More historical lessons courtesy of the great historian Charles Oman:
The chief modifications which must be marked in the character of the empire between 320 and 620 depend on two processes of gradual change which were going on throughout the three centuries. The first was the gradual de-Romanization (if we may coin the uncouth word) alike of the governing classes and the masses of population.
In the fourth century the Roman impress was still strong in the East; the Latin language was habitually spoken by every educated man, and nearly all the machinery of the administration was worked in Latin phraseology. All law terms are habitually Latin, all titles of officers, all names of taxes and institutions. Writers born and bred in Greece or Asia still wrote in Latin as often as in the Greek which must have been more familiar to them. Ammianus Marcellinus may serve as a fair example: born in Greece, he wrote in the tongue of the ruling race rather than in his own idiom.
Moreover there was still in the lands east of the Adriatic a very large body of Latin-speaking population—comprising all the inhabitants of the inland of the Balkan peninsula, for, except Greece proper, Macedonia, and a scattered line of cities along the Thracian coast, the whole land had learnt to speak the tongue of its conquerors. By the seventh century this Roman element was rapidly vanishing.
Three hundred years for the cultural de-Romanization of the Eastern Roman Empire. We’ve seen significant cultural de-Americanization in 72 fewer years as America 1.0 gave way to America 2.0, and now 3.0, and the linguistic devolution is already well underway.
I also note the similarity between the failure of the Byzantine men to embrace the masculine duties of their citizenship during this period of decline and the failure of Western women to embrace the feminine duties of theirs.
Some of the developments of the new idea were harmful and even dangerous to the State. They took the form of laying such exclusive stress on the relations between the individual soul and heaven, that the duties of man to the State were half forgotten. Chief among these developments was the ascetic monasticism which, starting from Egypt, spread rapidly all over the empire, more especially over its eastern provinces.
When men retire from their duties as citizens, intent on nothing but on saving their own souls, take up a position outside the State, and cease to be of the slightest use to society, the result may be harmless so long as their numbers are small. But at this time the monastic impulse was working on such a large scale that its development was positively dangerous. It was by thousands and ten thousands that the men who ought to have been bearing the burdens of the State, stepped aside into the monastery or the hermit’s cave.
The ascetics of the fifth century had neither of the justifications which made monasticism precious in a later age, they were neither missionaries nor men of learning. The monastery did not devote itself either to sending out preachers and teachers, or to storing up and cherishing the literary treasures of the ancient world.
One could even observe that the office is the modern version of the nunnery, where unmarriageable women who will never have children go to spend their barren lives and busy themselves with make-work until they die.
French Jews who have dual Israeli nationality will have to give up one of their nationalities if far-right candidate Marine Le Pen is elected. The Front National leader said she would not allow citizens to hold dual citizenship in two non-European countries. She will, however, not include Russia in the policy, stating she considers it to be part of the ‘Europe of nations’. Speaking on France 2 TV, she said immigrants, and those who hold two passports, would have to surrender one of their passports – but added that this would not mean they would be deported.
Good for France. The USA and every other Western nation should institute a similar policy. Saudis and Israelis and Nigerians are no more Americans than they are Chinese or Martian. “Dual-citizenship” is a nonsensical postmodern concept that is every bit as incoherent as “gay marriage” and “sex as social construct”
After all, it’s not much of a “proposition” if you don’t even have to give up your previous national proposition. But I think it is a mistake to permit ANY dual-citizenship at all.
Ivan Throne: Vox, do you advocate a white ethno-state? If so, what is the proper white homeland?
Vox Day: I wouldn’t say that I advocate for the white ethno-state so much as I see it as inevitable. First of all, white ethno-state is somewhat of a misnomer. White American is not the same as a European nationality. This is something that I have had to explain to a lot of white nationalists. White nationalism makes no sense in Europe because over here we have distinct white ethnic groups that are completely separate.
In the US, however, where the original American nation has been adulterated to the point that you have a generic white race, there you will see the same move towards homogeneity that we have traditionally seen throughout history. People tend to forget that homogenous nations do not spring into existence from the ground. They emerge from heterogeneous, multinational, multicultural empires. The US went from an Anglo-Protestant nation to a multinational, multicultural, multiracial empire. It was an empire that was imposed by force during the Civil War, and it will go the way of all empires. We are already seeing, in the American southwest, the rise of La Raza Cosmica, who want their own independent state in the southwest.
