RSS
The graphs in this post are derived from a Reuters-Ipsos poll asking respondents if “to achieve my idea of a better society, violent acts are acceptable”.
To preface, The Current Year is not Weimerica. We’re nowhere near the levels of political violence the country experienced in the late 1960s and 1970s, when domestic terrorist bombings were a near daily occurrence. On the other hand, the Fourth Turning theory predicts our heading into a period of crisis with an impending uptick in violence.
Whatever the actual manifestation of violence in the future, let’s take a look at who most likes the idea of violence. By age and sex:
Violence is a young man’s game. With increasing discord and disunity in every aspect of life–religious, linguistic, economic, racial, cultural, political, ethnic–in concert with collapsing levels of trust in all of society’s major institutions, they’ll grow out of it, right? It’s just a phase. Boys will be boys!
By race and selected religious affiliations:
On account of their doing this with such frequency, the result isn’t particularly surprising.
By political orientation:
Exhibit A: Antifa and Proud Boys dancing in the streets.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
In case you were not aware: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/
Only 7.7% of Jews? That’s certainly a head-scratcher. The Weathermen were as Jewish as a Sunday morning four-ball at Hillcrest CC. And then there’s Israel which bombs schools and such, and their partisans here defend it. But yeah, on a personal level, they do tend to be a cowardly lot.
Jews have diddly squat to do with anything, from a big picture standpoint. Jews do tend to have an elevated cultural profile in all regions, which does have the regrettable side effect of making them easy scape goats (in reality, objective studies reveal that Jews tend to be more conscientious than adjacent ethnic groups).
My advice? Focus on the lamewads in your own ethnic group. There's more than enough to go around, and we have many good reasons to avoid succumbing to the cheap tactic of blaming ethnic minorities to dodge the shortcomings of your own side.
You notice they are all minority votes. Its seems the majority in all groups agree that violence is not the way to “achieve a better society”. Indeed for a modest improvement, violent measures are quite idiotic. I supect that was the results the pollsters wanted and got. In France support for the Yellow Vests is over seventy percent. The same propotional result for opponents of Macron. They are fighting for not just improvements but transformation. Jews gave the lowest proportion because for modest improvement, they work behind the scenes. Young men and Moslems gave the two highest because violent struggles is what many actually enjoy. It is lucky that Hispanics are not Moslems.
” It is lucky that Hispanics are not Moslems.”
Yet. There are people working on that.
Time for a war. Time for Cultural Revolution.
Violence is necessary!
I am not horrified by some broken windows. On ne saurait faire d’omelette sans casser des œufs, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, as a French royalist famously said in 1796. The general de Charette broke heads, not eggs nor windows, and he was executed when caught, but he was still correct. Without some impressive violence, things can’t change. If you just stand in the square and sing a nice song, or if you march down the street shouting this or that, you will achieve nothing. The government loves people singing and marching for climate change or for gay equality. You should know that people are doing a right thing if police attacks them and they defend themselves valiantly.
The Bolsheviks used the battleship Aurora to make their statement. Her salvo in view of the royal palace proved their ability and readiness for violence; they had armed soldiers and sailors to take over the centres of power including banks, post and telegraph offices, and railway stations. At the occasion, windows were broken and people were robbed; this is unfortunate but otherwise, you can’t make an omelette.
https://www.unz.com/ishamir/gilets-jaunes-end-of-dystopia/
You can NOT discuss serious, practical political violence here. Or anywhere in public, actually.
Or...hehe..I mean, you can. Won't end nicely for you for sure.
Either you make it useless ("broken windows") or are wide open to state apparatus reaction ("inciting violence", "terrorism" etc.).
The only way to fully discuss that topic is with a person you TRUST somewhere you can't be overheard.
FFS, if the comment passes the mods (which I doubt), you either put the owner and his team in trouble and, if you really sound serious, somebody SHALL come knocking. With a ram and a flashbang, most likely.
Don't fool yourself.
Or, do it anyway. Free will and such.Replies: @Joe Stalin
The real question is how far do the nonviolent need to be pushed around before they consider violence to be acceptable.
1. The SA weren't particularly welcome in Berlin. What Joseph Goebbels did was to encourage them to start street battles and provoke violence, and then claim after the fact that they were just defending themselves from the Communist paramilitaries.
