User Controls
Why the coalition of the fringes is promoted by the US
-
2018-10-28 at 3:11 PM UTCNext time I start to lose an argument, that's what I'm gonna do.
"But will you pay me?"The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-28 at 4:18 PM UTC
-
2018-10-28 at 5:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Why?
Why would the people who travel thousands of miles to move to the west - the likes of Captain Falcon/Anal Turing - seek to undermine and destroy it?
I have noticed that pretty much every brown person automatically starts shitting on normie whites - even while trying to fit in with them.
Why would Homosexuals and Muslims find common truck with the wealthy jedis who hate them both to ally against the normies who leave them all the fuck alone?
This phenomenon demands explanation.
Now, among our human categories we have observed that progress is primarily due to the superiors. It is they who found and further civilizations. As for the intermediate mass, it accepts the achievements of its creative pioneers. Its attitude is receptive. This re- ceptivity is due to the fact that most of the intermediate grades are near enough to the superiors to understand and assimilate what the superiors have initiated. But what about the inferiors? Hitherto we have not analyzed their attitude. We have seen that they are incapable of either creating or furthering civilization, and are thus a negative hindrance to progress. But the inferiors are not mere negative factors in civilized life; they are also positive in an inverse, destructive sense. The inferior elements are, instinctively or consciously, the enemies of civilization. And they are its enemies, not by chance, but because they are more or less un- tivilizable.
We must remember that the level of society never coincides with the levels of its human units. The social level is a sort of compromise & balance of constituent forces. This very fact implies that the in- dividuals* must be differentially spaced. And so it is. Superior individuals stand above the social level; some- times far above that level whence the saying about men "ahead of their times."
But what about men "behind their times"? They have always been numerous, and, the higher the civilization, the more of them there are apt to be. The truth is that as a civilization advances it leaves behind multitudes of human beings who have not the capacity to keep pace. The laggards, of course, vary greatly among themselves. Some are congenital savages or barbarians; men who could not fit into any civiliza- tion, and who consequently fall behind from the start. These are not "degenerates"; they are "primitives," carried over into a social environment in which they do not belong. They must be clearly distinguished from the true degenerates: the imbecile, the feeble-minded, the neurotic, the insane all those melancholy waste- products which every living species excretes but which are promptly extirpated in the state of nature, whereas in human societies they are too often preserved.
Moreover, besides primitives and degenerates, civili- zation by its very advance automatically condemns fresh multitudes to the ranks of the "inferior." Just as "primi- tives" who would be quite at home in savage or barbarian environments are alien to any sort of civilization, so, many individuals who rub along well enough in civilization's early phases have neither the wit nor the moral fibre to meet the sterner demands of high, complex civilizations. Most poignant of all is the lot of the "border-liners"- those who just fail to achieve a social order, which they can comprehend but in which they somehow cannot suc- ceed. Such are the ranks of the inferior the vast army of the unadaptable and the incapable.
Let me again em- phasize that " inferior" does not necessarily mean "de- generate." The degenerate are, of course, included, but the word "inferior" is a relative term signifying "be- low" or "beneath," in this case meaning persons beneath or below the standard of civilization. The word inferior has, however, been so often employed as a synonym for degenerate that it tends to produce confusion of thought, and to avoid this I have coined a term which seems to describe collectively all those kinds of persons whom I have just discussed. This term is The Under-Man the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives. And this term I shall henceforth employ.
Now how does the Under-Man look at civilization? This civilization offers him few benefits and fewer hopes. It usually affords him little beyond a meagre subsistence. And, sooner or later, he instinctively senses that he is a failure; that civilization's prizes are not for him. But this civilization, which withholds benefits, does not hesi- tate to impose burdens. We have previously stated that civilization's heaviest burdens are borne by the superior. Absolutely, this is true; relatively, the Under-Man's intrinsically lighter burdens feel heavier because of his innate incapacity. The very discipline of the social order oppresses the Under-Man; it thwarts and chastises him at every turn. To wild natures society is a torment, while the congenital caveman, placed in civilization, is always in trouble and usually in jail. All this seems to be inevitable. But, in addition to these social handicaps, the Under-Man often suffers from the action of better-placed individuals, who take advan- tage of his weakness and incapacity to exploit him and drive him down to social levels even lower than those which he would normally occupy. Such is the Under-Man's unhappy lot. Now, what is his attitude toward that civilization from which he has so little to hope? What but instinctive opposition and discontent? These feelings, of course, vary all the way from dull, unreasoning dislike to flaming hatred and re- bellion. But, in the last analysis, they are directed not merely against imperfections in the social order, but against the social order itself.
