provides plenty of references to the ethnicities of the many grooming gangs (note plural). Not surprising about the NYT's purposeful obtuseness!

    Rotherham was just the tip of the iceberg. HUNDREDS of known cases there were covered up so there wouldn’t be “hate.” Now think about the unknown cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. OT, Another day, another ship collision in the Pacific.

    See below for pictures of CO and XO.

    http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg65/Pages/Bio1.aspx#.WhHLdklOnqB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Ain't diversity grand!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. eah says:
    @eah
    At this point no one should be surprised by anything they see about the UK.

    Predatory Syrian refugee sexually attacks 6 women & is jailed for just 16 months. Meanwhile a young British man is jailed for 4 years for making Facebook posts.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DO7AMH1WkAA1g51.jpg

    Report: Schools Must Teach Britain Is an ‘Immigration Nation’ to Fight Islamophobia

    The government should empower NGOs and race activists to police the media to ensure ethnic minorities are not portrayed in a bad light, and the school curriculum must be changed so that every child is taught Britain has no native population, according to a new report on Islamophobia…In Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All, “race relations” think tank the Runnymede Trust alleges that “anti-Muslim racism” is responsible for all inequalities between Muslims and other groups in Britain “across a range of outcomes, from health, housing and environment to education, employment and criminal justice”.

    The Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jews.

    https://twitter.com/AJObserver/status/931972194078478336

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Tweet deleted?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @biz
    This! Very insightful comment.

    Already back in the 90s when I was in middle school one of my afrocentric teachers pushed the point that while it was Africans who sold their own slaves to Europeans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery in Africa was "not as bad" as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters. We also learned about the king Mansa Musa who had 1,000 or maybe it was 10,000 "subjects" carrying his gold to Mecca and I remember thinking that somebody who is forced to carry gold across the desert sure sounds like a slave to me and that seems just as bad as being forced to work in a cotton field.

    Anyway, that guy sure wasn't trying to push a re-introduction of slavery, but my point is that even by then, two decades ago, the propaganda groundwork had been laid to view American slavery as uniquely bad in world history, and African slavery as much more benign.

    After several decades of that propaganda, who knows where we might stand now. Islam apologists like that Georgetown prof are currently pushing their own whitewash of Islamic slavery, even including the rape-y parts. Given the speed with which the Left is now abandoning its historical commitments to individual rights and equality in the name of supporting Islam and any people perceived as being "non-white" I think that slavery in certain contexts could be accepted very soon. We already have prominent feminists saying that burkas are "liberating," so is saying that slavery is liberating far behind?

    slavery in Africa was “not as bad” as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters.

    I’m beginning to hear these kinds of apologetics from leftists. Western slavery was wicked because slaves were treated as objects, but African/Islamic slavery was not so bad because slaves were just like members of the family etc. Slavery is going to become like pedophilia and polygamy: only a crime when white people do it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz
    Yes. Totally agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Cuckery is the biggest white slavery.

    At least stuff like Rotherham was still deemed criminal. In contrast, cuckery is officially promoted by state and entertainment. It enslaves white minds with the idea that white males are inferior and must happily surrender their women to blacks. BBC features programs where even ancient Europeans are featured as blacks.

    As for this particular issue, it doesn’t generate much outage since its globo-slavery. It’s equal-opportunity slavery that involves everyone in terms of slave, enslaved,and clientele. So, it’s Diversity Slavery or Diverslavery. That makes it less worse,I guess.

    White Slavery as a concept applied to ‘racist’ times when white elites were supposed to lead and protect white folks. So, if whites were enslaved in some part of the world, white knights should go save them. It implied whites with power should care about whites rendered helpless. It’s like Ethan trying to save white girls in THE SEARCHERS. It’s like Bickle trying to save a white girl from ‘black’ pimp slavers(made white in the movie) in TAXI DRIVER. But current discourse says Ethan and Bickle were ‘racist’ for feeling that way.

    So, ‘white slavery’ is an outdated and ‘racist’ concept. For that reason, few blew the whistle on Rotherham, a clear case of white slavery. It implied whites in power should save and protect white girls. But that would be sooooooo ‘racist’? What? British elites and institutions try to save WHITES from darkies? So ‘intolerant’.

    This new scandal is more doable since all sorts were enslaved, so it’s about rescuing diversity from slavery. An easier sell in our PC world. But because it’s a case of equal opportunity crime, it’s less likely to generate outrage. After all, it wan’t ‘racist’. The bad guys exploited all groups. They believed in diversity hiring or enslaving.

    Justice can’t work on a global scale. It only works on a national scale. Imagine the courts of five nations trying man with different rules, procedures, personnel, connections, etc.

    In the US, justice has been subverted because of Israelization of certain institutions. Zionists have extrajudicial rights. Why did Pollard get released? How come Arnon Milchan can walk around freely in the US despite having admitted to stealing secrets for Israel? It’s like Israel has extrajudicial power over the US.
    It’s like British Imperialists tried their guys in their own imperial courts even when the accused did wrong in foreign lands to foreign peoples. This was one of the contentions that led to the American Rebellion. British soldiers who did wrong in the colonies were tried by the British than by colonial courts. Of course, the chances were that Brits would go easier on the Brits. Now, well-connected Zionists have that privilege in all walks of life in the US.

    British legal system is shot since it tries to serve the entire world and be mindful of other cultures. Now, while Brits did abuse power when ruling others in other parts of the world in the past, they should have a national justice system that well serves the Brits in their own nation.
    But, what is an Englishman today? A Pakistani, a Nigerian, a Chinese, A Hindu, a Kenyan, etc.
    And if multi-cultism says that whites must be mindful of different cultural norms, then what is unjust in one culture is just in another culture. How does anyone decide upon justice in such situation?
    In California, a homo willfully spreading HIV is no longer a felony.

    PS.. Maybe these fellas did nothing wrong. http://www.theroot.com/3rd-ohio-pastor-charged-with-sex-trafficking-underage-g-1820501584?utm
    We shouldn’t judge them bu white standards. After all, blacks have already thrown off the yoke of white morality and reverted African-style of sexual behavior with women having kids with different men(and even modern feminism see the virtue of this).
    And shoplifting? That’s nothing to get upset about. It’s a black thing to grab and run.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Aint no big deal, ya.

    Now, this is African-style fatherhood. Shoplifting is like dunking a ball.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Could you imagine Jeb Bush saying that?

    Trump has cajones. That's for sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @The Anti-Gnostic

    “We kind of let it slip that we have vulnerable people in our own communities,” Kevin Hyland, Britain’s first independent antislavery commissioner, said in an interview. …
     
    Yeah. Whoopsies. Just kind of "let it slip" during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable.

    Looking back on the 80's, it's obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade. We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60's and 70's, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned. Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves.

    This has all happened in my lifetime. I find it astounding.

    “This has all happened in my lifetime. I find it astounding.”

    Not in regards to faith. The greatest blow against faith in Britain was the first world war. Even prior to that, thinking people were taking Christianity less and less seriously, just as Nietzsche said they would.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Not in regards to faith. The greatest blow against faith in Britain was the first world war. Even prior to that, thinking people were taking Christianity less and less seriously, just as Nietzsche said they would.
     
    By the end of the 18th century Europe was already for all practical purposes a post-Christian society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Logan
    FWIW, bubonic plague is endemic to the SW United States.

    FWIW, bubonic plague is endemic to the SW United States.

    I guess I know, because my family’s veterinarian in Colorado contracted the disease in the late 1970s or early 1980s. (I can’t remember exactly when.)

    He got infected with the bubonic plague by picking a dead squirrel off the road while he was making his daily run near our house in the mountains, in preparation for the Boston Marathon, which he missed because of the illness.

    This was so shocking and serious that it made the newspapers.

    The disease was “endemic,” as you say, in animals like dead squirrels in places like Colorado, in such rarity that it made news when it infected humans like my dog’s doctor. (He said he just wanted to remove the squirrel from the road out of respect. He really loved animals.)

    Now the number of cases is increasing, because the disease is also coming in via immigration. That’s a fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Couple points.

    Plague is endemic to the SW US, but not native. It appears the wild rodent population got infected from imported infected rats.

    The CDC's stats, which only go to 2015, don't show such an increase.

    https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html


    Many diseases we thought gone are reappearing in America due to immigration, but I have seen no evidence plague is one of them. With the horrific and rare exception of the pneumonic form, plague is seldom spread person to person.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Pat Boyle
    OT

    This morning I read that Robert Mugabe has been replace by Emmerson 'Crocodile' Mnangagwa.

    Lucky for him that's just a nickname. Charles Taylor, Bokassa, and Idi Amin all fed their political opponents to real crocodiles. It was once popular for African liberators to establish private zoos to deal with people who foolishly had divergent ideas about national policy. They claim that Imin had 4,000 (or was it 14,000?) opponents fed to the big reptiles.

    This morning I read that Robert Mugabe has been replace by Emmerson ‘Crocodile’ Mnangagwa.

    Lucky for him that’s just a nickname.

    Yeah, I’m sure Mnangagwa is just an icon of civilized virtue, just like Mugabe….

    … ah, yes, in the second paragraph of his Wikipedia entry:

    After Zimbabwe was recognized in 1980, Mnangagwa held a series of senior cabinet positions under Mugabe, including as minister of state security during the Gukurahundi massacres in which thousands of Ndebele civilians were killed. Mnangagwa blamed the army for the massacres and continued to hold senior cabinet positions, though he is widely believed to be responsible.

    Fantastic. We can certainly look forward to a new era of enlightenment and prosperity in Zimbabwe.

    Any failure to achieve such is obviously the White Man’s fault.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Fantastic. We can certainly look forward to a new era of enlightenment and prosperity in Zimbabwe.
     
    As I have mentioned here before, there is some great footage of the widely esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. interviewing a "mature" indigenous couple in Zimbabwe on his Great Railway Journeys PBS program. They were unequivocal in their preference for white Rhodesian rule.

    In the mean time, we can expect more of the same that they got from Mugabe. As you know well. But the upside is that liberals get to congratulate themselves for helping establish "home-rule." And, once again, the indigenous people suffer to elevate the self-perceived worth of the idiots that occupy the commanding heights of America and Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @S. Anonyia
    If this has been going on awhile why haven't the country folk wised up to it yet? Why are adults not instilling their children (and especially their girls) with a healthy dose of cynicism? Are the gangs targeting broken homes only?

    I think what would help the West more than anything would be young people learning survival skills. Scouting but tougher and less dorky. People fall for tricks because they are iphone-addicted zombies who don't go outside and have never been forced to struggle and think on their feet. Also going outside would cure depression and listlessness, thus the whole reason for drugs being attractive in the first place. My teenage cousin has a vitamin D deficiency and is depressed, but his weak-willed parents won't make him go outside to help alleviate the problem.

    Scouring but tougher and less dorky.

    Eagles are apex predators.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    96 Desiderius > Eagles are apex predators.


    hunting is their second choice.

    They have the bodies - and minds- of scavengers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Cloudbuster
    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You're going to explain that, or I'm just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be "better."

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I'm not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being "better" than anything.

    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You’re going to explain that, or I’m just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    Trying to claim the universal moral high ground with the Old Testament is a losing battle- don’t.

    Anyway, the content of Greek Mythology is the Gods are the incarnation of various ideals (meaning the ignorant believe they are real people and the educated show how much smarter they are by believing they aren’t ‘real’ but still exist). The virtues are also ones that people can achieve and are necessary to prevent civilization from collapsing into anarchy.

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be “better.”

    The parts that make Judaism function were never subsumed into Christianity.

    Judaism deals with a problem fundamental to humans- people want power. And they gain/demonstrate power by breaking the rules society has. Eventually this causes society to break down which is bad.

    To deal with this, we have the Law. A bunch of rules from God, the most important individual ever, who can read your mind and will judge you at the end of days and who has promised that if the Jews follow the Law, they will prosper and survive. So Jews spend their time obeying/arguing/interpreting/finding loopholes in divine will instead of destroying society. And low and behold, Jews prosper and survive- as long as they follow the Law.

    If you get rid of the Law, it doesn’t work. If you don’t have Jews, it doesn’t work.

    Some people don’t like this and talk about morality and goodness. Those people tend to live in societies that are currently committing suicide to show how moral and good they are. The purpose of religion is not to make oneself feel good or to show everyone how special you are- it is to use those desires to get people to make sure society continues.

    If you want to have God’s favor you are going to have to determine what your own people’s equivalent of the Law is and follow and obey it. The purpose of the Jews is to show obedience to the Law to the nations of the world, not to convince everyone to be Jews.

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I’m not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being “better” than anything.

    It sounds like one of the sources rejected from the formation of the Orange Catholic Bible for being heretical nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Anonymous
    Wherever there are too many people there will always be slavery, even if it's not called that. This slavery won't be entirely involuntary either. It's better to serve than to starve.

    You are describing US Labor Markets…It’s called wage slavery….

    The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=Nonwhite Scab Labor

    The scale of nonwhite Scab Labor in US Labor Markets=Nonwhite Legal Immigrants+their US Nonwhite geneline in US Labor Markets since 1965…..

    The amount of nonwhite Scab Labor in US Labor Markets post-1965 monumentally enormous…..

    Try to achieve a level of economic growth needed to make everyone happy…and America is blacktopped and paved over…This is what Trump is attempting to do….America will be a hellish place to exist in…

    GROWTH DOESN’T PAY FOR ITSELF…y’all understand this obvious point?..Right?…And your water supply…..Mt Kisco NY…will be a victim of Donald Trump’s economic externalities….as in golf course pesticide runoff into your Town-Cities reservoir….I was-am a living breathing witness to Donald’s Mount Kisco shennanigans…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Mr. Anon says:
    @gcochran
    Which suggests the remedy.

    Indeed. The only remedy that would really work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's how they do it in Israel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yc7HBLnSdo

    Watch from 0:40 to 1:40.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ8Va_jX8kA

    Prior to the riot, local Israeli leaders made the following remarks to large crowds.

    Three years, 50,000 infiltrators.
     

    For three years, women can't go to the market without being robbed.
     

    Young men can't find work.
     

    The Sudanese are a cancer in our body.
     

    We will do everything to return them to their countries of origin.
     

    All they do is reproduce! Deport them!
     
    One Israeli crowd yelled this.

    Ni****, Ni****. You're a son of a b*****.
     
    I wonder what Harvey Weinstein, David Brooks, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Tamar Jacoby, Sasha Baron Cohen, and Jennifer Rubin would have to say about this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    England is failing the Shit Test.
    America, do not follow England into oblivion.
    Stand tall, fight back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Actually, it's the other way around. Pre-90s England was not a PC place. However, during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC because they wanted their country to be like America.

    By the way, there's this myth that exists in White nationalist circles that Americans are somehow more manly and more anti-PC than Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually have a 50% higher incidence of slavery in the U.S. than in the UK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Cloudbuster
    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You're going to explain that, or I'm just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be "better."

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I'm not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being "better" than anything.

    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    Not ‘with abandon’. They got their reasons. Also, there is balance. So, when some gods are against you, others can be for you. And because the gods are not perfect and have failings, they are more understanding of people. Also, the Greek mythological world is like poetic mapping of the mind. Every facet of human psychology is represented.
    In contrast, Christianity repressed too much to over-emphasize an impossible virtue of pacifism.. and that turns everyone into a rank hypocrite since no one can survive by heeding Jesus’ message.

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be “better.”

    Like Greek mythology, there are contrasting views of God and His design. That allows for more thought and debate whereas Christianity, like Islam, claims to have solved the riddle. Religion as riddle or maze is more interesting than religion as answer. Christianity is like a cheat sheet that gives you all the answers, so all you need is trust and faith.
    Also, Judaism isn’t just about an idea but about blood and soil and history.

    This is why I think there is yet another opportunity to develop a new spin on monotheism.

    So, far it was (1) one God for one people or (2) one God for all peoples, the core principle of Christianity and Islam.

    But what hasn’t been properly explored is One God for Each People, meaning all people should worship the same God but have their own special covenant with him. So, a kind of Judaism-for-each-people.

    Aren’t Jews, on a pound for pound basis, stronger than any Christian group or Muslim group because they have the Covenant? So, even as Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe, more or less, in the same One God, Jews feel special and focused whereas Christians and Muslims just feel generic and blurry. I mean a white Christian is supposed to see an African Christian and Asian Christian as a bigger fellow brother than his ethnic kin.

    Covenantism is the way to go.

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is.

    Chrislam combines the virtues of Christianity with the warrior cult of Islam.
    In Islam, a Muslim is expected to be both saint and warrior.
    In Christianity, a good Christian is only supposed to be a saint. But no people could survive without warriors. So, Christian order came to rely on warriors for power. But because of core Christian teachings, the reliance on warriors to protect the West and expand Western power came to be seen as a betrayal of Jesus’ teachings. So, we get all this guilt and apologies and etc. Weakness.

    In contrast, Chrislam imagines Jesus and Muhammad having lunch together and negotiating a new religion whereby Jesus admits the flaws in Christianity. And Muhammad admits maybe he was wrong on some things too.
    So, it combines the virtues of Christianity with virility of Islam.

    Maybe this can arise in Russia where Orthodox Faith and Chechen warrior cult can be combined.

    But I still think Covenantism is better. Each people will have to further the sacred texts by producing their own heroes and prophets. It’s like what Joseph Campbell said. Every culture used to have individuals who journeyed further in spirit and mind and returned with vision and wisdom that he shared with his folks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Chrislam combines the virtues of Christianity with the warrior cult of Islam.
     
    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult. It is widely known as being a Christian.

    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.

    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.

    Cowboy up, and stand with them, or genuflect and lick the boots of your masters. There is no alternative.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Colleen Pater
    Yeah well the Times,Back in the late 70s on my 21st birthday hanging out with a bunch of adults including my 36 year old girlfriend being a precocious lad, i got into a political argument with several of the guests.I was raised by my parents and the zeitgeist to be pretty liberal socially, but someone had called me the rock and roll republican since my hair was down to my belt and i sort of looked like robert plant. Anyway despite my woke thinking on civil rights i wasn't an idiot i was a race realist I mean all new yorkers are. My girlfriend and many of her and my own friends were jews, But when one of them cited the NY Times as an appeal to authority in their argument I sneered "The jew York Times?" I could and still can get away with that sort of stuff, last year at a dinner party flirting banter I asked this beautiful black model if she wanted to play Sally and Thomas, LOL the cucks all froze it was hilarious You could have heard a pin drop for a split second But i knew i was fine i know women, she burst into laughter and turned purple yes blacks can blush.and the other women also laughed almost as quickly because they fist had to wonder why i hadn't asked them to play slave games. The point is even at 21 I understood the New York Times was a jewish propaganda outlet, that jews despite being funny and smart were at intellectual war with us, And having been educated by jesuits I was pretty sure they didnt have a chance. Of course I was wrong the jesuits fell them the entire church and the jews are winning, Im confident we could easilly beat them if we would just fight back but our elites are taitorous cuks that will sell out their nations for shekels from jews.

    Somewhere out there there is a young man, child of a midwestern family, graduate of a state university engineering school, and either he doesn’t have a penny to his name, or he’s up to his knees (but not his waist like a private-school humanities major) in debt.

    Somewhere out there there is a WASP scion of parents and grandparents who are land holders, ETF or mutual fund managers, private equity or hedge fund managers, on corporate boards, endowment fund managers, or simply the happy, quiet owners of assets all bound up in the same.

    The latter want you to see the former and think “privilege, white privilege!” They don’t want you thinking about them and their privilege.

    And I am pretty sure, that with your Jesuit education, you know what’s going on there – why it is happening, how its been happening since the Bronze Age, and why it’s wrong.

    So let’s not turn around and notice some elites misbehaving, who happen to be Jewish instead of WASPs, and hold an entire demographic responsible for their behavior. Let’s bone up a bit when calling out their bad behavior if they hide behind a “magic amulet” (h/t Steve Sailer) of “anti-semitism!”, but be classy about it. Be like Jeremy Piven calling out false accusations – he acknowledges the legitimate pain of legitimate victims, and segues from there to call out that the abuse of the appeal to shared victimhood hurts the legitimate victims. The legitimate victims of anti-semitism are hurt by powerful elites who hide behind antisemitism as a slur used against those who would hold them accountable.

    It’s a test. Your Jesuit education should have taught you this. It’s a test – and you are failing the test. All you have to do is disagree – you disagree by acknowledging the legitimate victims of anti-semitism and the legitimate problem of anti-semitism, and you move on to keep condemning the guilty, brushing it off as if nothing happened, making clear that you will prosecute your legitimate case even while you are illegitimately libeled with the anti-semitism label.

    When you fail the test, you out yourself as anti-semitic, your prosecution collapses and you empower the abusers because it gives others a reason to close ranks – and pitchfork wielding masses and all – there is good reason to close ranks when that is the issue.

    When you pass the test – you divide the opposition and you force the opposition to make a moral choice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    You’re not going back far enough. The seeds of our modern malaise were planted at least a century ago.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    What were the two world wars, if not orgies of medievalism, barbarism, and savagery?

    Whatever was left of the white world’s soul after World War I was decisively obliterated in World War II. The onslaught of decadence and degeneracy that began (in earnest) in the ’60s was a direct result of the hollowing-out of the Western spirit. The boomers grew up in a moral abyss.

    Don’t forget that, in the ’50s and ’60s, kids in America (and elsewhere, I guess) were subjected to regular nuclear-war drills (“duck and cover”). Everyone expected the bombs to fall sooner or later. In the face of seemingly-imminent apocalyptic doom, an “anything goes” philosophy was bound to prevail.

    If you were taught as a kid that the world was probably going to end in your lifetime, would you have developed a strong desire to uphold the old ways? (Never mind that those ancient traditions were being undermined by rapid and dramatic technological developments, such as the Pill.) Not likely. By the time you were a young adult, you would have said, “Screw it,” and abandoned yourself to the hedonistic frenzy. Hence, the sexual revolution.

    The normalization of perversion that began in the late ’60s has continued unabated since then.

    There is a saying that, for every cockroach that you see in your home, there are at least ten lurking around that you don’t see. (I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratio is more like one to one hundred.) The roaches started breeding in the aftermath of World War I. By the ’60s, they were crawling out into the open. Today they are everywhere.

    Now, I’m not even getting into the Frankfurt School and other related subjects. I could write a book (a whole library of books, even) about all of this.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Medievalism, barbarism, savagery":

    One of these things is not like the others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Daniel H says:
    @Anonymous
    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can't be worse than what we have now.

    >>Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west,

    Well, we have a start with Jared. Let’s see how that works out

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Cloudbuster
    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? You're going to explain that, or I'm just going to have to dismiss that as a joke. An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be "better."

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is. Irrelevant heretical schism that I'm not sure anyone actually follows. No claim to being "better" than anything.

    Go beyond Plato and Aristotle – which are the only ones I can safely bet (with still a likelihood that I’m wrong) were included in your education.

    Spend a year on the Stoics: Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus … those are the big 3 but there’s more. Really I’m completely serious, like: I don’t even know you but if you read a sentence or paragraph out of each like you would a verse out of Proverbs, once a day, for a year – it will change your life.

    As you do this you’ll pick up things about the Epicureans which are more difficult to study because not as much lit survives, but still important, and then after a year of it, go back over what you thought you knew about Plato and Aristotle – now you’ll find yourself knowing 3-4X more.

    Then with all of that go back and try your Greek mythology again, and then - judge Greek mythology versus the Bible. The latter still has its place in the modern canon, but you’ll realize we threw the baby out with the bathwater somewhere along the way.

    Heh – and remind all the Teuton admirers and wannabees here that Zeus, Indo-European though he was, belonged to the Mediterranean eons before we heard about Odin in north central Europe – Zeus and all the culture, technology and wisdom that surrounded him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cthulhu


    Spend a year on the Stoics: Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus … those are the big 3 but there’s more. Really I’m completely serious, like: I don’t even know you but if you read a sentence or paragraph out of each like you would a verse out of Proverbs, once a day, for a year – it will change your life.

     

    The Stoics were a prominent plot point in Tom Wolfe's second (and probably best) novel, A Man In Full. Excellent book, strongly recommended.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Daniel H says:
    @Malla
    The Parsis are a bunch of Persians who came to India to escape the Muslims, no one knows what place they had in Persian society and a lot of their behaviour is Jewish. The Portuguese described them as European like and Jewish like but the truth is most Parsis today have Indian ancestry in them from their female line. Besides that, the Parsi Dasturs had virtually no real deep knowledge of their books and just like the degraded Hindus around them, their religion had became wholly ritual. It were the Europeans who studied their texts in deep and researched the theology of Zoaraster. Same with Hinduism. Most Indians had no knowledge of their history, of their own Emperor Ashoka until the British scholars told them. Most of what we know of Indian history is because of the British officers of the East India company.

    Freddy Mercury was a Parsi. So is Zubin Mehta. It is said that the Parsis will be extinct in a few generations because 1) they don’t accept converts, and 2) to be a Parsi, both parents must be Parsis, yet many Parsis are marrying outside the group.

    They are a merchant/professional minority. They are generally much more successful than the surrounding community.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Daniel H says:
    @Malla
    The Parsis are a bunch of Persians who came to India to escape the Muslims, no one knows what place they had in Persian society and a lot of their behaviour is Jewish. The Portuguese described them as European like and Jewish like but the truth is most Parsis today have Indian ancestry in them from their female line. Besides that, the Parsi Dasturs had virtually no real deep knowledge of their books and just like the degraded Hindus around them, their religion had became wholly ritual. It were the Europeans who studied their texts in deep and researched the theology of Zoaraster. Same with Hinduism. Most Indians had no knowledge of their history, of their own Emperor Ashoka until the British scholars told them. Most of what we know of Indian history is because of the British officers of the East India company.

    Freddy Mercury was a Parsi. So is Zubin Mehta. It is said that the Parsis will be extinct in a few generations because 1) they don’t accept converts, and 2) to be a Parsi, both parents must be Parsis, yet many Parsis are marrying outside the group.

    They are a merchant/professional minority. They are generally much more successful than the surrounding community.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Not off topic: Read the LA Times piece about Brett Ratner and Russell Simmons. It’s the top headline on Drudge right now so most of you have seen it, I’m sure. It looks like, basically, Rattner played pimp to Simmons’s John, funneling him young white girls, many of whom say they were essentially raped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Eagle Eye says:
    @European-American
    Earlier this year, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    I often turn to the Daily Mail as a first choice to get a quick idea about a news story. I like that they include text and pictures and video that get straight to the point.

    I understand that they may be sometimes sensational or unreliable, but I still read them.

    So I’m not sure if Daily Mail really does give me better info or if I’ve just become a deplorable bottom-dwelling Neanderthal.

    Probably a bit of both. Can I blame Trump?

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

    Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    Daily Mail still publishes news items that contravene The Narrative, e.g. on issues such as immigration, Muslim rape gangs, etc.

    This is why NSA/Wikipedia banned DM.

    A real online encyclopedia would look at the reliability of news sources case-by-case.

    As part of the same effort to gradually bring Wikipedia in line with The Narrative, Wikipedia’s internal structure has been revamped with the establishment of cooperating cabals of “admins” and editors who zealously guard the purity of “their” content. Even edits in line with the ideological leanings of article authors are routinely deleted within seconds to protect the turf and exclusive control of the establishment cabal.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @European-American
    NSA/Wikipedia? Are you saying the NSA runs Wikipedia? Any evidence for that?

    I’m aware of a lawsuit by Wikipedia and the ACLU against the NSA for spying on Wikipedia users.

    As for cabals of editors, I’ve run across them, but I’m not sure they are specially orchestrated, just a regrettable feature of any of these kinds of volunteer-based or non-profit organizations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stan Adams
    You're not going back far enough. The seeds of our modern malaise were planted at least a century ago.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.
     
    What were the two world wars, if not orgies of medievalism, barbarism, and savagery?

    Whatever was left of the white world's soul after World War I was decisively obliterated in World War II. The onslaught of decadence and degeneracy that began (in earnest) in the '60s was a direct result of the hollowing-out of the Western spirit. The boomers grew up in a moral abyss.

    Don't forget that, in the '50s and '60s, kids in America (and elsewhere, I guess) were subjected to regular nuclear-war drills ("duck and cover"). Everyone expected the bombs to fall sooner or later. In the face of seemingly-imminent apocalyptic doom, an "anything goes" philosophy was bound to prevail.

    If you were taught as a kid that the world was probably going to end in your lifetime, would you have developed a strong desire to uphold the old ways? (Never mind that those ancient traditions were being undermined by rapid and dramatic technological developments, such as the Pill.) Not likely. By the time you were a young adult, you would have said, "Screw it," and abandoned yourself to the hedonistic frenzy. Hence, the sexual revolution.

    The normalization of perversion that began in the late '60s has continued unabated since then.

    There is a saying that, for every cockroach that you see in your home, there are at least ten lurking around that you don't see. (I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio is more like one to one hundred.) The roaches started breeding in the aftermath of World War I. By the '60s, they were crawling out into the open. Today they are everywhere.

    Now, I'm not even getting into the Frankfurt School and other related subjects. I could write a book (a whole library of books, even) about all of this.

    “Medievalism, barbarism, savagery”:

    One of these things is not like the others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Agree.
    , @Stan Adams
    Hitler saw himself as the Charlemagne of the twentieth century. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire.

    So, yes, "medieval" does apply.
    , @Anon
    “Medievalism, barbarism, savagery”:

    One of these things is not like the others.

    I don't mean Medievalism is like barbarianism or savagery.

    But it's is pre-modern, and even anti-modern in today's context. It is about turning back the clock.

    Islam isn't about barbarism or savagery. It is neo-Medievalism by other means.

    In Europe, the fall of the Roman Empire led to barbarians running amok. But in time, a new order was created during Medievalism, a middle ground between barbarism and high-culture Renaissance.

    In the Middle East, the increasing decline of Byzantines and Persians led to a crisis. With declining order, the whole place could have been run amok by nomadic barbarian gangs.
    Maybe if Muhammad hadn't come along, ragtag Arabs would have just run amok as cutthroat bandits, like the Mongols and Huns.
    But Islam gave them a sense of purpose and meaning.
    So, even though they acted like semi-barbarians in their conquests, they were imbued with a spiritual purpose. And this was Near East Medievalism.

    A kind of reverse dynamics came to define the Near East when compared to the West.
    In the West, Medievalism of Christian Civilization gradually gave way to revival of high pagan classical culture of Greeks and Romans. Hellenism gained over Christo-Hebraism.

    In the Near East where Byzantine Christianity had preserved classical culture(at least much of it) and where Persians had preserved pagan culture of their own, the Islamic Medievalism gained and gained and stamped out classical culture(even though Arabs learned from that stuff for awhile).

    Classicism was revived and grew stronger in the West, but it grew weaker and faded in the Middle East.

