A thing you get used to on this side of the great divide is seeing people go through the transformation. It’s like seeing a blind man suddenly given the gift of sight. At secret handshake events, a topic of conversation is “how you got here.” By that it means the book, event or person that finally opened your eyes to the reality of the world. For a lot of people, the absurdity of libertarianism was the gateway. Others found an old book by a banished writer, who used to be in the mainstream of conservative thought.
Not everyone makes the trip. Some people are so immersed in the prevailing morality that they will probably never find their way out. It’s not a matter of intelligence. We have plenty of mediocre minds on this side of the divide. It is the inability to step out of the old morality, the prevailing set of rules about what defines the moral person and what describes the immoral person. It’s not fear either, although that is often a big part of it. There are just some people who see Ben Shapiro as the great barrier after which is nothingness.
This article at PJ Media is a good example. The writer is unknown to me and probably unknown to everyone. The first thing to notice about the article is the caption on the picture is a lie. It is a deliberate lie, as well. That was not “white supremacists” surrounding counter protesters.” Nothing of the sort happened. That was a flash mob the night before Charlottesville. The lie, however, says something. It shows that the people at PJ Media are deep in the weeds of the Progressive moral framework. They accept all of it.
The setup of the post strikes me as contrived, but putting that aside, his response about tribalism is the standard CivNat spasm we see in response to biological reality. He writes, “An America where every group is primarily loyal to its own country of origin or race is an America without a bright future.” No quarrel there, which is exactly why all the sub-groups of the Dissident Right exist. They have come to understand that America is being balkanized by mass immigration, the racial awareness of non-whites and identity politics.
Then there is this. “Are most people inherently tribal? Absolutely. Our natural tendency as humans is to split ourselves off in different ways.” This is true, but there are no multi-racial tribes. In fact, we don’t have multi-ethnic tribes. The various tribes in Italy were bound together by blood, just as the Irish clans were bound together by blood. That’s a perfect example of the obtuseness of people unable to shake themselves free of the prevailing moral order. They will use the most ridiculous reasons to avoid facing basic reality.
Towards the end, we see this obtuseness again when he writes, “I think “civilizational ability” is something that should be chalked up to culture, not race. The most successful nations have been those that have adopted the tenets of Western civilization.” This is right out of the CivNat playbook. It is the most absurd form of circular reasoning, but it allows the timid to avoid noticing. It’s also a basic premise of Progressivism. The West is what it is by sheer dumb luck and that’s the root of white supremacy and all the evils tied to it.
No, the reason Europe began to race ahead of the world five centuries ago is the human capital of Europe was simply better than what populated the rest of the world. Sure, geography, history and chance came together to make the humans of Europe, but that’s true everywhere. That’s called evolution. It is a basic bit of reality that human evolution is copious, recent and local. Europeans can no more be blamed for being white than Africans can be blamed for being African. It’s just a fact of the human condition.
Now to be fair, the writer avoided most of the clownish virtue signalling that defines the people calling themselves conservative these days. The emptiness of conservatism, as well as it is ineffectiveness, leaves little for the conservative writer to do other than virtue signal. This guy at least acknowledged that the swelling ranks to his right are not simply evil, but motivated by facts and reason. He disagrees with those facts, but he has no choice, as to do otherwise means packing up and making the trip to our side.
The point of this is that you can’t save everyone. In fact, if someone from our side were to sit down with John Hawkins and explain the facts of life, he would probably nod along, but then go right back to chanting the old slogans again. Those old slogans and beliefs are comforting and require no risk. Thoreau was wrong. The mass of men do not lead lives of quiet desperation. The mass of men live in mortal fear that they will one day find themselves alone, separated from the pack, facing the dangers of the world alone.
That’s frustrating for many on this side, They wonder how it is that otherwise smart people like a John Hawkins can remain trapped on the other side. The fact is, you can’t save everyone and we don’t have to save everyone. The way these things work is you change the minds that can be changed and eventually, you have enough numbers to offer comfort to those who fear separation from the herd. You offer them a new and better herd in which they can find fellowship and comfort. That’s a how a counter-cultural movement works.
This post has already been linked to 2364 times!
I’ve worked with incredibly intelligent people of all ethnicities, , Black, Asian, Indian… Again: Race is irrelevant. Culture that supports life long learning attitudes and hard work goes a very long way in the world. way way way more white people on food stamps than any other race. Tis not even close America never has been all white, and it never will be. The Indians of course were here long before us European folk. It’s possible, some say likely, that others too immigrated: Phoenicians, Polynesians, Asians. Who knows? Blacks arrived not long after white people did Rick Wilson was right.… Read more »
You’re a very silly man.
Well, how do you explain the collapse of USSR, Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia ? The last one is best example. Those two nations are very similar but both agreed that multi ethnic country is a time bomb and better leave as friends.
