The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Russian Reaction BlogTeasers
Cville War
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

james-alex-fields-did-nothing-wrong

Just some quick comments on the Charlottesville affair, where a clash between the Alt Right and Antifa has resulted in one death.

(1) No, I don’t think it’s a PR disaster by any stretch of the imagination.

The thing is, people who are already highly allergic to any displays of Nazi symbology aren’t exactly the sort of people who would think positively of let alone sign up for the Alt Right.

As for people within the Alt Right itself, well, they’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that the Alt Right has a significant Nazi and Neo-Nazi presence from the mostly ironic /pol/ to the larping Right Stuff to the utterly hardcore Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer.

There is a name for the “civic nationalist” subset of Trumpism Inc. that would have nothing to do with the Nazis: The “New Right,” or “Alt Lite.” But they are also not the sort of people who’d turn up to defend a Confederate monument.

nesterov-on-cvilleActually as noted by my partner on the ROGPOR podcast Kirill Nesterov, we already have a precedent for this sort of thing: Spencer’s Heilgate (Nov 18).

It generated many furious headlines, and even scared away some anti-imperialist leftists who might have had some smidgeon of sympathy for the Alt Right, but in the larger picture it neither helped nor harmed them.

I think Alt_Left gets it: The Alt Right is a youth movement, and the memory of WW2 is “ancient history” to them. It is no longer sacrosanct. Another way of putting it is that for them, Hitler is becoming just another Napoleon, or Alexander the Great. And you can’t get too emotional about those.

(2) No point in disavowing. It’s not like ZOG will thank you for it.

I mean, is Heartiste actually wrong?

heartiste-western

(3) What’s the big deal anyway? America has a long way to go even to reach “European” levels of political violence.

berkeley-riots-good-night-left-side To be sure, this is a significant escalation from the last confrontation between Antifa and the Alt Right at the Battle of Berkeley.

But let’s add in some context.

The Alt Right have one bodycount to their name. But just BLM by itself has six from one cop killing spree in 2016. If you want to declare the Alt Right a terrorist organization, as some blue checkmarks are demanding on Twitter, you would have to do likewise with BLM for consistency. An anti-Trumpist almost pulled off a massacre of Republicans at a baseball practice session; the bodycount was zero only thanks to his incompetence with firearms.

terrorism-deaths-in-western-europe In Europe, Greek anarchists murdered two members of Golden Dawn in a drive-by shooting in 2013. The UK politician Jo Cox was murdered by a far rightist in 2016, shortly before the Brexit referendum.

Going back further in history, during the late Cold War, leftists blew up dozens of people in Europe every single year. And yet that did not set off any civil wars, or even any significant slide into authoritarianism.

It was only with the collapse of the USSR that radical Leftism was discredited.

(4) Trump is doing all he reasonably can for the Alt Right. Stop whining.

He even avoided mentioning the Alt Right by name, which is the best he realistically could have done: “We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

“That is, unless Ivanka tells him she burst into tears after watching that antifa commit vehicular manslaughter against his own people. THEN you’re fucked,” jokes Matt Forney.

And he is surely correct that if Hillary Clinton were President, things would be very different now: “Not only would half of Unite the Right’s attendees be in jail, the feds would be unsealing RICO indictments against NPI, Identity Evropa, and TradWorker.”

(5) Blue Checkmarks vs. Alt Right

This brings us to another point: Here’s a key difference in relations between the elites and “insurgent” ideologies today (the Alt Right), and a generation ago (radical leftists).

The elites were mildly supportive of the agenda of the radical leftists. Top lawyers worked on their cases for free. Many of them were “rehabilitated” and went on to lead “fruitful” careers in academia, such as Bill Ayres and Donna Hylton. One can compare this with the attitudes of conservative judges towards far right radicals in Weimar Germany.

In contrast, today’s Blue Checkmarks really have it out for the Alt Right.

For instance, take the case of Julia Ioffe, an Israeli Firster activist at university who as a handshakeworthy journalist kvetches very loudly whenever unsanctioned liberal protests get broken up in Russia. (This is an apt comparison in more ways than one: The last minute revocation of Unite the Right’s permit and their shunting off to some out of the way location is familiar to observers of the Kremlin’s policy towards opposition protests in Russia).

But contra Navalny’s crowd, which also has its share of Neo-Nazi elements, Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to protect their Southern heritage has to be shut down.

ioffe-calls-for-repression

Because muh Russian pogroms. What else?

ioffe-no-pogrom

And yes, OF COURSE Putlor is responsible.

mckew-russia-cville-pogrom

I don’t want to counter-signal or anything, but the Blue Checkmarks have most of the elite human capital and control the institutions.

This will make it very hard for the Alt Right to make institutional headway.

That said, their power should still grow, especially as “Generation Zyklon” comes of age in the next decade. There will be more careers destroyed by witch-hunts, more James Damores, more #Shirtstorms. Political polarization will keep increasing as more and more young men realize that the system is stacked against them, and more and more whites adopt overt identity politics.

So Peter Turchin’s prediction of a peak in socio-political instability in the 2020s seems all the more plausible now.

turchin-cycle-of-discord

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Charlottesville, US Civil War II 
249 Comments to "Cville War"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I don’t want to counter-signal or anything, but the Blue Checkmarks have most of the elite human capital and control the institutions. This will make it very hard for the Alt Right to make institutional headway.

    They have one weak spot. Jewish domination and Diversity.

    Jewish Power is vulnerable because it poses as champion of powerless but happens to be the most powerful group in the world that waged wars and destroyed so many lives.

    Alt Right needs to play on Jewish Globalist Imperialism.

    Also, Jewish Power is now going after BDS, and this will cause rift with the ‘left’.

    Alt Right can play on this by drawing parallels between whites and Palestinians.

    Blue Checks are mostly Jewish and white cuck elites ruling over a unruly mob of Diversity.

    There is no real unity there. The progs are united by hatred of ‘nazis’, not by anything else.

    Also, as things become clearer, Alt Right will end up with a few Horst Wessels.

    Finally, institutional power is no longer what it used to be. Prior to the internet, ALL ideas were controlled and disseminated by Big Media and Academia.
    Today, we can share ideas and conceive of agendas INDEPENDENT of media and academia.
    We have BYPASS option.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Alt Right can play on this by drawing parallels between whites and Palestinians.
     
    We are all Palestinians now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /akarlin/cville-war/#comment-1967441
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. As for people within the Alt Right itself, well, they’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that the Alt Right has a significant Nazi and Neo-Nazi presence from the mostly ironic /pol/ to the larping Right Stuff to the utterly hardcore Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer.

    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types? I really don’t see any positives. Quite apart from moral considerations (which certainly do exist, even most “far right” people will presumably not be in favour of a genuine Nazi system), it also seems politically unwise. Have to say, I’m not impressed by Richard Spencer’s political skills; after the events earlier in the year which had him being punched by antifa etc. he did make comments on Twitter that could be interpreted as “Next time we’re going to fight back, bring on the streetfighting!”. That’s walking right into the trap of one’s political enemies and a sure way to bring down repression by the state on you. The identitarians in Europe seem much smarter and more capable of the necessary self-restraint, being explicitly non-violent and organizing political events of the kind earlier popularized by left-wingers or groups like Greenpeace…e.g. right now they’ve sent a ship to observe the activities of the “refugees welcome” NGOs off the Libyan coast. Something like this can win the respect even of many “normies”. To be sure, the establishment will alway try to crush nationalists, but at least one doesn’t need to make it unnecessarily easy for them.
    And that Anglin guy…is he for real? I once read a thread on reddit where he answered questions…and stated people should read the classics of Western civ, which according to him also includes Mein Kampf, next to standard texts like Homer’s Iliad etc. Now he’s written something how that woman run over in Charlottesville deserved it anyway because she was fat and childless. Such a cretinous person is utterly useless for any serious political movement imo.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Looks like Spencer is going to follow your advice.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHJnSh4WsAElegL.jpg

    Re-Anglin. I will admit to occasionally checking in on The Daily Stormer. There is a method to his madness - the over the top Nazi shtick is very conscious.