    Anyway, neo-medievalism via Islam makes a certain sense as savagery(esp of blacks) and barbarism(esp of vulgar trash pop culture and family breakdown) define today's ridiculous West.
    Medievalism, a kind of fusion of heavy-duty spiritualism and feudal-warrior culture, was necessary to restore order in a world where Imperial Certainties were no more. So, unless Medievalism restored order by localization of authority and hardcore spiritual conviction, there was bound to be more disorder, chaos, and etc.

    As the forces of jungle and junk engulf the West and as the concept of Justice becomes ever sillier(homo this, tranny that), the neo-medievalism of Islam might gain, especially in Europe that has a considerable Muslim population.
    It's like that novel SUBMISSION. When white culture is cuckery, black culture is savagery, and intellectual culture is decadence -- and when Christianity has surrendered to magic negro worship and homomania --, what is there but Islam as some kind of substantive moral and political system?

    Now, Islam turns me off, but it got some things right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Luke Lea
    A terrible story. Makes me ill.

    The story makes me ill, too. It’s horrifying and disgusting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Mr. Anon
    Indeed. The only remedy that would really work.

    Here’s how they do it in Israel.

    Watch from 0:40 to 1:40.

    Prior to the riot, local Israeli leaders made the following remarks to large crowds.

    Three years, 50,000 infiltrators.

    For three years, women can’t go to the market without being robbed.

    Young men can’t find work.

    The Sudanese are a cancer in our body.

    We will do everything to return them to their countries of origin.

    All they do is reproduce! Deport them!

    One Israeli crowd yelled this.

    Ni****, Ni****. You’re a son of a b*****.

    I wonder what Harvey Weinstein, David Brooks, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Tamar Jacoby, Sasha Baron Cohen, and Jennifer Rubin would have to say about this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I wonder what Harvey Weinstein, David Brooks, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Tamar Jacoby, Sasha Baron Cohen, and Jennifer Rubin would have to say about this.

     

    Tsk tsk. Of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @anonymous
    England is failing the Shit Test.
    America, do not follow England into oblivion.
    Stand tall, fight back.

    Actually, it’s the other way around. Pre-90s England was not a PC place. However, during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC because they wanted their country to be like America.

    By the way, there’s this myth that exists in White nationalist circles that Americans are somehow more manly and more anti-PC than Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually have a 50% higher incidence of slavery in the U.S. than in the UK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC
     
    AKA the Blair Terror.

    Who did Blair really work for in transmogrifying the UK?
    , @Anonymous
    PC is just secular puritanism. The English drove out most of their puritans in the 17th century. This seems to be the only effective solution to the problem.
    , @El Dato
    I think it started during the Mad Cow Disease era (the provenance of which still hasn't been completely elucidated though new advances in the science of protein misfolding were kickstarted by it). John Major's government got rocked relentlessly by scandals during that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major#.22Sleaze.22 (incidentally, this included lying about BSE, telling everyone that British Beefs was safe whereas biologists weren't so sure; in the end relatively few people died)

    Major later commented in his memoirs on the "routine" with which he would be telephoned over the weekend to be warned of the latest embarrassing story due to break. He wrote that he took a stern line against financial impropriety, but was angered at the way in which a host of scandals, many of them petty sexual misdemeanours by a small number of MPs, were exploited by the press and Opposition for political advantage. He also conceded that the issue "fed the public belief that the Conservative(s) ... had been in government too long, and had got into bad habits" and quoted Labour's claim in 1997: "Nothing better encapsulates what people think of this government. Sleaze will be one of the things which brings this government down."

     

    , @Stan Adams
    A lot of it comes from the fact that when the British government told Brits to line up and turn in their guns, they complied without complaint. The same goes for the Aussies.

    Brits have long had more of a nanny state. They also tend to be less direct and more passive-aggressive than Americans. But Americans are still more polite than, say, Germans. (Even New Yorkers are more polite than, say, Dutch folks.)

    There's also the "We had to come over and pull your asses out of the fire - twice!" spiel about the world wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Anon
    Aint no big deal, ya.

    Now, this is African-style fatherhood. Shoplifting is like dunking a ball.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/932303108146892801

    Could you imagine Jeb Bush saying that?

    Trump has cajones. That’s for sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @eah
    Report: Schools Must Teach Britain Is an ‘Immigration Nation’ to Fight Islamophobia

    The government should empower NGOs and race activists to police the media to ensure ethnic minorities are not portrayed in a bad light, and the school curriculum must be changed so that every child is taught Britain has no native population, according to a new report on Islamophobia...In Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us All, “race relations” think tank the Runnymede Trust alleges that “anti-Muslim racism” is responsible for all inequalities between Muslims and other groups in Britain “across a range of outcomes, from health, housing and environment to education, employment and criminal justice”.

    The Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jews.

    https://twitter.com/AJObserver/status/931972194078478336

    Tweet deleted?

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Apparently -- his whole account will probably soon be deleted...again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Mayor Sadiq Khan could take the lead on this.

    He could be a modern-day William Wilberforce and confront his fellow ‘Englishmen’ about exploiting and enslaving their naive and trusting hosts.

    Colonies must be managed responsibly and humanely, don’t you know. It’s what makes an English gentleman different.

    I don’t think he will, though. White slavery is just ‘part and parcel’ of living in Londonistan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Or Khan could just f**k right off. Hey, just thinking out loud here.

    I was muttering about him recently and Mrs Lurker pointed out that, as an MP, he had been supportive of her profession. "That's nice." I said "When we deport him, he can have a window seat."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Eagle Eye says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Actually, it's the other way around. Pre-90s England was not a PC place. However, during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC because they wanted their country to be like America.

    By the way, there's this myth that exists in White nationalist circles that Americans are somehow more manly and more anti-PC than Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually have a 50% higher incidence of slavery in the U.S. than in the UK.

    during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC

    AKA the Blair Terror.

    Who did Blair really work for in transmogrifying the UK?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes, Blair.

    Blair was basically a British version of Clinton and implemented a pro-business, globalist, neo-liberal, pro-diversity agenda in the UK.

    Some of this began under John Major, but Blair kicked it into high gear. Then it continued under Brown. Cameron and May haven't done much to change anything, but they're slightly less enthusiastic about the neo-liberal agenda.

    Most of the sex grooming rings began in the late 90s, right after Blair came into office. During that time, immigration controls were loosened and the British public was indoctrinated very aggressively in the PC agenda. Tony Blair was John Major on steroids.
    , @notanon

    Who did Blair really work for in transmogrifying the UK?
     
    He went to work for Morgan Stanley after the left office so i assume he was working for them before also.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. wren says:
    @eah
    At this point no one should be surprised by anything they see about the UK.

    Predatory Syrian refugee sexually attacks 6 women & is jailed for just 16 months. Meanwhile a young British man is jailed for 4 years for making Facebook posts.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DO7AMH1WkAA1g51.jpg

    Yikes, the Joe Strummer Subway?

    Looks more like an “underpass.”

    http://landobreaks.blogspot.com/2012/11/joe-strummer-subway-edgware-road.html

    Apparently, he busked there back before the Clash.

    It is now known for flooding, homeless sleeping rough, and, I suppose, Syrian refugees lurking in the underpass and pouncing on terrified victims.

    London is drowning, and I live by the river.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. In the past Saracens had to sail to the British Isles, land, battle for a town, take the women, sail back to the flesh markets and sell them into harems. Now they just live there and take the girls off the street. It’s like Amazon level disruption of the white slave industry. Very innovative! Will Clayton Christensen write about it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. https://www.channel4.com/news/slaves-slavery-uk-britain-home-office-prostitution-workers

    Two-thirds of UK-based slaves are from overseas.

    So that’s about 4,000 British nationals who are slaves and 9,000 foreigners (mostly Albanians, Vietnamese, Polish, Romanians).

    From what I’ve read, lots of British slaves are actually of Irish traveller or Roma origin.

    Here’s an article about Irish travellers operating a slave ring. One judge claimed there could be thousands of potential slaves in the country that are being held by Travellers.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/traveller-family-ran-modern-slavery-10970789

    If you exclude foreign nationals and Travellers/Roma, it’s not clear how widespread white slavery is in the UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. fish says:
    @Tiny Duck
    It's about time the shoe was on the other foot. Maybe white "people" shouldn't have committed such heinous colonialism and murder

    Ohs Tinys…..deys be no ends to yous self hayt…..

    Lenter “I be’s doktorb” Pit

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Eagle Eye

    during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC
     
    AKA the Blair Terror.

    Who did Blair really work for in transmogrifying the UK?

    Yes, Blair.

    Blair was basically a British version of Clinton and implemented a pro-business, globalist, neo-liberal, pro-diversity agenda in the UK.

    Some of this began under John Major, but Blair kicked it into high gear. Then it continued under Brown. Cameron and May haven’t done much to change anything, but they’re slightly less enthusiastic about the neo-liberal agenda.

    Most of the sex grooming rings began in the late 90s, right after Blair came into office. During that time, immigration controls were loosened and the British public was indoctrinated very aggressively in the PC agenda. Tony Blair was John Major on steroids.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Actually, it's the other way around. Pre-90s England was not a PC place. However, during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC because they wanted their country to be like America.

    By the way, there's this myth that exists in White nationalist circles that Americans are somehow more manly and more anti-PC than Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually have a 50% higher incidence of slavery in the U.S. than in the UK.

    PC is just secular puritanism. The English drove out most of their puritans in the 17th century. This seems to be the only effective solution to the problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The English drove out most of their puritans in the 17th century.

    Did you see UK today? Either the English didn't drive out enough or Puritans took over the world... though they are more like Pueritans as what they are most puritanical about is puerile stuff like homo/tranny crap.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Clyde says:
    @wren
    London is drowning, and I live by the river.

    https://youtu.be/EfK-WX2pa8c

    The Clash were big enough to play Shea Stadium http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIFublvDes

    Read More
    • Replies: @cthulhu


    The Clash were big enough to play Shea Stadium

     

    Uh, they were opening for the Who...if you look closely you can see the Who's stage gear in the background.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. El Dato says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Actually, it's the other way around. Pre-90s England was not a PC place. However, during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC because they wanted their country to be like America.

    By the way, there's this myth that exists in White nationalist circles that Americans are somehow more manly and more anti-PC than Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually have a 50% higher incidence of slavery in the U.S. than in the UK.

    I think it started during the Mad Cow Disease era (the provenance of which still hasn’t been completely elucidated though new advances in the science of protein misfolding were kickstarted by it). John Major’s government got rocked relentlessly by scandals during that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major#.22Sleaze.22 (incidentally, this included lying about BSE, telling everyone that British Beefs was safe whereas biologists weren’t so sure; in the end relatively few people died)

    Major later commented in his memoirs on the “routine” with which he would be telephoned over the weekend to be warned of the latest embarrassing story due to break. He wrote that he took a stern line against financial impropriety, but was angered at the way in which a host of scandals, many of them petty sexual misdemeanours by a small number of MPs, were exploited by the press and Opposition for political advantage. He also conceded that the issue “fed the public belief that the Conservative(s) … had been in government too long, and had got into bad habits” and quoted Labour’s claim in 1997: “Nothing better encapsulates what people think of this government. Sleaze will be one of the things which brings this government down.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes, it started under John Major and hit critical speed under Blair.

    By the early 2000s, UK was a very different place from the early 90s.

    10-15 years changed everything.

    In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the "Defense of Marriage Act." This act was supported by a 342-67 margin in the House and a 85-14 margin in the Senate. The act banned gay marriage. By 2012, the Democrats (under Obama) decided that they now supported gay marriage.

    In 1996, polls showed that Americans opposed gay marriage by a 68-27 margin. By 2011, American supported gay marriage by a 53-45 margin. In America, over the course of 15 years, gay marriage went from -41% to +8%. So nearly half the public (49%) changed their views in just a short amount of time.

    Modern day Westerners seem highly susceptible to propaganda, especially media propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. El Dato says:
    @biz
    This! Very insightful comment.

    Already back in the 90s when I was in middle school one of my afrocentric teachers pushed the point that while it was Africans who sold their own slaves to Europeans for the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery in Africa was "not as bad" as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters. We also learned about the king Mansa Musa who had 1,000 or maybe it was 10,000 "subjects" carrying his gold to Mecca and I remember thinking that somebody who is forced to carry gold across the desert sure sounds like a slave to me and that seems just as bad as being forced to work in a cotton field.

    Anyway, that guy sure wasn't trying to push a re-introduction of slavery, but my point is that even by then, two decades ago, the propaganda groundwork had been laid to view American slavery as uniquely bad in world history, and African slavery as much more benign.

    After several decades of that propaganda, who knows where we might stand now. Islam apologists like that Georgetown prof are currently pushing their own whitewash of Islamic slavery, even including the rape-y parts. Given the speed with which the Left is now abandoning its historical commitments to individual rights and equality in the name of supporting Islam and any people perceived as being "non-white" I think that slavery in certain contexts could be accepted very soon. We already have prominent feminists saying that burkas are "liberating," so is saying that slavery is liberating far behind?

    Well, the frankly mythical exploitin’ by non-black Pharaoh of people with weird noses from faraway can’t have been all that bad either, I reckon.

    What is the totem pole of slavery evil?

    Maybe the Aztecs top it… pulling hearts till blood covers the pyramid out is pretty radical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Maybe the Aztecs top it… pulling hearts till blood covers the pyramid out is pretty radical.

    I dunno. Maybe a time will come when it's 'progressive' to demand massive sacrifice of white folks to the gods of diversity. Wait a minute, that sounds like what is happening now.
    White tombs must be torn down or desecrated. White wombs must be conquered to make non-white babies.

    It is a form of human sacrifice. Sacrifice everything in the West -- genetics, culture, history, and etc. -- to serve GOG or god of globalism.

    I think the rise of feminism and castration of white men will have a huge impact on the world. Despite all this feminist crap, a civilization cannot stand proud without tough men with confidence. As feminist power takes over the West and undercuts pride of white men, non-whites will lose respect for the modern world. Whatever grudging respect they once had for whites will vanish, and the world order will be shaken. Just notice how Shep totally chigurhed out.. And it's telling that the ONE GUY he vouched for is the brooding viking psycho thug. They sort of 'get' each other.
    Indian savage can respect white power as long as he sees it as badass viking stuff.

    A microcosm of such danger can be seen in FARGO when the mostly silent Indian totally loses it and explodes in fury.

    Consider... Indians put up a fight against white men. But white men won. On the one hand, Indians were filled with much bitterness over what the white man did.
    On the other hand, the cowboy was a mighty warrior, and Indians respected that. After all, they were of a warrior culture and they respected fighters and winners.

    So, the Indians could accept defeat at the hands of white men... on grounds that whites remain tough and virile and maintain the order. It's no disgrace to lose to a race of mighty warriors. It's like what David Yeagley said. 'White Man defeated our people. We lost much that was ours. But white man mighty warrior. He fight good. And because he is proud warrior, he respect how red man fought. He honor red man, and we honor white man as new chief." It's like the Zulu warriors finally depart in the Michael Caine after the Brits prove their mettle on the battlefield. They feel, "Sheeeeiiit, them white boys tough!!"

    But look at the modern world. Even a pregnant white woman can be a cop and carry a gun and make threats to an Indian. I mean it was one thing for Indians to lose to tough white guys and accept the new order.
    But to be pushed around by a white squaw? That is too much. I mean even being scalped isn't as bad as being castrated and emasculated.
    When she asks him questions at the auto dealership, he'd never been that humiliated before. He'd been in jail and he'd run across some bad characters, and he's no saint himself. But to have to take that from a white squaw... that was a beaver too far.

    So, the chief just explodes in fury at Buscemi and hurls abuse at the white man. It's bad enough to lose to white men but to live in a new order where Indian braves have to take shi* from white women, pregnant one at that playing a police officer...
    It's telling that he also beats up a black guy, as if to say, "you whites not only conquered our land but then brought over these negroes as well." And his tirade unleashes the world record for the most F-bombs in a minute.

    I think the scene is significant in this sense. The non-West lost to the West in the past 2 centuries but still had immense respect for the power of the people who created the new order: White Men.
    But as that respect fades, we're gonna see a f***ed-up world. And if feminists think they are gonna run things, forget it. Once white male power collapses, so will white female power that developed under the special privileged protection of white male power.

    White men must shape up or 'shep' out.

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @nigel
    Where is Charles Martel?

    Where is Charles Martel?

    Charles is on the way. The only question right now is how long will it take him to arrive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Anonymous
    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can't be worse than what we have now.

    Can’t be worse than what we have now.

    It can always be worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @gcochran
    Which suggests the remedy.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @European-American
    Earlier this year, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.

    I often turn to the Daily Mail as a first choice to get a quick idea about a news story. I like that they include text and pictures and video that get straight to the point.

    I understand that they may be sometimes sensational or unreliable, but I still read them.

    So I’m not sure if Daily Mail really does give me better info or if I’ve just become a deplorable bottom-dwelling Neanderthal.

    Probably a bit of both. Can I blame Trump?

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

    Can I blame Trump?

    Yes, but you should thank him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @eah
    At this point no one should be surprised by anything they see about the UK.

    Predatory Syrian refugee sexually attacks 6 women & is jailed for just 16 months. Meanwhile a young British man is jailed for 4 years for making Facebook posts.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DO7AMH1WkAA1g51.jpg

    The Brits need an American Revolution. Sweep the parasite class away, and reclaim the rights our founders knew they were endowed with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Laugh Track

    Perhaps the solution is to have palace eunuchs running the west, in the manner of the Byzantine and Chinese empires.
    Can’t be worse than what we have now.
     
    I thought that was what we do have now. e.g. Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Macron, Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker, et al. And let's not forget Graham Norton.

    Your list of enemies of the American people would have to up their game to rise to the levels of eunuchs. And even if they do, then they will be pathetic eunuchs. On second thought, pathetic eunuchs is what they already are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Roadrunner
    OT, Another day, another ship collision in the Pacific.

    See below for pictures of CO and XO.


    http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg65/Pages/Bio1.aspx#.WhHLdklOnqB

    Ain’t diversity grand!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    FWIW, the collision occurred when the Japanese commercial tug boat lost power.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-warship-collides-japanese-tug-boat-latest-mishap/story?id=51242298
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    PC is just secular puritanism. The English drove out most of their puritans in the 17th century. This seems to be the only effective solution to the problem.

    The English drove out most of their puritans in the 17th century.

    Did you see UK today? Either the English didn’t drive out enough or Puritans took over the world… though they are more like Pueritans as what they are most puritanical about is puerile stuff like homo/tranny crap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @El Dato
    I think it started during the Mad Cow Disease era (the provenance of which still hasn't been completely elucidated though new advances in the science of protein misfolding were kickstarted by it). John Major's government got rocked relentlessly by scandals during that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major#.22Sleaze.22 (incidentally, this included lying about BSE, telling everyone that British Beefs was safe whereas biologists weren't so sure; in the end relatively few people died)

    Major later commented in his memoirs on the "routine" with which he would be telephoned over the weekend to be warned of the latest embarrassing story due to break. He wrote that he took a stern line against financial impropriety, but was angered at the way in which a host of scandals, many of them petty sexual misdemeanours by a small number of MPs, were exploited by the press and Opposition for political advantage. He also conceded that the issue "fed the public belief that the Conservative(s) ... had been in government too long, and had got into bad habits" and quoted Labour's claim in 1997: "Nothing better encapsulates what people think of this government. Sleaze will be one of the things which brings this government down."

     

    Yes, it started under John Major and hit critical speed under Blair.

    By the early 2000s, UK was a very different place from the early 90s.

    10-15 years changed everything.

    In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the “Defense of Marriage Act.” This act was supported by a 342-67 margin in the House and a 85-14 margin in the Senate. The act banned gay marriage. By 2012, the Democrats (under Obama) decided that they now supported gay marriage.

    In 1996, polls showed that Americans opposed gay marriage by a 68-27 margin. By 2011, American supported gay marriage by a 53-45 margin. In America, over the course of 15 years, gay marriage went from -41% to +8%. So nearly half the public (49%) changed their views in just a short amount of time.

    Modern day Westerners seem highly susceptible to propaganda, especially media propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Modern day Westerners seem highly susceptible to propaganda, especially media propaganda.
     
    Or they're incredibly willing to conform, whether they believe or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. cthulhu says:
    @Clyde
    The Clash were big enough to play Shea Stadium http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIFublvDes

    The Clash were big enough to play Shea Stadium

    Uh, they were opening for the Who…if you look closely you can see the Who’s stage gear in the background.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Thanks! The Clash were big but not that big.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. cthulhu says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    Go beyond Plato and Aristotle - which are the only ones I can safely bet (with still a likelihood that I'm wrong) were included in your education.

    Spend a year on the Stoics: Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus ... those are the big 3 but there's more. Really I'm completely serious, like: I don't even know you but if you read a sentence or paragraph out of each like you would a verse out of Proverbs, once a day, for a year - it will change your life.

    As you do this you'll pick up things about the Epicureans which are more difficult to study because not as much lit survives, but still important, and then after a year of it, go back over what you thought you knew about Plato and Aristotle - now you'll find yourself knowing 3-4X more.

    Then with all of that go back and try your Greek mythology again, and then - judge Greek mythology versus the Bible. The latter still has its place in the modern canon, but you'll realize we threw the baby out with the bathwater somewhere along the way.

    Heh - and remind all the Teuton admirers and wannabees here that Zeus, Indo-European though he was, belonged to the Mediterranean eons before we heard about Odin in north central Europe - Zeus and all the culture, technology and wisdom that surrounded him.

    Spend a year on the Stoics: Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus … those are the big 3 but there’s more. Really I’m completely serious, like: I don’t even know you but if you read a sentence or paragraph out of each like you would a verse out of Proverbs, once a day, for a year – it will change your life.

    The Stoics were a prominent plot point in Tom Wolfe’s second (and probably best) novel, A Man In Full. Excellent book, strongly recommended.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Cloudbuster
    This morning I read that Robert Mugabe has been replace by Emmerson ‘Crocodile’ Mnangagwa.

    Lucky for him that’s just a nickname.

    Yeah, I'm sure Mnangagwa is just an icon of civilized virtue, just like Mugabe....

    ... ah, yes, in the second paragraph of his Wikipedia entry:

    After Zimbabwe was recognized in 1980, Mnangagwa held a series of senior cabinet positions under Mugabe, including as minister of state security during the Gukurahundi massacres in which thousands of Ndebele civilians were killed. Mnangagwa blamed the army for the massacres and continued to hold senior cabinet positions, though he is widely believed to be responsible.

    Fantastic. We can certainly look forward to a new era of enlightenment and prosperity in Zimbabwe.

    Any failure to achieve such is obviously the White Man's fault.

    Fantastic. We can certainly look forward to a new era of enlightenment and prosperity in Zimbabwe.

    As I have mentioned here before, there is some great footage of the widely esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. interviewing a “mature” indigenous couple in Zimbabwe on his Great Railway Journeys PBS program. They were unequivocal in their preference for white Rhodesian rule.

    In the mean time, we can expect more of the same that they got from Mugabe. As you know well. But the upside is that liberals get to congratulate themselves for helping establish “home-rule.” And, once again, the indigenous people suffer to elevate the self-perceived worth of the idiots that occupy the commanding heights of America and Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @El Dato
    Well, the frankly mythical exploitin' by non-black Pharaoh of people with weird noses from faraway can't have been all that bad either, I reckon.

    What is the totem pole of slavery evil?

    Maybe the Aztecs top it... pulling hearts till blood covers the pyramid out is pretty radical.

    Maybe the Aztecs top it… pulling hearts till blood covers the pyramid out is pretty radical.

    I dunno. Maybe a time will come when it’s ‘progressive’ to demand massive sacrifice of white folks to the gods of diversity. Wait a minute, that sounds like what is happening now.
    White tombs must be torn down or desecrated. White wombs must be conquered to make non-white babies.

    It is a form of human sacrifice. Sacrifice everything in the West — genetics, culture, history, and etc. — to serve GOG or god of globalism.

    I think the rise of feminism and castration of white men will have a huge impact on the world. Despite all this feminist crap, a civilization cannot stand proud without tough men with confidence. As feminist power takes over the West and undercuts pride of white men, non-whites will lose respect for the modern world. Whatever grudging respect they once had for whites will vanish, and the world order will be shaken. Just notice how Shep totally chigurhed out.. And it’s telling that the ONE GUY he vouched for is the brooding viking psycho thug. They sort of ‘get’ each other.
    Indian savage can respect white power as long as he sees it as badass viking stuff.

    A microcosm of such danger can be seen in FARGO when the mostly silent Indian totally loses it and explodes in fury.

    Consider… Indians put up a fight against white men. But white men won. On the one hand, Indians were filled with much bitterness over what the white man did.
    On the other hand, the cowboy was a mighty warrior, and Indians respected that. After all, they were of a warrior culture and they respected fighters and winners.

    So, the Indians could accept defeat at the hands of white men… on grounds that whites remain tough and virile and maintain the order. It’s no disgrace to lose to a race of mighty warriors. It’s like what David Yeagley said. ‘White Man defeated our people. We lost much that was ours. But white man mighty warrior. He fight good. And because he is proud warrior, he respect how red man fought. He honor red man, and we honor white man as new chief.” It’s like the Zulu warriors finally depart in the Michael Caine after the Brits prove their mettle on the battlefield. They feel, “Sheeeeiiit, them white boys tough!!”

    But look at the modern world. Even a pregnant white woman can be a cop and carry a gun and make threats to an Indian. I mean it was one thing for Indians to lose to tough white guys and accept the new order.
    But to be pushed around by a white squaw? That is too much. I mean even being scalped isn’t as bad as being castrated and emasculated.
    When she asks him questions at the auto dealership, he’d never been that humiliated before. He’d been in jail and he’d run across some bad characters, and he’s no saint himself. But to have to take that from a white squaw… that was a beaver too far.

    So, the chief just explodes in fury at Buscemi and hurls abuse at the white man. It’s bad enough to lose to white men but to live in a new order where Indian braves have to take shi* from white women, pregnant one at that playing a police officer…
    It’s telling that he also beats up a black guy, as if to say, “you whites not only conquered our land but then brought over these negroes as well.” And his tirade unleashes the world record for the most F-bombs in a minute.

    I think the scene is significant in this sense. The non-West lost to the West in the past 2 centuries but still had immense respect for the power of the people who created the new order: White Men.
    But as that respect fades, we’re gonna see a f***ed-up world. And if feminists think they are gonna run things, forget it. Once white male power collapses, so will white female power that developed under the special privileged protection of white male power.

    White men must shape up or ‘shep’ out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Anon
    Greek Mythology

    Judaism(though it's only for Jews) as combo of universal truth and tribal-ancestor-appreciation(if not worship)

    Chrislam, if it ever takes off.

    I was about to write “you cannot be serious.” But after reading Chesterton I am sure you are.

    Greek mythology, and its “sacred texts,” the Iliad and the Odyssey, celebrated vice; Judaism is a tribal religion, and tribalism is the formula for perpetual suffering, war, slavery, and greed. Chrislam is the most incoherent religious idea fabricated in any fevered mind since the Moloch worship of the Punic diaspora.

    You either don’t understand what you have posted, or you have sold your soul.

    I’ll come down to watch you stand before The Great White Throne. And I’ll be happy to argue that you were just stupid in this life. But I wouldn’t want to you on that day.

    Read More
    • LOL: Roderick Spode
    • Replies: @Anon
    Greek mythology, and its “sacred texts,” the Iliad and the Odyssey, celebrated vice;

    Those are not sacred texts but storytelling via epic poems. They don't hold the place in Greek history/culture/spirituality that the Torah did in Jewish culture. Torah was revered as words written by men by guided by God. But Iliad and Odyssey are stories told by humans. They are war and adventure stories. For better or worse, there was never a core text in Greek Mythology. Rather, Greek mythological stories, ideas, and theories were dispersed throughout the culture. When finally the mythologies were pulled together into a coherent narrative by the Latin Ovid, it was done as a joke, so that couldn't be used as a sacred text.

    At any rate, Greek mythology cannot be approached or used like the Bible. That can be seen as a weakness as there is no core canon of right and wrong and cosmic truth. It can be confusing and lead one to cynicism and nihilism. But it can also be adventurous like the journey of Odysseus who has to find his own truth and path. Monotheism is like the sun in daytime. Its radiance conquers all. There are no stars, no moon. Just the sun as the sole truth. In contrast, pagan cultures are like stars in the night sky. Some stars are bigger than others. And we can see the planets to sometimes. This chaos can be confusing but it can also makes us map our own meaning, as with constellations.

    Also, it's wrong to say Greek mythology celebrates vice. Vice is there but there is also virtue, stories of sacrifice and redemption. And if some forces lead men to vice, other forces keep them from it. Consider when Odysseus is passing by the Sirens. The Sirens sing this song and makes him go boing. They entice him to come and play.. Of course, sirens are killers and eat men. Odysseus wanted to hear the seductive music but he also knew of its danger, and he made sure his men's ears were plugged. This is why Greek mythology is fuller in some ways. Instead of just condemning some stuff as BAD, it understands why it has that allure, charm, and temptation. But it also reminds us that giving into temptation can divert us from duty or even lead to destruction. It's morality play without overt moralism.

    Judaism is a tribal religion, and tribalism is the formula for perpetual suffering, war, slavery, and greed.

    It depends on what is meant by tribalism. If it means gangsterism of brutish us versus them, then it can be deadly, like vikings head bashing each other, Germanic barbarians fighting one another, and African tribes chucking spears. But then, isn't imperialism also warlike? Romans forced many tribes under one tent of Latin domination, but this entailed wars, suffering, slavery, and violence. In the case of Jews and Romans, weren't Jewish tribalists the resistance fighters who sought to toss off the Roman yoke?
    Also, tribalism means identity and culture. It doesn't have to us versus them. It can be us and them. Let us be us, and let them be them. Give them what is theirs,and let us keep what is ours.

    Chrislam is the most incoherent religious idea fabricated in any fevered mind since the Moloch worship of the Punic diaspora.

    I'm not talking about that Chrislam. I'm talking of a thought-experiment, a reformed chechenism that combines faith and fight. Today's Christianity is too anemic, and today's Islam is too bloody. But if one could take the spiritual essence of Christianity and fuse it
    with fighting spirit of Islam, you might have something there.

    Personally, I'd go with Asagirism, but having failed to win over anyone to the 'faith', I don't think it's a winning formula.

