In the wake of the Paris attacks, there is a rather frantic movement afoot in the Western media to whitewash anything about the attacks that might impugn the religion of Islam – the espoused religion of all the attackers and the primary impetus for their attack, as asserted by the attackers themselves.
Most of these attempts come as editorials in the biggest Western newspapers and new media sites. The argument, generally, is that the attackers in Paris did not represent “true” Islam.
Never mind how this illustrious coterie of rabidly anti-theist journalists all became PhDs in Islamic theology; their purpose is little more noble than to ensure Western nations keep their doors open to Muslim refugees, regardless of the extent of their radical Islamist persuasions; about 200,000 Syrian refugees are expected to arrive in the U.S. over the next two years.
Over social media, false equivalencies are made and spent as frivolously as trillion-dollar Zimbabwean bank notes. All Americans are immigrants, it is said. The Native Americans even welcomed Puritan refugees in the 17th century. Jesus Christ was a refugee, others assert.
Some have claimed Anne Frank would have lived if the U.S. had taken her in as a refugee during World War II. Many Americans opposed Jewish refugee resettlement in the U.S. during World War II, others observe without so much as indicating how such an argument pertains to present situation.
Still others argue that since the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the impetus for instability in the region, it is now our responsibility to clean up our mess by accepting refugees. Some have even taken up arms with avowed Satanists, who declared their support for the resettlement of refugees in the United States, and argue that the Satanists understand Christian compassion better than do Christians.
Again, let us temporarily stow away our amusement at the sudden theological prowess of avowed atheists and other perennial antagonists of Christianity. Instead, take these arguments at face value. What does the character of these arguments say about the people making them?
Many false equivalencies
It seems to me that in order to make each of these false equivalencies, one must subscribe to a common notion that the interests of Americans must always be a subordinate interest, regardless of circumstance. People who make these bizarre arguments seem to retain a massive and pervasive sense of guilt that they feel can only be assuaged by a pathological preference to being dominated. In other words, they suffer from a sort of masochism: “enjoyment from being hurt or punished.”
Take, as an example, the argument that the U.S. destabilized Iraq. A valid argument, for sure. But that we should accept refugees from the region does not logically follow, foremost because the United States of America is not a single person who can singularly be held responsible; it is a democracy full of a thousand competing interests.
If the U.S. were in fact a single individual who in 2002 invaded Iraq and created the instability that gave rise to Islamic State and permitted a sustained campaign by the Islamic State against civilian populations, which caused an exodus of civilians from the region, a court of law might be able to make the case that the U.S. should bear responsibility for the consequences of those precipitating actions in 2002. But even that argument would be difficult to make because there are so many other influencing factors in the region that have little to do with U.S. meddling.
Now consider that the U.S. is not a single man to whom blame can be assigned, but rather a democratic republic comprised of nearly 320 million people. Subjecting these objectively innocent people to the inherent dangers of accepting 200,000 Syrian refugees is horrific enough; but it is equally repugnant to subject even those American citizens who we might hold morally culpable for the rise of ISIS (that is to say, everyone else).
But I reject the notion that your grandmother or your daughter ought to pay with her life for the geopolitical miscalculations of her government. To argue that accepting Syrian refugees is a necessary condition of U.S. foreign meddling is to accept the same argument that the Islamic State makes for butchering civilians; that we are all to blame, individually, for the collective actions and folly of a government we implicitly support.
Pathological guilt
And this is exactly what proponents of refugee resettlement in the U.S. believe, on a pathological scale. The guilt they experience over the U.S. government’s foreign policy blunders can only be satiated through a good paddling of their own bare, prostrated asses. To chase away their guilt, they must occasionally burn the effigies of U.S. imperialist overreach and oppression—a noble cause, perhaps, if the effigies weren’t their own living, breathing countrymen.
Yet, even after such rituals, the masochists will remain unsatisfied because there is no punishment severe enough to heal what they perceive as voluminous ancestral sins.
Perhaps the American refugee resettlement proponents find this masochism to be noble or just. I find it rather barbaric in its current pathological form. These people would gladly suffer the deaths of another 3,000 innocent Americans if it would, even temporarily, satisfy selfish notions of their own internal righteousness and sense of personal virtue (so long as it isn’t their own head, or the heads of their friends and families). What else can explain the willful disregard of the very evident dangers of transporting Muslim refugees into the United States?
Enter Western Masochism
So this is what I mean when I say Western Masochism; the compulsion to enjoy endless punishment, embarrassment, and even death to atone for perceived sins of the West. It is not a new phenomenon by any means, but every significant emergence of it is worth close study.
Where did it originate?
Who knows – it could be the final throes of a degenerate culture, or it could be genetic defect of the white, European people. But perhaps another historical example of the phenomenon is instructive. Consider, for example, the analogy that suggests Native Americans happily took in European refugees in North America some four hundred years ago. John Smith and Pocahontas, right?
Well no, not exactly. Even a cursory study of the early colonial era in America becomes rather grim. It is true that Native Americans were hospitable to some very grateful European settlers, whether out of good will, mutual survival, or out of the hopes of trading for food imports brought in by English ships during seasons of bad harvest.
Either way, there certainly were early alliances and many years of peaceful interaction. The amicable relationship between the Plymouth colony and Massasoit, leader of the Wampanoag tribe, is one such gleaming example.
However, many more Native American tribes participated in the wholesale slaughter of the European invaders, and the Europeans (including the Puritans at Plymouth) would occasionally conduct rather barbaric raids on hostile Native American tribes, slaughtering men, women and children alike.
As the American colonies expanded, Native Americans began experiencing resentment toward their new neighbors, who had better weapons, goods, and superior access to food and wares.
Despite the relative opulence and power that the English settlers exhibited, the Massachusetts Bay Colony eventually enacted a rather magnanimous law (which bound all other colonies, except Rhode Island) requiring colonial subjects to trade fairly for Native American land.
In other words, it was illegal for settlers to steal or conquer land from the Native American tribes. Your history book might not say this; it might have you believing that the English stole everything they got, but this is not true. As it turns out, most of the Native American-held land ceded to the English settlers was purchased.
In a bid to obtain superior European goods, not least important of which were firearms to maintain an edge over rival tribes, Native Americans sold off massive swaths of land to the settlers. This had several effects.
One, it drove some tribes into alliances with the colonies, and drove other tribes into conflict with the colonies and each other. Second, it drove internal instability within individual tribes; young tribesmen grew furious that their leaders were selling their future down the river, purchasing weapons in exchange for their ancestral land, political clout and ultimately, pride. Some tribal sachems (or “chiefs”) would sell their tribes’ land almost exclusively for enhancing his or her own personal wealth.
The result of this was King Philip’s War, a little-studied American conflict that erupted across Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York in 1675.
“King Philip,” originally known as Metacomet, was the sachem of the Wampanoags and the son of Massasoit. Facing his own waning power within the tribe because of his frivolous sale of Wampanoag land to the English for personal gain, King Philip was eventually forced to go to war against the English colonies to save face with not only his own urging tribesmen, but with neighboring tribes who were also hostile to the English.
Long story short, King Philip lost. He was captured and killed. His head was mounted on the gates of Plymouth colony.
Masochistic proponents of Syrian resettlement in the United States see the English settlers as horrible villains whose actions can only be atoned for in the modern age by engaging in indefinite bouts of prostration to everyone in the world who is not a white Christian, everywhere, at all times, regardless of circumstance.
Realists who oppose Syrian resettlement in the United States see the English settlers, rather more accurately and with much more nuance, as radical Puritan invaders who came to the North American continent under a refugee banner, but who in 50 years’ time placed the severed head of the Native American leader on a pike and radically transformed the culture of the nation.
The Puritan influence in the United States, and in New England in particular, hangs heavy even over the modern era. A particularly interesting essay by G.K. Chesterton notes the superficiality of American morality and the compulsion of Americans to view material things as inherently evil, as opposed to a realist view of humans as conduits of evil. Such is the legacy of Puritanism.