    Besides, he generates something like 25% of the memes in the far right-osphere, I think the Daily Stormer has the highest readership of any far right site, period, and he's one heck of a funny writer (you have to be somewhat inured to having your moral sensibilities offended to really appreciate it, but I suppose you can practice on /pol/).
    , @notanon

    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types?
     
    it depends because the media's definition of "neo-nazi type" is mostly bogus

    1) stripping away the historical stuff a national form of socialism is a perfectly valid political option alongside international socialism/capitalism and national capitalism in a simple political matrix e.g.
    a national health system is "national socialist" in those terms. (you don't have to agree with its efficiency or otherwise for it to be a valid position). individuals who allow themselves to think in those terms can have useful alternative viewpoints.

    2) the alt-right is soaked in "edgy" humor for various reasons and the edgiest edge of the dominant culture is the most demonized part. those kind of "neo-nazi types" are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they're natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.

    3) on a lower level the dominant culture's demonization of every expression of white male virtus naturally leads young white men rebelling against this to gravitate to the aesthetic forms of the most demonized white male virtus: confederate, nazi and deus vult. those kind of "neo-nazis" are regular white dudes.

    (nb not saying this is ironic; it's not but it is mostly aesthetic)

    4) bunch of other stuff

    5) actual neo-nazis in the sense the media uses the term (a very small percentage) - they may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise, too early to say - personally i don't think it will be necessary as the bad guys are insane and have no brakes but who knows.

    6) it's important to recognize most of the larpy "neo-nazis" are FBI / media plants - in a way the best response to media attacks on this topic might be to tell people to google Frank Collins - use the media attack to redpill people on the media's dishonesty.
    , @utu
    For the organizers like Spencer the most important issue is security of the demonstration. How to reduce chances of agent provocateurs and violence. To do it you must have your own security people who also work well with local police. Help of police is crucial. Police should prevent clashes with opposite demonstration. If police is against you, you won't be able to prevent provocations 100% but you can minimize them if you have your own volunteer security people. If you are attacked, you do not fight back. You do the sit in. Who does not do it probably is a provocateur or a hot head who must be controlled. You train and educate people how to demonstrate. Antifa does it. The left has the know-how the right is lacking.
  3. @German_reader

    As for people within the Alt Right itself, well, they’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that the Alt Right has a significant Nazi and Neo-Nazi presence from the mostly ironic /pol/ to the larping Right Stuff to the utterly hardcore Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer.
     
    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types? I really don't see any positives. Quite apart from moral considerations (which certainly do exist, even most "far right" people will presumably not be in favour of a genuine Nazi system), it also seems politically unwise. Have to say, I'm not impressed by Richard Spencer's political skills; after the events earlier in the year which had him being punched by antifa etc. he did make comments on Twitter that could be interpreted as "Next time we're going to fight back, bring on the streetfighting!". That's walking right into the trap of one's political enemies and a sure way to bring down repression by the state on you. The identitarians in Europe seem much smarter and more capable of the necessary self-restraint, being explicitly non-violent and organizing political events of the kind earlier popularized by left-wingers or groups like Greenpeace...e.g. right now they've sent a ship to observe the activities of the "refugees welcome" NGOs off the Libyan coast. Something like this can win the respect even of many "normies". To be sure, the establishment will alway try to crush nationalists, but at least one doesn't need to make it unnecessarily easy for them.
    And that Anglin guy...is he for real? I once read a thread on reddit where he answered questions...and stated people should read the classics of Western civ, which according to him also includes Mein Kampf, next to standard texts like Homer's Iliad etc. Now he's written something how that woman run over in Charlottesville deserved it anyway because she was fat and childless. Such a cretinous person is utterly useless for any serious political movement imo.

    Looks like Spencer is going to follow your advice.

    Re-Anglin. I will admit to occasionally checking in on The Daily Stormer. There is a method to his madness – the over the top Nazi shtick is very conscious.

    Besides, he generates something like 25% of the memes in the far right-osphere, I think the Daily Stormer has the highest readership of any far right site, period, and he’s one heck of a funny writer (you have to be somewhat inured to having your moral sensibilities offended to really appreciate it, but I suppose you can practice on /pol/).

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Looks like Spencer is going to follow your advice.
     
    only quibble with what he said is it's worth mentioning at every opportunity that a lot of the larpy stuff is actually FBI/media concocted.
    , @Dr. X
    Well, it looks like the powers-that-be just took down the Daily Stormer. Google revoked their domain -- one week after it fired the un-PC software engineer. Will they go after Unz next?

    Free speech only exists for left-wingers and pornographers, I guess...

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/15/daily-stormer-down-white-supremacist-site-loses-domain-in-wake-charlottesville-violence.html
  4. notanon says:

    mostly agree on all points

    quibbles:

    1) elite human capital
    - admittedly they have human capital in almost all the elite positions – especially in the media – but i get constantly surprised by how stupid most of them are. i think this is partly a side effect of nepotism and partly being selected on the basis of their lack of scruples first and talent second.

    2) “I mean, is Heartiste actually wrong?”

    not a quibble – agreeing twice

    Read More
  5. notanon says:
    @German_reader

    As for people within the Alt Right itself, well, they’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that the Alt Right has a significant Nazi and Neo-Nazi presence from the mostly ironic /pol/ to the larping Right Stuff to the utterly hardcore Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer.
     
    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types? I really don't see any positives. Quite apart from moral considerations (which certainly do exist, even most "far right" people will presumably not be in favour of a genuine Nazi system), it also seems politically unwise. Have to say, I'm not impressed by Richard Spencer's political skills; after the events earlier in the year which had him being punched by antifa etc. he did make comments on Twitter that could be interpreted as "Next time we're going to fight back, bring on the streetfighting!". That's walking right into the trap of one's political enemies and a sure way to bring down repression by the state on you. The identitarians in Europe seem much smarter and more capable of the necessary self-restraint, being explicitly non-violent and organizing political events of the kind earlier popularized by left-wingers or groups like Greenpeace...e.g. right now they've sent a ship to observe the activities of the "refugees welcome" NGOs off the Libyan coast. Something like this can win the respect even of many "normies". To be sure, the establishment will alway try to crush nationalists, but at least one doesn't need to make it unnecessarily easy for them.
    And that Anglin guy...is he for real? I once read a thread on reddit where he answered questions...and stated people should read the classics of Western civ, which according to him also includes Mein Kampf, next to standard texts like Homer's Iliad etc. Now he's written something how that woman run over in Charlottesville deserved it anyway because she was fat and childless. Such a cretinous person is utterly useless for any serious political movement imo.

    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types?

    it depends because the media’s definition of “neo-nazi type” is mostly bogus

    1) stripping away the historical stuff a national form of socialism is a perfectly valid political option alongside international socialism/capitalism and national capitalism in a simple political matrix e.g.
    a national health system is “national socialist” in those terms. (you don’t have to agree with its efficiency or otherwise for it to be a valid position). individuals who allow themselves to think in those terms can have useful alternative viewpoints.

    2) the alt-right is soaked in “edgy” humor for various reasons and the edgiest edge of the dominant culture is the most demonized part. those kind of “neo-nazi types” are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they’re natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.

    3) on a lower level the dominant culture’s demonization of every expression of white male virtus naturally leads young white men rebelling against this to gravitate to the aesthetic forms of the most demonized white male virtus: confederate, nazi and deus vult. those kind of “neo-nazis” are regular white dudes.

    (nb not saying this is ironic; it’s not but it is mostly aesthetic)

    4) bunch of other stuff

    5) actual neo-nazis in the sense the media uses the term (a very small percentage) – they may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise, too early to say – personally i don’t think it will be necessary as the bad guys are insane and have no brakes but who knows.

    6) it’s important to recognize most of the larpy “neo-nazis” are FBI / media plants – in a way the best response to media attacks on this topic might be to tell people to google Frank Collins – use the media attack to redpill people on the media’s dishonesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wulf

    “neo-nazi types” are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they’re natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.
     
    Extremely useful in meme warfare? natural court jesters mocking the SJW king?

    Neo-nazis may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise?

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols - including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts - are associated with it.

    Come to terms with it and quit embarrassing yourself.