Culture based things just do not work. Culture is ethnic thing and sometimes other ethnic group plays by other ethnic group rules long enough but this happens only in good times. First problem rips multi ethnic country apart. This is also why white nationalism never works. UK nationalists are too different from for example Polish nationalists.
Well, Juri, how do you explain the resiliency of Switzerland’s multi-ethnicity, for *centuries*? I explain it, by my addendum to Heartiste’s formula: “diversity + proximity + CENTRALIZATION = war.” The more that Big Bro pushes for “other ethnic group plays by other ethnic group rules”, the sooner war arrives. The Swiss “central gov’t” (such as it was) always knew that if, say, a German-dominated Bern tried to bulldoze French cantons, these Bern politicians would get quite a bloody nose. So, these politicians dared not even push for an official Capital City, much less for the sort of Federal/ Central bureaucracy… Read more »
Like libertarianism, or liberalism, or conservatism, it only works within ethnic boundaries. See non-white nations: the same boundaries apply.
As Kipling said in White Man’s Burden, me and Jack despise each other, but we know why. We have no idea what will set off Hajji over there.
Co operation between different ethnic nationalists of course works. Switzerland is unique because all ethnic groups have land connection with their motherland. And in the Switzerland, there are conscription and all Military age males have army rifle and equipment in their home. So bad guys must think before….in US melting pot also probably exist because of 2 amendment keeping power crazy folk at bay. Unfortunately, guns are not almighty. We had lot of guns and soldiers after WW I but society was so divided that comrade Lenin succeed in the 1917.
“I’ve worked with incredibly intelligent people of all ethnicities, , Black, Asian, Indian… Again: Race is irrelevant.” One does not follow from the other. There are clearly very bright blacks. But not very many compared to whites or Asians. I also suspect that the current IQ model, where IQ, or g factor, is said to be one thing, is perhaps simplistic. Why should one assume that the cognitive output value of something as abstract and complex as the human mind (or brain?) can be satifactorily mapped onto an interval of the real line between 0 and maybe 300 tops? That… Read more »
The typical immigrant from India in the US is well-educated and probably comes from a wealthy family from the upper castes. It’s the only way they can get a visa to live here. You’re experiencing confirmation bias and erroneously think all Indians are like the ones you see in the US. They’re not.
I like a modest amount of legal immigration. My cardiologist from Greece is one of the top in his field and I’m glad he lives in the US. Too bad for Greece because they’re missing one great cardiologist.
This brain drain is one of the reasons I favor very strict immigration limits. If the US scoops up all the words doctors, the conditions in the nations that send them here will worsen increasing migration pressures.
“food stamps.”
Per capita. Learn what it means.
Also “on average.”
NAXALT
NAX-ity NAXALT
Then why is Africa such a mess? And why is everyone trying to emigrate to “white” countries, and not the other way around?
No, dipshit, Rick Wilson is not right. Rick Wilson has never been right about anything in his miserable life.
“I’ve worked with incredibly intelligent people of all ethnicities…”
Too bad it didn’t rub off. You exhibit all the characteristic strategies of the disingenuous liberal: there’s condescension (“Again:”), unproven absolutes (“race is irrelevant”), dishonest/irrelevant statistics (“way more white people on food stamps), nonsequiturs (“America has never been all white”), and snark (“men who self pleasure to anime”). Not a single honest (or intelligent) argument in your entire comment.
But then, I’m not telling you anything you didn’t already know.
Virtue signaling idiocy…A perfect example of what Z-man was writing about.
The playing field is being leveled by cutting down the best to the level of the least. There is no such thing as a level playing field and never has been. That very idea is the heart of communism and the only way to make anything level is to cut down the top. As a society or culture we can try and give a hand up to those less fortunate but we cannot level their playing field. Is every man as hansom as Sean Connery, as talented as Jimmy Stewart, as fast as Ali or as smart as Einstein? Then… Read more »
Absolutely, Hoagie. Kurt Vonnegut’s story _Harrison Bergeron_ exemplified this ignorant “level the playing field” tripe, taking it to its obvious, socialist extreme.
White man steal everything.
Even steal Other’s smart people.
Your comment is the first time those words have ever been strung together in that order. Allow me to congratulate you on your groundbreaking work in advancing human stupidity.
I’ve worked with smart people of all ethnicities too. They were generally good people but there is a rub Preference for ones own kind is genetic and any society that becomes diverse will fail. There aren’t any diverse societies that function well , even Switzerland is essentially a small state made up of three societies that do little together Singapore the arch example is a one party authoritarian state with basically no birth rate (its 1.24) None of them work, its simply human nature Let me give another example, Belgium. Its two ethnicities basically the same race but the differences… Read more »
Stellar commentary as usual. Brains are not the main dividing line here. Courage is. Only those who have sufficient mettle to defy “acceptable” opinion will make it over to the biological realist side at this point. But give it time and that will likely change. Advanced findings in Genetics over the next ten to twenty years may cause all kinds of havoc for the egalitarian worldview. Patience.