It’s going to be a mess. These situations are always a mess, but in terms of what is right or wrong, my tribe has its own reservation, and I support them having that reservation, and I don’t see any reason that self-identified white people should not have the same self-determination that the US has defended around the world for a hundred years.
Jack Murphy: That is a very interesting representation. I am a lifelong Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton and proudly for Obama during the first election. I live in Washington DC, the bluest of all blue districts in the US. It is sort of a democratic ideal. I have come into the exploration of white identity politics from a belief that there is a feminist/Marxist overreach combined with intersectionality that has deemed victim culture here in the US as where we are. Every minority group, self-identified to some intersection, has become a victim. By virtue of them being a victim there must be a perpetrator. That perpetrator according to them is me. A straight white male. Russian Jewish and Catholic Irish, but that doesn’t matter. Through intersectionality I become the perpetrator of all evils in the Us.
This is my entre for identity politics. From there I explore why and how our people representing themselves in groups and based around identity functions. I explore the identities and advocacy that our people entertain. My perspective, as I explore new political groups after being abandoned by the democrats in their move to the left, the world shifts and the center passes me by and I find myself on the left. I must figure out where I fit into in this new reality. The term alt-right came up. From my perspective, the alt-right was exciting. It wasn’t stodgy and unappealing to a counterculture person. It wasn’t boring. I didn’t really understand or have any notion about its history. I began to explore with the perspective of “I am now the bad guy.” Just ten years ago, I was part of the “good team.” I was questioning how I would find my way in the future when being a straight white male in the US makes you the villain.
This conversation is to me an exploration. The conversation I wanted to have with Spencer, who has been very vocal advocate for white amnesty by any means possible, was going to seek direct answers to the question of what means he wanted to use. For me, I am less concerned about theory, less concerned about broad subjects that are not really about what I am going to do today. How am I going to manage day to day?
Vox Day: Just so you understand, we are not talking about theory here.
There is nothing more pragmatic and realistic than what I am describing. What I am describing is about as optional as gravity. What has fundamentally changed is the US, and the reason that people like Richard Spencer and people who have long been completely ignored on the Right, people who were pushed out and pushed aside by William F. Buckley and the conservative movement. Those people saw this coming. Since 1965, when the Immigration and Naturalization Act was pushed through, the die was cast. Ever since 1965, the US has been on a clock, and the clock is running out of time. The clock has now run out.
What I mean by running out is this: it is only possible to have ideological or political disagreements when you have people who are more or less the same in identity. As the founder of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, said, in any multiracial state, all politics is identity. This is not a white thing, or a European thing. This is not even a right-wing thing. This is straightforward history and political science.
Someone like Richard, or some of the people who are out there more aggressively advocating for white nationalism, or whatever you want to call it, they are a symptom. Even your move to the right was a result of people hating you. They didn’t allow you into the party anymore. At the DNC, they kicked out a guy running for chairman because he was criticizing a Muslim. That, too, is identity politics. It doesn’t matter if you do not know your identity, you know you are different because they kicked you out.
This is all part of the same very large cyclical process. The end result of that process is, as the Alt-Right likes to say, diversity plus proximity equals war. And the end result of that process is ethnically homogenous ethno-states.
The major student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds Tuesday defending the riots on campus, and arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
The Daily Californian editorial board published five op-eds from five students and former students, who uniformly believed the riot was justified. Nisa Dang demanded critics “check their privilege” before condemning the riots, blaming the violence on the appearance of the police. “I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state.”
Juan Prieto insisted the violence was justified because Yiannopoloulos could have outed illegal immigrant students: “To me, the argument should not revolve just around freedom of speech but also around the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people. This speaker has never provided an insightful look at conservatism nor provided intellectual debate to the arena. He has fabricated a tool to sensationalize himself with while providing a platform for white supremacists to come together.”
“These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense,” wrote queer activist and former columnist Neil Lawrence. “And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your ‘right’ to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson. Our shields are raised against you. No one will protect us? We will protect ourselves.”
“The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses,” argued Desmond Meagley.
It’s rather amusing that the SJWs are now reduced to openly arguing that violence is a justifiable response to speech. But it’s not hard to understand why they are so frightened and irrational; there is no place for them in Western civilization, or indeed, any advanced and civilized society. The dyscivic and the dyscivilizational will be expelled from the West because Reconquista 2.0 is coming.
Show them no pity, mercy, or quarter, because none will be shown to you or to your family. The Alt-Right terrifies them because their rhetorical weapons are helpless against it. We feel neither shame nor guilt for who we are or for what our ancestors built.