    PS. Maybe what every people need to do is produce their own bible. Torah isn't just an anthology of Jewish stuff.
    Anthologies are not special. After all, there are anthologies of everything: American literature, French literature, Russian literature, Persian literature, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and etc. Anthologies are dime-a-dozen.
    In contrast, the Torah is more than a collection of Jewish knowledge and history and culture. It is more than an anthology, more than an encyclopedia. Why? Because its history, theology, poetry, legalism, mythology, and etc are all threaded through with a common theme of God and Covenant. So, all those things in the Torah that could have been regarded as separate stuff(from one another) came to be organic and complementary parts of a whole.
    And that was the genius of Muhammad too. He didn't just take bits and pieces of Judaism, Christianity, and Arab culture and put them together. That would have been just a lame anthology. Rather, he digested all of them and merged all the narratives into a new prophecy. As a result, the Koran became sacred and canonical. And Muslims can carry that one book and feel complete.

    What the Western Right needs to do is write The Book that reworks and retells all the essential stories of the West into a single thread. The West produced many great books but no bible, no The Book. The Jewish Bible and New Testament have served as the Bible for Western Man. But the Bible is really Jewish and New Testament is really the vision of a Jewish guy and Jewish Disciples. Western Man cannot really claim to the Bible as his. Torah is really Jewish. And Christianity not only originated with Jews but is meant to be a World religion. The only reason why it became associated so closely with the West is because of the rise of Islam. If Muhammad had never been born, it's possible that all of Near East and North Africa would have been Christian(as indeed many of those parts were before Islam spread). And then, Christianity would have been the religion of everyone from Arabs to Africans to Europeans. And now, look at the Catholic Church. It's the religion of homos and blacks and Chinese and Indians in Latin America.

    The problem with the Western Narrative is one cannot lug around a 1000 books. In order for the West to have its own Bible, a single book that sums up the essential meaning, story, and destiny of European folks, the 1000 books have to be distilled and processed into a single book. That way, any white person can carry around this book as inspiration.
    For too long, Western man carried around the essential book of Jews as their Bible. It's time they had their own bible.

    This project could be the greatest of its kind since Gutenberg and Luther and German Bible.
    And it's necessary since Zuckerbitch(nasty sister of Marcus Zuckerius) and her globalist cohorts are trying to steal Western History as their own and retell it with blacks as Romans and Greeks and even Vikings.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Anon
    Greek Mythology better than Christianity? An abandoned pantheon of Gods that rape and murder with abandon is better than Christianity?

    Not 'with abandon'. They got their reasons. Also, there is balance. So, when some gods are against you, others can be for you. And because the gods are not perfect and have failings, they are more understanding of people. Also, the Greek mythological world is like poetic mapping of the mind. Every facet of human psychology is represented.
    In contrast, Christianity repressed too much to over-emphasize an impossible virtue of pacifism.. and that turns everyone into a rank hypocrite since no one can survive by heeding Jesus' message.

    The worthwhile portions of Judaism are entirely subsumed within Christianity, so I have a hard time understanding how it would be “better.”

    Like Greek mythology, there are contrasting views of God and His design. That allows for more thought and debate whereas Christianity, like Islam, claims to have solved the riddle. Religion as riddle or maze is more interesting than religion as answer. Christianity is like a cheat sheet that gives you all the answers, so all you need is trust and faith.
    Also, Judaism isn't just about an idea but about blood and soil and history.

    This is why I think there is yet another opportunity to develop a new spin on monotheism.

    So, far it was (1) one God for one people or (2) one God for all peoples, the core principle of Christianity and Islam.

    But what hasn't been properly explored is One God for Each People, meaning all people should worship the same God but have their own special covenant with him. So, a kind of Judaism-for-each-people.

    Aren't Jews, on a pound for pound basis, stronger than any Christian group or Muslim group because they have the Covenant? So, even as Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe, more or less, in the same One God, Jews feel special and focused whereas Christians and Muslims just feel generic and blurry. I mean a white Christian is supposed to see an African Christian and Asian Christian as a bigger fellow brother than his ethnic kin.

    Covenantism is the way to go.

    And Chrislam? I had to search for what that is.

    Chrislam combines the virtues of Christianity with the warrior cult of Islam.
    In Islam, a Muslim is expected to be both saint and warrior.
    In Christianity, a good Christian is only supposed to be a saint. But no people could survive without warriors. So, Christian order came to rely on warriors for power. But because of core Christian teachings, the reliance on warriors to protect the West and expand Western power came to be seen as a betrayal of Jesus' teachings. So, we get all this guilt and apologies and etc. Weakness.

    In contrast, Chrislam imagines Jesus and Muhammad having lunch together and negotiating a new religion whereby Jesus admits the flaws in Christianity. And Muhammad admits maybe he was wrong on some things too.
    So, it combines the virtues of Christianity with virility of Islam.

    Maybe this can arise in Russia where Orthodox Faith and Chechen warrior cult can be combined.

    But I still think Covenantism is better. Each people will have to further the sacred texts by producing their own heroes and prophets. It's like what Joseph Campbell said. Every culture used to have individuals who journeyed further in spirit and mind and returned with vision and wisdom that he shared with his folks.

    Chrislam combines the virtues of Christianity with the warrior cult of Islam.

    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult. It is widely known as being a Christian.

    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.

    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.

    Cowboy up, and stand with them, or genuflect and lick the boots of your masters. There is no alternative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult.
    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.
    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.


    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.
    Also, genuine Christianity's pacifism is not limp-wristed, weak, half-hearted, and etc.
    It takes far more courage than warrior-hood.
    Human nature, like animal nature, thinks in terms of fight or flight.
    Fight like a wolverine to survive or win. Or run like a mothafuc*a to save your behind. Germans and Russians fought like lions in WWII. Italians ran like rabbits. Both responses were very human. Fight to win and survive. Or take flight to seek safety and survive.

    Jesus didn't run though He could have. He didn't fight either. According to the New Testament, He is the Son of God and has Godly powers. After all, He turned a few loaves into lots of bread. So, theoretically, if He'd chosen not run like a cowardly Italian, He could have used magic powers to kick some serious butt. He could have been like a superhero. But He stood for peace, forgiveness, love, and understanding. And He decided to serve as a model of the highest virtue. And this took tremendous courage, esp if Mel Gibson's account is any reflection of what really happened.

    And there was real courage in what the Indians did against the British too. I mean Gandhi got whupped pretty bad. But he kept disobeying and resisting. This kind of peace was not weak or cowardly. It meant resisting or fighting without hate, without violence, but with forgiveness.
    It took the courage of virtue to turn the other cheek.

    https://youtu.be/SNmJqRV7LOA?t=1m53s

    So, Christianity's peace is not about chickening out, hiding in a hole, or running to mama like an Italian or a modern Greek(as the tough ancient Greek genes seem to have vanished).
    Now, Peter sought that kind of safety and felt shame. To save his own skin, he denied Jesus three times. He lacked the courage of a martyr. The fact that he felt shame means he didn't act Christian. He ran like the Shah of Iran. He ran like Lord Jim who felt bad about it and atoned for it later.

    According to Christianity, fighting and warring are sinful. They are not courageous because man is giving into animal fears and hatred. A Christian must conquer his fears. He must be resolute. He must be willing to pay the price, even with death. If a Christian gives into hate, anger, and revenge, he is really serving his animal nature of survival even if he claims to fight for God.
    To be a truly noble Christian, he must not fight even if it means death. After all, the world of men is just a transient nothing compare to eternity in Heaven. A Christian must never fear death.
    It is indeed much more difficult to love and forgive your enemy than kick his butt.

    Now, the limp-wristed Liberal Christians may claim to be courageous in choosing peace over violence, but they are full of shi*. The ONLY reason they can be so fluffy-duff lovey-dovey is because they live in well-protected and well-guarded communities made possible by wealth created by 'greed' and security offered by police and military. Look at the do-goody libbies in Yale and University of Chicago. They are protected by massive police presence. So, their do-goody talk is just so much BS. And do-goody Christian libby dibs who claim to love Muslims and Diversity can go on with such conceit cuz they live in gated communities. Just look how the lesbian mainline theologians live in elite colleges. They never had to face being fed to lions or being raped or crushed. That's why I have no use for the libby-dibbers.

    But true Christianity requires tremendous courage in the direst circumstances. It's like that pacifist guy in Gibson's WWII movie. His faith forbade him to pick up a gun. It took courage to stick by his principles when people in the army were calling him chicken. And he had to be fearless to save all those lives. And eventually, the men come to respect his courage as a different and perhaps even higher kind of courage.

    Not being religious myself, I prefer a more organismic view. Fight or flight, though having lived among diversity and Negroes in my youth, I stick by the general rule of 'run like a mothafuc*a' as the surest way out of trouble. Negro kids had this sixth sense. They'd be relaxing and taking it easy.. but then, lout of the blue,.. like in those nature documentaries where suddenly the deer or antelope stop chewing and become alert and then bolt. Just like that, the relaxed Negroes would suddenly prick up their ears and there would be a moment of silence.. and then some kid would mutter 'run like a motherfuc*a', and the kids would dash off in different directions. It could be from cops, gang members, or whatever.

    Now, we must not confuse Constantine and Christendom with what Christianity is about.
    After all, Buddha was pacifist but Buddhist societies practiced wars, conquests, slavery, kung fu, and etc. Angkor Wat the famous set of Buddhist temples were built by slaves. Samurai were buddhist but ruthless. Shaolin monks in KUNG FU learn to fight like Bruce Lee. So, Buddhist history produced lots of great warriors and armies. So, was Buddha about warrior pride? No.

    Also, Buddhist temples in Japan grew very rich. But Buddha wasn't about materialism either. Same goes for the West. Jesus told people to give all their wealth to the poor, be poor themselves, don't mind being poor, find virtue in poverty, and pray and meditate to reach Heaven. But Christendom was about great wealth, trade, and even piracy and plunder. Lots of great churches were built with wealth built on backs of serfs and New World slaves. The Corleones were Christians too. So, was that what Jesus was about?

    It's true that the heirs of Christendom are those who fought, survived, and had kids.
    And they had to fight because had they done as Jesus preached, they would have gotten beaten for sure, even killed.
    So, I don't have a problem with Christians not obeying Jesus. I don't mind Christians fighting like lions to defeat invaders, such as Muslims and North Africans.

    But this does lead to a problem at the core of Christianity. Christendom rose in power by going against Jesus' teachings. How can this contradiction be resolved? I don't think it can.
    So, a new kind of vision is necessary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anon
    "Medievalism, barbarism, savagery":

    One of these things is not like the others.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Maj. Kong
    Wiki is always rattling its tin cup for donations, but it is HQ'd in the country's richest region, home to untold numbers of tech billionaires.

    It is not reputable, and alongside Twitter, a worthy candidate for nationalization.

    I’d understand wanting to nationalize Facebook or Google, though sadly I’m not sure I’d trust any government to run them. Maybe some kind of clever breakup and regulation?… But how would a nationalized Wikipedia be an improvement?

    Not to mention that Wikipedia is a truly international institution. Would the US also run the German, Russian, French, Serbian, etc. Wikipedias?

    And what would be the reason to nationalize? Too much tin cup rattling? That hardly seems a significant problem. Excessive bureaucracy? The government can help with that, haha. Bias? Sure, that’s an issue, but would nationalization solve it? It’s like nationalizing the press to ensure fairness… Not a great solution…

    A government-based remedy for Wikipedia bias might be to name someone eminent who cares about the excessive and one-sided politicization of everything, like Jonathan Haidt, to head a group of editors whose task would be to define, measure, and fight bias as objectively as possible, à la Heterodox Academy. Such a government-sponsored “Wikipedia Corps” might be able to do some good. One can dream…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    133 European-American > the reason to nationalize? Too much tin cup rattling?


    stand by for iSteve to say that you're becoming TOO PERSONAL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @JohnnyWalker123
    Actually, it's the other way around. Pre-90s England was not a PC place. However, during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC because they wanted their country to be like America.

    By the way, there's this myth that exists in White nationalist circles that Americans are somehow more manly and more anti-PC than Europeans. Nothing could be further from the truth. We actually have a 50% higher incidence of slavery in the U.S. than in the UK.

    A lot of it comes from the fact that when the British government told Brits to line up and turn in their guns, they complied without complaint. The same goes for the Aussies.

    Brits have long had more of a nanny state. They also tend to be less direct and more passive-aggressive than Americans. But Americans are still more polite than, say, Germans. (Even New Yorkers are more polite than, say, Dutch folks.)

    There’s also the “We had to come over and pull your asses out of the fire – twice!” spiel about the world wars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Anon
    "Medievalism, barbarism, savagery":

    One of these things is not like the others.

    Hitler saw himself as the Charlemagne of the twentieth century. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire.

    So, yes, “medieval” does apply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Second Reich was under Kaiser Bill I. Does that make Hitler Victorian? Did Mussolini's dreams make him Classical? Hitler was a nut, but what little of his ideology can be traced is as much Marxist as medieval, if not more. But I think I kind of see your point now which was previously completely obscure to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. notanon says:

    “We kind of let it slip that we have vulnerable people in our own communities,”

    they consciously covered it up because the majority of perpetrators were black, brown and/or Muslim

    (White exceptions are mostly Gypsies/Irish travelers so the common element among the various groups is low empathy to out-groups = multi-generational close cousin marriage?)

    the primary driving force behind this is the massive increase in demand for cheap prostitution caused by importing mass cheap labor who send most of their earnings home – the gangs who end up supplying the demand come from the most low empathy populations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Stan Adams
    Hitler saw himself as the Charlemagne of the twentieth century. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire.

    So, yes, "medieval" does apply.

    The Second Reich was under Kaiser Bill I. Does that make Hitler Victorian? Did Mussolini’s dreams make him Classical? Hitler was a nut, but what little of his ideology can be traced is as much Marxist as medieval, if not more. But I think I kind of see your point now which was previously completely obscure to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. eah says:
    @Anonymous
    Tweet deleted?

    Apparently — his whole account will probably soon be deleted…again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. notanon says:
    @Eagle Eye

    during the 90s and 2000s, English leaders went full-blown pro-PC
     
    AKA the Blair Terror.

    Who did Blair really work for in transmogrifying the UK?

    Who did Blair really work for in transmogrifying the UK?

    He went to work for Morgan Stanley after the left office so i assume he was working for them before also.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Malla
    Actually the real native reaction to the invading Aryans is the Hinduism we know today which is predominantly Puranic Hinduism and not Vedic Hinduism. The Vedas are kept because they are the oldest written texts in the subcontinent but besides that nobody really bothers with them. This Puranic Hinduism which was formed about 4 centuries after Christ keeps some Vedic Aryan traditions and the Vedic books but is actually formed from a mixture of Central Asian Aryan, Babylonian, Tibetic/East Asian and the native tribal religions of the subcontinent by the new mixed population. Thus many of the Aryan gods like Indra, Varuna, Mitra etc... were demoted and new Gods were made more important in their place during this period, which is still the case today in Hinduism.

    Do you have any references for what you have written?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    There are too many and I did read them many years ago but such discussions are quite common

    https://yogaforums.com/t/is-puranic-hinduism-the-most-stupidest-religion-in-the-world/8623
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    "Medievalism, barbarism, savagery":

    One of these things is not like the others.

    “Medievalism, barbarism, savagery”:

    One of these things is not like the others.

    I don’t mean Medievalism is like barbarianism or savagery.

    But it’s is pre-modern, and even anti-modern in today’s context. It is about turning back the clock.

    Islam isn’t about barbarism or savagery. It is neo-Medievalism by other means.

    In Europe, the fall of the Roman Empire led to barbarians running amok. But in time, a new order was created during Medievalism, a middle ground between barbarism and high-culture Renaissance.

    In the Middle East, the increasing decline of Byzantines and Persians led to a crisis. With declining order, the whole place could have been run amok by nomadic barbarian gangs.
    Maybe if Muhammad hadn’t come along, ragtag Arabs would have just run amok as cutthroat bandits, like the Mongols and Huns.
    But Islam gave them a sense of purpose and meaning.
    So, even though they acted like semi-barbarians in their conquests, they were imbued with a spiritual purpose. And this was Near East Medievalism.

    A kind of reverse dynamics came to define the Near East when compared to the West.
    In the West, Medievalism of Christian Civilization gradually gave way to revival of high pagan classical culture of Greeks and Romans. Hellenism gained over Christo-Hebraism.

    In the Near East where Byzantine Christianity had preserved classical culture(at least much of it) and where Persians had preserved pagan culture of their own, the Islamic Medievalism gained and gained and stamped out classical culture(even though Arabs learned from that stuff for awhile).

    Classicism was revived and grew stronger in the West, but it grew weaker and faded in the Middle East.

    Anyway, neo-medievalism via Islam makes a certain sense as savagery(esp of blacks) and barbarism(esp of vulgar trash pop culture and family breakdown) define today’s ridiculous West.
    Medievalism, a kind of fusion of heavy-duty spiritualism and feudal-warrior culture, was necessary to restore order in a world where Imperial Certainties were no more. So, unless Medievalism restored order by localization of authority and hardcore spiritual conviction, there was bound to be more disorder, chaos, and etc.

    As the forces of jungle and junk engulf the West and as the concept of Justice becomes ever sillier(homo this, tranny that), the neo-medievalism of Islam might gain, especially in Europe that has a considerable Muslim population.
    It’s like that novel SUBMISSION. When white culture is cuckery, black culture is savagery, and intellectual culture is decadence — and when Christianity has surrendered to magic negro worship and homomania –, what is there but Islam as some kind of substantive moral and political system?

    Now, Islam turns me off, but it got some things right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It’s like that novel SUBMISSION. When white culture is cuckery, black culture is savagery, and intellectual culture is decadence — and when Christianity has surrendered to magic negro worship and homomania –, what is there but Islam as some kind of substantive moral and political system?
     
    At this point in time any alternative to liberalism would be welcome. We may find ourselves having to choose the lesser of two evils, and in this case Islam is definitely the lesser evil.

    Christianity today is just a slightly worse form of secular liberalism. It has a certain appeal to women, homosexuals and girly-men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Eagle Eye

    Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail from the list of acceptable news sources.
     
    Daily Mail still publishes news items that contravene The Narrative, e.g. on issues such as immigration, Muslim rape gangs, etc.

    This is why NSA/Wikipedia banned DM.

    A real online encyclopedia would look at the reliability of news sources case-by-case.

    As part of the same effort to gradually bring Wikipedia in line with The Narrative, Wikipedia's internal structure has been revamped with the establishment of cooperating cabals of "admins" and editors who zealously guard the purity of "their" content. Even edits in line with the ideological leanings of article authors are routinely deleted within seconds to protect the turf and exclusive control of the establishment cabal.

    NSA/Wikipedia? Are you saying the NSA runs Wikipedia? Any evidence for that?

    I’m aware of a lawsuit by Wikipedia and the ACLU against the NSA for spying on Wikipedia users.

    As for cabals of editors, I’ve run across them, but I’m not sure they are specially orchestrated, just a regrettable feature of any of these kinds of volunteer-based or non-profit organizations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's how they do it in Israel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yc7HBLnSdo

    Watch from 0:40 to 1:40.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ8Va_jX8kA

    Prior to the riot, local Israeli leaders made the following remarks to large crowds.

    Three years, 50,000 infiltrators.
     

    For three years, women can't go to the market without being robbed.
     

    Young men can't find work.
     

    The Sudanese are a cancer in our body.
     

    We will do everything to return them to their countries of origin.
     

    All they do is reproduce! Deport them!
     
    One Israeli crowd yelled this.

    Ni****, Ni****. You're a son of a b*****.
     
    I wonder what Harvey Weinstein, David Brooks, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Tamar Jacoby, Sasha Baron Cohen, and Jennifer Rubin would have to say about this.

    I wonder what Harvey Weinstein, David Brooks, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Bret Stephens, Tamar Jacoby, Sasha Baron Cohen, and Jennifer Rubin would have to say about this.

    Tsk tsk. Of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Karl says:
    @Desiderius

    Scouring but tougher and less dorky.
     
    Eagles are apex predators.

    96 Desiderius > Eagles are apex predators.

    hunting is their second choice.

    They have the bodies – and minds- of scavengers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Karl says:
    @European-American
    I’d understand wanting to nationalize Facebook or Google, though sadly I’m not sure I’d trust any government to run them. Maybe some kind of clever breakup and regulation?... But how would a nationalized Wikipedia be an improvement?

    Not to mention that Wikipedia is a truly international institution. Would the US also run the German, Russian, French, Serbian, etc. Wikipedias?

    And what would be the reason to nationalize? Too much tin cup rattling? That hardly seems a significant problem. Excessive bureaucracy? The government can help with that, haha. Bias? Sure, that’s an issue, but would nationalization solve it? It’s like nationalizing the press to ensure fairness... Not a great solution...

    A government-based remedy for Wikipedia bias might be to name someone eminent who cares about the excessive and one-sided politicization of everything, like Jonathan Haidt, to head a group of editors whose task would be to define, measure, and fight bias as objectively as possible, à la Heterodox Academy. Such a government-sponsored “Wikipedia Corps” might be able to do some good. One can dream...

    133 European-American > the reason to nationalize? Too much tin cup rattling?

    stand by for iSteve to say that you’re becoming TOO PERSONAL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Lurker says:
    @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Mayor Sadiq Khan could take the lead on this.

    He could be a modern-day William Wilberforce and confront his fellow 'Englishmen' about exploiting and enslaving their naive and trusting hosts.

    Colonies must be managed responsibly and humanely, don't you know. It's what makes an English gentleman different.

    I don't think he will, though. White slavery is just 'part and parcel' of living in Londonistan.

    Or Khan could just f**k right off. Hey, just thinking out loud here.

    I was muttering about him recently and Mrs Lurker pointed out that, as an MP, he had been supportive of her profession. “That’s nice.” I said “When we deport him, he can have a window seat.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Lagertha says:
    @Whiskey
    A society run by the whims, and for the whims, of Upper Class White women will ALWAYS favor White slavery. Its victims tend to be potential competitors -- young, pretty working class White women who the Gentry ladies HATE HATE HATE with a passion.

    Consider Sarah Palin, object of ritual hate for being "country." Ditto back in the early 2000's Britney Spears, the usual line being to paint Spears as a crass, trailer trash bimbo ignoramous. True enough, but that puzzled me at the time for a while -- the energy being expended by various comediennes on a frankly boring target.

    Yes of course native working class White girls are being enslaved and that is the whole point of having Muslims and Africans and making them untouchable in the first place. The real Race War is being waged by the Upper Class Whites against the "dirt people" who are their cousins.

    so true

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    It’s funny.

    If white nations had no non-white colonization, the conservatives would eventually gain.

    Why? The Turkish Dilemma. In modern Turkey, hedonism and feminism made secular Turks have fewer and fewer kids. So, while progressive(in both good and bad sense of the term) folks had fewer kids, traditional Muslims had more kids. So, over time, the nation went from secularism to revival of Islamism. Erdogan rode on the Islamic Wave.

    It would be much the same in the West without mass non-white colonization. To be sure, due to widespread secularization and modernization, low birthrates would affect both libs and cons(as western cons are also pretty proggy in many respects). Still, cons tend to be more family oriented than libs. Also, religious cons tend to be most fecund. So,without non-white colonization, the West would eventually face the Turkish Dilemma(or blessing in the eyes of some) as cons and religious types will outbreed libs and secularites(or neo-spiritualists; worshiping homos and trannies doesn’t lead to much fecundity). Turkish Dilemma also affects Israel where the religious and traditional outbreed the secularites. This is one reason why secular Jews want more Jewish immigration as they figure new Jews will be more secular. (Feminism is a potent weapon against conservatism and religious types. If you rob men of the women, it doesn’t matter what the men believe. Feminism targets women specifically. It fills them with loathing for patriarchy and men in general but especially white men. So, a lot of white women have been turned against white men in the West. This means that even if there are still many white men who want to be conservative and have families, they have a harder time finding the right kind of women since so many girls are either feministized or, worse, whore-ized. This would be same of any community. Suppose there are a 1000 Muslim men into tradition and family BUT 1000 Muslim women have been turned into man-hating feminists. The men would have hard time having families.)

    Anyway, because of the Turkish Dilemma, the ONLY way to ensure continuous victories for the Prog agenda and Cultural decadence is to allow non-white colonization. These non-whites are generally even less proggy than white conservatives BUT they will vote ‘left’ because the Western Left opens the doors to them, flatters them with ‘diversity is noble’ talk, and hands out benefits. Thus, with the electoral backing of non-whites as ‘new citizens’, the Turkish Dilemma is either avoided or delayed.

    But by avoiding the Turkish Dilemma, the West ends up with more ‘turks’, and I’m using the term metaphorically, meaning any bunch of non-white-folks who are culturally more conservative than white conservatives. In the case of Germany, the prevention of the Turkish Dilemma led to the literal presence of more Turks. Turks in Germany vote ‘left’ cuz they want access to German wealth. But they don’t care for proggy politics and increasing presence of ‘turks’, actual Turks and other non-whites, will make Germany more ‘reactionary’.

    And we see this all around. The ‘left’ in the West must rely on ‘turks’(Muslims, Asians, Africans, Hindus, etc) to prevent the Turkish Dilemma. But the increasing number of these ‘turks’ make society less proggy at the socio-cultural level.
    The political support from ‘turks’ allows the victory of either the ‘left’ or the useless cuck-right(like Merkel or May) and prevents the rise of someone truly right like LePen. So, the West becomes politically more ‘left’ while becoming socio-culturally less proggy, even ending up with new forms of slavery in the UK.

    The contradictions are too great, and this is all gonna turn to shi*.

    UK used to be a nation of pirates. And then, it got legit and became the main vanquishers of pirates such as those in Barbary coast. But by inviting in all these non-white pirates to become ‘Englishmen’ and vote in elections, it is once again become a nation of smugglers and pirates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  160. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon
    Return of Slavery and the end of Western Moral Hegemony.

    http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/11/13/libya-migrant-slave-auction-lon-orig-md-ejk.cnn

    In the past, whites used to be proud, united, morally confident, aggressive, and ruthless.
    They conquered the world and told non-whites that the white way was the most civilized and that non-whites should emulate the white world not only in science and technology but in morality and values. And who could argue with the fact that the West was indeed ahead in every field: science, math, economics, ethics, political philosophy, concept of rights, spirituality(Christianity was better than most religions), and etc.

    Now, whites were also hypocritical and didn't live up to their stated values, but still, those values were more humane and advanced than values and attitudes in other parts of the world. Also, whites controlled all the guns and the machinery of power in the West. And they felt whites should rule the West, the core of the world empire.

    And non-whites couldn't help notice the greatness in all this. Sure, some had reasons to hate whites, but even the haters were overcome with the realization that the West had leapt far ahead of others. It's like what the Hindus say in the movie PASSAGE TO INDIA. Brits piss them off, but they admire the Brits just the same. And the once-arrogant Chinese had to eat humble pork and decided to modernize along Western lines.

    And for most of the 20th century, Western values were admirable and rock solid. They were about freedom, liberty, human rights, people power, labor laws, property laws, rule of law, tolerance, importance of love and family, and etc. Who could argue with that? The core liberal-conservative values of the West seemed the sanest and most admirable.

    But then, whites began to lose moral confidence.
    In earlier times, whites knew they'd done wrong or gone too far with wars, imperialism, and slave trade, but they still retained their overall pride(based on the fact that the West, even with its failings, were still more advanced and more humane that others) and sense of purpose. And even whites who sought to make up for wrongs believed that non-whites had most to gain by following the good advice of whites and trying to emulate white folks. Indeed, they insisted on this.

    But this confidence collapsed. The narrative went from whites being mostly-good-but-flawed to whites-being-very-bad-and-having-to-atone, especially in regards to Jews and blacks.
    Also, just when whites in democratic nations were being educated to become less nationalist, less proud, and less judgmental, non-whites all over the world were educated with hardline nationalism with heavy dose of victim narrative. We see the effect of this between Anglos and Hindus. Anglos are now so willy-nilly and tolerant in US, Canada, Australia, and UK. They want to be nice and get along. But Hindus who come to the West were raised under decades of Indian Nationalist Narrative where noble Hindus were oppressed by these eeeeeevil Brits.

    So, this means that there is no longer any respect for white or western moral authority.

    Possibly worse, Western Values have become truly decadent and degenerate. This trend sped up in the final decade of the 20th century but went totally crazy under Obama.
    Even though decadence had been a factor in the West in the 20th century, it was something to be tolerated under liberal concept of rights of speech and expression than celebrated and idolized. So, homo stuff was part of the cultural scene through most of the 20th century in the West, but it was not something a society was PROUD of. No one even imagined that churches would be festooned with homo symbols. It's one thing to say Christianity should have a place for sinners and wretches of all kinds. But for a church tow welcome homos as angel-like saints? Also, even though Western culture had its sexy and even seedy side, most people knew what was virtue and what was vice. And even legalized pornography was kept in spheres only for adults. But now, it's all over the place and even mainstream culture increasingly reflects it.

    http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2017/11/pornified-puritans-and-the-logic-of-pornography/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/reconsidering-ken-starr-douthat/

    This is why this homomania and tranny-mania stuff around the world is a Pyrrhic victory. Even as nation after nation fall under the influence of homo influence, there's the inescapable sense that the West now stands for NOTHING but vanity, celebrity, and debauchery. And neither its elites nor its people have the sense or spine to see the lunacy for what it is and stand up to it. When spreading 'gay marriage' is the main theme of Western Values, it means Western morality has been hollowed out.

    And that means the West has lost the will to be a real moral leader and arbiter in the world. And that means the non-West(and non-whites in the West) will keep regressing to their own values and cultures. Now, it'd be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values. To be 'western' today, one has to embrace the craziest theories in 'gender studies'. Such lunacy will only sicken and weaken the West, and then.. the world will be without a unifying moral standard that had once been upheld by Western Power.

    Then, the world could very well revert to medievalism, barbarism, and savagery. The world simply cannot be inspired for long by decadence and degeneracy.

    Now, it’d be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values.

    But wasn’t it the western humanist value system of the 50s that led directly to decadence and degeneracy? The western humanist value system of the 50s contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    It would actually be best if the West returned to the genuinely sane value system of pre-Enlightenment days. The Enlightenment gave the West liberalism and liberalism was always going to destroy us.

    The values we so cherish – democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, capitalism, mass education, tolerance, openness – these are the poisons that have destroyed us.

    By the 1950s we were already a long way down the slippery slope.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But wasn’t it the western humanist value system of the 50s that led directly to decadence and degeneracy? The western humanist value system of the 50s contained the seeds of its own destruction.
    It would actually be best if the West returned to the genuinely sane value system of pre-Enlightenment days. The Enlightenment gave the West liberalism and liberalism was always going to destroy us.


    This is the determinist fallacy that says, because we once used to be 'there' and are now 'here', the 'there' must have inevitably led us to 'here'.

