Tuesday, September 12, 2017

The Enemy Population



Forced displacement or forced immigration is the coerced movement of a person or persons away from their home or home region and it often connotes violent coercion….Some migrants are impelled to cross national borders by war or persecution, due to political, social, ethnic, religious reasons.

Deportation is the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country….Definitions of deportation apply equally to nationals and foreigners….Deportation is the removal of an alien out of the country, simply because his presence is deemed inconsistent with the public welfare…

Population transfer or resettlement is the movement of a large group of people from one region to another, often a form of forced migration imposed by state policy or international authority and most frequently on the basis of ethnicity or religion but also due to economic development.

Events such as these have occurred innumerable times over the course of recorded history.  Perhaps the largest in number (and, curiously, least available to the conscious of most people outside of the regions in which this took place) is the expulsions of Germans after World War II, with as many as 14 million forced from various countries in Eastern Europe to Germany.

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation.

How do you define the word “group”?  Who should be considered part of this “group”?  What to do with such a “group”? 

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. (Emphasis added.)

Well…I guess this is one possible course of action.


McMeekin devotes a chapter to the situation in Eastern Anatolia, where the Ottoman Empire met Russia.  It is a chapter devoted to Russia’s relationship with the Armenians who lived in this region, and Russia’s role in the eventual fate of these same Armenians.

Most scholars refer to this event as genocide – a deliberate and conscious action to destroy a people, in whole or in part, in this case perpetrated by the Ottoman government.  I have written about this event once before – what is known as the Armenian Genocide.  This post was written about two-and-a-half- years ago, on the occasion of the 100th commemoration anniversary.  If you are not familiar with the event, it might be worth a read.

I guess it might be relevant to note here that the author of this book, Sean McMeekin, was – at the time the book was published – an assistant professor at Bilkent University located in Ankara, Turkey.  Why is this relevant? 

Article 301 is an article of the Turkish Penal Code making it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish nation, or Turkish government institutions.

The law has been used many times to charge those who speak of the Armenian Genocide.  To note: there are a few countries where denial of the Armenian Genocide is illegal. 

History, perhaps even more than science, is never settled.  All I can say – to both the Turkish law and these other laws: truth doesn’t need a law to promote or defend it.  I say the same regarding all similar laws (yes, also that one) designed to protect someone’s version of history.  It strikes me that the more prevalent the number of such laws on any issue, the more concerned one should be about the truth of the protected narrative.

Keeping the author’s sensitive position in mind, let’s begin.

In the case war breaks out [between Russia and Turkey], the Armenians and Assyrian Christians may be of great help to us.

-        S.D. Sazonov, Russia Foreign Minister, August 1914

Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Armenian minority in the Ottoman Empire – like other minorities in the empire – lived in relative harmony with the majority population.  The relationship dated back centuries – perhaps for as long as it had been since Turks overran Byzantium.

One reason for this relative harmony was the allowance for each minority to hold to its own customary law:

In the Ottoman Empire, a millet was a separate court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.

A system was also in place to deal with the situation where the crime involved parties from different millets:

When a member of one millet committed a crime against a member of another, the law of the injured party applied, but the ruling Islamic majority being paramount, any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law.

As a minority, it is difficult to ask for much more; if the minorities demanded to be treated equally under the law, all cases would be decided under sharia law – probably not an improvement for the various Christians and Jews in the empire.


This system minimized, but didn’t eliminate (given the ultimate preference offered to Muslims), the risk raised by Mises – the issue where a minority could do nothing about laws passed in favor of the majority.

Returning to McMeekin, the relationship between the Armenian minority and the Muslim majority began to change toward the end of the nineteenth century for many of the same reasons that political tensions were increasing throughout much of Europe during the same time: social upheaval and even revolution:

There were many causes for the upsurge in tensions, from the general decline in Ottoman authority and prestige over the past century to the organization of Armenian revolutionary groups like the Dashnaktsutyun (or “Dashnaks”), and the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party (the Hunchaks”).