The working class Germans never particularly warmed to the Nazis, but rural and middle class Germans came to believe in the propaganda. Remember, they were deathly afraid of Bolshevism, and millions of Ukrainians would soon starve to death, so they had every reason to dread the Bolsheviks.
2. The SA helped cow the populace into submission. What the Nazis did was to never back down from violence, but push it as far as possible wherever they could. It terrified the populace.
Of course, hatchetmen have short shelf lives. Once the Nazis had formal state power, they used the Gestapo and SS for the dirty work. The SA had the stain of blood and the general populace despised them, so the people warmed up to Nazi rule after the Night of the Long Knives.
---
In summary, there's definitely a "fight or submit" instinct when it comes to political violence. The side that keeps on escalating the violence and never backs down can expect to see their enemies rise up, or simply bow their heads lest they get smashed.
Of course, I'd say antifa today far more closely resembles the SA. They also enjoy the informal winks from local governments to be brutal and disrupt even mildly right-wing rallors, much the way Weimar judges took it easy on right-wing hooligans in court.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
I just finished listening to “Death of Democracy” by Benjamin Carter Hett today. Couple of interesting points about the SA vs Commie clashes:
1. The SA weren’t particularly welcome in Berlin. What Joseph Goebbels did was to encourage them to start street battles and provoke violence, and then claim after the fact that they were just defending themselves from the Communist paramilitaries.
The working class Germans never particularly warmed to the Nazis, but rural and middle class Germans came to believe in the propaganda. Remember, they were deathly afraid of Bolshevism, and millions of Ukrainians would soon starve to death, so they had every reason to dread the Bolsheviks.
2. The SA helped cow the populace into submission. What the Nazis did was to never back down from violence, but push it as far as possible wherever they could. It terrified the populace.
Of course, hatchetmen have short shelf lives. Once the Nazis had formal state power, they used the Gestapo and SS for the dirty work. The SA had the stain of blood and the general populace despised them, so the people warmed up to Nazi rule after the Night of the Long Knives.
—
In summary, there’s definitely a “fight or submit” instinct when it comes to political violence. The side that keeps on escalating the violence and never backs down can expect to see their enemies rise up, or simply bow their heads lest they get smashed.
Of course, I’d say antifa today far more closely resembles the SA. They also enjoy the informal winks from local governments to be brutal and disrupt even mildly right-wing rallors, much the way Weimar judges took it easy on right-wing hooligans in court.
Civilized = violent.
I don’t get it. It’s the anniversary of the Tea Party. Would say that the disputes between the monarchists and the republicans were always peaceful, or was there any violence involved? And how did slavery disappear? Violence was and is THE American way of politics. More federal tax money goes on bombs than on healthcare and education combined. Other countries may spend as much, but who else bombs 7 countries, save for Peace Nobel laureates?
The 90% of Americans who claim violence is not acceptable are just hypocrites.
The whole point of Trump is to show peaceful democratic reform is not possible.
I am not horrified by some broken windows. On ne saurait faire d’omelette sans casser des œufs, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, as a French royalist famously said in 1796. The general de Charette broke heads, not eggs nor windows, and he was executed when caught, but he was still correct. Without some impressive violence, things can’t change. If you just stand in the square and sing a nice song, or if you march down the street shouting this or that, you will achieve nothing. The government loves people singing and marching for climate change or for gay equality. You should know that people are doing a right thing if police attacks them and they defend themselves valiantly.
The Bolsheviks used the battleship Aurora to make their statement. Her salvo in view of the royal palace proved their ability and readiness for violence; they had armed soldiers and sailors to take over the centres of power including banks, post and telegraph offices, and railway stations. At the occasion, windows were broken and people were robbed; this is unfortunate but otherwise, you can’t make an omelette.
https://www.unz.com/ishamir/gilets-jaunes-end-of-dystopia/Replies: @peterAUS, @Audacious Epigone
The topic is a pointless teaser.
You can NOT discuss serious, practical political violence here. Or anywhere in public, actually.
Or…hehe..I mean, you can. Won’t end nicely for you for sure.
Either you make it useless (“broken windows”) or are wide open to state apparatus reaction (“inciting violence”, “terrorism” etc.).
The only way to fully discuss that topic is with a person you TRUST somewhere you can’t be overheard.