And what they destroy, we will rebuild. They cannot stop us, they cannot beat us, all they could ever do was whisper “shame” and “surrender” and “submit” in our ears. But we are not listening to them any longer. They shriek and babble in vain.
Tonight’s darkstream will be at 7:30 PM EST. The replay is here. In case you were one of those affected, please note that I also unblocked the two followers that I mistakenly blocked while dealing with the spammers.
A federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. will remain open to refugees and visa holders from seven Muslim-majority countries, rejecting a bid by the Trump administration to reinstate a travel ban in the name of national security.
The San Francisco-based appeals court on Thursday spurned the government’s request to close the doors after days of public debate over President Donald Trump’s attacks on the judicial system and a rush of fearful immigrants. The ruling increases the likelihood that the administration will ask the Supreme Court to step into a case that’s the biggest test of Trump’s executive power yet.
The public “has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination,” a three-judge panel said in a unanimous 29-page ruling.
They can discover emanations, penumbras, interstate commerce, and public interests in anything. But as Mike Cernovich said, “The last I checked, we elected Donald Trump president. We didn’t elect the 9th Circuit Court.”
The 9th Circuit has an 80 percent reversal rate at the Supreme Court.
I was reading Oman’s history of the Byzantine empire at the gym today, and this passage struck me as rather timely, in light of my reference to Lombardia during a Darkstream earlier this week:
The empire held undisputed possession of Italy for no more than fifteen years after the expulsion of the Ostrogoths in a.d. 553. Then a new enemy came in from the north, following the same path that had already served for the Visigoths of Alaric and the Ostrogoths of Theodoric. The new-comers were the race of the Lombards, who had hitherto dwelt in Hungary, on the Middle Danube, and had more frequently been found as friends than as foes of the Romans.
But their warlike and ambitious King Alboin, having subdued all his nearer neighbours, began to covet the fertile plains of Italy, where he saw the emperors keeping a very inadequate garrison, now that the Ostrogoths were finally driven away. In a.d. 568 Alboin and his hordes crossed the Alps, bringing with them wife and child, and flocks and herds, while their old land on the Danube was abandoned to the Avars. The Lombards took possession of the flat country in the north of Italy, as far as the line of the Po, with very little difficulty. The region, we are told, was almost uninhabited owing to the combined effects of the great plague and the Ostrogothic war.
In this once fertile and populous, but now deserted, lowland, the Lombards settled down in great numbers. There they have left their name as the permanent denomination of the plain of Lombardy. Only one city, the strong fortress of Pavia, held out against them for long; when it fell in 571, after a gallant defence of three years, Alboin made it his capital, instead of choosing one of the larger and more famous towns of Milan and Verona, the older centres of life in the land he had conquered.
Americans are not going to make Americans 3.0 of Mexicans and the other post-1965 immigrants any more than the Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, Italians, and Jews became Americans 2.0, or the English settlers became American Indians, aka Americans 1.0. In fact, given the adulteration of America 2.0, it would be as reasonable to refer to the much-anticipated Not-White Post-America as New Mexico II.
I was a little surprised by Sarah Hoyt’s recent take on the legitimacy of recent immigration into the United States, given our differences on what is, and is not, American, but provides an effective rhetorical point to demonstrate that post-1965 immigration is, and has been, wrong.
Immigration is like a marriage, because in essence it is a marriage. It is an individual throwing in his/her fate with a people. It is a “and marry our fortunes together” it is a “Wherever thou goest I shall go.” Your throwing your genetic inheritance in with those people. You’re submerging yourself in a sea of them.
There is, at least in Portugal a tendency for emigrants to move to a new country and try to keep their kids from intermarrying/staying there. One of the things we often heard from visiting relatives from other countries was “We have to return before he/she/they start dating.” Nine times out of ten, it didn’t work. In fact, I knew only one case in which it worked, which was a neighbor whose daughter seems to have been kept more or less under house arrest in South Africa, so that when they returned and she attended college with me, she was much older but completely drawers at socializing or dating. She did eventually marry a Portuguese man and she lives in the village, but let me tell you, few parents would go to the extent of abusing their kids just to make sure they “return” to their place of origin.
So, immigration means melding your destiny and that of the people you join.
Now, as above, some immigrants don’t want that/aren’t aware of that. These are mostly economic immigrants, and they’re often buoyed by the fond idea that they’ll return to their place of origin, with the kids, as soon as the kids hit puberty. This is more likely/perhaps only likely for countries you can drive/walk to. There’s something about crossing the ocean that makes that more difficult and Irish and Italians eventually stopped keeping track of whether their kids married in the community.
At any rate, some Mexican immigrants might intend to go back, and some might even do it. And some of the kids of those might come back too after being dragged back to a “home” that was never theirs. Keep that mind.
On the other hand many people getting married don’t intend to have it be forever.
Why do I keep bringing marriage up? Because marriage is the best metaphor for immigration, and because, unlike in immigration, no one doubts that BOTH PARTS TO THE MARRIAGE have a say in it. Or that when one part doesn’t have a say in it, it is wrong.
The American people were lied to by the architects of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act. They never consented to the alteration of the demographic balance, and, in fact, they were told the precise opposite. Which means that the marriage was invalid from the start, and therefore, must be annulled.
Jon sent me this at my request. For more details concerning his blackballing by Baycon, he has a post up at his own site. His story is an illustration of the falsity of the illusion to which many “nice conservatives” are still subject, those who don’t realize that SJWs will judge them by the identity of their politics, not the content of their character or the perfection of their etiquette. He’s right: SJWs had, and have, no loyalty.
The Science Fiction and Fantasy writing and convention scene is one of the worst SJW converged subcultures. While Hollywood promotes extreme perversion and hedonism, they don’t push nearly as hard as SF/F literary groups when it comes to the intellectual aspects of identity politics. My name is Jon Del Arroz, I write Science Fiction, and this is my story.
I had grown up in this community as an avid reader and convention attendee. I used to be what you would call one of those “nice guy conservatives.” I would keep silent about my politics to the best of my ability, while smiling and allowing others to rant and rave to their hearts’ content. My first foray into irritation over this occurred when Baycon, a local convention in the San Francisco Bay Area, ran a talk on how to convince friends out of believing in Creationism. I wrote to the programming director of the convention, citing my concern over how anti-Christian that sounded, and how this didn’t seem relevant to Science Fiction at all. They dismissed my concerns and told me to attend anyway.
The next year, I’d gained prominence as the writer of a web comic which had garnered some praise and a lot of web traffic. This time, they invited me to the convention and placed me on a program. Because of my Hispanic last name, they made me speak about how difficult it is for minorities in Science Fiction. I’ve never met any resistance to my being Hispanic in the SF publishing field, and I found it more of a challenge to survive that hour and a half in the company of the whining panelists
Fast forward several years later, after I’d invested time and effort speaking on panels, entertaining convention attendees and being a good friend to everyone. Whispers about the evil Sad Puppies stealing Hugo awards circled the halls. Although I’d voted with the Sad Puppies, I stayed quiet. I’d spoken personally to several prominent members of the Sad and Rabid Puppies movements by this point and learned they were nice, professional people and not the monsters they had been made out to be by the SJWs.
All the while, the God-Emperor was ascending in politics. He took slings and arrows. Many conservatives in the Sci-Fi publishing field had been hit as well. I saw the guilt by association on a regular basis, and it angered me to see people attacked for the way they voted. I still didn’t speak out much, as I had my first novel due for release the week after the election. My brainwashing from years of conventions told me I couldn’t afford that association if I wanted to sell books.
Trump won. I made a few posts as to how I was happy with the outcome of the election, complete with donning my red hat. What happened next? I received a nasty letter from my editor’s assistant about how intolerant and inflexible I was, telling me that I was not likely to be invited to be published again. SJWs weren’t just attacking someone I knew on the periphery. They’d come for me. I decided the best course of action would be to take a stand and be positive, say how proud I was of our country, of Trump and his team. My friends from the SF/F world quickly evaporated. I’d been blocked on social media, ignored by people with whom I thought I’d developed deep relationships. I’d spent hours critiquing other writers’ novels and improving their craft, yet they would not even share a link to my work, let alone make a purchase, to support me. SJWs had, and have, no loyalty.
This began my transition from “nice guy conservative” to “I am proud to be who I am.” I corresponded with prominent authors privately about what had transpired. Many of the Sad and Rabid Puppies told me I was not alone. They hardly knew me, yet helped me promote my book. I learned a valuable lesson on the meaning of true friendship and loyalty. If someone doesn’t share any core values with you, they will leave you in the dust. It’s only a matter of time.
I still couldn’t bring myself to fully speak out in these situations, fearing the loss of more long time friends. Vox emailed me with: “Learn to go public. One reason they get away with it is because everyone they do it to tries to keep it quiet. You shouldn’t.” These words haunted me, but I still clung to the past, hoping desperately that I could retain at least some of the relationships I had from my years of hard work and supporting other writers.
