The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
The Essential Burke
From the French Revolution to BLM
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Edmund Burke by James Northcote. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993 [1791])

ORDER IT NOW

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Fróði Midjord and Andrew Joyce on Edmund Burke’s classic counter-revolutionary text, Reflections on the Revolution in France. I invite you all to have a listen as Burke’s work, in particular his psychological analysis of the Left, has stood the test of time and remains uncannily insightful in the age of BLM, trans activism, antifa, and all their radical chic apologists.

Burke attacked, with great eloquence, insight, and ferocity, the basic ideas which had emerged in the eighteenth century and still govern our world today: the so-called Rights of Man. For Burke, basing political order on such abstract, ambiguous, and ever-fluctuating ideological fashions could only lead to perpetual chaos culminating yet-more-vicious governments. Instead, he prefers time-tested institutions and customs in tune with human nature.

In terms of practical politics, Burke is in fact quite moderate. One should only cautiously change one’s inherited customs and institutions, always preserving what is valuable. In general, a mixed democratic, aristocratic, and monarchic regime is preferable, but what is actually best will differ according to circumstance (even a democracy might be preferable in some instances). France’s Ancien Régime, he concedes, certainly could be improved upon and capacity for reform is always necessary: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation” (21). Revolution is an option in the face of a tyrannical government, but it must be the last option, a gamble to be resorted to in exceptionally grave circumstances.

Burkean Community: An Intergenerational Compact

Burke opposes the individualist and egalitarian tendencies of the Enlightenment. His “social contract” is an organic and indeed intergenerational community:

Society is indeed a contract . . . It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primaeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures . . . (96-7)

How sublime is such a vision is as against a politics of maximizing personal choice and fictitious equality!

Society being an intergenerational compact, the current generation must treasure the customs and institutions inherited from the past, which have been patiently built up over the centuries. But let me quote Burke himself:

Through the same plan of a conformity to nature in our artificial institutions, and by calling in the aid of her unerring and powerful instincts, to fortify the fallible and feeble contrivances of our reason, we have derived several other, and those no small benefits, from considering our liberties in the light of an inheritance. (34)

Politicians ought to look to “the practice of their ancestors, the fundamental laws of their country, the fixed form of a constitution, whose merits are confirmed by the solid test of long experience, and an increasing public strength and national prosperity” (58). However, the revolutionaries “despise experience as the wisdom of unlettered men” (58).

Burke’s appeal to intergenerational and inherited wisdom also extends to the personal level in the form a striking defense of prejudice. Prejudice is a concentrate of practical and hard-won wisdom handed down from past generations:

You see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess, that we are generally men of untaught feelings; that instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted, and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on their own private stock of reason . . . better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations, and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them.. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue, and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision, sceptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man’s virtue his habit; and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just such prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature. (87)

Human Nature as the Foundation of Politics

Burke is emphatic in arguing that political institutions must hew closely to the realities of human nature. He says: “I have endeavoured through my whole life to make myself acquainted with human nature: otherwise I should be unfit to take even my humble part in the service of mankind” (137). He provocatively dismisses the Enlightenment philosophes saying he is “[i]nfluenced by the inborn feelings of my nature . . . not being illuminated by a single ray of this new-sprung modern light” (74).

For Burke, political institutions must not be based on an exaggerated notion of humanity’s capacity for reason, but be carefully adapted to our sentiments: building upon religious piety and ‘irrational’ emotional investment in traditions and institutions, and being careful to not unleash the envy, frustration, and bitterness that lies in every human heart.

Charlotte Corday (having killed the revolutionary writer Jean-Paul Marat)
Charlotte Corday (having killed the revolutionary writer Jean-Paul Marat)

Burke is sensitive to the impact of both in-born human nature and upbringing and living conditions in defining men’s character. The ancient lawgivers, he says, “were sensible that the operation of this second nature [upbringing and living conditions] on the first [in-born nature] produced a new combination; and thence arose many diversities among men” (185).

By contrast, the French revolutionaries refused to recognize the diversity of really existing men, but spoke only of “man” in the abstract. Burke lambasts them for being at war with human nature and destroying inherited institutions which bound society together in the name of impossible equality:

[Y]ou think you are combating prejudice, but you are at war with nature. (49)

This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgot his nature. (64)

[Y]ou ought to make a revolution in nature, and provide a new constitution for the human mind. (202)

Man may not always like his nature, but he only loses by despising and being ignorant of it:

Those who quit their proper character, to assume what does not belong to them, are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they leave, and of the character they assume. (11)

You might change the names. The things in some shape must remain. (142)

Nicolas de Condorcet, a scientist, staunch believer in progress, supporter of the Revolution, and ultimately one of its victims.
Nicolas de Condorcet, a scientist, staunch believer in progress, supporter of the Revolution, and ultimately one of its victims.

The Psychology of Egalitarian Revolutionaries

Burke is particularly strong on the psychological mechanisms underlying revolutionary movements. On the moralizing abstract intellectual lacking ‘skin in the game’:

Hypocrisy, of course, delights in the most sublime speculations; for, never intending to go beyond speculation, it costs nothing to have it magnificent. (63)

In fact, insofar revolutionaries have a vested interest, it is in stoking moral outrage:

[V]ices are feigned or exaggerated, when profit is looked for in their punishment. (140)

Burke sees the revolutionaries as destructively critical:

By hating vices too much, they come to love men too little. (171)

A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to their posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. (33)

Paradoxically, a democracy can be more oppressive for dissenters than an autocracy:

Under a cruel prince [dissidents] have the balmy compassion of mankind to assuage the smart of their wounds; they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes, are deprived of all external consolation. They seem deserted by mankind; overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species (126)

Democratic Intolerance and Revolutionary Chaos

Burke is emphatic in recognizing the intolerant nature of “the rights of man.” He rightly identifies the rights of man as a kind of declaration of war against all other epochs and societies. All eras and places are judged according to the standards of a gathering of Parisian intellectuals circa 1789, and are ever found sorely lacking. The revolutionaries can have no doubts about the righteousness of imposing their views:

They have “the rights of men.” Against these there can be prescription; against these no agreement is binding; these admit no temperament, and no compromise; any thing withheld from their full demand is so much of fraud and injustice. (58)

The upshot of this is that the rights of man are a recipe for perpetual strife and discontent. For those who believe a monarch is legitimate only if elected then “no throne is lawful but the elective, no one act of princes who preceded their aera of fictitious election can be valid” (23). All inherited institutions and customs that violate contemporary moral fashions then become illegitimate and can no longer serve to stabilize and unify society.

But can the revolutionaries not build up something new? Here too, Burke thinks not, because the very revolutionary principles of equality stoke and irritate the desires of men:

[H]appiness . . . is to be found by virtue in all conditions; in which consists the true moral equality of mankind, and not in that monstrous fiction, which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and embitter the real inequality, which it never can remove . . . (37)

The French armies naturally became insubordinate and fractious, as soldiers demanded to elect their officers and felt no loyalty either to the discredited monarch nor to the Assembly upstarts.

The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: tablets of a new civil religion.
The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: tablets of a new civil religion.

Liberal-Egalitarian Ambiguity and Hypocrisy

The moral intolerance of egalitarian principles then leads to a chaotic radicalization and the revolutionaries one-up each other. To avoid chaos and excess, or simple violation of their interests, the revolutionaries themselves must institute limits on liberty and equality. The hereditary tax privileges attached to the nobility as individuals were abolished, but peasants still had to pay taxes for privileges attached to land, because many bourgeois were such landowners.

The right to vote was conditioned upon a wealth qualification: only men paying taxes worth three days’ labor were eligible, meaning only about 60% of French men could vote. Thus the very poor were excluded from suffrage, not to mention women and inhabitants of the French colonies. Burke snorts with sarcasm:

What! a qualification on the indefeasible right of men? (175)

You lay down metaphysic propositions which infer universal consequences, and then you attempt to limit logic by despotism. (223)

Advocates of the rights of man are universally intolerant of other regimes in the name of these rights, while seeing fit to curtail these rights themselves as the situation requires.

This highlights the basic moral defensiveness of the Right and the universal fervor of the Left. We saw this even in the age of fascism. When a New York Times interviewer criticized Mussolini’s authoritarian regime, the Italian dictator wryly responded: “Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day.” Hitler was similarly emphatic, against those Western democrats that feared his ideology, that National Socialism was not for export. Meanwhile, the communists patiently worked according to the principle that all humanity must embrace their system and the liberals drafted documents imposing their own principles on all the nations and races of the Earth.

The liberals’ violation in practice of the rights they expound in the abstract is grounded in the very ambiguity of these rights. We cannot accuse the French revolutionaries of too much dishonesty in this respect. In fact, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is often shockingly ambiguous. The American Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal,” an observation that, unqualified, is a self-evident falsehood. The French Declaration’s notorious Article I affirms by contrast:

Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

One may complain that the latter sentence annihilates the former, but at least it provides a standard for how far rights should extend. In theory, then, even practices of segregation or various hierarchies could be justified if these are considered conducive to “the common good.” The revolutionaries initially did not consider that voting, for instance, was a right, but rather a duty which should only be fulfilled by those best qualified.

Similarly in Article IV’s general provision on liberty:

Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.

What “does not harm others”? Does a 70 IQ hereditary idiot fathering 20 children “harm others”? In practice, the reality of universal interdependence annihilates the principle of individual liberty. Today, our liberal democracies regulate every aspect of life, from forcing children to spend years in State education to the hyper-regulation of economic life on redistributive, environmental, and consumer grounds, among many others. Not to mention the massive curtailment of civil liberties and micro-management of citizens’ behavior to fight coronavirus. But, for some reason, our rulers believe that demographic trends, which determine the very character of the nation, should remain wholly unregulated and random.

And Article XI on free speech:

The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

The principles may or may not be sound, but they are surely ambiguous and abstract. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights by contrast build upon an Anglo-American political and legal tradition, these posit practices (and limits upon them), not merely general principles.

One should not necessarily read too much into the 1789 Declaration. The fundamental points were fairly straightforward: hereditary privileges are abolished, the church must be relegated to a secondary role, sovereignty resides in the nation/people (whatever that means), and the law must rule rather than the king. It’s striking the degree to which later nationalism and indeed fascism took on many of these French revolutionary principles (the Italians quite openly, Mussolini after all started out as a militant socialist atheist).

The revolutionaries of 1789, essentially lawyers and liberals, dreamed of a meritocratic and moderate regime founded on reason: hereditary privileges were abolished, the king was subject to the nation’s representatives and (in theory) the rule of law, and the churchlands were nationalized to shore up government finances. This revolution was achieved partly through the boldness of the men representing the Third Estate but also by periodic and chaotic uprisings of the Paris mob against the state’s forces and even the king himself.

Burke could already see that the precedents and principles the revolutionaries had set could only lead to a chaotic situation spiraling out of control. The unifying institutions of monarchy and church had been dragged through the mud, aristocrats and pious peasants had been turned into enemies, while the hungry Parisian mob, those peasants still smarting from taxation, and the fanatical and paranoid revolutionary elements had not been turned into friends. Thus, said Burke, France could only degenerate into civil war, military dictatorship and an ignoble financial oligarchy: “Here end all the deceitful dreams and visions of the equality and rights of men”! (196)

Burke lamented the end of the European aristocracy:

But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. (76)

In retrospect, the conflicts of the late eighteenth century can seem rather quaint. From our vantage point, we can see that Britain, America, and France were fundamentally on near-parallel and converging trajectories.

The old constraints and disciplines – the specialization of the sexes, the separation of nations, the very idea of legitimate authority – have steadily disintegrated. Appeal to tradition and religion could no longer sustain them. For a time, from the 1860s to the 1930s or so, it seemed as though Western nations might embrace a biopolitics which, combining old philosophical and new scientific principles, would recognize natural differences and inequalities, thus preserving healthy traditions and indeed healthy progress, tending to biological and cultural perfection.

That tendency stalled and was finally annihilated. Custom, that “tyrant unto man,” has been destroyed in the name of name of the basic principle that humans, “the measure of all things,” are all basically equal and interchangeable atoms. Therefore, our ineradicable social inequalities and specializations can only be the result of our societies’ and cultures’ perversion. We must therefore wage war against our history and our societies – and above all against White men, the great malefactors of humankind.

I cannot help but think that this trend is more driven by a kind of petty self-love, vain and injured amour-propre, than by true self-knowledge, whereby each of us would, with due humility, take up with right pride our particular station in the great chain of being.

There is no telling when and how the current strife will end. On a positive note, Western man’s sensitivity to ‘justice’ as an ideal may lead to perpetual strife, but is also clearly a great source of the experimentation and dynamism which characterizes our history. In Europe, the state is smoothly leading the totalitarian march towards the mirage of equality. In America, there is chaos and neither history, nor culture, nor race, nor anything else seems to keep that great landmass-cum-economic zone together. What will be the new equilibrium and when will it arise? Will the liberals, holding true to their ideals over inconvenient facts, completely wreck their own cities? Will the regime stabilize under a Biden presidency tending towards European-style social-democracy? When will meet our Bonaparte?

 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Kouroi says:

    The strife for justice is rather inherent to all humans, not only something that the Western Man struggles with. In fact, fairness is something more intelligent mammals seem to be angling for as well, and there are many behavioral studies in animals to prove this fact.

    I do like how in all this discussion there is absolutely no mention of the issue of property…private property… I guess it comes without saying that it is sacrosanct and that it supersedes the rights of property held in commons…

  2. Cyrano says:

    Just about everything about the west today is phony. The so called struggle for equality is the pinnacle of phoniness. In socialism, there was only one inequality that was worth addressing.

    I guess you can call the communists unimaginative. Because look what’s happening in the west today: They are attacking any possible inequality that they can find: racial, ethnic, religious, sexist – anything possible, and using this as an excuse of being too busy to tackle the big one – the only one that really matters.

    You see, capitalist scientists discovered that every prole is born with a socialist gene. There are only two ways you go about addressing this genetic anomaly. You can try to satisfy the needs of this genetic crave for socialism by appeasing parts of it, or you can try to trick it.

    The west chose the second option. They decided to fool the socialist gene by introducing fake socialism. And why not? Look how well that concept worked for Nazi Germany. Just call yourself “Socialist” and you can rest assured that you fooled the “socialist” gene in the proles.

    First of all, proles in the west are too stupid to be even aware that they have that gene, but just in case, fooling it won’t do any harm, in case it starts to develop.

    The problem with the west is not that is too liberal, but that is trying too hard to pretend that it is. The main concern of the western “democracies” are not the rights of men, or equality or any of that highflying BS.

    The main preoccupation of the west is to preserve capitalism in the most possible conservative form. That’s why they are going out of their way to make the society appear liberal, while keeping capitalism conservative.

    Good luck with that formula. Because it is succeeding in keeping the operating system -capitalism conservative, but all other software applications are incompatible with this outdated operating system and are not working properly.

    Capitalism needs to be liberalized, not society. The phony search of equality in the west was “accomplished” by making the 3rd world deplorables equal with the domestic deplorables. How has that benefited the domestic deplorables? How has that benefited the society? The only beneficiary was the capitalism. By importing masses from the 3rd world, they succeeded in keeping capitalism conservative, while pretending that the society as a whole has become “liberal”.

    The goal was never to achieve any kind of meaningful “equality”. The goal was to fool the world that the western elites are working on achieving equality, while at the same time trying to preserve their inequality with everybody else.

    Just because the magic formula is working, it doesn’t mean that it’s not close to catastrophic failure. This obsession with preserving capitalism in as much pristine form as possible, while everything else is falling apart is what’s going to destroy the west in the end.

  3. Rob McX says:

    Fine essay on Burke.

    Two typos:

    For Burke, political institutions must be based on an exaggeration notion of humanity’s capacity for reason, but be carefully adapted to our sentiments:

    “…must not be based on an exaggerated notion…”?

    But, for some reason, our rulers that demographic trends, which determine the very character of the nation, should remain wholly unregulated and random.

    Word missing.

  4. Lot says:

    The problem with both Burke and this article is that, full of criticism of the revolutionaries, there’s not a negative word about the awful ancient regime. Louis might have been a good constitutional monarch of a great nation. But like Charles and James, he made another choice.

  5. @Kouroi

    I guess it comes without saying that it is sacrosanct and that it supersedes the rights of property held in commons…

    That seems a dangerous philosphy… it is the common property that makes it possible to protect the private property.

    • Replies: @Kouroi
    , @Kratoklastes
  6. Exile says:

    Burke’s own philosophy is admirable and compatible with a sane, orderly society dedicated to happier lives and stronger citizens.

    Unfortunately, his skin is being worn by some very disreputable characters in the neolib-neocon establishments, including the Zionist AEI, Cato and numerous other think tanks and talk-shops.

    It’s useful to compare what Burke actually wrote and fought for to the policies and culture espoused by those calling themselves “Burkeans” today.

    For instance, Burke would be standing with us in sending the entire staff of National Review on aliyah for the country they truly love and represent.