These parties were inspired by the spread of Social Democratic parties throughout Europe.  Like many of the sources of agitation that precipitated the coming calamity for local Armenians, these groups were founded outside of Ottoman territory: the Dashnaks in Tiflis, then part of the Russian Empire; the Hunchaks in Geneva, Switzerland.  These external parties soon began their agitation within Anatolia.

From this point, the relationship of the minority Armenians with the Ottoman government begins to degrade.  Sultan Abdul Hamid II raised an irregular militia of Kurdish tribesmen, the notorious “Hamidiye” regimen, in 1891.

In 1894, in Sassun province in the far eastern part of Ottoman territory, violence erupted between the Armenian residents and Turkish troops aided by the Hamidiye irregulars.  It was reported that 265 Armenians were killed.  An Ottoman commission of inquiry was established; western powers (British, French, and Russian) voiced their indignation of Ottoman governance.

These western powers demanded reforms for the six “Armenian” provinces in the east.  The violent clashes escalated, culminating – at least at this point – with Armenian revolutionaries seizing the Imperial Ottoman Bank in Istanbul, in August 1896.  They threatened to blow up the bank if reforms for the six eastern provinces were not granted and Armenian political prisoners were not freed.

Apparently many knew that the bank seizure was coming: in its wake, Muslim mobs were well prepared to beat up Armenians; Armenians fleeing the city anticipating that this was coming.

Altogether, the Ottoman reprisals – both organized and spontaneous – were overwhelming, and carried out throughout Turkey: official estimates of something more than 13,000 Armenians killed; contemporary European estimates range up to 80,000.

It is a good moment to reflect: the violent act by a handful of individuals resulted in the deaths of tens-of-thousands of others who happened to be of the same minority.  This will be a pattern throughout the rest of this history, and a point more important than any Russian role in this tragedy.

Further reform initiatives were passed by western governments, most notably the Armenian reform package devised in 1912 – 1914.  While approved by several western powers (not Germany), the plan was devised by André Mandelstam, the dragoman at the Russian Embassy in Istanbul.  It was signed by Russia and Grand Vezir Said Halim Pasha of the Ottoman Empire in February, 1914.  It was abolished in December, after Turkey’s entrance into the war.

Yet, events aren’t so cut and dried: seventy anti-Russian activists, most of these Armenian, were taking refuge in the Ottoman consulate in Tabriz – a city in Persian Azerbaijan; many Armenians remained suspicious of Tsarist intentions; Armenian forces joined Turkish troops in pursuit of Kurdish chieftains. 

Russians courted both Kurdish chieftains and Armenian revolutionaries; Kurdish depredations led to Armenian demands for Russian protection, as they were not receiving protection from their own Ottoman government; the Ottoman government supplied weapons to anti-Russian Dashnaks.

What a mess.  It would obviously be of benefit to the Russians for there to be turmoil in the border regions of Turkey; that there would be turmoil was a certainty by this point.  Yet, even now, the primary enemy for many Armenians in this region was the Kurdish tribes.  This was true in the city of Van.

It was also true in Bitlis.  The Kurds called for an uprising against the Turks; they vowed not to harm the Christians.  Yet, the Armenians in the region, having lived through recent violence at the hands of the Kurds, asked the government for weapons to defend themselves.  The weapons were denied.

Helpless, many Armenians took refuge in the local Russian consulate, as did the Kurdish chieftain who called for the uprising!  He stayed in the consulate for six months, still there when the Turks entered the war in November.

While the Russian harboring of the Kurd leader was troubling, many Armenians in the region were now convinced that the Turks were not going to provide any protection.  This drove many to look to Russia for support. 

In the meantime, many local Armenian organizations encouraged Armenians not to run into the arms of Russia; this feeling was not held by Armenians in the diaspora – who were able to influence western governments to put even more pressure on the Turks who then considered the Armenians in Turkey even more of a threat.

By 1914, there were sufficient Armenian revolutionaries in the region that weapons smuggling was supported and encouraged by the Russians.  Many Armenians (mostly Ottoman army deserters) crossed the frontier into Russia (aided by Dashnak guerillas, who were familiar with the passes through the mountains), ready to take up arms alongside their Armenian brethren who lived on the Russian side of the border. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry estimated that up to 200,000 Armenians crossed the border – although most of these crossed, looking for safety, after the deportations and genocidal acts began in April 1915.

