28 May, 2009

Book Quote

Posted by Socrates in books, Bork, Cultural Marxism, egalitarianism, equality, equalocracy, Socrates, Western culture at 1:54 am | Permanent Link

Human equality/egalitarianism is fascinating: the belief in it makes people do very foolish things. It’s a religion in a way, one that keeps growing with no end in sight. Chapter 4 of this book has some interesting observations about equality. For example:

“One American general noted the contrast between the singing armies of World War I and the wisecracking armies of World War II. That difference reflects a massive cultural shift. A singing army expresses an element of romanticism, of poetry…The wisecrack, however, is a leveler, a means of bringing down the person at whom it is directed.” — from the book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah” (New York; ReganBooks, 1996) by Robert H. Bork, p. 76


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 08/25/12 Book Quote 64% similar
  3. 04/21/14 Book Quote 64% similar
  4. 09/27/10 Book Quote 63% similar
  5. 09/05/07 Book Quote, re: Hitler’s Money System 61% similar
  6. 06/19/12 Book Quote 61% similar
  7. 17 Responses to “Book Quote”

    1. Parsifal Says:

      If there was a marked decline in the overall quality of attitudes and behavior in American soldiers of WWII compared to American soldiers of WWI, then just think how much worse the problem must be now with US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them are commiting all kinds of bizarre attrocities that no American Doughboy or GI Joe of the past would have ever thought of commiting. And just wait till they come back home and become cops and prison guards. Jesus Christ!

    2. N.B. Forrest Says:

      The differences in the 2 generations of soldiers is almost certainly due to the jewy smart-assery of the Hollywitz movies of the era: the fast banter of cynical insults the loudmouthed characters almost always engaged in – all intended to show how “sharp” and “worldly-weary” they (and through them, the kikes who wrote the stuff) were.

    3. Lee Luttrell Says:

      During World War II at Christmas Time there would be a stop in the fighting. GERMAN soldiers could be heard singing Silent Night across the battlefield by their American counterparts. By the way..Silent Night was written by the GERMANS.

    4. Tom McReen Says:

      “The differences in the 2 generations of soldiers is almost certainly due to the jewy smart-assery of the Hollywitz movies of the era: the fast banter of cynical insults the loudmouthed characters almost always engaged in – all intended to show how “sharp” and “worldly-weary” they (and through them, the kikes who wrote the stuff) were.”

      That is so true.

    5. Ein Says:

      “The differences in the 2 generations of soldiers is almost certainly due to the jewy smart-assery of the Hollywitz movies of the era: the fast banter of cynical insults the loudmouthed characters …”

      N.B. Forrest makes an excellent point. The WW 1 siinging represented idealism and romanticism (however misguided, but that’s another story); the WW2 wise-cracking represented sarcasm, cynicism, and the creeping influence of Jewish smart-asses over our entire culture.

      They still hadn’t gotten to the “potty humor” yet. That came after WW2. Other perversions were still way down the road.

    6. Justin Huber Says:

      Most American World War II movies are quite awful. The most Jewish in its outlook is “Kelly’s Heroes”. Myself, I wonder if American soldiers really behaved the way they’re portrayed in the movies or if they are merely caricatures of how the Jews thought they should have behaved. Who knows.

    7. Hugh Lincoln Says:

      They say Bork skirts close to our issues in his book.

    8. 2050 Says:

      ^^^ that’s why Bork was demonized in the media so badly. And why he’s not on the Supreme Court.

    9. Dagon Says:

      I’d have to agree that the sensibilities (if you can call them that) of the American soldier began to decline during and immediately after WWII.
      The whole wisecracking cynism on display in the US armed forces is a real distraction from a truly disciplined force. Do you think the your average tough-as-nails-North Korean private, who is serving a mandatory twelve year hitch and doing it with a smile on his face if he values his life, wisecracks much? No way.
      I’m a worldly guy and I realize there’s going to be profanity, drinking, and “guy talk” after lights out and during breaks and bivuoack, these have always atteneded young men in the military everywhere since time imemorial. The deep, gnawing, nihilism that wisecracking represents, however, is a relatively recent development and is symptiomatic of the wider rot destroying the armed forces, and the country which fields them more broadly.
      I am coming to prefer the time period of WWI and before over WWII and the post-war era which shaped the later era in which I have lived. The period before 1914 may have been slightly less easy for me to recognize if I were to somehow be transported back to that time, but for all the ills of that long-ago time, I think I would still prefer its comparative innocence, progress, genuine patriotism, and straight-forwardness to the grousing vacuousness of today iin many respects.

    10. Adam Says:

      Human equality/egalitarianism is fascinating: the belief in it makes people do very foolish things. It’s a religion in a way, one that keeps growing with no end in sight.

      The belief in human equality is, above all, a white man’s notion. The Jews, notoriously, don’t believe it at all. Nor do other races. If anthropology teaches anything it teaches that when considerations of human equality are pondered at all by non-whites, it is universally decided that one’s own race is superior to all others. It is also a very old notion in white culture, and can be found in Socratic and even pre-Socratic philosophy (vide Plato’s dialogue Meno, for example, wherein Socrates elicits the proof of Pythagoras’ theorem from an untutored slave boy, thereby implying that the faculty of reason is present in equal measure in all men. This was also a key tenet of Stoicism and its offshoots.)

      Although it went to sleep for a thousand years or so in the West after the fall of Rome, the belief breaks out again during the English, French, and American Revolutions, and yet again, with great virulence, during the Civil War. It was the central belief of the abolitionists and America’s home grown intelligentsia of the day, the Transcendentalists. It generated those “sanctimonious madmen” that Alex Linder has talked about in a few of his Radio Istinas.

      I think we haven’t taken seriously enough how the belief is also being driven, nourished, and sustained by the technological system itself. Consider this passage from De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, which is worth quoting at length:

      In perusing the pages of our history, we shall scarcely meet
      with a single great event, in the lapse of seven hundred years,
      which has not turned to the advantage of equality. The Crusades
      and the wars of the English decimated the nobles and divided
      their possessions; the erection of communities introduced an
      element of democratic liberty into the bosom of feudal monarchy;
      the invention of fire-arms equalized the villein and the noble on
      the field of battle; printing opened the same resources to the
      minds of all classes; the post was organized so as to bring the
      same information to the door of the poor man’s cottage and to the
      gate of the palace; and Protestantism proclaimed that all men are
      alike able to find the road to heaven. The discovery of America
      offered a thousand new paths to fortune, and placed riches and
      power within the reach of the adventurous and the obscure. If we
      examine what has happened in France at intervals of fifty years,
      beginning with the eleventh century, we shall invariably perceive
      that a twofold revolution has taken place in the state of
      society. The noble has gone down on the social ladder, and the
      roturier has gone up; the one descends as the other rises. Every
      half century brings them nearer to each other, and they will very
      shortly meet.

      Nor is this phenomenon at all peculiar to France.
      Whithersoever we turn our eyes we shall witness the same
      continual revolution throughout the whole of Christendom. The
      various occurrences of national existence have everywhere turned
      to the advantage of democracy; all men have aided it by their
      exertions: those who have intentionally labored in its cause, and
      those who have served it unwittingly; those who have fought for
      it and those who have declared themselves its opponents, have all
      been driven along in the same track, have all labored to one end,
      some ignorantly and some unwillingly; all have been blind
      instruments in the hands of God.

      The gradual development of the equality of conditions is
      therefore a providential fact, and it possesses all the
      characteristics of a divine decree: it is universal, it is
      durable, it constantly eludes all human interference, and all
      events as well as all men contribute to its progress. Would it,
      then, be wise to imagine that a social impulse which dates from
      so far back can be checked by the efforts of a generation? Is it
      credible that the democracy which has annihilated the feudal
      system and vanquished kings will respect the citizen and the
      capitalist? Will it stop now that it has grown so strong and its
      adversaries so weak? None can say which way we are going, for
      all terms of comparison are wanting: the equality of conditions
      is more complete in the Christian countries of the present day
      than it has been at any time or in any part of the world; so that
      the extent of what already exists prevents us from foreseeing
      what may be yet to come.”
      -Alexis DeTocqueville, Democracy in America (Introductory Chapter)

      In creating the technological system, and particularly after allowing its control to slip from his hands into the hands of a race of hostile, self-seeking, alien parasites, the white man may well have sowed the seeds of his own destruction. It could well turn out that this is one of nature’s self-limiting cycles, such as the Malthusian cycle of population increasing faster than the food supply, thereby leading to mass starvation and death; or the buildup of combustible material in forests, which periodically must burn down in order to regenerate. So future historians may regard the matter, if there are any after its fall.

    11. Ein Says:

      Excellent comments Adam! Yes, I suspect that civilization contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction, rise and fall, death and rebirth. It doesn’t necessarily have to be that way, but it will be if we let it.

    12. Parsifal Says:

      Adam, Socrates and the ancient Greeks did not have an egalitarian or “democratic” philosophy at all. They regarded Negroes and other non-Whites as inherently inferior. The ancient Greeks were very elitist and race-conscious. The Romans were the ones who didn’t seem to have much of a problem with race-mixing. For example, the celebrated Roman poet Terrence was a North African slave. The Emperor Septimius Severus was a Syrian. There are probably many, many other examples that one could find to support this argument, but it’s time for me to watch Family Guy.

    13. Adam Says:

      Parsifal Says:

      Adam, Socrates and the ancient Greeks did not have an egalitarian or “democratic” philosophy at all. They regarded Negroes and other non-Whites as inherently inferior. The ancient Greeks were very elitist and race-conscious. The Romans were the ones who didn’t seem to have much of a problem with race-mixing. For example, the celebrated Roman poet Terrence was a North African slave. The Emperor Septimius Severus was a Syrian. There are probably many, many other examples that one could find to support this argument, but it’s time for me to watch Family Guy.

      The Greeks, and particularly the Athenians, whom we know most about, were certainly ethnocentric and very proud of the civilization they had created, true; but it was an ethnocentrism that was tied to no clear conception of race, as we understand the term. How could it be? Linnaeus and Darwin were not to come for more than 2000 years. While they made fun of non-Greeks, whom they mocked as “barbarians” (The etymology of the word is interesting:

      1338, from M.L. barbarinus, from L. barbaria “foreign country,” from Gk. barbaros “foreign, strange, ignorant,” from PIE base *barbar- echoic of unintelligible speech of foreigners (cf. Skt. barbara- “stammering,” also “non-Aryan”). Barbaric is first recorded 1490, from O.Fr. barbarique, from L. barbaricus “foreign, strange, outlandish.” Barbarous is first attested 1526.), they didn’t regard them as inherently inferior.

      Remember, too, that the Aryan tribes to the north of them were held in just as much contempt as any other groups of barbarians. Herodotus even said that cannibalism was common among the Sarmatians and Scythes. In the Platonic dialogue I mentioned above, the slave boy that Socrates draws the proof of Pythagoras’ theorem from was, very possibly, of alien racial stock. Despite their pride in their accomplishments, the Greeks generally had no concept of reason or intelligence being differently manifested in other peoples.

      Also recall that Alexander the Great encouraged his men to take local wives. This is the action of a race-unconscious empire builder, not anyone who is pursuing a vision of an all-conquering master race. That this sort of tendency would be magnified later in the much more extensive and bureaucratic Roman Empire makes sense, in historical terms.

      No, Parsifal, our people have always had an egalitarian strain. It stems from our idealism. What is different about these times is that the technological system has now given us the means to destroy ourselves.

      Let me leave you to ponder the words of Dr. Oliver, who had deeper learning and is a far better stylist than me:

      There is in us a weakness, perhaps a fatal weakness, that makes us not only listen to the babble of self-professed do-gooders, but to do whatever they tell us to do, and to do it as mindlessly as though we were in a hypnotic trance and had surrendered our will to that of the hypnotist.

      Now I believe that this strange weakness, unlike so many of our peculiarities, is not a single congenital and hereditary idiocy. If that were true, we would not be here: our remote ancestors would have been eaten long before the dawn of history. It is compounded, it seems to me, of a perversion of seven different qualities; a perversion effected and fostered by certain misunderstandings in the peculiar circumstances that resulted from the prosperity, power, and world dominion we of the West achieved for ourselves and enjoyed in recent centuries. All of the seven elements of our mentality that I shall enumerate are good qualities, at least in the sense that they are born in us, that we could not eliminate them from our genetic heritage if we wanted to, and that we have perforce to accept them. We could comment at length on each of them, and it would be particularly interesting to contrast ourselves with other races at each point. But I must list them as briefly as possible, with only a word or two of explanation to make my meaning clear.

      The first is imagination, which is highly developed in us, and vivid; an imagination which means, among other things, that we have a spiritual need of a great literature: both a literature of vicarious experience and a literature of the fantastic and marvellous that transcends the world of reality. But this gift bears with it, of course, the danger that we may not distinguish clearly between a vivid imagination and something that we can actually see in the world.

      Second, the sense of personal honor which is so strong in us, and seems so fatuous and silly to other races. It is this, among other things, that gives us the conception of an honorable contest when men of our race meet as opponents in war. It gives us the knightly ethos that you see when Diomedes and Glaucus meet on the plains of Troy and in all subsequent history and story of our race. It also exposes us to the danger of behaving in knightly fashion to those to whom those standards are lunacy.

      The third is the capacity for objective and philosophical thought, which is virtually limited to our race, and which enables us to put ourselves mentally in the position of others, but simultaneously exposes us to the risk of fancying that their thoughts and feelings are what ours would be.

      The fourth is our capacity for compassion. We have a racial reluctance to inflict unnecessary pain, and we are ourselves distressed by the sight of suffering. That is, of course, a peculiarity that brings upon us the ridicule and contempt of the numerical majority of the world’s population, who are beings differently constituted. The savages of Africa, who are now your masters in the sense that you have to work for them every day, find the spectacle of a human being under torture simply hilarious. And when they see a blinded captive with broken limbs squirm as they prod him with red-hot irons, they laugh with glee — with a merriment, a real merriment, that is greater than the funniest farce on the stage has ever excited in you. You may search the vast and respectable literature of China in vain for any trace of compassion for suffering per se.

      Fifth, our generosity, both as individuals and as a nation, which naturally brings on us the contempt of those to whom we give abroad.

      The capacity for self-sacrifice is sixth; and that is, of course, highly developed in us, but it is a necessary basis for the existence of any civilized society. No people above the stage of unthinking savagery can survive in this world without some instinct or some belief which makes its young men give their lives for the preservation of the society in which they were born.

      And the seventh and last is the sentiment of religion, which of course is common to all mankind, although here again it takes a distinctive form in us. For fifteen centuries the religion of the Western world has been Christianity, Western Christianity, and there is no other religion now known or even imaginable that could take its place. But it is simply an historical fact, which we must deplore but cannot change, that only a small part of our population today, 12 or 15 per cent., really believes that Christ was the son of God, that the soul is immortal, and that our sins will be punished in a future life. That means that the religious instinct, which is a part of our nature, finds in the majority of our people no satisfaction in an unquestioning faith; so that those frustrated instincts are available for exploitation by any halfway clever scoundrel, as the shysters and punks who now occupy the majority of our pulpits well know. When faith is lost, what Pareto calls the religious residue in a people becomes its most vulnerable point, its Achilles heel. It is the unsatisfied need for an unquestioning faith in a superior power.

    14. shabbos s shabazz Says:

      Oliver’s list is excellent. I would add another problem, which is- giving others the benefit of the doubt.

      When Whites are around heavy machinery, it is imperative that they and others have accurate information. It is a life and death matter. So, Whites assume that other Whites are honest, but they also assume that The Other is honest.

      Whites support harebrained schemes, like the War on Poverty, because they cannot believe that this “war” was a fraud, designed to fail.

      Whites support the government “schools”, because they cannot see that destruction is the goal of such “schools”- it is too monstrous to contemplate.

      Whites support the existing medical monopoly, as they cannot believe that the system is designed to keep people sick.

      Whites support the Federal Reserve, as they were taught that it was established to stabilize the economy.

      Benefit of the doubt is good for fellow Whites. Should be reversed for The Other.

      Assume the best from Whites. Assume the worst from others.

    15. Parsifal Says:

      Herr Adam, thank you for providing that thought-provoking excerpt from Dr. Oliver, one of the last century’s truly great minds. Whites possess many admirable qualities that are either unknown or only found in rudimentary form among the inferior races. But sometimes those qualities can come back to bite us on the ass, if you’ll pardon my French. Our sense of compassion, fair play and generosity are seen as weaknesses to be exploited by the colored inferiors. And they NEVER feel any need to thank us for our help. They don’t understand why it’s being given in the first place, just like a wounded wild animal has no clue why a human would want to save its life.

      What really bothers me is when I see White doctors, nurses and missionaries in some African shit-hole trying to save the niggers from their own stupidity. Those Whites have a misplaced sense of compassion that should be re-directed at helping their own kind. One never sees any Japanese, Chinese or Mexican aid-workers travelling to other parts of the world to help out people who aren’t like them. Only Whites are foolish enough to do that.

    16. Disgusted Veteran Says:

      Regarding the current state of the US soldier; a year or so ago I had the misfortune to be living in a large low cost apartment building, while working a consulting contract near a major US Army base. There were welfare recipients of all colors there, drug users and other societal trash, along with a few cheapskate people such as myself.

      The worst residents by far were the troops. Every morning as I left for work, I had to walk around or over the unconscious forms of several soldiers lying in the hallways, on the staircase, and in the sole elevator. The stench of the pools of vomit and other excreta didn’t bother me since I have virtually no sense of smell, but were disgusting to look at.

      These residents ranged from lowly privates up to NCOs, and I don’t think there was one one of them on my floor that wasn’t a drug user or alcoholic or both. The NCO nigger across the hall from me was a single mom, a crack addict and whore, who didn’t understand that I am not interested in interspecies sex.

      The officers who came around to inspect the place were always drunk or stoned when they came by, their uniforms a filthy disgrace. A few of them were mathematically challenged because they tried to inspect my room, even though my room number was prominently displayed. They all seemed most interested in visiting the female soldier rooms, often taking a few hours to inspect, and accompanied by loud, inhuman noises that seemed more appropriate for a cheap dockside brothel.

      I went home most weekends, but on the few weekends that I stayed there, the troops would usually be gathered in the lobby of the building, smoking weed, drinking 40s, groping each other, etc.

      Writer Jerry Pournelle keeps talking out of his ass about the troops, calling them the “Legions” and their plethora of virtues. Well, he should stick to half baked stories about Hell and weird aliens unless he is willing to look at the reality of what today’s Army consists of:
      Ghetto trash, white rural trash, illiterate degenerates of all kinds.

      My late uncle, who had a distinguished career as a Marine Corps aviator, was so dismayed by the condition of the USMC that he didn’t want to be buried in his uniform when he died almost two years ago. I think that in one respect, he was fortunate; he didn’t live to see the Kenyan Muslim take office.

    17. Tom McReen Says:

      “white rural trash”

      “a cheap dockside brothel.”