    • Agree: chris, Druid, annamaria
  7. Kouroi says:
    @paranoid goy

    I guess the indication for sarcasm was missing in my comment…

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  8. anon[208] • Disclaimer says:

    In which Durocher puts on his periwig and waistcoast and sups his Gallo claret and says, “Look at me, what a splendid old-time gentleman am I!” In his fantasy political philosopher pose, he goes back in time to bitch about some historical manuscript of faint antiquarian interest. Like Burke, Leo Durocher doesn’t know his rights, but he knows he doesn’t want em. He yammers on and on about a word without citing anything that says what it means. In the actual world of life, where Durocher doesn’t like to be, France is sovereign only to the extent that it comes into compliance with its human rights obligations and commitments in black-letter law. What are those? Our old-time British gentlemen never heard of them! “Let me consult what I’ve pulled out my ass,” says let’s-pretend Burke, “Oh dear, that won’t do.”

    This is typical useless frog wanking, critical theory for the kind of other-directed who get their slogans from National Review.

    • Troll: Exile
    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @annamaria
  9. Malla says:
    @Cyrano

    Do not be an idiot, Capitalism and Communism are allies behind the scenes.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  10. Malla says:
    @Kouroi

    The strife for justice is rather inherent to all humans, not only something that the Western Man struggles with.

    The Western man struggles with this the most. Most other populations are just tribal and we care about is our tribe. Even in the Islamic world, people are still tribal. Universal Justice is a flimsy concept, not supported by nature and will always fail. Nature cares only about one thing, tribe vs tribe.

    • Replies: @Miville
  11. Malla says:

    The French “Revolution” was as fake as the Russian “Revolution”. It was a just a continuation of the English Cromwell “Revolution”.

    This book explains it all

    The Nameless War by Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay

    PDF here
    https://archive.org/download/TheNamelessWar_105/TheNamelessWar.pdf

    The Nameless War by Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay is a short book on revolutions in Europe caused by Jews and Jewish international bankers. A side of history not seen in history books. Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay was a British Army officer who later went into politics as a Scottish Unionist Member of Parliament (MP). Because of attempting to tell people the truth and stop World War 2 from happening, Ramsay (who was a member of the British Parliament) was arrested and imprisoned unjustly by an extension of Regulation 18B.

    Also check this out

    The Politically Incorrect Truth About the French Revolution, Part I

    Check out the other parts (II & III) as well.

    • Thanks: Druid
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    , @paranoid goy
  12. When I read Burke’s words, ‘An event has happened upon which it is difficult to speak and impossible to remain silent,’ I thought — finally someone understands the Truther’s conundrum. A real political philosopher light years ahead. I wonder if Burke understood those at the pinnacle of financial capital are the ones radicalizing the masses and agitating against society’s structure.

    • Agree: Cking
  13. GMC says:

    ” The Laws should Rule – not the King ” I like that – someone pass that on to Washington. The ” King” should have never, had the power for ” Presidential Orders or Pardons”.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  14. Dumbo says:

    By contrast, the French revolutionaries refused to recognize the diversity of really existing men, but spoke only of “man” in the abstract.

    I think this is the main point. I remember when I was still very young reading texts of communist revolutionaries from the 70s, where they kept talking about “The New Man”, the “New Man” who will be more generous, more equalitarian, etc. And even then I remember thought, from where will this New Man come? From the stars? Will it be created in a lab? For sure I can’t see it among the people around me.

    Even now, the obsession of progressives is to remake man and human nature. Sometimes literally, as in the case of transgenderism and transhumanism. It really all goes back to the myth of the Garden of Eden, or of Prometheus. Not accepting human limitations and wanting to be Gods. Or more exactly Devils.

    • Replies: @AWM
  15. Dumbo says:
    @anon

    It seems you didn’t understand what you read… Durocher was pretty clear but your comment barely makes sense… In fact I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say…

    France is a mess right now. No country is more screwed up by modernity, and in large part for having destroyed their own tradition. They aren’t even allowed to count how many Africans and Muslims they have in their midst, because, it goes against their secular constitution of égalité, or something. What fools.

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  16. @Cyrano

    “ The main preoccupation of the west is to preserve capitalism in the most possible conservative form. That’s why they are going out of their way to make the society appear liberal, while keeping capitalism conservative.”

    Very true and it sums up the tragedy of the West. While unrestrained immigration would decimate the bargaining power of the deplorable, the privatisation of profits and the socialising of losses keeps the capitalist’s wealth intact no matter the consequences of bad business decisions the business elites in general or the banking elites in particular incur.

    • Agree: Cyrano
  17. @Kouroi

    The other civilizations of the Earth – particularly the Islamic, Hindu, and Sinic – seem to accept the injustices of hierarchy more easily than Westerners, leading to centuries of relative stability (or, for a critic, stagnation).

    In the West, whether in the ancient Greek city-states, the Roman empire, or the whole modern era, there seems to me to be a great deal more questioning of authority and transformations of culture and institutions. The lower classes and Plebs are constantly agitating against the elite, demanding more right, the idealists (Socrates, Luther) condemning a culture or an elite’s failure to adhere to that culture’s ideals. Indeed, the whole notion of citizenship – as against subjecthood – seems uniquely Western (or “Indo-European”).

  18. @Lot

    How was the Ancien Régime “awful”? Burke does, in fact, say that it was imperfect and had to be improved upon.

    He says however:
    1) Reform should be gradual and respect existing institutions such as the king, church, aristocracy, and parlements.
    2) The old French monarchy in fact was already something of a mixed régime of checks and balances, witness the king’s inability to get his reforms through the parlements.

    There was some social mobility between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, however obviously not as much as the bourgeois would like. It would be interesting to compare such “passing” between European nations, which might explain why England was able to liberalize gradually but France did so brutally.

    • Agree: Pop Warner
    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
  19. The problem is that historically, socialist systems – systems built on the principle of non-competitiveness – want a slice of the whole pie of the economic and political order, and capitalist systems – built on the principle of fair competition – want a slice of the whole pie of the economic and political order.

    But socialism doesn’t work optimally for wants, and capitalism doesn’t work optimally for needs.

    Humans are equal in that their stomach demand 2200 calories per day on average, that they need a place to sleep, that they wish to be clothed, healthy, safe, educated.

    Neither capitalism nor socialism deal with the spiritual side of things – they both include aspects of morality, and for both positive and negative aspects could be highlighted, but they are primarily economic models to solve materialistic concerns.

    I would argue that a purely capitalist model is far more Epicurean, far more self-centred, than a socialist model, where individuals (historically forcefully) consider others in their society. The force is the issue, and socialism has loved its bureaucracy, whether of the Nationalist Socialist, or the Communist kind!

    Human nature is important, but as much as Communism fails to account for human individuality – attempting to suppress it by the swords, capitalist models fail to account for other human aspects, often social.

    Take the ultimatum or dictator games in experimental economics though: for the ultimatum game, no offers would be rejected if individuals were purely individual, and for the dictator game, no offer greater than 0 would ever be offered. But this isn’t the case.

    We live in societies somewhere in-between the two games – non-elite society certainly has the inalienable right to revolt, which makes it an ultimatum game at some level, but beyond that our power is almost non existent – electing people to make laws, means the status of those laws is not in our direct control.

    The question is, at what % cost per GDP of needs, does the dictatorship get rejected with an ultimatum?

    In our systems of unfair (where sabotage is acceptable) capitalism – where our capitalist leaders can strip nations of their resources through aggression, strip domestic companies of their productivity, through share buybacks and dividend payments, at what cost does the individual with limited food, housing, healthcare, education, say that what they have is not enough?

    I guarantee once there is a general purpose robot, and those human needs cost 1% of GDP, this current model won’t stand – because society will be faced with a different lay of the land than it did in 1789, when just feeding the population would have taken a good chunk of the national income.

    And really, we are at an edge of a technological precipice already in this respect. The human needs mentioned above cost 30% of GDP. Our governments spend 30-40% of GDP, but their provisions are not universal.

    Where is the problem? For example: the UK spends £12000/student with its ~6% of GDP and 10m students. How come then, King’s Wimbledon (from £5k a year in prep to £18k in sixth form) is so plush with facilities and teachers, whilst the state school next to it has two five aside pitches in cages? Because the system is not competitive, a state monopoly. Give the parents of each child £12,000 a year to spend on education, as they see fit, and schools will improve immeasurably.

    The universality of socialism is not based on means tested welfare, or progressive taxation, that is upside down capitalism (competition to the bottom). It is based on flat income, profit, capital-gains, inheritance taxes, with targeted universal redistribution for goods and services, which are then paid for at the individual level, preferably in a market regulated towards perfect competition.

    Government will always have to set weights and measures, because sabotage is a strategy too profitable to resist for many. For this, government must be balances by the citizenry – directly. Here only Switzerland is even close. Semi-direct democracy, where representatives can make decisions, and the citizenry can repeal those decisions, would offer such balance, and hence improved regulation.

    We however, live in the same old tyrannical systems, just with a different, prettier, facade. Representative democracy is tyranny perfected, because it takes the energy and insight out of the citizen, and makes them fail to realise that the elite is still fully in charge of all social, economic, and political decisions, whether you vote for that one or this one.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  20. @Lot

    Alexis de Tocqueville thought the opposite. Precisely because Louis XVI was a liberal and lenient monarch, conditions for the Revolution were ripe. Every concession only encouraged the revolutionaries. The Revolution would not have occurred under Louis XIV, for example.

    • Agree: Mitleser
  21. @GMC

    And who makes the ‘laws’, but the little kings. The entire system is nothing but minor kings telling everyone else what to do.

    Why not let every individual be his own king, his own congress, his own supreme court; all sovereigns?

    The golden rule or the non aggression principle are the only rules that all can agree on naturally. The rest is tyrannical by definition.

    • Replies: @GMC
    , @Drapetomaniac
  22. sally says:
    @Kouroi

    Private ownership in property does not exist except at a state run court house.

    [MORE]

    Individual Property rights are the cause today of the global wars and internal strife..
    Individual Property rights represent oppressive abusive monopoly power.
    Individual property rights keep all men from being born equal.
    Individual property rights weaken public power because all monopoly power belongs to the public.
    Individual property rights entitle the individual to acts as if he were the state
    Individual property rights bind the state to defend the right of the individual against the rights of mankind.
    Without individual property rights there would be no stock market and the stock markets have proven
    by the history of their progress to be the most unfair device yet devised to deny humanity its rights.

    No power has yet proven to be more divisive to equality of mankind than the transformation of public ownership of property into a private private property rights which the government will enforce (deed) against the entire public.

    Worse, where physical property for the Oligarch to own did not exist, the Oligarch controlled top down state acts to convert hot-thin-air (imaginary property=copyright and patent, etc.) into physical property, ostensibly to enable the state to defend the monopoly power (private right of estate owners) to its feudal recipient against the public (private property rights turns the state against the public, and requires the state to standard behind and to empower the private property owner against the public.

    Remove the feudal state from the equation, to understand there can be no private rights in either physical property or intangible property without the state. Our maker never created private right in property real or imaginary. So law of feudal systems that govern violate the rights of all mankind. The rights of man are public rights and access to unclaimed use of property is universal right of mankind. States have the authority to deny universal rights only when, and for the time in length, the entire public continuously consents, by its actions, not by the action of the state, to such denials in a democratically determined consideration, in which every individual is informed, allowed to, encouraged to, and enabled to participate with warranty of equality.

    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
  23. Vojkan says:
    @Malla

    Thank you for the link. My awakening to the reality of the lasting war on European Christian civilisation happened during the war in Bosnia in the 1990s.
    When you open your mind and connect the dots, the three revolutions indeed begin to look as parts of one single strategy.

    • Replies: @Malla
  24. Vojkan says:
    @Grand Inquisitor

    The same could be said of Nicolas II before the Bolshevik revolution. Both he and Louis XVI were weak monarchs who sought to appease instead of crush the dissent.

  25. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:

    I cannot help but think that this trend is more driven by a kind of petty self-love, vain and injured amour-propre . . .

    Agreed, and Nietzsche and Conrad would agree that the motive behind leftist politics marshaling under the banner of equality is vengeance, not to mention permanently enchaining one’s betters. In the latter case BLM and Antifa’s betters must be stomped into puddles of blood in the streets and their society utterly destroyed on the grounds that anyone whose happiness and civility holds a mirror to BLM savagery or the average Antifa’s gamer-soy boy inadequacies must be part of an evil conspiracy. The Left argue that the “root cause” of inner-city black savagery in the form of rioting, looting, arson, and stomping whites into puddles of blood in the streets is these blacks coming from slums, when in truth they live in slums and will turn the suburbia they’re relocated to en masse under a homicidally anti-white President Harris into slums because they refuse to control such behavior.

  26. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    [Y]ou ought to make a revolution in nature, and provide a new constitution for the human mind. (202)

    They took that advice and are close to accomplishing this goal.

    fictitious equality … fictitious election

    There is only one “fictitious” “right” that needs to be retired to the trash bin of history. It is also the root cause (in the final analysis) of most societal imbalances. Abolish this errant ancient thought and most other matter can be addressed in the light of society undisfigured and undistorted by the usurious “inheritors”:

    The fictitious right of charging interest on loans.

  27. Malla says:
    @Vojkan

    Welcome bud. Even the Mexican “revolution”, you know the Christianos, Pacho Villa and all that. Lot of secret societies involved.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  28. “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”

    Tommaso di Lampedusa said it better through Tancredi in The Leopard:

    “If we want things to stay as they are,” he tells his uncle, “things will have to change.”

    • Thanks: annamaria
  29. @Guillaume Durocher

    How was the Ancien Régime “awful”?

    Considering it ended with the French Revolution, I should say it was pretty awful, or not awful at all, depending on how one regards that event.

    • Replies: @John Gruskos
  30. @Anonymous

    Nietzsche and Conrad would agree that the motive behind leftist politics marshaling under the banner of equality is vengeance

    I would argue envy over vengeance. Deep down they know they are inferior for the most part. They have no answer for this other than destruction. The professional thief is less envious than the arsonist.

  31. all & every human endeavour in History that tried to supersede equality to fairness failed.

  32. Trinity says:

    The impact of race on history and and contemporary social conditions can be well illustrated comparing two nations: Haiti, and Iceland. Iceland sits inside the Arctic Circle. It has perhaps the most inhospitable geography of any populated nation on Earth. It stands isolated and endures winter conditions that last almost three-quarters of the year. No forests grow there, and thus it has no wood or paper products. There is no oil, no natural gas, and no coal. Much of the land is volcanic desert and glaciers so foreboding that U. S. space program did training there for lunar landings. Farming is almost impossible because of the rock-filled soil, snow-covered mountains and short growing season. Few tourist visit the little island in north Atlantic. It’s a land of clouds, little sunshine and long winter nights. Iceland’s only resource is the fish they harvest on the great cod banks in competition with many other nations. They also have natural volcanic geysers that they ingeniously use to heat their homes and businesses.

    Compare this island to the island of Hispaniola, and the nation of Haiti, the second oldest republic in the Western Hemisphere. It is a huge island rich beyond the dream of a poet’s fancy. Warm and beautiful , with beaches, mountains and clear waters, the topography is a tourist’s fantasy. It is one of the gateway islands to the Caribbean, the United States, Mexico, and South America–a natural place for thriving international trade. Thick forests and rich mineral resources have blessed the island. The seafood in the waters around the nation is plentiful and valuable. Mild weather gives the island long and productive growing seasons and lush soil.

    In the 18th century Haiti was the largest sugar producer in the world. Universities and other centers of higher learning kept the island abreast of the world’s progress and advances, and it became one of the richest of Rance’s overseas possessions–richer than any of the 13 original American colonies. Haiti came to be called the Jewel of the Caribbean.

    excerpt from “My Awakening” by Dr. David Duke

    I guess we know the rest of the story and what happened to Haiti after the (((French Revolution.)))

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Notsofast
  33. @Grand Inquisitor

    Tsar Alexander II was a great reformer who abolished serfdom in Russia and carried our many other reforms that benefited the masses. For his trouble he was assassinated by revolutionaries. His tolerance and mind for reform only exposed his neck to the “revolutionaries”; they didn’t care that he took steps but only saw the reforms as weakness to exploit. His son Alexander III never forgot the lesson and didn’t bother appeasing fanatics and psychos, turning hard reactionary instead.

  34. Nodwink says:

    Did Burke believe in the restoration of paganism, which is the “traditional” ideology of western Europeans? This is why “traditionalist” is an identifier that has no real meaning, as conservatives frame it, especially in regard to religion, but also political systems.

  35. AaronB says:

    This is all very nice, but we all know that our current disturbances are entirely the result of Jews and have nothing to do with European intellectual trends that began in the 18th century.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Art
  36. GeeBee says:
    @Malla

    ‘Cyrano’ is a fan of the atrocious fraud Christopher Bjerknes and his theories (author of Adolf Hitler: Bolshevik and Zionist and other garbage purporting to claim that ‘Hitler was a false flag’).

    As such he is either: 1) insane, 2) totally bereft of any vestige of critical faculty, or 3) an out and out hasbara/JIDF troll. I’m going for number three. Remember dear friend: Never Feed the Trolls!

