There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[Really?]

A prominent US lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in a New York park in a protest against climate change.

The remains of David Buckel, 60, were found in Prospect Park in Brooklyn.

In a suicide note found nearby, Mr Buckel wrote that he had immolated himself using fossil fuel to symbolise what he said was the damage human beings were doing to the Earth.

He said most people now breathed bad air and many died prematurely.

Mr Buckel was well known for his legal work on behalf of gay, lesbian and transgender people and later worked with several environmental groups.

"Pollution ravages our planet, oozing inhabitability via air, soil, water and weather," the lawyer said in his suicide note, quoted by the New York Times. The note was also emailed to several news organisations shortly before his body was found, the newspaper said.

"My early death by fossil fuel reflects what we are doing to ourselves," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43773650

Isn't it hypocritical to use a fossil fuel accelerant to protest the use of fossil fuel accelerants? He should have used some kind of vegetable oil or something.

He should have killed himself with solar power.

Sat himself under a giant magnifying glass or something.

Maybe a wood fire fed by a water-powered bellows.

[Shatterface]

It's like feminists and transactivists. You start policing cultural boundaries and the next thing you know someone comes along and does it for you.

Do you embrace cultural relativism? Or maybe you legitimately have Asian or African preferences and are #wrongborn? Perhaps you are a ‘cultural apathetic’ happy to see which strands develop and which wither ....

If you do find value in what you had/have, is that value worth defending? How strongly? Or is any defence of binding cultural values ‘identity politics’? In which case we can return to the ‘cultural apathetic’ stance.

Yes, I don't want to kick the darkies out so that means I'm okay with FGM and everything. Because that's how it works. I don't want to join the Aryan Brotherhood so I'm joining the jihadis instead. These are my choices.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

It's like feminists and transactivists. You start policing cultural boundaries and the next thing you know someone comes along and does it for you.

Do you embrace cultural relativism? Or maybe you legitimately have Asian or African preferences and are #wrongborn? Perhaps you are a ‘cultural apathetic’ happy to see which strands develop and which wither ....

If you do find value in what you had/have, is that value worth defending? How strongly? Or is any defence of binding cultural values ‘identity politics’? In which case we can return to the ‘cultural apathetic’ stance.

The problem lies in how you intend on defending your values. The white identitarians have problems not just in the racist overtones but also in practical solutions. A pragmatic approach consists in meeting the ideas of multiculturalism in the marketplace of ideas and turning the trend away from the regressive, liberal white-guilt direction it is currently spiraling into. Unfortunately the types like Lauren Southern play directly into the hands of her ideological enemies and shore up the narrative that defending western culture and ideas is inherently racist.

The average, common man and woman, the voter, the consumer is ultimately going to decide this contest. Politicians can reign in ideologues in the humanities, media will follow the money in viewership and clicks. The real idea is to convince the unwashed masses that the west is worth saving. Deportations, appeals to a religion, that comforted your forebears, conservative values or trad life and the like is appealing to a idea and era that has already failed. We need to take on board the aspects of other cultures that work, keep enlightenment values alive and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Anything else is just ranting, a la Steersman.

[Lsuoma]

We need to take on board the aspects of other cultures that work, keep enlightenment values alive and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Anything else is just ranting, a la Steersman.

You also need to prevent toxic aspects of other cultures taking hold. FGM, rape, parallel courts, preaching hate, all sorts of stuff like that. It might be implied in your comment, but simply not taking them on board is not enough. They must be prevented.

[Keating]

And, if they were being actively prevented, you wouldn’t see the far right as strong as it is.

[Lsuoma]

And, if they were being actively prevented, you wouldn’t see the far right as strong as it is.

Correct, 100%. And if there was not active discrimination in favor of immigrants it would be even less strong.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For anyone else who scrums with SocJus blockheads claiming blacks have lower IQs because of some massive lead poisoning epidemic, I provide some data to the contrary:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3857104273

[Matt Cavanaugh]

A prominent US lawyer has died after setting himself on fire in a New York park in a protest against climate change.

The remains of David Buckel, 60, were found in Prospect Park in Brooklyn.

Talk about leaving a carbon footprint.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

We need to take on board the aspects of other cultures that work, keep enlightenment values alive and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Anything else is just ranting, a la Steersman.

You also need to prevent toxic aspects of other cultures taking hold. FGM, rape, parallel courts, preaching hate, all sorts of stuff like that. It might be implied in your comment, but simply not taking them on board is not enough. They must be prevented.

Absolutely. We gotta sell the benefits of the enlightenment, as Pinker is trying to do. Allow people to criticize other cultures, especially Islam without being labelled a Nazi islamaphobe racist. Expose SJW ideology as racist, misogynistic and nihilistic. "Poor fuckin' brown people, can't hold them up to any civilized standards, poor womynz, delicate little creatures, needs constant protection, let's just blame whites for every failing."

[John D]

One of the best performances in movie history.... RIP.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/0 ... ssed-away/

[John D]

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

For anyone else who scrums with SocJus blockheads claiming blacks have lower IQs because of some massive lead poisoning epidemic, I provide some data to the contrary:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3857104273

Huh, I tried to comment and it got disappeared.

So either Mr. Lead has uncovered the most severe and pervasive health crisis in our time, right under the nose of the CDC and all those universities, or he is promulgating a conspiracy theory. Gotta wonder which is more likely.

[Barbie's Boyfriend]

I just watched that yesterday

[John D]

I just watched that yesterday

Ermey was originally just an adviser to the movie. He tried to get an actor to play the part, but no one could do this bit properly. Finally, he was given the actual part himself and the rest is movie history.