If the parallels between this historical example and the present predicament remain unclear to you at this point, you might be too sufficiently prostrated.
So what’s the problem?
The modern problem of Syrian refugee resettlement in America has less to do with the possibility of a single refugee carrying out a deadly or destructive attack on the American people in the name of Islam, although this is certainly a concern.
The more troubling problem is that we are now sowing the seeds of something much more terminal. The children and grandchildren of the current refugees may not remember the horrors that militant Islamists inflicted upon their parents. They will, however, be members of a growing minority in a nation still largely at odds with their religion and culture.
And they will be equipped with an understanding of English, a birth-right American citizenship and all its associated Constitutional protections, a decent standard of living, and likely an iPhone 47-s by that point. Yet some will retain many of the archaic beliefs of Islamist ideology that are deeply at odds with American values.
If the situation in France is any portent of America’s future, how much longer before American gays and women become Republicans?
The only possible outcome of the current masochist affliction of the West will be a rising violence and instability in the United States, if it is not stopped. It will not be a Twitter fight, like so many of the tame, modern clashes of culture. It will be fight using bombs, bullets, and beheadings, if history is any guide.
Read More: Why Western Men Prefer Foreign Women Over Their Own
Simple. Force our elites to put their skin in the game. All 200k Syrians must be relocated to high price zip codes with no exceptions. Alexandria, Virginia would be an example. Perhaps some nice housing in those upscale Connecticut neighborhoods. Maybe West Los Angeles or next to some of the high salaried, Google elite in the Silicon Valley, No, they’ll be placed in lower middle/ working-class areas in the “flyover parts of the country that these liberal wankers deride as they fly to their next interview on MSNBC.
Alexandria is overpriced with post war sprawl of 3br brick ramblers on 1/8ac for half a mil. It’s also crawling with entitled stick in the mud gubment wogs and short hair gubment desk ho’s. Putting them there would only fast track them to gubment gravy jobs that you know who pays for. I would propose containing them in work companies with adjacent portable dorms for their families. Put them to work on mega civil projects, rail lines, bridges, excavation, dykes along the Mississippi and throughout New Orleans. Put them to work doing something useful. Freedom ain’t free and the US isn’t a free for all. Sweden has gone completely mad with the sugar mama policy. The traitors in government will be put to labor as well.
I like the idea, but the construction companies’ presidents who contribute to these politicians’ campaign would be opposed to it because they lose the contracts on the projects. The politicians can’t anger their contributors.
Right. And then they create lots and lots of low-cost housing which is snatched away by those people on government support. And then the leftists cry: We need more skilled professionals in the cities! But those skilled professionals can not find any flats in the cities, because all those shits occupy them at a forced low rent. So the remaining flats are very expensive. Solution? Well, of course! Make them cheaper, too! Everybody deserves a place in the center of the city! It is inhumane to not let all 80 million people in Germany live in the center of Munich! Wait … but even if one wanted to, how would that be possible? Ah. Judge Dredd-like superbuildings. Big sad blocks of people-cattle. But hey – it is close to the center. And the metro is right there!
I AM THE LAW.
Not just in their zip codes, but in their own residence so they all share the same house. Same toilets, kitchen, and beds. Let’s see how fast they change their tune.
I’m from CT, they want smart asians, indians and obviously whites. We ship in the other minorities from inner cities to attend our schools so we feel better about ourselves then are surprised when they’re constantly in the principle’s office.
I believe ROK is entering a golden age, attracting writers of considerable skill and insight. It is gradually transcending its ‘4 Reasons to’ frat-boy rakishness and maturing into a site that remains joyeously un-pc, but deadly serious. Well done, brothers.
With all due respect, there exist enough room here for all men’s discussions. I think we need to welcome all men, and understand that we all come from different backgrounds, are not the same age, and thus have different needs and taste. I agree with you that this site attracts some very good contributors (one of my favorites is Quintus Curtius), but there are young men in the dating trenches that need help now. Vive la difference. Just my view.
Agreed.
We are on the same page. My reference to ‘joyously un-pc’ retains my appreciation for ‘4 Reasons to’ articles, while expressing appreciation for a new level of discourse being introduced via articles by people like Rouleau, Moner and others.
I agree but I like it all from “How to Bang______” ( fill in the blank) to articles like this or from QC….
Islam is a Trojan horse…..it is stunning these leftist retards just don’t get it.
As a second-generation immigrant to Canada, I acknowledge that multiculturalism, with no reasonable limits or bounds, is really just a form of soft-aggression that eventually becomes a full-scale Marxist invasion.
A country that prides itself on multiculturalism, is really a country with NO culture, not much unlike 100 different people in a room all of different origin, language, behavior, ideology, clothing, food, etc. really don’t share anything in common other than that they’re all human.
Immigrants should always be very carefully selected by any country to attract the best and the brightest, and in my opinion, they should never exceed no more than 2.5-5% of the host country’s population.
Ha. This reminds me of a guy whom I talked about culture with. We talked about the root of the word. Culture comes from cultivation. If an idea is to be sustained, it must be cultivated at the exclusion of other idea. If society is seen as culture, a single individual in it who holds an idea does not represent a culture, but rather a deviation.
Then again, I rather like individualism, so I would be fine with everyone simply cultivating himself. Unfortunately, people are obsessed with fighting over which idea is ‘good’ or ‘better’. Moronic Western non-dialecticism. If you think of it, any kind of societal culture is a form of egalitarianism in that it supposes that all people in it are equal enough to be fit to adapt to it.
Good point. Culture (and likewise religion) are collectivist notions. Hence, everyone that identifies themselves as a part of some culture, is giving up some of their own individuality to be a part of that culture.
Individualism, when taken to an extreme, leads to Marxism. Other people who cultivate themselves may end up becoming things that are at odds with you (e.g. gays/lesbians/sjw’s/etc.) and there’s nothing you can say back to them because they’re just practicing individualism just like you are. Hence, back to the room of 100 people all completely different and at odds with each other with nothing in common.
That’s the problem with extreme individualism; there really is no right or wrong.
Maintaining balance between collectivism and individualism is key; either extreme is dangerous to well being of society.
Exactly.
Well, SJWs certainly are at odds with me, but only because they are tyrants who want me to conform to their ideas. As for gays and lesbians, I sincerely do not give a damn as long as they leave me alone.
I do not think that individualism leads to Marxism. Actually, I believe it leads to anarchy, which my gut feels most attracted to these days.
See, if everybody is a confident individual and unashamed of who they are, they have no reason to bully others, ever. The interesting problem is, of course: How do you get all people in the world to simultaneously wake up?
Which brings up the ironical problem of: Forcing all people in the world to wake up is totalitarian in itself.
So the only way to go for myself is really to keep working on my freedom and later assist those who express the same wish, while letting every collectivist be just that – it is their choice. Obviously, I will have to fight whenever those idiots come knocking at my door, but I guess life is never just cherry pie.
“As for gays and lesbians, I sincerely do not give a damn as long as they leave me alone.”
But the problem is they aren’t leaving you or me alone and they are hellbent on both of us and children in schools (I live in Ontario) to accept their way of life as both normal and natural. That’s why my wife and I have opted to home school our kids. Believe me, they’re on a global mission.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about gays/lesbians either, but at the same time, I don’t want them in my face everywhere I go.
“See, if everybody is a confident individual and unashamed of who they are, they have no reason to bully others, ever.”
100% agreed.
Yeah. So let me just say that I have no problems with gays that have no agenda to ‘convert’ me.
As for children, should I have any, I will hope to bring them up with a mind strong enough to make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.
“eventually becomes an full-scale Marxist invasion”
———————-
Do put into perspective that these immigrants are simply acting opportunistically.