    • Thanks: Malla
  37. @Dumbo

    In fact not counting Muslims or other races is a good idea. It precludes US style identity politics. And in fact integration in France is pretty good.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  38. HdC says:
    @Cyrano

    Socialism, specifically Nationalist Socialism as espoused by the NSDAP in Germany, worked very well indeed. Would it have been a long-term answer to today’s difficulty? No one knows for sure; however, both the capitalists and the communists thought that the ideas espoused, and successfully implemented in Germany, were a threat of sufficient magnitude to their own world view such that a major war was thought worthwhile: The German government of the day did improve the life of the working people significantly such the the communist and capitalist world view was made redundant.
    Today we still have the Volkswagen and the Autobahn to remind us of the successes of that regime.
    Couldn’t have that, could we? The idea of a better life for the working man just had to be destroyed.
    Just look at the effort it took for 5 years to defeat that idea in a small European country with very few natural resources of its own. What a country! What a People! HdC

    • Agree: GeeBee, Thomasina
  39. GMC says:
    @RoatanBill

    Absolutely, the treason in the US is incomparable to anything else in the world. It is so corrupt, that the country is now the center stage of the New One World Order and can print as many trillions , as it needs, in order to fulfill it’s destiny. Those new huge compounds in Iraq and Armenia, are just the NWO fronts in the mid/asia east. As one commenter here wrote – the NWO foreign policy , isn’t diminishing because the domestic USA folds because the monies for the NWO are a given – as in Federal Reserve, Worldwide Drug and Arms running, Trillionaire banks and corporations behind the NWO and many many other sources. The USA was the Parasitic Host and Huckleberry. Thanks

  40. annamaria says:
    @anon

    You have missed this gem: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”
    In modern parlance, a state without the means for maintaining societal homeostasis (the optimal state of functioning that supports the survival of societal organism) is doomed.
    When the deciders of western democracies have listened to the populace? Before the destruction of Libya and Iraq or after the migrants’ waves to Europe? Where is the industrial flourish of the US? A healthy nationalist society would have never permitted the grand looting that the US has been subjected by the totally unaccountable corporate-financial oligarchy. Very democratic.
    As for the triumph of the revolutionary mindset, look no further than the glorious Socialist Bolshevik revolution. As Comrade Stalin wrote his mom (answering her question about his position in a government), he was “like a tzar.” The end. Plus the destruction of cultural heritage and extermination of the best and brightest among the aristocracy, clergy, the scientific community, and prosperous peasanty.
    Why do Boeing planes have problems with flying? Why the US government is dominated by demented opportunists?
    A decent society does provide equal opportunities for children yet there is no equality of minds and talents. The feeble-minded, predatory, free-loading, and the rapacious must be controlled by laws and prejudices.

  41. anon[302] • Disclaimer says:

    Dumbo 15, What are these rights you’re bitching about? Do you even know? Do you know where they’re written down?

    You don’t, Do you?

    That’s why #8 went over your head. I could explain it to you, but it would take a while, and you don’t give a shit about your rights, so why? Continue to be a helot if you wish.

    And France has a functioning civil society. That’s the other thing that is upsetting you. No doubt it’s scary to see one when your US society is politically castrated by futile bullshit elections and divide et impera propaganda. The Yellow Vests take no shit, unlike useless US BLM and tea partiers who mill around for an hour and go home and get fucked over worse and worse.

  42. Anon[110] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    It’s not ‘ancient regime’, it’s traditional regime. The French word does not translate as ‘ancient’.

    • Replies: @Guillaume Durocher
  43. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    And here is another motive, from unz.com:
    https://www.unz.com/article/its-official-again-leftists-particularly-leftist-women-are-nuts/

    It presents some fairly convincing statistics. I’ve gone out of my way to talk to Leftist whenever I could. Looking back on it, “nuts” is the best way to describe them. The were simulating sanity in the same way a life insurance salesman simulates interest in your life.

    The time for cutting people slack and looking for a common ground is over.

  44. Dumbo says:
    @Eugene Norman

    You’ve got to be kidding me…

    Yes, there are decapitations, bombings, churches on fire, churches being turned into mosques and a lot of French white women pregnant with black semen… I guess you’re right, “integration in France is pretty good”… Only that integration = destruction, ask the Jews.

    • Replies: @Eugene Norman
  45. Malla says:
    @Grand Inquisitor

    So was King Charles I of England who was beheaded after the Cromwell “revolution”. A very good king who did a lot for his people. It is as if the good caring rulers who have to face revolutions and get killed. Weird but true.

    And King Louis XVI was a very good human being.

    https://www.andrewcusack.com/2006/the-last-will-and-testament-of-louis-xvi/

    The Last Will and Testament of Louis XVI

    Some snippets

    I pardon with all my heart those who made themselves my enemies, without my have given them any cause, and I pray God to pardon them, as well as those who, through false or misunderstood zeal, did me much harm.”

    ..snip…

    “I commend my children to my wife; I have never doubted her maternal tenderness for them. I enjoin her above all to make them good Christians and honest individuals; to make them view the grandeurs of this world (if they are condemned to experience them) as very dangerous and transient goods, and turn their attention towards the one solid and enduring glory, eternity.”

    …snip….

    I exhort my son, should he have the misfortune of becoming king, to remember he owes himself wholly to the happiness of his fellow citizens; that he should forget all hates and all grudges, particularly those connected with the misfortunes and sorrows which I am experiencing; that he can make the people happy only by ruling according to laws: but at the same time to remember that a king cannot make himself respected and do the good that is in his heart unless he has the necessary authority, and that otherwise, being tangled up in his activities and not inspiring respect, he is more harmful than useful.”

    Wow, what a great and good human being.

    Some great comments from readers in the above linked page:

    TRZeller wrote
    “Wow, what history teaches about this man and his wife is nothing like their letters. It is shameful they are not seen as they truly were.”

    Lorraine wrote
    “The French Revolution was a godless horror, and in general, France is still godless.”

    Violetta wrote
    “Louis XVI was the most beautiful, kindest, loving person to ever live on this Earth, in my opinion. I love him so tenderly, as if he were still alive today.”

  46. Miville says:
    @Malla

    No. All Humans are tribal and willed by God to be tribal. Pre-Renaissance Europeans and pre-Socratic Greek were more tribal than all others, in case you haven’t thrown a glance at a medieval Europe map, in case you don’t know what Germanic feudalism was about. The only reason why the European seemed to me moved by more universalistic values such as freedom and pursuit of truth is having fallen for Jewish propaganda (not Christian : Christianity took utmost care to combat any such utopia as universalism in this world to be combated as heresy, it always taught that humanity is a project, not a reality, and even more so an evil project to combat which the Church had been created) from the Renaissance onwards. British and Americans when they were great taught universal values to their proles and lower middle classes but not to their betters. The aim of universalism is the destruction of character through conformity to mass ideals, as what the practitioners of Jewish Kabbalah is masses of interchangeable people most easily remote controllable through magic or propaganda.

  47. The zionists are behind the bolshevik revolution taking place in the ZUSS and the blacklivesmatter scam and the covid-19 hoax and psyop, all of these are designed to destroy America.

    • Agree: Trinity
  48. @Dumbo

    The attitudes of french Muslims are the most secular in Europe. Of course when Uncle Sam blows up the Middle East then things get hairy, it tends to die down otherwise.

    Here’s some examples.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/2006/08/17/the-frenchmuslim-connection/

    In any case the french aren’t going down the identity politics route.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  49. Miville says:
    @Grand Inquisitor

    I must make a rectification : Louis XVI as a human being was one of the kindest ever. But as any king in the world he was surrounded by a court and a kind of court one should never, never be kind with, as that court was promoting radical neo-liberalism in the name of the laws of nature in a careful design to bring as much people as possible to slave-like conditions. Being kind as a person when for instance you deal with the Congress or with lobbies is a mortal sin : your duty is to act as a shrewd Machiavellian tyrant when dealing with them. Such people you meet with as a king or as a president are to be treated as criminals should be : Louis XIV did much good for his own people because he did not hesitate to put to death any venerable minister when it came out that his corruption had gone overboard. Carter was a good example of too good person for his position : what Nixon would do only for bribes, and hefty deterrent ones, Carter would do for free. Moreover Louis XVI had a family of very wicked and occult-dabbling satanic persons like there had never been he could never dispense with when making policies : decisions were still tribal, not individual in France. Louis XVI made concessions not because he was so kind but because he was dealing with global finance as a debtor’s nation representative and could no longer afford to act as a sovereign king : the Revolution was a bankers’ coup and nothing more. Louis XVi was kind with the stronger and not so kind with the weaker and would never never yield to any popular insurrection : he then called foreign armies to put them down, though he was not so mistaken as these so-called popular uprisings were fake for the most past and financed a la Soros. Same thing for the last Czars : they were humane with the rich surrounding them, and with the Jews : not at all with their ordinary subjects. Nicolas II had organized a false flag insurrection to quash it down in blood once for all in 1905, and then launched Russia into WWI in perfect knowledge it would be a losing one in the clear intention of making his people he found too proud poorer.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  50. Malla says:
    @Trinity

    I guess we know the rest of the story and what happened to Haiti after the (((French Revolution.)))

    The same Haiti after their “revolution” went and colonised the neighbouring Dominican Republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_War_of_Independence
    Dominican War of Independence FROM HAITI

    Yup only evul Whitey and Japs can colonise. Ya rite!!!!

    Also more from the Haitian “revolution”.

    The independence of Saint-Domingue was proclaimed under the native name ‘Haiti’ by Dessalines on 1 January 1804 in Gonaïves and he was proclaimed “Emperor for Life” as Emperor Jacques I by his troops.[Didn’t this shit happen a lot in Africa after decolonization? ] Dessalines at first offered protection to the white planters and others. However, once in power, he ordered the massacre of nearly all white men, women, children; between January and April 1804, 3,000 to 5,000 whites were killed, including those who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population. Only three categories of white people were selected out as exceptions and spared: Polish soldiers, the majority of whom had deserted from the French army and fought alongside the Haitian rebels; the small group of German colonists invited to the north-west region; and a group of medical doctors and professionals. Reportedly, people with connections to officers in the Haitian army were also spared, as well as the women who agreed to marry non-white men

    Also, though I support the abolition of slavery and understand slaves revolting, the fact, is the Haitian “Revolution” had some (((Freemasonry))) working for it.

    Toussaint Louverture was a Freemason!!!!

    Also this

    Haitian Leader Toussaint Louverture was a Controlled Opposition Actor for the Freemasons

    A lot of (((Gematria))) (numerology) is involved.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  51. “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”

    This is pure Jordan B. Peterson & Jonathan Haidt. The left and the right spring from the same source.

  52. Dumbo says:
    @Eugene Norman

    I think you REALLY don’t understand… Secularism and assimilation are a dead end, they are even worse than non-assimilation and conflict… In fact, I prefer if the French Muslims DON’T ASSIMILATE and keep their religion and only marry with other muslims. This means that there will be less miscegenation with white French and that then maybe (MAYBE) the still Catholic/White population of France can be saved, perhaps after some sort of secession. You are a lost cause, it’s useless to discuss with you, you seem to be part of the problem. It is either total separation and a return to Catholicism/nationalism, or becoming some kind of Algeria on the Seine.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  53. Wally says:
    @Cyrano

    said:
    “Look how well that concept worked for Nazi Germany.”

    – Actually it worked quite well or NS Germany. In fact, too well for some.

    “Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later…”

    – Emil Ludwig (aka: Emil Cohn), Les Annales, June, 1934)

  54. Dumbo says:

    Just for a comparison effect, watch any French film of the 50s such as the wonderful “Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot”, with an all white French cast, or even the nouvelle vague films from the 60s, and then watch more recent French movies such as “Journée de la Joupe”, “La Classe” or last year’s black “Les Mis”. It is astounding! Even French culture became African-Arab! A mess!

  55. Dumbo says:
    @Malla

    LOL, has there been any revolution with worse effects for a country than the Haitian Revolution?

    The dumb black Haitians shot their own foot. The country became a mess, worse than Africa. The other half of the island (as Dominican Republic) is a hundred times better, even if also with problems, does not compare to the slum from hell that is Haiti.

    • Replies: @Malla
  56. The essence of Burke’s wisdom and of conservatism in general:

    Humans are too stupid and too ignorant of human nature and the universe to design a radically new society. Therefore, we must procede slowly, using trial and error to make needed changes. Mistakes must be humbly admitted and reversed.

    All practical people admit this. Even engineers, using the most settled science, are rightly averse to attempting radical new designs for bridges, buildings or complex machines. In the real world, too many unforseen processes and events can bring disaster on an untested design.

    Such humility is not found on the left. When reality contradicts their theories, they deny reality and punish those who state the most obvious facts of nature.

  57. AWM says:
    @Dumbo

    “The New Man”, WOMAN.

  58. AaronB says:

    Gradual reform is always better than revolution, but probably the only reason rulers agree to gradual reform is because of the spectre of revolution.

    And revolutions are almost always worse than the regime they are overthrowing, but still necessary from the time to time.

    A world in which rulers do not have to fear revolution would be a much worse place.

  59. @sally

    Individual Property rights are the cause today of the global wars and internal strife..

    .. in addition to the monkeys flying out of your publicly owned ass

  60. @Lot

    How many people did the Ancien Regime kill over the whole of the century from 1689 to 1789, versus the total killed by the Revolutionaries? And not as soldiers, either, since we’d have to count the 500,000 Napoleon offed in Russia.

    The AR was inept, corrupt, and squandered French assets on the American Revolution. It nowhere approached the 1st Republic in killing French people, let alone foreigners.

  61. American Citizen 2.0 says:

    The French Revolution’s intellectual struggle with the privileges of the Ancien Regime seems like a copy/paste of our own problems with White Privilege today.

    Is America currently undergoing a second Revolution or a second Civil War? I think the English civil war, wherein Charles’s Catholicism was a major sticking point, is more apt than the French Revolution mainly because the Woke side of our conflict (i.e. “The Left” in olden days parlance) basically seeks to impose a foreign religion upon us. Alternatively, we might be more aptly compared to the situation of Charles V prior to his abdication as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire since a new sort of religion is basically destroying our civilization. On that note, consider that the naked version of the “Charles V Dominating Fury” statue would have been extremely triggering in the “not a safe space” sense if you would have been a Protestant during those wars. And it’s also interesting to note that as a result of those Protestant vs Catholic wars in Europe culminating in the abdication of Charles V tastes in painting shifted to landscapes from religious imagery mainly because people didn’t want to advertise their religious beliefs in the art they bought. Something like that will probably happen in the wake of BLM to mainstream culture, where people will prefer to avoid anything that overtly communicates a racial or political slant.

    • Replies: @Wally
  62. @RoatanBill

    The vast majority of the world’s population hasn’t evolved beyond their pack mentality. Most people are essentially high function animals and nowhere close to being human.

    They may agree with the golden rule or the non aggression principle but they will march off and kill other people by the millions.

    Nevertheless, I’m a panarchist.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  63. Trinity says:

    (((French Revolution))) or (((Russian Revolution,))) what difference does it make?

    What we are experiencing in America 2020, I often like to call (((The Revenge Of The Nerd Revolution.))) How about (((The Covid-19 Revolution?)))

  64. Art says:

    Burke attacked, with great eloquence, insight, and ferocity, the basic ideas which had emerged in the eighteenth century and still govern our world today: the so-called Rights of Man.

    Burke is 100% correct – there are no natural human rights.

    For 10,000 years, nature never produced any human rights. Then in 1787 a group of men granted each other and posterity, the right of free speech, the right of assembly, and the right to bare arms. It said, “We the People in order to form a more perfect union.”

    These rights where intellectually created by men – not nature. Our Constitution is an intellectual compact between people – not something created by physics or biology or the universe.

    Because it is not natural and provided by the universe – this man-made intellectual union must be renewed generation after generation. The contract requires an ethos of behavior.

    Christian philosophical idealism provides the ethos that make the US Constitution work. That is an undeniable fact.

    As Christianity is trashed – so goes the compact of the US Constitution.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Kratoklastes
  65. Jorge Videla [AKA "it\'s the stupidity stupid."] says:

    …the Left, has stood the test of time and remains uncannily insightful in the age of BLM, trans activism, antifa, and all their radical chic apologists.

    why do you KEEP repeating these LIES?

    are you retarded or EVIL?

    “the Left” is NOT left in the US, at least. and its “radical chic apologists” are just ZOMBIES, while its puppetmasters are RICH PSYCHOPATHS.

    IDPOL IS BY AND FOR THE 0.1%.

    THE LAST STAND OF THE TOTALLY FAILED IDEOLOGY OF NEO-LIBERALISM.

    BURKE WAS A MORON.

    YOU SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO THE WHOLE WORLD FOR BEING FRENCH. YOU STINK. YOU’RE RUDE. AND YOUR LANGUAGE IS SHIT.

    • Agree: Notsofast
  66. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    This is all very nice, but we all know that our current disturbances are entirely the result of Jews and have nothing to do with European intellectual trends that began in the 18th century.