    But history doesn't work that way. After all, Soviet Union and Communist nations also had humanist values in the 50s. The Soviets were full of praise for neo-realist films. They praised Bunuel's LOS OLIVIDADOS. Some communist censors objected to the film because it showed some Mexican cops in good light, but Soviet authorities overrode those objections and the film was honored in the USSR. Humanism is a big term, and its main ethos were accepted by communist nations as well. But consider the divergence of the East and West. Also, consider the difference between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Why are Brits so cucky but Poles so patriotic?
    So, it's not 'humanism' that led to current decadence.

    One could also argue that it was the rise of consumerism that destroyed humanism. So, it wasn't humanism that led to decadence. Rather, it was narcissism and hedonism spread far and wide by capitalism. Consider the humanist films of Akira Kurosawa. Can you blame them for the cultural decadence and demise of Japan? In the 70s, 80% of all the films made in Japan were porn. So, did Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, and Ozu's humanist cinema lead to such development? Or were there other factors such as TV's effect on film industry, 60s nihilism and narcissism, and apathy that came with consumer culture that came to dominate all western nations?

    I don't see much connection betweent the humanism of BICYCLE THIEVES(and 400 BLOWS, maybe the last great humanist film) and 'twerking' and Justin Timberlake.
    The problem of capitalism was it was too successful. Over-production, over-abundance, over-consumption, and etc. Those successes made people take things for granted. Also, as not many were needed for essential economy like agriculture and production, a lot of jobs came to centered around media, gambling, vice, entertainment, drugs, fashion, leisure, and etc. The result is a loused up culture where even poor people's main problem is being too fat or dreaming of trashy celebrities 24/7. This is why our eyes glaze over when people like Chris Hedges still speak of the noble poor. Sure, poor exist and they have problems, but we are not dealing with Grapes of Wrath or Raisin in the Sun, or even with Sanford and Son -- the Sanfords weren't without some virtue. We are talking of total cultural degradation from excessive piggery.

    Another problem with reactionary thinking is we can play that game back to the big bang. You say the problem was Enlightenment. But then, someone could say "Ah, but the Enlightenment is the result of Renaissance and revival of classical culture." So, are we to disavow the Renaissance too? ?And then, someone could argue that Medievalism made the Renaissance possible. After all, the Renaissance didn't just spring from nowhere. Rather, there was a gradual shift from 'medievalism' to 'renaissance'. Of course, people living back then didn't even notice the change as those categories were applied later. So, we would then have to disavow Medievalism since it paved the way for Renaissance that led to Enlightenment.
    Some blame America's problems on the 50s. Some say the 50s resulted from earlier developments and some say it goes back to the Founders who are really to blame and so on. We can play this game forever. We can go all the way back to northern barbarians who were more into individualism than other races. So, blame the vikings.

    The fact is the present could have been very different IF people had took a different path in the past. There never was a single path in history. At every point, there were many paths, many choices. And if another path had been taken, the NOW would be very different.
    It's like WWI was not inevitable. Communism was not inevitable. The fall of the communist party in the USSR was not inevitable. Suppose Gorbachev had been more like Deng. Some Jew argue that Christianity inevitably led to Shoah since antisemitism had Christian roots. But if neo-pagan Hitler hadn't come to power, German Christianity would have nothing to do with WWII. And there were plenty of Christians who saved Jews. Given Hitler's love of classicism, I wonder why Jews have tended not to blame Greek and Roman culture for the rise of Nazism. Maybe they hate Christianity more because it was a religion 'stolen' from Jews or handed over to gentiles by renegade traitor Jews.

    So, playing this game of blaming the past in wholesale manner is rather lazy and cowardly.
    The Enlightenment led to so many blessings and well as curses. It is up to free man to decide what to do with those possibilities and freedoms. I would argue for freedom and better use of those freedoms.
    But some argue for less freedom cuz freedom led to bad choices that led to NOW. That is the negative side of conservatism, and part of the reason why the East failed to develop. It was so afraid of the negative consequences of freedom that it forbade freedom altogether.
    Now, freedom is a double-edged sword and it can lead to bad choices that can be worse than no choices. But a great people must choose freedom and the courage to make the right choices and say the right things.

    Stepping back into time for answer is like a turtle receding ever more into its shell. But it can withdraw only so much. Eventually, for it to live, it must move and find food and accept the dangers and gains of choice.

    When Buckley debated Dershowitz in the 90s, Buckey was waxing romantic about the 19th century while Dershowitz called 20th century his century. Now, there was much that was good about the 19th century, but history moves forward and time won't stop. And the problem of conservatives was the unwillingness to take charge of the moment, of culture and things to make a difference, to be bold. While too many cons were just looking backward or trying to stop time, all the change was defined by the other side that accepted the role of choice and change in history.

    The true way is to adopt change to make the order stronger... like modernization of Germany and Japan in the 19th century. Change brings blessings and curses, and sensible conservatives need to think more sci-fi-like and foresee dangers and prevent them before they happen. It's the Jewish way. There is the way of remembering the past and guarding tradition.. but also the prophetic role of seeing into the future, like in FOUNDATION by Asimov.. or what chess players do as they must consider possible future moves.
    This is a big challenge, but stakes of history are high, and it can't be played by soul-midgets who can only accept security and certainty.

    History is a war with defense and offense. While defense is essential, no one wins war only with defense. Sometimes, he has to go on the attack. Now, attacking comes with dangers, so there has to be scouts and spies to collect information to avoid setbacks. The other side is much more adept at this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    The answer is not to target the perps directly. Instead, we should target the enablers. The NYT for sure, but in the UK it has to include the higher ups in their police force.

    But what surprises me is when the Brits (and even Aussies) bitch about us keeping our guns. For the whinging lot of them, here is our response courtesy of Peter Quill.

    Instead, we should target the enablers. The NYT for sure, but in the UK it has to include the higher ups in their police force.

    It has to include the entire British establishment. Parliament, the BBC, the Church of England, the Conservative Party, the whole sorry lot of them. The British establishment’s hatred of ordinary Britons and the things that ordinary Britons cherish is breathtaking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. biz says:
    @Anonymous

    slavery in Africa was “not as bad” as in the Americas. I still remember one of his examples being that in Africa slaves supposedly ate at the same table as their masters.
     
    I'm beginning to hear these kinds of apologetics from leftists. Western slavery was wicked because slaves were treated as objects, but African/Islamic slavery was not so bad because slaves were just like members of the family etc. Slavery is going to become like pedophilia and polygamy: only a crime when white people do it.

    Yes. Totally agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Malla says:
    @Anon

    Well Mr. Darlington got it wrong. Can you explain the strange similarities between the Norse beliefs and Zoroastrianism?
     
    Yeah. There aren't that many and those that exist are borrowed at second hand from Christianity.

    Christian influence is pretty easily discernible.
    Odin pierced by a spear and hanging from a tree? I mean, c'mon.

    “There aren’t that many and those that exist are borrowed at second hand from Christianity.”

    There aren’t not many?????? Did you even read the links???

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    The worship of waters in Zoroastrianism, the fiery grandson/nephew of waters apam napát, and the kinsman of the sea sævar niðr in Norse Mythology

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/11/06/the-worship-of-waters-in-zoroastrianism-the-fiery-grandsonnephew-of-waters-apam-napat-and-the-kinsman-of-the-sea-saevar-nidr-in-norse-mythology/

    Frya or love in the gathas, Old Norse Freya and Frigg

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    Battle in the poetic gathas, ancient Zoroastrianism, and comparison with the Norse einherjar

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/12/15/battle-in-the-poetic-gathas-ancient-zoroastrianism-and-comparison-with-einherjar/

    Avestan Druj “distortion, devastation, lie,” Old Persian Drauga, and Old Norse Draugr

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/22/avestan-druj-distortion-devastation-lie-old-persian-drauga-and-old-norse-draugr/

    The shining Twin Yima, Vedic Yama and Old Norse Ymir

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    What does the common Vedic Yama, Persian Yima and Norse Germanic Ymir have to do with Christianity????

    The god-force of waters ahúrání and the Norse sea-god ægir

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/10/28/the-god-force-of-waters-ahurani-and-the-norse-sea-god-aegir/

    Vohü Manö, “passion, spirit,mind” and the Old Norse Vili and Vé

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/02/10/vohu-mano-passion-spiritmind-and-the-old-norse-vili-and-ve/

    The Aryan Archer Arakhsh, Tirgan festival, Zoroastrian mid-summer celebrations and the Norse rune Týr.

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/07/03/the-aryan-archer-arasharakhsh-tir-gantyr-gan-mid-summer-festival-and-the-norse-rune-tyr/

    mazdá or ma(n)zdá, the GD of Genius; the norse rune mannaz, greek métis and vedic medhá

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/05/26/mazda-or-manzda-the-gd-of-genius-the-norse-rune-mannaz-greek-metis-and-vedic-medha/

    Indeed it is Judaism which has copied a lot from the Aryan Persians and recycled it back into Europe

    The ancient Iranian or Indo-Aryan influence on Judaism through the Babylonian Talmud

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/09/08/the-ancient-iranian-or-indo-aryan-influence-on-judaism-through-the-babylonian-talmud/

    Indo-European Ashem “Virtue, Excellence” NOT Hebrew HaShem “the Name”

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/06/05/indo-european-ashem-virtue-excellence-not-hebrew-hashem-the-name/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Um, do you really want to claim the Talmud?

    Do you have any reputable scholarly sources for your etymologies?

    Do you really want to argue from the existence of a midsummer feast?

    Anyway, my two cents: the Norse pantheon is IE so of course there will be vague similarities to the demigods of Persia, as to Greece, Rome, India. But the whole Zoroastrian religion is based on Ormazd and secondarily Ahriman. If you think Norse paganism is a realistic approximation of the actual spiritual world, by all means practise it-- we have fairly accurate ideas of it. If you think Zarathustra was a true prophet, by all means follow his revelations. We have plenty of those, and a living community (which however you reject for some reason). Why on earth you should want to conflate the two, and what bizarre idea of the metaphysical world this will give you,is beyond me. But don't let me stop you...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Ain't diversity grand!

    FWIW, the collision occurred when the Japanese commercial tug boat lost power.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-warship-collides-japanese-tug-boat-latest-mishap/story?id=51242298

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. dfordoom says: • Website
    @oddsbodkins
    "This has all happened in my lifetime. I find it astounding."

    Not in regards to faith. The greatest blow against faith in Britain was the first world war. Even prior to that, thinking people were taking Christianity less and less seriously, just as Nietzsche said they would.

    Not in regards to faith. The greatest blow against faith in Britain was the first world war. Even prior to that, thinking people were taking Christianity less and less seriously, just as Nietzsche said they would.

    By the end of the 18th century Europe was already for all practical purposes a post-Christian society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    I was about to write "you cannot be serious." But after reading Chesterton I am sure you are.

    Greek mythology, and its "sacred texts," the Iliad and the Odyssey, celebrated vice; Judaism is a tribal religion, and tribalism is the formula for perpetual suffering, war, slavery, and greed. Chrislam is the most incoherent religious idea fabricated in any fevered mind since the Moloch worship of the Punic diaspora.

    You either don't understand what you have posted, or you have sold your soul.

    I'll come down to watch you stand before The Great White Throne. And I'll be happy to argue that you were just stupid in this life. But I wouldn't want to you on that day.

    Greek mythology, and its “sacred texts,” the Iliad and the Odyssey, celebrated vice;

    Those are not sacred texts but storytelling via epic poems. They don’t hold the place in Greek history/culture/spirituality that the Torah did in Jewish culture. Torah was revered as words written by men by guided by God. But Iliad and Odyssey are stories told by humans. They are war and adventure stories. For better or worse, there was never a core text in Greek Mythology. Rather, Greek mythological stories, ideas, and theories were dispersed throughout the culture. When finally the mythologies were pulled together into a coherent narrative by the Latin Ovid, it was done as a joke, so that couldn’t be used as a sacred text.

    At any rate, Greek mythology cannot be approached or used like the Bible. That can be seen as a weakness as there is no core canon of right and wrong and cosmic truth. It can be confusing and lead one to cynicism and nihilism. But it can also be adventurous like the journey of Odysseus who has to find his own truth and path. Monotheism is like the sun in daytime. Its radiance conquers all. There are no stars, no moon. Just the sun as the sole truth. In contrast, pagan cultures are like stars in the night sky. Some stars are bigger than others. And we can see the planets to sometimes. This chaos can be confusing but it can also makes us map our own meaning, as with constellations.

    Also, it’s wrong to say Greek mythology celebrates vice. Vice is there but there is also virtue, stories of sacrifice and redemption. And if some forces lead men to vice, other forces keep them from it. Consider when Odysseus is passing by the Sirens. The Sirens sing this song and makes him go boing. They entice him to come and play.. Of course, sirens are killers and eat men. Odysseus wanted to hear the seductive music but he also knew of its danger, and he made sure his men’s ears were plugged. This is why Greek mythology is fuller in some ways. Instead of just condemning some stuff as BAD, it understands why it has that allure, charm, and temptation. But it also reminds us that giving into temptation can divert us from duty or even lead to destruction. It’s morality play without overt moralism.

    Judaism is a tribal religion, and tribalism is the formula for perpetual suffering, war, slavery, and greed.

    It depends on what is meant by tribalism. If it means gangsterism of brutish us versus them, then it can be deadly, like vikings head bashing each other, Germanic barbarians fighting one another, and African tribes chucking spears. But then, isn’t imperialism also warlike? Romans forced many tribes under one tent of Latin domination, but this entailed wars, suffering, slavery, and violence. In the case of Jews and Romans, weren’t Jewish tribalists the resistance fighters who sought to toss off the Roman yoke?
    Also, tribalism means identity and culture. It doesn’t have to us versus them. It can be us and them. Let us be us, and let them be them. Give them what is theirs,and let us keep what is ours.

    Chrislam is the most incoherent religious idea fabricated in any fevered mind since the Moloch worship of the Punic diaspora.

    I’m not talking about that Chrislam. I’m talking of a thought-experiment, a reformed chechenism that combines faith and fight. Today’s Christianity is too anemic, and today’s Islam is too bloody. But if one could take the spiritual essence of Christianity and fuse it
    with fighting spirit of Islam, you might have something there.

    Personally, I’d go with Asagirism, but having failed to win over anyone to the ‘faith’, I don’t think it’s a winning formula.

    PS. Maybe what every people need to do is produce their own bible. Torah isn’t just an anthology of Jewish stuff.
    Anthologies are not special. After all, there are anthologies of everything: American literature, French literature, Russian literature, Persian literature, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and etc. Anthologies are dime-a-dozen.
    In contrast, the Torah is more than a collection of Jewish knowledge and history and culture. It is more than an anthology, more than an encyclopedia. Why? Because its history, theology, poetry, legalism, mythology, and etc are all threaded through with a common theme of God and Covenant. So, all those things in the Torah that could have been regarded as separate stuff(from one another) came to be organic and complementary parts of a whole.
    And that was the genius of Muhammad too. He didn’t just take bits and pieces of Judaism, Christianity, and Arab culture and put them together. That would have been just a lame anthology. Rather, he digested all of them and merged all the narratives into a new prophecy. As a result, the Koran became sacred and canonical. And Muslims can carry that one book and feel complete.

    What the Western Right needs to do is write The Book that reworks and retells all the essential stories of the West into a single thread. The West produced many great books but no bible, no The Book. The Jewish Bible and New Testament have served as the Bible for Western Man. But the Bible is really Jewish and New Testament is really the vision of a Jewish guy and Jewish Disciples. Western Man cannot really claim to the Bible as his. Torah is really Jewish. And Christianity not only originated with Jews but is meant to be a World religion. The only reason why it became associated so closely with the West is because of the rise of Islam. If Muhammad had never been born, it’s possible that all of Near East and North Africa would have been Christian(as indeed many of those parts were before Islam spread). And then, Christianity would have been the religion of everyone from Arabs to Africans to Europeans. And now, look at the Catholic Church. It’s the religion of homos and blacks and Chinese and Indians in Latin America.

    The problem with the Western Narrative is one cannot lug around a 1000 books. In order for the West to have its own Bible, a single book that sums up the essential meaning, story, and destiny of European folks, the 1000 books have to be distilled and processed into a single book. That way, any white person can carry around this book as inspiration.
    For too long, Western man carried around the essential book of Jews as their Bible. It’s time they had their own bible.

    This project could be the greatest of its kind since Gutenberg and Luther and German Bible.
    And it’s necessary since Zuckerbitch(nasty sister of Marcus Zuckerius) and her globalist cohorts are trying to steal Western History as their own and retell it with blacks as Romans and Greeks and even Vikings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Damn, I feel sorry for you. You get 90% of it, but the last 10% leads you into the wilderness. This:

    Also, it’s wrong to say Greek mythology celebrates vice. Vice is there but there is also virtue, stories of sacrifice and redemption. And if some forces lead men to vice, other forces keep them from it. Consider when Odysseus is passing by the Sirens.

    uses Odysseus as an exemplar. And it is true that no sentient being can help but rejoice when he has his hour at the feast of the suitors. But Odysseus was not just celebrated for his skill, but for his skill in vice. Dishonesty was the stock-in-trade of Odysseus. The virtue of the Greeks was present, but not determinative. Odysseus was a prince chiefly for the ability to marshal vice to meet his objectives. The adage the "ends justify the means" would have been not just warmly received, but affirmed as a the very sine qua non of the good life for the Greeks. Judaism is similarly encumbered.

    I will not go further, the TL:DR constraint limits my response (even though I have exceeded its bounds). But you are looking superficially. Dig deeper, and you will abandon the path you have taken.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. dfordoom says: • Website
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Yes, it started under John Major and hit critical speed under Blair.

    By the early 2000s, UK was a very different place from the early 90s.

    10-15 years changed everything.

    In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the "Defense of Marriage Act." This act was supported by a 342-67 margin in the House and a 85-14 margin in the Senate. The act banned gay marriage. By 2012, the Democrats (under Obama) decided that they now supported gay marriage.

    In 1996, polls showed that Americans opposed gay marriage by a 68-27 margin. By 2011, American supported gay marriage by a 53-45 margin. In America, over the course of 15 years, gay marriage went from -41% to +8%. So nearly half the public (49%) changed their views in just a short amount of time.

    Modern day Westerners seem highly susceptible to propaganda, especially media propaganda.

    Modern day Westerners seem highly susceptible to propaganda, especially media propaganda.

    Or they’re incredibly willing to conform, whether they believe or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Malla says:
    @anon
    Do you have any references for what you have written?

    There are too many and I did read them many years ago but such discussions are quite common

    https://yogaforums.com/t/is-puranic-hinduism-the-most-stupidest-religion-in-the-world/8623

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon
    “Medievalism, barbarism, savagery”:

    One of these things is not like the others.

    I don't mean Medievalism is like barbarianism or savagery.

    But it's is pre-modern, and even anti-modern in today's context. It is about turning back the clock.

    Islam isn't about barbarism or savagery. It is neo-Medievalism by other means.

    In Europe, the fall of the Roman Empire led to barbarians running amok. But in time, a new order was created during Medievalism, a middle ground between barbarism and high-culture Renaissance.

    In the Middle East, the increasing decline of Byzantines and Persians led to a crisis. With declining order, the whole place could have been run amok by nomadic barbarian gangs.
    Maybe if Muhammad hadn't come along, ragtag Arabs would have just run amok as cutthroat bandits, like the Mongols and Huns.
    But Islam gave them a sense of purpose and meaning.
    So, even though they acted like semi-barbarians in their conquests, they were imbued with a spiritual purpose. And this was Near East Medievalism.

    A kind of reverse dynamics came to define the Near East when compared to the West.
    In the West, Medievalism of Christian Civilization gradually gave way to revival of high pagan classical culture of Greeks and Romans. Hellenism gained over Christo-Hebraism.

    In the Near East where Byzantine Christianity had preserved classical culture(at least much of it) and where Persians had preserved pagan culture of their own, the Islamic Medievalism gained and gained and stamped out classical culture(even though Arabs learned from that stuff for awhile).

    Classicism was revived and grew stronger in the West, but it grew weaker and faded in the Middle East.

    Anyway, neo-medievalism via Islam makes a certain sense as savagery(esp of blacks) and barbarism(esp of vulgar trash pop culture and family breakdown) define today's ridiculous West.
    Medievalism, a kind of fusion of heavy-duty spiritualism and feudal-warrior culture, was necessary to restore order in a world where Imperial Certainties were no more. So, unless Medievalism restored order by localization of authority and hardcore spiritual conviction, there was bound to be more disorder, chaos, and etc.

    As the forces of jungle and junk engulf the West and as the concept of Justice becomes ever sillier(homo this, tranny that), the neo-medievalism of Islam might gain, especially in Europe that has a considerable Muslim population.
    It's like that novel SUBMISSION. When white culture is cuckery, black culture is savagery, and intellectual culture is decadence -- and when Christianity has surrendered to magic negro worship and homomania --, what is there but Islam as some kind of substantive moral and political system?

    Now, Islam turns me off, but it got some things right.

    It’s like that novel SUBMISSION. When white culture is cuckery, black culture is savagery, and intellectual culture is decadence — and when Christianity has surrendered to magic negro worship and homomania –, what is there but Islam as some kind of substantive moral and political system?

    At this point in time any alternative to liberalism would be welcome. We may find ourselves having to choose the lesser of two evils, and in this case Islam is definitely the lesser evil.

    Christianity today is just a slightly worse form of secular liberalism. It has a certain appeal to women, homosexuals and girly-men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Malla
    "There aren’t that many and those that exist are borrowed at second hand from Christianity."

    There aren't not many?????? Did you even read the links???

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    The worship of waters in Zoroastrianism, the fiery grandson/nephew of waters apam napát, and the kinsman of the sea sævar niðr in Norse Mythology
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/11/06/the-worship-of-waters-in-zoroastrianism-the-fiery-grandsonnephew-of-waters-apam-napat-and-the-kinsman-of-the-sea-saevar-nidr-in-norse-mythology/

    Frya or love in the gathas, Old Norse Freya and Frigg
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2017/03/06/frya-or-love-in-the-gathas-old-norse-freya-and-frigg/

    Battle in the poetic gathas, ancient Zoroastrianism, and comparison with the Norse einherjar
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/12/15/battle-in-the-poetic-gathas-ancient-zoroastrianism-and-comparison-with-einherjar/

    Avestan Druj “distortion, devastation, lie,” Old Persian Drauga, and Old Norse Draugr
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/08/22/avestan-druj-distortion-devastation-lie-old-persian-drauga-and-old-norse-draugr/

    The shining Twin Yima, Vedic Yama and Old Norse Ymir
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/12/10/the-shining-twin-yima-vedic-yama-and-old-norse-ymir/

    What does the common Vedic Yama, Persian Yima and Norse Germanic Ymir have to do with Christianity????

    The god-force of waters ahúrání and the Norse sea-god ægir
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/10/28/the-god-force-of-waters-ahurani-and-the-norse-sea-god-aegir/

    Vohü Manö, “passion, spirit,mind” and the Old Norse Vili and Vé
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/02/10/vohu-mano-passion-spiritmind-and-the-old-norse-vili-and-ve/

    The Aryan Archer Arakhsh, Tirgan festival, Zoroastrian mid-summer celebrations and the Norse rune Týr.
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2012/07/03/the-aryan-archer-arasharakhsh-tir-gantyr-gan-mid-summer-festival-and-the-norse-rune-tyr/

    mazdá or ma(n)zdá, the GD of Genius; the norse rune mannaz, greek métis and vedic medhá
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2011/05/26/mazda-or-manzda-the-gd-of-genius-the-norse-rune-mannaz-greek-metis-and-vedic-medha/

    Indeed it is Judaism which has copied a lot from the Aryan Persians and recycled it back into Europe

    The ancient Iranian or Indo-Aryan influence on Judaism through the Babylonian Talmud
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/09/08/the-ancient-iranian-or-indo-aryan-influence-on-judaism-through-the-babylonian-talmud/

    Indo-European Ashem “Virtue, Excellence” NOT Hebrew HaShem “the Name”
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2014/06/05/indo-european-ashem-virtue-excellence-not-hebrew-hashem-the-name/

    Um, do you really want to claim the Talmud?

    Do you have any reputable scholarly sources for your etymologies?

    Do you really want to argue from the existence of a midsummer feast?

    Anyway, my two cents: the Norse pantheon is IE so of course there will be vague similarities to the demigods of Persia, as to Greece, Rome, India. But the whole Zoroastrian religion is based on Ormazd and secondarily Ahriman. If you think Norse paganism is a realistic approximation of the actual spiritual world, by all means practise it– we have fairly accurate ideas of it. If you think Zarathustra was a true prophet, by all means follow his revelations. We have plenty of those, and a living community (which however you reject for some reason). Why on earth you should want to conflate the two, and what bizarre idea of the metaphysical world this will give you,is beyond me. But don’t let me stop you…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    I really do not understand what your problem is. I did not do any independent research on Zoarastrianism, I did not write that blog. Anybody with any intelligence who reads that blog will realize the remarkable similarity between the Norse/Celtic pagan religions, Zoroastrianism and Vedic mythology. If you have any issues take it to the blog writer. I have no interest in claiming the talmud. The Talmud means nothing to me. You are taking this personally, calm down. You cannot even explain why Moslem voyagers, traders, and theologians from the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties/caliphates called the Vikings, 'Majūs'. The only other people they used the term for are the Pre Islamic Persians.


    Again from
    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    Moslems classified the Vikings as Majūs or “heathen Zoroastrians,” since they thought them to be very much like Zoroastrians of pre Islamic Iran/Persia.

    Majūs, plural majūsī, from Greek Mágos μάγος, Latin Magus, is a term that goes back to the Avestan magá, referring to the Zoroastrian shaman warriors.

    In almost all moslem accounts, reference to the Vikings starts with the phrase: “al-Majus (Vikings/Zoroastrians) – May God curse them!” Moslem envoys referred to the Viking chiefs/kings as malik al-majūs, and to the Viking lands as bilād al-majūs.

    Regarding Christianized Vikings, Moslem accounts state: Norse men were Majusi “Zoroastrian heathens,” but they now follow the Christian faith dīn al-naṣranīya, and have given up fire-worship and their previous religion, except for the people of a few scattered islands of theirs in the sea, where they keep to their old Majusi (Zoroastrian) faith.

    Moslem accounts to the Vikings include Al-Ghazal’s (8th – 9th Century, Al-Andalus) entitled “embassy mission to the Vikings,” originated within Al-Muqtabis fi tarikh al-Andalus of Ibn Hayyan (The collected knowledge on the history of Al-Andalus.)

    The most extensive account on the Vikings by Moslems is that written by Ibn Fadlan (10th Century, Baghdad.)

    The notion that the Moslem classification of the Vikings as Majusi “Pagan Zoroastrians,” was simply a case of mistaken identity is highly unlikely. Majus as Zoroastrians appears many times in hadith (words ascribed to Mohammad,) and once in Quran 22.17. In fact, moslem use of the designation Majus in the new context of the Norse people, proves that they were very conscious/aware of the meaning of the term.
    , @Malla
    I am Hindu from India, the researcher/writer of that blog is Iranian Persian. I do not follow the Zoroastrian religion (yet). All I wanted to point out was that the Zoroastrian religion is a far more noble religion and does not have some of the negative aspects of Christianity (obsession with sin, guilt) as well as the negative aspects of my religion of Hinduism (Crazy rituals, absorption into Nirguna Brahmana after many reincarnations). Instead the Zoroastrian faith asks us to be noble, be on the side of light and become godlike so that we can become Gods ourself. Why do you think the great thinker Frederick Nietzsche used Zoroaster in his book, Thus spoke Zarathusta? He was rebelling against some of the negative aspects of Christianity. I never claimed Christianity is wholly a bad religion, it has a lot of positive points. And I wanted to point out that since the Zoroastrian religion is a part of the larger Aryan world of ideologies, it could be well suited for the European mind without the negative aspects of Christianity. That is all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @dfordoom

    Now, it’d be best if the world revived the sane Western value system of the 20th century(esp the humanist one that prevailed in the 50s after WWII), but that is no longer possible as decadence and degeneracy have seeped into and rotted the very core of Western values.
     
    But wasn't it the western humanist value system of the 50s that led directly to decadence and degeneracy? The western humanist value system of the 50s contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    It would actually be best if the West returned to the genuinely sane value system of pre-Enlightenment days. The Enlightenment gave the West liberalism and liberalism was always going to destroy us.

    The values we so cherish - democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, capitalism, mass education, tolerance, openness - these are the poisons that have destroyed us.

    By the 1950s we were already a long way down the slippery slope.

    But wasn’t it the western humanist value system of the 50s that led directly to decadence and degeneracy? The western humanist value system of the 50s contained the seeds of its own destruction.
    It would actually be best if the West returned to the genuinely sane value system of pre-Enlightenment days. The Enlightenment gave the West liberalism and liberalism was always going to destroy us.

    This is the determinist fallacy that says, because we once used to be ‘there’ and are now ‘here’, the ‘there’ must have inevitably led us to ‘here’.

    But history doesn’t work that way. After all, Soviet Union and Communist nations also had humanist values in the 50s. The Soviets were full of praise for neo-realist films. They praised Bunuel’s LOS OLIVIDADOS. Some communist censors objected to the film because it showed some Mexican cops in good light, but Soviet authorities overrode those objections and the film was honored in the USSR. Humanism is a big term, and its main ethos were accepted by communist nations as well. But consider the divergence of the East and West. Also, consider the difference between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Why are Brits so cucky but Poles so patriotic?
    So, it’s not ‘humanism’ that led to current decadence.

    One could also argue that it was the rise of consumerism that destroyed humanism. So, it wasn’t humanism that led to decadence. Rather, it was narcissism and hedonism spread far and wide by capitalism. Consider the humanist films of Akira Kurosawa. Can you blame them for the cultural decadence and demise of Japan? In the 70s, 80% of all the films made in Japan were porn. So, did Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, and Ozu’s humanist cinema lead to such development? Or were there other factors such as TV’s effect on film industry, 60s nihilism and narcissism, and apathy that came with consumer culture that came to dominate all western nations?

    I don’t see much connection betweent the humanism of BICYCLE THIEVES(and 400 BLOWS, maybe the last great humanist film) and ‘twerking’ and Justin Timberlake.
    The problem of capitalism was it was too successful. Over-production, over-abundance, over-consumption, and etc. Those successes made people take things for granted. Also, as not many were needed for essential economy like agriculture and production, a lot of jobs came to centered around media, gambling, vice, entertainment, drugs, fashion, leisure, and etc. The result is a loused up culture where even poor people’s main problem is being too fat or dreaming of trashy celebrities 24/7. This is why our eyes glaze over when people like Chris Hedges still speak of the noble poor. Sure, poor exist and they have problems, but we are not dealing with Grapes of Wrath or Raisin in the Sun, or even with Sanford and Son — the Sanfords weren’t without some virtue. We are talking of total cultural degradation from excessive piggery.