That they would take advantage of ANY political philosophy that would allow them to do what they are doing.
They are like the wild (non domestic) animals in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ that “continued to behave very much as before, and when treated with generosity simply took advantage of it.”
You have to go back
Great article. “Western Masochism” is an apt term. Would add that there is a “helper fetish” too. Literally a fetish. Look at these folks when they talk about refugees they get a reverential, ecstatic “O” face…..
The left is the ideological shopfront for isis.
Anything Isis can do, they can do better.
Interesting
Have been softening the kill since 13 but ramped it up post 45, kicked it up a notch in the 60’s, now we are in hyperdrive.
To convince the people that built the only civilisation models that mean anything to give them up voluntarily and walk into the slaughter like sheep is pretty fucking smart.
Here’s something to ponder: We who built meaningful civilization, we the crafty and imaginative, we the intelligent have been having our potential tapped and bled for a long time. We’ve built and invented many great things. Now take a look at the following pics of great archetecture. These are sizeable structures built in the 19th century, long before the federal reserve and before 1st wave feminism. These buildings could be great universities or even state houses:
http://trans-alleghenylunaticasylum.com/pagegraphics/hsB.jpg
.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Worcester_state_insane_asylum_postcard_1905.jpg
http://www.thevillagetc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/historic-header.jpg
Nice buildings. A lot of resources were expended and skilled craftsmen were utilized building these NUT HOUSES! Can you believe it. These were 19th cent insane asylums to ‘treat’ the insane and to warehouse the enemies of the state who couldn’t be legally indicted for anything. Check out some of their ingenious ‘treatments’:
http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/curiosities/2014/february/images/terrifying_asylum_tour_of_the_past_30.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3d/4c/80/3d4c80f94ad80f9a90c0c980f56e3024.jpg
http://theduke81.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/Nude46.jpg.w560h403.jpg
I mean . . goddamn what a waste of resources. And to think our elected leaders were busy approving this kind of pork barrel shit at a time when they should have been repatriating Liberia and throwing the pre 1875 1st wave feminists into the river. Our government has basically always been a corrupt wasteful dangerous piece of shit. A universal rule always stands, KEEP GOVERNMENT beaten down below your feet and SMALL. Let it bud and grow and it never serves you. Whack it down, beat it down. Craftsmen, artists, dreamers built western civ. WE built that NOT the government. No ‘government’ ever builds or creates anything. Government only taxes, restricts, regulates and polices. Government is by definition an antithesis to creativity and virtue. Government is the ‘parasite’ animated and incarnated in human form. Sometimes it’s even a combo of ‘parasite’ and cancer both!!
I share your contempt for government, but I do not generally consider nuthouses a waste of resources. Many people need therapy. But yeah, nobody should pay for it against their will.
Detoxify, colon flush, non gmo superfoods, rigorous regular workouts and red pill right think learned religously would clear out 85% of waning nut house residents that are currently rotting for state funds that they’ll never enjoy themselves. Same with prisons.
It would certainly not solve all problems, but I bet it would help many. The interesting problem here is, though, that it only really works by free will. So how do you convince people in all their various delusions to accept a little help and acquire interest in truth?
Repetition. Preaching the sermon on the mount. Be like God.
Nah. That does not lead to any good place. I want people to be free – not free to believe what I teach them.
Yes….I can believe this. The Left will do anything to win including bedding down with fundamentalist madmen.
Actually Bryan, I believe that this white-mans coerced altruistic and pathological guilt complex, or your masochism theory, is caused by the very sowers of dissent themselves, the tribe and the “elites”. They have psychologically analyzed the profile of a human being to being receptive to different emotions and have set up most of the environmental events surrounding white people through indoctrination in history and a consistent cycle of guilt/shame in education to make the past three/four generations grow up completely feeling these guilty “ancestral crime” feelings. This has led to the deposing of our strength, the lowering of our testosterone, and our culture on the way to its death.
I feel no guilt, unless I myself were to physically do something undeserving to someone else, which is probably impossible. As a Christian we are opted to feelings of guilt, for being a sinner and such, but I don’t believe there is any historical context to it, think of it this way, yes we are all sinners but so is every human, thats the condition we are born in. Time stands still for us in the spiritual world, the past and the future don’t matter, it’s what we do right now that matters.
Islam will continue to rise, and eventually savagely replace all of us until there are white Christian men willing to die for a cause as much as their jihadists are for theirs.
I think that Christianity tried to contain and sublimize this natural feeling of guilt, but now it’s on the loose and used against us by our worst enemies.
Do you think that the native europeans were guilt ridden as pagans though, before the introduction of christianity and the abrahamic mind in general?
I hold the theory that this kind of guilt comes from evil deeds committed in past lives. Since the source of the feeling is not apparent, it is assumed as natural. Thus a religion that claims this guilt to be a natural part of human experience will of course ascertain these people and give an explanation. But what this completely forgets is the possibility that likely, NOT everybody is feeling it.
I look at karma as cause and effect more than guilt over injustices and things along those lines, i do believe past life and ancestral dramas can linger on in our current lives though.
When it comes to collective guilt i think it has more to do with mind control and indoctrination as a form of psychological warfare, thats what i consider both religion and most political ideologies to be anyway.
I dont think anything equivalent to the original sin existed in the hearts of our ancestors before the semitic people introduced their abrahamic virus in to our native spirit.
Yes, cause and effect, of course. But guilt is an effect based on the cause of, say, murder. I murdered and raped a woman in my last life and that filled me with quite some guilt.
Yes, but mind control and indoctrination needs something to hook into in your person. So you basically need a few people who ‘harmonize’ with that guilt thing. And then you use those people to social pressure others into the doctrine. So, let us say, it would be enough to have a certain percentage of people who harmonize with the guilt thing to control all others. The others would simply say ‘well alright, I will do what you say, just leave me alone’.
There is this guy Bashar on Youtube and a woman told him ‘I bought into this belief’. And Bashar said: ‘Well, but what did you get out of it? We do not buy into anything unless we get something out of it.’
And that is very true. So those people who have guilt complexes will be glad to hear it is based on Adam and Eve’s sin and not on something they did.
I dont agree that mind control is necessarily a bargain although it very likely could be in some circumstances (codependency as an example), indoctrination usually happen without the consent of the conscious mind but instead impresses the subconscious bypassing the surface mind to a large extent, trauma is a causing factor in this as well.
Thats why physical war is on one level inseperable from mind war, they feed in to eachother.
I think this “collective” guilt is a form of emotional hedonism as a byproduct of brainwashing, not some non-existent past lives. The persons under the “spell” of this notion of “guilt” are trying to do anything to assuage their own consciences since their own subconscious is aware of how filthy they are (multiple abortions, lost opportunities, wasted potential, all those things leave a scar) and they just want to do something to make them feel better about themselves.
The lack of hardship and indoctrination have enfeebled the minds of the Western people and convinced them in many cases of the unworthiness of their lives (in many cases this unconscious self-assessment is correct due to the deeds mentioned above), at a subconscious level. I have to say, hats off to whoever thought out this kind of sophisticated mental attack.
Ah! Well, of course it is subconscious. Almost our entire existence is subconscious. But I am not talking about ‘I like this idea’. What you mean is that you notice how it manipulates you and feel like ‘this is wrong’. But that is only because you have not yet made conscious your OWN subconscious wish to BE manipulated. That manipulation only works because it speaks to an already existing part of your self. This feeling that it is an outside force throwing you around is evidence of incomplete self-awareness and identity. I believe that it is possible to perfectly understand why certain schemes work on your mind and some do not. It is your own past issues that you keep revisiting. Clean them up and the resonance vanishes. Then you will actually no longer fight the manipulation. You will no longer thing about how to protect yourself. You will just see somebody try it again and amusedly notice that you feel nothing anymore. It will, in fact, cease to BE manipulation.