    The connection is that the intellectual trends that began in the 18th century are what made Western society unable to defend itself from the Jews, Moslems, Communists, Blacks, and any other cohesive group on Earth, homosexuals, polyamorists, “Summer of Love” Mayors and their councils, etc., not matter how removed from reality.

    We’re going to have to go back at least as far as Burke to find a stable framework within which people can interact without being dominated by psychotics.

    You want no framework at all, and complete anarchy? The San Bushmen have that, and when they have serious disputes they kill each other, for there is no framework of authority that can settle their disputes and keep them settled. They go to the recent Bantu immigrants to settle disputes, so as to avoid having to kill or be killed (a very unpleasant situation). Not having a framework is bad times.

    Having said that, I’ll point out that the idea of not having a framework makes sense only in the framework of Enlightenment thought, which tends to produce social structures that go of themselves and therefore don’t require that their inhabitants understand how or why the framework functions — the inhabitants need only know what actions to take, what “process” to follow (sound familiar?), and everything will turn out well. A traditional system or a religious system requires deeper understanding of why things are to be done than does an Enlightenment system.

    Shotgun weddings, for example, are to provide each woman with a man and each man with a woman. The resulting marriage is to be monitored by the town (or whatever) until it equillibrates. Doesn’t always work, but almost always. It’s more than a procedure, it requires understanding from all parties during the entire process.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  67. @Ilya G Poimandres

    The vast majority of the world’s population hasn’t evolved beyond their pack mentality. Most people are essentially high function animals and nowhere close to being human.

    They may agree with the golden rule or the non aggression principle but they will march off and kill other people by the millions.

    Nevertheless, I’m a panarchist.

  68. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dumbo

    It is either total separation and a return to Catholicism/nationalism, or becoming some kind of Algeria on the Seine.

    When the reaction finally arrives, it’s a strong reaction.

    This latest few months of utter ineptitude have left the “strong reaction” standing alone — every other group literally couldn’t govern if everybody’s life depended upon it, and has demonstrated that at great length.

  69. Fuck Edmund Burke. He was a waffler and prevaricator who made it clear that he was government’s lickspittle – in addition to being a lickspittle for Rome.

    Anyone who has read The Rights of Man, will have been disabused of Burke’s talent less than halfway through the second Preface (the preface to the French edition).

    Tom Paine tore Burke a new asshole, and exposed the absolute stupidity of Burke’s position (emphases hereafter are mine):

    [MORE]

    The method which Mr. Burke takes to prove that the people of England have no such rights [NB: to choose or cashier their representatives], and that such rights do not now exist in the nation, either in whole or in part, or anywhere at all, is of the same marvellous and monstrous kind with what he has already said; for his arguments are that the persons, or the generation of persons, in whom they did exist, are dead, and with them the right is dead also. To prove this, he quotes a declaration made by Parliament about a hundred years ago, to William and Mary, in these words: “The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid” (meaning the people of England then living) “most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for Ever.” He quotes a clause of another Act of Parliament made in the same reign, the terms of which he says, “bind us” (meaning the people of their day), “our heirs and our posterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time.”

    Mr. Burke conceives his point sufficiently established by producing those clauses, which he enforces by saying that they exclude the right of the nation for ever. And not yet content with making such declarations, repeated over and over again, he farther says, “that if the people of England possessed such a right before the Revolution” (which he acknowledges to have been the case, not only in England, but throughout Europe, at an early period), “yet that the English Nation did, at the time of the Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themselves, and for all their posterity, for ever.”

    The stupidity – the absolute, arrant, idiocy – of Burke’s claim should be clear enough: it’s nonsense cut from the same cloth as the false “Deed of Constantine“. Paine takes pains to show why:

    In England no parent or master, nor all the authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itself, can bind or control the personal freedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-one years. On what ground of right, then, could the Parliament of 1688, or any other Parliament, bind all posterity for ever?

    Those who have quitted the world, and those who have not yet arrived at it, are as remote from each other as the utmost stretch of mortal imagination can conceive. What possible obligation, then, can exist between them–what rule or principle can be laid down that of two nonentities, the one out of existence and the other not in, and who never can meet in this world, the one should control the other to the end of time?

    In England it is said that money cannot be taken out of the pockets of the people without their consent. But who authorised, or who could authorise, the Parliament of 1688 to control and take away the freedom of posterity (who were not in existence to give or to withhold their consent) and limit and confine their right of acting in certain cases for ever?

    A greater absurdity cannot present itself to the understanding of man than what Mr. Burke offers to his readers. He tells them, and he tells the world to come, that a certain body of men who existed a hundred years ago made a law, and that there does not exist in the nation, nor ever will, nor ever can, a power to alter it. Under how many subtilties or absurdities has the divine right to govern been imposed on the credulity of mankind? Mr. Burke has discovered a new one, and he has shortened his journey to Rome by appealing to the power of this infallible Parliament of former days, and he produces what it has done as of divine authority, for that power must certainly be more than human which no human power to the end of time can alter.

    TL;DR: fuck you, Burke. You’re talking shit.

    From what, or from whence, does Mr. Burke prove the right of any human power to bind posterity for ever? He has produced his clauses, but he must produce also his proofs that such a right existed, and show how it existed. If it ever existed it must now exist, for whatever appertains to the nature of man cannot be annihilated by man. It is the nature of man to die, and he will continue to die as long as he continues to be born. But Mr. Burke has set up a sort of political Adam, in whom all posterity are bound for ever. He must, therefore, prove that his Adam possessed such a power, or such a right.

    TL;DR: fuck you, Burke. You’re talking shit.

    But Mr. Burke’s clauses have not even this qualification in their favour. They become null, by attempting to become immortal. The nature of them precludes consent. They destroy the right which they might have, by grounding it on a right which they cannot have. Immortal power is not a human right, and therefore cannot be a right of Parliament. The Parliament of 1688 might as well have passed an act to have authorised themselves to live for ever, as to make their authority live for ever.

    TL;DR: SICK BURN, bro.

    • Thanks: gay troll
    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  70. PolarBear says:
    @Kouroi

    I’ve been around non-Whites for years. When push comes to shove, all non-Whites put themselves first. Non-Whites are comfortable with anything being unfair if it favors them, Whites were generally like this in the past but evolved beyond primitive childlike selfishness. Many Whites took being saviors too far, sacrificing themselves for the sins of others like Christ. Only Western White Europeans care about the whole world and every creature in it.

    • Agree: Trinity, Malla
  71. Béthune says:

    “Il n’y a maintenant seize ou dix-sept ans que je n’ai vu la reine de France. C’était à Versailles, elle était encore la Dauphine, et certes il n’eut jamais vision plus délicieuse sur cette terre qu’elle semblait à peine toucher. Elle ne faisait alors que paraître sur l’horizon, pour orner et égayer la sphère élevée où elle commençait de se mouvoir – scintillante comme l’étoile du matin, brillante de vie, de splendeur et de joie. Ah! Quel bouleversement! Quel coeur me faudra t-il pour rester insensible à tant de grandeur suivie d’une telle chute ! Que j’étais loin d’imaginer, lorsque plus tard je la voyais mériter la vénération et non plus seulement l’hommage d’un amour distant et respectueux, qu’elle en serait un jour réduite à cacher dans son sein l’arme qui la préserverait du déshonneur; je ne pouvais croire que je verrais de mon vivant tant de désastres s’abattre sur cette princesse, au milieu d’un peuple composé d’hommes d’honneur et de chevaliers! J’aurais cru que dix mille épées bondiraient hors de leurs fourreaux pour la venger ne fût-ce que d’un regard qui aurait pu l’insulter. – Mais l’âge de la chevalerie est passé. Celui des sophistes, des économistes et des calculateurs lui a succédé; et la gloire de l’Europe est éteinte à jamais.”
    R.H. Edmund Burke, Réflexions sur la Révolution de France. Hachette Littératures, 1989, pp. 95-96.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  72. @Drapetomaniac

    The majority of the world people just want to mind their own business and go through life with as little conflict as possible. The sociopaths that invent and infect governments and religious movements are the exceptions. Religion is government and government is religion. Two sides of the same coin, both wanting control over other people for their own benefit.

    If there were no gov’t overnight, nothing would immediately change that morning. The people with criminal proclivities would figure out that there are sheep to be sheared and crime would eventually spike; for a very short time. The decent people would realize they have to protect themselves and kill off the criminals instead of feeding, clothing, housing and providing medical care for human trash.

    In short order, the supply of future preachers and politicians would plummet because those sociopaths would get killed off early on as they tried to cheat their way through life. Only a very few would make it to adulthood to try to rally support to crown them king. We just kill that bastard before he completes his sentence.

  73. Malla says:
    @Dumbo

    The dumb black Haitians shot their own foot.

    Isn’t that what happened with nearly all anti-colonial movements? The same is happening with BLM. Jew drives brown blacks against Whitey and brown blacks shoots himself in foot.

  74. AaronB says:
    @Anonymous

    The narrative on this site is that Jews introduced leftist revolutionary ideas into European society in order to undermine it – the “culture of critique”.

    This essay touches on the fact that this “critique” of traditional social institutions was a home grown European affair.

    It never ceases to fascinate me that people on this site, and educated professors like Kevin McDonald, are unaware of the, uh, actual Enlightenment, and things like the Romantic Movement, the two enormous intellectual trends that critiqued traditional Western society and religion from within.

    To be charitable, most commenters on this site are too uneducated to know anything about Western history (except that it is better than every one else), and probably can’t understand things like Romanticism and the Enlightenment.

    • Troll: Trinity
  75. @paranoid goy

    it is the common property that makes it possible to protect the private property

    What absolute nonsense – almost as stupid as the idea that religion is necessary for people to have a coherent ethical framework.

    The “problem” of private provision of security is a solved thing: it’s a known known that private means can, and will, furnish security more efficiently than the public sector. Molinari outlined this in The Production of Security (1849) but it certainly wasn’t a novel concept.

    In fact in a modern economy, anyone with sufficient means has their security furnished by the private sector – precisely because they know that the publicly-provided version is of low quality, is inadequately provided, and is expensive. All three of those characteristics are exactly as should be expected when any good or service is produced by a monopoly: Q↓, P↑ and quality control always piss-poor.

    Also, publicly-furnished security does not give a fuck about preventing property crime – except on government property – and has no duty of care to the public (jointly or collectively). The absence of duty of care is a matter of settled law… and has been for centuries.

    Take the next step and try to pretend that without a government monopoly on arbitration of disputes (e.g., courts) it would be impossible to enforce property (or contractual) rights… that is also a crock of shit, as is made clear by several hundred years of non-state solutions as provided by the Law Merchant.

    • Replies: @Awash
  76. ivan says:
    @AaronB

    Burke was too polite to identify the Jewish interests by name. But he lists them under stock-jobbers and projectionists. It was only after the Napoleonic reforms that Jews were integrated into Western societies. Then they took the critique of the West to a whole new level. One would expect that the West in its millennial old history would have numerous and perhaps dramatic critiques directed to its own self. That is after all part of its tradition of self-reflection and self-correction. The Jewish contribution is to take the tradition to an extreme of self-loathing and self-destruction, all for the fun of it or for advancing Jewish interests in the name of the greater good of humanity.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @AaronB
  77. @Béthune

    C’etait un laquais, ce mec (Burke) – un vrai connard, qui aurait lécher n’importe quel cul.

  78. Art says:
    @AaronB

    Here is twenty first century Jew ethics.

    Palestinian Patient Dies After Israeli Authorities Delay Medical Permit

    A heartbreaking report by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has laid bare the story of 22-year old Jalal Sharafi, who died last month when his urgent application to transfer to an Israeli hospital for a bone marrow transplant was delayed.

    https://imemc.org/article/palestinian-patient-dies-after-israeli-authorities-delay-medical-permit/

    The JQ gets stronger by the day.

  79. Art says:
    @ivan

    Burke was too polite to identify the Jewish interests by name. But he lists them under stock-jobbers and projectionists. It was only after the Napoleonic reforms that Jews were integrated into Western societies.

    We now live in the time of the Jew. Look how negative things are – how unethical it is – how unempathetic it is.

  80. Notsofast says:
    @Trinity

    Haiti is not as cut and dried as it once lush forrests. It was subject to embargo by france and the united states (suposedly to repay the cheese eating surrender monkeys for their help in the american revolution ((“the only good revolution”)) but really because they were terrified of a successful slave revolt (((sounds a lot like cuba))) ). The french demanded reperations amounting to $21 billion in todays money cripling their economy for decades. Bolivar was armed by the haitians on the understanding he eliminate slavery in the 5 countries he liberated. Now who is the great emancipator?

  81. annamaria says:
    @Art

    All we need to know about the philosophizing hypocrites:

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau, philosopher of compassion, fierce defender of the weak against the strong, the man who never tired of talking about equality and justice and virtue, who wrote a long book (Emile) about just the right way to raise children, sent all his own children to the Paris Foundling Hospital immediately upon birth. He never knew or even saw them.

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy “influenced the progress of the Enlightenment throughout Europe, as well as aspects of the French Revolution and the development of modern political, economic and educational thought.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

  82. Art says:
    @AaronB

    The narrative on this site is that Jews introduced leftist revolutionary ideas into European society in order to undermine it – the “culture of critique”.

    Oh dear — more mendacious Jew tricks. He ignores the role of the Jew commies.

  83. AaronB says:
    @ivan

    Look, I can understand why someone who has not actually read the great Romantic and Enlightenment writers might think so, and someone who has not read widely in the minor European classics.

    All I can say is, extreme critiques of European civilization – to the point of severe self loathing – is a home grown European phenomenon. I grew up Jewish. When I was 15 I became an atheist after reading the great European philosophers. Until my mid 30s I had a love affair with European culture and I was a conservative who defended it and hated the Left. I read deeply and widely in the European classics. All I can advise you is to do the same – nothing can give you a clearer idea of what made Europeans turn on their own civilization.

    By the late 19th century, sensitive European thinkers and artists were commonly saying that life in Europe had become depressing under the reign of science and the machine, and the “ugliness” of European civilization was a hot topic. Foreign cultures were beginning to be romanticized at the expense of Europe. At the opposite end, thinkers under the thrall of science were undermining every aspect of traditional society and religion as outdated and stupid.

    Science and the Enlightenment, rationality and technology, undermined tradition and created a lifestyle that sensitive men found ugly – and the opponets of these trends, the Romantics, began increasingly to condemn European civilization in toto and idealize other cultures as the trends they despised grew stronger and seemed unstoppable. That’s the history of today’s self-loathing.

    Both the Enlightenment and the Romantic Reaction were massive, total, and revolutionary critiques of traditional society, not just some mild internal critiquing. And the Reformation before that.

    Look, on the one hand Europe gets all the credit for revolutionizing mankind’s thinking with foundation shattering paradigm changes like the Scientific Revolution, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, etc – while at the same time it’s denied that this could only have happened in a culture that is dedicated to constantly critiquing its very foundations. .

    Surely this is rather absurd? You can’t have invented science – the subjection of everything to reason – and then claim that it needed hostile outsiders to undermine your traditions!

    McDonald and other intelligent promoters of the “culture of critique” surely know that to the traditional societies of the world, the West is the “culture of critique”, and that for the Romantics, the Enlightenment was.

    And it is surely a fact that rational scientific ways of thinking have damaged Judaism by undermining its traditional faith. To reverse this, and claim that the culture which undermined the traditions of all the world needed its own traditions to be undermined by hostile outsiders, is surely a cynical ploy to fool the uneducated and ignorant.

    European thinkers criticized their own civilization from two opposed points of view – on the one hand, that of science, which undermined tradition and religion. On the other hand from the aesthetic point of view, which complained about how ugly and boring science was making everything.

    So really the “original sin” here was the Scientific Revolution – or rather, its the original critique.

    • Replies: @ivan
    , @Malla
  84. @Kratoklastes

    All rights are made up. So where does one get the right to make up rights?

    Maybe from the animal world. Might makes rights.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  85. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @AaronB

    I agree that there is a weird tension vis-a-vis the influence of Jewish people historically on this site. On the one hand, the Russian Revolution and Black Lives Matter are presented by various commentators as being Jewish led, and I agree to a extent. In the case of black people, Jewish people have been mentoring them politically for ages, going so far as to essentially use black “intellectuals” as sock puppets in many cases. On the other had, the Unz comment section largely overlooks the fact that Jewish people played the same role for white people in America. For example, the push for Unions throughout the industrialized North had loads of Jewish people agitating for workers rights in exactly the same way they work for Black Lives Matter now. And in reality you can point to the entire media construction of pro-Military Cold War America, wherein the White/Christian/American Man was presented in films and tv shows as having an historical destiny to defend freedom worldwide, was the product of Jewish Hollywood studios. So in that context, what difference does it make if Jews help black people construct a positive, empowering image of themselves in art, music, and movies. They did it for white kids back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s and everyone now thinks that these ideas of “white” people being altruistic, good natured, adventuresome cowboys riding the dusty trail and suchlike are somehow at the core of our identity when they were really just media creations that spoke to a certain market demand.