Enough Armenians volunteered that the Russians were unable to arm them all.  The local Russian command asked for an extra 25,000 rifles and 12 million rounds of ammunition to arm Armenian guerillas.

Nikolai Yudenich, Chief of Staff of the Russian Caucasus Army, composed a memorandum in August 1914: “On the Arming of Ottoman Armenians.” He foresaw the brutalizing of Ottoman Armenians, whether Russia or Turkey was victorious in the war.  He saw the war as the opportunity for the Turks “to carry out their cherished goal of annihilating the Armenians.”

I will bring this story to a close: the Turks entered the war; they suffered a tremendous defeat in the Battle of Sarikamish (December 1914 – January 1915), due in large part to being unprepared for the winter.  Battle lines went back and forth, with Armenians stuck in the middle.

And in this environment, the Turks began the systematic deportations.  Village by village, the adult males were executed; women and children sent to march in the desert, with many dying along the way.  This occurred not just in the war zones, but throughout Turkey – in regions nowhere near the front.

The Turkish government treated all Armenians as enemy – an enemy population, defined by religion and nationality.  Estimates for the Armenian deaths range from 800,000 to 1.5 million.  This due to the actions – many of which were defensive in nature – of a relatively insignificant minority of the Armenian population.

Conclusion

This chapter of McMeekin’s book requires one to come face-to-face with the issue: an enemy population, with all guilty because of the actions of a few. 

I understand that thinking about individuals as part of a group is not always insidious, and certainly does not automatically lead to genocide; yet, without thinking of individuals as part of a group, it is difficult to see how ones gets started down the road to genocide.  Let’s call it necessary but not sufficient.

An enemy population.  How one feels about this idea says much about their worldview and their politics and – dare I say it – their religion.

36 comments:

  1. "I understand that thinking about individuals as part of a group is not always insidious, and certainly does not automatically lead to genocide; yet, without thinking of individuals as part of a group, it is difficult to see how ones gets started down the road to genocide. Let’s call it necessary but not sufficient."

    Iron-clad logic, this.

    I continue to return to the notion that, while it is evidently true that many (most?) people think of people, including themselves, as (primarily) members of "groups"...I do not believe it to be consistent with New Testament, Christian, living.

    Understanding that people do it, though, does have utility when attempting to understand the world, and how best to live peaceably alongside them. But it doesn't make how "they" think right. We are called, individually, to work out our own salvation here on earth. We are exhorted to voluntarily assemble ourselves (after such calling) into the Body of Christ. We are ALL equally fallen, before God. There is no Jew, no Gentile, no Greek, no Barbarian.

    We are, indeed, called to come out and be separate, but that is from the world (non-believers), not from other "races".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jew or God-fearing vs. Gentile: Old Testament, post-Exodus
      The Elect or saved vs. The Lost or unsaved: New Testament.

      Also see: sheep, goats, the Church, wheat, tares, etc.

      God's Final judgement is individual. God's temporal judgements are borh individual and natinal/group and universal.

      Delete
    2. This inhuman evil acts by the Muslims against the Christians in Turkey and Syria is unique in its savagery. Of course, you will have a knee jerk response: what how about the Nazis treatments of the Jews? I can go in long explanations to illustrate the Armenian Christian Holocaust was more savage than the Jewish one, but, it does not matter. Both were savages. Except in the case of the Muslims, it was simply Muslim citizens rather than government was organically committing the program, as the Nazi Germany the concentration camps were sponsored by the state. My father remembered the Armenian Holocaust vivedly as a child. He said a week in advance the Muslim gangs came to his village in northern Syria, and painted a Red Cross on his home front door. Of course no one knew that neighbors were going to kill neighbors because they have different religion. That dormant hate against infidel is well coded in every Friday prayer. So, my father remember as a 3 years old along with 5 other siblings as old as teenagers watching their parents being beheaded and running out in the street. They walked from Aleppo to Cairo Egypt, a 1400 kilometer distance. No money no supply just run for your lives kids! The German government knows that many exaggerations and lies are part of our current history of the Nazis crimes, however, they APOLOGIZED AND COMPENSATED THE VICTIMS. On the contrary, Turkey never had the moral integrity to face up to the crimes of its people.