As for codenepdency and that, it is all self-motivated as well, but it is not conscious because it happens so early in life. It is a defense mechanism. In fact, it is even more glorious than that. It is a manipulation mechanism that in my case came from the power chakra. It is a mechanism to deceive the parent in ways that make a fair survival possible.
I get how you could feel guilt from abortions, but the other things should inspire shame at most. Feeling guilty for not achieving makes me suspect overly demanding parents that felt ‘hurt’ when one was not able to achieve what they expected.
I am talking about the collective, i am dealing with my own subconscious shadow material.
Even if something exists allready within us ancestrally or in a past life it doesn’t have to be of our own nature but could have been implanted at one stage or another, probably there is some sort of compliance as in i convert to your religion if you stop torturing me, i understand what you mean but i dont think it is as simple as that but there are deifferent degrees and levels to this.
So your point is that this collective guilt is inspired through ‘your ancestors killed those people’? Is it really that simple? Because in the end, the self has to validate all that information. Something in the self always have to be willing to buy into it, so the question is: What is the ultimate motivation of an individual who buys into it? Is it really guilt or is it peer pressure?
Well as you said past life guilt is carried on in your present life and that is the unconscious sympathetic anchor to guilt in the present life. When i speak of ancestral memories i see it as a similar function as when you speak of past lives, my point is though that the subconscious complexes didn’t exist in that way in pre christian times, even if people killed eachother they felt guilty and then carried on.
I believ the limited psychological flexibility and relaxation came with this traumatic indoctrination that happened when europeans where killed, raped, tortured and persecuted for following their own traditions and not the desert slave religion.
In the present state compliance and peer pressure may play part in us today being controlled as a collective.
Shame is a sister emotion of guilt in my opinion. In the case of men, shame and guilt for leading a purposeless life are some of the main drivers of alcoholism and drug addiction. These people want to escape their lives because their mediocrity is unbearable for them. And if one is ashamed of oneself, that is really harder to fight than public shame (ashamed because something nasty about us was brought to light).
There is a subtle difference between the two. Guilt is the emotion you feel when you harm someone else. Shame is the emotion when you, in general, feel like you are doing something … well, shameful, even if it hurts nobody.
Ah, you are playing at a collective subconscious that the individual can not opt out of. Well, I can not outright deny it, but my life experience suggests that this is not true. It may of course be that one has lived in the same culture for many of one’s past lives and thus has actually been part of those wars and oppressions.
It is also thinkable that memories are genetically passed on, as experiments with mice have suggested.
Interesting questions indeed. How to verify?
Here is an interesting thought about a potential collective subconscious: If one member of a collective can solve the collective guilt through his self, it should theoretically vanish in all other members of the collective as well.
But then again, what IS a collective? Bloodlines? Skin color? Geographical location? What makes me part of the ‘white’ collective as opposed to the ‘black’ collective, considering that there are all kinds of shades in skin colors? Is a half-brownie kind of dipping into both pools of collective consciousness like a double agent?
Yeah i agree the individual can take himself out of the collective through psychological individuation by working with ones own “stuff” and thus aid the collective from his broader perspective potentially, by doing the work you not only do it for yourself even if the drive is selfishly motivated.
Yes i think bloodlines carry a lot of meaning and effect us more than we would think.
That’s right, hence I called them sister emotions, because normally one cannot be without the other. Even when you do something that hurts no one but you know or think that is shameful, you feel guilty for your deed and sometimes you condemn yourself and think you deserve punishment for your deed, even if no one but yourself is in harm’s way.
Then you likely had parents who made you feel guilty for that and did not let you have real personal boundaries. It is not normal to feel guilt for a thing that hurts nobody, while shame is – to a certain extent.
In every pagan culture there were sacrifices of animals and sometimes humans.
Pagan sacrifices can be seen, in my opinion, as an early expression of this same universal feeling of guilt that Christianity tried to sublimize.
Christianity does not sublimate guilt. It absolves it. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” is merely the predicate. The atonement, in the form of Christ’s personal sacrifice, is to make-good on the otherwise irredeemable debt incurred by man against his Maker.
When Paul writes to the Romans and reminds them “Christ died for thee” he means this exactly. There is no more guilt, only gratitude.
Gratitude is in short supply in the Age of Narcissism.
Maybe you’re right.
If these elites feel so guilty of how they acquired their wealth, why don’t they just donate it all and live like the rest of the population in poverty? Oh, can’t do that. Life would be too difficult.
Good point.
” most of the Native American-held land ceded to the English settlers was purchased.”
——————–
This does make a lot more sense than the official narrative.
That most Indians were simply bought out much as a home owner is bought out when their house stands in the way of a new freeway.
Then again, from an Indian perspective without real land ownership, this is not really different from simply being invaded and killed and sent away. What use is money to you when you are used to a life without it? How can money compensate you for a life where you needed none of it?
“How can money compensate you for a life where you needed none of it?”
—————-
When the money let’s you buy stuff to improve your standard of living beyond what you’re used to.
Like all prehistoric folks Indians were basically homeless people with lots of outdoor skills.
You do not get it. If you are happy, why do you need to ‘improve your standard of living’? It is plain Western arrogance to assume that nobody wants anything more than their ‘standards of living’.
“It is plain Western arrogance to assume that nobody wants anything more than their ‘standards of living’.
—————————-
And it is plain leftist ignorance that romanticizes the ‘simple’ ways of living.
It’s not arrogance, it’s envy.
Women exhibit this all the time. If her BFF has a better car, she needs to get a new car better than hers. The BFF then see it on FB and gets jealous, so she has to up one by having the most expensive purse, or renovate the house, or whatever.
They will never be happy because of envy.
Envy is a natural part of our human existence. But the question is whether it is merely a part of us that we acknowledge or whether it mutates into a compulsion in the form of ‘keeping up with the Joneses’.
Many behavioral patterns are so universal in our civilization and thus so accepted that we see them as healthy and normal, but they are not.
I watched the documentary ‘Tribe’ with Bruce Parry? Have you seen it?
He travels all around the world to live with indigenous tribes. That gave me quite a few ideas.
What truly intrigued me that those tribes do indeed have interest in acquiring Western wares like T-Shirts and cooking utensils.
Then again, there are shadow sides. They buy Western medicine that they never needed before Western people brought Western diseases to them.
“They buy Western medicine that they never needed before Western people brought Western diseases to them.”
—————-
Evidently they had no diseases of their own.
Sure they had, but they had cures for that. Makes sense, if you think about it. From a perspective of evolutionary adaption.
Envy is a natural human emotion, but how you control it defines the kind of person you are.
It could be a catalyst to push you to strive for something you don’t have. You recognize your inadequacies and improve upon them making you a better individual.
On the flip side, envy could be destructive in bringing down those who worked to achieve what they have. This is the mindset that most women have like the harpy feminists when they see that Beach Body Ready billboard.
I think that both versions you describe are pathological and a symptom of our narcissistic culture: Either conquer or tear down.
It completely misses the third option: Acknowledge that you would like to have it, but realize it is not really important and move on.
Good point on that 3rd option! So true.
Men can quantify and appreciate the value of material treasure. Women squander their treasures. Women don’t really want material junk and bling, they only thirst for it, discard it and want more. The biggest women who squander and consume treasure to emit trash and waste resources ARE THE WOMEN WHO are not properly dominated. Look at the most heavily dominated women worldwide and they’re contented and blissful. Their souls have the very thing they need. PATRIARCHAL MALE DOMINATION. Women don’t truly appreciate a new blue Jaguar or a fur coat. Those things leave their mind like the wind but THE CLOAK OF MAN presiding over them warms their heart to the core. Patriarchy grips the woman mind and body and brings priceless meaning to their life.
Not sure about patriarchy, but a man likely does. I guess that many of these things they want are just symbols of that love they crave.