There is a point that the only thing I can conclude of why these ‘normycons’ still hold to their comfort blankets is that they are just paycheck conservatives. A term many are using to explain part of why they do what they do.
They are always try to figure or read us out of the right. We have to get rid of them. Converting or red pilling works with a few.
Sorry Greg, America nor any other country works on a seniority system. You fight for your right to rule and what culture it will be.
Cheddar man in England wants his stuff too.
If this isn’t Tiny Duck’s regular troll it should be. Special treatment my ass.
Where in God’s name do you come from?
You do have to acknowledge the power of social pressure on guys not using pseudonyms. As Z and others have pointed out, modern leftism really is like a religion, and being an atheist makes you an outcast. It’s like Christianity centuries ago: even if you didn’t really believe, you had to pretend to publicly, or be an outcast. It is telling how many of Our Guys, the 100% over the river guys, use pseudonyms. There was an interesting Twitter kerfuffle recently when Charles Murray said people shouldn’t use pseudonyms. Maybe the great and pseudonymous Z will take up the subject.… Read more »
Pseudonyms have always been the shield of the dissident. On the other hand, the defenders of the faith despise pseudonyms. They want all sinners dragged before the court and forced to answer for their crimes.
Frankly, I’ve lost all respect for Murray. He’s at an age and position here can speak his mind.
“Require the publishers of online content to identify themselves”
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/19/canadian-government-moves-to-block-freedom-of-speech-in-effort-to-prop-up-justin/
Speaking of pseudonyms, the PJ reader who emailed Hawkins is using a pretty based one. “William Luther” lol
“You do have to acknowledge the power of social pressure on guys not using pseudonyms.”
Huh? I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Are you trying to excuse the guy’s silliness, his “CivNat absurdity” because he’s using his real name? That doesn’t wash at all. He’s being paid to write that crap. He’s a public employee of CivNat, Inc.
There is a lot to be said for earning a living and being able to support a family. As Z says, “They [the Left] want all sinners dragged before the court and forced to answer for their crimes.” Not so sure I agree with this comment from Z: [Murray is] at an age and position here can speak his mind.” Remember that at age 78, co-discoverer of DNA and Nobel laureate James Watson was suspended from the chancellorship of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory for wrong-think comments he made about Africa. According to Wikipedia, he said in an interview he was… Read more »
Actually, Watson didn’t discover DNA. That honor is accorded to Friedrich Miescher. Watson and colleagues figured out the structure of DNA — the double helix. For dissidents, the moral of the story is the same.
Bah. Watson stole it. Another scientist, who took pictures of crystalline structures, tried her tech on biological material and saw the helixes, but was not yet ready to publish until the next week.
He saw the pictures on her desk, and announced his ‘findings’ the very next day, saying “I had a dream”.
Perhaps. For dissidents, the moral of the story is still the same.
No. Her name was Rosalind Franklin. She was brilliant. She died very young from cancer. Dead people are not eligible for Nobel Prizes. Stop making things out to be what they are not.
I’ve used SA since a little incident years ago on the WSJ board where in a discussion on climate change, happenend to share a few statistics from my industry rebutting a greenie’s stance on massive increases in damages from weather events. The little faggot actually tracked down my home number and called my home to threaten me. Well, we ended up have fulsome discussion about terminal ballistics and boxing and he decided the better part of valor would be to go away. So since Sam was a relative (yes I’m one of those Winthrop people-though with a twist) and used… Read more »
Saml Adams: If you’ve already had previous online identities unmasked and had to switch to new pseudonyms because of it, then it’s really not a good idea to post content potentially linking your current one to the old one. The internet never forgets. Don’t leave a trail.
Forgot to note that I used my real name that was on the WSJ subscription. Have always assumed that someone motivated enough could dox me, but getting ever closer to that economic point where I give less and less of a shit. And think these LARP’ers like Antifa are going to begin learning, a two way firing range is not really that much fun.
So if the insurance industry knows, the folks with real money involved, then everybody knows. They Know.
How many neocon “outcasts,” are there? There are youtube monetized videos you can find today which advocate the genocide of the Arab population of Gaza or the West Bank. Explain how these all powerful “leftists,” haven’t done anything about this? Give me a break.
The Federalist Papers were written using pseudonyms.
Fah! Z, I could have written that myself, 3 years ago. Complete with subconscious instinctive virtue signalling. When I got exiled from the hive I first came across guys like Vox and Cerno and for awhile they seemed reasonable – and compared to what I had come from, they were. But in time you see such men for what they are – poseurs, hucksters, and performance artists. They had no real intellectual merit. Then came the NRx crowd and most of their creed was simply laughable. Most of those guys knew nothing of history or the faith, but they read… Read more »
One of the things that defines basic intelligence in my mind is the ability to discern the fundamental difference between a population and a sample. There are lots of folks (even people like Greg Culver here) who say “Now I know a really smart INSERT ETHNICITY guy who…” and they miss the point completely. The population of people expressing a phenotype is way different than what a genetically similar population expresses. Variability in phenotype comes in individuals while the average is expressed in populations. I never understand when supposedly smart people fail to get this.