      Delete
    3. gr, a tragic story for your family personally.

      "Except in the case of the Muslims, it was simply Muslim citizens rather than government was organically committing the program..."

      I believe there is documented evidence that certain orders were issued by the CUP; when it comes to the average Muslim having a free hand, however, I agree with you - the government turned a blind eye (no "orders" necessary) and there was loot to be had for the taking.

      Delete
  2. Two things that will never go away
    1. Friend-Enemy distinctions
    2. Population Groups

    It is very easy to arrive at the concept of an enemy population, and even easier when you have to share territory and political organization with them.

    This is not a moral issue though obviously you can make moral judgments on specific actions and what not. Carl Schmitt defines enemies not by enmity or morality but by the possibility of serious existential conflict. In the Schmittian sense you can even like your enemy, hell you can even believe his position to be morally superior to yours (very rare), but none of this changes the fact that when your enemy pursues his interests it makes you worse off.

    As for "thinking about people in terms of groups." It's revealing that you are referring to the ones doing the genocide and not the ones being genocided. Imagine telling an Armenian at the time, "there are no Turks and Armenians but only one race, the human race." Obviously absurd but that's what we are dealing with among Europeans.

    If thinking about people in terms of groups is a necessary condition for genocide, is not denying you belong to a group under attack an assurance that you will be genocided?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “This is not a moral issue though obviously you can make moral judgments on specific actions and what not.”

      Absent “specific actions,” nothing is a moral issue.

      “Imagine telling an Armenian at the time, "there are no Turks and Armenians but only one race, the human race." Obviously absurd but that's what we are dealing with among Europeans.”

      Europeans = majority

      Armenians = minority

      These are not equivalent.

      Delete
    2. "Europeans = majority

      Armenians = minority

      These are not equivalent"

      Why is that an important distinction? Majority today, minority tomorrow. Majority within a certain geographical area, tiny minority in the global context.

      Delete
  3. Couple of points

    Clarification re morality: my point was simply that enemy status is not determined by morality but by the possibility of existential threat. You could behave immorally but still be correct that you are dealing with an enemy.

    As for there being no equivalent between Amernians and Europeans, well there will be at some point in the 21st century when birth rates and immigration make Europeans minorities in Europe (we are already a global minority). This is already the case in entire neighborhoods in Europe (no go zones) and nearly entire cities in America (Detroit, Baltimore). In South Africa the Boers are currently being genocided. Can we compare Boers to Armenians?

    If the Boers fail to see themselves as a distinct group does this not assure their genocide?

    For the question of "enemy populations" minority/majority status is less important than enemy status. In America the Amish are a minority but they aren't a threat. Blacks are 10% of the population but commit more than 50% of the murders.

    In Rotherham England the Arabs and Pakis are less than 20% but they have enough people in the courts, police, and city gov to cover up the rape of over 1200 white British girls. This is going on all throughout England in similarly infected areas. Estimates of total rapes by "Asian" foreigners is around half a million for the last ten or so years.

    This is an example of an *enemy population* that is currently a minority (expected to change) in the country as a whole, but you don't want to be the working class father living near a neighborhood with these "people" as the majority, just like you don't want to live in a majority-minority city in America.

    There is no rule that says the majority can't be victims of a minority enemy population. Sometimes minorities gain control of the State and kill everyone. Ask Solzhenitsyn.


    ReplyDelete
  4. All

    I really struggled with publishing this post on an enemy population immediately after my statement about staying away from the discussion of culture. I sat on it for a day or two while considering this. I knew that this post would make discussion of this topic unavoidable.

    At the same time, I knew I wanted to focus on my books, and…fortunately or unfortunately…this happened to be the next topic in the book that raised my interest. The story of the Armenian Genocide is reasonably well-known to any moderately awake individual in the west. Yet, I felt, the relationship of Russian actions to this episode was not. Hence, it was worth exploration.