FFS, if the comment passes the mods (which I doubt), you either put the owner and his team in trouble and, if you really sound serious, somebody SHALL come knocking. With a ram and a flashbang, most likely.
Don’t fool yourself.
Or, do it anyway. Free will and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHOCROb52roReplies: @peterAUS
Politics is just violence by proxy. When the proxies stop functioning as intended – and it’s debatable whether or not they ever did – then reversion to real violence is not surprising at all.
What is surprising to me is that hispanics rank higher than blacks. Apparently, Sailer’s “conquistador-American” trope works on multiple levels.
i’m starting to think these graphs are useless, and maybe actually cointel. they repeatedly show the most dangerous, hostile people on earth, jews, to be the most reasonable, when nothing could be further from the truth. the people who are currently engaged in the most sophisticated, well funded campaign of violence and subversion against their enemies are, of course, jews.
the dumbest one by far was the graph which appeared to show that jews were the biggest supporters of free speech. nobody in the history of the world has ever worked harder against free speech than them.
the only explanation i can think of is maybe they interpreted the question ‘wrong’, or that is to say, interpreted the question in their own way: free speech meaning jewish approved speech. then the results make sense. jews, as the overwhelming drivers of this policy, are maneuvering many european nations into a situation where ‘hate speech’ is not free speech.
when the ADL approves all posting on the internet, true free speech will finally have been achieved.
It is worth keeping in mind that the Jewish ID comes from the religious self-identification. There is also the option of "none", for no religion, and we have to assume that some not insignificant number of irreligious ethnic Jews--or "post-Jewish atheists" as Amy Akron refers to herself!--are not being captured in the displayed Jewish results.
“Stay gold, Ponyboy” – The guy who stabbed someone to death.
the dumbest one by far was the graph which appeared to show that jews were the biggest supporters of free speech. nobody in the history of the world has ever worked harder against free speech than them.
the only explanation i can think of is maybe they interpreted the question 'wrong', or that is to say, interpreted the question in their own way: free speech meaning jewish approved speech. then the results make sense. jews, as the overwhelming drivers of this policy, are maneuvering many european nations into a situation where 'hate speech' is not free speech.
when the ADL approves all posting on the internet, true free speech will finally have been achieved.Replies: @Futurethirdworlder, @Audacious Epigone, @Audacious Epigone
Jews, like women, tend toward violence by proxy. “Me, commit violence? No way.” “The state should take any means necessary to crack down on anti-semite neonazis.”
“violence is as American as apple pie”
– H. Rap Brown
and that nigger was right.
One has to question the validity of this poll.
“Hello, I’m some stranger on the phone with a question. Do you think it’s okay to use violence to achieve your political preferences? Are you a rabid right wing fanatic or a perfectly reasonable progressive who only wants what’s fair and just for all?”
Maybe we ought to regard the results simply as a proxy for IQ and/or English comprehension?
The beauty of thought control and preventing free speech for centuries. "They" do that and then lose touch with reality.
Now, I am sure that most of "progs" actually want it. They are simply too stupid.
But, that thin layers of real TPTBs do need the real information, the reality.
Or...and that's the scary thought, they also don't. They "make their own realities". And they crash sooner or later.
That's good, of course, but creates a lot of pain and suffering for common folks.
Add nukes to the mix and things get interesting.
While I do not have the patch, I was aware!
To a rough approximation, the more a group thrives in the current environment–in absolute terms, not relative ones, ie blacks in the US do much better than they would in any non-white country–the less inclined towards violence it is.
I am not horrified by some broken windows. On ne saurait faire d’omelette sans casser des œufs, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, as a French royalist famously said in 1796. The general de Charette broke heads, not eggs nor windows, and he was executed when caught, but he was still correct. Without some impressive violence, things can’t change. If you just stand in the square and sing a nice song, or if you march down the street shouting this or that, you will achieve nothing. The government loves people singing and marching for climate change or for gay equality. You should know that people are doing a right thing if police attacks them and they defend themselves valiantly.