    Another problem with reactionary thinking is we can play that game back to the big bang. You say the problem was Enlightenment. But then, someone could say “Ah, but the Enlightenment is the result of Renaissance and revival of classical culture.” So, are we to disavow the Renaissance too? ?And then, someone could argue that Medievalism made the Renaissance possible. After all, the Renaissance didn’t just spring from nowhere. Rather, there was a gradual shift from ‘medievalism’ to ‘renaissance’. Of course, people living back then didn’t even notice the change as those categories were applied later. So, we would then have to disavow Medievalism since it paved the way for Renaissance that led to Enlightenment.
    Some blame America’s problems on the 50s. Some say the 50s resulted from earlier developments and some say it goes back to the Founders who are really to blame and so on. We can play this game forever. We can go all the way back to northern barbarians who were more into individualism than other races. So, blame the vikings.

    The fact is the present could have been very different IF people had took a different path in the past. There never was a single path in history. At every point, there were many paths, many choices. And if another path had been taken, the NOW would be very different.
    It’s like WWI was not inevitable. Communism was not inevitable. The fall of the communist party in the USSR was not inevitable. Suppose Gorbachev had been more like Deng. Some Jew argue that Christianity inevitably led to Shoah since antisemitism had Christian roots. But if neo-pagan Hitler hadn’t come to power, German Christianity would have nothing to do with WWII. And there were plenty of Christians who saved Jews. Given Hitler’s love of classicism, I wonder why Jews have tended not to blame Greek and Roman culture for the rise of Nazism. Maybe they hate Christianity more because it was a religion ‘stolen’ from Jews or handed over to gentiles by renegade traitor Jews.

    So, playing this game of blaming the past in wholesale manner is rather lazy and cowardly.
    The Enlightenment led to so many blessings and well as curses. It is up to free man to decide what to do with those possibilities and freedoms. I would argue for freedom and better use of those freedoms.
    But some argue for less freedom cuz freedom led to bad choices that led to NOW. That is the negative side of conservatism, and part of the reason why the East failed to develop. It was so afraid of the negative consequences of freedom that it forbade freedom altogether.
    Now, freedom is a double-edged sword and it can lead to bad choices that can be worse than no choices. But a great people must choose freedom and the courage to make the right choices and say the right things.

    Stepping back into time for answer is like a turtle receding ever more into its shell. But it can withdraw only so much. Eventually, for it to live, it must move and find food and accept the dangers and gains of choice.

    When Buckley debated Dershowitz in the 90s, Buckey was waxing romantic about the 19th century while Dershowitz called 20th century his century. Now, there was much that was good about the 19th century, but history moves forward and time won’t stop. And the problem of conservatives was the unwillingness to take charge of the moment, of culture and things to make a difference, to be bold. While too many cons were just looking backward or trying to stop time, all the change was defined by the other side that accepted the role of choice and change in history.

    The true way is to adopt change to make the order stronger… like modernization of Germany and Japan in the 19th century. Change brings blessings and curses, and sensible conservatives need to think more sci-fi-like and foresee dangers and prevent them before they happen. It’s the Jewish way. There is the way of remembering the past and guarding tradition.. but also the prophetic role of seeing into the future, like in FOUNDATION by Asimov.. or what chess players do as they must consider possible future moves.
    This is a big challenge, but stakes of history are high, and it can’t be played by soul-midgets who can only accept security and certainty.

    History is a war with defense and offense. While defense is essential, no one wins war only with defense. Sometimes, he has to go on the attack. Now, attacking comes with dangers, so there has to be scouts and spies to collect information to avoid setbacks. The other side is much more adept at this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    Actually we can find a point 'here things went to shit'. I go with Jim's explanation which means we can trace it through Total Fertility Rate- it starts declining in England starting in the 1720s. So then, or the generation before, is when things began to go wrong for England.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Chrislam combines the virtues of Christianity with the warrior cult of Islam.
     
    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult. It is widely known as being a Christian.

    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.

    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.

    Cowboy up, and stand with them, or genuflect and lick the boots of your masters. There is no alternative.

    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult.
    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.
    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.

    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.
    Also, genuine Christianity’s pacifism is not limp-wristed, weak, half-hearted, and etc.
    It takes far more courage than warrior-hood.
    Human nature, like animal nature, thinks in terms of fight or flight.
    Fight like a wolverine to survive or win. Or run like a mothafuc*a to save your behind. Germans and Russians fought like lions in WWII. Italians ran like rabbits. Both responses were very human. Fight to win and survive. Or take flight to seek safety and survive.

    Jesus didn’t run though He could have. He didn’t fight either. According to the New Testament, He is the Son of God and has Godly powers. After all, He turned a few loaves into lots of bread. So, theoretically, if He’d chosen not run like a cowardly Italian, He could have used magic powers to kick some serious butt. He could have been like a superhero. But He stood for peace, forgiveness, love, and understanding. And He decided to serve as a model of the highest virtue. And this took tremendous courage, esp if Mel Gibson’s account is any reflection of what really happened.

    And there was real courage in what the Indians did against the British too. I mean Gandhi got whupped pretty bad. But he kept disobeying and resisting. This kind of peace was not weak or cowardly. It meant resisting or fighting without hate, without violence, but with forgiveness.
    It took the courage of virtue to turn the other cheek.

    So, Christianity’s peace is not about chickening out, hiding in a hole, or running to mama like an Italian or a modern Greek(as the tough ancient Greek genes seem to have vanished).
    Now, Peter sought that kind of safety and felt shame. To save his own skin, he denied Jesus three times. He lacked the courage of a martyr. The fact that he felt shame means he didn’t act Christian. He ran like the Shah of Iran. He ran like Lord Jim who felt bad about it and atoned for it later.

    According to Christianity, fighting and warring are sinful. They are not courageous because man is giving into animal fears and hatred. A Christian must conquer his fears. He must be resolute. He must be willing to pay the price, even with death. If a Christian gives into hate, anger, and revenge, he is really serving his animal nature of survival even if he claims to fight for God.
    To be a truly noble Christian, he must not fight even if it means death. After all, the world of men is just a transient nothing compare to eternity in Heaven. A Christian must never fear death.
    It is indeed much more difficult to love and forgive your enemy than kick his butt.

    Now, the limp-wristed Liberal Christians may claim to be courageous in choosing peace over violence, but they are full of shi*. The ONLY reason they can be so fluffy-duff lovey-dovey is because they live in well-protected and well-guarded communities made possible by wealth created by ‘greed’ and security offered by police and military. Look at the do-goody libbies in Yale and University of Chicago. They are protected by massive police presence. So, their do-goody talk is just so much BS. And do-goody Christian libby dibs who claim to love Muslims and Diversity can go on with such conceit cuz they live in gated communities. Just look how the lesbian mainline theologians live in elite colleges. They never had to face being fed to lions or being raped or crushed. That’s why I have no use for the libby-dibbers.

    But true Christianity requires tremendous courage in the direst circumstances. It’s like that pacifist guy in Gibson’s WWII movie. His faith forbade him to pick up a gun. It took courage to stick by his principles when people in the army were calling him chicken. And he had to be fearless to save all those lives. And eventually, the men come to respect his courage as a different and perhaps even higher kind of courage.

    Not being religious myself, I prefer a more organismic view. Fight or flight, though having lived among diversity and Negroes in my youth, I stick by the general rule of ‘run like a mothafuc*a’ as the surest way out of trouble. Negro kids had this sixth sense. They’d be relaxing and taking it easy.. but then, lout of the blue,.. like in those nature documentaries where suddenly the deer or antelope stop chewing and become alert and then bolt. Just like that, the relaxed Negroes would suddenly prick up their ears and there would be a moment of silence.. and then some kid would mutter ‘run like a motherfuc*a’, and the kids would dash off in different directions. It could be from cops, gang members, or whatever.

    Now, we must not confuse Constantine and Christendom with what Christianity is about.
    After all, Buddha was pacifist but Buddhist societies practiced wars, conquests, slavery, kung fu, and etc. Angkor Wat the famous set of Buddhist temples were built by slaves. Samurai were buddhist but ruthless. Shaolin monks in KUNG FU learn to fight like Bruce Lee. So, Buddhist history produced lots of great warriors and armies. So, was Buddha about warrior pride? No.

    Also, Buddhist temples in Japan grew very rich. But Buddha wasn’t about materialism either. Same goes for the West. Jesus told people to give all their wealth to the poor, be poor themselves, don’t mind being poor, find virtue in poverty, and pray and meditate to reach Heaven. But Christendom was about great wealth, trade, and even piracy and plunder. Lots of great churches were built with wealth built on backs of serfs and New World slaves. The Corleones were Christians too. So, was that what Jesus was about?

    It’s true that the heirs of Christendom are those who fought, survived, and had kids.
    And they had to fight because had they done as Jesus preached, they would have gotten beaten for sure, even killed.
    So, I don’t have a problem with Christians not obeying Jesus. I don’t mind Christians fighting like lions to defeat invaders, such as Muslims and North Africans.

    But this does lead to a problem at the core of Christianity. Christendom rose in power by going against Jesus’ teachings. How can this contradiction be resolved? I don’t think it can.
    So, a new kind of vision is necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Great post. But that is my point, both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively. However for law abiding people's within the same civilization/ nation, Christian/Buddhist values may work but not so against outside invaders/infiltrators. The problem with today's West is they are showing Christian love to all mankind even if the rest of mankind are not returning the love. Nor are the outsiders having a change of heart. These outsiders see this behaviour as weakness and want to exploit it further and will not stop until they devour Western Civilisation like sharks devouring a Whale carcass. Christian/Buddhist morality must be restricted within the law abiding members of the same tribe/race/civilization. Gandhis' technique may have worked against the mighty but moral British Empire but it would have not worked against the Ottomans in the 16th century. Some humans are so cruel and depraved that they just don't get moved by a Jesus like behaviour of righteous self sacrifice.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.
     
    So, as a damned heretic, you are going to determine what genuine Christianity is? Old Scratch thanks you for your service to him, and he has a warmed up a seat for you in the afterlife.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Amasius says:
    @nigel
    Where is Charles Martel?

    “Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=100&v=xVEYcTyj1Do

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Olorin says:
    @Whiskey
    A society run by the whims, and for the whims, of Upper Class White women will ALWAYS favor White slavery. Its victims tend to be potential competitors -- young, pretty working class White women who the Gentry ladies HATE HATE HATE with a passion.

    Consider Sarah Palin, object of ritual hate for being "country." Ditto back in the early 2000's Britney Spears, the usual line being to paint Spears as a crass, trailer trash bimbo ignoramous. True enough, but that puzzled me at the time for a while -- the energy being expended by various comediennes on a frankly boring target.

    Yes of course native working class White girls are being enslaved and that is the whole point of having Muslims and Africans and making them untouchable in the first place. The real Race War is being waged by the Upper Class Whites against the "dirt people" who are their cousins.

    Consider Sarah Palin, object of ritual hate for being “country.” Ditto back in the early 2000′s Britney Spears, the usual line being to paint Spears as a crass, trailer trash bimbo ignoramous. True enough, but that puzzled me at the time for a while — the energy being expended by various comediennes on a frankly boring target.

    IIRC the vanguard of these particular Two Minutes’ Hateses was not “upper class whites” or “gentry ladies,” but the (((MSM))).

    “Comediennes” for instance are unlikely to draw their paychecks nor their audiences from “gentry.” They are paid by the (((infotainment industry))) to signal this season’s fashions in genetic competition and white hatred.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Clyde says:
    @cthulhu


    The Clash were big enough to play Shea Stadium

     

    Uh, they were opening for the Who...if you look closely you can see the Who's stage gear in the background.

    Thanks! The Clash were big but not that big.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Clash got paid a million dollars to headlined one night of Steve Wozniak's US festival in 1983. Attendance was maybe 150,000 that night in SoCal. But that was about their last show. They never went out on the old-timer's circuit, did they? They eventually licensed songs to commercials, like "London Calling" to Jaguar. I can recall Strummer trying to explain the rather Trumpian point that one famous English brand endorsing another was a good thing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Clyde
    Thanks! The Clash were big but not that big.

    The Clash got paid a million dollars to headlined one night of Steve Wozniak’s US festival in 1983. Attendance was maybe 150,000 that night in SoCal. But that was about their last show. They never went out on the old-timer’s circuit, did they? They eventually licensed songs to commercials, like “London Calling” to Jaguar. I can recall Strummer trying to explain the rather Trumpian point that one famous English brand endorsing another was a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    The Clash were gone too soon. They should have stuck it out longer. Rock The Casbah is hilarious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Um, do you really want to claim the Talmud?

    Do you have any reputable scholarly sources for your etymologies?

    Do you really want to argue from the existence of a midsummer feast?

    Anyway, my two cents: the Norse pantheon is IE so of course there will be vague similarities to the demigods of Persia, as to Greece, Rome, India. But the whole Zoroastrian religion is based on Ormazd and secondarily Ahriman. If you think Norse paganism is a realistic approximation of the actual spiritual world, by all means practise it-- we have fairly accurate ideas of it. If you think Zarathustra was a true prophet, by all means follow his revelations. We have plenty of those, and a living community (which however you reject for some reason). Why on earth you should want to conflate the two, and what bizarre idea of the metaphysical world this will give you,is beyond me. But don't let me stop you...

    I really do not understand what your problem is. I did not do any independent research on Zoarastrianism, I did not write that blog. Anybody with any intelligence who reads that blog will realize the remarkable similarity between the Norse/Celtic pagan religions, Zoroastrianism and Vedic mythology. If you have any issues take it to the blog writer. I have no interest in claiming the talmud. The Talmud means nothing to me. You are taking this personally, calm down. You cannot even explain why Moslem voyagers, traders, and theologians from the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties/caliphates called the Vikings, ‘Majūs’. The only other people they used the term for are the Pre Islamic Persians.

    Again from

    https://authenticgathazoroastrianism.org/2016/10/17/moslem-designation-of-the-vikings-as-majus-or-heathen-zoroastrians-and-the-maga-fellowship-of-zarathustra/

    Moslems classified the Vikings as Majūs or “heathen Zoroastrians,” since they thought them to be very much like Zoroastrians of pre Islamic Iran/Persia.

    Majūs, plural majūsī, from Greek Mágos μάγος, Latin Magus, is a term that goes back to the Avestan magá, referring to the Zoroastrian shaman warriors.

    In almost all moslem accounts, reference to the Vikings starts with the phrase: “al-Majus (Vikings/Zoroastrians) – May God curse them!” Moslem envoys referred to the Viking chiefs/kings as malik al-majūs, and to the Viking lands as bilād al-majūs.

    Regarding Christianized Vikings, Moslem accounts state: Norse men were Majusi “Zoroastrian heathens,” but they now follow the Christian faith dīn al-naṣranīya, and have given up fire-worship and their previous religion, except for the people of a few scattered islands of theirs in the sea, where they keep to their old Majusi (Zoroastrian) faith.

    Moslem accounts to the Vikings include Al-Ghazal’s (8th – 9th Century, Al-Andalus) entitled “embassy mission to the Vikings,” originated within Al-Muqtabis fi tarikh al-Andalus of Ibn Hayyan (The collected knowledge on the history of Al-Andalus.)

    The most extensive account on the Vikings by Moslems is that written by Ibn Fadlan (10th Century, Baghdad.)

    The notion that the Moslem classification of the Vikings as Majusi “Pagan Zoroastrians,” was simply a case of mistaken identity is highly unlikely. Majus as Zoroastrians appears many times in hadith (words ascribed to Mohammad,) and once in Quran 22.17. In fact, moslem use of the designation Majus in the new context of the Norse people, proves that they were very conscious/aware of the meaning of the term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Um, do you really want to claim the Talmud?

    Do you have any reputable scholarly sources for your etymologies?

    Do you really want to argue from the existence of a midsummer feast?

    Anyway, my two cents: the Norse pantheon is IE so of course there will be vague similarities to the demigods of Persia, as to Greece, Rome, India. But the whole Zoroastrian religion is based on Ormazd and secondarily Ahriman. If you think Norse paganism is a realistic approximation of the actual spiritual world, by all means practise it-- we have fairly accurate ideas of it. If you think Zarathustra was a true prophet, by all means follow his revelations. We have plenty of those, and a living community (which however you reject for some reason). Why on earth you should want to conflate the two, and what bizarre idea of the metaphysical world this will give you,is beyond me. But don't let me stop you...

    I am Hindu from India, the researcher/writer of that blog is Iranian Persian. I do not follow the Zoroastrian religion (yet). All I wanted to point out was that the Zoroastrian religion is a far more noble religion and does not have some of the negative aspects of Christianity (obsession with sin, guilt) as well as the negative aspects of my religion of Hinduism (Crazy rituals, absorption into Nirguna Brahmana after many reincarnations). Instead the Zoroastrian faith asks us to be noble, be on the side of light and become godlike so that we can become Gods ourself. Why do you think the great thinker Frederick Nietzsche used Zoroaster in his book, Thus spoke Zarathusta? He was rebelling against some of the negative aspects of Christianity. I never claimed Christianity is wholly a bad religion, it has a lot of positive points. And I wanted to point out that since the Zoroastrian religion is a part of the larger Aryan world of ideologies, it could be well suited for the European mind without the negative aspects of Christianity. That is all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Malla says:

    “If you think Norse paganism is a realistic approximation of the actual spiritual world, by all means practise it– we have fairly accurate ideas of it.”
    Really? Each and every religion has a different approximation of the ‘actual’ spiritual world. The spiritual world described by Jainism is way different than the spiritual world described in Islam which is different from the spiritual world described in Shinto. WHICH ONE IS CORRECT? Many rituals the ancient Egyptian priests performed would horrify a priest from ancient India and vice versa. In Hinduism, all beef eaters are the most unclean gross sinners, to face retribution for this in their next reincarnation. That means all Christians, Shinto, Taoists, Jews, Ancient Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Muslims are all spiritually blind not to have realized this fact. According to ancient Hindu texts, burning a person after death is the only way for disposing off the body and is best for the soul. That means all Christians, Jews, Muslims, ancient Egyptians are all spiritually blind to have not realized this fact but the ancient Romans, Vikings/Germanics, Hittites etc… who similarly disposed of their dead by fire are spiritually correct. Burying a dead body is worst thing one can do for the soul according Hinduism. According to Islam and official Judaism, idol worship is completely wrong, which means Shintos, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians are all spiritually blind to have not realized this fact. This shit goes on and on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. @Buzz Mohawk
    The same thing happens with diseases.

    It's critical mass again. Moderate numbers of immigrants from shitty places can be assimilated, but once you exceed a certain level, you get things that were eradicated long ago, like slavery and terrible illnesses.

    From Breitbart 19 June 2016:

    Six Diseases Return To US as Migration Advocates Celebrate ‘World Refugee Day'

    The returning diseases are:

    1. Tuberculosis
    2. Measles
    3. Whooping Cough
    4. Mumps
    5. Scarlet Fever
    6. Bubonic Plague

    There are vaccines for measles, mumps and whooping cough. They’ve been around for a while.

    My kids, born in the 1970s, were vaccinated. My own age group (boomers) had measles and mumps as children. Not sure about whooping cough.

    These diseases are making something of a comeback due to anti-vaccination sentiments.

    No question that importing huge numbers of third world people will bring with them many diseases thought to be over. But at least for those three, make sure you and your children are vaccinated.

    Other people have commented on bubonic plague: it does exist in North America in some animals and occasionally someone will catch it.

    TB began making a comeback in the days of AIDS. Sufferers with weakened immune systems caught it readily if exposed. But it too is being brought by immigrants.

    At one point I had Google alert going for “tuberculosis”. Every few months there was a story of some school age kid catching it and exposing his whole class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Anon
    But wasn’t it the western humanist value system of the 50s that led directly to decadence and degeneracy? The western humanist value system of the 50s contained the seeds of its own destruction.
    It would actually be best if the West returned to the genuinely sane value system of pre-Enlightenment days. The Enlightenment gave the West liberalism and liberalism was always going to destroy us.


    This is the determinist fallacy that says, because we once used to be 'there' and are now 'here', the 'there' must have inevitably led us to 'here'.

    But history doesn't work that way. After all, Soviet Union and Communist nations also had humanist values in the 50s. The Soviets were full of praise for neo-realist films. They praised Bunuel's LOS OLIVIDADOS. Some communist censors objected to the film because it showed some Mexican cops in good light, but Soviet authorities overrode those objections and the film was honored in the USSR. Humanism is a big term, and its main ethos were accepted by communist nations as well. But consider the divergence of the East and West. Also, consider the difference between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Why are Brits so cucky but Poles so patriotic?
    So, it's not 'humanism' that led to current decadence.

    One could also argue that it was the rise of consumerism that destroyed humanism. So, it wasn't humanism that led to decadence. Rather, it was narcissism and hedonism spread far and wide by capitalism. Consider the humanist films of Akira Kurosawa. Can you blame them for the cultural decadence and demise of Japan? In the 70s, 80% of all the films made in Japan were porn. So, did Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, and Ozu's humanist cinema lead to such development? Or were there other factors such as TV's effect on film industry, 60s nihilism and narcissism, and apathy that came with consumer culture that came to dominate all western nations?

    I don't see much connection betweent the humanism of BICYCLE THIEVES(and 400 BLOWS, maybe the last great humanist film) and 'twerking' and Justin Timberlake.
    The problem of capitalism was it was too successful. Over-production, over-abundance, over-consumption, and etc. Those successes made people take things for granted. Also, as not many were needed for essential economy like agriculture and production, a lot of jobs came to centered around media, gambling, vice, entertainment, drugs, fashion, leisure, and etc. The result is a loused up culture where even poor people's main problem is being too fat or dreaming of trashy celebrities 24/7. This is why our eyes glaze over when people like Chris Hedges still speak of the noble poor. Sure, poor exist and they have problems, but we are not dealing with Grapes of Wrath or Raisin in the Sun, or even with Sanford and Son -- the Sanfords weren't without some virtue. We are talking of total cultural degradation from excessive piggery.

    Another problem with reactionary thinking is we can play that game back to the big bang. You say the problem was Enlightenment. But then, someone could say "Ah, but the Enlightenment is the result of Renaissance and revival of classical culture." So, are we to disavow the Renaissance too? ?And then, someone could argue that Medievalism made the Renaissance possible. After all, the Renaissance didn't just spring from nowhere. Rather, there was a gradual shift from 'medievalism' to 'renaissance'. Of course, people living back then didn't even notice the change as those categories were applied later. So, we would then have to disavow Medievalism since it paved the way for Renaissance that led to Enlightenment.
    Some blame America's problems on the 50s. Some say the 50s resulted from earlier developments and some say it goes back to the Founders who are really to blame and so on. We can play this game forever. We can go all the way back to northern barbarians who were more into individualism than other races. So, blame the vikings.

    The fact is the present could have been very different IF people had took a different path in the past. There never was a single path in history. At every point, there were many paths, many choices. And if another path had been taken, the NOW would be very different.
    It's like WWI was not inevitable. Communism was not inevitable. The fall of the communist party in the USSR was not inevitable. Suppose Gorbachev had been more like Deng. Some Jew argue that Christianity inevitably led to Shoah since antisemitism had Christian roots. But if neo-pagan Hitler hadn't come to power, German Christianity would have nothing to do with WWII. And there were plenty of Christians who saved Jews. Given Hitler's love of classicism, I wonder why Jews have tended not to blame Greek and Roman culture for the rise of Nazism. Maybe they hate Christianity more because it was a religion 'stolen' from Jews or handed over to gentiles by renegade traitor Jews.

    So, playing this game of blaming the past in wholesale manner is rather lazy and cowardly.
    The Enlightenment led to so many blessings and well as curses. It is up to free man to decide what to do with those possibilities and freedoms. I would argue for freedom and better use of those freedoms.
    But some argue for less freedom cuz freedom led to bad choices that led to NOW. That is the negative side of conservatism, and part of the reason why the East failed to develop. It was so afraid of the negative consequences of freedom that it forbade freedom altogether.
    Now, freedom is a double-edged sword and it can lead to bad choices that can be worse than no choices. But a great people must choose freedom and the courage to make the right choices and say the right things.

    Stepping back into time for answer is like a turtle receding ever more into its shell. But it can withdraw only so much. Eventually, for it to live, it must move and find food and accept the dangers and gains of choice.

    When Buckley debated Dershowitz in the 90s, Buckey was waxing romantic about the 19th century while Dershowitz called 20th century his century. Now, there was much that was good about the 19th century, but history moves forward and time won't stop. And the problem of conservatives was the unwillingness to take charge of the moment, of culture and things to make a difference, to be bold. While too many cons were just looking backward or trying to stop time, all the change was defined by the other side that accepted the role of choice and change in history.

    The true way is to adopt change to make the order stronger... like modernization of Germany and Japan in the 19th century. Change brings blessings and curses, and sensible conservatives need to think more sci-fi-like and foresee dangers and prevent them before they happen. It's the Jewish way. There is the way of remembering the past and guarding tradition.. but also the prophetic role of seeing into the future, like in FOUNDATION by Asimov.. or what chess players do as they must consider possible future moves.
    This is a big challenge, but stakes of history are high, and it can't be played by soul-midgets who can only accept security and certainty.

    History is a war with defense and offense. While defense is essential, no one wins war only with defense. Sometimes, he has to go on the attack. Now, attacking comes with dangers, so there has to be scouts and spies to collect information to avoid setbacks. The other side is much more adept at this.

    Actually we can find a point ‘here things went to shit’. I go with Jim’s explanation which means we can trace it through Total Fertility Rate- it starts declining in England starting in the 1720s. So then, or the generation before, is when things began to go wrong for England.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. weyyar says:

    It’s baffling why Poland and Hungary don’t want diversity

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Zoroastrianism, like its contemporary Buddhism in India, was derived racially not from the Aryan invaders but rather from the native sources reacting against the brutality of these invaders. This is shown notably by their common rejection of blood sacrifices and their common appeal to the brotherhood of man. It is also indicated by two traditionally accepted circumstances. First, that Zoroaster's teaching arose in the country of the Medes at the same time that they were being attacked and subdued by the Assyrians. And, secondly, that Zoroaster was himself expelled from his homeland to take refuge in the east.
     
    The Evolution of Man and Society, C.D. Darlington

    I see why Mr. Darlington came to that conclusion as far as Buddhism is concerned. That is because the Buddha rejected the Vedas and Brahmin superiority (That is why Brahmins played a big role in the destruction of Buddhism in India and the violence against Buddhist). But maybe Mr. Darlington was unaware of the Scythian (and thus Central Asian White) lineage of the Buddha. And even if the Buddha rejected the Vedas, Hinduism at his time was a deteriorated version of the original Vedic Hindusism and there was nothing Aryan like (nobleness) in the behaviour of the Brahmans anymore. The Budhha himself was more Aryan then them in manner and nature.
    Even if Zoroastrianism arose from the natives, they overwhelmingly borrowed from the Aryan past. And I believe by this time, the Aryans had already become the Natives or mixed with the earlier natives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult.
    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.
    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.


    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.
    Also, genuine Christianity's pacifism is not limp-wristed, weak, half-hearted, and etc.
    It takes far more courage than warrior-hood.
    Human nature, like animal nature, thinks in terms of fight or flight.
    Fight like a wolverine to survive or win. Or run like a mothafuc*a to save your behind. Germans and Russians fought like lions in WWII. Italians ran like rabbits. Both responses were very human. Fight to win and survive. Or take flight to seek safety and survive.

    Jesus didn't run though He could have. He didn't fight either. According to the New Testament, He is the Son of God and has Godly powers. After all, He turned a few loaves into lots of bread. So, theoretically, if He'd chosen not run like a cowardly Italian, He could have used magic powers to kick some serious butt. He could have been like a superhero. But He stood for peace, forgiveness, love, and understanding. And He decided to serve as a model of the highest virtue. And this took tremendous courage, esp if Mel Gibson's account is any reflection of what really happened.

    And there was real courage in what the Indians did against the British too. I mean Gandhi got whupped pretty bad. But he kept disobeying and resisting. This kind of peace was not weak or cowardly. It meant resisting or fighting without hate, without violence, but with forgiveness.
    It took the courage of virtue to turn the other cheek.

    https://youtu.be/SNmJqRV7LOA?t=1m53s

    So, Christianity's peace is not about chickening out, hiding in a hole, or running to mama like an Italian or a modern Greek(as the tough ancient Greek genes seem to have vanished).
    Now, Peter sought that kind of safety and felt shame. To save his own skin, he denied Jesus three times. He lacked the courage of a martyr. The fact that he felt shame means he didn't act Christian. He ran like the Shah of Iran. He ran like Lord Jim who felt bad about it and atoned for it later.

    According to Christianity, fighting and warring are sinful. They are not courageous because man is giving into animal fears and hatred. A Christian must conquer his fears. He must be resolute. He must be willing to pay the price, even with death. If a Christian gives into hate, anger, and revenge, he is really serving his animal nature of survival even if he claims to fight for God.
    To be a truly noble Christian, he must not fight even if it means death. After all, the world of men is just a transient nothing compare to eternity in Heaven. A Christian must never fear death.
    It is indeed much more difficult to love and forgive your enemy than kick his butt.

    Now, the limp-wristed Liberal Christians may claim to be courageous in choosing peace over violence, but they are full of shi*. The ONLY reason they can be so fluffy-duff lovey-dovey is because they live in well-protected and well-guarded communities made possible by wealth created by 'greed' and security offered by police and military. Look at the do-goody libbies in Yale and University of Chicago. They are protected by massive police presence. So, their do-goody talk is just so much BS. And do-goody Christian libby dibs who claim to love Muslims and Diversity can go on with such conceit cuz they live in gated communities. Just look how the lesbian mainline theologians live in elite colleges. They never had to face being fed to lions or being raped or crushed. That's why I have no use for the libby-dibbers.

    But true Christianity requires tremendous courage in the direst circumstances. It's like that pacifist guy in Gibson's WWII movie. His faith forbade him to pick up a gun. It took courage to stick by his principles when people in the army were calling him chicken. And he had to be fearless to save all those lives. And eventually, the men come to respect his courage as a different and perhaps even higher kind of courage.

    Not being religious myself, I prefer a more organismic view. Fight or flight, though having lived among diversity and Negroes in my youth, I stick by the general rule of 'run like a mothafuc*a' as the surest way out of trouble. Negro kids had this sixth sense. They'd be relaxing and taking it easy.. but then, lout of the blue,.. like in those nature documentaries where suddenly the deer or antelope stop chewing and become alert and then bolt. Just like that, the relaxed Negroes would suddenly prick up their ears and there would be a moment of silence.. and then some kid would mutter 'run like a motherfuc*a', and the kids would dash off in different directions. It could be from cops, gang members, or whatever.