    Matt: UC compared the Europeans to the Armenians, I did not. UC looks at the blindness of Europeans today and suggests something similar regarding the Armenians of 100 years ago, I did not.

    Europeans are committing suicide; inherently this is a self-inflicted act. Armenians were murdered; inherently this is not. Europeans, if one wants to think in group terms, have themselves to blame. Armenians do not.

    A handful of Armenians take a bank hostage – for this somewhere between 13,000 and 80,000 Armenians are murdered. On what planet is this comparable to what Europeans have done and are doing to themselves?

    UC: I greatly appreciate your concept of autistic libertarians; it paints the picture precisely. Those who cite “it’s the jooz, it’s the jooz, it’s the jooz” for every wrong to be found in the west are inflicted with a similar handicap, equally intellectually blind.

    If you must label perpetrators in a group, as you insist: considering the specific individuals who took specific actions that have brought on the culture destroying actions and events in the west, almost all of these were and are white, Anglo-Saxon males. They have destroyed their own culture, and continue to allow it to be destroyed both passively and actively.

    The west is committing suicide. Barzun cites the event with the beginning of the Great War; some can consider the Reformation and Renaissance as the death blows. In any case, all of these events were driven by, primarily, white males.

    Does this mean I hate whitey? Given all of the writing I have done here regarding the value I place in Western civilization, one would have to be willfully blind to think so. Does this mean I want a whites-only west? Only people who have ignored what I have favorably written about naturally evolving cultures would think so, given how often I have written about this here.

    As I said before, maybe my writing isn’t so clear.

    In any case…

    My intent is to avoid further comment in this thread on these topics.

    Unfortunately, the books I am reading are not bland biographies of famous athletes; they involve history and war and political philosophy and the like. I think this topic of culture will come up even during this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BM, what yo are seeing the origins of what will become. An individual's action (Brevik), an arson of an empty (for now) immigrant center, it will escalate. The immigrant are not changing their customs nor religion, and demand their customs have equal footing with their hosts' laws.

      Those immigrants are an enemy. They do not intend to change their cultural norms. They seek and demand welfare from their inferior host.

      There will be war.

      Delete
    2. Mr. M.,

      "I think this topic of culture will come up even during this."

      ...and for this, I am very grateful. I was, I must admit, saddened to hear (read) you say (write) that you were going to veer away from the topic for a while. You and I are attached, it seems, at the hip in this particular intellectual journey, and I was going to miss my seat-mate. All aboard!

      Delete
    3. Turks are a hornet's nest. Armenian revolutionaries are naïve. It's racial.

      Delete
    4. BM,

      I will respect your decision to shelf this topic. However, I must give a final response to your reply for the record. I will do my best to keep it succinct.

      I can't help but feel your inclination to place the blame for Europe's decline on internal (suicide) rather than external (murder) forces is a way of avoiding recognition of enemy populations. I am not going to speculate as to your motives (that would be disrespectful) but I don't think I am being unfair when I say you are clearly uncomfortable with the idea and would prefer it wasn't the case.

      The fact is we don't get to chose our enemies. They are chosen by fate, circumstance, and the great wheel of History. Failure to recognize an enemy for what he is means certain defeat. The dynamics of ethnic conflict are not pretty but they repeat themselves time and again.

      It is interesting that you mentioned the name of the enemy when I did not. I would wager you know where this boxcar is going and wanted to head it off.

      Ultimately I agree that the causes of Western decline are internal. I subscribe to a Spenglerian view of History in which cultural decline is part of the life cycle of the organism, but in the life of High Cultures this process takes quite some time. I also agree that the first European Holocaust (WW1) was the nadir of the West, but disagree that the blame can be placed entirely on European leaders (debate for another time).

      IMO it is percisely because of the organic decline of the West that it was made weak to the enemy culture distorters. They used money to buy their way into key positions and after the Second War they emerged in total control of the European occupation governments. They have been solidifying this control ever since and in doing so are making our total extinction all the more possible.

      Of course the enemy is small in number and could not succeed without traitors helping them along, and oh how deep the treason runs. Merkel does not control Germany, she is the lapdog of the enemy.