The Bolsheviks used the battleship Aurora to make their statement. Her salvo in view of the royal palace proved their ability and readiness for violence; they had armed soldiers and sailors to take over the centres of power including banks, post and telegraph offices, and railway stations. At the occasion, windows were broken and people were robbed; this is unfortunate but otherwise, you can’t make an omelette.
https://www.unz.com/ishamir/gilets-jaunes-end-of-dystopia/Replies: @peterAUS, @Audacious Epigone
The Better Angles of Our Nature won’t be enough to avoid largescale violence this time around? How it would play out at this very moment is less clear to me than it seems to be to a lot of others in our intellectual orbit–look at firefighters and police ignoring French government commands, for example–but while a time for words still exists, it’s the option I’m inclined towards.
Or when the 21st century Saxon began to hate.
1. The SA weren't particularly welcome in Berlin. What Joseph Goebbels did was to encourage them to start street battles and provoke violence, and then claim after the fact that they were just defending themselves from the Communist paramilitaries.
The working class Germans never particularly warmed to the Nazis, but rural and middle class Germans came to believe in the propaganda. Remember, they were deathly afraid of Bolshevism, and millions of Ukrainians would soon starve to death, so they had every reason to dread the Bolsheviks.
2. The SA helped cow the populace into submission. What the Nazis did was to never back down from violence, but push it as far as possible wherever they could. It terrified the populace.
Of course, hatchetmen have short shelf lives. Once the Nazis had formal state power, they used the Gestapo and SS for the dirty work. The SA had the stain of blood and the general populace despised them, so the people warmed up to Nazi rule after the Night of the Long Knives.
---
In summary, there's definitely a "fight or submit" instinct when it comes to political violence. The side that keeps on escalating the violence and never backs down can expect to see their enemies rise up, or simply bow their heads lest they get smashed.
Of course, I'd say antifa today far more closely resembles the SA. They also enjoy the informal winks from local governments to be brutal and disrupt even mildly right-wing rallors, much the way Weimar judges took it easy on right-wing hooligans in court.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Antifa are the shocktroops of the Establishment. They’re expendable–the individual members, obviously, but also the organization.
“Hello, I’m some stranger on the phone with a question. Do you think it’s okay to use violence to achieve your political preferences? Are you a rabid right wing fanatic or a perfectly reasonable progressive who only wants what’s fair and just for all?”
Maybe we ought to regard the results simply as a proxy for IQ and/or English comprehension?Replies: @peterAUS
Pretty much.
The beauty of thought control and preventing free speech for centuries. “They” do that and then lose touch with reality.
Now, I am sure that most of “progs” actually want it. They are simply too stupid.
But, that thin layers of real TPTBs do need the real information, the reality.
Or…and that’s the scary thought, they also don’t. They “make their own realities”. And they crash sooner or later.
That’s good, of course, but creates a lot of pain and suffering for common folks.
Add nukes to the mix and things get interesting.
the dumbest one by far was the graph which appeared to show that jews were the biggest supporters of free speech. nobody in the history of the world has ever worked harder against free speech than them.
the only explanation i can think of is maybe they interpreted the question 'wrong', or that is to say, interpreted the question in their own way: free speech meaning jewish approved speech. then the results make sense. jews, as the overwhelming drivers of this policy, are maneuvering many european nations into a situation where 'hate speech' is not free speech.
when the ADL approves all posting on the internet, true free speech will finally have been achieved.Replies: @Futurethirdworlder, @Audacious Epigone, @Audacious Epigone
That would be quite an involved operation given that I’m just about the only person in the world who digs into the huge and continually growing R-I database.
It is worth keeping in mind that the Jewish ID comes from the religious self-identification. There is also the option of “none”, for no religion, and we have to assume that some not insignificant number of irreligious ethnic Jews–or “post-Jewish atheists” as Amy Akron refers to herself!–are not being captured in the displayed Jewish results.
the dumbest one by far was the graph which appeared to show that jews were the biggest supporters of free speech. nobody in the history of the world has ever worked harder against free speech than them.
the only explanation i can think of is maybe they interpreted the question 'wrong', or that is to say, interpreted the question in their own way: free speech meaning jewish approved speech. then the results make sense. jews, as the overwhelming drivers of this policy, are maneuvering many european nations into a situation where 'hate speech' is not free speech.
when the ADL approves all posting on the internet, true free speech will finally have been achieved.Replies: @Futurethirdworlder, @Audacious Epigone, @Audacious Epigone
Steve Sailer posted something germane to the discussion today. Some speech is, admittedly, freer than others.