Inauguration time. The angry posts calling me and mine Nazis had not died down. The angry responses continued as well. My own cousin, with whom I grew up and played Risk ‘til the wee hours of the morning, disowned me over my Trump support. He told me he was ashamed to call me family, and that I was never his friend. Matters became worse in the Science Fiction world. Prominent authors stepped up their game of name-calling. I wear their condemnations as badges of honor and will use them as blurbs on future books. I’d finally had enough when I found that my home convention, where I’d been a guest for years had blackballed me from speaking.
I’m done. It’s too much. There’s no logic. There’s no rationality. There’s no love. There’s no friendship. SJWs want to shut me down and destroy my career, and they want to find you and do the same to you, if they haven’t already. I’ve taken the leap of going public. I’m not scared to say who I am, who I like, who I voted for. They’re not going to shut me up because I have the platform of the internet. Vox was right. Every single time they shut you down, go public with it as I just did.
I’ve gotten a few hateful comments, but nothing worse than they’ve already called me. The people who were on the fringes of hating me, but warned me that I needed to play ball, were going to hate me anyway. I’m not losing anything. These people were not going to buy my products. They’re not going to support you either. But it’s not that bad. There is tremendous upside to going public, however.
I’ve had congratulations from friends. My blog has been reposted by dozens of prominent authors from Castalia House and others. Dragon Award Winner Nick Cole shared my story, and that by itself sold me more books in an hour than attending conventions for years ever did for me. There’s a lot of us. We’re not alone and we’re no longer afraid.
Here’s my advice:
Be who you are, and go public when you’re wronged by SJWs. Every time one of us comes out of the closet, it makes it easier for the next dozen. This is how we will change the culture.
Don’t be attached to being liked or respected by SJWs. They won’t change their minds no matter how nice you are.
Reach out and find support groups. There’s millions of alt-right, libertarian, conservative, and Christian people out there. We’re the majority. Remember that.
Yet another reason to prefer Infogalactic to Wikipedia: the latter’s heavily biased, increasingly inaccurate, ironically named “reliable source” standard:
Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.
The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.
The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015.
It said: “Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist’.
“This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a ‘reliable source’ on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general – with common sense and caution.”
Infogalactic has a vastly superior standard: truth. This sort of SJW thought-policing is why Infogalactic is eventually going to replace Wikipedia; it is only a matter of time. It’s particularly ironic that this article originally appeared in The Guardian, which has got to be the least reliable source among newspapers that one can hope to find since the demise of the Soviet Union.
Speaking of Infogalactic, it is soon going to launch Infogalactic News, a dynamic Drudge-style page that will be actively curated and update twice per day. It will feature 36 permalinks to sites and commenters that are mostly not available at Drudge, including this one, so we hope you’ll make it your primary news page. We need a few more news editors to round out the full week, so if you’re VFM and you want a regular turn at the wheel, email me with your VFM # in the subject and whether you prefer 12 midnight to 12 noon or 12 noon to 12 midnight, both EST. Each editor will be responsible for keeping the page up-to-date for one 12-hour period per week.
On a tangential note, full dynamic auto-forking will be also operational within a few weeks. And if you haven’t joined the Burn Unit yet, please consider doing so. We’ve been growing steadily, but once News and Forkbot go live, the traffic is going to explode, so we’ll need the Burn Unit to grow accordingly.
— When the president’s immigration policy is to promote international communism: The president wins.
— When the president’s immigration policy is to transform America into a different country: The president wins.
— But when the president’s immigration policy is to protect Americans: Some piss-ant judge announces that his authority exceeds that of the president.
This is exactly what I warned you about in Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole. Nothing Trump does will be met with such massive resistance as his immigration policies.
The left used to attack America by spying for Stalin, aiding our enemies, murdering cops and blowing up buildings. But, then liberals realized, it’s so much more effective to just do away with America altogether!
Teddy Kennedy gave them their chance with the 1965 immigration act. Since then, we’ve been taking in more than a million immigrants a year, 90 percent from comically primitive cultures. They like the welfare, but have very little interest in adopting the rest of our culture.
In many parts of the country, you’re already not living in America. Just a few more years, and the transformation will be complete. There will be a North American landmass known as “the United States,” but it won’t be our country.
It seems to me that the God-Emperor should simply declare the judge an enemy of America and unleash the drones. After all, Judge Robart is certainly a bigger threat to both the United States and Americans than any of the U.S. citizens that Obama ordered killed in drone strikes.