    It’s important to recognize most of the larpy “neo-nazis” are FBI / media plants
     

    The FBI needs no plants having fools like yourself plus yesterdays clowns dressed as KKK and Nazi thugs. Again get a grip.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I do not think the Confederacy should be conflated with the Nazis. They were massively different in mentality and though outdated, I would argue that the South did actually have a coherent culture and lifestyle of existence. We have no evidence that the Reich would ever manage that - from the notes in their plans, it seemed really chaotic even had they managed to defeat the world.
  6. notanon says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Looks like Spencer is going to follow your advice.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHJnSh4WsAElegL.jpg

    Re-Anglin. I will admit to occasionally checking in on The Daily Stormer. There is a method to his madness - the over the top Nazi shtick is very conscious.

    Besides, he generates something like 25% of the memes in the far right-osphere, I think the Daily Stormer has the highest readership of any far right site, period, and he's one heck of a funny writer (you have to be somewhat inured to having your moral sensibilities offended to really appreciate it, but I suppose you can practice on /pol/).

    Looks like Spencer is going to follow your advice.

    only quibble with what he said is it’s worth mentioning at every opportunity that a lot of the larpy stuff is actually FBI/media concocted.

    Read More
  7. Anatoly

    Andrew Anglin is a Punk Rock “Nazi”….Moreover, Andrew Anglin does not support the Ukraino Nazi Coup in the Ukraine.

    The Antifa in Charlottesville were-are on board with Obama-Clinton-Nuland Neo-Nazi Coup in the Ukraine.

    Let us be very clear what the Antifa mean by Nazi…Nazi=if you are Native Born White American Man revolting against a legal immigrant policy that allows arrogant Hindus from India to enter America legally so that they can vote the Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class into a violently persecuted racial Minority in post-white toilet “America”…

    Richard Spencer has now achieved Bruce Springsteen Rock Star Status….what Richard says tommorow could mobilize millions of Native Born White Americans….if he aims his pitch in the right direction…

    Read More
  8. Thoughts on Unite the Right in Charlottesville

    Read More
  9. Here is what Richard Spencer should say in his press converence tomorrow in DC:

    “Governor Terry McAuliffe is one most corrupt sociopathic politicians in US History…A carpetbagger Democratic Party Club House Politician from Buffalo NY who made a living as the money bagman for the notorious War Criminals Bill and Hillary Clinton who are responsible for the deaths of over one million innocent human beings in Iraq…Serbia…..and Libya….and the Eastern Ukraine….”

    “The Obama Administration backed a NeoNazi Coup in the Ukraine that has resulted in the death of 30 thousand Conservative Orthodox Christian Russians in the Eastern Ukraine…The Alt Right condemns the Obama Administration organized and funded Neo-Nazi Coup in the Ukraine….”

    Dear Lovely Nina

    Make sure your husband says this tomorrow in his Press Conference…IT SHOULD BE THE FIRST THING HE SAYS OUT OF GATES!!! TAKE NO F……G PRISONERS!!!

    Read More
  10. Richard Spencer

    Make the Cockroaches of the Democratic Party go apoplectic this comming morning:

    The Alt Right supports a policy of 0 Hindu…Sihk…Pakistani Muslim….Korean Legal Immigrants…

    How long would the Hindus in India tolerate all 11 of India’s IIT’s being majority Chinese in faculty and student body?….How would the Hindus in India react to this?…There would be race riots….”

    Read More
  11. Cernovich blames media for the violence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    As long as they stay out of Bangkok, he'll be aaah-eit.

    https://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/mike-cernovitch-what-is-sex-with-a-tranny-like/116024
  12. Jeffrey Sinclair=sycophant for the late Alexander Cockburn….failed novelist……enemy of THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS…an all around fucking loser negro worshipper….

    Read More
  13. 1. The link on the murder of the Golden Dawners is broken. It leads to the 2016 Dallas shooting instead of to here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Neo_Irakleio_Golden_Dawn_office_shooting

    2. Should the perpetrator of the Dallas shooting be counted as a death on BLM’s rap sheet? I’d only count the five cops he killed.

    3. Have you read David Hines’s review of Days of Rage?

    https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/

    He talks about the need for the far right, in order to compete openly with the left, to build institutions of its own. When the Democrats come back into power, whether it be in 2020 or later, they’ll do everything they can to destroy the far right, especially if it only continues to grow in power. They’ll need to by then secure sources of funding (which they’ve already started on with hatreon), and legal support if they’re going to stay in business, or otherwise they’ll be splatted like a bug.

    Probably the biggest obstacle to this happening is the far right themselves. Your average channer enjoys the anarchic state the movement is right now, and hates the alt-right’s leaders for “namefagging.” However, while a few internet trolls can operate like that, a movement aspiring to national power needs to be more organized.

    Read More
  14. Richard Spencer

    No more of this boring ethereal sewage about a White Ethno State…We want California back:BRING BACK THE CHINESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!!….We want you to state this emphatically tomorrow morning…..and please mention the Great Socialist Labor Leaders DENIS KEARNEY AND SAMUEL GOMPERS…..

    “The main theme of Alt Right Rally in Charlotte was about bringing back THE CHINESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!!!”…Comrade Rochard Spencer tomorrow morning……

    Read More
  15. What strange dynamics.

    We have globalist capitalists using neo-communist bottom-feeders, aka Antifa, to attack social-nationalists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    What strange dynamics.

    We have globalist capitalists using neo-communist bottom-feeders, aka Antifa, to attack social-nationalists.
     
    Not strange at all. More than a century ago Jay Gould boasted that he could "hire half the working class to kill the other half."
  16. utu says:
    @German_reader

    As for people within the Alt Right itself, well, they’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that the Alt Right has a significant Nazi and Neo-Nazi presence from the mostly ironic /pol/ to the larping Right Stuff to the utterly hardcore Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer.
     
    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types? I really don't see any positives. Quite apart from moral considerations (which certainly do exist, even most "far right" people will presumably not be in favour of a genuine Nazi system), it also seems politically unwise. Have to say, I'm not impressed by Richard Spencer's political skills; after the events earlier in the year which had him being punched by antifa etc. he did make comments on Twitter that could be interpreted as "Next time we're going to fight back, bring on the streetfighting!". That's walking right into the trap of one's political enemies and a sure way to bring down repression by the state on you. The identitarians in Europe seem much smarter and more capable of the necessary self-restraint, being explicitly non-violent and organizing political events of the kind earlier popularized by left-wingers or groups like Greenpeace...e.g. right now they've sent a ship to observe the activities of the "refugees welcome" NGOs off the Libyan coast. Something like this can win the respect even of many "normies". To be sure, the establishment will alway try to crush nationalists, but at least one doesn't need to make it unnecessarily easy for them.
    And that Anglin guy...is he for real? I once read a thread on reddit where he answered questions...and stated people should read the classics of Western civ, which according to him also includes Mein Kampf, next to standard texts like Homer's Iliad etc. Now he's written something how that woman run over in Charlottesville deserved it anyway because she was fat and childless. Such a cretinous person is utterly useless for any serious political movement imo.

    For the organizers like Spencer the most important issue is security of the demonstration. How to reduce chances of agent provocateurs and violence. To do it you must have your own security people who also work well with local police. Help of police is crucial. Police should prevent clashes with opposite demonstration. If police is against you, you won’t be able to prevent provocations 100% but you can minimize them if you have your own volunteer security people. If you are attacked, you do not fight back. You do the sit in. Who does not do it probably is a provocateur or a hot head who must be controlled. You train and educate people how to demonstrate. Antifa does it. The left has the know-how the right is lacking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Left gets out of control fairly often, though rarely this spectacularly. Police control should have been better. Cops, like vets, normally skew right somewhat, so coordinating with the police should be easier for us. This wasn't the case here. Neonazis are probably not reassuring to most police, or anybody else really. Another reason might be demographics-- what did the Charlotesville PD look like? And were they more left-sympathetic than cops elsewhere
  17. Richard Spencer tomorrow morning:

    “Vladimir Putin is a decent honorable Conservative Christian Man who wants to protect the Christian Children of Christian Russia from THE SATANIC FLAVA BEANS PEDOPHILES JOHN PODESTA…ROBERT PODESTA….BILL CLINTON….AND HILLARY CLINTON!!

    Read More
  18. Sanctuary Cites for illegals but No-Go-Zone for Patriots. That is globalist-controlled America.