“He disagrees with those facts” Logical bug, you cannot disagree WITH a fact, you can at most disagree that something IS a fact. Otherwise good work. About Europe racing ahead, as teh Chinese are keen to point out, there was a time, before 1500 give or take a few hundred years, when Europe was not ahead. Civilization, ie cities and larger polities and such, started in Egypt, Mesapotamia and the Indus Valley and maybe in the Andes as well. A millinium or two later, the China show got rolling, maybe roughly the same time as the corner of Europe proper… Read more »
Huh. Just last night I listened to a podcast about the “Needham Question.”
(Why, prior to the 15th C. China was far advanced of Europe–printing, gunpowder, etc.– and subsequently fell far behind.) In the modern era the Chinese seem to rely exclusively on industrial espionage. Anyway, links: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0038x9m
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199920082/obo-9780199920082-0006.xml Maybe A future subject for “Z”??
It’s because the new emperor in 1492 burned all the records, banned pig iron as a defacto currency because he feared a forming middle class, beheaded the eunuch admirals and burned the Zheng Ho exploration fleet (the guys who left a map to Cuba, the one Columbus used). The Chinese have been burning the records in a Year Zero sonce Huang Ti. He wasn’t the first Emperor; he won the war against the Red, and burned. (The closest thing to Genesis is the story of this founding war between the Yellow and the Red; their Lucifer was General Chio-sure, who… Read more »
I heard a claim that the Chinese historically had a very different approach to developing technology. They would develop one thing, then use it only for that. One example was gun powder. The Chinese developed it, used it for fireworks. But not much more. Guns were later developed by the Europeans. I think there were other examples. The conjecture was that the Chinese thought in a more ‘autistic’ way; they had a problem, they solved it and moved on. They did not try to improve it, develop more general principles or abstract theories about it. I think this fits with… Read more »
That was pretty much the gist of the podcast. (Still worth a listen as an intro to the subject.)
the reason Europe began to race ahead of the world five centuries ago is the human capital of Europe was simply better than what populated the rest of the world.
Had nothing, NOTHING, to do with Catholicism (or Christianity), eh?
Maybe with Christianity getting out of the science labs? That could potentially explain some I think
Maybe you should read actual history, not the BS you got in “school.”
Come back when you’re ready to ‘splain who was the single most influential pioneer of biology, or astronomy, or physics, or medicine.
Hint: they are all Catholics.
Ignorant twit.
Who fucked your wife last night??
” single most influential pioneer of biology, or astronomy, or physics, or medicine.
Hint: they are all Catholics.”
Really? That would be an interesting surprise to Newton, Darwin, Alexander Fleming or Thyco Brahe and later Einstein, Bohr and many others.
There is no ‘single most influential’ pioneer. I figure you had Galilei and probably some others in mind. Guess what, you off the bat offensive [never mind], Galilei needed the church out of his way.
The conventional Galileo story has been called into serious doubt, and not even that recently. While it’s true that he was persecuted by the church, it was quite likely NOT due to his scientific pursuits, but rather a highly abrasive personality and belligerent posture toward the church and its teachings.
The history of the Catholic church is often misrepresented this way, which is no surprise once you realize that our current rulers and history-writers are Protestant offshoots.
That’s possible. Im simply saying science and religion are two very different endeavors. That does not mean they have to be in each others way, but historically they often have been.
It’s mostly a lie; Christianity was very rarely “in science’s way”. The Royal Society was founded by Robert Boyle, a noted and devout Anglican. Certainly, the Catholic church did not stunt science in the middle ages anywhere near as much as Progressivism stunts science today. Geocentrism is the lynchpin of that particular silly anti-Christian argument, and there’s a lot of evidence that it would have gone away on its own – but even if it hadn’t, astronomy and cosmology haven’t really produced that much of genuine value yet compared to, say, chemistry and genetics. Science and engineering require social cooperation… Read more »
And, an interesting surprise to Pythagoras, Archimedes, Euclid etc.
Newton, perhaps the greatest mind of the last 500 years, was a devout Christian, but not a Catholic.
Lance, the Church may have had oodles of motives for doing him that way.
The fact remains, that Galilei needed the church OUT of his way.
Had the Church c. 1850 wielded the power it wielded c. 1615, Darwin may well have decided that it was prudent for him to lay low, to stay a “lost boy”.
Simba was replying to dad29’s pitch, about the Church deserving so much credit for Europe’s progress.
He was also heavily into the occult.