This is a point which is rarely mentioned, and still more rarely understood. Yet it is the meat of the whole matter. We must realize clearly that the basic attitude of the Under-Man is an instinctive and natural revolt against civilization. The reform of abuses may diminish the intensity of social discontent. It may also diminish the numbers of the discontented, because social abuses precipitate into the depths many persons who do not really belong there; persons who were innately capable of achieving the social order if they had had a fair chance. But, excluding all such anomalous cases, there remains a vast residue of unadaptable, depreciated humanity, essentially uncivi- lizable and incorrigibly hostile to civilization.
Every society engenders within itself hordes of savages and barbarians, ripe for revolt and ever ready to pour forth and destroy. In normal times these elements of chaos go almost unperceived. Civilization automatically evolves strong social controls which keep down the antisocial elements. For one thing, the civilized man instinctively supports his civilization, just as the Under-Man instinctively op- poses it; and when civilization is threatened, its sup- porters instantly rise in its defense. Again, society maintains a permanent standing army (composed of policemen, soldiers, judges, and others), which is usually quite capable of keeping order. The mere presence of this standing army deters the antisocial elements from mass action.
Desperate individuals, of course, break forth into crime, but society hunts them down and elimi- nates them by prison and the scaffold. The Under-Man may thus be controlled. But he re- mains; he multiplies; he bides his time. And, now and then, his time comes. When a civilization falters beneath its own weight and by the decay of its human founda- tions; when its structure is shaken by the storms of war, dissension, or calamity; then the long-repressed forces of atavistic revolt gather themselves together for a spring.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-28 at 5:39 PM UTC
-
2018-10-28 at 5:47 PM UTC^Stoddard is such an awkward and long winded writer, goddam.
I like this bit from an essay by a William James:The world, in fact, is only beginning to see that the wealth of a nation consists more than in anything else in the number of superior men that it harbors. In the practical realm it has always recognized this, and known that no price is too high to pay for a great statesman or great captain of industry. But it is equally so in the religious and moral sphere, the poetic and artistic sphere, and in the philosophic and scientific sphere. Geniuses are ferments; and when they come together as they have done in certain lands at certain times, the whole population seems to share in the higher energy which they awaken.
https://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/james/james_writings_academia.pdf -
2018-10-28 at 5:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Why would Homosexuals and Muslims find common truck with the wealthy jedis who hate them both to ally against the normies who leave them all the fuck alone?
This phenomenon demands explanation.
Lastly, there is the "misguided superior." He is a strange phenomenon ! Placed by nature in the van of civilization, he goes over to its enemies. This seems in- explicable. Yet it can be explained. As the Under-Man revolts because civilization is so far ahead of him, so the misguided superior revolts because it is so far behind. Exasperated by its slow progress, shocked at its faults, and erroneously ascribing to mankind in general his own lofty impulses, the misguided superior dreams short cuts to the millennium and joins the forces of social revolt, not realizing that their ends are profoundly different even though their methods may be somewhat the same. The misguided superior is probably the most pathetic figure in human history. Flattered by designing scoun- drels, used to sanctify sinister schemes, and pushed for- ward as a figurehead during the early stages of revolu- tionary agitation, the triumph of the revolution brings him to a tragic end. Horrified at sight of barbarism's unmasked face, he tries to stay its destructive course. In vain ! The Under-Man turns upon his former cham- pion with a snarl and tramples him into the mud.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-28 at 5:52 PM UTC
-
2018-10-28 at 5:54 PM UTC"The Psychotic Left", by Kerry Bolton, is an entertaining read. It's basically a hit job about how all these lefties throughout history were sickly, neurotics, resentful, sexual deviants, etc. It's great because it breaks the sterility of mainstream history, it's really entertaining reading about what a sad freak the likes of Robespierre were. Dirt is always amusing to wade through.
-
2018-10-28 at 5:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny all the great thinkers of that period were germans and translated version always seems to be long and winded.
Don't forget also that people used not to have television or internet, and books were quite rare and expensive compared to today, so people didn't mind long windedness as much as they do now. -
2018-10-28 at 7:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Don't forget also that people used not to have television or internet, and books were quite rare and expensive compared to today, so people didn't mind long windedness as much as they do now.
yea but they still have news and theater and if your in the US you have lynchings too.
i remember reading darwin and a few other englishmen and they werent as long and as winding as translated german works. neither is french.
but then i dont think ive read enough to really be sure. -
2018-10-28 at 8:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning First show me the conservative who runs on a platform of giving subsidies to all his donors.