    I guess I feel like a lot of the comment sections on unz are getting hijacked by a certain crowd of white nationalists and they flog the same dead horse no matter what the real topic of conversation is. To attribute the French revolution to Jewish machinations, rather than Freemasons or the Illuminati (just to give two other examples of popular conspiracies) or even the sincere desire of readers of Rousseau to destroy the French Monarchy, is a little bit outlandish. It all makes Jewish people seem unreasonably effective and powerful. Like overly effective and powerful. Like every time they get an “at bat” they hit a game winning home run and always win the world series. I have no doubt there were pro-Revolutionary Jewish, even wealthy ones, living in Paris during the revolution who supported it whole-heartedly though. Just because there are Jews involved in something and they are rich and their aspirations unfold in a way that they find favorable doesn’t mean they are out there causing every zany historical twist in civilization. So this whole (((thing with the parentheses))) that people do to insinuate… something awful is afoot… is getting a little tiresome. The comment moderation on this site seems to me to be pretty open minded so instead of pretending like you have some damning indictment of International Jewry’s role in the {[*French Revolution*]} why not just come out and say it directly with historical facts.

    That being said, Trotsky was a Jew and the Russian Revolution ended up in Gulags so I admit that whole situation was a bit of a travesty. On the other hand, we got a lot of great comic books from Stan Lee. So, it seems like a fair trade historically speaking.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  86. @Art

    For 10,000 years, nature never produced any human rights

    For 10,000 years, nature never produced calculus, either.

    That doesn’t mean that integrals don’t exist – and it certainly doesn’t mean that they only exist because government exists.

    Kindergarten-level premises need to die in a fire.

    • Agree: gay troll
  87. Wally says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    said:
    “Is America currently undergoing a second Revolution or a second Civil War?”

    Call it what you like, but this is a result:

    Surge in Gun Sales Unlike Anything Ever Seen:: http://preparedgunowners.com/2020/07/22/gun-sale-surge-unlike-anything-ever-seen/

    Gun, Ammo Sales Surge: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/24/report-gun-ammo-sales-surge-amid-push-to-defund-police/

    • Agree: American Citizen 2.0
  88. sally says:

    Society is indeed a contract < = I can neither choose nor escape the society into which I was born to ..
    I was ejected into a set of classes (economic, social, racial, linguistic, educational, religious, etc.), bound to parents i did not know, did not choose, and spanked until I repeatedly said I love, worship, and place my life on the line for the good of the state into which I was born. I must, they say, praise the leaders of that state, learn only that which they told me to learn, and learn all they tell me I must, earn money of the type, and in the manner, they dictate and i must spend the earned and borrowed money on things the society they say i am bound to, considers acceptable.. I must never ever become intolerant the functions of the state it leaders says my state should be in involved with, and if i ignore their must, and consider all of humanity to be more important, and higher in the organization of things, then they will execute me for being a traitor to the division of the world in which I was born..

    No matter what I cannot escape the state in which I was born. that is no contract, its a prison sentence. It does not matter if I am born to Russia, Iran, Bolivia, Sweden, or China, my duty is to my state. because they say so.

  89. AaronB says:
    @American Citizen 2.0

    For example, the push for Unions throughout the industrialized North had loads of Jewish people agitating for workers rights in exactly the same way they work for Black Lives Matter now. And in reality you can point to the entire media construction of pro-Military Cold War America, wherein the White/Christian/American Man was presented in films and tv shows as having an historical destiny to defend freedom worldwide, was the product of Jewish Hollywood studios.

    Actually, these are two really good points I haven’t thought of, so thanks.

    Especially the Hollywood thing. We all know that for a very long time, Hollywood was very pro-white and pro-Christian, yet dominated by Jews.

    It seems that Jews are influenced by larger trends just like anyone else. When Jews assimilate, they do tend to wish to excel in their new culture – and if that culture is unhealthy, they can play an outside role in those negative trends.

    It all makes Jewish people seem unreasonably effective and powerful. Like overly effective and powerful. Like every time they get an “at bat” they hit a game winning home run and always win the world series.

    I suspect the presentation of Jews on this site is meant to demoralize – and the commenters here lack self-confidence and naturally develop an inflated sense of their enemies power. (Whoever they define as their enemy).

    And its not just white nationalists – the Muslims here blame Israel for the creation of ISIS and other ills that afflict their societies. Someone with low self-esteem will naturally perceive his (perceived) enemies as a reflection of his own felt lack of power, worth, and capacity.

    So this whole (((thing with the parentheses))) that people do to insinuate… something awful is afoot… is getting a little tiresome

    I hear. This website was much more interesting before 2018, when Ron went full on knuckle-dragging anti-Semite.

    That being said, Trotsky was a Jew and the Russian Revolution ended up in Gulags so I admit that whole situation was a bit of a travesty

    Yeah, Jews definitely played a big role in that one. Still not a particularly Jewish event, though, and one that draws on the full current of European history.

    • Replies: @ivan
  90. ivan says:
    @AaronB

    You have a point in that the “disenchantment” of the world and widespread undermining of religion is a development of Western advances in science.

    I see Jews behaving tribally : Using the same conventions as others in the West, without conceding anything to their surrounding society. That is all that I am concerned about. In other words the great frustration that others have with Jews is that through their insincerity they undermine the moral basis of honest debates, for the simple reason that they are dishonest. I don’t mean this as a generalisation applying to every Jew but the so-called movers and shakers. For example I would have take Mike Wallace as a white man as Morgan Freeman does in this video, but when it is convenient Wallace reckons himself a Jew. Examples such as these are legion .

    • Replies: @AaronB
  91. @Drapetomaniac

    ‘Rights’ are conceptually messy because they represent an attempt to establish a grundnorm for how people ought to interact, not how they actually interact.

    (inb4 retarded shit like “you can’t get an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’” and other such Yanklish non-sequiturs).

    A system predicated on the ‘right’ to be unmolested – to go about your business – will generate a Pareto equilibrium: any perturbation of that system will cause someone to be made worse off, regardless of who does the perturbing.

    So rather than picking winners (i.e., identifying some subset of people who are magically permitted to perturb the system), rights-recognition envisages a system where it’s wrong per se for anyone to do so, and everyone is entitled to protect themselves from having their person or their shit fucked with by anyone . This is the famous ‘negative liberty’ so beloved by anyone who gives the matter fifteen seconds’ thought.

    So the violence under a rights-recognition framework is legitimate if it is preventing a violation of an individual’s person or property, and illegitimate if it is undertaking a violation of an individual’s person or property.

    It places moral blame on those who initiate aggression, and exculpates those who do defensive violence to repel aggression.

    Contrast that with Hobbes: it justifies violence by the ones doing the violation.

    Rights-recognition is expressly based on the recognition that the ‘war of all against all‘ postulated by Hobbes is – as Hobbes suggests – a risky environment that is associated with less of all the good stuff. A good thing to avoid.

    It just disagrees with Hobbes on how to fix things.

    Hobbes want to pretend that society could rely on a class of Herrenvolk who collectively will be like the Zeitgeist machines – imposing a benevolent will on the otherwise-seething maelstrom of human behaviour. They can be trusted with the legitimate power to do violence (and to violate others’ persons and property) because reasons.

    It didn’t cross his mind that these Herrenvolk were observably grasping megalomaniacs who gained their roles by violence – even then. It also didn’t cross his mind that the power on offer would attract the very worst type of humans, who would exploit that power to enrich themselves at society’s expense.

    (Actuarially it’s also a fuckwitted way to reduce risk: accept a 100% chance you get bilked every year in exchange for giving up your right to defend yourself… when the alternative is that very occasionally someone comes and tries to take all your shit but you have the right to kill them for trying).

    He put on his best thinking hat and gave his is best mental efforts… and arrived at a solution whereby everyone except the powerful just gets to suck it up. (Obvious when you think about it: if you & yours were meant to go around unmolested, you would have been someone whose arse Hobbes was already licking).

    In other words, he was telling the powerless that society would be better off if they just lay back and put up with the depredations of the powerful – rather than opposing them with justified violence. Sounds like something that the powerful would support: fewer transaction costs.

    Other, much smarter people thought… “Hang on. What if everyone had to behave non-cuntily?”

    Obviously, people who want to steal others’ shit are not big fans of rights-recognition. For a start, the conclusion under that framework is that they are bad people – and that the people they exploit have the right to rise up and kill them.

    The least-honest would consider it much better to have a different fictional grundnorm – one where agitating against the rulers is frowned upon and violent suppression of agitators is viewed as legitimate (again, because reasons).

    The problem with the Hobbesian view is that there is absolutely no guarantee that the ‘right people’ wind up in charge. Worse, the predictable dynamics (given that all men are evil) is that Leviathan is completely controlled by violent, lying arseholes – with different groups of arseholes competing for the top slot in the hierarchy.

    And at the limit, you can get large-scale violent conflict (e.g., civil war) when two groups of would-be Herrenvolk contest for control over the reins of Leviathan. That tends to go badly for everyone all at once, in ways that small-scale opportunistic predation (the mythical ‘bands of marauders’) doesn’t.

    • Thanks: ivan
  92. ivan says:
    @AaronB

    Especially the Hollywood thing. We all know that for a very long time, Hollywood was very pro-white and pro-Christian, yet dominated by Jews.

    That was because the moral and temperance leagues of the Christians were strong, they kept the Hollywood Jews in check, in particular the Catholics. In Singapore for example; Hollywood movies made prior to 1965 are not subject to ratings. To see what happens when the restraining hand of Christians are removed have a look at Disney Corp today. Now you may say that others might step in place of Christians to hold the wilder tendencies of Jews in check. If you do, then you would realise that these other minorities be they Muslims or Hindus do not care one whit about the moral degeneracy of America, since the old America is not their country.

  93. AaronB says:
    @ivan

    I think powerful people behave badly – that’s a problem that applies to every race and religion and nationality.

    There’s plenty of non Jews being insincere and dishonest in debate. In reality Jews have done lots of good and lots of bad in this country, like any ambitious people. Tons of doctors, scientists, and philanthropists have been Jews, benefiting humanity and giving back to the country, but Jews have also been white collar criminals.

    Look, I don’t have a problem criticizing Jews or aspects of collective Jewish behavior.

    What I do oppose is the idea that Jews are behind everything bad in the world and work to undermine traditional white societies. The crazy over the top demonization of Jews.

    The crazy over the top Jew haters have made the topic sensitive and made it hard to criticize Jews in a normal and healthy fashion – that’s unfortunate.

    • Replies: @DrWatson
    , @Anonymous
  94. AaronB says:
    @ivan

    The moral and temperance leagues do not explain the positive portrayal of whites and Christians. They would have kept profanity and nudity out of the movies, stuff like that.

    Elite Western literature was also subject to Christian censoreship laws and were very negative about Western civilization without any problems – but when Lawrence published Lady Chatterly’s Lover, the censors swung into action.

    The Jews in Hollywood were businessmen first and foremost – they could not sell to the audience what it did not want. You can’t force people to watch movies they don’t like. They were assimilated Jews who had the values of their time and place – sometimes more strongly than those born into those traditions. Stan Lee also created Superman and Captain America, positive portrayals of white make heroes.

    Those were the values of the time, and Jews worked within that.

    The cultural changes that changed our society into what it is today swept Jews along with it – and they have their roots in the Romantic rejection of the Western disenchantment of the world wrought by science and technology. Did you see that recent Smithsonian letter on the evils of white culture? It was basically a rejection of science as white culture. And what is BLM but the noble savage all over again?

    Jewish Hollywood produces what it does today because that’s what the culture wants, because the Romantic revolution became more widespread and more extreme and more negative (I am a Romantic in the original sense, not on what it has become today).

    David Brooks wrote a book called Bohos in Paradise, in which he described how elements of Bohemianism – a counter cultural Romantic movement – merged into mainstream white yuppie culture and transformed it, even as it seems to flatly contradict the yuppie lifestyle.

    As for Jewish tradition, a key element of that is to be a light unto the nations – that means upholding morality and religious tradition. It is wrong to think Jewish religion merely sees gentiles as worthless inferiors. Jews see themselves as teachers of mankind – arrogant, grandiose, insufferable, yes. But the point is, nothing in a Jewish upbringing conditions a Jew to want to undermine the morality of non Jews when he goes out into the world.

    It’s important to understand precisely “how” Jews see themselves as superior and what their religion teaches them about their relationship to non Jews, and how that might shape their future behavior as they go into wider society.

    This idea that Jews are conditioned to want to undermine others is to basically misunderstand the way that they see themselves as superior to gentiles. Jews want to bring non Jews to recognize their God and his morality.

    • Replies: @gay troll
  95. Seraphim says:
    @Miville

    It is curious, to say the least, that one can find good parts to Hitler, but never to Tsar Nicholas II. He is perhaps the most calumniated ruler that ever was.
    But the assertion that he organized the ‘revolution’ of 1905 and launched consciously Russia in a loosing war only to make his ‘own people’ suffer surpassed all the others. Why is that? One always blames the victims.

  96. Seraphim says:
    @AaronB

    They are also unaware, or pretend to be so, that the American Revolution and the society it generated was a result of the Enlightenment’s ‘critique’ of the traditional social institutions of Europe. The ‘Declaration des Droits de L’Homme et du citoyen’ was written by Thomas Jefferson.

  97. Malla says:
    @AaronB

    By the late 19th century, sensitive European thinkers and artists were commonly saying that life in Europe had become depressing under the reign of science and the machine, and the “ugliness” of European civilization was a hot topic. Foreign cultures were beginning to be romanticized at the expense of Europe. At the opposite end, thinkers under the thrall of science were undermining every aspect of traditional society and religion as outdated and stupid.

    Agreed Aaroon, good points. You might have something there. However industrialization has spread across the world. I do not see this self hatred in most other populations.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
    , @AaronB
  98. @Kouroi

    Well, ask Kratoklastes, he has read all the right books. For further information, contact the troll Loup-Bouc, the master philosopher and distinguished regurgitator of all that is true.
    Seems sarcasm just evaporates in the atmosphere of serious academical superiority espoused by these classicists.
    We’ll talk to them again when the Bolsheviks send their guns to come fetch their sacrosanct private property unprotected by national borders defended by and for the common good.
    …and that ain’t no sarcasm…

  99. @Anon

    Indeed, “ancien régime” means “old” or “former” régime.

  100. @Drapetomaniac

    I agree – the older I get, the less I see humans accessing reason, over emotion – but I think the pack mentality is born out of need, and if society agrees to provide needs universally (for societies where the provision is cheap enough as a % of GDP), there is less pull towards the racial or cultural pack, and more towards the national pack. Then again homogeneity doesn’t hurt group decision making!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  101. @Malla

    Thank you, it is for people like you we put up with people like Ktaoklastes and Loup-Bouc. Your link is the gem in this pile of horse poop.

    • Thanks: Malla
  102. Anon[254] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    Hindu, maybe.

    It’s shameful how much they’ve bent over for Muslim savages.

    I think Islam will dominate all of India, Europe, and Africa some day. Maybe China will create it’s own zone of influence in Asia.

    • Replies: @Malla
  103. Seraphim says:
    @Malla

    They were actually called Cristeros. The Cristero War (1926-1929) was a popular Catholic insurgency against the anti-clerical laws of the Mexican Revolution.

    • Replies: @Malla
  104. American Citizen 2.0 says:
    @ivan

    It’s right to point out the influence of temperance leagues and suchlike in America. We have been subjected to a perpetual evangelical movement here that has always sought to impose a Christian morality that, in fact, almost nobody agreed with outside of small groups of committed believers. For example, we had Prohibition imposed on us for the sake of saving our souls under the guise of public health. That’s just one example but sexuality in general has also always been practically impossible to discuss honestly in the context of the highly moralistic Christian bent in our civic life. If you look at tv versions of American life (especially in the olden days) people live in single family homes with the correct number of children and pets and so on. In reality, places like Times Square have always been notorious for streetwalking prostitution and drug addicts. Gay people have always been hanging out in parks looking for easy hookups. Etc. None of this was presented honestly in mainstream entertainment and then as if by magic people started believing that the normal way for Americans to live was as if they were cast in an episode of Leave It to Beaver and anything outside of that norm was deviant/pathological/immoral. That entire way of living was constructed via advertising and media within 10 years of so of world war 2 ending. Life before that was really awful for most people: sweatshop working conditions, spouses dying in childbirth, rampant street level crime and gangs… and on and on. The moral image of an American Nuclear family is a recent construct. Almost none of us have any real cultural connection to it. And… back to the point I originally was making… most of those ideas were the product of Jewish television and movies. It seems like the upper class in America always felt like it would be better for everyone if working class people lived highly regimented, moralistic lives and they worked with Jewish producers in Hollywood to create this narrative and sell it to the masses as if it was a representation of how they always aspired to live. The sheer volume of social problems that, in reality, ensued from imposing that ideology on American civil life speaks for itself: divorce, drug addiction, suicide, etc. People actually rejected the propaganda in every way imaginable in real life but of course the upper class in America always responded to those social trends by saying that the poor people were somehow morally deficient.

