I am very much on the side of having society having law rather than strength governing it. But the strength of the law is derived from the consent of the governed. When the law becomes disconnected from the will of the overwhelming majority of the governed... problems will follow.
It will totally all work out successfully as the expert geniuses have envisioned.
PhDs have almost half the moral authority and probability of success when it comes to long term rule of the First World that whites did for permanent rule of South Africa.
2% and 5% are very much like winning odds.
It was very wise for the smart elites to tell the public to go frustrate itself when it came to trust, persuasion, and moral authority. That they got such basic behavioral questions so very correct just reinforces the certainty that they at all know what they are doing.
Can I interest you in shares in the bridge that I am building across the inland sea, from the Colorado Rockies to the Missouri Ozarks? We are going to make a bundle from high speed rail.
(P.S. Yes, I am quite aware that many PhDs are outside the cult of modern university excellence, and that the 2% in this poll is definitely not the same set as the around 2% of adults in many first world countries who have PhDs. And also that it is government bureaucrats who are paying many faculty to be regime propagandists, not a pure self-contained invention of scholarship.)
PPS: Yes, I perhaps owe a few apologies around here.
And speaking as someone who left his birth country on reading the writing on the wall, I suspect that will happen in many other countries as it has in the past. There comes a point when the smart people leave, quietly, while it is possible to do so with your family and assets. I suspect this will happen worldwide in the next few years.
Francis, I wish I shared your prediction that the Brits will fight this. We have good friends in England who are conservative but were “troubled” that Musk interjected himself in this issue! The argument made was that Musk’s comments “just stirred up more trouble and that he had no right to interfere in British affairs.”
I asked if they wanted to shut Elon down, who was the next person to be shut down? And who was it who would determine who could speak and who could not? The obvious answer is that the government will decide this, of course. And the progression of my argument went to freedom of speech and how only if we’re free to search out everything can we reach truth.
As smart as they are, they want polite British society (of old) and are comfortable in their, so far, calm English town. They don’t quite “get” that Britain is committing cultural suicide and I fear more are like they are than not. The Brits queue. They like order. Personally, I’m glad to be a recalcitrant colonial, if it calls for it.
That'll change once they get a migrant hotel nearby, I bet. I could be wrong, but my feeling is that when they get to where the migration issue hits them they'll be more worked up
So, privately, some Japanese scholars asked some questions in my presence, that I have a strong response to.
I thought they were asking absolutely the wrong question, and should not be consulting Americans.
The group that before everyone else, that Japanese academics and professionals should not alienate is other Japanese.
If the Japanese universityistas enrage ordinary Japanese to a murderous degree, will South Korea take in the Japanese universityistas? Will Vietnam? Taiwan? Laos?
Other places are further away, and are a more expensive journey.
Anyway, I don't think that making American, French, German or Chinese academics temporarily happy should be the most pressing goal for a Japanese academic.
And, if a professor pisses off the host population that funds the university, and supplies the students to a university, it is a whole lot more scalable for a professor to relocate, than for the population to do so.
US academic endorsement of anti-colonialism citing the example of the Gazans was a serious strategic mistake.
We've tried the non-murderous form of anti-colonialism, Liberia, it does not work. Black, White or Yellow, over 90% of the current American population, is not indigenous, and we cannot ship the Americans back 'where they belong', because they are unwelcome there with their current customs. We ordinary Americans thus understand that we have no 'golden path of retreat', and that if we must fight it is 'death ground'.
US academics can try to convince ordinary Americans that they were not all serious about that mass murder proposal.
US academics can leave.
I personally know that there were people associated with US academia who were deeply in disagreement with anti-colonialism and with anti-imperialism. They think that the old norms of American culture hold, and that the scholarly world does not have the ability to use theoretical definitions to deny obvious reality.
Yep, Jefferson's words do apply here: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Note the words "it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government" ...
Note also the words of Frederick Douglass, from 1857: "The general sentiment of mankind is that a man who will not fight for himself, when he has the means of doing so, is not worth being fought for by others, and this sentiment is just. For a man who does not value freedom for himself will never value it for others, or put himself to any inconvenience to gain it for others. Such a man, the world says, may lie down until he has sense enough to stand up. It is useless and cruel to put a man on his legs, if the next moment his head is to be brought against a curbstone.
A man of that type will never lay the world under any obligation to him, but will be a moral pauper, a drag on the wheels of society, and if he too be identified with a peculiar variety of the race he will entail disgrace upon his race as well as upon himself. The world in which we live is very accommodating to all sorts of people. It will cooperate with them in any measure which they propose; it will help those who earnestly help themselves, and will hinder those who hinder themselves. It is very polite, and never offers its services unasked. Its favors to individuals are measured by an unerring principle in this—viz., respect those who respect themselves, and despise those who despise themselves. It is not within the power of unaided human nature to persevere in pitying a people who are insensible to their own wrongs and indifferent to the attainment of their own rights. The poet was as true to common sense as to poetry when he said,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow. ...