    Now, we must not confuse Constantine and Christendom with what Christianity is about.
    After all, Buddha was pacifist but Buddhist societies practiced wars, conquests, slavery, kung fu, and etc. Angkor Wat the famous set of Buddhist temples were built by slaves. Samurai were buddhist but ruthless. Shaolin monks in KUNG FU learn to fight like Bruce Lee. So, Buddhist history produced lots of great warriors and armies. So, was Buddha about warrior pride? No.

    Also, Buddhist temples in Japan grew very rich. But Buddha wasn't about materialism either. Same goes for the West. Jesus told people to give all their wealth to the poor, be poor themselves, don't mind being poor, find virtue in poverty, and pray and meditate to reach Heaven. But Christendom was about great wealth, trade, and even piracy and plunder. Lots of great churches were built with wealth built on backs of serfs and New World slaves. The Corleones were Christians too. So, was that what Jesus was about?

    It's true that the heirs of Christendom are those who fought, survived, and had kids.
    And they had to fight because had they done as Jesus preached, they would have gotten beaten for sure, even killed.
    So, I don't have a problem with Christians not obeying Jesus. I don't mind Christians fighting like lions to defeat invaders, such as Muslims and North Africans.

    But this does lead to a problem at the core of Christianity. Christendom rose in power by going against Jesus' teachings. How can this contradiction be resolved? I don't think it can.
    So, a new kind of vision is necessary.

    Great post. But that is my point, both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively. However for law abiding people’s within the same civilization/ nation, Christian/Buddhist values may work but not so against outside invaders/infiltrators. The problem with today’s West is they are showing Christian love to all mankind even if the rest of mankind are not returning the love. Nor are the outsiders having a change of heart. These outsiders see this behaviour as weakness and want to exploit it further and will not stop until they devour Western Civilisation like sharks devouring a Whale carcass. Christian/Buddhist morality must be restricted within the law abiding members of the same tribe/race/civilization. Gandhis’ technique may have worked against the mighty but moral British Empire but it would have not worked against the Ottomans in the 16th century. Some humans are so cruel and depraved that they just don’t get moved by a Jesus like behaviour of righteous self sacrifice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively.

    I think Christianity has been made to work in the real world IF understood to serve as an impossible ideal. So, even though Jesus' teachings is something that Christians should aspire to, they also know they will always fall way short. So, it's main value in reminding people of their eternal fallen state. And that is why Christian Heaven is open to sinners since very few if any people are gonna live up to Jesus' standards.

    This is why Christianity is more appealing than Buddhism. To reach Nirvana, there are no second-class seats. Only the first-class way will do. One must attain absolute purity of mind and soul to get there. Also, if Christian Heaven is eternal bliss, Buddhist Nirvana is eternal extinction. According to Judaism-Christianity, the world was a blessed place, Eden. God's wonder and glory were part of the physical world. But Adam and Eve disobeyed, and there was the Fall. Still, because the world was created as a miracle of God, there is still grace to be found in it. But it's incomplete because God has withdrawn His grace. So, there are reminders of God's touch in everything and everyone in the world, but spirit is absent.. except in the souls of men. And so, the souls can only reunite with God by reaching Heaven.

    In contrast, Buddhism believes the world is just pain and pain. If Eden was real but lost, the edenic world in which Siddhartha was raised was total phony, an illusion. His father didn't want him to see death and sickness and raised him in a bubble of 'perfection' and happiness. But when Siddhartha peered outside the walls, he saw the horribleness of reality. Bertolucci's LAST EMPEROR and LITTLE BUDDHA both work on this theme. Children raised in a paradisiacal bubbles who come to realize that the larger reality is something quite different. (It's incredible that, at one time, all of China was this 'innocent', a forbidden-city-nation that thought itself the ideal land of harmony that had NOTHING to learn from the outside world.) Bertolucci the Marxist believed in creating heaven on earth. But he lost faith in Marxism and later got interested in Buddhism. I think Oliver Stone followed a similar trajectory. He used to believe in hardcore leftism, but his ideologies has softened while showing greater interest in Buddism, esp around the time of HEAVEN AND EARTH.

    Anyway, Buddhism is really austere in its theory and practice. Life is horror and suffering, and any otherworldly escape from it is also an illusion. The only solution is extinction of the soul via Nirvana. Pope John Paul was right to critique this aspect of Buddhism as fostering nihilism because, after all, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to annihilate the soul. It is a soul-suicide cult. Ideally, according to Buddhism, all lifeforms should aspire to be reborn into higher forms until they are born as humans, and then the ultimate goal of every person is to meditate and reach nirvana so that his soul will never be reincarnated back into life. So, all life should aspire to be man, and all men should aspire to extinguish themselves forever.

    Something about Hinduism and Buddhism always bothered me. If Buddhism says reality is just an illusion and that people should withdraw from life to meditate to see through the illusion, what does one do when a leopard attacks him for supper? Imagine a yogi or monk going to a forest to meditate and telling himself that reality is just an illusion. And then a leopard or tiger leaps out of the bushes(like in APOCALYPSE NOW) and starts clawing and gnawing on him? Is that an illusion? If so, it sure hurts like crazy. As far I'm concerned, nothing is more powerful than pain, which is why RLAMF or run-like-a-mothafuc*a is the most useful survival plan.
    At least Christians knew they were being devoured by lions in the Coliseum. They knew it was horrible and painful and hoped to die with grace so they could be with God. I mean it'd be pretty hard to tell yourself that a big cat chewing your arm off is an 'illusion'.
    I'll bet the big cat is thinking, "Alright, go on thinking I'm an illusion. You-as-lunch certainly aint an illusion since you're filling up my tummy." Or consider those zombie movies. The zoms are chewing on you and you're gonna tell yourself it's an illusion?

    Anyway, Christianity can work IF it's understood as the highest and impossible ideal than as a practical guidance for men. One could see it as a mountain that no one can climb to the top but one that reminds everyone of how fallen or lowly they are in relation to the highest truth. And indeed, since Jesus is said to be the Son of God, His deed had to be larger than life, bigger than anything man could do. So, in that sense, there is no shame in not being able to live up to His ideals. Rather, it serves as a reminder to men of values and principles far higher than anything they can conceive or achieve as mortals.
    It's like a lump of pure gold reminding all the other metals that they cannot be pure gold... but that's okay. It's like the Platonic forms or something. These perfect forms cannot exist in reality. They can only exist in the mind. Reality doesn't allow perfection, especially perfection of morality. No such example ever existed in any religion or myth. Even the greatest heroes are flawed in some way. So, Christian myth posit this vision of this one Man who somehow lived by perfect truth and values in the real world. It's like a perfect diamond with no flaws, something that can't exist in reality but only in the mind. In a way, Christianity is the most arrogant of religions because it claims to believe in a Man who was truly perfect in every way. And yet, it fends off charges of arrogance by presenting Jesus as a humble figure who got whupped real bad. Now, one could argue... why couldn't Jesus as Messiah be like a perfect superhero? Like superman? I guess that would have been too fantastical. A perfect hero sent by God to beat up the bad guys and protect the good, and etc. No one would believe it. Also, if indeed Jesus was that kind of superhero, he would still be with us doing good work and protecting the good and weak. But there was no evidence of such hero or messiah in history. But it's true enough that a very good man could be persecuted and whupped real bad. There were many such examples. Also, maybe a superhero who whups bad guys isn't so perfect. After all, even though he uses violence to defeat the bad, he is still using violence, which is brutal. He's resorting to worldly power to deal with problems that really flow from the sickness of the soul. If the badass hero fixes problems with physical power, it means he's not using brute force to enforce the good. He hasn't really changed the minds of bad men. He just used force to keep them in line. So, a truly perfect figure must save souls, even or esp those of evil men. And to do this, he must live and die in such a way that even bad guys come to feel pangs of remorse, like Johnius Waynius the Centurion in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.

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

    Even if men cannot reach the top of the mountain, they can climb some distance and see the world from a higher moral perspective. So, one could say that failure was built into the very system of Christianity. Like the myth of Sisyphus. It's ordained that Sisy will never roll the boulder to the top, but the top is always there and he strives and strives.

    And in that sense, Christianity's impracticality makes it a greater and purer religion than Judaism or Islam whose morality is 'tainted' by pragmatism and realism of the world. Their ideals are blunted and smoke-stained by struggle for survival, which means tribe vs tribe, warrior vs warrior, etc. Both religions make excuses for barbaric and cruel behavior on moral-spiritual grounds that are never quite convincing.

    In contrast, Jesus never falters and holds steadfast to what He stands for. His struggle isn't for gaining advantage in the world but against fear of pain, humiliation, and death. Samson's death was similar in a way, an act of self-sacrifice for God, but it was a cruel act of vengeance that turned people into pancake like in 9/11. Jesus' point is no about headbashing, no matter how righteous, can redeem the world. It will just lead to more violence and counter-violence.

    So, Christianity posited a purer spiritual-moral vision than Judaism and Islam.
    If Christians use this to feel holier than thou and oh-so-pious, non-Christians can expose the sheer hypocrisy and also the sin of pride.
    But if Christians interpret the life and death of Jesus as a reminder of how far mankind is from the purest ideal, it is a workable system.
    It's like the Earth cannot move toward the Sun, because it will just burn up. But the Earth can move around in the gravitational pull of the Sun. Always insignificant compared to the Sun and impossible to move toward the Sun. And yet, without the Sun, it would just spin out into space and have no spatial center or meaning. It would just be adrift. So, if Christianity is taken like a Sun whose gravitational pull gives balance and meaning to the movement of Earth and life on it, then it is more doable.
    Purist Christians who want to move Earth closer to the Sun will just burn it up as the Shining Ideals burn too brightly. It's like men as bodies cannot enter Heaven. Only the souls of men can enter Heaven. In this equation, Earth would be the material-physical manifestation of mankind. It cannot move closer to the Sun, but it has much to gain by remaining in the gravitational orbit of the Sun, which represents the purest and highest spiritual ideals. It's the invisible energy, the spirit, between Sun and Earth that gives meaning to Earth.

    I still prefer the paganist POV, but the problem is paganism is only meaningful to the learned. For the masses, it's too confusing and turns into superstition. If Judaism-Christianity-Islam have a powerful sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and God and Devil -- and can be understood by even illiterates and simpletons -- , paganism is confusing with so many gods, contrasting divine forces, criss-crossing narratives, syncretism with other narratives, and contradictions.
    So, it requires learned minds to navigate through its space and explore meanings. For the unlearned simpletons --- and most pagan folks in the ancient world were unlearned --- , it's just so confusing, and their practice of paganism became superstitious offering of sacrifice to gods or being paranoid in superstitious manner.

    Still, learned minds may find more subtlety with paganism, at least with richer forms of paganism as with the Greeks, than with moralist-monotheism. Consider the Forbidden Fruit story. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve done wrong. They should not have disobeyed, they should not talked to the Serpent, they should not have eaten the fruit. They did, and they did bad, they did wrong, and they must be cast out and be punished. So, there is a clear sense of right and wrong. This is powerful in a way but also heavy and repressive.

    In contrast, there is more room for use of wits to appreciate the duality of nature in Greek mythology. When Odysseus is tempted with song of Sirens, it is like a Tree of Forbidden Knowledge moment. It's known that men who listen to the song will be blissfully lulled to death and oblivion. So, the right thing for Odysseus is to plug his ears or steer clear of the Siren shores. But he still wants to hear the song and know what it's about. He knows of its danger, and he knows he must not give into its power. Still, man is curious and wants to KNOW. This curiosity makes man what he is.
    So, Odysseus uses his wits to devise a plan to both do the right thing and hear the 'forbidden' song. His men tie him up and plug their own ears. So, the men can row safely close to the shores without falling to temptation, but Odysseus gets to hear the song. Overcome with its sensuality, he orders his men to row to the shore, but his men disobey and keep rowing. And when the song fades in the distance, Odysseus regains his senses. He and his men are safe but he has heard this mysterious song. He has gained valuable knowledge. There is less room for this kind of duality in the moralist and monomaniacal world of the Bible.
    But then, its powerful sense of moral certainty is something that can be understood emotionally and spiritually by even the poorest sod. Paganism connects the mind to the eyes and ears. The Biblical religions connect the mind to the heart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Clyde says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The Clash got paid a million dollars to headlined one night of Steve Wozniak's US festival in 1983. Attendance was maybe 150,000 that night in SoCal. But that was about their last show. They never went out on the old-timer's circuit, did they? They eventually licensed songs to commercials, like "London Calling" to Jaguar. I can recall Strummer trying to explain the rather Trumpian point that one famous English brand endorsing another was a good thing.

    The Clash were gone too soon. They should have stuck it out longer. Rock The Casbah is hilarious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Malla
    Great post. But that is my point, both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively. However for law abiding people's within the same civilization/ nation, Christian/Buddhist values may work but not so against outside invaders/infiltrators. The problem with today's West is they are showing Christian love to all mankind even if the rest of mankind are not returning the love. Nor are the outsiders having a change of heart. These outsiders see this behaviour as weakness and want to exploit it further and will not stop until they devour Western Civilisation like sharks devouring a Whale carcass. Christian/Buddhist morality must be restricted within the law abiding members of the same tribe/race/civilization. Gandhis' technique may have worked against the mighty but moral British Empire but it would have not worked against the Ottomans in the 16th century. Some humans are so cruel and depraved that they just don't get moved by a Jesus like behaviour of righteous self sacrifice.

    both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively.

    I think Christianity has been made to work in the real world IF understood to serve as an impossible ideal. So, even though Jesus’ teachings is something that Christians should aspire to, they also know they will always fall way short. So, it’s main value in reminding people of their eternal fallen state. And that is why Christian Heaven is open to sinners since very few if any people are gonna live up to Jesus’ standards.

    This is why Christianity is more appealing than Buddhism. To reach Nirvana, there are no second-class seats. Only the first-class way will do. One must attain absolute purity of mind and soul to get there. Also, if Christian Heaven is eternal bliss, Buddhist Nirvana is eternal extinction. According to Judaism-Christianity, the world was a blessed place, Eden. God’s wonder and glory were part of the physical world. But Adam and Eve disobeyed, and there was the Fall. Still, because the world was created as a miracle of God, there is still grace to be found in it. But it’s incomplete because God has withdrawn His grace. So, there are reminders of God’s touch in everything and everyone in the world, but spirit is absent.. except in the souls of men. And so, the souls can only reunite with God by reaching Heaven.

    In contrast, Buddhism believes the world is just pain and pain. If Eden was real but lost, the edenic world in which Siddhartha was raised was total phony, an illusion. His father didn’t want him to see death and sickness and raised him in a bubble of ‘perfection’ and happiness. But when Siddhartha peered outside the walls, he saw the horribleness of reality. Bertolucci’s LAST EMPEROR and LITTLE BUDDHA both work on this theme. Children raised in a paradisiacal bubbles who come to realize that the larger reality is something quite different. (It’s incredible that, at one time, all of China was this ‘innocent’, a forbidden-city-nation that thought itself the ideal land of harmony that had NOTHING to learn from the outside world.) Bertolucci the Marxist believed in creating heaven on earth. But he lost faith in Marxism and later got interested in Buddhism. I think Oliver Stone followed a similar trajectory. He used to believe in hardcore leftism, but his ideologies has softened while showing greater interest in Buddism, esp around the time of HEAVEN AND EARTH.

    Anyway, Buddhism is really austere in its theory and practice. Life is horror and suffering, and any otherworldly escape from it is also an illusion. The only solution is extinction of the soul via Nirvana. Pope John Paul was right to critique this aspect of Buddhism as fostering nihilism because, after all, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to annihilate the soul. It is a soul-suicide cult. Ideally, according to Buddhism, all lifeforms should aspire to be reborn into higher forms until they are born as humans, and then the ultimate goal of every person is to meditate and reach nirvana so that his soul will never be reincarnated back into life. So, all life should aspire to be man, and all men should aspire to extinguish themselves forever.

    Something about Hinduism and Buddhism always bothered me. If Buddhism says reality is just an illusion and that people should withdraw from life to meditate to see through the illusion, what does one do when a leopard attacks him for supper? Imagine a yogi or monk going to a forest to meditate and telling himself that reality is just an illusion. And then a leopard or tiger leaps out of the bushes(like in APOCALYPSE NOW) and starts clawing and gnawing on him? Is that an illusion? If so, it sure hurts like crazy. As far I’m concerned, nothing is more powerful than pain, which is why RLAMF or run-like-a-mothafuc*a is the most useful survival plan.
    At least Christians knew they were being devoured by lions in the Coliseum. They knew it was horrible and painful and hoped to die with grace so they could be with God. I mean it’d be pretty hard to tell yourself that a big cat chewing your arm off is an ‘illusion’.
    I’ll bet the big cat is thinking, “Alright, go on thinking I’m an illusion. You-as-lunch certainly aint an illusion since you’re filling up my tummy.” Or consider those zombie movies. The zoms are chewing on you and you’re gonna tell yourself it’s an illusion?

    Anyway, Christianity can work IF it’s understood as the highest and impossible ideal than as a practical guidance for men. One could see it as a mountain that no one can climb to the top but one that reminds everyone of how fallen or lowly they are in relation to the highest truth. And indeed, since Jesus is said to be the Son of God, His deed had to be larger than life, bigger than anything man could do. So, in that sense, there is no shame in not being able to live up to His ideals. Rather, it serves as a reminder to men of values and principles far higher than anything they can conceive or achieve as mortals.
    It’s like a lump of pure gold reminding all the other metals that they cannot be pure gold… but that’s okay. It’s like the Platonic forms or something. These perfect forms cannot exist in reality. They can only exist in the mind. Reality doesn’t allow perfection, especially perfection of morality. No such example ever existed in any religion or myth. Even the greatest heroes are flawed in some way. So, Christian myth posit this vision of this one Man who somehow lived by perfect truth and values in the real world. It’s like a perfect diamond with no flaws, something that can’t exist in reality but only in the mind. In a way, Christianity is the most arrogant of religions because it claims to believe in a Man who was truly perfect in every way. And yet, it fends off charges of arrogance by presenting Jesus as a humble figure who got whupped real bad. Now, one could argue… why couldn’t Jesus as Messiah be like a perfect superhero? Like superman? I guess that would have been too fantastical. A perfect hero sent by God to beat up the bad guys and protect the good, and etc. No one would believe it. Also, if indeed Jesus was that kind of superhero, he would still be with us doing good work and protecting the good and weak. But there was no evidence of such hero or messiah in history. But it’s true enough that a very good man could be persecuted and whupped real bad. There were many such examples. Also, maybe a superhero who whups bad guys isn’t so perfect. After all, even though he uses violence to defeat the bad, he is still using violence, which is brutal. He’s resorting to worldly power to deal with problems that really flow from the sickness of the soul. If the badass hero fixes problems with physical power, it means he’s not using brute force to enforce the good. He hasn’t really changed the minds of bad men. He just used force to keep them in line. So, a truly perfect figure must save souls, even or esp those of evil men. And to do this, he must live and die in such a way that even bad guys come to feel pangs of remorse, like Johnius Waynius the Centurion in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.

    Even if men cannot reach the top of the mountain, they can climb some distance and see the world from a higher moral perspective. So, one could say that failure was built into the very system of Christianity. Like the myth of Sisyphus. It’s ordained that Sisy will never roll the boulder to the top, but the top is always there and he strives and strives.

    And in that sense, Christianity’s impracticality makes it a greater and purer religion than Judaism or Islam whose morality is ‘tainted’ by pragmatism and realism of the world. Their ideals are blunted and smoke-stained by struggle for survival, which means tribe vs tribe, warrior vs warrior, etc. Both religions make excuses for barbaric and cruel behavior on moral-spiritual grounds that are never quite convincing.

    In contrast, Jesus never falters and holds steadfast to what He stands for. His struggle isn’t for gaining advantage in the world but against fear of pain, humiliation, and death. Samson’s death was similar in a way, an act of self-sacrifice for God, but it was a cruel act of vengeance that turned people into pancake like in 9/11. Jesus’ point is no about headbashing, no matter how righteous, can redeem the world. It will just lead to more violence and counter-violence.

    So, Christianity posited a purer spiritual-moral vision than Judaism and Islam.
    If Christians use this to feel holier than thou and oh-so-pious, non-Christians can expose the sheer hypocrisy and also the sin of pride.
    But if Christians interpret the life and death of Jesus as a reminder of how far mankind is from the purest ideal, it is a workable system.
    It’s like the Earth cannot move toward the Sun, because it will just burn up. But the Earth can move around in the gravitational pull of the Sun. Always insignificant compared to the Sun and impossible to move toward the Sun. And yet, without the Sun, it would just spin out into space and have no spatial center or meaning. It would just be adrift. So, if Christianity is taken like a Sun whose gravitational pull gives balance and meaning to the movement of Earth and life on it, then it is more doable.
    Purist Christians who want to move Earth closer to the Sun will just burn it up as the Shining Ideals burn too brightly. It’s like men as bodies cannot enter Heaven. Only the souls of men can enter Heaven. In this equation, Earth would be the material-physical manifestation of mankind. It cannot move closer to the Sun, but it has much to gain by remaining in the gravitational orbit of the Sun, which represents the purest and highest spiritual ideals. It’s the invisible energy, the spirit, between Sun and Earth that gives meaning to Earth.

    I still prefer the paganist POV, but the problem is paganism is only meaningful to the learned. For the masses, it’s too confusing and turns into superstition. If Judaism-Christianity-Islam have a powerful sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and God and Devil — and can be understood by even illiterates and simpletons — , paganism is confusing with so many gods, contrasting divine forces, criss-crossing narratives, syncretism with other narratives, and contradictions.
    So, it requires learned minds to navigate through its space and explore meanings. For the unlearned simpletons — and most pagan folks in the ancient world were unlearned — , it’s just so confusing, and their practice of paganism became superstitious offering of sacrifice to gods or being paranoid in superstitious manner.

    Still, learned minds may find more subtlety with paganism, at least with richer forms of paganism as with the Greeks, than with moralist-monotheism. Consider the Forbidden Fruit story. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve done wrong. They should not have disobeyed, they should not talked to the Serpent, they should not have eaten the fruit. They did, and they did bad, they did wrong, and they must be cast out and be punished. So, there is a clear sense of right and wrong. This is powerful in a way but also heavy and repressive.

    In contrast, there is more room for use of wits to appreciate the duality of nature in Greek mythology. When Odysseus is tempted with song of Sirens, it is like a Tree of Forbidden Knowledge moment. It’s known that men who listen to the song will be blissfully lulled to death and oblivion. So, the right thing for Odysseus is to plug his ears or steer clear of the Siren shores. But he still wants to hear the song and know what it’s about. He knows of its danger, and he knows he must not give into its power. Still, man is curious and wants to KNOW. This curiosity makes man what he is.
    So, Odysseus uses his wits to devise a plan to both do the right thing and hear the ‘forbidden’ song. His men tie him up and plug their own ears. So, the men can row safely close to the shores without falling to temptation, but Odysseus gets to hear the song. Overcome with its sensuality, he orders his men to row to the shore, but his men disobey and keep rowing. And when the song fades in the distance, Odysseus regains his senses. He and his men are safe but he has heard this mysterious song. He has gained valuable knowledge. There is less room for this kind of duality in the moralist and monomaniacal world of the Bible.
    But then, its powerful sense of moral certainty is something that can be understood emotionally and spiritually by even the poorest sod. Paganism connects the mind to the eyes and ears. The Biblical religions connect the mind to the heart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Imagine a yogi or monk going to a forest to meditate and telling himself that reality is just an illusion. And then a leopard or tiger leaps out of the bushes (like in APOCALYPSE NOW) and starts clawing and gnawing on him? Is that an illusion? If so, it sure hurts like crazy.
     
    LOL. Brother, that’s wisdom right there.
    , @Malla
    Great Post Again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    “We kind of let it slip that we have vulnerable people in our own communities,” Kevin Hyland, Britain’s first independent antislavery commissioner, said in an interview. …
     
    Yeah. Whoopsies. Just kind of "let it slip" during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable.

    Looking back on the 80's, it's obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade. We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60's and 70's, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned. Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves.

    This has all happened in my lifetime. I find it astounding.

    “Just kind of “let it slip” during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable.”

    The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    “Looking back on the 80′s, it’s obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade.”

    For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism.

    “We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60′s and 70′s, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned.”

    You mean the lessons to simply act like a human being?

    “Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves.”

    Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    They're not coming for Here. They're coming for a better There.

    If Western Civilization was based on universal modes, we wouldn't call it Western.
    , @Malla
    "The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization."
    Nope, the mistake with idiots like you is to believe that masses of these aliens can immerse into Western civilization. People of all races, except deluded White people know this immersion is not possible. If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that millions of Africans can become part of Indian civilization by 'immersion', the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground. Then they would ceremoniously transport you to the nearest mental asylum where you belong.

    "For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism."
    Those White people see things for what they are. Cultural Marxist programming is not foolproof and many White people still see things for what they are, despite the billions spent on leftist propaganda. Sad but true.

    "Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc."
    Not necessary. Demographic change of Britons with Saxons is not the same as with demographic change with Yarubas. Only a nutcase will believe it is the same. Even then, demographic change is neither inevitable nor desirable.

    P.S. I am not joking about that Indian market place scenario.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Corvinus
    "Just kind of “let it slip” during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable."

    The mistake is believing that these "alien peoples" are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    "Looking back on the 80′s, it’s obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade."

    For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism.

    "We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60′s and 70′s, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned."

    You mean the lessons to simply act like a human being?

    "Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves."

    Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc.

    The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    They’re not coming for Here. They’re coming for a better There.

    If Western Civilization was based on universal modes, we wouldn’t call it Western.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They’re not coming for Here. They’re coming for a better There."

    Immigrants tend to come Here because it is better than where they come from in one or more aspects of life. And, of course, immigrants (European AND non-European) have always come over to make a "better There", whether it being able to maintain their customs or infuse their ways of life into mainstream American society. That's how it always has been in our nation.

    "If Western Civilization was based on universal modes, we wouldn’t call it Western."

    Life/liberty/property, along with the social compact, are universal concepts. Mo Tzu postulated his own theory on the origins of society (e.g. the state of nature, sovereignty) and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual about two-thousand years prior to Hobbes in the fifth-century B.C. African tribal groups had a council of elders, who were local village chiefs, and made decisions over all aspects of life and law. Each village would consul that chief by way of older people, who were believed to have the wisdom, civility, and restraint to lead. There was a hierarchy within the tribal government, and a myriad of protocols on matters of inheritance and land ownership. Local initiatives were to be cleared by the chief, with his supervision mandatory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Malla says:
    @Corvinus
    "Just kind of “let it slip” during the process of importing hundreds of thousands of immiscible, alien peoples and dismantling a thousand years of rich, indigenous culture and religious faith. Mistakes are inevitable."

    The mistake is believing that these "alien peoples" are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    "Looking back on the 80′s, it’s obvious it was the last confident, unapologetic white-Western decade."

    For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism.

    "We really should have been done with the Cultural Revolutions of the 60′s and 70′s, but now new generations have the bit in their teeth again and the lessons will have to be re-learned."

    You mean the lessons to simply act like a human being?

    "Unfortunately we no longer have the percentages to re-assert ourselves."

    Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc.

    “The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.”
    Nope, the mistake with idiots like you is to believe that masses of these aliens can immerse into Western civilization. People of all races, except deluded White people know this immersion is not possible. If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that millions of Africans can become part of Indian civilization by ‘immersion’, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground. Then they would ceremoniously transport you to the nearest mental asylum where you belong.

    “For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism.”
    Those White people see things for what they are. Cultural Marxist programming is not foolproof and many White people still see things for what they are, despite the billions spent on leftist propaganda. Sad but true.

    “Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc.”
    Not necessary. Demographic change of Britons with Saxons is not the same as with demographic change with Yarubas. Only a nutcase will believe it is the same. Even then, demographic change is neither inevitable nor desirable.

    P.S. I am not joking about that Indian market place scenario.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Nope, the mistake with idiots like you is to believe that masses of these aliens can immerse into Western civilization."

    The same rationale was given by nativists who claimed that the Irish and Germans in the 1840's and 1850's would "ruin" America.

    Now, pay close attention here. Because unless you are able to trace your ancestry on both sides to the English...you must go back. From Vox Day--"The Alt-Right is correct and the Alt-Right is inevitable. You can no more instill an instinctive respect for the U.S. Constitution, the Common Law, and Anglo-American culture into immigrants, no matter how long they are resident in the USA, than you can instill Rohinga values into Americans during a visit to a refugee camp in Bangladesh. Think about it. Do the Jews, the Italians, the Irish, or the Scandinavians value small government today, even after more than 100 years of residence in the USA? No. Not even a little bit. They have learned to speak English, but they have never learned to value limited government. They are not, they have not been, and they will never be Americans in the original sense of the term, which is simply another way of saying "British colonist"."

    So, to Day, a "true American" equates to a "British colonist". What say you about his rationale? Are Americans who have Italian and Irish and Finnish blood in essence parasites?

    "If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that millions of Africans can become part of Indian civilization by ‘immersion’, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground."

    False comparison. India, sans the English invasion, has remained relatively homogenous. On the other hand, the United States has a rich history of diversity--first different European groups who had distinct languages and customs, then non-European groups entered the fray.

    "Those White people see things for what they are. Cultural Marxist programming is not foolproof and many White people still see things for what they are, despite the billions spent on leftist propaganda. Sad but true."

    The impact of Cultural Marxism is overstated. White people are not "programmed" by Jewish entertainment nor are they "brainwashed" by Jewish education. They are generally aware of their decisions as far as adhering to or rejecting specific values that are touted in our society.

    "Not necessary. Demographic change of Britons with Saxons is not the same as with demographic change with Yarubas."

    In what ways are the other than similar?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Anon
    both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively.

    I think Christianity has been made to work in the real world IF understood to serve as an impossible ideal. So, even though Jesus' teachings is something that Christians should aspire to, they also know they will always fall way short. So, it's main value in reminding people of their eternal fallen state. And that is why Christian Heaven is open to sinners since very few if any people are gonna live up to Jesus' standards.

    This is why Christianity is more appealing than Buddhism. To reach Nirvana, there are no second-class seats. Only the first-class way will do. One must attain absolute purity of mind and soul to get there. Also, if Christian Heaven is eternal bliss, Buddhist Nirvana is eternal extinction. According to Judaism-Christianity, the world was a blessed place, Eden. God's wonder and glory were part of the physical world. But Adam and Eve disobeyed, and there was the Fall. Still, because the world was created as a miracle of God, there is still grace to be found in it. But it's incomplete because God has withdrawn His grace. So, there are reminders of God's touch in everything and everyone in the world, but spirit is absent.. except in the souls of men. And so, the souls can only reunite with God by reaching Heaven.