    The same sort of thing is going on now more explicitly with respect to conversations about crime and immigration and race. White Nationalists condemn non-white people as being criminals or stupid and hence in need of moral and social improvement. It’s like a dumbed down version of the same motives that propelled the Leave It To Beaver narrative to be constructed in the first place but this time expressed in terms of hoping black people will start living their own version of Leave It To Beaver and impose those moral constraints on each other the way we did. But black people already know that we never really conformed to that Leave It To Beaver worldview because they know white guys pay for black prostitutes, buy drugs in ghettos, die as drunks on skid row, etc. The only people who ever seem to have bought into the propaganda were aspirational white women who wanted to live in nice houses in the suburbs.

  105. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    but I think the pack mentality is born out of need, and if society agrees to provide needs universally (for societies where the provision is cheap enough as a % of GDP), there is less pull towards the racial or cultural pack, and more towards the national pack.

    Your suggestion was acted upon in 1964 and 1965 by the Civil Rights Act and the Immigration Act of those years. You can see how it worked out – the providers lost all their rights (albeit slowly) and are becoming a minority in what used to be their territory.

    To get a feel for this, try buying one male and tw0 female cats. Keep all the kittens and let them have kittens for, say, 5 years. Your” % of your income” argument holds at first, but after awhile the cats require your entire income, leaving nothing for you, and you lose the ability to clean up after them and feed them. That’s what happens to a near-senile cat women on a pension to produce a “house of filth” that contains many half starved cats and a fair number of cats dead of starvation. Which, I might add, is a fairly good description of US cities today, except the cat analogs tend to be shot or die of drug overdoses and various disease caused by obesity due to bad diet.

    In short, your proposal would produce (has produced?) a literal horror show. Bad idea.

    • Agree: Drapetomaniac
  106. @David of Arizona

    Such humility is not found on the left. When reality contradicts their theories, they deny reality and punish those who state the most obvious facts of nature.

    There is another element. Several pundits view modern leftism, particularly woke culture, as a type of religion.

    As result most SJW types and wokeists tend to be dogmatic and are quick to ‘stone’ or ‘cancel’ anyone with views they consider heretical.

  107. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    However industrialization has spread across the world. I do not see this self hatred in most other populations.

    See: Yu Hua, China in 10 Words, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_in_Ten_Words, https://www.amazon.com/China-Ten-Words-Yu-Hua/dp/0307739791
    for the start of something similar.

    Since the Western Press is “that idiot who praises in enthusiastic tones, every century but this and every country but his own” (*), they won’t report criticisms of other societies, just report without comment events such as the ascendance of drug cartels over the Mexican government. By not commenting, the media are implying that the events are of trivial importance.

    *) Gilbert and Sullivan, “I’ve got a little list”, late 1800s.

    • Replies: @Malla
  108. Malla says:
    @Seraphim

    Thank you for the correction. That “revolution” was a free-masonic attack on the Church.

  109. Malla says:
    @Anon

    It’s shameful how much they’ve bent over for Muslim savages.

    I think Islam will dominate all of India

    Dude, we Hindus are in decent position, we have a large growing (tho fertility rate slowing down fast) population, not many people of non South Asian races are immigrants in India and when Hindus are cornered we fight back. When the Muslims first invaded and killed and enslaved us we ran away but all that hammering created great warriors like say Shivaji the King who started the Maratha Empire. Nah, Hindus will fight back.

    Europe? Me thinks there will be a civil war in Europe in between invading foreign Muslims and native Europeans. In Africa there might me more Christian Muslim clashes especially in those places where the desert Muslims meet the Greenland Christians like Nigeria, Sudan or Central African Republic for example.

  110. AaronB says:
    @Malla

    I think other countries industrialized as a matter of necessity. So there is less of a feeling of “guilt” for being responsible for the disenchantment of the world.

    Having spent a ton of time in Asia, my sense also is that even the most advanced countries like Japan are not truly “disenchanted” – at least not to the extent the European world, especially the English speaking part, is. Japan remains very superstitious, retains many old rituals and customs – like bowing and joining hands and saying “itadakimas” before meals (thanking the spirits) – that have long died out in the West. The extent of disenchantment is even less severe for less advanced Asian countries.

    Still, even Japan has lost a big part of its soul when it industrialized.

    I also want to point out that there is an element of “vanity” in elite white self-hate – it pressupposes an immense superiority.

    • Replies: @Malla
  111. Malla says:
    @AaronB

    I think other countries industrialized as a matter of necessity.

    I think we industrialized because there was more profit to be made. And we wanted a better, more comfortable life. Was it 100% better, nope. By trying to enslave machines, we became machines and have machine like lives. Actually many National Socialists and Right winged intellectuals spoke about this. Even Gandhi was an anti-industrialization guy.

    Japan remains very superstitious, retains many old rituals and customs – like bowing and joining hands and saying “itadakimas” before meals (thanking the spirits) – that have long died out in the West.

    Maybe the West should return to some sort of spirituality. Maybe something Christian or maybe pagan or maybe even Buddhist as blue eyed Gautam Buddha was one of them after all. But ofcourse we do not not know how much of Buddha’s teachings have survived unaltered/ unpolluted.

    I also want to point out that there is an element of “vanity” in elite white self-hate – it pressupposes an immense superiority.

    Maybe.
    I think white self criticism is a good thing, we darkies need it. it is just that Whites have taken it an extreme where even their survival is at stake. White people need to give us some of their self criticizing tendencies. We darkies need it or else we will be lands full of sorrow, lands of dukha.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @S
  112. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    Thanks.
    As a percentage of the population, there are fewer Chinese than there are Whites who self criticize. Look at the posters on Unz, many White right wingers criticize their own Government’s international actions, for Chinese people, their PRC is perfect and could do no wrong. I think people like Yu Hua are a smaller percentage of the Chinese population than Whites especially Western Whites.
    Besides Chinese people are high IQ and they are influenced a lot by the West. High IQ people are more prone to self criticism and doubt in some conditions.
    Brown blacks may have high IQ subset people in them but the masses are low IQ and genetically primitive. No way our masses will ever face that. People here fart loud and proud.
    Whites and Yellows are more prone. Has to do with the cold climate of the north as well. Cold climate people are more prone to self criticism than tropical folks. And cold climate folks are more likely to be high IQ on average.
    I think this is a combination of Northern Euro populations and Protestantism (and Protestantified Catholicism). Northern Eastern Euros like the Northern Slavs do not have this to a large extent, maybe because the Catholic and Orthodox faiths have not been Protestantified there in the East.

  113. @Anonymous

    Feed and breed works until it doesn’t.

    Liebig’s law of the minimum or everything appears to be fine in a process until the blood suckers overwhelm the warm productive bodies.

    Government’s mode of operation.

  114. @Anonymous

    To get a feel for this, try buying one male and tw0 female cats. Keep all the kittens and let them have kittens for, say, 5 years.

    I agree with this point, but the data doesn’t agree – black Americans don’t make that many kids – a little more than white Americans, but not even the replacement 2 kids per mother. https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

    And I don’t agree that the 60s legislation brought in true socialism. To me means tested welfare is not socialism (universal), but upside down capitalism (competition to the bottom) – you gain welfare if you show yourself poorer than your neighbour.

    As for failure of black neighbourhoods, there is a failure of culture, but that is certainly somewhat to do with US policies for the last half a century, mostly ignoring their native population for the glory of Empire abroad.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  115. AaronB says:
    @Malla

    The West will definitely not stay in this “machine thinking” phase forever. A lot of the current unrest is spiritual in nature – it’s not “actually” about black people or race, that’s all symbolic, in my view.

    Black probably represent the antithesis to linear, logical, “machine thinking” in the unconscious of whites – so elevating blacks is really an attempt to elevate that side of life that has been drowned out by technology.

    This obviously isn’t a good way to do it, and won’t last.

    I think the West needs some version of Buddhism or Taoism – we emphasized the masculine yang element for 500 years, and now we need to emphasize the feminine, receptive yin element. Instead of acting and doing, conquering and building, we need a period of stillness and receptivity.

    Anyways this is all very woo woo and Jungian. The important thing is to understand how things like Romanticism and the Enlightenment, science and the reaction again at it, got us to where we are today.

    I think white self criticism is a good thing, we darkies need it. it is just that Whites have taken it an extreme where even their survival is at stake. White people need to give us some of their self criticizing tendencies. We darkies need it or else we will be lands full of sorrow, lands of dukha

    Completely agree. Whats healthy in the right dose is poison if taken too much.

    • Agree: Malla
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  116. DrWatson says:
    @AaronB

    Look, I don’t have a problem criticizing Jews or aspects of collective Jewish behavior.

    You don’t. In addition, you, being a Jew is free to criticize them. Imagine other people doing as much as saying ‘Jew’ or ‘Jews’ being thrown out of their circles of friends, losing their job and relegated to pariah status in general. How suffocating is that you think?

  117. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    Interesting conversation. I comment subjectively as a very intense Westerner. This might be of interest to a non-Westerner trying to understand what happened.

    I’ve lived a life of conflict, and I suspect that it kept me alive. Didn’t keep anybody in my family alive, though. They died from simple failure to thrive in the non-pediatric sense — essentially, the decent Christian based society they tried to live in (and so did I) wasn’t there anymore, and they couldn’t believe the old society was gone. They thought of post-WW II society as an extended version of society c.a. AD 1900, a fundamental misconception, and fell into every trap that was laid for the old Anglo Saxon establishment — thinking that authority was anything like them, that conformity would mean life, and that government was their friend rather than their enemy, and, for course, that all races were fundamentally identical.
    …. If you want an analog, think of Black small businessman with a wife and kids and a business in New York City. During the 1960s that businessman would have had to become a government functionary (that being where the current Black middle class exists) or become urban underclass.

    I stayed alive by a certain sense of detachment from social matters, and a sense of attachment to abstractions and operations research-like modeling. It’s easier to resist attacks when you try to understand why you are being attacked and analyze the nature of the attack. Having an assessed IQ of 140 or so helped, I was going to be unable to talk to most people no matter what I did (you can’t communicate values over a 20 IQ point gap). I even managed to have a family and several kids, most of whom managed a transition into adulthood.

    But I can say that I was born into a family that actually preserved the society of c.a. AD 1900, to a large extent, and that after about 1950 American society would not tolerate the AD 1900 society. Attempts to ‘trust people just a little bit more than they should be trusted, give them a little more influence than they should be given, and watch them grow into the position’ were uniformly betrayed, people “took the cash and threw the credit away”. First (and last) major corporation I worked for (R&D lab) my immediate supervisor told me that the people in the lab were so smart they couldn’t “make it” outside the lab, and the managers were their keepers, rather in the same way that I now keep chickens. I count that job, which took a year to escape, as the closest I’ve ever been to death.

    So that’s what it looked like from the inside — something like the Sufi story “The day the waters changed”(*). Suddenly everything had changed, and “everything decent was punished”. There were may sayings about that back then, “no good deed goes unpunished” being one.

    I saw a description of something similar in a novel by Colleen McCullough, in her Masters of Rome series. It was about the Late Roman Republic, c.a. 100 BC, and concerned the Gold of Tolusa (**). Essentially, Q. S. Caepio, acting as a troop commander, had used his troops to uncover a massive gold horde. He sent it back to Rome under guard,

    but

    also commissioned some of his auxiliaries to ambush the guards and take the gold. Q. S. Caepio later made a few seriously bad military decisions and was responsible for the loss/death of 120,000 Roman troops and auxiliaries. Q. S. Caepio then left Rome, but was though to have lived a life of luxury using the Gold of Tolusa.
    OK. McCullough described a scene in the Senate when it became clear that Caepio was in exile but immensely wealthy, although his family had been very poor prior the Tolusa affair. The Senate realized that the rules had changed. In the old days (say, 200 BC) , Q. S. Caepio would have been unable to leave Rome — no money, so no place to go, everybody blaming him for 120,000 people killed or enslaved by the enemy. With the military dominance that Rome was just then establishing, Q. S. Caepio made out, well, “like a bandit” (a common phrase in the US after c.a. 1960.). Suddenly, betraying everything and everybody was the way to success. The “mos majorem” could no longer be enforced.
    You can see the analogy to the USA’s victories in WW I and WW II. See the Unz “American Pravda” to grasp the scope of betrayal in the Western propaganda and governmental action. See the USA today to grasp just how fatal that betrayal was. It has proven just as fatal to the USA and the West as the death of the “mos majorem” was fatal to the Roman Republic.

    And that’s what I’ve been seeing my entire life: constant betrayals of trust, no respect for human life, future income discounts of about 20%/year (x) (US Congressional decisions, among other things) “take the cash and let the credit go”. (***)

    This same thing can, of course, happen to an non-Western society today, and perhaps it has. Every society has a sort of “ideal condition”, which is one point its own idea of an evolutionary path. Ideally one would have a kind and beneficent ruler whose actions could be foreseen as being under the law (or the tao or some other comprehensible system) and whose actions brought peace and prosperity to the population (ordinarily called “the people”, but who else should prosperity be brought to? The horseflies, maybe?). When the rules not longer are enforceable, either formally or informally, non-Westerns societies can fail also. That happened most recently with the Western Breakout, c.a. AD 1492 to c.a. AD 1946, and it could happen again. I’ve described what I saw during the Western failure, and I hope it somehow helps.

    x) so a dollar a year from now is 1$*(1-.2)^1 = 0.8$, and 20 years from now is worth (1$*(1-.8)^20 = 0.011$. Which is why California’s electrical grid doesn’t work — the value of fire losses back when the grid could have been repaired was (in then present dollars) a tenth of the value today. Nobody actually ran present value calculations back then, butt he fire’s destruction (80 billion USD) in 2019 would only have justified 8.6 billion dollars expenditure in 1999, or .922 billion dollars expenditure in 1989 — too little to repair the grid. It’s as if Congress (and the American society that elects it) thinks that it has a savings account that reliably yields 20% interest/year. See footnote (***).

    *) https://courseofmirrors.com/2020/04/12/when-the-waters-were-changed-2/ Worth reading, like most Sufi stories.

    **) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gold_of_Tolosa

    ***)

    This has been a novel about some people who were punished entirely too much for what they did. They wanted to have a good time, but they were like children playing in the street; they could see one after another of them being killed—run over, maimed, destroyed—but they continued to play anyhow. We really all were very happy for a while, sitting around not toiling but just bullshitting and playing, but it was for such a terrible brief time, and then the punishment was beyond belief: even when we could see it, we could not believe it…. For a while I myself was one of these children playing in the street; I was, like the rest of them, trying to play instead of being grown up, and I was punished.

    [text] Phillip K. Dick’s afterword for A Scanner Darkly from Frisson

    It is worthwhile to read the whole thing, to gain better understanding of the West. In many ways, _A Scanner Darkly_ describes what happened during the 1960s transition from a pretense of morality to today’s outright treachery (such as the expulsion of White Women and Jews from BIPOC).

    • Thanks: Malla, AaronB
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @S
  118. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    1900, to a large extent, and that after about 1950 American society would not tolerate the AD 1900 society.

    That was a tragedy not only for the West but the Entire World. Collapse of civilization via Cultural Marxism.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  119. S says:

    In fact, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is often shockingly ambiguous. The American Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal,” an observation that, unqualified, is a self-evident falsehood. The French Declaration’s notorious Article I affirms by contrast:

    Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.

    Yet, Thomas Jefferson, who authored the US Declararation of Independence, also authored, or rather O’Brien like in 1984 , ‘collaborated in writing’, the 1789 ‘Rights of Man’.

    1984

    ‘I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.’

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

    http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html

  120. S says:

    In retrospect, the conflicts of the late eighteenth century can seem rather quaint. From our vantage point, we can see that Britain, America, and France were fundamentally on near-parallel and converging trajectories.

    Converging, convergence, or rather, ‘synthesis’, indeed…as in the form of a 1776 artificial hyper-individualist Capitalist thesis, a 1789 artificial hyper-collectivist Communist anti-thesis, and modern day 2020 global Multi-Cultural synthesis.

    Burke wrote many good and insightful things in his book and was on the right path, but was perhaps too close to the ultimate center of action at the heart of the British Empire to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

    [MORE]

    As unpleasant as the thought is, people of the United States, UK, (and elsewhere) at this late date should at least examine the idea that Anglo-Saxon Founding Fathers of the Capitalist 1776 American Revolution, were also Founding Fathers of the Communist 1789 French Revolution as well, and that a wholly manufactured and broadly controlled (from London historically) Hegelian Dialectic has been at work in the world ever since.

    It would help to explain much which is otherwise inexplicable.

    Neither Capitalism nor Communism was ever intended to ‘win’ in this global dialectical ‘struggle’, nor allowed to. The ultimate convergance (or synthesis) of the two systems was always intended from the very beginning, over two centuries ago.

    Originally, at least, I think the idea was that once this manufactured and broadly controlled Hegelian Dialectic had run it’s full course, that the British Empire would (naturally) ‘inherit the Earth’ as it’s ‘just reward’. However, times change, and things don’t always necessarilly quite work out as intended, best laid plans of mice and men and all that.

    Don’t like this artificial dialectic foisted upon the world?

    Denounce it and refuse to participate in it is what I might suggest.