well, it’s kind of like the islam thing. not ALL muslims are ‘like that’, but if you have 6 million muslims in your country, you get a lot of ‘that’. and strangely, the other muslims, who aren’t ‘like that’, are silent when the muslims who ARE ‘like that’, get up to being ‘like that’.
i really don’t see how jewish people are any different. in fact, that’s exactly how they are. they prefer other methods (unless they’re israelis, who just openly murder their enemies without apology), but the dance is always the same. oops! we somehow took over your country and now it’s our country. how did that happen, when we were all such quiet, industrious, harmless citizens.
after trump is out of office, and the jewish commissars of the next democrat administration get to work eliminating us in earnest from the internet, and unz.com pings their radar, and they clean this site off the web, and your site, and all the other sites linked from here, i suppose we can still pretend that jews are the most staunch advocates of free speech while we sit in ADL imposed isolation again.
-Being able to publicly criticize (without loss of employment, see Chicks, Dixie)
--Christianity
--Right-wing politics
--Bourgeois social norms
--Dead white males
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003450521_woman28.html
-Being able to produce
--Establishment-friendly journalism
--Pornography
--Journolist-type collusion
There is no abstract support for free speech as a principle, should we one day gain power we aren't going to recognize the rights of subversives anymore than the system does today. Subversion should equal Exile.
216Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Antifa is an useful tool up until the left has stricter, firmer control over the police. At that point antifa will be disposed of.
19th century anarchists too
Maybe they can make the poll explicit and personal:
“When the government comes to take your gun, after democratic processes and judicial procedures, are you willing to participate in “The Day?”
If people thought harder, they would acknowledge that the response rate should be 100% for all groups who accept the putative legitimacy of the political means – because a central tenet of the political means is the claim that there is an emergent right to perpetrate state violence in order to ensure compliance.
The reality is, if you resist state edicts – right up to, and including, refusing to comply with some high-school under-achiever in a costume with a gun… the state will kill you stone fucking dead.
We have the choice of the Melians: at some point, you must submit, or die. (Seriously: take the logic of any state command to its fullest extent, refusing to comply at all points – you end up on the receiving end of lethal violence).
It used to be a bit like that in societies with dominant religions, too – if you persistently refused to profess faith in their fucktarded nonsense, they set you on fire.
Nowadays, it’s entirely up to you if you want to give money to some group of robed paedophiles who grift a living spouting Iron Age bullshit that they don’t believe.
Almost all religion is now entirely voluntary, as it ought to be.
The only religion that is still compulsory, is membership of the state’s livestock: it fulfils all the requirements of religion –
• its canonical claims are just as false as any religion you care to name;
• its leadership cadres are just as corrupt and venal as the Borgai popes;
• it consistently shows that it is incapable of fulfilling its promises (to the extent that it actually wants to do so);
• there are mathematical proofs that it cannot possibly do what it sets out to do (it can neither achieve representativeness, nor can it ameliorate public goods problems efficiently).
In the fullness of time, the legitimacy of states will become a genuinely open question (outside of anarchist/voluntaryist crcles, where their illegitimacy is understood as obvious); thereafter, membership of political collectives will become voluntary – just as memberships of religious collectives became voluntary.
And when it does, those who want their vanity projects and current infatuations funded by others, will find out how narrow their appeal is. (Major grifters will still get to live in palaces by exploiting the gullibility of the bottom 60% of the IQ distribution: nobody forces anyone to fund modern megachurches, yet their leaders grift enough to be able to have private-jet pissing contests)
i really don't see how jewish people are any different. in fact, that's exactly how they are. they prefer other methods (unless they're israelis, who just openly murder their enemies without apology), but the dance is always the same. oops! we somehow took over your country and now it's our country. how did that happen, when we were all such quiet, industrious, harmless citizens.
after trump is out of office, and the jewish commissars of the next democrat administration get to work eliminating us in earnest from the internet, and unz.com pings their radar, and they clean this site off the web, and your site, and all the other sites linked from here, i suppose we can still pretend that jews are the most staunch advocates of free speech while we sit in ADL imposed isolation again.Replies: @Rosie, @Anon
I can’t figure out why the dissident Right seems to be so nonchalant about free speech on the internets. I’d pick an Internet Bill of Rights over the wall.