    In contrast, Buddhism believes the world is just pain and pain. If Eden was real but lost, the edenic world in which Siddhartha was raised was total phony, an illusion. His father didn't want him to see death and sickness and raised him in a bubble of 'perfection' and happiness. But when Siddhartha peered outside the walls, he saw the horribleness of reality. Bertolucci's LAST EMPEROR and LITTLE BUDDHA both work on this theme. Children raised in a paradisiacal bubbles who come to realize that the larger reality is something quite different. (It's incredible that, at one time, all of China was this 'innocent', a forbidden-city-nation that thought itself the ideal land of harmony that had NOTHING to learn from the outside world.) Bertolucci the Marxist believed in creating heaven on earth. But he lost faith in Marxism and later got interested in Buddhism. I think Oliver Stone followed a similar trajectory. He used to believe in hardcore leftism, but his ideologies has softened while showing greater interest in Buddism, esp around the time of HEAVEN AND EARTH.

    Anyway, Buddhism is really austere in its theory and practice. Life is horror and suffering, and any otherworldly escape from it is also an illusion. The only solution is extinction of the soul via Nirvana. Pope John Paul was right to critique this aspect of Buddhism as fostering nihilism because, after all, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to annihilate the soul. It is a soul-suicide cult. Ideally, according to Buddhism, all lifeforms should aspire to be reborn into higher forms until they are born as humans, and then the ultimate goal of every person is to meditate and reach nirvana so that his soul will never be reincarnated back into life. So, all life should aspire to be man, and all men should aspire to extinguish themselves forever.

    Something about Hinduism and Buddhism always bothered me. If Buddhism says reality is just an illusion and that people should withdraw from life to meditate to see through the illusion, what does one do when a leopard attacks him for supper? Imagine a yogi or monk going to a forest to meditate and telling himself that reality is just an illusion. And then a leopard or tiger leaps out of the bushes(like in APOCALYPSE NOW) and starts clawing and gnawing on him? Is that an illusion? If so, it sure hurts like crazy. As far I'm concerned, nothing is more powerful than pain, which is why RLAMF or run-like-a-mothafuc*a is the most useful survival plan.
    At least Christians knew they were being devoured by lions in the Coliseum. They knew it was horrible and painful and hoped to die with grace so they could be with God. I mean it'd be pretty hard to tell yourself that a big cat chewing your arm off is an 'illusion'.
    I'll bet the big cat is thinking, "Alright, go on thinking I'm an illusion. You-as-lunch certainly aint an illusion since you're filling up my tummy." Or consider those zombie movies. The zoms are chewing on you and you're gonna tell yourself it's an illusion?

    Anyway, Christianity can work IF it's understood as the highest and impossible ideal than as a practical guidance for men. One could see it as a mountain that no one can climb to the top but one that reminds everyone of how fallen or lowly they are in relation to the highest truth. And indeed, since Jesus is said to be the Son of God, His deed had to be larger than life, bigger than anything man could do. So, in that sense, there is no shame in not being able to live up to His ideals. Rather, it serves as a reminder to men of values and principles far higher than anything they can conceive or achieve as mortals.
    It's like a lump of pure gold reminding all the other metals that they cannot be pure gold... but that's okay. It's like the Platonic forms or something. These perfect forms cannot exist in reality. They can only exist in the mind. Reality doesn't allow perfection, especially perfection of morality. No such example ever existed in any religion or myth. Even the greatest heroes are flawed in some way. So, Christian myth posit this vision of this one Man who somehow lived by perfect truth and values in the real world. It's like a perfect diamond with no flaws, something that can't exist in reality but only in the mind. In a way, Christianity is the most arrogant of religions because it claims to believe in a Man who was truly perfect in every way. And yet, it fends off charges of arrogance by presenting Jesus as a humble figure who got whupped real bad. Now, one could argue... why couldn't Jesus as Messiah be like a perfect superhero? Like superman? I guess that would have been too fantastical. A perfect hero sent by God to beat up the bad guys and protect the good, and etc. No one would believe it. Also, if indeed Jesus was that kind of superhero, he would still be with us doing good work and protecting the good and weak. But there was no evidence of such hero or messiah in history. But it's true enough that a very good man could be persecuted and whupped real bad. There were many such examples. Also, maybe a superhero who whups bad guys isn't so perfect. After all, even though he uses violence to defeat the bad, he is still using violence, which is brutal. He's resorting to worldly power to deal with problems that really flow from the sickness of the soul. If the badass hero fixes problems with physical power, it means he's not using brute force to enforce the good. He hasn't really changed the minds of bad men. He just used force to keep them in line. So, a truly perfect figure must save souls, even or esp those of evil men. And to do this, he must live and die in such a way that even bad guys come to feel pangs of remorse, like Johnius Waynius the Centurion in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.

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

    Even if men cannot reach the top of the mountain, they can climb some distance and see the world from a higher moral perspective. So, one could say that failure was built into the very system of Christianity. Like the myth of Sisyphus. It's ordained that Sisy will never roll the boulder to the top, but the top is always there and he strives and strives.

    And in that sense, Christianity's impracticality makes it a greater and purer religion than Judaism or Islam whose morality is 'tainted' by pragmatism and realism of the world. Their ideals are blunted and smoke-stained by struggle for survival, which means tribe vs tribe, warrior vs warrior, etc. Both religions make excuses for barbaric and cruel behavior on moral-spiritual grounds that are never quite convincing.

    In contrast, Jesus never falters and holds steadfast to what He stands for. His struggle isn't for gaining advantage in the world but against fear of pain, humiliation, and death. Samson's death was similar in a way, an act of self-sacrifice for God, but it was a cruel act of vengeance that turned people into pancake like in 9/11. Jesus' point is no about headbashing, no matter how righteous, can redeem the world. It will just lead to more violence and counter-violence.

    So, Christianity posited a purer spiritual-moral vision than Judaism and Islam.
    If Christians use this to feel holier than thou and oh-so-pious, non-Christians can expose the sheer hypocrisy and also the sin of pride.
    But if Christians interpret the life and death of Jesus as a reminder of how far mankind is from the purest ideal, it is a workable system.
    It's like the Earth cannot move toward the Sun, because it will just burn up. But the Earth can move around in the gravitational pull of the Sun. Always insignificant compared to the Sun and impossible to move toward the Sun. And yet, without the Sun, it would just spin out into space and have no spatial center or meaning. It would just be adrift. So, if Christianity is taken like a Sun whose gravitational pull gives balance and meaning to the movement of Earth and life on it, then it is more doable.
    Purist Christians who want to move Earth closer to the Sun will just burn it up as the Shining Ideals burn too brightly. It's like men as bodies cannot enter Heaven. Only the souls of men can enter Heaven. In this equation, Earth would be the material-physical manifestation of mankind. It cannot move closer to the Sun, but it has much to gain by remaining in the gravitational orbit of the Sun, which represents the purest and highest spiritual ideals. It's the invisible energy, the spirit, between Sun and Earth that gives meaning to Earth.

    I still prefer the paganist POV, but the problem is paganism is only meaningful to the learned. For the masses, it's too confusing and turns into superstition. If Judaism-Christianity-Islam have a powerful sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and God and Devil -- and can be understood by even illiterates and simpletons -- , paganism is confusing with so many gods, contrasting divine forces, criss-crossing narratives, syncretism with other narratives, and contradictions.
    So, it requires learned minds to navigate through its space and explore meanings. For the unlearned simpletons --- and most pagan folks in the ancient world were unlearned --- , it's just so confusing, and their practice of paganism became superstitious offering of sacrifice to gods or being paranoid in superstitious manner.

    Still, learned minds may find more subtlety with paganism, at least with richer forms of paganism as with the Greeks, than with moralist-monotheism. Consider the Forbidden Fruit story. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve done wrong. They should not have disobeyed, they should not talked to the Serpent, they should not have eaten the fruit. They did, and they did bad, they did wrong, and they must be cast out and be punished. So, there is a clear sense of right and wrong. This is powerful in a way but also heavy and repressive.

    In contrast, there is more room for use of wits to appreciate the duality of nature in Greek mythology. When Odysseus is tempted with song of Sirens, it is like a Tree of Forbidden Knowledge moment. It's known that men who listen to the song will be blissfully lulled to death and oblivion. So, the right thing for Odysseus is to plug his ears or steer clear of the Siren shores. But he still wants to hear the song and know what it's about. He knows of its danger, and he knows he must not give into its power. Still, man is curious and wants to KNOW. This curiosity makes man what he is.
    So, Odysseus uses his wits to devise a plan to both do the right thing and hear the 'forbidden' song. His men tie him up and plug their own ears. So, the men can row safely close to the shores without falling to temptation, but Odysseus gets to hear the song. Overcome with its sensuality, he orders his men to row to the shore, but his men disobey and keep rowing. And when the song fades in the distance, Odysseus regains his senses. He and his men are safe but he has heard this mysterious song. He has gained valuable knowledge. There is less room for this kind of duality in the moralist and monomaniacal world of the Bible.
    But then, its powerful sense of moral certainty is something that can be understood emotionally and spiritually by even the poorest sod. Paganism connects the mind to the eyes and ears. The Biblical religions connect the mind to the heart.

    Imagine a yogi or monk going to a forest to meditate and telling himself that reality is just an illusion. And then a leopard or tiger leaps out of the bushes (like in APOCALYPSE NOW) and starts clawing and gnawing on him? Is that an illusion? If so, it sure hurts like crazy.

    LOL. Brother, that’s wisdom right there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @dfordoom

    Instead, we should target the enablers. The NYT for sure, but in the UK it has to include the higher ups in their police force.
     
    It has to include the entire British establishment. Parliament, the BBC, the Church of England, the Conservative Party, the whole sorry lot of them. The British establishment's hatred of ordinary Britons and the things that ordinary Britons cherish is breathtaking.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Anon
    Greek mythology, and its “sacred texts,” the Iliad and the Odyssey, celebrated vice;

    Those are not sacred texts but storytelling via epic poems. They don't hold the place in Greek history/culture/spirituality that the Torah did in Jewish culture. Torah was revered as words written by men by guided by God. But Iliad and Odyssey are stories told by humans. They are war and adventure stories. For better or worse, there was never a core text in Greek Mythology. Rather, Greek mythological stories, ideas, and theories were dispersed throughout the culture. When finally the mythologies were pulled together into a coherent narrative by the Latin Ovid, it was done as a joke, so that couldn't be used as a sacred text.

    At any rate, Greek mythology cannot be approached or used like the Bible. That can be seen as a weakness as there is no core canon of right and wrong and cosmic truth. It can be confusing and lead one to cynicism and nihilism. But it can also be adventurous like the journey of Odysseus who has to find his own truth and path. Monotheism is like the sun in daytime. Its radiance conquers all. There are no stars, no moon. Just the sun as the sole truth. In contrast, pagan cultures are like stars in the night sky. Some stars are bigger than others. And we can see the planets to sometimes. This chaos can be confusing but it can also makes us map our own meaning, as with constellations.

    Also, it's wrong to say Greek mythology celebrates vice. Vice is there but there is also virtue, stories of sacrifice and redemption. And if some forces lead men to vice, other forces keep them from it. Consider when Odysseus is passing by the Sirens. The Sirens sing this song and makes him go boing. They entice him to come and play.. Of course, sirens are killers and eat men. Odysseus wanted to hear the seductive music but he also knew of its danger, and he made sure his men's ears were plugged. This is why Greek mythology is fuller in some ways. Instead of just condemning some stuff as BAD, it understands why it has that allure, charm, and temptation. But it also reminds us that giving into temptation can divert us from duty or even lead to destruction. It's morality play without overt moralism.

    Judaism is a tribal religion, and tribalism is the formula for perpetual suffering, war, slavery, and greed.

    It depends on what is meant by tribalism. If it means gangsterism of brutish us versus them, then it can be deadly, like vikings head bashing each other, Germanic barbarians fighting one another, and African tribes chucking spears. But then, isn't imperialism also warlike? Romans forced many tribes under one tent of Latin domination, but this entailed wars, suffering, slavery, and violence. In the case of Jews and Romans, weren't Jewish tribalists the resistance fighters who sought to toss off the Roman yoke?
    Also, tribalism means identity and culture. It doesn't have to us versus them. It can be us and them. Let us be us, and let them be them. Give them what is theirs,and let us keep what is ours.

    Chrislam is the most incoherent religious idea fabricated in any fevered mind since the Moloch worship of the Punic diaspora.

    I'm not talking about that Chrislam. I'm talking of a thought-experiment, a reformed chechenism that combines faith and fight. Today's Christianity is too anemic, and today's Islam is too bloody. But if one could take the spiritual essence of Christianity and fuse it
    with fighting spirit of Islam, you might have something there.

    Personally, I'd go with Asagirism, but having failed to win over anyone to the 'faith', I don't think it's a winning formula.

    PS. Maybe what every people need to do is produce their own bible. Torah isn't just an anthology of Jewish stuff.
    Anthologies are not special. After all, there are anthologies of everything: American literature, French literature, Russian literature, Persian literature, Western philosophy, Eastern philosophy, and etc. Anthologies are dime-a-dozen.
    In contrast, the Torah is more than a collection of Jewish knowledge and history and culture. It is more than an anthology, more than an encyclopedia. Why? Because its history, theology, poetry, legalism, mythology, and etc are all threaded through with a common theme of God and Covenant. So, all those things in the Torah that could have been regarded as separate stuff(from one another) came to be organic and complementary parts of a whole.
    And that was the genius of Muhammad too. He didn't just take bits and pieces of Judaism, Christianity, and Arab culture and put them together. That would have been just a lame anthology. Rather, he digested all of them and merged all the narratives into a new prophecy. As a result, the Koran became sacred and canonical. And Muslims can carry that one book and feel complete.

    What the Western Right needs to do is write The Book that reworks and retells all the essential stories of the West into a single thread. The West produced many great books but no bible, no The Book. The Jewish Bible and New Testament have served as the Bible for Western Man. But the Bible is really Jewish and New Testament is really the vision of a Jewish guy and Jewish Disciples. Western Man cannot really claim to the Bible as his. Torah is really Jewish. And Christianity not only originated with Jews but is meant to be a World religion. The only reason why it became associated so closely with the West is because of the rise of Islam. If Muhammad had never been born, it's possible that all of Near East and North Africa would have been Christian(as indeed many of those parts were before Islam spread). And then, Christianity would have been the religion of everyone from Arabs to Africans to Europeans. And now, look at the Catholic Church. It's the religion of homos and blacks and Chinese and Indians in Latin America.

    The problem with the Western Narrative is one cannot lug around a 1000 books. In order for the West to have its own Bible, a single book that sums up the essential meaning, story, and destiny of European folks, the 1000 books have to be distilled and processed into a single book. That way, any white person can carry around this book as inspiration.
    For too long, Western man carried around the essential book of Jews as their Bible. It's time they had their own bible.

    This project could be the greatest of its kind since Gutenberg and Luther and German Bible.
    And it's necessary since Zuckerbitch(nasty sister of Marcus Zuckerius) and her globalist cohorts are trying to steal Western History as their own and retell it with blacks as Romans and Greeks and even Vikings.

    Damn, I feel sorry for you. You get 90% of it, but the last 10% leads you into the wilderness. This:

    Also, it’s wrong to say Greek mythology celebrates vice. Vice is there but there is also virtue, stories of sacrifice and redemption. And if some forces lead men to vice, other forces keep them from it. Consider when Odysseus is passing by the Sirens.

    uses Odysseus as an exemplar. And it is true that no sentient being can help but rejoice when he has his hour at the feast of the suitors. But Odysseus was not just celebrated for his skill, but for his skill in vice. Dishonesty was the stock-in-trade of Odysseus. The virtue of the Greeks was present, but not determinative. Odysseus was a prince chiefly for the ability to marshal vice to meet his objectives. The adage the “ends justify the means” would have been not just warmly received, but affirmed as a the very sine qua non of the good life for the Greeks. Judaism is similarly encumbered.

    I will not go further, the TL:DR constraint limits my response (even though I have exceeded its bounds). But you are looking superficially. Dig deeper, and you will abandon the path you have taken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    uses Odysseus as an exemplar. And it is true that no sentient being can help but rejoice when he has his hour at the feast of the suitors. But Odysseus was not just celebrated for his skill, but for his skill in vice. Dishonesty was the stock-in-trade of Odysseus. The virtue of the Greeks was present, but not determinative. Odysseus was a prince chiefly for the ability to marshal vice to meet his objectives.

    No, that's too simple. Nothing is so simple in the Odyssey. Even the suitors had their reasons. I mean they really thought Odysseus was dead because he took forever to return. It was only right that they wanted to marry the 'widow' of Odysseus. And Odysseus didn't just kill the guys but the maidservants who dilly-dallied with the suitors. It was a bloodbath. He kinda lost it, like Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

    Also, you have to understand the dishonesty within the context. Iliad is about war, and any side engaged in war uses deception. US tricked the Germans in WWII when landing on Normandy. And Odysseus comes up with the Horse trick, though not told in the surviving remnants of the Iliad. So, Odysseus uses deception for a certain end. War is about life or death, and trickery is part of the plan.

    Later, Odysseus uses deception to save his men. Consider the one-eyed giant Cyclops. This fella was eating Odysseus' men like hotdogs. So, Odysseus needed to find some way to get out of that trap, and so he tricked Cyclops. This isn't vice for vice's sake. Perhaps, all deceptions are a form of vice, but in a world of monsters and dark forces, one has to use counter-deception. It's a world where one cannot survive by just by being honest. If Odysseus had acted like young George Washington(the mythic one of cherry tree) and told Cyclops the truth, he would have been a hotdog too.

    Also, Odysseus is not without conscience. He lives by the code of 'ya gotta do what ya gotta do', but he also realizes the price this entails. He is overcome with grief upon hearing the tale of his feats. Not only has he fallen on hard time since but there's a sense that he realizes what this meant for Trojans as well who were sacked real bad.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodocus_(Odyssey_character)

    http://roots.blog.sbc.edu/2012/02/02/odysseus-grief-in-book-8/

    Also, couldn't one argue that Greek mythology is more 'fair' in a sense? While the Jewish God is always on the side of Jews against gentiles, the Greek gods can see virtue of other sides as well. So, in the Trojan War, half the gods are with Trojans, half are with Greeks. So, Greeks didn't lay sole claim to those gods. The very gods they worshiped could turn against them. Maybe it was because gods were fickle and vain. Or maybe the other side could be more worthy on occasions. There must have been some empathy among Greeks to have written a play like Trojan Women that sympathizes with the fallen Trojans and depicts Greeks in a not very good light.

    Also, there are several parts to the New Testament, and you gotta admit Saint Paul is far from a perfect saint. He is like the counterpart to Odysseus in Christian narrative. Like Odysseus, he traveled a lot and went from place to place, met all sorts of people, and etc.
    And he had to hustle and use cunning at times. If he'd acted as Jesus did, he would have gotten killed real fast. He got whupped a few times, and he WEASELED himself out by invoking Roman Law. So, even as he was no fan of the Romans, he wasn't averse to using their own laws to save his own skin. Jesus lived and die with pure ideals. Paul, in order to spread the faith, often acted 'diplomatic' to save his own neck, to persuade others, and to even run like a mofo at times. So, there are several parts to core Christian canon. Jesus was the one who did it right and perfect from beginning to end. But He got killed fast. So, for others to spread the Gospel, they can't be like Jesus, at least not totally. They have to compromise, be politically savvy, socially cunning, legally versed, and even use deception to survive.

    The adage the “ends justify the means” would have been not just warmly received, but affirmed as a the very sine qua non of the good life for the Greeks. Judaism is similarly encumbered.

    But you feel the same way. You think violence justifies Christian ends. You think Christianity is about being a badass warrior when, in fact, Jesus told people to choose love, forgiveness, turn the cheek.
    You believe ends justify means. So, even if Christians act un-Christian, if the end is More Power for Christendom, it's great. You prefer the Christian Warrior over the Christian Martyr. You may value the Christian Martyr for inspirational narrative, but in the world of action in the here-and-now, you like the Christian Warrior, like the guy in Olive Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER who is full of fight after 9/11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Anon
    Genuine Christianity already is a warrior cult.
    You must have accepted the limp-wristed, half-hearted, and non-Christian liberal view of Christianity to come to the idiotic conclusion that no one on our side were, or are, warriors.
    Christendom began with Constantine. And he did not subscribe to liberal Christianity. Nor did his heirs. And his heirs are with us today.


    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.
    Also, genuine Christianity's pacifism is not limp-wristed, weak, half-hearted, and etc.
    It takes far more courage than warrior-hood.
    Human nature, like animal nature, thinks in terms of fight or flight.
    Fight like a wolverine to survive or win. Or run like a mothafuc*a to save your behind. Germans and Russians fought like lions in WWII. Italians ran like rabbits. Both responses were very human. Fight to win and survive. Or take flight to seek safety and survive.

    Jesus didn't run though He could have. He didn't fight either. According to the New Testament, He is the Son of God and has Godly powers. After all, He turned a few loaves into lots of bread. So, theoretically, if He'd chosen not run like a cowardly Italian, He could have used magic powers to kick some serious butt. He could have been like a superhero. But He stood for peace, forgiveness, love, and understanding. And He decided to serve as a model of the highest virtue. And this took tremendous courage, esp if Mel Gibson's account is any reflection of what really happened.

    And there was real courage in what the Indians did against the British too. I mean Gandhi got whupped pretty bad. But he kept disobeying and resisting. This kind of peace was not weak or cowardly. It meant resisting or fighting without hate, without violence, but with forgiveness.
    It took the courage of virtue to turn the other cheek.

    https://youtu.be/SNmJqRV7LOA?t=1m53s

    So, Christianity's peace is not about chickening out, hiding in a hole, or running to mama like an Italian or a modern Greek(as the tough ancient Greek genes seem to have vanished).
    Now, Peter sought that kind of safety and felt shame. To save his own skin, he denied Jesus three times. He lacked the courage of a martyr. The fact that he felt shame means he didn't act Christian. He ran like the Shah of Iran. He ran like Lord Jim who felt bad about it and atoned for it later.

    According to Christianity, fighting and warring are sinful. They are not courageous because man is giving into animal fears and hatred. A Christian must conquer his fears. He must be resolute. He must be willing to pay the price, even with death. If a Christian gives into hate, anger, and revenge, he is really serving his animal nature of survival even if he claims to fight for God.
    To be a truly noble Christian, he must not fight even if it means death. After all, the world of men is just a transient nothing compare to eternity in Heaven. A Christian must never fear death.
    It is indeed much more difficult to love and forgive your enemy than kick his butt.

    Now, the limp-wristed Liberal Christians may claim to be courageous in choosing peace over violence, but they are full of shi*. The ONLY reason they can be so fluffy-duff lovey-dovey is because they live in well-protected and well-guarded communities made possible by wealth created by 'greed' and security offered by police and military. Look at the do-goody libbies in Yale and University of Chicago. They are protected by massive police presence. So, their do-goody talk is just so much BS. And do-goody Christian libby dibs who claim to love Muslims and Diversity can go on with such conceit cuz they live in gated communities. Just look how the lesbian mainline theologians live in elite colleges. They never had to face being fed to lions or being raped or crushed. That's why I have no use for the libby-dibbers.

    But true Christianity requires tremendous courage in the direst circumstances. It's like that pacifist guy in Gibson's WWII movie. His faith forbade him to pick up a gun. It took courage to stick by his principles when people in the army were calling him chicken. And he had to be fearless to save all those lives. And eventually, the men come to respect his courage as a different and perhaps even higher kind of courage.

    Not being religious myself, I prefer a more organismic view. Fight or flight, though having lived among diversity and Negroes in my youth, I stick by the general rule of 'run like a mothafuc*a' as the surest way out of trouble. Negro kids had this sixth sense. They'd be relaxing and taking it easy.. but then, lout of the blue,.. like in those nature documentaries where suddenly the deer or antelope stop chewing and become alert and then bolt. Just like that, the relaxed Negroes would suddenly prick up their ears and there would be a moment of silence.. and then some kid would mutter 'run like a motherfuc*a', and the kids would dash off in different directions. It could be from cops, gang members, or whatever.

    Now, we must not confuse Constantine and Christendom with what Christianity is about.
    After all, Buddha was pacifist but Buddhist societies practiced wars, conquests, slavery, kung fu, and etc. Angkor Wat the famous set of Buddhist temples were built by slaves. Samurai were buddhist but ruthless. Shaolin monks in KUNG FU learn to fight like Bruce Lee. So, Buddhist history produced lots of great warriors and armies. So, was Buddha about warrior pride? No.

    Also, Buddhist temples in Japan grew very rich. But Buddha wasn't about materialism either. Same goes for the West. Jesus told people to give all their wealth to the poor, be poor themselves, don't mind being poor, find virtue in poverty, and pray and meditate to reach Heaven. But Christendom was about great wealth, trade, and even piracy and plunder. Lots of great churches were built with wealth built on backs of serfs and New World slaves. The Corleones were Christians too. So, was that what Jesus was about?

    It's true that the heirs of Christendom are those who fought, survived, and had kids.
    And they had to fight because had they done as Jesus preached, they would have gotten beaten for sure, even killed.
    So, I don't have a problem with Christians not obeying Jesus. I don't mind Christians fighting like lions to defeat invaders, such as Muslims and North Africans.

    But this does lead to a problem at the core of Christianity. Christendom rose in power by going against Jesus' teachings. How can this contradiction be resolved? I don't think it can.
    So, a new kind of vision is necessary.

    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.

    So, as a damned heretic, you are going to determine what genuine Christianity is? Old Scratch thanks you for your service to him, and he has a warmed up a seat for you in the afterlife.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So, as a damned heretic

    Is heresy such a bad thing?

    Jesus was killed as a heretic.
    Peter and Paul were hounded as heretics.
    Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic.

    PC defines Americanism as Open Borders and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.

    I'll take heresy over clerisy. Not heresy for heresy's-sake but free expression that risks being labeled as 'heresy'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Malla says:
    @Anon
    both Buddhism and Christianity are quite impractical in their pure form in this Darwinistic Universe we are in. They may be very moral and noble but if followed to the letter, your tribe will most probably become extinct. The Samurai of the East or the Knights of the West had no choice but to disobey Buddha and Jesus respectively.

    I think Christianity has been made to work in the real world IF understood to serve as an impossible ideal. So, even though Jesus' teachings is something that Christians should aspire to, they also know they will always fall way short. So, it's main value in reminding people of their eternal fallen state. And that is why Christian Heaven is open to sinners since very few if any people are gonna live up to Jesus' standards.

    This is why Christianity is more appealing than Buddhism. To reach Nirvana, there are no second-class seats. Only the first-class way will do. One must attain absolute purity of mind and soul to get there. Also, if Christian Heaven is eternal bliss, Buddhist Nirvana is eternal extinction. According to Judaism-Christianity, the world was a blessed place, Eden. God's wonder and glory were part of the physical world. But Adam and Eve disobeyed, and there was the Fall. Still, because the world was created as a miracle of God, there is still grace to be found in it. But it's incomplete because God has withdrawn His grace. So, there are reminders of God's touch in everything and everyone in the world, but spirit is absent.. except in the souls of men. And so, the souls can only reunite with God by reaching Heaven.

    In contrast, Buddhism believes the world is just pain and pain. If Eden was real but lost, the edenic world in which Siddhartha was raised was total phony, an illusion. His father didn't want him to see death and sickness and raised him in a bubble of 'perfection' and happiness. But when Siddhartha peered outside the walls, he saw the horribleness of reality. Bertolucci's LAST EMPEROR and LITTLE BUDDHA both work on this theme. Children raised in a paradisiacal bubbles who come to realize that the larger reality is something quite different. (It's incredible that, at one time, all of China was this 'innocent', a forbidden-city-nation that thought itself the ideal land of harmony that had NOTHING to learn from the outside world.) Bertolucci the Marxist believed in creating heaven on earth. But he lost faith in Marxism and later got interested in Buddhism. I think Oliver Stone followed a similar trajectory. He used to believe in hardcore leftism, but his ideologies has softened while showing greater interest in Buddism, esp around the time of HEAVEN AND EARTH.

    Anyway, Buddhism is really austere in its theory and practice. Life is horror and suffering, and any otherworldly escape from it is also an illusion. The only solution is extinction of the soul via Nirvana. Pope John Paul was right to critique this aspect of Buddhism as fostering nihilism because, after all, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to annihilate the soul. It is a soul-suicide cult. Ideally, according to Buddhism, all lifeforms should aspire to be reborn into higher forms until they are born as humans, and then the ultimate goal of every person is to meditate and reach nirvana so that his soul will never be reincarnated back into life. So, all life should aspire to be man, and all men should aspire to extinguish themselves forever.

    Something about Hinduism and Buddhism always bothered me. If Buddhism says reality is just an illusion and that people should withdraw from life to meditate to see through the illusion, what does one do when a leopard attacks him for supper? Imagine a yogi or monk going to a forest to meditate and telling himself that reality is just an illusion. And then a leopard or tiger leaps out of the bushes(like in APOCALYPSE NOW) and starts clawing and gnawing on him? Is that an illusion? If so, it sure hurts like crazy. As far I'm concerned, nothing is more powerful than pain, which is why RLAMF or run-like-a-mothafuc*a is the most useful survival plan.
    At least Christians knew they were being devoured by lions in the Coliseum. They knew it was horrible and painful and hoped to die with grace so they could be with God. I mean it'd be pretty hard to tell yourself that a big cat chewing your arm off is an 'illusion'.
    I'll bet the big cat is thinking, "Alright, go on thinking I'm an illusion. You-as-lunch certainly aint an illusion since you're filling up my tummy." Or consider those zombie movies. The zoms are chewing on you and you're gonna tell yourself it's an illusion?