    Below is excerpted from a geo-political article published at the outstanding Belcher Foundation* website which examines the intimate Capitalist US role in creating the 1789 French Communist Revolution…you know, the revolution which introduced to the world the concept of ‘the Commune’, ‘counter-revolution’, the ‘political commisar’, the mass arrests and executions of the ‘Great Terror’, ‘Whites’, etc, all of which Soviet Communism would evolve from.

    ‘..first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders..’

    ‘As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, who, after fighting in the American Revolution, imported revolutionary ideology into his native France under Jefferson’s guidance and inspiration. Products of the European Enlightenment, Franklin and Jefferson were station masters of France’s American depot, as Lafayette was an agent of the French central station trained on the American revolutionary training ground. Seeding the revolutionary cloud was not a one-sided French venture, however. On the contrary: the seedtime of the French Revolution was during Benjamin Franklin’s ministry to France–and that American was the seed-planter.’

    It’s part of the open historic record that Thomas Jefferson authored, or rather, 1984 O’Brien like, ‘collaborated in writing’, the French Revolution’s seminal ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen’ in 1789. [See Wiki link below]

    Speaking of 1984 and O’Brien…

    ‘I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it.’

    1984 – Part 3, Chapter 3

    O’Brien: ‘You have read the book, Goldstein’s book, or parts of it, at least. Did it tell you anything that you did not know already?’

    ‘You have read it?’ said Winston.

    ‘I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.’

    ‘Is it true, what it says?’

    ‘A description, yes. The programme it sets forth is nonsense. The secret accumulation of knowledge — a gradual spread of enlightenment — ultimately a proletarian rebellion — the overthrow of the Party. You foresaw yourself that that was what it would say. It is all nonsense. The proletarians will never revolt, not in a thousand years or a million. They cannot. I do not have to tell you the reason: you know it already. If you have ever cherished any dreams of violent insurrection, you must abandon them. There is no way in which the Party can be overthrown. The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.’

    He came closer to the bed. ‘For ever!’ he repeated.

    *The Belcher Foundation is dedicated to the preservation of the memory and life work of Jonathan Belcher (1682-1757), prominent colonial royal governor, founder of Princeton, and first North American born British freemason.

    https://www.belcherfoundation.org/trilateral_center.htm

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

    http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html

  121. S says:
    @Malla

    Maybe.
    I think white self criticism is a good thing, we darkies need it. it is just that Whites have taken it an extreme where even their survival is at stake. White people need to give us some of their self criticizing tendencies. We darkies need it or else we will be lands full of sorrow, lands of dukha.

    Yes, self criticism, shame, and guilt, have their place, as life affirming things to bring about correction, and not suicide. They should not be ‘weaponized’ against others, or, tolerated as such, either.

    Forgiveness, even self-forgiveness if others won’t, certainly plays a role, too.

    • Agree: Malla
  122. S says:
    @Anonymous

    Here is the list, to whom I dedicate my love: To Gaylene deceased…To Ray deceased..To Francy permanent psychosis..To Kathy permanent brain damage..To Jim deceased..To Val massive permanent brain damage..To Nancy permanent psychosis…To Joanne permanent brain damage, etc..

    It’s what was done to the Chinese during the 19th century by force via the two Opium Wars, and promoted in the 1960’s in the West, particularly the Anglosphere countries, with the perhaps even more devastating use of positive reinforcement by the corporate mass media, ie that it was ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ to do drugs.

    The thousands of almost all White and very young bald headed extras filmed for the futuristic movie THX1138 in the fall of 1969 in the San Francisco area were for the most part residents of a drug treatment program.

    As Dick alludes with his dedication list, the damage from the drug abuse is devestating, and ‘recovery’ for many, if not most, a phantasm.

    But anything is allowed if it can potentially be seen to hurry up the establishment of the world state/empire…or, so it’s promoters tell themselves.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX_1138

  123. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    For what it’s worth, William H. McNeil (https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-H-McNeill), author of The Rise of The West, had by the 1980s decided that the West was declining. His failure analysis attributed the fall to excessive change. That is, the West had changed faster that other societies, become more effective in economics and warfare, and thus prevailed. However, the rate of change grew excessive with the Industrial Revolution, and the West gradually disintegrated from within. McNeil’s analysis was well within the European consensus. Much of the work of 19th Century philosophers had been an attempt to find some stable set of ideas upon which European society could be founded. The first important sign of that failure was the Revolutions of 1848. The 1914 (WW II) failure of all the Western Empires (except that of the UK, which turned out after WW II to have been mortally wounded in WW I) left the Europeans with no way to rule themselves.
    The 1930s were, essentially, a last attempt by the Europeans to find a way to rule themselves. WW II demonstrated the failure of these attempts — they tried fighting, the same thing that had destroyed the European Empires back in 1914-1919. If they had not, the European Continentals would likely have been (one and all) conquered by the USSR (See: search YouTube & Amazon.com for Viktor Suvorov). The postwar US “mixed economy” plan, lifted more or less entirely from Mussolini’s corporate syndicalism, failed by 1960s, and was replaced by a caretaker regime of urban political machines and obsolescent corporations that valued stability, even at the cost of a cold civil war, above all and is now failing.

    OK, so what does this have to do with you?

    Well, McNeil said that the non-Western countries c.a. 1980 had a distinct advantage of the the West: that their societies had already collapsed upon contact with the West, and the reconstructed societies were used to change and coping with same. McNeil gave the non-Western societies a better chance than the West of his time, and it appears that he was correct.

    So I wish you all the best. Somebody should remain civilized. All I can say is: watch out, try to think ahead, it’s trickier than it seems.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Malla
  124. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    OK, let’s take the account of the post-WW II interval in somewhat more detail.

    The first thing to realize is that the US of the Gilded Age was not exactly unified. It had a determined ruling group, the Anglo Saxons and their allies, that made a limited but very strong government. The cities, however, were not really ruled by the Anglo Saxons limited government. First, the government was Federal, by nature, a federation rather than a Monarchy or even an Empire. The national and State governments were quite willing to send in the troops occasionally to protect their property or reinforce city government, or even to force prosecution for violation of State or Federal laws (the few that there were). City governments could not, for example, violate their State’s criminal code, nor could they host troops from a foreign country against the Federal Government’s wishes.

    The cities were largely populated by foreigners. Second generation immigrants sometimes made a career out of politics, and found themselves equivalent to managers of an immensely wealthy corporation. NYC was, back in the 1890s, in command of more cash and assets than Carnegie’s steel company.

    It was discovered that the new immigrants did not fit into American society very well, even when they wanted to. Anglo Saxon politicians found themselves unable to govern the formerly American cities, even when they had the chance. Even small towns found themselves unable to govern and police fairly small groups of foreigners who simply did not care about civic responsibility, respect for the police, civic peace, and so on.
    Sound familiar?

    The Gilded Age was one of frantic improvisation in government. It developed into city governments that needed the framework of State and National governments to avoid descent into outright theft and pillage, and State/National governments that could not directly govern the cities. For that matter, the National government could not really govern the South after the Federal Army withdrew. The cities are Democrat, the countryside (the bulk of the population back then) Republican.

    OK, so this nation, kind of fragmented but still run by the Anglo Saxons, enters WW I. Wilson the Democrat tries socialist efficiency — segregate the armed forces, commandeer the economy, fight the enemy. The slaughter is shocking, Wilson is repudiated, the US becomes productive again, then the US government fools with the money supply (they really did not know what they were doing), the Europeans start to make their own goods again, tractors free much agricultural land so food prices drop, and business almost stops (shades of later this year), both in the US and Europe.

    The West tries for a new political balance, as it had before. Fascism decisively defeats Socialism throughout Europe, but not in the USSR.

    WW II starts and ends. Not only is Europe devastated as never since the Dark Ages following Late Antiquity, but all the new experimental politics were responsible for the devastation. Every nation ends up following the US example, which is a slightly altered version of Mussolini’s Syndicalism mixed with the welfare provisions of Hitler’s National Socialism. Lame, but a system of government.

    By the 1960s, the US system of government had failed. The exact failure was that it introduced technological and social stagnation. When the natural monopolies of the cities failed (through container ports and manufacturing distributed to rural areas), the US Federal government gave the cities money for their operating budgets (although not for capital maintenance), and permission to import foreigners to keep city population high enough to justify the aforementioned money flow.

    [MORE]

    How did this happen? Well, the New Deal was compose of labor unions, the Solid South, and the Big City Political Machines. An alliance of the New Deal and the dominant corporations formed the US government, post WW II. Any political alliance tends to shed members, kicked out so that the fewer remaining member could divide a fixed pot of benefits among fewer people. Think of a gang of pirates with a treasure chest worth a large fortune. One gets bodies almost immediately. By 1970 the corporations (now Earth destroyers!) and the Solid South (now Racists!) had been shed. By the 1990s, the labor unions were formally out (as racist organizations, later as deplorables), although unions had in practice been given nothing by the political alliance since about 1970.

    So, it’s 1970 and the US government is run by the Big City Political Machines, who have destroyed all their rivals (or killed their comrades, pick one). Remember who the Big City Political Machine guys are: descendants of the foreigners who had defeated the Anglo Saxons, who had seen their own cities lose their basic economies (shipping, manufacturing) and responded by getting support money from the Federal Government, and who owed their power to large scale immigration. In short, satisficers and not very bright. They had no idea of how to govern the US, yet they governed the US, Europe, and parts of Asia and Africa. As is clear now, they made a mess of it. They were supposed to govern, but could only destroy, while waiting as they had always done, for higher authority to save them from themselves.

    Let’s re-frame the argument a bit. The populations that immigrated to the US from 1840 to 1929 were essentially refugees, people who could not survive in their countries of origin. Quite a few of them were “borderlanders”, extremely poor people who had lived in marches (territories militarily contested between two ethnic groups) and found that building capital didn’t pay — long before the investment could be recovered, there would be troops along to destroy the investment during yet another war. Such populations are shiftless and poor because it’s their optimal choice. All the own is what they can carry (or can carry itself, such as cattle). In a word, they were barbarians: a group denuded physically and mentally of all but the simplest society needed to survive. No exaggeration here, that’s what they were.
    Big City Machines leadership was composed of second generation descendants of the borderlander immigrants to the US. The Big City Machines relied on State and Federal supervision for stability. They never grew up enough to provide their own stability (See: George Washington Plunkitt, Plunkitt of Tammany Hall in Project Gutenberg to get some idea of how the leaders thought.). They were barbarians.

    By 1970, the barbarians had taken over the West, much as the Germanic Tribes took over Late Antiquity. They regarded the West as wolves regard the forest — it existed independently of them. They thought they could do as they pleased because they ruled, and thought they would always rule. There is little to say about the interval from 1970 to now except the above. The barbarian leaders have played with things they don’t understand, telling themselves fairy tails about “hyperpowers” and “indispensable nations” and “proposition nations”, passing laws that replaced the old Constitution (the 1964 Civil Rights act made the US a racist country, with Whites on the bottom, and the 1965 Immigration Act gave the cities the right to import as many foreigners as needed to keep up urban political power and with that power the power of their alliance to rule the US. This is standard parctic historically. Barbarians used to import people from their homeland to keep up their military strength, and mix populations to make resistance difficult for their subjects. Turks were a good example of this.

    Barbarians are not tribesmen. They, like US cities during the Gilded Age, have lost their own traditions and picked up no others. Each barbarian is interested only in himself and a chief he has sworn to follow. And that’s it.

    This barbarian rule is ending now. It’s generational decay. Barbarians always find that their descendants, raised without the rigor of hardship, can’t keep ruling. That, after a reign of 5 decades, has happened to the Barbarians running the US and the West. Antifa members shown in video are capable only of expressing contempt beating men or women when odds are over 10 to 1.

    What comes next? Don’t know. In Late Antiquity the Dark Ages descended as the last of mass civilization ended, scholarship was almost entirely lost, population dropped to perhaps half of what it had been, government devolved to protection based on a sort of adoption (“I will protect you like my own child, and you will obey me as you would your father.”).

    Maybe we’ll do better this time. The West used to reorganize itself very 70 years or so; it would look like the end of the world but wasn’t. Maybe the West is just doing that. What I can say is that reorganization takes time, and while it’s happening, things are disorganized and quite often not safe.

  125. gay troll says:
    @AaronB

    Jews want to bring non Jews to recognize their God and his morality.

    Ha. Is that what Joshua et al did to Jericho?

  126. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    I think powerful people behave badly – that’s a problem that applies to every race and religion and nationality.

    There’s plenty of non Jews being insincere and dishonest in debate. In reality Jews have done lots of good and lots of bad in this country, like any ambitious people. Tons of doctors, scientists, and philanthropists have been Jews, benefiting humanity and giving back to the country, but Jews have also been white collar criminals.

    OK. With this post, you’ve gone from a rational debate into pilpul, as defined and discussed below.

    That’s the Jewish (or perhaps only the Ashkenazim) problem — pilpul.
    Descriptive definition in English: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pilpul

    Longer description, with some history and consequences: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-pilpul-and-why-on_b_507522

    Standard non-Jewish reaction to pilpul: https://gilad.online/writings/2020/5/18/pilpul-for-beginners

    I’m not writing an anti-Ashkinazim screed here — I’m saying that the primary effort in Ashinazim theology of recent Centuries has been in pilpul. Jewish intellectuals are trained in pilpul just as Catholic theologians were once trained in Aristotelian logic. “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Once trained in pilpul, a person tends to apply it everywhere. As the Greeks said, “To reason well is the end of logic”. “End” has two senses in Greek and English: goal, and termination. Pilpul is the termination of logic’s correspondence to the physical world — it is intended solely to defend a verbal position, however badly it corresponds to reality/experience, and nothing more. It is not intended to model reality, or to show the relations between observed facts that can lead to general and verified rules (as is Aristotelian logic, for example), but rather to block adoption of such models.

    As such it is profoundly dishonest. The Islamics, who also do not want to use Aristotelian logic, flatly say that truth is to be found only in the Koran or the observed behavior of their god’s representatives on Earth or his companions, and they will punish or kill anybody who does otherwise. This is at least honest, and an actual improvement over pilpul.

    Improvement how? Jewish history is presented to Jewish students as a series of unmitigated disasters. Could it be that Jewish reliance on pilpul has left the Jewish people unable to think strategically? The idea of incipient triumph followed by actual disaster is deeply embedded in the Jewish consciousness, enough so that it was a part of women’s “casting spells” on the children of rivals back in the 1930s in the US. This sounds much like Games Theory’s MaxMax strategy — go for maximum reward even when it risks maximum failure. It’s a poor strategy, as a bit of rational thought shows — but Jewish thought is in pilpul, which exists to block rationality. Would it be an improvement to avoid the endless streams of “Nothing can stop us now!” followed by debacle? If so, then dropping pilpul would be an advantage.

    And that’s why the “culture of critique” is a correct depiction of Ashkenazim behavior in the United States. The Western “self criticism” becomes, when filtered through Jewish groups, a pilpul defense of absolute condemnation of the West.

    Of course, if the above is a reliable description, then you will interpret this post as rather poor pilpul used to defend the West. If your mind (in particular) is able only to think in terms of pilpul, how else could you interpret this post?

    and so it goes.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  127. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilya G Poimandres

    All valid points, but not what I was saying.
    * Today’s Blacks have a sub-replacement fertility (although it is larger than any other group that has been in the US for several generations, so Black population share is actually increasing).
    * The 60’s legislation did not bring in “true socialism” or even “false socialism”. It brought in subsidies to urban areas, subsidies disguised as “welfare” but given almost entirely to urban areas. Urban areas were economically obsolete by the 1960s, and needed money to avoid bankruptcy. The subsidies today are about 0.8 billion $/year, and have cumulatively resulted in our present situation of worn out/obsolete industry and infrastructure.
    * As for failure of black neighbourhoods, there is a failure of culture. Quite true, one worse than any other ethnic group in the US. Not relevant to my point because the failure was supporting obsolete cities, effectively dissipating US income and capital in what amounted to political struggles. Failure of Black neighborhoods certainly made the dissipation easier for the public to accept back in the 1960s, but it was not the fundamental problem. Had the cities been profitable, the Blacks would have been moved back to the Southeast. As for treatment of native population, the various layers of government appear to be trying to destroy the native population.

    Black population share has been growing. So has the population of nonproductive foreigners brought to the US to keep the number of people in cities up to the level required for the cities to dominate their hinterlands, and that was 60’s legislation also.

    The US acts like a roach motel — populations that move here don’t reproduce above replacement after about the second generations, they check in but don’t check out. The cats had kittens, the cities import foreigners, preferably unemployable foreigners so the newbies don’t migrate to the hinterlands and to keep the welfare money coming. Same general process, ratio of supporting population to supported population drops, situation deteriorates.

    Maybe I should have diluted the example and included the above explanation. Good point.

  128. AaronB says:
    @Anonymous

    Pilpul as used in the Talmud means simply to find layers of meaning in biblical verses using logic, ingenuity, and inspiration, the success of which is to be judged by pious scholars. Biblical verses are thought to have deeper layers of meaning than just the surface.