Agree, it built the institutions, the medieval universities and precious Irish (non-Catholic) cloisters that preserved the libraries being burned by Arabs. But what about Islamic university? The Arab Conquest wasn’t Arab- it was Persian. An alternative Persian form of Christianity, like Greek Byzantium. Their Arab vassal mercenaries stole the victory, then began rewriting the history. Choestes’ armies successfully reached Egypt. He was Persian, but a convert to Ebionite faith of “Judaic Jesus” (non Trinitarian, like the Nestorian Syrian bishops)- the Prophet, the Mohammed, was Jesus. They didn’t see him as a Son of the Holy Ghost, an avatar, the deity… Read more »
The occult is an alternative form of science, as are the Eastern arts, as were the masoretic masons, etc etc.
Learn to translate, smart people.
Clues are everywhere, people really are trying their best.
PS- pedants have ruined, fucking ruined this thread. Every public meeting gets some asshole who jumps up and starts shouting who-knows-what.
And the current pope of the Catholic Church is an ignorant Argentinian communist who enjoys kissing the feet of muslims while Christians throughout the Middle East are being massacred. He neither defends Christians nor his own Church. Hopefully, he will end up in that place he claims doesn’t exist.
Come back when you’re ready to ‘splain who was the single most influential pioneer of biology, or astronomy, or physics, or medicine.
You mean the ancient Greeks? BTW insulting people won’t win them over to your thinking.
The paradigmatic shift brought about by Christianity in general and the church of Rome in particular made what we think of as science possible.
Stop drinking the anti-Christian kool-aid.
The kind of anti-factual, dogmatic thinking that is problematic in science. Christianity helped science primarily by getting out the science labs. Science is about different realms than religion. You can be Christian and a scientist. But they compliment, not buttress, each other at best.
What you know ain’t so. Much of the current Narrative suffers from a lack of contact with historical, verifiable fact. If you are of the sort to un-learn received propaganda, you have several options, of which I will list only two. The most readable is likely Hannam’s “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution.” Well written and entertaining, but a bit Roman-triumphalist, it is the easiest way to red pill yourself on the topic. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004S6UW1E/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Grant’s “The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts” plows similar ground,… Read more »
Maybe, it is actually possible that the church has been accused of being more detrimental to science than was the actual case. We know that Christianity has been attacked by ppl who it later turned out had ulterior (cultural Marxist, postmodernist etc) motives. And I am not an expert on either Christianity or the history of science. I practice science, I have strong views on what ‘constitutes science’. But I dont know the exact role of the church in the development of science from the Italian renaissance forward. I concede ‘reasonable doubt’ on the church’s ‘guilt’ in retarding science thus.
The Antikythera mechanism is a clockwork analog computer. They think it was made around 100 BC, possibly by Archimedes. Amazing device considering western culture didn’t invent clockwork mechanisms until 1300 AD. It was made long before Christ was born, much less the Christian church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
This little thread is so reminiscent of the “Life of Brian” movie…
I wonder what sort of point you think you’re proving here. Plenty of would-be inventors come up with fantasy inventions involving technology that doesn’t exist. If mankind comes up with an anti-gravity mechanism in the year 2300, does every crank today designing levitating sweatpants get credit for being a genius before his time? The people who push us into the future (technology-wise) are the people who make scientific and technical breakthroughs that can actually be IMPLEMENTED by their peers. These “pre-invention inventions” are almost never used in the design of the genuine article, even as inspiration, because everybody’s already forgotten… Read more »
The point I’m trying to make is that science existed before the Roman Catholic Church. If you find that statement threatening perhaps you should return to Free Republic, where they ban every conservative who doesn’t conform to Church doctrine.
It seems all the fanatical literal bible thumpers are on this thread.
The point you’re trying to make is wrong, and you’re making it poorly. You’re using “science” as a stand-in for “technological progress”, and they are not the same thing. The Scientific Method is a modern invention, not really taking root until Descartes and Newton. Before that, all “science” was inductive, which led to thousands of years of idiotic ideas like phlogiston and trepanation.
You obviously don’t know anything about science other than the usual progressive-propaganda talking points, and should really stop posting about it as if you do.
I’m not even a Christian, I’m just someone who studies history. You, apparently, are not.
Eratosthenes of Cyrene, born around 276 BC, accurately measured the circumference of the world. Sounds like science to me.
then you don’t know what Science is.
you’re ignorant of how science and the scientific method arose in Europe. instead of name calling why not take this opportunity to learn what you’re talking about?
clever device, but it’s not science.
Lance_E, I largely agree w your comments on the history of science. I think it began largely around the time of Galilei etc, certainly w the scientific method.
One of my old tracking books about animal tracks in Africa called tracking ‘the oldest science’. A little tongue-in-cheek I think there is some merit in that.
“Eratosthenes of Cyrene, born around 276 BC, accurately measured the circumference of the world. Sounds like science to me.”
To make it complete science he should have tested it to verify his theory. But he couldnt. He was somewhat in a situation comparable to the current one with string theory. But, it was pretty good work and maybe science, one could split hairs over that, or not 🙂
“I’m not even a Christian, I’m just someone who studies history. You, apparently, are not.”
Well I know more about science than I do about history, no question there.