If we’re still talking about Indians here, it’s not arrogance if the Indians actually did want what they saw the white people had. If space invaders landed in your back yard today and had all kinds of cool tech that no one else on earth had, would you not consider trading your house or car that that tech (if you own such things)? What if you thought that tech would improve your life more than the house or car?
Well, I am not very fluent in history, but if that alien invader was to annihialte my property either way, I may just as well take his tech.
As for improving my life, I think that a happy and confident person – while interested in new stuff surely – does not really need to be improving all the time. What for? What is it that we ultimately all crave? Love. And when you stop chasing it symbolically through stuff and other people, stuff suddenly is not that important anymore. Besides, if I have to give up a life of independence and freedom for a little cool stuff – sorry, you can keep it.
A rifle that enables you to hunt more prey and fight rivals more effectively is for intents and purposes an objective increase in one’s standard of living. Get out of your cage Tom, there are absolute and verifiable truths, otherwise Mathematics and engineering would impossible. Not all is relative Tom.
I am not talking about relativism. I am talking about satisfaction with your own life. Why do you need to hunt more prey if you are not starving?
As for the rivals, that is some point you have there, I guess. But it is just speculation, unless you are well versed in history. I admit that I am not.
America was not a peaceful place. War, outright genocide and all the evils that accompanied men were present well before the Conquest. I am not American but I know that American tribes were divided and fought constantly for territory and resources, hence they were unable to offer an unified resistance to the English settlers. Hence, superior weapons were something they were willing to get even if it cost them a piece of land here or there.
Yeah, it is quite possibly true. Even today’s tribes often fight each other with bought AK-47s. Then again, in the past, they simply often had ritualistic stick fights.
But it is really hard to make general statements. Watch one tribe and you think you have seen them all. Watch 20 tribes and you start to doubt that any conclusive statements can be made.
The Indians didn’t get money. They got guns, tools, boots, gold (well maybe some money), other things that improved their way of life, etc…
The first settlement on cape cod I believe was about 4000 acres an English man bought from an Indian tribe. And they lived peacefully near each other for a long time.
And how do we know no Indian tribes believed in land ownership. I know that is a common theme in pop culture about Indians. But how many tribes was that true for? Surely they had some idea of land ownwership. How else would tribes have been able to interact near each other?
Good point, yeah. No doubt, there has been some romanticizing. Then again, I saw some documentaries about the lives of tribes and in some cases, these socialistic fairy tales do work out because people know each other.
I really can not debate this in any substantial manner, as the history is not that known to me. But let us also not forget that we live in a culture with a good/evil power play at all times. That is to say, public historians will almost always phrase what happened in terms of a ‘story’ with a moral. So they will leave out details etc to fabricate a narrative of the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ side. In the end, it is much of a ‘who is the greater victim’ thing and ‘check your privilege’ and ‘sympathize with the underdog’ bullshit that ignores the basic fact that conflict always takes two to tango.
Well, not quite.
With Eminent Domain, you as a landowner do not have the option of not selling it. The government gives you their estimate of the current value of that land. You can’t hold out for a better deal.
You can hold out for a better deal. You can take your government to court for a better deal and get it. In fact, the government basically has to convince ordinary citizens that their price is the fair one in this situation (A form of jury). As long as you’re not too rich yourself, these citizens will usually side with you. Have you ever been involved in this situation? I haven’t, but my dad was when I was a child. It took over a year for everything to shake out in court and he got double the price the government was offering at first.
That said, he still didn’t have any choice but to sell at some price. Also, we might not be in the same state and laws may be different, but don’t assume the government already has that much power everywhere.
Isolationism masquerading as intellectualism.
The wars we fought were necessary and just. Our mistake was not in fighting them, but fighting for “limited objectives,” in a manner that would not offend the savages tryimg to destroy us.
Sorry but you are challenged mentally or just a paid troll. None of the wars fought in the 21st century by the US were necessary and just. A simple restriction in immigration from those countries would have stopped the 911 attacks in their tracks.
Had the West not invited the Muslim world into the heart of Europe after spending a 1000 years and countless battles keeping it out would have avoided nearly all the tragedies of terrorism in this century in Europe.
You presuppose that the expansionist Muslims can be contained. They’re developing nukes and missiles to destroy the West. You can’t build a fence around fascistic expansionists and expect to contain them.
And you can’t win an argument by insulting the opposition.
You are giving me more ammunition pal. What kind retarded and sadomasochistic administration bombs countries far in the Middle East and then invites their inhabitants (full of justified and ideologically driven hatred) into its heartland. This is specially hilarious when such inhabitants come from countries that up until the 18th century represented an existential threat to Europe and that have not forgotten their defeats.
Islam is an expansionist ideology but forced conversion would have been far more effective than “exporting democracy” to people willing to vote for lofty causes like beheading anyone who doesn´t think like them or sending their “spare” young men to die while the local “alphas” hoard all the women they can. Whether you like it or not, you Americans are the main driver behind the renewed aggressiveness of Islam in the 21st century (destroying stable regimes that while not perfect were a lot better than IS or whatever Muslim extremist comes our way, training and arming religious fanatics, etc).
By the way, Nuclear proliferation was a given, whether you like it or not and you just accelerated the process, no leader in the world that wants to have a semi-autonomous policy can be safe unless he got his own nuclear cache otherwise he risks receiving sooner or later the Gadaffi treatment by the West (US and the EU stooges).
Of todays immigrant problem I will say this.
The tarring, as racist, of working class people that simply do not want to lose their livelihoods (or lives!) to masses of belligerent, unassimilating foreigners is utterly egregious.
It will be regarded by historians as THE point in history that the left lost it’s moral compass (if it ever had one to begin with).
Almost 800 years ago the middle east had their own version of the Burning of the Library of Alexandria -The Siege of Baghdad in 1258, where the mongols obliterated centuries-old irrigation canals, philosophers, scientists and thousands of books. The modern people are essentially descended from the hillbillies of that region.
By my estimates, in two or three centuries their culture will have its own “renaissance”, but where will the rest of us be I wonder?
One of the great tragedies of history, although pretty standard for the Mongols, who make ISIS seem almost sympathetic. If I remember correctly the mongols didn’t even have their own written language in Ghenghis’ time (although I guess someone did write the Secret History). When the city was sacked over half a million people were systematically slaughtered. I’ve always felt sorry for Baghdad as a great culture seems to have been obliterated
T’is a tragedy, because there has been civilization in that area for ages. I recall reading that some middle-east folks made copies of some literature in the Library of Alexandria and brought it home. Ironic it should suffer a similar fate.
I do wonder if the Mongols had never been whether the middle east would have been something entirely different. Violent Islamic fundamentalism seems to function best where civilization is least developed. Could be the opposite though, it’s impossible to know for sure
It depends on what you mean by “developed”. From a moral standpoint, the middle east has more regulations on human behavior than the west.
Whenever people point to the Holocaust and what may have been, I merely point out the difference of then and now which is so simple a child could see it.
1. There are already first born American Muslims who have been caught trying to join ISIS.
2. If anyone takes the time, they will find footage of what’s already happening to Europe as an example of what the U.S. can expect soon. While not quite in the same scale, the possibility is there.
3. The Boston Bombers were refugees themselves, radicalized long before they even graduated high school.
4. Even if most Americans don’t see themselves at war, the majority of the Muslims do. In light of their faith, they will see coming into the West as a continuation of the war and taking it to the infidel’s homeland.
This may sound like scare tactics to some, but this is the reality of the situation.
PC guilt is a psy-op against a post-Christian culture. Christianity does force you to acknowledge guilt, but provides for dealing with it. But in a godless post-Christian culture which no longer believes in anything, it is possible for NWO social engineers to undermine the civilization and turn the constructive acknowledgement of sin and guilt into a collective masochistic dealth wish.
The new world order knows how to bring down a people through the use of propaganda targeting the deep psyche. But the propaganda only works once they have abandoned the spiritual basis of culture…
That is Christianity.
Ever heard of a guilt trip?
‘You are so so evil. But if you seriously feel bad for it, I will embrace you with my unconditional love.’
I am wondering whether Jesus may have been Borderline Personality Disordered. Where he paints everyone either evil or saint.
Incidentally, kids of Borderline mothers often feel guilty for not loving them. Those mothers then say: But I am such a good mother and nobody will ever love you like I do. You will understand one day.
So perhaps Jesus is just a stupid bitch.
I will leave you with the following words from a man who is far above of what you and me could ever hope to be. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… in vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens”. <—{George Washington}. So please do not say things like that, you come off as an animal, and someone whom the father of this country would not welcome.
You sound like an obedient moron sucking George’s dick.
This has nothing to do with obedience, you are not very bright, anyway I am through with you.
Fine by me, fuck off.
Normally I enjoy your comments Tom. LittleGoomba here was just trying to point some things out that it appears you may not have been thinking of though, and it seems your two more grotesque and rude comments aren’t really called for here. LittleGoomba was disagreeing with you but not forcing anything on you and surely not in need of being called a cock sucker or being told to fuck off. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’d be inclined to share some similar witty writing with me at this point.
I would also point out that use of a quote from a long dead person may not indicate obedience to that person at all. It probably indicates that the writer really agrees with the quote they are quoting. Further, use of the quote is just an attempt to add authority to their own opinion. As apposed to him being obedient to Washington, he was likely hoping you would have some obedience to this person and then be made more likely to view his opinion as correct.
Finally, i’d add that either you haven’t read much of the bible itself or that you’ve had a radically different interpretation of it in your own mind when you’ve read it than what I have experienced.
So my question would be, have you read much of the bible and the gospels, or is you opinion on Jesus based on what preachers and pop culture have taught you? Remember, if you’ve just spent a lot of time in church listening to sermons, you’ve only got the parts of the bible and Jesus which that church and that (or those) preacher(s) focus on.
I don’t go to church. I just read the bible and pray personally. That is where I am in my spiritual development.
I just voiced my contempt for LittleWhatever for his quoting of an ‘important’ person. It is just as you say, an attempt to give authority to his own voice. And then that sentence ‘greater than we both can hope to be’. How pathetic and selfless. Just another ape losing himself in awe when talking about ‘greatness’ and ‘forefathers’ and ‘America’ and ‘values’ and ‘virtues’ and what not. Like a fucking druggie high on important-sounding words. This betrays, to me, a confused and thus obedient mind. I do empathize, but I also react with salt when these sermons are directed at me.
No, I have not read the Bible, aside from parts of it. My knowledge, where does it come from? I am not even sure. Pretty much hearsay and pop culture I guess. But the most important insight I get from my own meditations and intuition in which Jesus acts just in the manner I described. Inspiring fear of the evil demons and then proudly appearing like the savior. What a cliche. And when you think of it, our whole culture is practically based on that cliche. It is always the evil guys against which the good guy triumphs with an orchestra and trumpets and uplifting soundtracks, ridding the audience of all senses.
As for my language being inappropriate, you will have to take it. We are all grown men here and I am sure the contempt between LittleWhatever and me is mutual. I am just more … direct.
Lol, a child’s argument against his maker. If you are going to make a fool out of yourself at least do it in a less spectacular fashion. God’s love is not and never has been unconditional. Educate yourself on the subject, or maybe you do not know the real meaning of the word. God does not guilt trip anyone dummy, he just warns you about your fate for rebelling, totally different from guilt tripping. ROFL, you are too easy to pick apart.
Be my guest, LittleDumbo. Keep shouting those lines at me that your parents whispered in your little unsuspecting ear when you were young. Please, think I care. Please, think I am devastated by now being as ‘educated’ in being a blinded and fear-guided follower.
My parents are going to hell, they did not “whisper” anything to me. What are you saying? I really cannot understand because your grammar and sentence structure is that of an illegal immigrant. For starters, you need a few of these —–> ? in your paragraph.
Dude, you do not get it. I am not offended by your corrections. I just smile. Go on.
Well it never hurts to smile huh 😉
Guess not.
There is a large Armenian diaspora here in Southern California mainly Glendale. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, they were refugees because they faced genocide. We don’t hear them causing chaos. I don’t see them living completely differently than any of us here. They might do their own things at home, but they don’t cause trouble.
This is how I see refugees.
Yes, but, Armenian is one of the world’s most ancient Christian countries. The orthodox Christian church there was responsible for transcribing many of the ancient works from Greek in Cyrillic and so preserving them through the dark ages in the west.
The is not about refugees pre se, but, rather it’s about who you let become a “guest” in your Nation. Would you let someone come into your house at Christmas who was a known thief or murderer? Of course not, yet we’re meant to accept people in our Nations who openly declare that their values are not merely inimical, but superior to our values and who are willing to create a holy jihad to bring their medieval doctrine into the heart of our Nations?
Have we gone mad and insane in the west? To let ourselves be dictated to by a foreign tribe with their alien and medieval doctrine is the ultimate white flag. Nevertheless I believe part of the reason why we don’t have the balls to stop them is because of our women, unlike Muslim women who don’t intervene and soften their mens’ call to arms. The opposite is true of our women who always weaken, shame and cause feelings of guilt in the white Christian man’s call to arms, by telling him that he’s nothing but a bully and coward by going out to defend his home and nation! This is how fucked up we’ve become in the west, that we’re constantly undermined by our own women any time a man shows any of his masculine tendencies, like protecting what he cares about most. Until women in our societies begin to see the big picture, which is something the fair sex always has a problem with anyway, then this kind of shaming and undermining is going to continue and we’ll get weaker and weaker and our enemies will get stronger and stronger.
Note: Muslim women are rightfully debarred from having opinions and influence in public affairs in such countries, hence this is what makes Muslims such formidable opponents.
You’re right about everything you said but the problem with the women in the west didn’t just happen by coincidence, women are programable and just as the muslim women have been encouraged to be supportive of their men, our women have been brainwashed to be destructive towards our western life, its one of the greatest losses for us in this cold war being waged against us.
So, what’s the solution? Is there one? Will they only cop on when the Muslims have become so strong and want to introduce Sharia law that they then begin to think the white man’s not that bad after all?
Personally, I rather nearly see a lot of these Marxist traitors have to swallow the medieval conservatism of Islam. To observe the Arab man rule with the back of his hand these pink haired, nose ringed, me centered little tarts. It’s terrible to admit this, but, I have no sympathy for these people who’ve betrayed the best values, of the best countries, that made this world, civilized, sane and bearable. Yes, there would be a very bitter sweet irony in seeing this come to pass.
I dont blame you and i share your sentiment. I dont have any solutions just speculations, i think the same people that are subversively radicalizing us white men are the same people riling up the arabs against us and that both parties are swallowing the bait, in my mind this obvious conflict that is emerging seems more arranged than a natural occurence, sounds a little conspiracy like but i am very suspicious about all the radicalization i see springing up left and right even though i am myself part of it to a certain extent.
You know, I have been wondering why female shaming is so effective. It does not really make any sense. What can that weak creature really do to you? And I think I found the answer for myself in that evolution designed the solution for a woman’s weakness through her childbearing: By having the greatest power – even physically – over a boy when he is very young, the boy grows fearful of a woman’s bullshit. As he grows up, he fails to recognize that he is no longer a kid and no longer has to fear a woman becoming physical.
The problem is that the transition happens somewhere around age 13 probably and by then it is such a subconscious reaction that one is not even aware that there is still a fear of physical threat involved.
I agree in part with you on this. It’s strange that primordial fear which western women can institute as sometimes the primary basis of her relationship with significant men (sons and husbands) in her orbit of influence.
Actually, I think this resentment and fear comes from the fact that western mothers interfere into aspects of a young man’s life which isn’t her remit, but, should be the fathers. In Arab and Asian families the relationship in boy’s development into the “public world” is done through the father and not the mother, which is becoming the predominant way a boy learns about the world and his role in it in western countries.
The problem with this is that women and mothers don’t know the world like a man and a boy’s father should. If done by the mother, the boy will often be overprotected or told things that are not true and are misleading, in addition how can a boy learn about the female sex from his mother? This is why I believe many men have that fear of being undermined by women, as it the fear of their own mother that they fear the most. I’ve often observed that men, and there’s not that many, who’ve had a good, strong and robust relationship with their fathers are often immune from this woman shaming technique in later life, which is a great blessing to be endowed with.
The more I read ROK articles and especially the comments here, the more the truth is revealed to me. How could I have been so blind, yet I see clearly with my eyes opened? In a way you don’t want to believe what you read here due to our upbringing, but you can’t deny what you’re witnessing first hand and must unlearn what you were taught and learn the truth. It’s like you were walking down the wrong path and you must go back and take that other path at the fork.
It’s becomes also more obvious why civilizations ultimately fail or have failed in the past, namely their civic values like democracy and tolerance caused them to become so internally conflicted,they become easily mastered by less civilized and more homogenized groups bound by a single purpose.
I imagine if you go far enough back into our own proto history you’d see these type events happen also, perhaps the higher cultural diversity of the Neanderthals for example caused them to be become less warlike which led to their eventual demise.
Excellent article. Historical juxtaposition to current events is a great teacher.
American citizen’s enemies, foreign and domestic, are beginning to take definitive form from the media and academic ether. Take note, prepare, and in the meantime, shame them unrelentingly.
Our enemies begin losing some power when they know, that we know, who they are. Cowards shy away from a fight.
Exactly. History is the best teacher. Nothing is new under the sun. Human nature, especially our most basic instincts, are exactly as they have been since we were cavemen.
Problem is that most people just aren’t good students.
Muslims are holding the knife, while liberals are slowly forcing us into it. They think it’s our fault that muslims want to murder us, but they fail to realize that muslims have been committing murders and terror in the name of the pedophile for 1000 years.
hahaha
Mohammed, 9 years old Aisha be upon him.
I think the better argument that the United States is not responsible for the resettlement of refuges is that the wasteful war in Iraq (not Syria) was paid for. Billions and Billions of dollars, years of security and the lives and blood of our soldiers so that Iraq could get itself together after the invasion and fall of Saddam. They failed to do so.
Lesson learned.
When the United States wants to overthrow a dictator, kill the dictator and the upper echelon without mercy- then LEAVE!
White Guilt syndrome is someone ignorant of pre 1492 world history.
There was a 1,000 year period called the Dark Ages where 3/4th’s of Europe was enslaved by Asians, Africans, and Arabs.
Funny how we were never taught that in public schools.
Yup, public schools are literally Marxist brainwashing factories, especially up here in Ontario (we have a lesbian in charge of the province).
All strong-willed parents should home school their children on their own as they want them, with their values.
What they decide to do afterwards after they’re all grown up is their own choice.
I attended high school in Canada for 2 years where I was taught white American men are the source of all the worlds problems.
Yet, Canadians had no problem enjoying the benefits of our contributions [They love our music, movies, fashion, slang, and use cars, airplanes, internet, and telephones-all invented by white American men].
Typical Marxist hypocrisy. I couldn’t leave that country quick enough. I don’t know how you do it.
Surely Americans are not the superheroes they like to portray themselves as, but neither are they so much worse than the others.
That’s the point Im trying to make Tom. Every culture has enslaved and been enslaved, it depends on how far back in history you want to go.
History class in North American schools start with Columbus in 1492 followed by the slave trade. They’ll never discuss what occurred the preceding 1,000 years [Dark Ages] when we were on the defensive.
Interesting. I believe we started earlier in Germany.
Eh…Europeans were never enslaved by Asians, Africans or Arabs. There were Turkic tribes who came as far as Central Europe, but they were driven away or lost their power, because they were stupid savages. The same holds for Muslim scum from Northern Africa that came into Europe through Spain. They were eventually driven away or lost their power.
The Dark Ages was a period of chaos, because the Roman Empire collapsed, resulting in different tribes and people fighting for power. But Europeans were never enslaved by non-Europeans on a big scale, like Africans.
Wrong. You obviously never heard of the Huns, Avars, Moors, Saracens, Bulgars, Mongols, Arabs, Lapps, etc.
Btw, the Ottoman Janissaries were brainwashed Christian slaves converted to soldiers for the Ottoman Sultan.
I agree but the lapps are hardly any warriors they are just harmless shamanistic deer herders, but your other examples are inarguable.
These days, I wonder how much need there really is for warriors. The only reason why I consider to become strong now is so that I can keep idiots from conquering me. I have no intent nor motivation to conquer others, though.
But I actually think most men share these ideas. Most war is likely motivated by fear of invasion from the outside. In that sense, I think political lies are the main cause for wars. Paint the others as evil bastards without souls who want nothing more than to eat your children and suddenly it becomes reasonable to fight them.
Much truth to that. The true enemies will remain hidden anyway whilst trying to polarize and radicalize everyone else so they can go to the bank and collect the profit, nothing new under the sun just the good old problem reaction solution.
It would not surprise me that the agents within the far right movements and the jihadist movements are the exact same people, i cant think of any better way than to make your two stong enemies destroy each other and then capitalize on that, for example bringin in martial law as solution for the conflicts you were the at the cause of.
Keeping people divided by exploiting ancient hatreds is the ultimate method of keeping power.
Being that defense contracting corporation shares are openly traded on the stock market, war becomes incentivized.
This is exactly George Lucas’s point in the Star Wars prequals. It’s my estimation that how Palpatine played the whole galaxy like a chess board is much how the few elites of this world play the world. Of course there is no way to know for sure but when you look at things like this, the west vs Islam, it makes sense. Of course, the same outcome seems possible just by all humans chasing their own increase in power.
Thats interesting. I think that Lucas’s story telling was heavily inspired by Joseph Campbell’s archetypal story telling whom in turn was very much inspired by C.G. Jung
Interesting, what archetypes were used by Lucas?
Look up the “heros journey” and you will get the picture, its not so much one single archetypal persona but the setup of the journey through the different archetypal landscapes and challenges taken on by the hero. If i remember correctly the heros journey is kind of an external representation of Jung’s “dark night of the soul” something along those lines.
Then again, is Palpatine really the evil one? Who knows.
Darth Vader is the true hero.
I empathize with him a lot. Fatherless boy as well. I understand his rage and distrust and rebellion towards his master. I guess I have a knack for villains, as I also empathize with Voldemort.
Well, somebody has to show them love.
Palpatine and Vader were actually the heroes of the galaxy. The Jedi were an arrogant and self-righteous bunch, serving a corrupt Senate.
Palpatine was the embodiment of Absolute Power(God)-created life from the force(Anakin Skywalker); established a Monarchy.
Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker- Chosen One; Born from a Virgin; Mastered the ‘Yin/Yang’ of the Force; ended the brutal Clone Wars
Haha, now we are talking!
I had this idea, too. In fact, if you take the starting credits of the original Star Wars movies and take away all those words like ‘evil’ before ’empire’, you practically end up with something like: The Empire is building some cool thing and the fucking rebels stole the plans. Naturally, Vader is pissed.
Then again, these days, I am really going more for anarchy than monarchy, but in terms of Star Wars: Would I rather be ruled by an Emperor or by some stupid senate? I guess it really does not matter.
Also, the whole Dark/Light side thing kinda stinks and that is where Anakin truly lost. He bought into the lie that he has to give up the light side and fully embrace the dark side. He saw the Jedi as representants of the light side and in his rebellion, he not only abandoned the Jedi, but also the Light side, thus effectively crippled his spiritual self.
One of those was Radu the Handsome, brother of Vlad Tepes. Whether he was brainwashed or joined the Turks by convenience is out for debate. But both brothers were held as hostages by Murad II and Radu actually converted to Islam.
Spoken like a high school historian. The Moors conquered and enslaved Spain and South Italy. The Ottomans colonized the European states that they conquered. The Mongolians are Asiatic, and they conquered a few Eastern European state. The irony of the superiority complex held by Europeans is that they have been conquered more times by different foreign invaders than any other continent.
At one point the Ottomans did take the Italian town of Otranto, with the objective of eventually taking Rome.
Dark Age 3.0
rofl
“Oh but they come from an ‘economically challenged background’ so it’s ok for them to be violent thugs.” – A liberal
I have that kind of mental image a few days ago with these characters who sat opposite me on a train here in Europe the other day.. Eventually the law won’t hold them back
Don’t know where the guilt is going to end.. Sadly, seems it won’t.. I spent a section of my life in a colonial outpost in Africa and white people there just arm and barricade themselves up. A few more years of this guilt and there’ll be no more nice, safe cities left in Europe, it will be bars on the windows, no-go areas, driving rather than taking public transport.. Just wish people would wake up.
The West is fucked!! Put a fork in it. Good riddance!
Guilty White Liberals.
Can we avert a civil war in the West, between right and left? Is it still possible to take back the foundations and institutions of our nations and direct them on a more prosperous and meaningful course, one that leads to power, influence, wealth and a high quality of living? Or, is violence the only course of action now open? I’d be interested to hear others thoughts.
What is wrong about conquer America???
Ahhh I’ve just realised, that it was performed by white men…
The only bad wars are those done by white men. That’s the root of the White people can have a country, not only attack defense is also awful!!(by whites)(only)
Good article, except for this quote:
“The guilt they experience over the U.S. government’s foreign policy blunders can only be satiated through a good paddling of their own bare, prostrated asses.”
Considering that diversity pushers never, EVER, live amongst the “vibrancy” they claim to love so much, I think it’s clear that it’s not their ass that gets paddled. It’s always someone else’s ass getting paddled.
Astute observation. It’s highly hypocritical for, let’s say, a black college student to demand diversity on campus only to run back to their Safe space for coloured people only… oh I mean “people of colour”. I can never quite remember which one is progress and which one is just bigoted segregation.
The irony and paradox of today’s diversity is NOT diverse at all.
REAL diversity is allowing EVERY RACE and ethnicity to preserve their own.
Which means whites mate with whites.
Asians mate with Asians
Blacks mate with Blacks. Each race should stay in their own continent. That is ideal but unrealistic at this moment. Even liberal whites know this deep down inside. Usually notice the liberal whites (who scream for equality) live in perfectly gated community with other liberal whites and they are sheltered?
These guys would be the first to move out when a minority moves in.
Notice how whites usually move out when minorities move into their neighborhood? That means whites do not like non-whites and prefer to be left alone.
The revisionist history and self-flagellation of the West over the British Empire is astonishing. Even as scientific studies show that former British Colonies are better off than lands that were never touched by Colonialism or the colonies of other nations (such as France or Germany).
Historian Niall Ferguson writes about this extensively in “Empire: the Rise and Fall of the British World Order”. I recommend this book to all ROK readers.
Fact is Western civilization is the dominating one on this planet due to technological superiority (this includes agriculture, medicine and engineering).
If a Westerner says “God, I’m awesome!” that would be blatant arrogance. So what does a hypocrite Westerner do? He goes “God, everyone else is so fucked up because of me. I really hate myself.”
The so-called western masochism is nothing but arrogance, disguised by hypocrisy into humility. My dear Westerners, the choice is between open arrogance and concealed arrogance. At least with one of the choices, you’re not a hypocrite.
There’s such a huge ignorance of Biblical Christianity today by people who claim to be Christian in European countries. People do not read/study the Bible these days. Several of the more ignorant misconceptions have been touched on here.
Take first the idea that Yeshua (Jesus) and His parents were a “middle eastern couple. . . “. That’s like saying because most North American’s are white today, then that means the North American population throughout the millennia have all been white people, and therefore Pocahontas was white.
Yeshua, and the Israelites He descended from, were not Arabs or what comes to mind when someone is labeled “middle eastern” today. The Israelites of the Bible are the ancestors of Caucasian European people. Jacob’s brother Esau had red hair, as one example. There were Arabs (“Dusky” in the Hebrew) in Biblical times, and they are referred to as such in the Bible, to distinguish them from the Israelites. The 10 Northern Tribes eventually escaped their Assyrian captivity and formed the several “barbarian” tribes that would enter Europe via the Caucus Mountains, etc. This is Biblical, historical, and archaeological fact.
“. . . seeking refuge and shelter.” They were seeking refuge and shelter among their own people, and within their own people’s land. Even when they went to Egypt, they were among their own race. The Egyptians were Cushites, descended from Noah’s son Ham, and the Israelites were descended from Noah’s son Shem.
The biggest point missed by so called “Christians” today is a tragic irony. Christianity is not emotionalism or whatever feels good. It’s governed by a King and His laws. The very first of these laws, or commandments, is “You shall have no other gods besides Me”. Part of putting this foremost commandment into practice is to exclude every other religion from Christian lands. This includes Islam. Further, the Bible commands extreme prejudice and hostility towards other gods and religion.
Also part of the first commandment is the statutes that require that “awful” thing so despised today, racial segregation. Yeshua’s account with the Canaanite woman shows “what Jesus would do” when it comes to foreign relations. There is exception made for proselytes of other races under Gods’ law, but even these are segregated and must dwell “outside the camp”. Their relationship to the land and nation is never permanent. It’s a big world, everyone has their own space.
There have been three Supreme Court decisions [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 at 471 (1892), Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 307 at 313 (1952), and McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 at 561 (1961)] declaring that the United States of America is a Christian nation. In an address at Harvard University in 1905, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice, David J. Brewer, quoted from Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States:
This Republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of HOLY TRINITY vs. UNITED STATES … that Court … added, “these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation….”
Justice Brewer went on to further establish this undeniable fact of American history:
In several colonies and States a profession of the Christian faith was made an indispensable condition to holding office. …of still more significance … there are no contrary declarations. In no charter or constitution is there anything to even suggest that any other than the Christian is the religion of this country. In none of
them is Mohammed, or Confucius, or Buddha in any manner noticed. …there is no charter or constitution [in America] that is either infidel, agnostic or anti-Christian.
In the 1811 court case of People v. Ruggles, New York’s Chancellor James Kent rendered a similar opinion:
Nor are we bound … in the [United States] constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks [of blasphemy] upon the religion of Mohomet [Islam], or of the Grand Lama [Buddhism], and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon
Christianity and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters.”
Everyone hates the Puritans yet their ancestors flocked here in their millions to copy and co-habitate with them in the New World.
Interestingly, Roman Catholic America be it Canada or New Orleans, did not have this effect. For that matter neither did Anglican (southern) British North America.
Weird, huh? Maybe these obligatory cheap shots at Puritans, even by red pills, are residual illusion and deception.
You know, you really ought to ponder on that because without those Puritans, we would not be here to worry a bout their legacy to us.
Americans in particular have been educated in self-hatred during the last 50+ years. Social “sciences” are based on self-hatred by Americans, including even those supposedly intended to help individuals overcome their problems. Anyone who doesn’t engage in self-hate is termed a “racist sexist homophobe” in need of “therapy”.
If the U.S. cannot be held accountable for destabilising Iraq, following the example you gave, since it is a “democracy full of a thousand competing interests”, then how can a religion (in this case Islam) with 1.6 billion followers, possessing competing interests, beliefs and sects that show that there are many interpretations of the Islamic doctrine that branch out into many different branches (alike a democracy in the West) be held accountable for the misdeeds of a few?