You don't typically make distasteful parts of your agenda your platform.
This is dishonest manipulation of language by you, and to be honest I expect a better class of dishonesty.
I think you've just totally lost sight of my argument here. The question was "why do 'fringe' cultures lean liberal?", i.e. why do people in those cultures politically align with liberal political parties. And I explained it to you, because those are the parties that seek to include them as first class citizens. Maybe the DNC is actually the fucking vampire party and behind all the slogans they're just trying to find tasty childrens to exsanguinate. Doesn't matter, the point is their platform, in the terms its presented, is still naturally representative of that voter base.
If you think the democratic party is secretly out to destroy "white christian family oriented culture" or whatever then fine, believe that, but that's not the platform they run on and that's not why Hispanics and gays and blacks and a thousand other subcultures large and small existing on the margins of society vote democrat.
Your example is even a great demonstration of this. Middle America doesn't vote red because they love corporate subsidy, even though that's certainly something the GOP does. They vote based on those policy points which are part of public discourse and which align with their perceived interests.I don't understand. I think you're just unbearable eurocentric and chauvinist.
"Violence against criminals is only legal if it's done by some guy with an ermine cloak".
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lynch(of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging.
In the US you're entitled to trial through the legal system. That's the law. To kill someone without a trial is illegal, and that's what the word "lynch" means. Like do you fail to understand how rule of law works or what?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-28 at 8:29 PM UTCLanny, part 1 is just a strawman, and part 2 - I genuinely don't care what the dictionary says, and no, you are not entitled to legal trial before you are killed, whatever the term "legal trial" even means. For instance you can kill enemy combatants, traitors (Andrew Jackson executed one of those on the Whitehouse lawn IIRC), those killed in mutual combat (duelists, again, AJ), those killed in self-defence, etc. But that's itself is going completely off reservation, and I don't really care to follow you off there.
I feel like you're just turning these straightforward observations into another winding 10,000 post thread that winds up elucidating nothing and enlightening nobody. Can we please get back to the topic at hand? -
2018-10-28 at 8:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Soybitch 2.0 - The CUMswallowing Why?
Why would the people who travel thousands of miles to move to the west - the likes of Captain Falcon/Anal Turing - seek to undermine and destroy it?
I have noticed that pretty much every brown person automatically starts shitting on normie whites - even while trying to fit in with them.
Why would Homosexuals and Muslims find common truck with the wealthy jedis who hate them both to ally against the normies who leave them all the fuck alone?
This phenomenon demands explanation.
Western conservatism kicks ass, and anyone who is smart and self-interested would want to protect it.
there is no phenomenon. its simple pack mentality...they follow along with what the MINITRU propaganda beams into their skulls. if you had any familiarity with the true personalities of the majority of handsome and well tanned individual species' youd know that they have very little in the way of higher mental capacity and even less in the way of self-formative thought processes. that is the how-and-why of motivation for those who are drawn to the religion of islum.
mudslimes abhor kikes to a degree that surpasses what even KKK members feel towards niggers. that is literal and not an exaggeration. -
2018-10-28 at 8:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by soybitch 2.0 - The CUM Swallowing Lanny, part 1 is just a strawman, and part 2 - I genuinely don't care what the dictionary says, and no, you are not entitled to legal trial before you are killed, whatever the term "legal trial" even means. For instance you can kill enemy combatants, traitors (Andrew Jackson executed one of those on the Whitehouse lawn IIRC), those killed in mutual combat (duelists, again, AJ), those killed in self-defence, etc. But that's itself is going completely off reservation, and I don't really care to follow you off there.
I feel like you're just turning these straightforward observations into another winding 10,000 post thread that winds up elucidating nothing and enlightening nobody. Can we please get back to the topic at hand?
stop arguing with yourself you delusional fucking asylum escapee -
2018-10-28 at 9:12 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning Lanny, part 1 is just a strawman
Please explain how that's a strawman, what I represented your argument as and what the reality of the situations is.part 2 - I genuinely don't care what the dictionary says, and no, you are not entitled to legal trial before you are killed, whatever the term "legal trial" even means. For instance you can kill enemy combatants, traitors (Andrew Jackson executed one of those on the Whitehouse lawn IIRC), those killed in mutual combat (duelists, again, AJ), those killed in self-defence, etc. But that's itself is going completely off reservation, and I don't really care to follow you off there.
So you were using the word to mean something different than everyone else uses it for? That's your argument? "LOL I actually didn't mean what the word means when I say that word!"
This is stupid dude. Like are you actually arguing there is no history in the US of excluding or exploiting the cultural fringes in material ways? Because that's the point that matters.I feel like you're just turning these straightforward observations into another winding 10,000 post thread that winds up elucidating nothing and enlightening nobody. Can we please get back to the topic at hand?
What?! I responded to the article you posted, I offered a much shorter explanation of the liberal politics than the article you posted and asked why anyone felt the need to a "biological leninist" explanation of things. You're the one who started talking about some blue conspiracy destroy "family oriented white christian culture", whatever the fuck that is. How am I the one taking this off topic? -
2018-10-28 at 9:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Like are you actually arguing there is no history in the US of excluding or exploiting the cultural fringes in material ways?
This is another strawman, the whole point of the argument the linked to writer is making is that of course the fringes are exploited, excluded and disenfranchised by the mainstream - in the US as well as everywhere else. That is what makes them useable as a power base.How am I the one taking this off topic?
Making this about "liberals". This isn't even about internal US politics, it's about US imperial policy. -
2018-10-28 at 9:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning This is another strawman, the whole point of the argument the linked to writer is making is that of course the fringes are exploited, excluded and disenfranchised by the mainstream - in the US as well as everywhere else. That is what makes them useable as a power base.
You keep using that word "strawman" but I'm not sure you really get what it means. You still haven't explained how the chunk of my prior post you quoted and called a strawman actually was.
If that's the article's position then great, I agree societal fringes are expointed and excluded. I said as much, you're the one who decided to start arguing lynching (which doesn't actually mean what it means for some reason?) is a wonderful thing.
So if you accept this premise then it's natural that the parties which have the stated goal of bringing those fringes into the society as first class citizens find a strong voter base there. -
2018-10-28 at 10:46 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You keep using that word "strawman" but I'm not sure you really get what it means.
…
you're the one who decided to start arguing lynching (which doesn't actually mean what it means for some reason?) is a wonderful thing.
What is a strawman if you asserting that I think lynching is wonderful isn't one?So if you accept this premise then it's natural that the parties which have the stated goal of bringing those fringes into the society as first class citizens find a strong voter base there.
The goal is not usually equality of opportunity, at least in a legal sense - usually they already have that.
For instance affirmative action, racial quotas, etc. explicitly set aside equality of opportunity in favour of equality of outcome (which is achieved via favouritism). Hate speech laws do not apply to normal people, only the fringes (at least outside of Africa). Normal people do not benefit from economic redistributionist policies - the fringes do. -
2018-10-28 at 11:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING 2.0 - The GMO Reckoning What is a strawman if you asserting that I think lynching is wonderful isn't one?
"wonderful" is obvious hyperbole, but this certainly looks like a defense of the practice of lynching:Lynching was just the legal system back in the day, and the people who got lynched pretty much all did some serious crime. Of course lynching became pure evil back when Leo Frank got lynched for killing Mary Phelan.
BTW you still haven't explained that first post where you accused me of strawmanning you.The goal is not usually equality of opportunity, at least in a legal sense - usually they already have that.
For instance affirmative action, racial quotas, etc. explicitly set aside equality of opportunity in favour of equality of outcome (which is achieved via favouritism). Hate speech laws do not apply to normal people, only the fringes (at least outside of Africa). Normal people do not benefit from economic redistributionist policies - the fringes do.
Wait, so what's your argument here? The fringes of society are benefited by liberal policy but not by conservative policy, yes, I agree and that's what I've been saying the the last several posts. That's why it should be blindingly obvious why marginalized groups tend to be politically liberal. We don't need a "neoliberal anti white family oriented christianity" conspiracy theory to explain it, it's simply in the interest of marginalized people to align with liberal politics. -
2018-10-28 at 11:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Wait, so what's your argument here?
I'm making observations of the world as it is, not arguing.
And the words "liberal" and "conservative" are both misnomers. By insisting on using them, mixing vernacular with old dictionary definitions, you're confusing terms and making any sort of analysis impossible. At least neoliberal has a precise, agreed upon definition.
But then again I apparently think Paul Graham started AirBNB and shit like that, so whatever.
