The frog, the Scorpion, and the Future of the West

Scorpion and Frog

Once upon a time, we taught our children allegorical stories that illustrated important aspects of human nature and the way the world works.  These days the very concept of human nature is declared hateful, and so a child in the public education system in the West is much more likely to hear the story of Billy has Two and a Half Dads (the Third Parent Identifies as Half-Male, Shitlord!) than anything Aesop.

Hang on, it’s 2016.  Trans-parenting is old news, and a little bit reactionary by now.  Children today are probably reading about Billy’s temporary state-assigned parental unit, who is in love with a horse that xe would marry if it weren’t for irrational authoritarians who oppose such a union (#loveislove).  Oh yeah, also xe has sex with Billy, and the horse identifies as a unicorn.  It’s difficult to parody modern degeneracy, but we can do it if we really try.

Parody or not, none of that will help us understand the world.  This fable, older than Greek democracy, will.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”

Replies the scorpion: “It’s my nature…”

Whether through an assumption that all humans make decisions rationally, or always speak honestly, or are all fundamentally good, or due to our simple ignorant naivete, we Western people have decided to welcome in vast millions of non-Westerners into our home nations, thinking that they will become just like us and pay our pensions when we’re old.  We don’t believe they’ll retain their incompatible customs and behaviours, because if they did so, they would change our nations into copies of their own third world origins, the places they left behind.  Of course they wouldn’t do that, our myopic logic says, because if they did so, they’d ruin it for themselves too.

As we can see playing out clearly in real-time in enclaves all over Europe (and in countless historical examples), third world peoples result in third world societies.  Whether or not we like it, and whether or not they like it is irrelevant: it’s simply in their nature.  This factual observation can be made before human judgements–we don’t have to decide that we’re good people or bad people, or that they’re good people or bad people in order to recognize it.

Therefore, there is not even a question of the ethics of allowing or denying entry to these foreigners.  Merely asking ourselves whether we should be compassionate to them makes a flawed assumption, as there is no compassion in destroying one’s civilization so that neither the native nor foreigner can thrive: the native will lose, and the foreigner will find himself in a replica of his homeland, decorated with different ruins.

It doesn’t even matter whether they’re economic migrants enticed by bloated social welfare programs that promise them free living, or sexual opportunists enticed by what they see as loose Western women whose genitals are free for the taking, or hapless victims displaced by warring factions of which they have no part.  The role they are cast into by propagandists has no effect on the result of their migration into Western nations, malicious intent or not.

We don’t need to hate scorpions, we don’t need to gas all scorpions.  What we need to do is acknowledge their nature, not let them onto our backs, and buck off the ones that are already there.

32 Responses to “The frog, the Scorpion, and the Future of the West”

  1. crow says:

    It’s a shame that your use of metaphor will be incomprehensible to those most in need of understanding it.
    But, like me, you do your best to plug the holes, in this, our stricken ship.

    For The Glory!

  2. MeToo says:

    A similar story is that of the Snake. Here’s Al Wilson singing the song, and the lyrics.

    On her way to work one morning
    Down the path along side the lake
    A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
    His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
    “Poor thing,” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
    “Take me in tender woman
    Take me in, for heaven’s sake
    Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

    She wrapped him all cozy in a comforter of silk
    And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
    She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
    She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had bee revived
    “Take me in, tender woman
    Take me in, for heaven’s sake
    Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

    She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful,” she cried
    “But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
    She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
    Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
    “Take me in, tender woman
    Take me in, for heaven’s sake
    Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

    “I saved you,” cried the woman
    “And you’ve bitten me, but why?
    You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
    “Oh shut up, silly woman,” said the reptile with a grin
    “You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
    “Take me in, tender woman
    Take me in, for heaven’s sake
    Take me in, tender woman,” sighed the snake

    What is more, Trump recited these lyrics in Iowa recently.

  3. Tucken2.0 says:

    great read. I never thought I would feel like the native Americans or Aboriginals, overrun by westerners and powerless to stop it simply because my own group has lost all respect for itself and invited the invasion. Happy to die for its causes because its so miserable and its causes is all it has left. Ideas of leftism.

    But this time its not the west, this time its the middle-east and Africa. It is muslims and muslims may be the worst of the religious bunch. I dont want them here.

  4. This message brought to you by AT&T says:

    Theres much to learn from fairy tales and fables. Even more so in old age.

  5. Jpw says:

    So if Syrian rapegugees stone tranies in Germany who do I root for? The Goddess of serious injuries?