    It is an art and a skill, and one of the pillars of Talmudic education. It is obviously similar to Catholic Scholasticism, Socratic debate, and the writings of the early Church Fathers, as well as the lengthy Buddhist commentaries and Muslim hadiths. Modern examples might be literary criticism, journalism, and much sociology.

    Yes, a mind trained in this way can obviously be put to bad uses – just as Socratic debate can degrade into Sophistry. But that is not its primary meaning.

    The Western “self criticism” becomes, when filtered through Jewish groups, a pilpul defense of absolute condemnation of the West.

    You know, if someone really wanted to, this could be proven or disproven. All your have to do is make a really comprehensive survey of all the major gentile writers and thinkers of the West, and see how many of them condemned the West, whether it was total or limited in nature, when it began, whether it was an accelerating trend, and what reasons they gave.

    Then we can assess the relative Jewish contribution to this trend, and whether it made it more severe. My contention is it did not – complete self-hatred had been achieved before Jews began to make contributions in this field, and even in the era of greatest Jewish contribution to this field they are eclipsed by whites. Further, Jewish contributors here were assimilated Jews with little connection to their Jewish roots – and were motivated by enthusiasm for their adopted culture, where belonging to the intellectual elite meant despising European civilization. For Jewish outsiders to be accepted they had to adopt the values of the class they were joining.

    Further, the reasons spelled out by European intellectuals for their self-disgust were not mild criticisms within an overall positive attitude to the fundamentals of European culture that could have later been developed beyond their intention into extremes by hostile actors. From the gate they were condemnations of the fundamental underpinnings of European culture. The Enlightenment attacked religion, and the Romantic attacked the disenchantment of the world brought by science.

    At once, you had two movements that attacked both the traditional roots of European culture and the emerging modern culture of science – creating a total condemnation of European culture.

    • Agree: Cking
    • Replies: @Malla
  129. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    As I expected, more pilpul. Not your fault, you’re reacting as your training has made you. Here’s what I hope is a constructive response.

    Paragraph 1: Your definition of pilpul is not that of the definitions I’m using. Yours is consistent with https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pilpul , that is, with pilpul as seen from within Judaism and presented to the general public. Mine are consistent with pilpul as seen by the general public and that I’m now trying to present to you.

    Paragraph 2: An assertion on your part that pilpul is very close to methods used in other religions. I disagree, my sources disagree.

    [MORE]

    Paragraph 3: Now we’re getting somewhere.

    All your have to do is make a really comprehensive survey of all the major gentile writers and thinkers of the West, and see how many of them condemned the West, whether it was total or limited in nature, when it began, whether it was an accelerating trend, and what reasons they gave.

    OK. So far, I haven’t seen the works any “major gentile writers” (hard to read the minds of the thinkers) who condemned the West. You’d have to name some. Even Nietzsche, a highly sarcastic writer, simply recommended study of the pre-Socratic philosophers and the restoration of private initiative. In short, Western thinkers were advocates for some system of thought or changes in method. Such criticisms as they use were intended to promote their new system, not to “condemn the West”. Now, under pilpul it would be legitimate use hyperbole, to claim that any criticism is a condemnation. This would not be permitted under any other system of thought.

    Paragraph 4: I really don’t think you can tell the difference, and perhaps your predecessors could not tell the difference either. They may have really thought that they were reading blanket condemnation, and that echoing it was legitimate assimilation. As I have said, training in pilpul can change the way you see things. Judaism is, after all, stable. One cannot propose a major change in it. One must take it as a whole or reject it as a whole. Any serious criticism is perceived as an absolute condemnation, since only absolute condemnation (e.g. “There is no God and Judaism has done many things that could not be forgiven except by a God”) would be the only possible justification for rejecting Judaism.

    Paragraph 5: Again, you’re seeing criticisms in support of a program of reforms as condemnations. Hobbes (what I see) is not Jeremiah (what you see).

    Paragraph 6: Every aspect of European society, including rational thought and tradition, have been criticized. Moreover, many of these criticisms have not been answered. It is Judaism that says a broken law is a broken law, and all breaks are of equal gravity. The West is more like Walt Whitman’s “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.) I concentrate toward them that are nigh, I wait on the door-slab. Who has done his day’s work? who will soonest be through with his supper? Who wishes to walk with me? Will you speak before I am gone? will you prove already too late?” The West does not claim to have all of the answers. It is quite capable of living with unsolved problems, some of which are later solved, some of which are not.

    The West’s current problem, as far as I can see, is that it is governed by barbarians — people who promote no social system and believe that power is the only reality. The barbarians are called, by those who name things, “Postmodernists”.

    And I can see why Judaism tries to remain the eternal stability, rejects all changes to the Law, and uses pilpul to protect itself. Pilpul is more effective than socialist doublethink, and takes less effort, being camouflage for a withdrawal from communication rather than a manipulation thereof. However, I’d suggest that Judaism (a) restrict pilpul to Jewish internal communications concerning rabbinical law and(b) also develop some capacity for strategic thought and games theory. It’s up to you, but IMHO guys land on your head too often for me to be comfortable even reading about it. Reform your thinking and quit painting yourselves into corner after corner. There’s an old Yiddish saying, in English it’s “So smart, so stupid”. Try to avoid that, if only for my sake.

    And if you’ve left Judaism, I’d suggest leaving pilpul as well.

  130. Malla says:
    @Anonymous

    That is, the West had changed faster that other societies, become more effective in economics and warfare, and thus prevailed. However, the rate of change grew excessive with the Industrial Revolution, and the West gradually disintegrated from within.

    Yes, if you look at it this is actually very true. The West was far more dynamic than other static cultures . Even if you look at just clothing and fashion as an example. Say the change from Medieval Europe to baroque Europe to Victorian Europe in fashion is huge. Other cultures remained more static. Did the same things their ancestors did centuries ago.

    Well, McNeil said that the non-Western countries c.a. 1980 had a distinct advantage of the the West: that their societies had already collapsed upon contact with the West, and the reconstructed societies were used to change and coping with same. McNeil gave the non-Western societies a better chance than the West of his time, and it appears that he was correct.

    That could be, but the culture of the 1900s that you lost could have been an inspiration for us too for improvements in our societies and people. that is why loss of that culture was a tragedy for all mankind. Now as the non White world reverts in mindset to a pre colonial state, hyper nationalism and hyper religious tendencies kept in check are getting unleashed which will only lead to further clashes among non White civilizations.

    So I wish you all the best. Somebody should remain civilized. All I can say is: watch out, try to think ahead, it’s trickier than it seems.

    Thank you. In return I wish you that the West rejuvenate itself and get back on track.

  131. Malla says:
    @AaronB

    My contention is it did not – complete self-hatred had been achieved before Jews began to make contributions in this field

    Yet Whites in those days were not seeing their homelands overwhelmed by foreigners, foreigners who have never even conquered them. It had been nothing like what we see in the last few decades.

    Further, Jewish contributors here were assimilated Jews with little connection to their Jewish roots

    That is exactly what Prager said, Jews by becoming secular ended up playing a very bad role in Western society. Being major drivers in movements like feminism, communism etc… maybe all Jews should be forced at bayonet to become Ultra -Orthodox, the whole lot of them. Forget Marx, study your Talmud and concentrate on improving your relationship with Hashem.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  132. AaronB says:
    @Malla

    Yet Whites in those days were not seeing their homelands overwhelmed by foreigners, foreigners who have never even conquered them. It had been nothing like what we see in the last few decades.

    It’s a process. A depressed person does not commit suicide immediately. But he may if he doesn’t get better after a year. The full impact of ideas takes time to be felt, to be spread, and all the implications developed.

    The trends in Western culture that created self-disgust were only getting worse. At a certain point I think people felt suicide was the only option.

    European civilization, it seemed, was incapable of overcoming “machine thinking”.

    That is exactly what Prager said, Jews by becoming secular ended up playing a very bad role in Western society

    .

    Sure, because they added fuel to the fire. They became enthusiastic promoters of the culture they had joined. But the fire was already huge.

    If you want to say that secular assimilated Jews contributed to a bad situation I don’t have a problem with that, but that’s very different than saying they started the fire.

    But you’re missing a major point here. Suicidal tendencies and self disgust are unhealthy ways to cope with a very real problem in Western culture – the disenchantment of the world and the limiting of life to the gray ave narrow confines of reason.

    Elite Western thinkers needed to find better solutions than just despair and self hate. Jews didn’t help by reinforcing these tendencies in elite Western culture in order to be accepted.

    But to many people here, there never was a problem with Western culture. The disenchantment of the world was not a problem. “Machine thinking” was not a problem. Confining life to “gray logic” was not a problem. The rationalist attack on religion, tradition, beauty, and all sentimentality and the promotion of a “hard, ugly” unsentimental attitude to life – in which the beauty of a flower was “just” chemical and life was “just” ruthless competition – none of this was a problem.

    Everything was fine, then Jews came along and convinced whites to hate themselves without any valid reason whatsoever.

    Now granted suicidal tendencies are not a healthy cope, there is still a real problem here that needs to be addressed – and ironically, the more this problem is denied the bigger it will grow, as we know from psychology.

    Denying there was any problem and blaming Jews is like junk food – feels good in the short term, but it will kill you.

    Forget Marx, study your Talmud and concentrate on improving your relationship with Hashem

    Sure, and then instead of a 1,000 degree fire, you’ll have a 750 degree fire.

    Its still burning, though.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  133. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    If you want to say that secular assimilated Jews contributed to a bad situation I don’t have a problem with that, but that’s very different than saying they started the fire.

    OK, there is something we can agree upon.

    You never did reply to my point that you are misreading Western philosophers / social critics, at least those prior to WW II.

    Please consider my account of the process that ended in the 1960s US / Western revolution:
    https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/the-essential-burke/#comment-4109740

    To borrow from a French philosopher I read so long ago that I’ve forgotten his name, the West prior to WW I had grown through warfare. The warfare forced states to be efficient and to promote tax generating activities (lest they lose the next war). This process had worked since the 1848 end of the 30 Years War, and had arguably worked (if one wanted to omit its failures in Eastern Europe) for the Napoleonic Wars, ending in the mid 1810s.
    Since the Napoleonic Wars had been a long peace (peace by European standards), with only one major war in Western Europe and the wars of expansion by Meiji Japan in the Far east. Such lessons in horrendous casualties as these wars had taught were largely overlooked.
    So when 1914 came about, Europe was shocked by the casualties, but hadn’t time to think — and simply tried mass assaults, “one more push”, pretty much until the end of the war. (BTW, democracy made this worse, as governments tried to justify the sacrifice just far by pushing for a quick victory — which usually meant massive casualties — rather than a negotiated peace. )

    And when WW I was over, pretty much everybody who supported the government had either been killed/wounded or had relatives who were, and the legitimacy of the governments that had done this horrible thing was gone. (See “Oh, what a lovely war”, search for it- it’s a pay movie, for a faint recreation of the feelings evoked by the war among Late Victorian Europeans who were touched by it). Then, after 20 years of political experimentation, WW II came along and was even worse. More people killed, and the destruction went from one end of Europe to the other instead of being confined to a fairly narrow (if very long) combat zone. To top things off, WW II was propagandized by the winners as being due to the social experimenting post WW I, and society froze solid — no more experiments. The post WW II society was to endure forever.

    Which it didn’t. By 1966, 20 years after the 1946 end of WW II, the post-WW II society had been destroyed, as outlined in https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/the-essential-burke/#comment-4109740 . The West was ruled by out-groups, and not just any out-groups, but specifically out-groups with no coherent society of their own, of in-between groups that had not the society of their ancestors, nor yet that of the pre-WW II society in their vicinity, but rather a sole interest in power and a faith in lies and deception and secrecy and their political organizations (old standards of urban politics), and in money.
    In short, the new masters of Western society were much like the Germanic groups that finally conquered Western Europe — not tribal anymore, because tribal lore didn’t include ruling civilized Gaul, but not civilized either. Their reign for the first few generations has been compared to rule by motorcycle gangs. In a word, they were barbarians.

    Like the original barbarians, the 1960s barbarians had panegyrists (“everything twisters”, the “spin doctors” of Imperial Rome). These were the people who sold the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Immigration Act to the public.

    And among the barbarians, although not strictly speaking barbarians themselves, were the Jews. They didn’t start the fire, but unfortunately had significant weak spot — they wanted people to believe that they were the “chosen people” that their religion said they were, and their role model was Moses (as the Christian model is Jesus the Savior and the Islamic model is the Prophet). This led to Jews being the public face of the 1960s — claiming more responsibility for the change that was properly theirs, trying to appear more important than they really are. (See broadway alegory on this subject: http://www.julestyne.com/Broadway/Do_Re_Mi.php Note the song layout — last two songs are “Who is Mr. Big” and “He’s a V.I.P.” Jewish main character (Hubie) is claiming responsibility for a criminal syndicate because he wants people to think he is important (and ignoring his wife, who really does think he’s important and really does love him.)

    So we end up with Jewish triumphal literature making claims for Jewish supremacy last seen in Nazi propaganda, with the Jews an important but not dominant element among the barbarians.

    So: Keep your eyes on the barbarians — the big city political machines. They are the important element, and when they disintegrate (as has happened this month in Chicago, Seattle, and Portland) the present barbarian rule is over, and we get something else. Wish I could say what.

    (and see: Copeland, _Uncivilization_, and Martin Von Creveld, “The Fate of the State” (search Google Scholar), to get some idea of how world-wide rule by barbarians in the above sense really is. Remember that any big city political machine is headed of necessity by barbarians – they are the only people with the lack of morals and strong will to combat, victory, and the loot of empires to incorporate floods of rural immigrants into an urban society.)

    Ah — and Malla. No need for bayonets to convert Jews to fundamentalist Judaism. “The Jew doesn’t uphold the Sabbath, the Sabbath upholds the Jew”. The non-fundamentalist Jews, without the traditional Jewish Sabbath,have a diminishing population. The fundamentalist Jews (Hasidim) have an increasing population. This is a major and insolvable problem in Israel, where the Hasidim refuse military service. In the United States, it means the Jewish political influence is diminishing (as it diminished when Jewish influenced labor unions lost their influence, c.a. 1970) and will continue diminishing. Recent example: overt spoken hostility to Jews has peaked among Blacks in the US. If they don’t do something immediate and effective to separate themselves from the Democrats, they’re influence is in seirous trouble.

    And here’s the authentic Western “I contain multitudes” view of that: Ain’t it wonderful? “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine..”
    J. B. S. Haldane

    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  134. @Brás Cubas

    Tocqueville made that very point in The Old Regime and the French Revolution.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
  135. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Here’s a roughly similar analysis, in which cities are not considered, only history of ideas.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/exposing-challenge-marxism

    I would say that post-WW II liberals are simply barbarians, or perhaps barbarian want to be. They do not oppose introduction of government power into every part of life. They most certainly are not pre-WW II liberals (who regarded government power as inimical). In practice, they are simply panegyrists for Big City Political Machines – the barbarians.

    Post-WW II Marxists are, of course, simply revolutionary politicians. The are civilized people applying civilized means (ideas backed with enough force to be inconvenient for the barbarian rulers) to gain power. Note that the ideas are ignored once power is actually attained.

    I think that the article referred to above actually tells what happens next. Consider the Russian Federation. It is not Marxist, and it is not Liberal. Nor is it an illegitimate government. Putin appears to be a Russian Nationalist, perhaps one who has learned something from the events since 1914, and appears to have a fair degree of legitimacy within the RF.

    What the RF doesn’t have is a legitimate method of succession. If Putin can give the RF a legitimate method of succession, he will have made a new kind of government, which is not liberal, nor is it Marxists, nor is it even conservative. Something, perhaps, like the government of Singapore, characterized by its tight grip on reality.

    Perhaps something similar will happen in the US. The form of government seems to be a trend, and our existing barbarian leaders are getting old and have nobody to follow them. No barbarian leaders, no liberals. No liberals, no Marxists. No liberals and Marxists, no Conservatives either (the article in National Reviewtelling all poor whites to simply shut up an die marked the end of Conservatism’s legitimacy).

    Couldn’t happen? Already has. The big cities have failed as a barbarian power base *. It can’t be abase for Marxist power, cities are just a basket case of decay that the US is going to have to abandon. If the Marxists wreck the big cities, that will just speed up the process, as it has in the autonomous zones. “What if they had a revolution and it didn’t matter, so they all went home?”

    The apparently deliberate NY slaughter of the assisted living inmates, and its continuation to the present by banning what appear to be effective medicines for early stage COVID-19 infections has delegitimatized the barbarians, for what that matters. The barbarians’ power had vanished in 2016 when city votes failed to carry a presidential election, the end of their legitimacy had to follow.

    Not that the real problem in the US (as in the late 1980s USSR) was inability to support its population. The US has the same problem, and whatever comes next must solve that problem somehow, probably by a drastic repricing of goods and services (as in the 1990s USSR successor). Whatever government lives, must live in that environment.

  136. Awash says:
    @Kratoklastes

    Are you arguing for pure private security system, or for a mix of public and private system?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to 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 Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS