Defending Colonialism

Which is actually a defense of civilization. Interesting article at The Political Hat which links to a video talk about colonialism. You only need know that the left wanted the talk banned – and the professor fired – to understand that it was someone speaking the truth.

I’ve pointed out before that Hernan Cortez was decisively the good guy vis a vis the Aztecs. The left is still trying to offer defense of the Aztecs because what the Aztecs really were doesn’t fit in with the Narrative: everyone was great until those filthy, white, Christian Europeans showed up. But, the more we learn of the Aztecs, the more we understand why Cortez and his men felt an urge to destroy them. So, too, with others.

Another man along these lines many haven’t heard of these days was Charles Gordon – he had a colorful career as a British army officer (one of his nicknames was “Chinese Gordon” due to his command of a Chinese army at one point – think about that: a British officer in command of a Chinese army…he simply must have been an impressive figure of a man), but he’s most famed for how he died: fighting slave-trading Islamists in the Sudan. These days, we’re supposed to hate Gordon and have sympathy for those who killed him – and I’m sure in the Muslim parts of Sudan, they tell horror stories about Gordon. But, the bottom line, is there was one side defending chattel slavery and there was a side fighting against chattel slavery – and the side fighting against it is always and forever the good side. Gordon was on the good side.

So were a host of other men and women who trekked into the barbarian areas of the world over a thousand years to bring civilization to the pagan savages. Not a single person on Earth wants to return to pagan savage ways of life. Not even the people who claim descent from pagan savages and who assert their pagan savage ancestors were better want to live like pagan savages. Everyone wants the blessings of civilization. I am merely asserting that you might as well give a tip of of the hat and a bit of honor to those who brought forth the blessings of civilization.

17 thoughts on “Defending Colonialism

  1. Retired Spook February 19, 2019 / 1:22 pm

    Dovetailing with your post is a Leftwing comment from several years ago to the effect that the internal combustion engine was the single worst thing that ever happened to planet earth. May have Been Al Gore, I don’t remember. I can’t even begin to imagine the state of civilization if the internal combustion engine had never been invented. Well actually, I can imagine ONE thing. People like rgrg2 would be employed sweeping up road apples from the middle of the street.

    • M. Noonan February 19, 2019 / 7:12 pm

      And the rest of it!

      Dental care
      Flush toilets
      Central heating

      Here’s something that our liberals won’t admit: when the North American natives first came across Europeans, the first thing they wanted was all the cool, high tech stuff the Europeans had. Remember, the natives were still in the stone age. Do give a bit of credit for the Aztecs for building all that without metal tools (or wheels, or draft animals), but the bottom line is that once a native got a look at an iron knife, he ditched his stone knife and did whatever he could to get the iron knife. Because an iron knife is better, of course…I’ve seen bits where liberals rhapsodize about the skill shown by native craftsmen in making stone knives in the days of yore…with the clear implication that they were better off with the stone knives! Only a coddled, modern idiot could believe that…when you need a knife as a life-and-death tool (as it was for the natives), then you want the iron knife, if you can get it. You also want the hammer and the nails and the cotton cloth and the fowling piece and the really good rope…

      • Amazona February 19, 2019 / 10:56 pm

        Exactly, Mark. Those Indians had no interest in getting their hands on those noisy rifles, not when they had rocks and arrows to fight with. They were not even interested in changing their transportation methods to use those big four-legged critters the white men brought with them. And when they brought furs and such to trading posts and trapping encampments, they didn’t want to trade for iron pots and steel sewing needles. Spinning wheels and looms? Pshaw.

    • rgrg2 February 20, 2019 / 4:14 pm

      RS, thanks for expressing concern for my welfare in the imaginary world you conjured up.

      • Amazona February 20, 2019 / 4:58 pm

        Spook has always been concerned for the welfare of the disabled, but I’m not sure what you are talking about. Unless it is another response to the voices in your head.

        Nothing to say about the definition of Leftism? Where do you place yourself on that Left/Right axis? What is your political philosophy? What do you think is the best blueprint for governing the nation? What do you find objectionable about anything Trump has done from a POLITICAL perspective, not just a whiny-pants snarling personal perspective?

        Or are you ceding the perception that you are a mental and political lightweight who just likes to insult people and wave his Hate flag around?

      • Cluster February 20, 2019 / 5:23 pm

        I think RG may be a pitch forker …..

      • Retired Spook February 20, 2019 / 5:36 pm

        Spook has always been concerned for the welfare of the disabled

        ROFLMAO, picks self up, and then rolls on the floor laughing some more.

      • rgrg2 February 20, 2019 / 5:43 pm

        Amazona, according to you, I “don’t get to decide who is and who is not a conservative.” So you must surely agree that you don’t get to decide who and who is not a leftist. Therefore, your definition of leftism is irrelevant.

        As for interpreting the Constitution: Of course there is a spectrum and I’m further to the left of your imaginary line than you. Duh. But I see by your statement that you regard mainstream interpretations of the Constitution as “beyond Constitutional limits to encompass any or all needs or desires of the people.” That is, unconstitutional. To me, that just reveals your biases and your inability to accept any other point of view but your own.