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others." https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/
I fear that the British, and the natives of the rest of the UK, will be forced to fight by those who are trying to destroy them, from isolated positions of power, even though they will have little to fight with, at least at first.*
The British government generally reminds me of Cecescus' Romanian government, and may reach the same sudden end.
I recall reading that during the 30 years of the Irish Troubles, that there were fewer than 5.000 active armed Provos, in an area and population approximately the same as the Los Angeles basin of California.
* Forgot the footnote. The arms markets of Eastern Europe and the Mideast seem to be available to anyone with money, as observed by the prevalence of armed and grenade attacks in Sweden.
I think that you may be right about the number of deaths in the Troubles being low by American inner city standards, though IMO this was because the Soviets wanted conflict, rather than resolution, to pull British forces home and leave the Soviets free in the rest of the world.
I note also reading a recent estimate of around 100K armed gang members in the Los Angeles area, though they seem to mostly confine their murders to their own neighborhoods.
Also the IRA caused a lot of troubles by calling in fake bomb threats. But they mixed it up enough that you had to take each threat seriously.
The death rate from the bombs on the mainland was pretty miniscule all things considered. It was worse in NI, but TBH not on the levels of, say, Washington DC in the last few years
OK, I like it, just in the interest of multiculturalism. I've found something to approve of in every culture I've ever experienced, (it's usually some of their food) and let it never be said that I am not willing to try new solutions.
One thing, my British compatriots. The last time we lent you a bunch of our private firearms to help save your fucking country, instead of sending them back after the war like you promised, you collected them and destroyed them. If we do that again, and you break your word again, we aren't going to be amused. That said, ya'll wanna borrow a cup of rifles?
The immigrants are secondary. The British people need their own version of the French Revolution. The elite authors of this assault on an entire nation should be publicly hanged in the street. Politicians, bureaucrats, judges, complicit police — they are the actual primary enemy. Only then is there any hope of deportation and eventual recovery of the British culture.
Thing is, if the government would actually enforce the law, 90% of the things that make the elites uncomfortable would go away. There's a reason Enoch Powell and co. never got much headway--the immigrants were chill and played by the rules, same as the native-born, and so few people had a problem with them. Once that changed, and the government made it clear that it was more concerned with making sure everyone expressed the correct social opinions than with their safety and well-being--well, there's only so much a man can take.
I see that ethnic, native born Englishmen were a minority population in London by 2011, I rather doubt their percentage has increased in the last 14 years.
Seems to me London is lost but perhaps Britain is salvageable.
How does an emaciated Leviathan, plagued by parasites, governed by quislings, and policed by collaborationists avoid a wilding? With another election? “Change is not progress.” (H.L. Mencken) The real power persists, untouched by election cycles; but it can be “touched” if Brits finally recognize what’s designed against them. That said, if men can’t be moved by the besieging of their women and girls, then nothing will relieve their tightening shackles. Submit, or triumph. Best of luck, from “the most fatal widow-and-orphan makers in the world.”
Are our fearless leaders willfully blind or corrupt or so devoted to ideology that they refuse to change? Tory, Labor, Republican (until Trump) and Democrat come and go and the policies persist. It is obvious to every one with both feet on the ground that diversity is not our strength especially in huge numbers from third world cultures. It's divisive, it corrodes public trust, it's breaking the bank of government, and taxpayers can't take much more. It was pretty obvious 10 years ago. So why does it continue?
Well, the white brits need to learn a lesson from the Sikhs. Their women were actually targeted first. They vigorously responded, and it became known that a good way to get a ticket to paradise was to try and rape a Sikh woman. Of course, the authorities didn't like into it all that deeply given they are averse to prosecuting any minority immigrants.
I am very much on the side of having society having law rather than strength governing it. But the strength of the law is derived from the consent of the governed. When the law becomes disconnected from the will of the overwhelming majority of the governed... problems will follow.
It will totally all work out successfully as the expert geniuses have envisioned.
PhDs have almost half the moral authority and probability of success when it comes to long term rule of the First World that whites did for permanent rule of South Africa.
2% and 5% are very much like winning odds.
It was very wise for the smart elites to tell the public to go frustrate itself when it came to trust, persuasion, and moral authority. That they got such basic behavioral questions so very correct just reinforces the certainty that they at all know what they are doing.
Can I interest you in shares in the bridge that I am building across the inland sea, from the Colorado Rockies to the Missouri Ozarks? We are going to make a bundle from high speed rail.