[John D]

I just watched that yesterday

Ermey was originally just an adviser to the movie. He tried to get an actor to play the part, but no one could do this bit properly. Finally, he was given the actual part himself and the rest is movie history.

[Lsuoma]

And it was one of very few ad libs Kubrick ever allowed.

[Brive1987]

It's like feminists and transactivists. You start policing cultural boundaries and the next thing you know someone comes along and does it for you.

Do you embrace cultural relativism? Or maybe you legitimately have Asian or African preferences and are #wrongborn? Perhaps you are a ‘cultural apathetic’ happy to see which strands develop and which wither ....

If you do find value in what you had/have, is that value worth defending? How strongly? Or is any defence of binding cultural values ‘identity politics’? In which case we can return to the ‘cultural apathetic’ stance.

Yes, I don't want to kick the darkies out so that means I'm okay with FGM and everything. Because that's how it works. I don't want to join the Aryan Brotherhood so I'm joining the jihadis instead. These are my choices.

I note I provided your (rather impertinent) personal question re trad values with a reasonable response. While here I get a Ranty Mc-rant face.

I also note I presented you with a spectrum of positions (“how strongly”, “any” defence etc) and you built yourself a straw thing.

I see now I over-estimated how deeply you’d considered these issues. My mistake.

[Brive1987]

It's like feminists and transactivists. You start policing cultural boundaries and the next thing you know someone comes along and does it for you.

Do you embrace cultural relativism? Or maybe you legitimately have Asian or African preferences and are #wrongborn? Perhaps you are a ‘cultural apathetic’ happy to see which strands develop and which wither ....

If you do find value in what you had/have, is that value worth defending? How strongly? Or is any defence of binding cultural values ‘identity politics’? In which case we can return to the ‘cultural apathetic’ stance.

The problem lies in how you intend on defending your values. The white identitarians have problems not just in the racist overtones but also in practical solutions. A pragmatic approach consists in meeting the ideas of multiculturalism in the marketplace of ideas and turning the trend away from the regressive, liberal white-guilt direction it is currently spiraling into. Unfortunately the types like Lauren Southern play directly into the hands of her ideological enemies and shore up the narrative that defending western culture and ideas is inherently racist.

The average, common man and woman, the voter, the consumer is ultimately going to decide this contest. Politicians can reign in ideologues in the humanities, media will follow the money in viewership and clicks. The real idea is to convince the unwashed masses that the west is worth saving. Deportations, appeals to a religion, that comforted your forebears, conservative values or trad life and the like is appealing to a idea and era that has already failed. We need to take on board the aspects of other cultures that work, keep enlightenment values alive and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Anything else is just ranting, a la Steersman.

How do you perform the abstracted separation of good and bad values when these values come encapsulated in humans. Humans who have these attributed increasingly tolerated (and protected) as if they were native to the host society?

You think altright has pragmatic issues? They are nothing compared to the game of twister created by the injection of illiberal people into a ridiculously liberal society.

In terms of response. Does someone under threat always have the option of calibrating their defence outside what is required to push back? What if the requisite reaction conjures the paradox of tolerance?

Clearly liberal societies are capable of illiberal acts where circumstances demand. The atom bomb, capital punishment, jail and conscription spring to mind.

Our issue is that we would rather appease alien illiberalism indefinitely rather than adopt any form of unilateral illiberalism in defence of values. Ie we are probably cowards or, as seems increasingly likely, cultural vacuums with nothing much to defend.

[Shatterface]

I'm happy defending my values. My values aren't those of a bunch of racist cunts who want to keep Britain white and Christian.

As to my 'impertinence' you've been shoving your trad values down our throats for months now so it's only fair to ask if you apply them to yourself - which is exactly what we demand of others who do similar, like Peezus or Christian fundies.

Your trad values are pretty narrow and many of us here would fall outside them, including myself, or we have friends and family who don't choose to live according to tradition.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

For anyone else who scrums with SocJus blockheads claiming blacks have lower IQs because of some massive lead poisoning epidemic, I provide some data to the contrary:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3857104273

Huh, I tried to comment and it got disappeared.

So either Mr. Lead has uncovered the most severe and pervasive health crisis in our time, right under the nose of the CDC and all those universities, or he is promulgating a conspiracy theory. Gotta wonder which is more likely.

Even if it was the lead what lowered the IQs, the IQs are still lowered. I don't think they thought that one out.

[rayshul]

Maybe not keeping Britain white, but keeping it Christian seems like it's okay. The whole atheist movement was deeply misguided in the idea that people could be good without god. It's clear that in the absence of god they head for communism and other psycho shit. Maybe what we're seeing here isn't the rise of social justice warriors but the results of the swelling vacuum of atheism. Christianity gave people culture, community, dogma and a sense of belonging that people are now getting from their weird SJW cults and their desperate search for another culture that makes them seem less hollow on the inside.

I don't know. How much have we contributed to the downfall of society?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

It's like feminists and transactivists. You start policing cultural boundaries and the next thing you know someone comes along and does it for you.

Do you embrace cultural relativism? Or maybe you legitimately have Asian or African preferences and are #wrongborn? Perhaps you are a ‘cultural apathetic’ happy to see which strands develop and which wither ....

If you do find value in what you had/have, is that value worth defending? How strongly? Or is any defence of binding cultural values ‘identity politics’? In which case we can return to the ‘cultural apathetic’ stance.