      • Amazona February 21, 2019 / 11:55 am

        rgrg2, evidently you have never read Spook’s posts on the Rule of Holes, which might be why you have been making it so easy for us to play the game.

        Rule # 1—when you are in a hole, stop digging. This is clearly not something you understand. You just gleefully keep plugging away, making the same stupid mistakes, over and over again. Watching you post reminds me of the time I was touring the HMS Victory belowdecks. The beams in the overhead were not very high at all—nearly everyone had to bend over at least a little to move around—but there was a tall guy who hit his head, I swear to God, ON EVERY SINGLE BEAM. It was “bonk, OW! bonk, OW! bonk, OW!” It got to the point where everyone was paying attention to him in awed fascination as he simply could not learn from any of his painful knocks on the head. Even the tour guide stopped talking to watch this painful progress from one side of the deck to the other. “bonk, OW! bonk, OW! bonk, OW!”

        You have really stupid mistakes in your perceptions pointed out to you over and over again. You have your efforts to make points by first misstating the statement you are pretending to dispute recognized and dismissed and you just come back and try the same thing again.

        I was very very careful to point out to you in great detail the fact that no one can identify a conservative based on geography or assumption of political affiliation due to superficial characteristics such as a letter on a lapel or even a claim of being conservative. I was quite clear that being a conservative means to believe in and commit to a specific political philosophy. So no, you cannot decide who is and who is not a conservative without any of that knowledge.

        I feel pretty confident in identifying Leftists because of their behaviors and allegiances. I admit, many side with the Left because the Left is very good at recruiting people with severe personality disorders and validating the same thought processes and behaviors that society tends to shun and mental health professionals want to treat, creating a mindless army of mental cannon fodder sent out to attack and harass people identified to them as CONSERVATIVES, and they happily do so without the slightest objective intellectual understanding of or commitment to any political model. But even understanding that, it is pretty safe to label these people as Leftists because that is the flag they are flying even if they don’t know what it means beyond permission to be absolute assholes and pretend they are actually political commentators.

        BUT, in spite of all this, the statement that my definition of Leftism is irrelevant is absolutely, beyond any doubt, one of the most profoundly stupid you have ever made. You can certainly argue that my definition of Leftism is irrelevant to YOU because you are not motivated by any coherent political philosophy or belief system, just by spite and malice and the sheer joy of being nasty, and I can’t argue with that. As you have never made an actual political statement, but merely sniped and snarled and tried your very very best to be nasty (though you never made it past peevish) it is not hard to agree that in your case you are not motivated by any serious political position or belief, making the label “Leftist” applicable to you only in the sense that by attacking the Invented Other of what you consider “conservatives” you serve the Leftist cause.

        But my definition of Leftism is far from irrelevant. In fact, it is an analysis of a specific political philosophy and identity. This may come as a shock to you, but there are objective truths that do not depend on your understanding or agreement to be accurate.

        And your entire second paragraph is a joy to behold in that it expresses the utter foolishness of people like you. You and people like you, who believe that reality is only what you want it to be, might think you made sense here. But the opposite is true. I know, I know, you are of a group that believes that anything that achieves a “consensus” is thereby fact, that believing makes it so. And that is darling and precious and I am sure it brings you great satisfaction. Just imagine the pleasure of being able to control the universe simply by choosing what to believe! I can see why the weak-minded find this irresistible. So you can live in a fairyland where you can just decide if you are a girl or a boy or maybe a whole new made-up gender, with its own made-up words. You can choose to live in a fantasyland where there is a magical “Treasury” that is just full of money that can be handed out without end, and where all you ever have to do to get anything you want is to hold out your hand. You can claim that you have some special knowledge of what a stranger on the other side of the country thinks and believes and that makes it so. You can assign motives and even actions to others just because you want to believe they are true. You can take the position that “science” means if a certain number of people who call themselves “scientists” all vote on something—that is, reach a “consensus”—then that means something actually is a valid, objective scientific fact. That’s all great, for a certain subset of people who can’t live in the real world and have to invent an alternate reality, with its own newspaper and its own academic degrees and its own rules of life.

        You just need to understand that when you poke your head out of that teeny tiny bubble that lets you pretend you are smart, and relevant, and have real ideas that people should take seriously, you are going to be in a different world, where none of that matters. You are going to be in a world where words mean what they mean, where science does not depend on “consensus”, where facts have to be proved, and where there is very little tolerance for the kind of juvenile mentality that doesn’t gain attention by being relevant or meaningful but merely by being snotty.

        And BTW, this world of objective reality does mean that the Constitution says what it says and means what it means. And, sadly for you and your kind, no number of “mainstream” efforts to twist those words and those meanings will make any difference. It is not a matter of convincing anyone that the words mean something other than what they mean. It is a matter of saying “Yes, I know what it says and I know what it means and I don’t care because I want something else”. You are basically saying that if there is a “mainstream consensus” that the 10th Amendment does not mean what it says, then shazam! it does not mean what it says.