i really don't see how jewish people are any different. in fact, that's exactly how they are. they prefer other methods (unless they're israelis, who just openly murder their enemies without apology), but the dance is always the same. oops! we somehow took over your country and now it's our country. how did that happen, when we were all such quiet, industrious, harmless citizens.
after trump is out of office, and the jewish commissars of the next democrat administration get to work eliminating us in earnest from the internet, and unz.com pings their radar, and they clean this site off the web, and your site, and all the other sites linked from here, i suppose we can still pretend that jews are the most staunch advocates of free speech while we sit in ADL imposed isolation again.Replies: @Rosie, @Anon
What people (Jews, leftists) associate “free speech” with is:
-Being able to publicly criticize (without loss of employment, see Chicks, Dixie)
–Christianity
–Right-wing politics
–Bourgeois social norms
–Dead white males
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003450521_woman28.html
-Being able to produce
–Establishment-friendly journalism
–Pornography
–Journolist-type collusion
There is no abstract support for free speech as a principle, should we one day gain power we aren’t going to recognize the rights of subversives anymore than the system does today. Subversion should equal Exile.
216
ask the criminal President of France………………………
“Almost all religion is now entirely voluntary, as it ought to be.”
except if you live or work in texas, where you are now required to sign this pro-israel loyalty oath thing, as a condition of employment.
what on earth is happening here. there couldn’t be a more flagrant violation of amendment 1.
normally i’d parody this stuff, but i’m a loss for words with this one.
Welcome to Carl’s Jr, would you like some extra Big Ass Fries?
I’m sorry, the cheeseburger is off the menu permanently. Please make another selection.
I’m sorry, the cheeseburger is off the menu permanently. Please make another selection.
According to the Jewish Nutrition Force, no cheeseburger can be made kosher. Please make another selection.
I’m sorry you’re having trouble, please stop hitting the machine.
You are an unfit citizen. Your social media will be placed in the custody of Carl’s Jr.
You can NOT discuss serious, practical political violence here. Or anywhere in public, actually.
Or...hehe..I mean, you can. Won't end nicely for you for sure.
Either you make it useless ("broken windows") or are wide open to state apparatus reaction ("inciting violence", "terrorism" etc.).
The only way to fully discuss that topic is with a person you TRUST somewhere you can't be overheard.
FFS, if the comment passes the mods (which I doubt), you either put the owner and his team in trouble and, if you really sound serious, somebody SHALL come knocking. With a ram and a flashbang, most likely.
Don't fool yourself.
Or, do it anyway. Free will and such.Replies: @Joe Stalin
But they were talking about this 30 years ago on US television programming!
I still believe in a couple of very simple things:
You, Americans, do feel you are special and aren't receptive to experiences from overseas, especially if coming from, ahm, "different" peoples. In my book, a big mistake.
The way to (start) thinking, seriosly, about this topic is to study two simple and well documented cases:
Slovenia.
Chechnya.
Can't happen, of course.
Free will.
Not quite.
They were talking, as always in such products, about armed insurrection against a well defined foreign invader and occupation.
That’s quite different from scenario(s) we are, probably, thinking about here.
Besides, it’s 30 years ago. Enough said.
Now, we both know there are books about, say, certain scenarios. Hehe….you want to mention them here?
And even they are actually obsolete. The world has moved on, especially (military related) technology and consequent tactics, S.O.Ps, drills etc.
I’d like to see, for example, a movie about Ukraine.
Start with Maidan, and finish with Novorossya/Donbass insurrection..That’s, sort of, up to date for this sort of thing.
Funny, a, considering who’s the invader in the miniseries?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHOCROb52roReplies: @peterAUS
We had a couple of chats here while ago along similar topic(s).
I still believe in a couple of very simple things:
You, Americans, do feel you are special and aren’t receptive to experiences from overseas, especially if coming from, ahm, “different” peoples. In my book, a big mistake.
The way to (start) thinking, seriosly, about this topic is to study two simple and well documented cases:
Slovenia.
Chechnya.
Can’t happen, of course.
Free will.
The reality is, if you resist state edicts - right up to, and including, refusing to comply with some high-school under-achiever in a costume with a gun... the state will kill you stone fucking dead.
We have the choice of the Melians: at some point, you must submit, or die. (Seriously: take the logic of any state command to its fullest extent, refusing to comply at all points - you end up on the receiving end of lethal violence).