    Read More
  19. Richard Spencer tomorrow morning:

    “Hillary Clinton is one of the most notorious WAR CRIMINALS in Human History…Hillary Clinton created and funded AL QUEDA….AND ISIS….A VERITABLE TRAITOR TO AMERICA!!..

    Read More
  20. Richard Spencer tomorrow morning:

    “The passage of the 1965 nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANT INCREASE ACT WAS A VIOLENT DEMOGRAPHIC HATE CRIME AGAINST THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS!!!

    Read More
  21. Richard Spencer

    Remember:Your target audience and the only one that matters are your fellow Native Born White Americans….

    And the only question that matters and the one that you must pose to your fellow NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS in your Press Conference tomorrow morning is this:”MY FELLOW NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS:JUST WHAT EXACTLY …..ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP…….FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET BOWL “AMERICA”?

    One last point:

    Noam Chomsky…FUCK OFF YOU GREEDY OLD BASTARD!!

    Read More
  22. The TRUTH About Charlottesville

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    No, that's not the truth about "Charlottesille." The real truth about Charlottesille is:

    PRISS FACTOR WASN'T THERE. HE WAS AT HOME PUTTING UP BORING 2,600 WORD RESPONSES NO ONE READS, TELLING OTHER WHITE MEN WHAT TO DO, BECAUSE HE'S A BIG, PINK CHICKENSCHEISS!

  23. Anatoly

    The Blue Checkmarks=Asian “American” techno elites+Asian “American” Federal Prosecutors AGs and Federal Judgres…well, we don’t have to consent to be governed by these Foreigners….they can always go back to China…India…Korea..Pakushsthan..and Tuva…ok last one was a joke…

    Read More
  24. songbird says:

    There are certainly a lot of unknowns when it comes to any future potential civil conflict. The internet itself is a pretty powerful weapon, and despite the optimists, it is probably in favor of the establishment. One can imagine how quickly the Red Army Faction would have been tracked down if Facebook and Twitter existed back in the ’70s

    Another big factor which makes things somewhat unpredictable is the welfare system. If instability or financial collapse were to end it, then that could change a lot of people’s behavior quite suddenly, in ways probably never seen before in first world countries. And not just the behavior of those formerly on it, but also of others reacting in turn.

    Read More
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Richard Spencer

    Remember:Your target audience and the only one that matters are your fellow Native Born White Americans....

    And the only question that matters and the one that you must pose to your fellow NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS in your Press Conference tomorrow morning is this:"MY FELLOW NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS:JUST WHAT EXACTLY .....ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP.......FOR BEING A RACIAL MINORITY IN POST-WHITE TOILET BOWL "AMERICA"?



    One last point:

    Noam Chomsky...FUCK OFF YOU GREEDY OLD BASTARD!!

    Go back to Ireland.

    Read More
  26. “Going back further in history, during the late Cold War, leftists blew up dozens of people in Europe every single year.”

    It’s rather unclear how much of that was genuine leftist terrorism and how much of it was from false flags by right wing groups working with intelligence agencies. No doubt you are familiar with Gladio.
    And probably what we are seeing today is the mirror image of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Nope. Those bombings that nobody ever claimed, like the famous strage di Bologna, seem indeed to have been carried out by shadowy and spook-linked structures. But to suggest that the more numerous Red Brigade attacks, or Baader-Meinhof ones, were false flags is Revusky-tier.
  27. 5371 says:
    @The Big Red Scary
    "Going back further in history, during the late Cold War, leftists blew up dozens of people in Europe every single year."

    It's rather unclear how much of that was genuine leftist terrorism and how much of it was from false flags by right wing groups working with intelligence agencies. No doubt you are familiar with Gladio.
    And probably what we are seeing today is the mirror image of this.

    Nope. Those bombings that nobody ever claimed, like the famous strage di Bologna, seem indeed to have been carried out by shadowy and spook-linked structures. But to suggest that the more numerous Red Brigade attacks, or Baader-Meinhof ones, were false flags is Revusky-tier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    In Patrick Leigh Fermor's a "Time of Gifts", there is an revealing passage about a Commie hooligan turned Nazi hooligan. I'm not claiming this or that particular attack was by left wing radicals or by spooks. I don't have access to that information. But that is precisely my point: I have no way of knowing, I am not sympathetic to either side, and in the end, all of these groups, on the right and on the left, get played like pawns.
  28. Wulf says:
    @notanon

    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types?
     
    it depends because the media's definition of "neo-nazi type" is mostly bogus

    1) stripping away the historical stuff a national form of socialism is a perfectly valid political option alongside international socialism/capitalism and national capitalism in a simple political matrix e.g.
    a national health system is "national socialist" in those terms. (you don't have to agree with its efficiency or otherwise for it to be a valid position). individuals who allow themselves to think in those terms can have useful alternative viewpoints.

    2) the alt-right is soaked in "edgy" humor for various reasons and the edgiest edge of the dominant culture is the most demonized part. those kind of "neo-nazi types" are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they're natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.

    3) on a lower level the dominant culture's demonization of every expression of white male virtus naturally leads young white men rebelling against this to gravitate to the aesthetic forms of the most demonized white male virtus: confederate, nazi and deus vult. those kind of "neo-nazis" are regular white dudes.

    (nb not saying this is ironic; it's not but it is mostly aesthetic)

    4) bunch of other stuff

    5) actual neo-nazis in the sense the media uses the term (a very small percentage) - they may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise, too early to say - personally i don't think it will be necessary as the bad guys are insane and have no brakes but who knows.

    6) it's important to recognize most of the larpy "neo-nazis" are FBI / media plants - in a way the best response to media attacks on this topic might be to tell people to google Frank Collins - use the media attack to redpill people on the media's dishonesty.

    “neo-nazi types” are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they’re natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.

    Extremely useful in meme warfare? natural court jesters mocking the SJW king?

    Neo-nazis may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise?

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols – including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts – are associated with it.

    Come to terms with it and quit embarrassing yourself.

    It’s important to recognize most of the larpy “neo-nazis” are FBI / media plants

    The FBI needs no plants having fools like yourself plus yesterdays clowns dressed as KKK and Nazi thugs. Again get a grip.

    Read More
    • Agree: James Richard
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols – including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts – are associated with it.
     
    The Nazis used quite generic haircuts. The Wehrmacht, SS and Hitlerjugend usually used pretty generic military haircuts. Many in the top leadership (like Goebbels or Speer) didn't actually have even that.

    I think that'd be pretty stupid to actually try to police bloody haircuts. I mean, seriously. Haircuts? Did you know that there is no haircut in the world which was exclusively used by Hitlerjugend? Not even if you restrict it to 1930s haircuts. Because, you know, actually the range of possible haircuts (excluding extreme ones like punk or whatever) is pretty limited. It's quite unhinged to complain about haircuts.

    This is some really crazy unhinged stuff you are complaining about.

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one's rallies might be a good strategy. But I don't think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don't get unhinged when faced with things like that. You're not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don't wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression "actual Hitlerjugend haircut".
    , @notanon
    two separate points

    1) the original comment mentioned "neo nazi types" but that label actually covers a lot of ground and includes

    - white kids rebelling against the anti-white indoctrination in the schools and adopting the aesthetics of the most culturally demonized white groups

    and

    - people like Anglin or Sam Hyde (and dozens more) who are instinctive court jesters and therefore compelled to poke fun at the biggest taboos

    anyone who says they haven't been useful in the meme war doesn't know what they're talking about

    #

    2) how to deal with media attacks

    if no-one on the alt-right wears anything that can be used to push a "nazi" narrative the media will create some so any counter tactic has to work for situation that too and pathetic hysterical policing of haircuts won't work and leads to GOPe.

    the only solution i can see is:
    - don't do it yourself
    - don't encourage people to do it
    - but totally ignore media attacks on the issue

    as soon as you let the media herd you, you've lost
  29. 5371 says:

    Molly McKew is in the pay of the Georgian government, which to be frank puts her among the scrub squad of venal hacks. Even whoring for the Maidan clowns is more prestigious.

    Read More
  30. @Anonymous
    Go back to Ireland.

    NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN

    Read More
    • Replies: @rw95
    Irish mick scum who has to go back.
    , @Anonymous
    You're an Irish American geezer from Long Island. You're native to Ireland. Go back to Ireland.
  31. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @utu
    For the organizers like Spencer the most important issue is security of the demonstration. How to reduce chances of agent provocateurs and violence. To do it you must have your own security people who also work well with local police. Help of police is crucial. Police should prevent clashes with opposite demonstration. If police is against you, you won't be able to prevent provocations 100% but you can minimize them if you have your own volunteer security people. If you are attacked, you do not fight back. You do the sit in. Who does not do it probably is a provocateur or a hot head who must be controlled. You train and educate people how to demonstrate. Antifa does it. The left has the know-how the right is lacking.

    The Left gets out of control fairly often, though rarely this spectacularly. Police control should have been better. Cops, like vets, normally skew right somewhat, so coordinating with the police should be easier for us. This wasn’t the case here. Neonazis are probably not reassuring to most police, or anybody else really. Another reason might be demographics– what did the Charlotesville PD look like? And were they more left-sympathetic than cops elsewhere

    Read More
  32. Ivan K. says:

    I’ve read that the Eastern European Soviet/Communist/socialist governments, praised upthread for providing peaceful progress and security, also provided support for the Europe’s “leftist” terrorists like Carlos the Jackal. Remarkably, both of the socialist peace and prosperity and the European “extreme left” terrorism peaked in the same period: the 1970s.

    On the other hand, it’s hard to fathom the point of Gladio engaging in false flag terrorism if the authentic left has been doing 90% of ‘the job’ already.

    Read More
  33. @5371
    Nope. Those bombings that nobody ever claimed, like the famous strage di Bologna, seem indeed to have been carried out by shadowy and spook-linked structures. But to suggest that the more numerous Red Brigade attacks, or Baader-Meinhof ones, were false flags is Revusky-tier.

    In Patrick Leigh Fermor’s a “Time of Gifts”, there is an revealing passage about a Commie hooligan turned Nazi hooligan. I’m not claiming this or that particular attack was by left wing radicals or by spooks. I don’t have access to that information. But that is precisely my point: I have no way of knowing, I am not sympathetic to either side, and in the end, all of these groups, on the right and on the left, get played like pawns.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    You are a retard conspiracy theorist. The Democratic Party has open genocidal intent towards White Males. White Males are dying at a epidemic rate. It is without a doubt a race war of genocidal extermination.
  34. @Wulf

    “neo-nazi types” are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they’re natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.
     
    Extremely useful in meme warfare? natural court jesters mocking the SJW king?

    Neo-nazis may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise?

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols - including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts - are associated with it.

    Come to terms with it and quit embarrassing yourself.

    It’s important to recognize most of the larpy “neo-nazis” are FBI / media plants
     

    The FBI needs no plants having fools like yourself plus yesterdays clowns dressed as KKK and Nazi thugs. Again get a grip.

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols – including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts – are associated with it.

    The Nazis used quite generic haircuts. The Wehrmacht, SS and Hitlerjugend usually used pretty generic military haircuts. Many in the top leadership (like Goebbels or Speer) didn’t actually have even that.

    I think that’d be pretty stupid to actually try to police bloody haircuts. I mean, seriously. Haircuts? Did you know that there is no haircut in the world which was exclusively used by Hitlerjugend? Not even if you restrict it to 1930s haircuts. Because, you know, actually the range of possible haircuts (excluding extreme ones like punk or whatever) is pretty limited. It’s quite unhinged to complain about haircuts.

    This is some really crazy unhinged stuff you are complaining about.

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one’s rallies might be a good strategy. But I don’t think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don’t get unhinged when faced with things like that. You’re not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don’t wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression “actual Hitlerjugend haircut”.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @Randal

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one’s rallies might be a good strategy. But I don’t think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don’t get unhinged when faced with things like that. You’re not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don’t wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression “actual Hitlerjugend haircut”.
     
    I think this is a pretty good balance between the establishment right's active appeasement of, or even collaboration with, the left's attempt to maintain the racism and nazi taboos (see for instance the American Conservative's Rod Dreher's desperate attempts to be respectable), and the basic and desperately urgent requirement of smashing those taboos if any political progress is ever to be made.

    My position is that I and my views are not Nazi or white supremacist, but they are smeared as such by the left and establishment right, and always will be no matter how much I might try to appease them by joining in their witch-hunts and demonization of actual nazis and white supremacists. I don't think I'm alone in being in that position. And further, I do not regard nazi and white supremacist view as being inherently evil, or at any rate, not in any way more evil than the mainstream leftist view that promote mass immigration and interventionism to destroy nations for dogma or for profit.

    If the left and establishment right insist that I'm either with them or against them on nazism and white supremacism, then I'm against them.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Punching right is definitely not the strategy to go about things, as the left shows. The extremists serve a role and should be allowed to exist.
    , @Wulf
    Now, before accusing people of doing what you yourself just did, namely going full retard, how about you use that underpowered brain of yours and google hitlerjugend haarschnitt and nazi haircut?

    https://www.google.de/search?q=hitlerjugend+haarschnitt&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbsvCvg9fVAhUMb1AKHXgMDFMQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    https://www.google.de/search?q=nazi+haircut&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgtqzSidfVAhXRKlAKHRV_Ai4Q_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    From Wikipedia

    "In Nazi Germany, a version of this haircut which was long on top but shaved at the back and sides was popular among Wehrmacht officers.[5]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Origins

    There is a general perception, whether we like it or not, that associates that haircut with the far right and Nazi Germany, because Allies' military haircuts used to be more neutral, ie shorter at the top and longer at the sides in the case of officers, with less contrast between layers, no matter what Brad Pitt sports in the latests WWII movies, which are German WWII military haircuts. So please spare me the bullshit of "generic military haircuts".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Association_with_the_far_right

    I admit that the undercut haircut is lately fashionable - and so are bomber jackets and dr Marteens boots - but unless you look like a complete hipster or have a rockabilly style, I would avoid sporting it, as I would avoid wearing a bomber jacket, dr marteens long boots and a buzzcut to assist to a White Nationalist rally and I do not want to give the impression of being a Nazi skinhead.

    Do we want to be taken seriously? so ditch the fucking HJ-SS haircut unless you sport it with a hipster moustache or beard and hipster or vintage rockabilly clothes.

    Otherwise you just look like Richard Spencer, a retarded clown "jokingly" using the roman salute, screaming Heil Trump, tolerating people seriously using the roman salute at his meetings and generally not to be taken seriously.
  35. @The Big Red Scary
    In Patrick Leigh Fermor's a "Time of Gifts", there is an revealing passage about a Commie hooligan turned Nazi hooligan. I'm not claiming this or that particular attack was by left wing radicals or by spooks. I don't have access to that information. But that is precisely my point: I have no way of knowing, I am not sympathetic to either side, and in the end, all of these groups, on the right and on the left, get played like pawns.

    You are a retard conspiracy theorist. The Democratic Party has open genocidal intent towards White Males. White Males are dying at a epidemic rate. It is without a doubt a race war of genocidal extermination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    "You are a retard conspiracy theorist."

    Thanks. I'm finally beginning to feel like I fit in around here.

    "White Males are dying at a epidemic rate."

    It is true that the mortality rate for Fishtown men is rising and that hardly any American politician, Democrat or Republican, actually cares, because they are from Belmont. Decent people have every reason to be very concerned about this.

    Poor folks really scare the political establishment precisely because there are so damned many of them. The division of poor folks according to identity politics is a quite effective divide and conquer strategy. Since there are so many more poor white folks than poor brown or poor black folks, the division strategy has been to make some symbolic concessions to the brown and black folks.

    By now this has taken on a life of its own. I was particularly struck by Steve Sailer's recent post about the results of a Google search for American scientists. I am considering writing a letter to Google
    calling them out on their anti-Semitism for replacing so many eminent Jewish scientists with minor black scientists. :)
  36. @Priss Factor
    I don’t want to counter-signal or anything, but the Blue Checkmarks have most of the elite human capital and control the institutions. This will make it very hard for the Alt Right to make institutional headway.

    They have one weak spot. Jewish domination and Diversity.

    Jewish Power is vulnerable because it poses as champion of powerless but happens to be the most powerful group in the world that waged wars and destroyed so many lives.

    Alt Right needs to play on Jewish Globalist Imperialism.