The problem lies in how you intend on defending your values. The white identitarians have problems not just in the racist overtones but also in practical solutions. A pragmatic approach consists in meeting the ideas of multiculturalism in the marketplace of ideas and turning the trend away from the regressive, liberal white-guilt direction it is currently spiraling into. Unfortunately the types like Lauren Southern play directly into the hands of her ideological enemies and shore up the narrative that defending western culture and ideas is inherently racist.

The average, common man and woman, the voter, the consumer is ultimately going to decide this contest. Politicians can reign in ideologues in the humanities, media will follow the money in viewership and clicks. The real idea is to convince the unwashed masses that the west is worth saving. Deportations, appeals to a religion, that comforted your forebears, conservative values or trad life and the like is appealing to a idea and era that has already failed. We need to take on board the aspects of other cultures that work, keep enlightenment values alive and prevail in the marketplace of ideas. Anything else is just ranting, a la Steersman.

How do you perform the abstracted separation of good and bad values when these values come encapsulated in humans. Humans who have these attributed increasingly tolerated (and protected) as if they were native to the host society?

You think altright has pragmatic issues? They are nothing compared to the game of twister created by the injection of illiberal people into a ridiculously liberal society.

In terms of response. Does someone under threat always have the option of calibrating their defence outside what is required to push back? What if the requisite reaction conjures the paradox of tolerance?

Clearly liberal societies are capable of illiberal acts where circumstances demand. The atom bomb, capital punishment, jail and conscription spring to mind.

Our issue is that we would rather appease alien illiberalism indefinitely rather than adopt any form of unilateral illiberalism in defence of values. Ie we are probably cowards or, as seems increasingly likely, cultural vacuums with nothing much to defend.

If you think values are encapsulated in humans by race or ethnicity, then I think I see the problem. And a calibrated response is absolutely necessary.

In order to carry out the ethnic cleanse the alt-right seems to be proposing, you would have to suspend all the norms of a liberal democracy. You would have to become a totalitarian state, suspending the rights of certain groups of people.

Do you honestly think it would end with the cleansing? You would be creating a dictatorship. Dictators, even groups in complete control are usually reluctant to give up power. And look at your allies in the alt-right. You will get rid of the Muslims, the Chinese, Filipino. Next will come atheists and jews, because why not? The bible has some stuff about the gays, as I recall. Trad life won't be a choice, it will be enforced by law.

I would fight against that. I'm not going to throw my values out to preserve some vague notion of "my culture." Darwinism. If my culture can't survive by legal, ethical means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

For anyone else who scrums with SocJus blockheads claiming blacks have lower IQs because of some massive lead poisoning epidemic, I provide some data to the contrary:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/tipp ... 3857104273

Huh, I tried to comment and it got disappeared.

So either Mr. Lead has uncovered the most severe and pervasive health crisis in our time, right under the nose of the CDC and all those universities, or he is promulgating a conspiracy theory. Gotta wonder which is more likely.

Even if it was the lead what lowered the IQs, the IQs are still lowered. I don't think they thought that one out.

I just think it's funny that Lead thinks he's found a mystery that eluded the fine scientific minds of our time. Conspiracy theory for the win.

[katamari Damassi]

I vaguely remembered sci-fi writer John Scalzi from some bit of online socjus drama few years back, but I've never read his stuff-it looks like it's mostly space opera which isn't something I like to read. I read this Q&A with him in Salon and holy fuck does he sound insufferable.

https://www.salon.com/2018/04/15/john-s ... ar-writer/

[Guest_1cf30559]

The way he answers questions is so woke it's almost unbearable. No way his characters talk like that, but why not John?

[MarcusAu]

Maybe not keeping Britain white, but keeping it Christian seems like it's okay. The whole atheist movement was deeply misguided in the idea that people could be good without god. It's clear that in the absence of god they head for communism and other psycho shit. Maybe what we're seeing here isn't the rise of social justice warriors but the results of the swelling vacuum of atheism. Christianity gave people culture, community, dogma and a sense of belonging that people are now getting from their weird SJW cults and their desperate search for another culture that makes them seem less hollow on the inside.

I don't know. How much have we contributed to the downfall of society?

I don't know either.

But repeating the old mantra 'Corelation is Not Causation' to myself keeps my levels of doubt at approximately the right levels (at least until a study comes out). Atheists ('New' or otherwise) do not tend to write self-help books or offer guides as to how to live your life - and I'm happy enough that they don't. Christianity has been in decline since at least the Enlightenment - and the seeds of it's own destruction were apparent before that if the Reformation was anything to go by. Maybe it works for communities at a smaller scale - but it becomes really hard not to see them as political institutions - for example the catholic church having it's own bank.

If religion is a necessity for stability - then it the state has a vested interest in encouraging it. Which, CoE nothwithstanding, is something I have very little faith in.

[Kirbmarc]

Christianity declining is the reason why Europe (and the non-fundamentalist parts of the US) are better in terms of human rights than the "Muslim world".

[rayshul]

Christianity declining is the reason why Europe (and the non-fundamentalist parts of the US) are better in terms of human rights than the "Muslim world".

what lol
are you serious?!?!?

[rayshul]

how far back are you going when christianity is declining? like two hundred years? fucking shit

[MarcusAu]

how far back are you going when christianity is declining? like two hundred years? fucking shit

I figure they went wrong went they decided to suppress the gnostics.

[rayshul]

Maybe not keeping Britain white, but keeping it Christian seems like it's okay. The whole atheist movement was deeply misguided in the idea that people could be good without god. It's clear that in the absence of god they head for communism and other psycho shit. Maybe what we're seeing here isn't the rise of social justice warriors but the results of the swelling vacuum of atheism. Christianity gave people culture, community, dogma and a sense of belonging that people are now getting from their weird SJW cults and their desperate search for another culture that makes them seem less hollow on the inside.