    Anyway, Christianity can work IF it's understood as the highest and impossible ideal than as a practical guidance for men. One could see it as a mountain that no one can climb to the top but one that reminds everyone of how fallen or lowly they are in relation to the highest truth. And indeed, since Jesus is said to be the Son of God, His deed had to be larger than life, bigger than anything man could do. So, in that sense, there is no shame in not being able to live up to His ideals. Rather, it serves as a reminder to men of values and principles far higher than anything they can conceive or achieve as mortals.
    It's like a lump of pure gold reminding all the other metals that they cannot be pure gold... but that's okay. It's like the Platonic forms or something. These perfect forms cannot exist in reality. They can only exist in the mind. Reality doesn't allow perfection, especially perfection of morality. No such example ever existed in any religion or myth. Even the greatest heroes are flawed in some way. So, Christian myth posit this vision of this one Man who somehow lived by perfect truth and values in the real world. It's like a perfect diamond with no flaws, something that can't exist in reality but only in the mind. In a way, Christianity is the most arrogant of religions because it claims to believe in a Man who was truly perfect in every way. And yet, it fends off charges of arrogance by presenting Jesus as a humble figure who got whupped real bad. Now, one could argue... why couldn't Jesus as Messiah be like a perfect superhero? Like superman? I guess that would have been too fantastical. A perfect hero sent by God to beat up the bad guys and protect the good, and etc. No one would believe it. Also, if indeed Jesus was that kind of superhero, he would still be with us doing good work and protecting the good and weak. But there was no evidence of such hero or messiah in history. But it's true enough that a very good man could be persecuted and whupped real bad. There were many such examples. Also, maybe a superhero who whups bad guys isn't so perfect. After all, even though he uses violence to defeat the bad, he is still using violence, which is brutal. He's resorting to worldly power to deal with problems that really flow from the sickness of the soul. If the badass hero fixes problems with physical power, it means he's not using brute force to enforce the good. He hasn't really changed the minds of bad men. He just used force to keep them in line. So, a truly perfect figure must save souls, even or esp those of evil men. And to do this, he must live and die in such a way that even bad guys come to feel pangs of remorse, like Johnius Waynius the Centurion in THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.

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

    Even if men cannot reach the top of the mountain, they can climb some distance and see the world from a higher moral perspective. So, one could say that failure was built into the very system of Christianity. Like the myth of Sisyphus. It's ordained that Sisy will never roll the boulder to the top, but the top is always there and he strives and strives.

    And in that sense, Christianity's impracticality makes it a greater and purer religion than Judaism or Islam whose morality is 'tainted' by pragmatism and realism of the world. Their ideals are blunted and smoke-stained by struggle for survival, which means tribe vs tribe, warrior vs warrior, etc. Both religions make excuses for barbaric and cruel behavior on moral-spiritual grounds that are never quite convincing.

    In contrast, Jesus never falters and holds steadfast to what He stands for. His struggle isn't for gaining advantage in the world but against fear of pain, humiliation, and death. Samson's death was similar in a way, an act of self-sacrifice for God, but it was a cruel act of vengeance that turned people into pancake like in 9/11. Jesus' point is no about headbashing, no matter how righteous, can redeem the world. It will just lead to more violence and counter-violence.

    So, Christianity posited a purer spiritual-moral vision than Judaism and Islam.
    If Christians use this to feel holier than thou and oh-so-pious, non-Christians can expose the sheer hypocrisy and also the sin of pride.
    But if Christians interpret the life and death of Jesus as a reminder of how far mankind is from the purest ideal, it is a workable system.
    It's like the Earth cannot move toward the Sun, because it will just burn up. But the Earth can move around in the gravitational pull of the Sun. Always insignificant compared to the Sun and impossible to move toward the Sun. And yet, without the Sun, it would just spin out into space and have no spatial center or meaning. It would just be adrift. So, if Christianity is taken like a Sun whose gravitational pull gives balance and meaning to the movement of Earth and life on it, then it is more doable.
    Purist Christians who want to move Earth closer to the Sun will just burn it up as the Shining Ideals burn too brightly. It's like men as bodies cannot enter Heaven. Only the souls of men can enter Heaven. In this equation, Earth would be the material-physical manifestation of mankind. It cannot move closer to the Sun, but it has much to gain by remaining in the gravitational orbit of the Sun, which represents the purest and highest spiritual ideals. It's the invisible energy, the spirit, between Sun and Earth that gives meaning to Earth.

    I still prefer the paganist POV, but the problem is paganism is only meaningful to the learned. For the masses, it's too confusing and turns into superstition. If Judaism-Christianity-Islam have a powerful sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and God and Devil -- and can be understood by even illiterates and simpletons -- , paganism is confusing with so many gods, contrasting divine forces, criss-crossing narratives, syncretism with other narratives, and contradictions.
    So, it requires learned minds to navigate through its space and explore meanings. For the unlearned simpletons --- and most pagan folks in the ancient world were unlearned --- , it's just so confusing, and their practice of paganism became superstitious offering of sacrifice to gods or being paranoid in superstitious manner.

    Still, learned minds may find more subtlety with paganism, at least with richer forms of paganism as with the Greeks, than with moralist-monotheism. Consider the Forbidden Fruit story. According to Genesis, Adam and Eve done wrong. They should not have disobeyed, they should not talked to the Serpent, they should not have eaten the fruit. They did, and they did bad, they did wrong, and they must be cast out and be punished. So, there is a clear sense of right and wrong. This is powerful in a way but also heavy and repressive.

    In contrast, there is more room for use of wits to appreciate the duality of nature in Greek mythology. When Odysseus is tempted with song of Sirens, it is like a Tree of Forbidden Knowledge moment. It's known that men who listen to the song will be blissfully lulled to death and oblivion. So, the right thing for Odysseus is to plug his ears or steer clear of the Siren shores. But he still wants to hear the song and know what it's about. He knows of its danger, and he knows he must not give into its power. Still, man is curious and wants to KNOW. This curiosity makes man what he is.
    So, Odysseus uses his wits to devise a plan to both do the right thing and hear the 'forbidden' song. His men tie him up and plug their own ears. So, the men can row safely close to the shores without falling to temptation, but Odysseus gets to hear the song. Overcome with its sensuality, he orders his men to row to the shore, but his men disobey and keep rowing. And when the song fades in the distance, Odysseus regains his senses. He and his men are safe but he has heard this mysterious song. He has gained valuable knowledge. There is less room for this kind of duality in the moralist and monomaniacal world of the Bible.
    But then, its powerful sense of moral certainty is something that can be understood emotionally and spiritually by even the poorest sod. Paganism connects the mind to the eyes and ears. The Biblical religions connect the mind to the heart.

    Great Post Again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization.

    They're not coming for Here. They're coming for a better There.

    If Western Civilization was based on universal modes, we wouldn't call it Western.

    “They’re not coming for Here. They’re coming for a better There.”

    Immigrants tend to come Here because it is better than where they come from in one or more aspects of life. And, of course, immigrants (European AND non-European) have always come over to make a “better There”, whether it being able to maintain their customs or infuse their ways of life into mainstream American society. That’s how it always has been in our nation.

    “If Western Civilization was based on universal modes, we wouldn’t call it Western.”

    Life/liberty/property, along with the social compact, are universal concepts. Mo Tzu postulated his own theory on the origins of society (e.g. the state of nature, sovereignty) and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual about two-thousand years prior to Hobbes in the fifth-century B.C. African tribal groups had a council of elders, who were local village chiefs, and made decisions over all aspects of life and law. Each village would consul that chief by way of older people, who were believed to have the wisdom, civility, and restraint to lead. There was a hierarchy within the tribal government, and a myriad of protocols on matters of inheritance and land ownership. Local initiatives were to be cleared by the chief, with his supervision mandatory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Corvinus says:
    @Malla
    "The mistake is believing that these “alien peoples” are other than capable of immersing themselves into Western Civilization."
    Nope, the mistake with idiots like you is to believe that masses of these aliens can immerse into Western civilization. People of all races, except deluded White people know this immersion is not possible. If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that millions of Africans can become part of Indian civilization by 'immersion', the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground. Then they would ceremoniously transport you to the nearest mental asylum where you belong.

    "For only those white people who look at it through that particular prism."
    Those White people see things for what they are. Cultural Marxist programming is not foolproof and many White people still see things for what they are, despite the billions spent on leftist propaganda. Sad but true.

    "Demographic changes are inevitable. Ask the Britons, the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, etc."
    Not necessary. Demographic change of Britons with Saxons is not the same as with demographic change with Yarubas. Only a nutcase will believe it is the same. Even then, demographic change is neither inevitable nor desirable.

    P.S. I am not joking about that Indian market place scenario.

    “Nope, the mistake with idiots like you is to believe that masses of these aliens can immerse into Western civilization.”

    The same rationale was given by nativists who claimed that the Irish and Germans in the 1840′s and 1850′s would “ruin” America.

    Now, pay close attention here. Because unless you are able to trace your ancestry on both sides to the English…you must go back. From Vox Day–”The Alt-Right is correct and the Alt-Right is inevitable. You can no more instill an instinctive respect for the U.S. Constitution, the Common Law, and Anglo-American culture into immigrants, no matter how long they are resident in the USA, than you can instill Rohinga values into Americans during a visit to a refugee camp in Bangladesh. Think about it. Do the Jews, the Italians, the Irish, or the Scandinavians value small government today, even after more than 100 years of residence in the USA? No. Not even a little bit. They have learned to speak English, but they have never learned to value limited government. They are not, they have not been, and they will never be Americans in the original sense of the term, which is simply another way of saying “British colonist”.”

    So, to Day, a “true American” equates to a “British colonist”. What say you about his rationale? Are Americans who have Italian and Irish and Finnish blood in essence parasites?

    “If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that millions of Africans can become part of Indian civilization by ‘immersion’, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground.”

    False comparison. India, sans the English invasion, has remained relatively homogenous. On the other hand, the United States has a rich history of diversity–first different European groups who had distinct languages and customs, then non-European groups entered the fray.

    “Those White people see things for what they are. Cultural Marxist programming is not foolproof and many White people still see things for what they are, despite the billions spent on leftist propaganda. Sad but true.”

    The impact of Cultural Marxism is overstated. White people are not “programmed” by Jewish entertainment nor are they “brainwashed” by Jewish education. They are generally aware of their decisions as far as adhering to or rejecting specific values that are touted in our society.

    “Not necessary. Demographic change of Britons with Saxons is not the same as with demographic change with Yarubas.”

    In what ways are the other than similar?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    "The same rationale was given by nativists who claimed that the Irish and Germans in the 1840′s and 1850′s would “ruin” America."

    You are an idiot. Of course there is a difference between Anglos and Irish/Germans but the difference is extremely small as compared to Yarubas, Mayans and Arabs. If you cannot perceive this, you are mentally retarded. Capice.

    "False comparison. India, sans the English invasion, has remained relatively homogenous. "
    Very good comparison
    Indians are formed by the mixing of many races and tribes. Most Indians are formed by the mixing of ANI Caucasians and ASI as well as Austra Asiatic, Tibeto Burmans etc.... Besides that we have seen massive migration and conquests by Greeks, Huns, Scythians, Khambojas, Persians, Turks, Uzbeks etc... much before . But since you are an ignorant low IQ nutcase you would not know.

    Let me reframe this, if you tell Indians and Africans living in Mauritius or Guayana (all formed by migration) that it is their moral obligation to bring in more immigrants to guyana because Guayana is formed by immigration and that it will improve race relations, you will not make out alive from the place. I am Indian myself, I know what I am talking about. Indians attack immigrants from other Indian States.

    "The impact of Cultural Marxism is overstated. "
    It is actually understated

    "White people are not “programmed” by Jewish entertainment nor are they “brainwashed” by Jewish education. "
    Not only White people programmed, even black people are.

    "In what ways are the other than similar"
    If I have to explain to you why Yaruba are less similar to Britons as compared to Saxons, you need to see a Psychiatrist. Seriously, you are exposing yourself as an idiot by even asking a question like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    No, no, no. Totally wrong. Genuine Christianity was a martyr-saint cult.
     
    So, as a damned heretic, you are going to determine what genuine Christianity is? Old Scratch thanks you for your service to him, and he has a warmed up a seat for you in the afterlife.

    So, as a damned heretic

    Is heresy such a bad thing?

    Jesus was killed as a heretic.
    Peter and Paul were hounded as heretics.
    Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic.

    PC defines Americanism as Open Borders and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.

    I’ll take heresy over clerisy. Not heresy for heresy’s-sake but free expression that risks being labeled as ‘heresy’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Damn, I feel sorry for you. You get 90% of it, but the last 10% leads you into the wilderness. This:

    Also, it’s wrong to say Greek mythology celebrates vice. Vice is there but there is also virtue, stories of sacrifice and redemption. And if some forces lead men to vice, other forces keep them from it. Consider when Odysseus is passing by the Sirens.

    uses Odysseus as an exemplar. And it is true that no sentient being can help but rejoice when he has his hour at the feast of the suitors. But Odysseus was not just celebrated for his skill, but for his skill in vice. Dishonesty was the stock-in-trade of Odysseus. The virtue of the Greeks was present, but not determinative. Odysseus was a prince chiefly for the ability to marshal vice to meet his objectives. The adage the "ends justify the means" would have been not just warmly received, but affirmed as a the very sine qua non of the good life for the Greeks. Judaism is similarly encumbered.

    I will not go further, the TL:DR constraint limits my response (even though I have exceeded its bounds). But you are looking superficially. Dig deeper, and you will abandon the path you have taken.

    uses Odysseus as an exemplar. And it is true that no sentient being can help but rejoice when he has his hour at the feast of the suitors. But Odysseus was not just celebrated for his skill, but for his skill in vice. Dishonesty was the stock-in-trade of Odysseus. The virtue of the Greeks was present, but not determinative. Odysseus was a prince chiefly for the ability to marshal vice to meet his objectives.

    No, that’s too simple. Nothing is so simple in the Odyssey. Even the suitors had their reasons. I mean they really thought Odysseus was dead because he took forever to return. It was only right that they wanted to marry the ‘widow’ of Odysseus. And Odysseus didn’t just kill the guys but the maidservants who dilly-dallied with the suitors. It was a bloodbath. He kinda lost it, like Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

    Also, you have to understand the dishonesty within the context. Iliad is about war, and any side engaged in war uses deception. US tricked the Germans in WWII when landing on Normandy. And Odysseus comes up with the Horse trick, though not told in the surviving remnants of the Iliad. So, Odysseus uses deception for a certain end. War is about life or death, and trickery is part of the plan.

    Later, Odysseus uses deception to save his men. Consider the one-eyed giant Cyclops. This fella was eating Odysseus’ men like hotdogs. So, Odysseus needed to find some way to get out of that trap, and so he tricked Cyclops. This isn’t vice for vice’s sake. Perhaps, all deceptions are a form of vice, but in a world of monsters and dark forces, one has to use counter-deception. It’s a world where one cannot survive by just by being honest. If Odysseus had acted like young George Washington(the mythic one of cherry tree) and told Cyclops the truth, he would have been a hotdog too.

    Also, Odysseus is not without conscience. He lives by the code of ‘ya gotta do what ya gotta do’, but he also realizes the price this entails. He is overcome with grief upon hearing the tale of his feats. Not only has he fallen on hard time since but there’s a sense that he realizes what this meant for Trojans as well who were sacked real bad.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demodocus_(Odyssey_character)

    http://roots.blog.sbc.edu/2012/02/02/odysseus-grief-in-book-8/

    Also, couldn’t one argue that Greek mythology is more ‘fair’ in a sense? While the Jewish God is always on the side of Jews against gentiles, the Greek gods can see virtue of other sides as well. So, in the Trojan War, half the gods are with Trojans, half are with Greeks. So, Greeks didn’t lay sole claim to those gods. The very gods they worshiped could turn against them. Maybe it was because gods were fickle and vain. Or maybe the other side could be more worthy on occasions. There must have been some empathy among Greeks to have written a play like Trojan Women that sympathizes with the fallen Trojans and depicts Greeks in a not very good light.

    Also, there are several parts to the New Testament, and you gotta admit Saint Paul is far from a perfect saint. He is like the counterpart to Odysseus in Christian narrative. Like Odysseus, he traveled a lot and went from place to place, met all sorts of people, and etc.
    And he had to hustle and use cunning at times. If he’d acted as Jesus did, he would have gotten killed real fast. He got whupped a few times, and he WEASELED himself out by invoking Roman Law. So, even as he was no fan of the Romans, he wasn’t averse to using their own laws to save his own skin. Jesus lived and die with pure ideals. Paul, in order to spread the faith, often acted ‘diplomatic’ to save his own neck, to persuade others, and to even run like a mofo at times. So, there are several parts to core Christian canon. Jesus was the one who did it right and perfect from beginning to end. But He got killed fast. So, for others to spread the Gospel, they can’t be like Jesus, at least not totally. They have to compromise, be politically savvy, socially cunning, legally versed, and even use deception to survive.

    The adage the “ends justify the means” would have been not just warmly received, but affirmed as a the very sine qua non of the good life for the Greeks. Judaism is similarly encumbered.

    But you feel the same way. You think violence justifies Christian ends. You think Christianity is about being a badass warrior when, in fact, Jesus told people to choose love, forgiveness, turn the cheek.
    You believe ends justify means. So, even if Christians act un-Christian, if the end is More Power for Christendom, it’s great. You prefer the Christian Warrior over the Christian Martyr. You may value the Christian Martyr for inspirational narrative, but in the world of action in the here-and-now, you like the Christian Warrior, like the guy in Olive Stone’s WORLD TRADE CENTER who is full of fight after 9/11.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Logan says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    FWIW, bubonic plague is endemic to the SW United States.
     
    I guess I know, because my family's veterinarian in Colorado contracted the disease in the late 1970s or early 1980s. (I can't remember exactly when.)

    He got infected with the bubonic plague by picking a dead squirrel off the road while he was making his daily run near our house in the mountains, in preparation for the Boston Marathon, which he missed because of the illness.

    This was so shocking and serious that it made the newspapers.

    The disease was "endemic," as you say, in animals like dead squirrels in places like Colorado, in such rarity that it made news when it infected humans like my dog's doctor. (He said he just wanted to remove the squirrel from the road out of respect. He really loved animals.)

    Now the number of cases is increasing, because the disease is also coming in via immigration. That's a fact.

    Couple points.

    Plague is endemic to the SW US, but not native. It appears the wild rodent population got infected from imported infected rats.

    The CDC’s stats, which only go to 2015, don’t show such an increase.

    https://www.cdc.gov/plague/maps/index.html

    Many diseases we thought gone are reappearing in America due to immigration, but I have seen no evidence plague is one of them. With the horrific and rare exception of the pneumonic form, plague is seldom spread person to person.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Malla says:
    @Corvinus
    "Nope, the mistake with idiots like you is to believe that masses of these aliens can immerse into Western civilization."

    The same rationale was given by nativists who claimed that the Irish and Germans in the 1840's and 1850's would "ruin" America.

    Now, pay close attention here. Because unless you are able to trace your ancestry on both sides to the English...you must go back. From Vox Day--"The Alt-Right is correct and the Alt-Right is inevitable. You can no more instill an instinctive respect for the U.S. Constitution, the Common Law, and Anglo-American culture into immigrants, no matter how long they are resident in the USA, than you can instill Rohinga values into Americans during a visit to a refugee camp in Bangladesh. Think about it. Do the Jews, the Italians, the Irish, or the Scandinavians value small government today, even after more than 100 years of residence in the USA? No. Not even a little bit. They have learned to speak English, but they have never learned to value limited government. They are not, they have not been, and they will never be Americans in the original sense of the term, which is simply another way of saying "British colonist"."

    So, to Day, a "true American" equates to a "British colonist". What say you about his rationale? Are Americans who have Italian and Irish and Finnish blood in essence parasites?

    "If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that millions of Africans can become part of Indian civilization by ‘immersion’, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground."

    False comparison. India, sans the English invasion, has remained relatively homogenous. On the other hand, the United States has a rich history of diversity--first different European groups who had distinct languages and customs, then non-European groups entered the fray.

    "Those White people see things for what they are. Cultural Marxist programming is not foolproof and many White people still see things for what they are, despite the billions spent on leftist propaganda. Sad but true."

    The impact of Cultural Marxism is overstated. White people are not "programmed" by Jewish entertainment nor are they "brainwashed" by Jewish education. They are generally aware of their decisions as far as adhering to or rejecting specific values that are touted in our society.

    "Not necessary. Demographic change of Britons with Saxons is not the same as with demographic change with Yarubas."

    In what ways are the other than similar?

    “The same rationale was given by nativists who claimed that the Irish and Germans in the 1840′s and 1850′s would “ruin” America.”

    You are an idiot. Of course there is a difference between Anglos and Irish/Germans but the difference is extremely small as compared to Yarubas, Mayans and Arabs. If you cannot perceive this, you are mentally retarded. Capice.

    “False comparison. India, sans the English invasion, has remained relatively homogenous. ”
    Very good comparison
    Indians are formed by the mixing of many races and tribes. Most Indians are formed by the mixing of ANI Caucasians and ASI as well as Austra Asiatic, Tibeto Burmans etc…. Besides that we have seen massive migration and conquests by Greeks, Huns, Scythians, Khambojas, Persians, Turks, Uzbeks etc… much before . But since you are an ignorant low IQ nutcase you would not know.

    Let me reframe this, if you tell Indians and Africans living in Mauritius or Guayana (all formed by migration) that it is their moral obligation to bring in more immigrants to guyana because Guayana is formed by immigration and that it will improve race relations, you will not make out alive from the place. I am Indian myself, I know what I am talking about. Indians attack immigrants from other Indian States.

    “The impact of Cultural Marxism is overstated. ”
    It is actually understated

    “White people are not “programmed” by Jewish entertainment nor are they “brainwashed” by Jewish education. ”
    Not only White people programmed, even black people are.

    “In what ways are the other than similar”
    If I have to explain to you why Yaruba are less similar to Britons as compared to Saxons, you need to see a Psychiatrist. Seriously, you are exposing yourself as an idiot by even asking a question like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Corvinus says:

    “You are an idiot. Of course there is a difference between Anglos and Irish/Germans but the difference is extremely small as compared to Yarubas, Mayans and Arabs.”

    No, the differences were extensive between “Anglos” and Irish/Germans–language, customs, thought processes. And in particular when Catholic Irish/Germans entered our shores in great numbers, Protestants came out en masse to protest this “religious menace”. Yes, they were European and they were white, but they came together through intermarriage in the United States and through an alliance that they, as white Europeans, have “domain” here compared to non-white Europeans. But the initial hostility that Irish/Germans received by nativists as they arrived was comparable to Africans, Middle Easterners, and Asians.

    “Indians are formed by the mixing of many races and tribes.”

    So were the British, French, Germans…and Americans over the course of time. However, India compared to the United States, did not have immigration by a wide range of people that ultimately changed its demographics.

    “Let me reframe this, if you tell Indians and Africans living in Mauritius or Guayana (all formed by migration) that it is their moral obligation to bring in more immigrants to guyana because Guayana is formed by immigration and that it will improve race relations, you will not make out alive from the place. I am Indian myself, I know what I am talking about. Indians attack immigrants from other Indian States.”

    Which, again, is irrelevant, because the mindset of America is appreciably different than India when it comes to this concept of a “melting pot”.

    “If I have to explain to you why Yaruba are less similar to Britons as compared to Saxons, you need to see a Psychiatrist. Seriously, you are exposing yourself as an idiot by even asking a question like that.”

    No, I asked a question. Give me specifics rather than be a weasel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    See I am really not going to waste time explaining to you why the difference between say Irishmen and Englishmen is way less than the difference between an Englishman and a Yaruba. Any child in India understands this, it is simple common sense. No wonder my Indian friends living in the USA tell me that many Americans lack simple commonsense. It is like explaining someone, water is wet.
    If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that a community of South Indian Tamils is as similar to a community of South Indian Telugus as they are to say a community of Thai or African Zulus, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground. Then they would ceremoniously transport you to the nearest mental asylum where you belong. Trust me on this, simply trust me. You should look into the possibility of you being yourself a victim of extreme mind control Travistock Institute brainwashing which leads to suspended common sense.

    However, India compared to the United States, did not have immigration by a wide range of people that ultimately changed its demographics.
     
    No it did. Indians are formed by the mixing of Caucasian ANI and native ASI. Nearly Indian are a blend of the two. 5000 years ago there were only ASI populations.

    Which, again, is irrelevant, because the mindset of America is appreciably different than India when it comes to this concept of a “melting pot”.
     
    And who decides this so called mindset of Americans. The Media? The elites? Was a referendum taken in 1965 amongst Americans when the immigration bill was passed which had promised that no major demographic change will take place?

    And most importantly of all, why are you so keen to convert the USA into a Brazil like third world shithole? There are too many third world shitholes in the world with no future, lets have some islands of First World. Would do the world a lot of good.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Malla says:
    @Corvinus
    "You are an idiot. Of course there is a difference between Anglos and Irish/Germans but the difference is extremely small as compared to Yarubas, Mayans and Arabs."

    No, the differences were extensive between "Anglos" and Irish/Germans--language, customs, thought processes. And in particular when Catholic Irish/Germans entered our shores in great numbers, Protestants came out en masse to protest this "religious menace". Yes, they were European and they were white, but they came together through intermarriage in the United States and through an alliance that they, as white Europeans, have "domain" here compared to non-white Europeans. But the initial hostility that Irish/Germans received by nativists as they arrived was comparable to Africans, Middle Easterners, and Asians.

    "Indians are formed by the mixing of many races and tribes."

    So were the British, French, Germans...and Americans over the course of time. However, India compared to the United States, did not have immigration by a wide range of people that ultimately changed its demographics.

    "Let me reframe this, if you tell Indians and Africans living in Mauritius or Guayana (all formed by migration) that it is their moral obligation to bring in more immigrants to guyana because Guayana is formed by immigration and that it will improve race relations, you will not make out alive from the place. I am Indian myself, I know what I am talking about. Indians attack immigrants from other Indian States."

    Which, again, is irrelevant, because the mindset of America is appreciably different than India when it comes to this concept of a "melting pot".

    "If I have to explain to you why Yaruba are less similar to Britons as compared to Saxons, you need to see a Psychiatrist. Seriously, you are exposing yourself as an idiot by even asking a question like that."

    No, I asked a question. Give me specifics rather than be a weasel.

    See I am really not going to waste time explaining to you why the difference between say Irishmen and Englishmen is way less than the difference between an Englishman and a Yaruba. Any child in India understands this, it is simple common sense. No wonder my Indian friends living in the USA tell me that many Americans lack simple commonsense. It is like explaining someone, water is wet.
    If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that a community of South Indian Tamils is as similar to a community of South Indian Telugus as they are to say a community of Thai or African Zulus, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground. Then they would ceremoniously transport you to the nearest mental asylum where you belong. Trust me on this, simply trust me. You should look into the possibility of you being yourself a victim of extreme mind control Travistock Institute brainwashing which leads to suspended common sense.

    However, India compared to the United States, did not have immigration by a wide range of people that ultimately changed its demographics.

    No it did. Indians are formed by the mixing of Caucasian ANI and native ASI. Nearly Indian are a blend of the two. 5000 years ago there were only ASI populations.

    Which, again, is irrelevant, because the mindset of America is appreciably different than India when it comes to this concept of a “melting pot”.

    And who decides this so called mindset of Americans. The Media? The elites? Was a referendum taken in 1965 amongst Americans when the immigration bill was passed which had promised that no major demographic change will take place?

    And most importantly of all, why are you so keen to convert the USA into a Brazil like third world shithole? There are too many third world shitholes in the world with no future, lets have some islands of First World. Would do the world a lot of good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that a community of South Indian Tamils is as similar to a community of South Indian Telugus as they are to say a community of Thai or African Zulus, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground."

    Another red herring on your part. Of course Indians are going to generally respond in this fashion, because their nation is other than similar to the United States when it comes to racial and ethnic mixing.

    "Was a referendum taken in 1965 amongst Americans when the immigration bill was passed which had promised that no major demographic change will take place?"

    It's called representative government. The people decided on this matter. Since you are an Indian (dot, not feather), you and your kind tremendously benefitted from this legislation.

    You have to go back.

    "And most importantly of all, why are you so keen to convert the USA into a Brazil like third world shithole?"

    You make a BIG assumption there.

    "Its like saying if I feel fear if I see a big surly dog running towards me and I feel fear if I see a Great White shark swimming towards me, the dog and shark is the same."

    Except the common reaction in both situations is intense fear. That is why the reaction by nativists toward Irish/Germans and Africans/Middle Easterners/Asians is comparable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Malla says:

    But the initial hostility that Irish/Germans received by nativists as they arrived was comparable to Africans, Middle Easterners, and Asians.

    Its like saying if I feel fear if I see a big surly dog running towards me and I feel fear if I see a Great White shark swimming towards me, the dog and shark is the same. They are the same species, yhat both canines and Sharks have similar traits and characteristics given by nature. And the effect on a human body of a dog attack is comparable to the attack from a shark.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. Corvinus says:
    @Malla
    See I am really not going to waste time explaining to you why the difference between say Irishmen and Englishmen is way less than the difference between an Englishman and a Yaruba. Any child in India understands this, it is simple common sense. No wonder my Indian friends living in the USA tell me that many Americans lack simple commonsense. It is like explaining someone, water is wet.
    If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that a community of South Indian Tamils is as similar to a community of South Indian Telugus as they are to say a community of Thai or African Zulus, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground. Then they would ceremoniously transport you to the nearest mental asylum where you belong. Trust me on this, simply trust me. You should look into the possibility of you being yourself a victim of extreme mind control Travistock Institute brainwashing which leads to suspended common sense.

    However, India compared to the United States, did not have immigration by a wide range of people that ultimately changed its demographics.
     
    No it did. Indians are formed by the mixing of Caucasian ANI and native ASI. Nearly Indian are a blend of the two. 5000 years ago there were only ASI populations.

    Which, again, is irrelevant, because the mindset of America is appreciably different than India when it comes to this concept of a “melting pot”.
     
    And who decides this so called mindset of Americans. The Media? The elites? Was a referendum taken in 1965 amongst Americans when the immigration bill was passed which had promised that no major demographic change will take place?

    And most importantly of all, why are you so keen to convert the USA into a Brazil like third world shithole? There are too many third world shitholes in the world with no future, lets have some islands of First World. Would do the world a lot of good.

    “If you tell Indians in a marketplace in say Lucknow, India that a community of South Indian Tamils is as similar to a community of South Indian Telugus as they are to say a community of Thai or African Zulus, the whole market place will burst out laughing rolling on the ground.”

    Another red herring on your part. Of course Indians are going to generally respond in this fashion, because their nation is other than similar to the United States when it comes to racial and ethnic mixing.

    “Was a referendum taken in 1965 amongst Americans when the immigration bill was passed which had promised that no major demographic change will take place?”

    It’s called representative government. The people decided on this matter. Since you are an Indian (dot, not feather), you and your kind tremendously benefitted from this legislation.

    You have to go back.

    “And most importantly of all, why are you so keen to convert the USA into a Brazil like third world shithole?”

    You make a BIG assumption there.

    “Its like saying if I feel fear if I see a big surly dog running towards me and I feel fear if I see a Great White shark swimming towards me, the dog and shark is the same.”

    Except the common reaction in both situations is intense fear. That is why the reaction by nativists toward Irish/Germans and Africans/Middle Easterners/Asians is comparable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?