    Also, Jewish Power is now going after BDS, and this will cause rift with the 'left'.

    Alt Right can play on this by drawing parallels between whites and Palestinians.

    Blue Checks are mostly Jewish and white cuck elites ruling over a unruly mob of Diversity.

    There is no real unity there. The progs are united by hatred of 'nazis', not by anything else.

    Also, as things become clearer, Alt Right will end up with a few Horst Wessels.

    Finally, institutional power is no longer what it used to be. Prior to the internet, ALL ideas were controlled and disseminated by Big Media and Academia.
    Today, we can share ideas and conceive of agendas INDEPENDENT of media and academia.
    We have BYPASS option.

    Alt Right can play on this by drawing parallels between whites and Palestinians.

    We are all Palestinians now.

    Read More
  37. Iasi says:

    Lazy Americans have too many labels and not enough facts. Charlottesville march facts and time of events is not known by television watching people. Narrative of events is under control of opposition.

    No more labels, just facts and timelines.

    Read More
  38. @War for Blair Mountain
    You are a retard conspiracy theorist. The Democratic Party has open genocidal intent towards White Males. White Males are dying at a epidemic rate. It is without a doubt a race war of genocidal extermination.

    “You are a retard conspiracy theorist.”

    Thanks. I’m finally beginning to feel like I fit in around here.

    “White Males are dying at a epidemic rate.”

    It is true that the mortality rate for Fishtown men is rising and that hardly any American politician, Democrat or Republican, actually cares, because they are from Belmont. Decent people have every reason to be very concerned about this.

    Poor folks really scare the political establishment precisely because there are so damned many of them. The division of poor folks according to identity politics is a quite effective divide and conquer strategy. Since there are so many more poor white folks than poor brown or poor black folks, the division strategy has been to make some symbolic concessions to the brown and black folks.

    By now this has taken on a life of its own. I was particularly struck by Steve Sailer’s recent post about the results of a Google search for American scientists. I am considering writing a letter to Google
    calling them out on their anti-Semitism for replacing so many eminent Jewish scientists with minor black scientists. :)

    Read More
  39. @Priss Factor
    Thoughts on Unite the Right in Charlottesville

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qwwBnioLdc

    Why isn’t this guy wearing a shirt?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Clickbait??!!

    He might even...not be wearing pants!!!

  40. Randal says:
    @reiner Tor

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols – including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts – are associated with it.
     
    The Nazis used quite generic haircuts. The Wehrmacht, SS and Hitlerjugend usually used pretty generic military haircuts. Many in the top leadership (like Goebbels or Speer) didn't actually have even that.

    I think that'd be pretty stupid to actually try to police bloody haircuts. I mean, seriously. Haircuts? Did you know that there is no haircut in the world which was exclusively used by Hitlerjugend? Not even if you restrict it to 1930s haircuts. Because, you know, actually the range of possible haircuts (excluding extreme ones like punk or whatever) is pretty limited. It's quite unhinged to complain about haircuts.

    This is some really crazy unhinged stuff you are complaining about.

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one's rallies might be a good strategy. But I don't think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don't get unhinged when faced with things like that. You're not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don't wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression "actual Hitlerjugend haircut".

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one’s rallies might be a good strategy. But I don’t think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don’t get unhinged when faced with things like that. You’re not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don’t wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression “actual Hitlerjugend haircut”.

    I think this is a pretty good balance between the establishment right’s active appeasement of, or even collaboration with, the left’s attempt to maintain the racism and nazi taboos (see for instance the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher’s desperate attempts to be respectable), and the basic and desperately urgent requirement of smashing those taboos if any political progress is ever to be made.

    My position is that I and my views are not Nazi or white supremacist, but they are smeared as such by the left and establishment right, and always will be no matter how much I might try to appease them by joining in their witch-hunts and demonization of actual nazis and white supremacists. I don’t think I’m alone in being in that position. And further, I do not regard nazi and white supremacist view as being inherently evil, or at any rate, not in any way more evil than the mainstream leftist view that promote mass immigration and interventionism to destroy nations for dogma or for profit.

    If the left and establishment right insist that I’m either with them or against them on nazism and white supremacism, then I’m against them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    see for instance the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher’s desperate attempts to be respectable
     
    I don't think that with Dreher it's about any desire to be respectable, he really does think like that. You've got to realize two things about him:
    1.) He's not a political writer, and imo his writing doesn't actually belong in a political magazine. He's a Christian moralist, and in some ways a pretty narrow-minded one. Everything in his writing revolves around his religion, there is nothing else really.
    2.) From his background and his associations he always was a bad fit for what the American conservative was originally about. I've been reading the magazine's website since 2003, and originally it was founded mainly to promote non-interventionism (against the background of the 2003 Iraq war) and immigration restriction. Dreher was never fully on board with that. He supported the Iraq war in 2003. He still thinks George W Bush is a decent man and good Christian. He's pro-Israel and very much against anything that looks even remotely like antisemitism. He's friends with establishment journalists like David Brooks (and even with a neoconservative like John Podhoretz iirc). I can't recall him approvingly linking to articles by Pat Buchanan or other paleocons, but he's constantly linking to pieces by establishment journos like Brooks, to pieces in National Review or even in that demented neocon rag Commentary, as if they were fountains of wisdom.
    So you've got to realize that Dreher is in many ways much closer to the mainstream consensus in the US than American conservative originally was (and that explains his obsessive focus on the mainly sex-related culture war issues religious conservatives in the US love to talk about, whereas he has very little to say about the issues the magazine was once focused on). Personally I think it's a disappointing development for the magazine, but it's probably reflective of the situation in the US and what sells there.
  41. Commandante Unz

    It would be lots of fun if you contacted Counterpuncher Jeffrey Saint Clair and ask him to write an essay on the Charlottesville Riots for Unz Review….

    Read More
  42. iffen says:

    actual nazis and white supremacists

    Given that you acknowledge that there are, in fact, “actual nazis”, why do you reject the investigation of who is and who is not an actual?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Maybe Randal will disagree (I don't think so, but who knows?), but let me give you my point of view.

    He's talking about people openly Nazi. (So do I.) I.e. those who are using actual WW2 Nazi imagery, wearing actual WW2 Nazi uniforms, telling everyone how Adolf Hitler was the greatest historical personality since... ever, etc. Obviously, even these people might be actually something different than real Nazis: for example a huge portion of them (probably majority) are sincere holocaust deniers. Now the real Nazis didn't totally deny the holocaust (Hitler and Goebbels often talked quite openly how the extermination of European Jewry will be the result of Jews' scheming etc.), or if they did, they were simply lying about it. A sincere holocaust denier cannot be an actual Nazi, as a joke I heard in Hungary in 2010 (when holocaust denial was made illegal) depicts it, "Do you deny the holocaust?" "God forbid! I wholeheartedly support it!"

    Your "investigations" involve uncovering the secret thoughts of people, an effort which is futile and also usually leads to witch-hunts. You cannot prove what some other person's secret thoughts are, and it's not very fruitful to try to infer those thoughts from "actual Hitlerjugend haircuts" or whatever.

    In other words, open Hitler-worshippers are people who are either really bad guys (if they know what Hitler really stood for) or misinformed (if they think Hitler was a white nationalist who loved all whites like Poles and Russians and out of pure humanism never committed a single atrocity against Jews, even if he understood their insidiousness), so it's best not associating with them. You don't need to investigate their secret motives at all. Similarly, if someone says he doesn't support Hitlerism, and instead supports democracy, then also you don't need to investigate whether he was lying or not. As long as he's not voicing pro-Hitler views (whichever) and not using actual Nazi imagery etc., he's OK, his secret thoughts (which are unknown and unknowable to us) notwithstanding.
    , @Randal
    What reiner Tor said, pretty much.