      From the perspective of survival the question of suicide or murder is ultimately irrelevant because any attempt for European Renewal will be met with the full force of the enemy. When we regain our will to fight all illusions will be shattered; friend and foe will be made clear and the wheel of history will turn again.

      "Was mich nicht umbringt, mach mich stärker"- Nietzsche

      Delete
    5. You have identified often enough who is in your boxcar; must you really pretend that I dreamt this up? We have come too far to play games.

      “…a way of avoiding recognition of enemy populations.”

      Be specific: is it ALL jooz? Yes or no. Is it ONLY jooz? Yes or no. Thereafter, tell me all about your enemy population.

      “I am not going to speculate as to your motives…”

      My motives are nothing more than simple logic. Just answer the questions in a way that makes clear that there is an objectively identifiable “enemy population” (by nationality, religion, skin color, tribal affiliation, whatever) as opposed to individual actors united in similar beliefs and pulling in a similar direction.

      It is both ALL jooz and ONLY jooz, else you fail. Every single joo in the world, and no one not a joo. This is your view of the enemy, if it is "an enemy population."

      Put up.

      Delete
    6. if you do not like parts or all do not post it.

Sorry Mr. Bionic this is for my Unhappy neo nazi boys:

      There are plenty of crackpot anti-Zionists who are deeply anti-Semitic. They are usually on the Right, although Social Credit Lefties sometimes are anti-Semitic, because of the banking issue. They warn against the IJBC: the International Jewish Banking Conspiracy. This anti-Semitism goes back to the American Populist movement.
      This one is just anti-Zionist.

      https://www.garynorth.com/public/12876.cfm

      On the fringes of the Right wing in America there is a very special movement. It is crackpot to the core. It believes that the Jews are behind everything bad. Even worse, the Jews are making a potful of money doing it. This really annoys them.
      Not all Jews, of course. Not the guy who runs the local deli, who makes the terrific corned beef sandwiches. He's merely a circumcised dupe. It's the other kind. The secret ones. The cartel. The Power behind the powers.
      https://www.garynorth.com/public/11286.cfm


      There are approximately 20 million people in the United States who devoutly believe that there is a very real possibility that they will not die. Their belief rests entirely on the existence of the State of Israel. This is why they regard current affairs in the Middle East as a life-and-no-death matter.

      https://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north188.html

      Vocal support of a pro-Israel American foreign policy is basic for the leaders of American Protestant fundamentalism. This has been true ever since 1948.

      People may ask themselves, "Why this support?" Fundamentalists earlier in this century were sometimes associated with anti-Semitism.

      https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/north7.html


      Fundamentalists actively support the State of Israel, despite their belief that by doing so, they are helping to lure millions of Jews into a horrible death: "Holocaust II." They do so for a reason: they expect to escape death personally. This is a powerful incentive.

      https://archive.lewrockwell.com/north/north222.html


      2 worst monsters in the german history where: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

max


      Delete
    7. Max,

      The reason why some Christians support the heresy of Christian Zionism is that they have been poisoned by the Scofield Bible.

      Delete
    8. BM,

      I applaud you for being so direct with UC.

      I am usually quite content lurking here to enjoy your posts and the ensuing discussions. But I can't let this go without comment.

      I'm quite surprised, and even more disappointed, by the utter lack of support for you in regards to your calling out of UC. There even seems to be a bit of support for UC in this matter.

      To all,

      UC is an unapologetic facist, advocating for a "total state" at a libertarian's blog. The fact that he has been commenting at this site for so long without condemnation is testament to BM's openness to discussion with all. It is also testament to UC's craftiness (he speaks of his politics very infrequently and when he does it's dispassionately.)

      When one considers the position of facists in the world today (an extremely small group with very grand aspirations,) it becomes plain very quickly that recruitment must be of the utmost importance. This importance is amplified by the fact of a limited pool from which to recruit.

      Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell talked recently on Wood's podcast. One of the topics covered was the alleged "pipeline from libertarianism to facism." They pointed out the obvious theoretical diametrics of the two politcal philosophies, but neglected to mention the reality of some shared views. Strong opposition to cultural marxism comes immediately to mind. Shared views will (for good reason) encourage attempts to recruit, wherever and whenever they are found.

      Go back to BM's post from August 28 titled: "Where is the Outrage?" In the comments you'll see that Josh1476 is either a recruit in the making, or a cohort creating a ruse in order to publish UC's email address to encourage private correspondence.

      Common culture doesn't necessarily rely upon a common race. And racial purity, in my estimation, stands absolutely zero chance in the long run. Extreme conservatism seeks to halt cultural evolution. Any serious attempt to do this must include making enemies of all other cultures.

      I wasn't expecting responses like this, but I'm still shocked that the only detectable supprort seems to be for UC.

      Delete
    9. Jeff

      I truly appreciate this comment in many ways. I would like to elaborate (and even offer some thoughts about why this dialogue has continued for so long at this site), but - as you know and as I have mentioned often enough - I want to stay away from this general topic for a time.

      But, rest assured, this comment is meaningful to me. Thank you.

      Delete
  5. I forgot.

    "Turkey controls 900 mosques in Germany and feels free to say that a "liberal mosque" in Germany is "incompatible" with Islam."


    Germany: The Rise Of Islam
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-12/germany-rise-islam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God help me, I hate to do this...

      Jaime, do you have an understanding of how frustrating it is for me to read these comments that have absolutely nothing with what I wrote above?

      In neither case are the circumstances due to a naturally evolving culture. In each case, these are driven primarily by state policy and force; their is nothing "natural" about these.

      Man, sometimes I want to scream.

      Delete
    2. If a post went through prior to this one, delete it.

      At this stage it is state policy and force. But, the immigrant issue has been building for a long time and not due to the recent waves. At what point does it become an organic/natural problem? The Ottoman Empire, the Mongols, etc., did conquer lands occupied by small grouping of people. State actions, accommodations made, time elapsed, and something happens that strains that accommodations, then more conflict.

      Delete
  6. participants of the wars and historians always trying to justify killings of the civilians

    excuses are: in the name of survival; God's orders ; In the name of God; because they are wicked,devils,barbarians,inferior; because they support enemy;collateral damage;to finish war faster;to save our soldiers ....

    if done by us it is not genocide, but if done by them it is.

    usually what winer did was good what loser did was bad.


ps. name of the game is one world government -- everything else is a distraction.

    max

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because civilians never, ever, actively support their armies's aims.

      Delete
  7. "I knew I wanted to focus on my books"

    This is a sentiment I can appreciate fully. We all need a break from intellectual debate for a variety of reasons from time to time.

    This discussion on "culture" in general was a needed topic in libertarian circles- and you provided a venue under which it could be discussed intellectually without the normal devolution into ad hominem's and the like that typifies most internet "discussions".

    You supplied the venue for intellectual honesty.

    I completely understand why you might want a break from it, it's just that in providing such a venue the topic itself won't die easily or go away even though you want a break because people in the libertarian community(and those that participate that aren't libertarians) were desperate for such discussions. (intellectual honesty)

    So I both sympathize with both you and them. (and I apologize for my email to you/Lew the same day you posted that you wanted to move on from the topic, but I too felt some residual urgency on the topic and felt the linked video was relevant/important)

    Anyway, it will all work itself out in due time. I'm glad the exchanges were had as it gives us all some things to think about things and the pause in said thought/exchanges in timely so everyone can digest them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, don't apologize for the email That I am avoiding writing on the topic (at least via posts specifically on the philosophical issues / etc) does not mean I am uninterested.

      I am writing some rough drafts for the future - some day when I come back to publishing on these, I should have a small inventory to work with.

      "...people in the libertarian community (and those that participate that aren't libertarians) were desperate for such discussions. (intellectual honesty)."

      It is one of the things I am most pleased with about this conversation. I just had concerns - coming from both sides (libertarian on the one hand and some version of "right" on the other) that my views were not being properly conveyed.

      Delete
    2. @ UC

      Ha!

      My favorite is Romney Wordsworth:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQCJtfENAc

      Notice his reference to "you people", in referring to the state.