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Oliver Cromwell, 1650
Tully, if your rebuttal here refers to Ex-Pralite’s comment (about measuring circumference), that advance may, strictly speaking, not be “science”, but so what? This thread started, with a claim about “the reason Europe began to race ahead of the world five centuries ago”. So, the issue here is, did advances, like measuring earth’s circumference, help Europe eventually race ahead? And, how much did such advances owe to Christianity, vs. how much to other factors (e.g. the Ancients, e.g. in Greece)? Debate on such matters is nowadays far better on the Right than on the Left. Let’s not let hyper-partisanship, for… Read more »
It’s hilarious that people are downvoting Lance_E’s comment. They obviously know nothing about how technological progress actually occurs. I’ve met more than my fair share of people who walk around spouting all sorts of “great ideas” – but couldn’t implement the design of a paperclip into an actual physical object. Here’s a clue – if the best you can do is write down the crazy ideas in your head on a piece of paper – but you’re not able to turn that “invention” into something REAL here in the physical world – you didn’t do shit. The world doesn’t advance… Read more »
“Here’s a clue – if the best you can do is write down the crazy ideas in your head on a piece of paper – but you’re not able to turn that “invention” into something REAL here in the physical world – you didn’t do shit.”
COMPLETELY incorrect! What you describe, if I only add that the idea is true or almost true, is called theoretical science. Einstein’s work was 99% of this nature. It led other people to understand the energy potential of nuclear fission, and the rest is history.
Well he was writing to Scottish Presbyterians so I’d bet that no, bowels or no bowels, they did not think such a thing possible….
Hi Jaq, yes my reply was to Ex’s comment. The fact of the matter here is that science or more accurately the scientific method arose directly from Christian theology. Not so much “The Church” as an institution but the theology behind it. Which is that God created Man with the capacity to reason, and that the world works according to laws that are both knowable and universal. A more in depth explanation can be found here
http://www.icr.org/article/christianity-cause-modern-science/
Ex’s problem, along with some other commenters here is that he/they are confusing technological advances with science. They are not the same thing.
WTF, dudes? Current Christianity sprang forth from Zeus’s forehead, fully formed?
Please don’t turn turn this place into PJM.
(For goodness’ sakes, this was the original argument against Darwin.
Not how things began, but whether they had changed over time.)
So reassuring to enjoy the unity of those of us “on this side of the great divide”.
Yeah, we’ll be just fine. Unlike the Enemy, we aren’t motivated by petty hatreds.
Fanatical literal bible thumpers?
Maybe I missed something in skimming through this tiresome thread, but I haven’t noticed anyone supporting their claims with chapter and verse quotations from the Holy Texts, which is what ”fanatical literal bible thumpers” do.
And which Catholics never do. But whatever; let the half-literate mud-wrestling continue until somebody gets tired or gets called home to dinner.
”fanatical literal bible thumpers” was an ill-advised phrase.
But, recall, dad29 started this dustup with a dig at an “Ignorant twit”.
Chicken or egg.
Did Christianity come from an uprooted and changing theology-
Or did the theology and science come from broad, inheritable tendencies?
I say the people and their way of looking at the world came first.
Christian culture can influence, but won’t change the deep nature of African or Mestizo culture.
Tully, Islamic theology may well have accomplished a similar feat, had the Mongols been stopped from spanking so much of the Moslem world, as fate spared W. Europe from a similar spanking.
I’ll wager that Averroes’ position on theology and reason fit well with that of the Christian Medievals, and that he had much influence on Islamic theology, seeing as he was the Caliph’s fair-haired boy.
Wikipedia describes his position as follows:
“When conclusions reached by philosophy appear to contradict the text of the revelation, then according to Averroes, revelation MUST be subjected to interpretation or allegorical understanding, to remove the contradiction”.
And, both Christian and Moslem Medievals owed much of their view, that “the world works according to laws that are both knowable and universal”, to Aristotle, incl. to his idea of the Unmoved *Mover*.
That’s one of the main reasons, of course, as the Church banned cousin marriage to the 4th degree, which increased general intelligence levels. It also encouraged hard work and science…
With all due respect, that reasoning is faulty. Christianity could have arisen anywhere. In fact it was born in the Levant, but it did not take hold there in the way it did in Europe. Why did Catholicism (or Christianity) take hold in Europe and not elsewhere? There was no monopoly on the ideas behind Christianity.
Biology->Culture->Politics->Economics
Evolution has endowed us with a tenacity of thought born of brain wiring that occurs during our early formative years. This is why most people are resistant to change in their core beliefs in later life. One of the few things that can alter this bias is confrontation with reality involving existential threat, e.g. getting the shit scared out of you. Unfortunately, our current environment offers little opportunity for this to occur.
I notice that older Buddhists ‘find’ Buddhism, Jews ‘find’ Judaism, Christians ‘find’ Christ, etc.
Those early grooves are well worn.
Right now, old Dad is out in the back yard, trying to find the barn animals. It’s feeding time in 1934.