    The witch-hunting for Nazis (/homophobes/racists/sexists etc) amongst people who decline to publicly endorse nazism is part and parcel of the general leftist smearing of moderate right-wing, conservative, nativist and nationalist opinions and people. If communists, anti-white racists and other mass murderous and implicitly violent radicals of the left are going to be accepted as part of legitimate political discourse, as they have been for decades now, then so should Nazis, white nationalists etc. be allowed to have their say and be protected from the consequences of upsetting people just as the left extremists are.
  43. @notanon

    But what can one gain from associating with neonazi types?
     
    it depends because the media's definition of "neo-nazi type" is mostly bogus

    1) stripping away the historical stuff a national form of socialism is a perfectly valid political option alongside international socialism/capitalism and national capitalism in a simple political matrix e.g.
    a national health system is "national socialist" in those terms. (you don't have to agree with its efficiency or otherwise for it to be a valid position). individuals who allow themselves to think in those terms can have useful alternative viewpoints.

    2) the alt-right is soaked in "edgy" humor for various reasons and the edgiest edge of the dominant culture is the most demonized part. those kind of "neo-nazi types" are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they're natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.

    3) on a lower level the dominant culture's demonization of every expression of white male virtus naturally leads young white men rebelling against this to gravitate to the aesthetic forms of the most demonized white male virtus: confederate, nazi and deus vult. those kind of "neo-nazis" are regular white dudes.

    (nb not saying this is ironic; it's not but it is mostly aesthetic)

    4) bunch of other stuff

    5) actual neo-nazis in the sense the media uses the term (a very small percentage) - they may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise, too early to say - personally i don't think it will be necessary as the bad guys are insane and have no brakes but who knows.

    6) it's important to recognize most of the larpy "neo-nazis" are FBI / media plants - in a way the best response to media attacks on this topic might be to tell people to google Frank Collins - use the media attack to redpill people on the media's dishonesty.

    I do not think the Confederacy should be conflated with the Nazis. They were massively different in mentality and though outdated, I would argue that the South did actually have a coherent culture and lifestyle of existence. We have no evidence that the Reich would ever manage that – from the notes in their plans, it seemed really chaotic even had they managed to defeat the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    The Third Reich were the enablers of the Bosnian Muzzies....just like the Charlottesville Antifa's favorite pinup girl:The old farting-horse-fly-green pantsuit-wearing hairy mole-on-the-face-bulldyke Hillary Clinton.....
    , @notanon

    I do not think the Confederacy should be conflated with the Nazis. They were massively different in mentality and though outdated, I would argue that the South did actually have a coherent culture and lifestyle of existence.
     
    that's part of my point. the kids using these symbols are using them because they're the most demonized symbols of white identity - the content of those symbols isn't really the issue.
  44. @reiner Tor

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols – including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts – are associated with it.
     
    The Nazis used quite generic haircuts. The Wehrmacht, SS and Hitlerjugend usually used pretty generic military haircuts. Many in the top leadership (like Goebbels or Speer) didn't actually have even that.

    I think that'd be pretty stupid to actually try to police bloody haircuts. I mean, seriously. Haircuts? Did you know that there is no haircut in the world which was exclusively used by Hitlerjugend? Not even if you restrict it to 1930s haircuts. Because, you know, actually the range of possible haircuts (excluding extreme ones like punk or whatever) is pretty limited. It's quite unhinged to complain about haircuts.

    This is some really crazy unhinged stuff you are complaining about.

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one's rallies might be a good strategy. But I don't think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don't get unhinged when faced with things like that. You're not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don't wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression "actual Hitlerjugend haircut".

    Punching right is definitely not the strategy to go about things, as the left shows. The extremists serve a role and should be allowed to exist.

    Read More
  45. Wulf says:
    @reiner Tor

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols – including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts – are associated with it.
     
    The Nazis used quite generic haircuts. The Wehrmacht, SS and Hitlerjugend usually used pretty generic military haircuts. Many in the top leadership (like Goebbels or Speer) didn't actually have even that.

    I think that'd be pretty stupid to actually try to police bloody haircuts. I mean, seriously. Haircuts? Did you know that there is no haircut in the world which was exclusively used by Hitlerjugend? Not even if you restrict it to 1930s haircuts. Because, you know, actually the range of possible haircuts (excluding extreme ones like punk or whatever) is pretty limited. It's quite unhinged to complain about haircuts.

    This is some really crazy unhinged stuff you are complaining about.

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one's rallies might be a good strategy. But I don't think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don't get unhinged when faced with things like that. You're not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don't wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression "actual Hitlerjugend haircut".

    Now, before accusing people of doing what you yourself just did, namely going full retard, how about you use that underpowered brain of yours and google hitlerjugend haarschnitt and nazi haircut?

    https://www.google.de/search?q=hitlerjugend+haarschnitt&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbsvCvg9fVAhUMb1AKHXgMDFMQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    https://www.google.de/search?q=nazi+haircut&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgtqzSidfVAhXRKlAKHRV_Ai4Q_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    From Wikipedia

    “In Nazi Germany, a version of this haircut which was long on top but shaved at the back and sides was popular among Wehrmacht officers.[5]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Origins

    There is a general perception, whether we like it or not, that associates that haircut with the far right and Nazi Germany, because Allies’ military haircuts used to be more neutral, ie shorter at the top and longer at the sides in the case of officers, with less contrast between layers, no matter what Brad Pitt sports in the latests WWII movies, which are German WWII military haircuts. So please spare me the bullshit of “generic military haircuts”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Association_with_the_far_right

    I admit that the undercut haircut is lately fashionable – and so are bomber jackets and dr Marteens boots – but unless you look like a complete hipster or have a rockabilly style, I would avoid sporting it, as I would avoid wearing a bomber jacket, dr marteens long boots and a buzzcut to assist to a White Nationalist rally and I do not want to give the impression of being a Nazi skinhead.

    Do we want to be taken seriously? so ditch the fucking HJ-SS haircut unless you sport it with a hipster moustache or beard and hipster or vintage rockabilly clothes.

    Otherwise you just look like Richard Spencer, a retarded clown “jokingly” using the roman salute, screaming Heil Trump, tolerating people seriously using the roman salute at his meetings and generally not to be taken seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Your link says that haircut was popular among the working class and it was mainstream fashion during the jazz age in the 1920s and 1930s. It is a macho hairstyle. Frigging Brad Pitt uses it, and he's the epitome of leftiness. Why shouldn't it be used by right-wingers?

    My hair is short everywhere, because I cut my hair with a shaver (to maybe 1/5 of an inch), and then let it grow until it reaches an inch. I guess you disapprove, because skinheads. Long hair might be associated with the fringe NSBM musical movement. So what's left? Do you approve the Speer or Goebbels haircut?
    , @James Richard
    I was always displeased when my sergeants in the USMC would make me get "whitewalls." Now that I am older and wiser I realize that it was standard practice in the Corps to keep lance corporals in a constant state of murderous (but controlled) rage. It's what the Corps is all about.

    Richard Spencer is a poser.

  46. @iffen
    actual nazis and white supremacists

    Given that you acknowledge that there are, in fact, "actual nazis", why do you reject the investigation of who is and who is not an actual?

    Maybe Randal will disagree (I don’t think so, but who knows?), but let me give you my point of view.

    He’s talking about people openly Nazi. (So do I.) I.e. those who are using actual WW2 Nazi imagery, wearing actual WW2 Nazi uniforms, telling everyone how Adolf Hitler was the greatest historical personality since… ever, etc. Obviously, even these people might be actually something different than real Nazis: for example a huge portion of them (probably majority) are sincere holocaust deniers. Now the real Nazis didn’t totally deny the holocaust (Hitler and Goebbels often talked quite openly how the extermination of European Jewry will be the result of Jews’ scheming etc.), or if they did, they were simply lying about it. A sincere holocaust denier cannot be an actual Nazi, as a joke I heard in Hungary in 2010 (when holocaust denial was made illegal) depicts it, “Do you deny the holocaust?” “God forbid! I wholeheartedly support it!”

    Your “investigations” involve uncovering the secret thoughts of people, an effort which is futile and also usually leads to witch-hunts. You cannot prove what some other person’s secret thoughts are, and it’s not very fruitful to try to infer those thoughts from “actual Hitlerjugend haircuts” or whatever.