  6. Rex Romance says:

    Wake up Whitey, they’re coming for your stuff, your women and your life.

    So, after we deal with the government problem, getting rid of the invaders will be easy.

    Resist Now,


    • So, after we deal with the government problem, getting rid of the invaders will be easy.

      This strikes me as the correct order. First, wrest control from the majority of voters who are enthusiastic about insanity. Get a real leader in there, and deport the Other then exile the degenerate. Then start getting rid of these laws and putting sane people back in charge.

    • crow says:

      You write it. You’re the Dean of Mean.
      Hot tip: include the idea that if he doesn’t like money, he could quite conveniently not have any. Or even print his own.

      • crow says:

        How’s the essay coming? We eagerly await it. If you wannabee a star, that’s the way to do it.
        Here’s some more insight for you:
        Notice the way every leftist takes absolutely everything anybody says, writes, thinks, personally. Everything is personal to the leftist. Why? Because everything is always about them. No matter what it is, it must always be about them. Because why would anybody ever write,say, think anything about anything else?
        I don’t mean to write the whole essay for you, so I’ll stop here. I mean, since it’s going to be about you, it isn’t right that it should get diluted by anything not specifically about you. Oops. There I go again. Silly me. There isn’t anything that isn’t specifically about you.
        Good luck. Hope to read it soon. Then we can all target you with our mean comments. Because meanness just has to be the only reason we even bother saying anything, ever.
        Stands to reason, when you think about it.
        Go for it!

    • Newdow claims “In God We Trust” violates the separation of church and state. One plaintiff says his Atheism is “substantially burdened because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally.”

      What a painful non-issue. The more interesting fact here is that Constitutional arguments are being used as a way around voter-approved laws. I’m not sure anyone’s rights were infringed by being unable to marry a gay partner, nor by having God on their cash. Seems like more posturing and revenge on majority values. I’ll think on it.

      • -A says:

        Wasn’t “E Pluribus Unum” the original phrase on the dollar anyway? Why not simply ask to have that put back, or to have equal distribution of both, since it supports liberal values anyway? Oh wait, that sounds waaaaay to reasonable. In fact, it solves the problem. Not that it was a problem for very many people in the first place. It is true that god is in the eye of the beholder, and there are very few who do not have a god. It is a favor of legitimizing this god by giving it a capital G.

    • -A says:

      Wait, you’re still here? Do you really like having your bullshit thrown back in your face that much?

  7. Dualist says:

    So we see, once again, the real underlying problem is the doctrine of equality.

    Because, sadly, this article would still never ‘convert’ a single liberal – as they don’t believe there ARE fundamental differences between the races.

    But this is very much in OUR favour, this time.

    Normally, it is impossible to convince a liberal anything; because their arguments ARE logical – but only as long as we first accept the FUNDAMENTAL beliefs they are based on eg. Equality.

    For example, whatever your beliefs, nobody could deny that Eugenics (as in killing retards) definitely WOULD improve the average genetic stock of a society. Yet if somebody has a FUNDAMENTAL belief that, say, killing people is ALWAYS wrong, then this genetic-improvement argument could NEVER convince such a person this is the path we SHOULD follow.

    This is why having ‘healthy’ fundamental beliefs is the most important thing: being ‘reality-focused’, though absolutely vital, can never tell us what our aims SHOULD be.

    But with Equality, it’s different. This is an idea that is EASILY refutable with the scientific method alone, no matter what our fundamental beliefs are. Let’s use their own methods against them.

    Now, obviously, if we JUST give them evidence that black people have lower average IQ’s, a liberal will just say (after giving the smug smirk) “of course, silly! They’re just from a poorer background etc. etc.”.

    So ALL we need to do is just IQ-test blacks coming from middle-class backgrounds, having college-educated parents who work in the Professions, and who have gone to middle-class schools all their lives. Even if no tenured social-science academics are prepared to do this, I’m sure there are ways WE could do it ourselves.

    And when we do, and we inevitably see that their IQ’s are STILL no higher than the society-wide White average – then the liberal has nothing to say back. And hence the rest of their arguments are also falsified, by induction.

    Their only option left open would then be to switch-on their dreaded reality-denial-machine ie. the media, and ignore this evidence. But they can no longer DEBATE such issues with us, as they know we can bring these results up and overturn their most cherished dogma, every time. So their arguments themselves have nonetheless ALL ended….