I don't know. How much have we contributed to the downfall of society?

I don't know either.

But repeating the old mantra 'Corelation is Not Causation' to myself keeps my levels of doubt at approximately the right levels (at least until a study comes out). Atheists ('New' or otherwise) do not tend to write self-help books or offer guides as to how to live your life - and I'm happy enough that they don't. Christianity has been in decline since at least the Enlightenment - and the seeds of it's own destruction were apparent before that if the Reformation was anything to go by. Maybe it works for communities at a smaller scale - but it becomes really hard not to see them as political institutions - for example the catholic church having it's own bank.

If religion is a necessity for stability - then it the state has a vested interest in encouraging it. Which, CoE nothwithstanding, is something I have very little faith in.

.

It's the sense of community and shared belief that matters. Maybe this is anecdotal but I find Christians the most resistent to the SJW shit.

[Brive1987]

I'm happy defending my values. My values aren't those of a bunch of racist cunts who want to keep Britain white and Christian.

As to my 'impertinence' you've been shoving your trad values down our throats for months now so it's only fair to ask if you apply them to yourself - which is exactly what we demand of others who do similar, like Peezus or Christian fundies.

Your trad values are pretty narrow and many of us here would fall outside them, including myself, or we have friends and family who don't choose to live according to tradition.

Well you have the alt-lite pagan option to fall back on. :D

But good luck with your values. Whatever they are.

Re relevance. This topic has featured in the news lately and forms an intersection with terrorism, culture, immigration, liberalism, Trump, Euro vs USA social variations, pepe, antifa, hot Nazi chicks, etc etc etc. It would be good if FtB rolled in the lolz, but they ain’t performing.

It’s important, I assume you would agree, that applied liberalism has solutions for Cologne, Luton, material SJW fuckery and (say) a plan for Australia’s integration, multi cultural replacement policies. I expected it might. I have seen nothing that would support this initial confidence. Instead we have May, Merkel, Trudeau and Scott Morrison. Plus the measurable decline of the UK, Germany, Sweden et al. Moreover nothing from this group has risen to the challenge. Kirbs chilling pipes analogy and the scream of “racist motherfucker” is reminiscent of a SJW crying “patriarchy”.

Just a word of clarification. “Trad” is a new term that simply describes base consensus values that define(d) and helped structure western society. The entryism of social-architect leftists in unwitting alliance with the individualist-liberal has largely destroyed this contract. Leaving us a tad weak relative to more assertive strains. We are like a company without business rifles or policy.

[Kirbmarc]

Christianity declining is the reason why Europe (and the non-fundamentalist parts of the US) are better in terms of human rights than the "Muslim world".

what lol
are you serious?!?!?

Yes.

When Christianity was at its strongest culturally and socially it promoted and enforced the same kind of traditional, agricultural society where social mobility, individual rights, dissent, criticism were stifled by a vision of "harmonious" society where everyone had "their place". Just like in Islam.

The weakening of Christianity as a single moral, social, cultural authority started from the Reformation. The squabbling protestant sects inhibited each other. The US didn't have a state religion BECAUSE there were many squabbling and different sects.

Freedom of speech is such an important American value, and not so important in, say, Argentina or Peru, BECAUSE of the weakness and disharmony between different sects of Christianity in the US, while the Catholic Church was the only source of education and morals in Latin America.

Similarly the presence of dissenters, "heretics", and original thinkers in the UK, with no central Inquisition to stamp them out, was what allowed the Enlightenment to develop there and not in, say, Spain.

The resurgence of a common "Christian" identity in the US has been a challenge to modernity. Luckily, thanks to the divisions of American society, the theocratic Christian project never had much chances of success.

Division, dissent, squabbles are good for preserving freedom, encouraging doubts, opening the marketplace of ideas. Unity and conformity in the long run lead to authoritarian curtailing of freedom.

Islam has a BIG issue with the monopoly of education, morals and thought being in the hands of religious leaders. Islamic intimidation of doubters and "heretics", islamic censorship, the islamic myth of unity (the "Ummah") are what makes islam so bad.

[MarcusAu]

...
Just a word of clarification. “Trad” is a new term that simply describes base consensus values that define(d) and helped structure western society. The entryism of social-architect leftists in unwitting alliance with the individualist-liberal has largely destroyed this contract. Leaving us a tad weak relative to more assertive strains. We are like a company without business rifles or policy.

Your words of clarification highlight the need for more of the same.

I had thought the basis of 'Western Civilisaton' was that of the Romans and the Greeks. And they got up to all sorts of things that would conflict with modern values.

"Trad" has also been adopted by white-ethnostaters (if not supremicists) on the alt-right - so it's probably important to define what the base consensus values are - especially if you want to be seen as distinct from those groups. Or if you are looking for leftists and liberals to join you.

[Easy J]

Maybe not keeping Britain white, but keeping it Christian seems like it's okay. The whole atheist movement was deeply misguided in the idea that people could be good without god. It's clear that in the absence of god they head for communism and other psycho shit. Maybe what we're seeing here isn't the rise of social justice warriors but the results of the swelling vacuum of atheism. Christianity gave people culture, community, dogma and a sense of belonging that people are now getting from their weird SJW cults and their desperate search for another culture that makes them seem less hollow on the inside.

I don't know. How much have we contributed to the downfall of society?