1. “The most successful nations have been those that have adopted the tenets of Western civilization. Even the most prosperous Asian nations like Japan and South Korea were heavily influenced by Western culture. Additionally, there are also poor white nations like Armenia, Moldovia, and Ukraine. If Western culture had developed in Africa while Europeans still embraced the sort of backward tyrannies you see in Africa and South America, chances are America would be one of the sh*thole countries and they’d be the prosperous ones today.” It’s not the poverty, it’s the poz! There can be some human dignity even in… Read more »
The old cliche goes “nothing succeeds like success,” and it’s true. The Left wins in the present, I’m coming to believe, almost entirely because they’ve won in the past. I certainly don’t respect the “respectable Right,” but I understand them, as I’ve been in a similar situation — when I was professing, even a hint of heresy would’ve cost me everything. I would’ve lost my job — I’d never work in education again, at any level — and former “friends” would’ve cut me in the streets. I’m only exaggerating a little when I say we probably would’ve had to move.… Read more »
The Left is also engaged. They know what they are fighting for, which is space at the huge public trough, where you are fed according to your wants, not your contributions. To take it further, the hissy fits we call virtue signaling serve to enlarge the size and frequency of the feedings for the one throwing the fit. Never mind the fact that, one day, the farmer is going to get tired of the freeloading and the hissy fits, and not refill the trough with swill (the “Venezuela outcome”). I don’t think it is any more complex than that.
It’s all great to claim you have an open mind and are willing to digest big new ideas. It’s a whole lot harder to actually walk back on stuff you have earnestly believed for decades. It must feel like betraying past self.
Most people can only do it gradually if at all. Denial is far more comfortable.
As someone who used to be blue pill ‘conservative’, Im more wondering how far my views will go lol I think the ones who used to buy into all the civnat stuff might end up the more extreme. B/c we have sort of a ‘woman scorned’ sense of having been betrayed by the ppl and ideas we used to believe in. Those that saw through it all along might be more ‘well, they re cons but what do you expect from cons’??
I bet Genghis Khan was a really idealistic blue pill guy in his early youth lol
I think of Mosses as a guy who started true blue living in comfortable slavery. Even after God started talking to him, he hadn’t really swallowed the red pill.
Only after dragging all the other fat, lazy, comfortable slaves out into the wilderness and listening to them bitch and moan for years was he really red-pilled. That’s when he and God decided to keep them in the desert for a couple of generations – until all the blue-pillers had dies off.
The blue pill to red pill club got two very unexpected members this week, Moses and Genghis Khan lol
I think of Set-Moses (“Child-of-Set”) as a Hyksos Egyptian priest whose faction lost their bureaucratic war with the Isis faction. So badly, they had grab their clans and flee, like Abraham, to the coast, then the wastes, to their Mittani relatives. So badly, the very name of Set was banned by Egypt; the refugees had to use the unspeakable sign, YHWH, of the volcano god as a sigil. That volcano was a column of smoke by day, a pillar of fire by night. Of course Moshe’s descendants rewrote the story. Too many wanted to go back to the civilized world,… Read more »
“There’s a lot to unpack there” — oh shut up. This guy is an absolute tard. I don’t know what’s worse though, him or Andrew (((STERN))) in the comments over there.
Keep fighting the good fight Zman.
Never trust anyone who says “unpack”, “drill down”, “at the end of the day” or “badass woman”.
“The most successful nations have been those that have adopted the tenets of Western civilization” is a very interesting and opaque statement. He’s hedging his bets. Depending on what he really means by “tenets”, he could either be exactly right or catastrophically wrong.
If “tenets” means “Christianity and hierarchical government”, then it’s true; even non-white nations that adopt them do better than non-white nations that don’t. But what he probably, actually means, like any good progressive moralist, is “liberal democracy” – and as we all know, any nation that adopts liberal democracy is poised for suicide, not success.
Free-enterprise, property rights, and rule-of-law are real helpful too. It worked for Hong Kong.
“Rule of law” does not exist. “Free-enterprise” and “property rights” are the same thing. Where did property rights come from? Do you think they just materialized out of thin air? What prevents me from defecting and simply taking your property?
Two men in his employ, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
Rule of Law exists, and is well-defined. I live on a piece of land that, 250 years ago, was hunted and fished by the Iroquois. My right to this property derives from those contractual arrangements developed by law, and ensured by the rule of law, preceding my purchase of this property. Before that – raw conquest. No one who spends ten minutes thinking through the legal basis of any society can avoid that brute fact about the nature of human organization. The ‘rule of law’ isn’t the ‘rule of nature’ – it’s the domestication of conquest into peaceful and legal… Read more »
I don’t really have a herd to join, and am quite used to being alone in my thinking. In fact, this is one of the few places where I can test my thoughts out and get a useful, meaningful response to it, good or bad. Except for here, there isn’t much real discussion any more, it is simply selling a position and shaming those who disagree. I assume protective coloration most of the time, and try to keep it from becoming too immersed in my thinking. I am a big believer in the fates, and the old noir stories and… Read more »
Under rated point buried in there: the only real discussion going on anywhere in America is between factions of the right
Absolutely. We’re the Witnesses, as Severian demonstrates above.