(P.S. Yes, I am quite aware that many PhDs are outside the cult of modern university excellence, and that the 2% in this poll is definitely not the same set as the around 2% of adults in many first world countries who have PhDs. And also that it is government bureaucrats who are paying many faculty to be regime propagandists, not a pure self-contained invention of scholarship.)
PPS: Yes, I perhaps owe a few apologies around here.
And speaking as someone who left his birth country on reading the writing on the wall, I suspect that will happen in many other countries as it has in the past. There comes a point when the smart people leave, quietly, while it is possible to do so with your family and assets. I suspect this will happen worldwide in the next few years.
And where will they leave to? That's the question, Switzerland is not large...
Which is why I predict the British are going to stand and fight. Other parts of Europe? It will vary.
Francis, I wish I shared your prediction that the Brits will fight this. We have good friends in England who are conservative but were “troubled” that Musk interjected himself in this issue! The argument made was that Musk’s comments “just stirred up more trouble and that he had no right to interfere in British affairs.”
I asked if they wanted to shut Elon down, who was the next person to be shut down? And who was it who would determine who could speak and who could not? The obvious answer is that the government will decide this, of course. And the progression of my argument went to freedom of speech and how only if we’re free to search out everything can we reach truth.
As smart as they are, they want polite British society (of old) and are comfortable in their, so far, calm English town. They don’t quite “get” that Britain is committing cultural suicide and I fear more are like they are than not. The Brits queue. They like order. Personally, I’m glad to be a recalcitrant colonial, if it calls for it.
That'll change once they get a migrant hotel nearby, I bet. I could be wrong, but my feeling is that when they get to where the migration issue hits them they'll be more worked up
Yeah, I have had this thought.
So, privately, some Japanese scholars asked some questions in my presence, that I have a strong response to.
I thought they were asking absolutely the wrong question, and should not be consulting Americans.
The group that before everyone else, that Japanese academics and professionals should not alienate is other Japanese.
If the Japanese universityistas enrage ordinary Japanese to a murderous degree, will South Korea take in the Japanese universityistas? Will Vietnam? Taiwan? Laos?
Other places are further away, and are a more expensive journey.
Anyway, I don't think that making American, French, German or Chinese academics temporarily happy should be the most pressing goal for a Japanese academic.
And, if a professor pisses off the host population that funds the university, and supplies the students to a university, it is a whole lot more scalable for a professor to relocate, than for the population to do so.
US academic endorsement of anti-colonialism citing the example of the Gazans was a serious strategic mistake.
We've tried the non-murderous form of anti-colonialism, Liberia, it does not work. Black, White or Yellow, over 90% of the current American population, is not indigenous, and we cannot ship the Americans back 'where they belong', because they are unwelcome there with their current customs. We ordinary Americans thus understand that we have no 'golden path of retreat', and that if we must fight it is 'death ground'.
US academics can try to convince ordinary Americans that they were not all serious about that mass murder proposal.
US academics can leave.
I personally know that there were people associated with US academia who were deeply in disagreement with anti-colonialism and with anti-imperialism. They think that the old norms of American culture hold, and that the scholarly world does not have the ability to use theoretical definitions to deny obvious reality.
Yep, Jefferson's words do apply here: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Note the words "it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government" ...
Note also the words of Frederick Douglass, from 1857: "The general sentiment of mankind is that a man who will not fight for himself, when he has the means of doing so, is not worth being fought for by others, and this sentiment is just. For a man who does not value freedom for himself will never value it for others, or put himself to any inconvenience to gain it for others. Such a man, the world says, may lie down until he has sense enough to stand up. It is useless and cruel to put a man on his legs, if the next moment his head is to be brought against a curbstone.
A man of that type will never lay the world under any obligation to him, but will be a moral pauper, a drag on the wheels of society, and if he too be identified with a peculiar variety of the race he will entail disgrace upon his race as well as upon himself. The world in which we live is very accommodating to all sorts of people. It will cooperate with them in any measure which they propose; it will help those who earnestly help themselves, and will hinder those who hinder themselves. It is very polite, and never offers its services unasked. Its favors to individuals are measured by an unerring principle in this—viz., respect those who respect themselves, and despise those who despise themselves. It is not within the power of unaided human nature to persevere in pitying a people who are insensible to their own wrongs and indifferent to the attainment of their own rights. The poet was as true to common sense as to poetry when he said,
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow. ...
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others." https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/
By the way, there's a word which perfectly describes people who own nothing, and rent everything - and that word is "slaves"...