I think the atheist movement is more a symptom of Christianity's decline than a contributing cause. It's been fracturing, watering itself down, & compromising on it's positions for centuries in attempts to stay relevant. The modern world produces minds that have an increasingly hard time believing the things required for traditional religions to properly work in their lives. And Christianity, by & large, anchored itself to a lot of positions that were on the losing side of history. So out goes the baby with the bathwater. We still have those same psychological itches to scratch, so we're gonna stay busy finding or inventing causes & constructs while the marketplace that caters to those needs adapts & responds to our feedback. It sucks.

But I find the idea that we need to believe in objectively untrue things in order to do good & preserve our mental health depressing. It's more of a personal reaction, & maybe the impulse to remake a bit of the world in my own image. Maybe there's a bit of this behind the entire atheist enterprise. The facts of the universe we live in don't answer to our psychological needs, so maybe some philosophical or poetic twist on these realities is in order. Its the outright denial of them that I find so childish & distasteful. I think our values & expectations should adjust themselves to the world, rather than the reverse, as religion attempts to do. I was really hoping we could do better, but I'm feeling less idealistic about this lately.(^^impulsive, caffeinated mini-rant)

[Brive1987]

I would fight against that. I'm not going to throw my values out to preserve some vague notion of "my culture." Darwinism. If my culture can't survive by legal, ethical means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

The law is fluid. And ethics are historically subordinated to need. Just ask the Allied planners behind strategic bombing and the A Bomb in WWII. Or those demoting the right of whites girls to not get raped in favour of political correctness.

I also suspect your “vague culture” would become less vague when it has been replaced with someone else’s. If you are lucky a later day Lauren Southern may document it for posterity. :mrgreen:

I’m curious though why you immediately equate any response to genocide. It could be mistaken for well poisoning. The equivalent of instinctively crying “Nazi”.

[Kirbmarc]

Similarly the problem with the SocJus is its monopoly of the academic discourse. "Diversity programs" in universities, campus leaders unwilling to curb the violence and heckling, the smearing of anyone who dissents as a fan of The Patriarchy are the sources of SocJus (relative) strength. Cut the programs, keep people accountable, and the SocJus ideology will vanish.

What's happening, though, is that the alt-right reaction is just as dogmatic and intolerant of criticism as the SocJus. Question the assumption of the equivalence of ethnicity and culture, or of static nature of cultures, and you're a "SJW",' the Enemy. Provide evidence of deep cultural changes in a relatively short time and they're dismissed as "fadism" (a convenient way to hand wave away things that aren't explained by the narrative) There's only a binary choice between "tradition" and the cultural relativism of the SocJus.

If you're not on board with the program you're either "wrongborn", a traitor, or an apathetic, valueless coward.

[Brive1987]

...
Just a word of clarification. “Trad” is a new term that simply describes base consensus values that define(d) and helped structure western society. The entryism of social-architect leftists in unwitting alliance with the individualist-liberal has largely destroyed this contract. Leaving us a tad weak relative to more assertive strains. We are like a company without business rifles or policy.

Your words of clarification highlight the need for more of the same.

I had thought the basis of 'Western Civilisaton' was that of the Romans and the Greeks. And they got up to all sorts of things that would conflict with modern values.

"Trad" has also been adopted by white-ethnostaters (if not supremicists) on the alt-right - so it's probably important to define what the base consensus values are - especially if you want to be seen as distinct from those groups. Or if you are looking for leftists and liberals to join you.

Leftists and a breed of liberals appear to enjoy their self flagellation.

If I could reverse the nihilistic rush, I’d advocate a shared moral scaffold providing house rules which deal with interpersonal contracts. Cultural Christianity would do - of the cucumber rather than the American Protestant variety. The celebration of traditional marriage as a key social unit. Measures that promote positive child rearing, including an engaged primary parent. The inculcation of personal responsibility and civic virtue. Reward and recognition for industriousness. Respect for the past and a defined plan or vision for the future. You know. Shit that takes the obsessive “I” out of society’s “team”.

[Kirbmarc]

I would fight against that. I'm not going to throw my values out to preserve some vague notion of "my culture." Darwinism. If my culture can't survive by legal, ethical means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

The law is fluid. And ethics are historically subordinated to need. Just ask the Allied planners behind strategic bombing and the A Bomb in WWII. Or those demoting the right of whites girls to not get raped in favour of political correctness.

I also suspect your “vague culture” would become less vague when it has been replaced with someone else’s. If you are lucky a later day Lauren Southern may document it for posterity. :mrgreen:

I’m curious though why you immediately equate any response to genocide. It could be mistaken for well poisoning. The equivalent of instinctively crying “Nazi”.

I don't think you are promoting genocide.

I think, however, that you are going down the path that leads to "population transfers", to borrow a term often used by another person who frequently posts here.

By equating culture with ethnicity and advocating (albeit vaguely) the suspension of liberal democratic standards, you seem to be justifying the forcible removal of people who haven't violated the laws of your country from your country because of their ethnic origin.

Of course I could be wrong. But the issue here is that your reaction to a problem of cultural integration isn't to establish clear rules, to criticize and demand changes to harmful sets of ideas, but to promote the view that there is or was a largely homogenous ethno-cultural standard and that the problem is the arrival of a largely homogenous alien "culture-ethnicity", where both standards are incompatible and unable to change.

This is an argument used to justify the "population transfers".

[Brive1987]

Similarly the problem with the SocJus is its monopoly of the academic discourse. "Diversity programs" in universities, campus leaders unwilling to curb the violence and heckling, the smearing of anyone who dissents as a fan of The Patriarchy are the sources of SocJus (relative) strength. Cut the programs, keep people accountable, and the SocJus ideology will vanish.