    • crow says:

      You’re dreaming. Not gonna happen.
      And to say that leftists are logical is, itself, illogical.
      Logic can only be logic if it begins from an agreed-upon baseline. And such baselines have long since disappeared.
      If you begin from “all people are equal”, whatever result you arrive at isn’t going to be logical. Whereas if you stared from “all people are living”, then it might be.
      The baseline used to come from a shared religion. Its values sat in the hindbrain and were always there for reference. This is no longer the case, and so whatever poses as ‘logic’ no longer is.
      I champion the development of intuition as a workable, even superior, substitute.
      Intuition knows, but unfortunately, few people know intuition.

      • crow says:

        BTW, prefacing a word with and ending it with gets you an italic.
        Which does away with all-cap shouting.

        • crow says:

          Haha :) The software eliminated the code I typed for you. Oh well…

          • Dualist says:

            “Logic can only be logic if it begins from an agreed-upon baseline. And such baselines have long since disappeared.
            If you begin from “all people are equal”, whatever result you arrive at isn’t going to be logical. Whereas if you stared from “all people are living”, then it might be.”

            Of course, I totally agree. You just seem to have mis-read what I wrote. It was probably my fault for not being clearer. I simply meant that each individual step in the arguments used to arrive at all the various ‘leftisms’ DO logically follow on from the each-other. This is what actually guarantees the wrongness of each one of them, and hence of the whole liberal edifice – the original premise is false!

            But given everything I said, I’m not sure I’d concentrate on that one particular point I made anyway, out of all of them.

            The main point I was making was actually an excellent one. It can be summarised as:

            “The main premise of liberalism, Equality, is easily, demonstrably falsifiable – and done so using the same scientific, ‘rational’ methods the Left claim to live by.

            And THEREFORE the rest of it is false – irrespective of a person’s fundamnetal beliefs!”

            So you have quite severely mis-read me. Now, I too don’t have much faith in the possibility of changing leftists’ worldviews. I hope you wouldn’t think I’m so naive as to think this single suggestion would have much ‘conversion’ effect in practice – if for no other reason than much of the evidence has arguably already been collected, and the Left just suppress it in the media – as I wrote they would.

            But I’m very surprised to hear you don’t seem to view the gaining of the conclusive, scientific proof that “other races, even when they have had middle class upbringing, still have lower IQ’s than the average white” as being absolutely crucial. Yes, we all know it’s true already, but the importance of having the actual scientific proof as ammunition in arguments against leftists could not be overestimated. It simply renders the whole of leftism demonstrably false – irrespective of the person’s fundamental beliefs. Even if you don’t think it will affect the left much directly, I’m sure it will still be of great support and use to our movement.

            • crow says:

              All you need to know is that the leftist is insane. Doesn’t really matter how, or why. Do you debate with lunatics? What would be the point?
              What sane person inverts all meaning, all language, into its opposite? Left means sinister. Sinister means not-good. There is a reason the Right is the Right. It is Right. It makes no claims for this; it is a given. By anyone not insane, anyway.

              • Dualist says:

                I totally agree that debating with lunatics is going to be a fruitless venture but do you not feel it’s worth trying to convert those who are sitting on the fence, not the ‘all-in’, truly-insane ones.

                If not, then the only solution we have left is literally the overthrowing of democracy NOW – before we’re outbred for good….

      • If you begin from “all people are equal”, whatever result you arrive at isn’t going to be logical.

        Exactly. The assumption dooms us, because it means that the condition of the individual is always someone else’s fault.

    • With equality, a retard is just as “valuable” as a genius. They’re both human. That was the goal: retards wanted to stop facing the consequences of being retarded, and with the vote, they can carve society into a retard-friendly place, at which point it becomes retarded and collapses.

  8. […] bubble (related Marxist take). How low can oil go? Epocalypse (also). Western Spring (related). A fable for our times. Cthulhu dreaming. Thoughts on the deep state. Democracy in […]

  9. nubwaxer says:

    ” These days the very concept of human nature is declared hateful”
    really? i have never heard that in my 65 years. then again in the alternate reality of right wing extremist and fundamentalist crusader politics anything is possible in their troubled minds.

    • i have never heard that in my 65 years.

      Look to the implications of speech, not its denominative content!

    • crow says:

      With a name like yours, I’d be surprised if you’d ever noticed much of anything.
      How anyone like you can get to an age like yours, and still be like you, is beyond fathoming.
      Still, it’s nice to know that when characters like you render all of us extinct, there really won’t be anything of any value lost to the world.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>