A secret belief defines and sustains groups such as Jewish Marranos, or Druze, or Zoroastrian Persians.
Someday will we be that crazy remnant that believes it’s ancestors walked on the Moon?
I was on a nighttime walk just yesterday, looking up at the half moon on a clear evening, getting chills at the idea that people walked on that thing and made it back. At the rate things are going, it will be a hundred years, if ever, that we go back.
I remember the night, getting up to see the moonwalk. Awesome memories.
More whites behaving badly
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45270664
Anyone can behave badly. I guess you expect whites to know better?
https://youtu.be/-JEpVBlWzxA
Just to add some spice to the stew, PJ Media is run by a Jewish screenwriter who adores his son’s homosexual marriage. To be fair, he was strongly opposed to Never Trump.
I believe the original founders of PJM were Aubrey Chernick, Roger L. Simon and Charles (LGF) Johnson.
Zman kicking libertarians has always irked me, but now I get it, I *feel* it.
He’s kicking the Blank Slate.
Libertarianism is the natural stance of White culture before the meddlers started rewriting our moral code.
The terms “con”, “lib”, “tarian” all meant something very different before the Diversity’s blank slate rolled in.
Like minorities, the virtue signallers define themselves relative to white majority.
Can’t any of these people do something on their own, and just leave me be?
(“Who will rid me of these meddlesome preists?”- Saml Adams and some other old white guy)
Henry II of England. 😉
I came here from PJM.
Dreadful. I can’t bear to read it anymore.
(I read the comments this time though- and even civnats like James Woods are Noticing.)
Intelligent guys like Richard Dawkins do not join your side, Mr. Z cause your side offers nothing other than sick RAHOWA fantasies, your side exists purely as a foil to BLM and La Raza type minority racists. Really other than RACE! RACE! RACE! what ideas does the Dissident Right bring? What is the Dissident Right position on the trade deficit? sky high college and medical costs? Rampant corporate consolidation leading to enormous concentration of power and influence in the hands of a few globalist fucks? IP Trolling? The Drug War? GWOT? Medicare? Social Media Censorship? The Normies want to hear… Read more »
Maybe if the normies would just acknowledge race the dissidents could dial it back a bit, but I doubt it.
In case you have been asleep for awhile everything else by the left has been pretty much white hatred.
You raise some important political issues. Unfortunately, most non-whites will never grapple with the issues you enumerate. For the most part, they just want to take from the Other.
One reason for whites to be tribal is so that we can start discussing legitimate issues again. If you every want a worthwhile debate about taxation or health care, you must establish a majority white country.
These are bubble people. They are socially and economically isolated from the c**p they promote. They’re like “Meathead” (Rob Reiner) here in CA, He promotes all sorts of insane legislation and attacks conservatives for being racist, etc. Yet lives in a gated community in Malibu in a house with a large wall and gate. Meathead doesn’t want reality intruding upon his spotless life and mind.
You have to understand the “editorial viewpoint” at PJM. I discovered this because I used to visit Instapundit regularly. Every so often I would bookmark a post linking to a story that the MSM had not covered as a reference for further investigation/follow-up. Then I noticed that some of these links/stories were being deleted. In each case of a deleted link/story, the facts ended up being the opposite of the initial PJM preferred propaganda narrative.
Hawkins missed the essence:
“When you wish that people could be colorblind, you are like a communist who wishes that a person would work as hard for a collective as he would work for his family. Just like it is contrary to human nature to expect communism to work, it is contrary to human nature to expect colorblindness, especially from non-whites. You are like a person who opposes gravity for ethical reasons.”
I think there is a distinction between libertarianism, as the author defined it, and Ron Paulism. Ron Paul was very successful in the nought decade(2000s) with a certain brand of paleo libertarianism that addressed the peculiar excesses of that decade in a manner that cloaked white interests. In particular, I refer to the absurd neocon overseas adventures, the usual unfair disproportionate taxation of whites, and problems of freedom of association related to classical issues of the American southeast(race). This is exemplified by the pro confederate writings of Paul unearthed toward the end of that decade. The ideology was useful in… Read more »
I don’t think it’s circular to say it’s culture not race. I don’t agree, but it isn’t circular. Think of it this way: For the sake of argument lets stipulate that all human populations everywhere have exactly the same potential. What would human history look like given this? Well we can be pretty sure what it would not look like, which is all peoples everywhere advancing in lockstep at the same rate! History is chaotic — even given equal potential, geographical and historical accidents would result in people in some parts of the world getting a jump on those in… Read more »
For example?
The industrial revolution started in England but was spread to France and Germany where they learned and improved it.
Zman: “…it allows the timid to avoid noticing.” Really good. Z or someone, please refine that into a maxim.