      :)

      Delete
  8. "Be specific: is it ALL jooz? Yes or no. Is it ONLY jooz? Yes or no. Thereafter, tell me all about your enemy population".

    The subject of "the jooz" seems to be a trigger point for many people. I have a friend that can't even admit that the Palestinians are oppressed because it is "the jooz" that are doing to oppressing. Lets take 'the jooz' out of consideration and talk of hypothetical peoples instead.

    There are two ethnic groups. The Rustics and the Cosmopolitans. The Rustics and Cosmopolitans have different belief systems, although there are some Rustics that think like Cosmpolitans, and some Cosmopolitans that think like Rustics. Even so the most useful heuristic for working out who believes what is whether they are Rustics or Cosmopolitans.

    The Cosmopolitans somehow became the leaders of society. Many Rustics claimed it was because of nepotism. The Cosmpolitan belief system was enshrined in law, and expressing doubts about matters of Cosmpolitan history became illegal with sentences of years in prison being handed out. The Cosmopolitans took over the education system and taught an anti-Rustic historical narrative. The Cosmpolitans imported different ethnic groups that undermined the Rustic demographic dominance, and then used the law to discriminate against Rustics in giving jobs preferences to these other groups.

    Question: Are the Rustics and Cosmpolitans enemies? Do individual friendships between Rustics and Cosmpolitans matter in this scenario?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt

      The subject is jooz, not cosmopolitans. I have allowed this conversation to go on too long in exploring theory and concepts.

      So don't deflect, and don't do UC's work for him.

      You have enough work to do on your own, as you have ignored my question to you about 80,000 killed in exchange for a few holding a bank hostage. So deal with that.

      Delete
  9. BM,

    Those Armenians must have been suicidal because so many of them collaborated with the Turks. To the extent that a handful of them didn't collaborate (you admit it was only a few that stood up against the Turks at that bank), the Turks then took the very effective step of imposing a group punishment.

    Is a European serving a prison sentence for hate speech for opposing the flood of immigrants into Europe suicidal? Are people that don't speak out because they fear punishment suicidal?

    Let's talk about the Jews then. You intimate that they are not an enemy group but you were not able to get a single prominent libertarian to apply open borders as a universal principle to Israel. Why? Because they run the show and and people instinctively know not to do that. The first rule of Jewish power is to respect Jewish power. The second rule of Jewish power is never to speak of it.

    Are the Jews an enemy group or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about what I have written do you not understand? Read what I wrote to UC, which still goes unanswered:

      Is it ALL the Jooz? Every single Joo? These are simple questions, a yes or no will suffice.

      "Are the Jews an enemy group or not?"

      Let me be clear, as expecting a simple answer from autistic Joo-haters is rather a silly expectation on my part:

      NO.

      Is this clear? A simple yes or no will suffice.



      Delete
    2. It's clear to me that you don't accept the idea of an enemy group at all.

      If there are Jews that aren't enemies, it is because they took my side and not the side of their co-ethnics. Is that clear?

      Delete
    3. Matt, are you saying Jews are an enemy group? ALL Jews, yes or no. How much simpler can this be?

      As to the ones that you label with "if," you really don't know why they have chosen their path. Maybe they took my side and not yours. Do you think this might at least be possible?

      Delete
    4. BM,

      Why be so cagey? If a jew is on my side, and is fighting Jewish power, then he isn't an enemy.

      Individual dynamics are not the same as group dynamics. When the Turks inflicted their group punishment on the Armenians, were they not the group enemy of the Armenians, yes or no? And if there was an individual Turk that took up arms to fight the Turks on behalf of Armenians would the Armenians consider that person an enemy? Doubtful. Doesn't change the fact that the Armenians have a serious problem with the Turks.

      If you have some sort of personal cognitive dissonance about the Jews, then just come out with it. Is it because you think Christianity tells you that you need to be supportive of the Jews no matter what? Is it because of a Jewish ancestor? Something else? You are reaching levels of caginess that shouldn't even be possible.

      Delete
    5. So, Matt, you don't believe in the concept of an enemy group.

      Thank you for clarifying. We see eye to eye on this.

      Delete