It used to be a bit like that in societies with dominant religions, too - if you persistently refused to profess faith in their fucktarded nonsense, they set you on fire.
Nowadays, it's entirely up to you if you want to give money to some group of robed paedophiles who grift a living spouting Iron Age bullshit that they don't believe.
Almost all religion is now entirely voluntary, as it ought to be.
The only religion that is still compulsory, is membership of the state's livestock: it fulfils all the requirements of religion -
• its canonical claims are just as false as any religion you care to name;
• its leadership cadres are just as corrupt and venal as the Borgai popes;
• it consistently shows that it is incapable of fulfilling its promises (to the extent that it actually wants to do so);
• there are mathematical proofs that it cannot possibly do what it sets out to do (it can neither achieve representativeness, nor can it ameliorate public goods problems efficiently).
In the fullness of time, the legitimacy of states will become a genuinely open question (outside of anarchist/voluntaryist crcles, where their illegitimacy is understood as obvious); thereafter, membership of political collectives will become voluntary - just as memberships of religious collectives became voluntary.
And when it does, those who want their vanity projects and current infatuations funded by others, will find out how narrow their appeal is. (Major grifters will still get to live in palaces by exploiting the gullibility of the bottom 60% of the IQ distribution: nobody forces anyone to fund modern megachurches, yet their leaders grift enough to be able to have private-jet pissing contests)Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Stefan Molyneux, the ancap I’m most intellectually familiar with, gets right to the heart of it by asking, “If I disagree with you, do you think I should be thrown in a cage?” I am an Austrian economically, I’ve read Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, and Hazlitt. I listen to Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, and Jeff Deist. Intellectually, I’m there. But most white WEIRDOs aren’t and never will be, and the vast majority of non-whites absolutely never will be. Nothing is more individualistic than Europe inside the Hajnal line. Our numbers–relatively and increasingly in absolute terms–are decreasing everywhere.
-Being able to publicly criticize (without loss of employment, see Chicks, Dixie)
--Christianity
--Right-wing politics
--Bourgeois social norms
--Dead white males
http://old.seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003450521_woman28.html
-Being able to produce
--Establishment-friendly journalism
--Pornography
--Journolist-type collusion
There is no abstract support for free speech as a principle, should we one day gain power we aren't going to recognize the rights of subversives anymore than the system does today. Subversion should equal Exile.
216Replies: @Audacious Epigone
The JQ hawks can square this circle by saying Jews tend to support free speech because Jews don’t want restrictions on anything. They know they’ll be able to outmaneuver everyone else. Whites because they’re not as smart or verbally adroit and tend to act in good faith making them easy to exploit, and non-whites because they’re way too dumb and disorganized to hold a candle to the 2%. The idea of free speech is a means to an end.
I don’t fully believe that, but I think it’s arguable.
These kinds of comments never take into account global “1st” (and perhaps 2nd) world trends that affect different nations and ethnic groups in a similar way. America, Russia, and Japan have seen vast declines in street crime and domestic violence over the last 15 years, w/declines in America being observed as early as the mid-1990’s (according to David Finkelhor, child abuse peaked in 1992 and began gradually diminishing thereafter). Aging of the population is part of this, but doesn’t explain everything, since after all, teenagers these days are much less violent than teenagers were in the 70’s-90’s. Finkelhor believes that the 1960’s “revolution” ultimately unshackled a lot of deviant behavior that didn’t really start to diminish until early Millennials were in junior high (and Millennials have been responsible for the greatest decline in youth crime in American history, according to Neil Howe). It is interesting to note, however, that X-ers and Millennials who made great strides at reducing hedonistic crime, child abuse, animal cruelty, and the like, are now demonstrating a greater tolerance for team-oriented violence. This is similar to Lost and GI Generation behavior in the 1930’s and 40’s, decades in which hedonism plummeted but collective violence surged.
Jews have diddly squat to do with anything, from a big picture standpoint. Jews do tend to have an elevated cultural profile in all regions, which does have the regrettable side effect of making them easy scape goats (in reality, objective studies reveal that Jews tend to be more conscientious than adjacent ethnic groups).
My advice? Focus on the lamewads in your own ethnic group. There’s more than enough to go around, and we have many good reasons to avoid succumbing to the cheap tactic of blaming ethnic minorities to dodge the shortcomings of your own side.