What's happening, though, is that the alt-right reaction is just as dogmatic and intolerant of criticism as the SocJus. Question the assumption of the equivalence of ethnicity and culture, or of static nature of cultures, and you're a "SJW",' the Enemy. Provide evidence of deep cultural changes in a relatively short time and they're dismissed as "fadism" (a convenient way to hand wave away things that aren't explained by the narrative) There's only a binary choice between "tradition" and the cultural relativism of the SocJus.

If you're not on board with the program you're either "wrongborn", a traitor, or an apathetic, valueless coward.

Bwhahahah. I was simply providing Shatterface with a menu of options, including a spectrum of value to help articulate his support for current trends. I got squat.

I will have to inform my local CofE that they are agents of the devil, seeking a new agrarian Year Zero.

I’m seeking pragmatic liberal solutions from you and a vision for the West in the face of obvious decline. What was that plan for homogeneous values in the face of the third world (given you have neck shot ethnic culture as evil)? Muh values classes wasn’t it?

As always you seek to define a simple horseshoe so you can flop in the centre without enacting sweat.

:lol: :lol:

But mate. Really. You have more hyperbole coming off your keyboard than crazy Tara.

[SM1957]

I would fight against that. I'm not going to throw my values out to preserve some vague notion of "my culture." Darwinism. If my culture can't survive by legal, ethical means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

The law is fluid. And ethics are historically subordinated to need. Just ask the Allied planners behind strategic bombing and the A Bomb in WWII. Or those demoting the right of whites girls to not get raped in favour of political correctness.

I also suspect your “vague culture” would become less vague when it has been replaced with someone else’s. If you are lucky a later day Lauren Southern may document it for posterity. :mrgreen:

I’m curious though why you immediately equate any response to genocide. It could be mistaken for well poisoning. The equivalent of instinctively crying “Nazi”.

I don't think you are promoting genocide.

I think, however, that you are going down the path that leads to "population transfers", to borrow a term often used by another person who frequently posts here.

By equating culture with ethnicity and advocating (albeit vaguely) the suspension of liberal democratic standards, you seem to be justifying the forcible removal of people who haven't violated the laws of your country from your country because of their ethnic origin.

Of course I could be wrong. But the issue here is that your reaction to a problem of cultural integration isn't to establish clear rules, to criticize and demand changes to harmful sets of ideas, but to promote the view that there is or was a largely homogenous ethno-cultural standard and that the problem is the arrival of a largely homogenous alien "culture-ethnicity", where both standards are incompatible and unable to change.

This is an argument used to justify the "population transfers".

Have illegal immigrants violated the laws of our country? If so, should they be deported?

[SM1957]

Of course I could be wrong. But the issue here is that your reaction to a problem of cultural integration isn't to establish clear rules, to criticize and demand changes to harmful sets of ideas, but to promote the view that there is or was a largely homogenous ethno-cultural standard and that the problem is the arrival of a largely homogenous alien "culture-ethnicity", where both standards are incompatible and unable to change.

This is an argument used to justify the "population transfers".

in Britain, if you criticise and demand changes to harmful sets of ideas, you are quite likely to have your Twitter account deleted, and possibly be accused of hate crimes.

You will certainly be called a racist xenophobe.

[Kirbmarc]

Similarly the problem with the SocJus is its monopoly of the academic discourse. "Diversity programs" in universities, campus leaders unwilling to curb the violence and heckling, the smearing of anyone who dissents as a fan of The Patriarchy are the sources of SocJus (relative) strength. Cut the programs, keep people accountable, and the SocJus ideology will vanish.

What's happening, though, is that the alt-right reaction is just as dogmatic and intolerant of criticism as the SocJus. Question the assumption of the equivalence of ethnicity and culture, or of static nature of cultures, and you're a "SJW",' the Enemy. Provide evidence of deep cultural changes in a relatively short time and they're dismissed as "fadism" (a convenient way to hand wave away things that aren't explained by the narrative) There's only a binary choice between "tradition" and the cultural relativism of the SocJus.

If you're not on board with the program you're either "wrongborn", a traitor, or an apathetic, valueless coward.

Bwhahahah. I was simply providing Shatterface with a menu of options, including a spectrum of value to help articulate his support for current trends. I got squat.

I will have to inform my local CofE that they are agents of the devil, seeking a new agrarian Year Zero.

I’m seeking pragmatic liberal solutions from you and a vision for the West in the face of obvious decline. What was that plan for homogeneous values in the face of the third world (given you have neck shot ethnic culture as evil)? Muh values classes wasn’t it?

As always you seek to define a simple horseshoe so you can flop in the centre without enacting sweat.

:lol: :lol:

But mate. Really. You have more hyperbole coming off your keyboard than crazy Tara.

You deliberately offered a false dicothomy between apathy and "wrongborn" (a term YOU introduced to the discourse) for anyone who criticizes your ethno-nationalistic ideas.

[Kirbmarc]

Also I have exposed LOTS of lists of recommendations on how to counter conservative and reactionary ideas in Muslim communities. So many times, indeed, that people complained I was repeating myself

[Brive1987]

Kirb, I assume you wouldn’t quibble over the use of “population transfers” in the context of bipartisan enforced massive immigration flows? Especially when polls almost always show old stock resistance to these policies ....

Or does the term lack nuance?

[Keating]

I don’t think we’d be here without Christianity. What Christianity contains that Islam does not is the idea that the Mind of God is knowable. That’s where science, as we understand it, is birthed from. The early naturalists where interested in getting a better understanding of God, and studying His creation was one way to achieve that.

Islam short circuits that desire by also declaring itself to also be the last word. So, yes, Christianity does contain the seed of its own destruction in it. Add to that the two ultimate European wars and the collapse of Christianity there makes sense.