I fear that the British, and the natives of the rest of the UK, will be forced to fight by those who are trying to destroy them, from isolated positions of power, even though they will have little to fight with, at least at first.*
The British government generally reminds me of Cecescus' Romanian government, and may reach the same sudden end.
I recall reading that during the 30 years of the Irish Troubles, that there were fewer than 5.000 active armed Provos, in an area and population approximately the same as the Los Angeles basin of California.
John in Indy
* Forgot the footnote. The arms markets of Eastern Europe and the Mideast seem to be available to anyone with money, as observed by the prevalence of armed and grenade attacks in Sweden.
One of the thoughts I have had about the Irish troubles, I'm not sure that the deaths or death rates were very high by American comparisons.
We get oral history from refugees of around a hundred years of mass murders.
Plus, we have over the border in Mexico.
Obviously, I don't have firm numbers for these situations.
And rumor may be painting the Mexico situation as worse than it actually is.
But, I put weight on a few rumors, precisely because of distrusting the officially authorized claims.
I think that you may be right about the number of deaths in the Troubles being low by American inner city standards, though IMO this was because the Soviets wanted conflict, rather than resolution, to pull British forces home and leave the Soviets free in the rest of the world.
I note also reading a recent estimate of around 100K armed gang members in the Los Angeles area, though they seem to mostly confine their murders to their own neighborhoods.
John in Indy
Also the IRA caused a lot of troubles by calling in fake bomb threats. But they mixed it up enough that you had to take each threat seriously.
The death rate from the bombs on the mainland was pretty miniscule all things considered. It was worse in NI, but TBH not on the levels of, say, Washington DC in the last few years
time and way past time to introduce some judges, and some high ranked constables to an American tradition. The neck tie party.
Oh no, that’s horribly colonialist. Let’s be multicultural and introduce them to “necklacing” ANC style
OK, I like it, just in the interest of multiculturalism. I've found something to approve of in every culture I've ever experienced, (it's usually some of their food) and let it never be said that I am not willing to try new solutions.
my wife did point out that a guy running around while on fire is a public safety hazard. How about we go for my ancestor's tradition? The blood eagle.
A rope around the ankles will solve that problem.
But sure if that's still a concern for Elf Ann Safety then there's always the Vlad solution. Which I believe has equivalents all across Asia.
bad neighbors make good fences.
One thing, my British compatriots. The last time we lent you a bunch of our private firearms to help save your fucking country, instead of sending them back after the war like you promised, you collected them and destroyed them. If we do that again, and you break your word again, we aren't going to be amused. That said, ya'll wanna borrow a cup of rifles?
The immigrants are secondary. The British people need their own version of the French Revolution. The elite authors of this assault on an entire nation should be publicly hanged in the street. Politicians, bureaucrats, judges, complicit police — they are the actual primary enemy. Only then is there any hope of deportation and eventual recovery of the British culture.
They need the American Revolution, and a Washington. Not the French Revolution, and a Napoleon.
Thing is, if the government would actually enforce the law, 90% of the things that make the elites uncomfortable would go away. There's a reason Enoch Powell and co. never got much headway--the immigrants were chill and played by the rules, same as the native-born, and so few people had a problem with them. Once that changed, and the government made it clear that it was more concerned with making sure everyone expressed the correct social opinions than with their safety and well-being--well, there's only so much a man can take.
I see that ethnic, native born Englishmen were a minority population in London by 2011, I rather doubt their percentage has increased in the last 14 years.
Seems to me London is lost but perhaps Britain is salvageable.
How does an emaciated Leviathan, plagued by parasites, governed by quislings, and policed by collaborationists avoid a wilding? With another election? “Change is not progress.” (H.L. Mencken) The real power persists, untouched by election cycles; but it can be “touched” if Brits finally recognize what’s designed against them. That said, if men can’t be moved by the besieging of their women and girls, then nothing will relieve their tightening shackles. Submit, or triumph. Best of luck, from “the most fatal widow-and-orphan makers in the world.”
Are our fearless leaders willfully blind or corrupt or so devoted to ideology that they refuse to change? Tory, Labor, Republican (until Trump) and Democrat come and go and the policies persist. It is obvious to every one with both feet on the ground that diversity is not our strength especially in huge numbers from third world cultures. It's divisive, it corrodes public trust, it's breaking the bank of government, and taxpayers can't take much more. It was pretty obvious 10 years ago. So why does it continue?
It’s going to have to come down to either protect and defend your citizens, or abide by court rulings. Duty should be to the citizens .
Well, the white brits need to learn a lesson from the Sikhs. Their women were actually targeted first. They vigorously responded, and it became known that a good way to get a ticket to paradise was to try and rape a Sikh woman. Of course, the authorities didn't like into it all that deeply given they are averse to prosecuting any minority immigrants.