        My “bias” is reality. Not what I want things to be, not what I hope they can be, not what I wish they were, but what they actually are. What you sneeringly call my “bias” about the Constitution is just what it says, backed up by the contemporaneous writings of the men who wrote it who explained it at the time and when there were questions about it. I can, and do, address specifics. You, on the other hand, don’t. You are too lazy to do any actual reading and research, and too indifferent to the truth, because all that matters to you is the smell of your own mental farts.

        BTW, we have been playing the 2nd Rule of Holes here: When your opponent is digging himself into a hole, hand him a shovel. It’s been fun. Thanks for playing.

      • Retired Spook February 21, 2019 / 10:28 am

        Amazona, according to you, I “don’t get to decide who is and who is not a conservative.” So you must surely agree that you don’t get to decide who and who is not a leftist. Therefore, your definition of leftism is irrelevant.

        I think what she’s saying is that it’s clear that you have no concept of what the core of 21st century Conservatism is all about, which is, above all else, a belief in a central government with limited power and scope, belief in the Constitution as written (including amendments) and the rule of law. I would venture to say that virtually all of the Conservatives who post here have studied the political Left, and WE DO know what you are all about. And, at least so far, you’ve said nothing to persuade us that we’re wrong. I’ve been on this blog since 2004, Amazona and Cluster almost as long. I can’t recall any self-identified Liberal ever coming here and claiming he/she was all about individual liberty, honor, integrity, personal initiative or personal responsibility. Absent that claim from ANYONE, are we wrong to conclude that Liberals are not in favor of those values? And if not those values, then what values DO you support? Surely you have some idea what form of government you support — or not. You’ve never said.

      • Retired Spook February 21, 2019 / 10:18 pm


  2. Cluster February 20, 2019 / 9:38 am

    OT but as I sit hear and listen to Andrew McCabe on MSNBC detail the coverup investigation of Trump and Russia and watch the panelists get their panties wadded up – I read this:

    Putin issues new nuclear threats to Trump: Russian leader promises more missiles targeting the US if America deploys warheads to Europe after tearing up arms treaty

    Sure seems as if the media narrative on Russia is at odds with reality. Kind of like the media narrative on racism. And the narrative on the economy. And the narrative on ….. oh what the hell, the progressive media gets everything wrong. And yet they still collect paychecks.

    And GOOD NEWS – The Democrat Gov. pf Virginia, the Lt. Gov. and the Attorney General will all keep their positions. They will make great campaign posters.

    • Amazona February 20, 2019 / 10:26 am

      The people of Virginia must be so proud.

      They must have really missed slavery, so much so that they couldn’t wait to reinstate a condition in which one person can own another and then control whether it lives or dies.

    • Amazona February 20, 2019 / 10:32 am

      Of course the Leftist narrative on Trump and Russia is at odds with reality. But the narrative has been successful in that the American Left has accomplished what its masterminds have wanted all along—-a divided America, with its people fragmented into artificial demographics which are then fighting each other, a destabilized society plunging headlong into more destabilization and chaos as it welcomes even more Dependent Class and criminal elements to overwhelm the system as per Cloward and Pivens.

      The truly funny, if by “funny” you mean disturbing and ironic, thing is that with all the howling and screeching claiming Trump was put in place to do the bidding of Russia, it has been our own Left marching to the Russian drumbeat and taking directions on how to damage the nation to make it more vulnerable to a Leftist takeover.

      • Cluster February 20, 2019 / 11:13 am

        The American media has become an existential threat to this country. We need to focus on them first and see that their entire staff is turned over. We have been listening to the same people get it wrong now for over 10 years. We need new media pundits who actually grasp some semblance of reality. As it is now, the media is dividing this country more so than Russia could have ever dreamed of.

      • Amazona February 20, 2019 / 2:55 pm

        The media are doing Russia’s work for it. The goal of Russia and the Left in general is to destabilize our society, confuse and weaken it to make it more vulnerable to the lies, platitudes and promises of the Left.

        As for changing over the media, it has to start with the top, with the management of the various media. They have to have a commitment to actual journalism and not to advancing an agenda through the use of their communication platform. There are people out there who understand the role of actual journalism, but they can’t get hired by top brass dedicated to using their voices to promote the Leftist agenda.

        The people who are “getting it wrong” are PAID TO GET IT WRONG. That is why they were hired, and that is what they are paid to do. None of this is by accident. Any change has to start with the people who write the checks.

  3. Cluster February 20, 2019 / 2:40 pm

    This is funnier than hell …

    The Jamaican father of Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris said last Friday that his daughter employed a ‘fraudulent stereotype’ of pot-smoking Jamaicans when she acknowledged last week that she had smoked marijuana during college. ‘My dear departed grandmothers … as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,’ Professor Donald Harris said. ‘Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.’ The senator had said of her own pot smoking: ‘Half my family’s from Jamaica! Are you kidding me?’

Comments are closed.