The one thing I still don’t get is why that feeling of desolation spread to the entire anglosphere. The colonies should have been more immune to that.

[SM1957]

Kirb, I assume you wouldn’t quibble over the use of “population transfers” in the context of bipartisan enforced massive immigration flows? Especially when polls almost always show old stock resistance to these policies ....

Or does the term lack nuance?

Population transfer was explicit government policy

The Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating,was really happy to see population transfers take place so that he could change the culture of Australia to make it more Asian and change the ethnic composition

'Many things have changed and will change in Australia – our ethnic composition and, with it, our culture...'

http://www.keating.org.au/persistent/ca ... ndasia.pdf

[Kirbmarc]

Kirb, I assume you wouldn’t quibble over the use of “population transfers” in the context of bipartisan enforced massive immigration flows? Especially when polls almost always show old stock resistance to these policies ....

Or does the term lack nuance?

There's a lot of difference between letting in people who want to come (and that you should screen to see who can adapt and thrive) and kicking out people who don't want to leave (especially if it's just on the basis of who they are, not what they've done).

[MarcusAu]

I don’t think we’d be here without Christianity. What Christianity contains that Islam does not is the idea that the Mind of God is knowable. That’s where science, as we understand it, is birthed from. The early naturalists where interested in getting a better understanding of God, and studying His creation was one way to achieve that.

Islam short circuits that desire by also declaring itself to also be the last word. So, yes, Christianity does contain the seed of its own destruction in it. Add to that the two ultimate European wars and the collapse of Christianity there makes sense.

The one thing I still don’t get is why that feeling of desolation spread to the entire anglosphere. The colonies should have been more immune to that.

And we most likely wouldn't be here without the Greeks and the Romans or Ghengis Khan or the ancient Babylonians or the Jews either. Give them their due or don't - most of them are dead so won't care anyway.

I've heard the phase 'God works mysterious ways' more than the 'The mind of god is knowable' - but you know the devil can quote scripture for his own ends - so you can take whatever meaning you like from that. It's interesting in an historical sense - like alchemy being a forerunner to chemistry and astrology to astronomy.

Maybe things have been too good for a while - so 'affluenza' becomes widespread.

[Kirbmarc]

Also scientific and mathematical reasearch flourished in the time of independent/autonomous sultanates/caliphates where local Christian and Jewish thinkers had a degree of freedom.

It stagnated when a big, sprawling, reactionary empire came to power after the cultural shock of Mongol conquest.

Meanwhile when Christian Europe was under a strong Imperial/Papal power European culture stagnated, while the Reinassance and later the Scientific Revolution came in a time of small duchies, maritime republics, self-governing cities, etc. Coincidence?

So maybe it wasn't an intrinsic property of Christianity or Islam to stifle or encourage scientific discourse (and political dissent).

Maybe it was a matter of cultural monopoly vs cultural competition.

[AndrewV69]

As seen on Twatter

Paula Wright thread on female intrasexual competition

[Brive1987]

Also scientific and mathematical reasearch flourished in the time of independent/autonomous sultanates/caliphates where local Christian and Jewish thinkers had a degree of freedom.

It stagnated when a big, sprawling, reactionary empire came to power after the cultural shock of Mongol conquest.

Meanwhile when Christian Europe was under a strong Imperial/Papal power European culture stagnated, while the Reinassance and later the Scientific Revolution came in a time of small duchies, maritime republics, self-governing cities, etc. Coincidence?

So maybe it wasn't an intrinsic property of Christianity or Islam to stifle or encourage scientific discourse (and political dissent).

Maybe it was a matter of cultural monopoly vs cultural competition.

That’s a superficially good argument against theocracy. You should keep it handy in case anyone argues for one.

[Brive1987]

Kirb, I assume you wouldn’t quibble over the use of “population transfers” in the context of bipartisan enforced massive immigration flows? Especially when polls almost always show old stock resistance to these policies ....

Or does the term lack nuance?

There's a lot of difference between letting in people who want to come (and that you should screen to see who can adapt and thrive) and kicking out people who don't want to leave (especially if it's just on the basis of who they are, not what they've done).

How about retrospective screening? Would you agree that saying polygamy is wrong and then marrying two women in a cultural ceremony counts as a posthoc fail (with a plane ticket as a prize)?

What about punishing your daughter for drinking because it is against gods will? Good parenting or the thin edge of a cultural wedge? What if there was a pattern of such instances? Is this evidence of thriving adaptation?

And What’d’ya reckon? A two year probationary period? Maybe 6 weeks? Or perhaps give ‘em three generations to flex themselves? Then deport the failed descendants.

To quote a wise man, your clarification requires more words.

However my actual meta point was that an imposed population transfer into society is no more a victimless crime than a forced egress would be, Yet you are appalled by one and not the other. Which is curious.

[Keating]

So maybe it wasn't an intrinsic property of Christianity or Islam to stifle or encourage scientific discourse (and political dissent).

This is where I think a lot of your analysis falls over. This is cultural relativism. It's undeniable that some of the best scientific minds where not just Christian, but downright evangelical: Newton, Faraday, Kelvin. A tradition that continues even to today. Meanwhile Spain, by itself, translates more books into Spanish in a single year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century. Thus, I find it hard to conclude that Christianity is just as bad as Islam on these terms. My point isn't that Christianity is fantastic with no problems, just that Islam is particularly and inherently bad on this front. Some ideas are better than others, and on almost every level of analysis, Christianity is better than Islam. Even Dawkins says this. (Another possibility is that Arabs are particularly anti-intellectual as a race. While there is a very high level of inbreeding in Pakistan, I don't believe this is the case. I think Islam is a particularly bad cultural force.)

[Kirbmarc]

So maybe it wasn't an intrinsic property of Christianity or Islam to stifle or encourage scientific discourse (and political dissent).

This is where I think a lot of your analysis falls over. This is cultural relativism. It's undeniable that some of the best scientific minds where not just Christian, but downright evangelical: Newton, Faraday, Kelvin. A tradition that continues even to today. Meanwhile Spain, by itself, translates more books into Spanish in a single year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the ninth century. Thus, I find it hard to conclude that Christianity is just as bad as Islam on these terms. My point isn't that Christianity is fantastic with no problems, just that Islam is particularly and inherently bad on this front. Some ideas are better than others, and on almost every level of analysis, Christianity is better than Islam. Even Dawkins says this. (Another possibility is that Arabs are particularly anti-intellectual as a race. While there is a very high level of inbreeding in Pakistan, I don't believe this is the case. I think Islam is a particularly bad cultural force.)

I'm not denying that islam has fared far worse than Christianity, and that islam IS a particularly bad cultural force.

I'm simply arguing that we don't need to mourn the death of Christianity, or to appeal to "Christian values" to defend Enlightenment values. Christianity, for a series of contingent factors, was weakened and tamed.

Now it's the time to do the same about Islam.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Simple as that.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I would fight against that. I'm not going to throw my values out to preserve some vague notion of "my culture." Darwinism. If my culture can't survive by legal, ethical means, it doesn't deserve to survive.

The law is fluid. And ethics are historically subordinated to need. Just ask the Allied planners behind strategic bombing and the A Bomb in WWII. Or those demoting the right of whites girls to not get raped in favour of political correctness.

I also suspect your “vague culture” would become less vague when it has been replaced with someone else’s. If you are lucky a later day Lauren Southern may document it for posterity. :mrgreen:

I’m curious though why you immediately equate any response to genocide. It could be mistaken for well poisoning. The equivalent of instinctively crying “Nazi”.

Not even fit for a straw man. I've never mentioned genocide. I'm in favor of strong immigration policies. By all means, encourage your local politicians to stop destructive policies.

But you've already got people there. You either sell the benefits of western ideals, or you're shit out of luck. Realistically, there's no way you're going to get rid of them without becoming a tin-pot dictatorship. Even that is the remotest of chances, because your fellow citizens won't stand for it.

Your "law is fluid" is a prescription for dictators. The idea that you can return to some idealized Australia of your youth or yore is likely a pleasant fantasy. But it's just that.

Cultures, peoples change. That is inevitable. You're not going back, so you deal with what's in front of you. Pragmatically. My vague notions of culture are such that I'm willing to put up with some change if the core values are intact. If they're not, do something practical. White identitarianism is not practical. And I think the end result would be far worse than what you have now.

[SM1957]

Many places are now realising that too many people want to come there and are closing their borders to a greater or lesser extent.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43700833

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Perhaps a nice example of American exceptionalism is that most of our foreign-born citizens (note, citizens, not illegal immigrants) are strong constitutionalists. They have American flags out front, they are proud to be citizens. They embrace the culture, cars, suburban homes and white picket fences.The direct assault on our values are coming from white college kids, idle dilitentes and SJW media.

[John D]

I don’t think we’d be here without Christianity. What Christianity contains that Islam does not is the idea that the Mind of God is knowable. That’s where science, as we understand it, is birthed from. The early naturalists where interested in getting a better understanding of God, and studying His creation was one way to achieve that.

Islam short circuits that desire by also declaring itself to also be the last word. So, yes, Christianity does contain the seed of its own destruction in it. Add to that the two ultimate European wars and the collapse of Christianity there makes sense.

The one thing I still don’t get is why that feeling of desolation spread to the entire anglosphere. The colonies should have been more immune to that.

I agree and I think there are several characteristics of Judaism and Christianity that enabled people to create the most successful "religion" ever. The most successful "religion" being the modern Republican governments we live in today.

1) The Jews and the Christians created the idea that each individual can have a conversation with god. I read an interesting book on this subject, but I'll be damned if I can't think of the title. I have read the Koran twice and there is nothing comparable. The Koran is just a set of rules. It does not weave subtle stories about human pain and decision making into it. It is a straight cold read of the rules. Nothing inspiring.

2) The Bible, and especially the Books of Paul, question the literal nature of the Bible. Early in Christian history it was acceptable to question the literal nature of the books. Not so with the Koran. No flexibility is accepted. I think this might be because the Koran was written by one dood.... and the Bible is a long history of various stages of the religion.

3) Jesus established an idea (not unique to Jesus because you can see it in Buddhism) that people can return to virtue after failing. Success is not just a measure of following the rules, but it is a journey where you will sometimes fail...but... you can be redeemed. The Koran is a list of crimes and punishments.

4) Buddhism did not have as much success because the goal is not to overcome challenge, but to accept pain and live in peace. Buddhism has some great features, such as self reflection, mediation, mindfulness.... but it doesn't address the challenges of building up the world.

5) Finally, I am convinced most people who come to "hard atheism" (of which I am one) are very strongly drawn to Marxist ideas. I don't think atheism necessarily leads to Marxism, but Peterson is onto something when he discusses this topic. When I talk about the traditional virtues such as hard work, honor, forgiveness, honesty, family, etc.... with someone who is a member of the American Humanist Association, they think I am crazy. All they ever talk about is equity and "compassion" (compassion being the idea that we have to give more money to poor people... aka... wealth distribution).