    In other words, open Hitler-worshippers are people who are either really bad guys (if they know what Hitler really stood for) or misinformed (if they think Hitler was a white nationalist who loved all whites like Poles and Russians and out of pure humanism never committed a single atrocity against Jews, even if he understood their insidiousness), so it’s best not associating with them. You don’t need to investigate their secret motives at all. Similarly, if someone says he doesn’t support Hitlerism, and instead supports democracy, then also you don’t need to investigate whether he was lying or not. As long as he’s not voicing pro-Hitler views (whichever) and not using actual Nazi imagery etc., he’s OK, his secret thoughts (which are unknown and unknowable to us) notwithstanding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    My knowledge of the unironic Nazis is that they try not to think too hard about what Hitler really believed, which is a fair thing, because he also changed his mind a few times. Its the overall aesthetic that draws them and the general ideas, in the form of religion, gets modified to fit the thinker's ideas.

    Few of them bother to think deeply enough to worry that Hitler wanted to kill a lot of Slavs, that had Germany won the war, the SS had plans to create themselves a permanent aristocratic class over other Germans, or that Hitler even said favorable things about Islam plus the weird confusing mess with Germany supporting at various turns, Japan and China.

    They're seeking an ideology. Ideology is pure and allows them to believe in pure and impossible things. The Reich, in comparison, had to exist in the real world and seemed willing to compromise ideology for survival and power multiple times.
    , @iffen
    they were simply lying about it

    I thought, according to you, that we can’t know this. :)

    I am not sure that you understand my position.

    Let’s be specific to get at what I think.

    If I wanted to create a political organization to fight for and defend American nationalism, I would exclude those individuals who do not share the goals of American nationalism and those individuals who would prevent the growth and success of the organization. One such group would be Holocaust deniers. A second group would be people who have the haircut that Holocaust deniers have trademarked and have that haircut specifically to identify with Holocaust deniers.

    I don’t see it as that complicated. I truly do not understand people who think that there are no consequences in not separating oneself upon the basis of political beliefs.

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?

  47. @Wulf
    Now, before accusing people of doing what you yourself just did, namely going full retard, how about you use that underpowered brain of yours and google hitlerjugend haarschnitt and nazi haircut?

    https://www.google.de/search?q=hitlerjugend+haarschnitt&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbsvCvg9fVAhUMb1AKHXgMDFMQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    https://www.google.de/search?q=nazi+haircut&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgtqzSidfVAhXRKlAKHRV_Ai4Q_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    From Wikipedia

    "In Nazi Germany, a version of this haircut which was long on top but shaved at the back and sides was popular among Wehrmacht officers.[5]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Origins

    There is a general perception, whether we like it or not, that associates that haircut with the far right and Nazi Germany, because Allies' military haircuts used to be more neutral, ie shorter at the top and longer at the sides in the case of officers, with less contrast between layers, no matter what Brad Pitt sports in the latests WWII movies, which are German WWII military haircuts. So please spare me the bullshit of "generic military haircuts".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Association_with_the_far_right

    I admit that the undercut haircut is lately fashionable - and so are bomber jackets and dr Marteens boots - but unless you look like a complete hipster or have a rockabilly style, I would avoid sporting it, as I would avoid wearing a bomber jacket, dr marteens long boots and a buzzcut to assist to a White Nationalist rally and I do not want to give the impression of being a Nazi skinhead.

    Do we want to be taken seriously? so ditch the fucking HJ-SS haircut unless you sport it with a hipster moustache or beard and hipster or vintage rockabilly clothes.

    Otherwise you just look like Richard Spencer, a retarded clown "jokingly" using the roman salute, screaming Heil Trump, tolerating people seriously using the roman salute at his meetings and generally not to be taken seriously.

    Your link says that haircut was popular among the working class and it was mainstream fashion during the jazz age in the 1920s and 1930s. It is a macho hairstyle. Frigging Brad Pitt uses it, and he’s the epitome of leftiness. Why shouldn’t it be used by right-wingers?

    My hair is short everywhere, because I cut my hair with a shaver (to maybe 1/5 of an inch), and then let it grow until it reaches an inch. I guess you disapprove, because skinheads. Long hair might be associated with the fringe NSBM musical movement. So what’s left? Do you approve the Speer or Goebbels haircut?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wulf
    You need everything explained to you like a little child, and I have not the time nor the patience to deal with thick types.

    I indeed disapprove of your retarded hairstyle. I would recommend the full retard hairstyle instead:

    https://travelswithstanchaks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/img_3187.jpg?w=700&h=

    Or something like this if you insist on having it short:

    http://www.jokeoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hair.jpg

    Have a good day.

  48. Randal says:
    @iffen
    actual nazis and white supremacists

    Given that you acknowledge that there are, in fact, "actual nazis", why do you reject the investigation of who is and who is not an actual?

    What reiner Tor said, pretty much.

    The witch-hunting for Nazis (/homophobes/racists/sexists etc) amongst people who decline to publicly endorse nazism is part and parcel of the general leftist smearing of moderate right-wing, conservative, nativist and nationalist opinions and people. If communists, anti-white racists and other mass murderous and implicitly violent radicals of the left are going to be accepted as part of legitimate political discourse, as they have been for decades now, then so should Nazis, white nationalists etc. be allowed to have their say and be protected from the consequences of upsetting people just as the left extremists are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You are being pig-headed.

    You are just saying, "Nobody can interfere with my rights of association," as some sort of free-floating idealism. Look at the practical effects, not some ideal that will not secure your goal.

    Let the frigging nazis defend themselves, don't do it for them.
    , @iffen
    Witch-hunting is a failed analogy; there are no witches.

    There are actual nazis.
  49. @reiner Tor
    Maybe Randal will disagree (I don't think so, but who knows?), but let me give you my point of view.

    He's talking about people openly Nazi. (So do I.) I.e. those who are using actual WW2 Nazi imagery, wearing actual WW2 Nazi uniforms, telling everyone how Adolf Hitler was the greatest historical personality since... ever, etc. Obviously, even these people might be actually something different than real Nazis: for example a huge portion of them (probably majority) are sincere holocaust deniers. Now the real Nazis didn't totally deny the holocaust (Hitler and Goebbels often talked quite openly how the extermination of European Jewry will be the result of Jews' scheming etc.), or if they did, they were simply lying about it. A sincere holocaust denier cannot be an actual Nazi, as a joke I heard in Hungary in 2010 (when holocaust denial was made illegal) depicts it, "Do you deny the holocaust?" "God forbid! I wholeheartedly support it!"

    Your "investigations" involve uncovering the secret thoughts of people, an effort which is futile and also usually leads to witch-hunts. You cannot prove what some other person's secret thoughts are, and it's not very fruitful to try to infer those thoughts from "actual Hitlerjugend haircuts" or whatever.

    In other words, open Hitler-worshippers are people who are either really bad guys (if they know what Hitler really stood for) or misinformed (if they think Hitler was a white nationalist who loved all whites like Poles and Russians and out of pure humanism never committed a single atrocity against Jews, even if he understood their insidiousness), so it's best not associating with them. You don't need to investigate their secret motives at all. Similarly, if someone says he doesn't support Hitlerism, and instead supports democracy, then also you don't need to investigate whether he was lying or not. As long as he's not voicing pro-Hitler views (whichever) and not using actual Nazi imagery etc., he's OK, his secret thoughts (which are unknown and unknowable to us) notwithstanding.

    My knowledge of the unironic Nazis is that they try not to think too hard about what Hitler really believed, which is a fair thing, because he also changed his mind a few times. Its the overall aesthetic that draws them and the general ideas, in the form of religion, gets modified to fit the thinker’s ideas.

    Few of them bother to think deeply enough to worry that Hitler wanted to kill a lot of Slavs, that had Germany won the war, the SS had plans to create themselves a permanent aristocratic class over other Germans, or that Hitler even said favorable things about Islam plus the weird confusing mess with Germany supporting at various turns, Japan and China.

    They’re seeking an ideology. Ideology is pure and allows them to believe in pure and impossible things. The Reich, in comparison, had to exist in the real world and seemed willing to compromise ideology for survival and power multiple times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    To be honest, I also like the aesthetic. A recommended reading is "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics" by Frederic Spotts. Hitler really had some artistic talents (he'd have been a formidable architect and perhaps an opera director), and his talents were basically best fit for a dictator designing the imagery of his dictatorship. Which he just happened to be. It's a pity because of his murderous policies that imagery seems to be tainted for the rest of history (though who knows, what will happen once the current Western civilization collapses? which is bound to happen sooner or later), because swastikas are cool symbols, as is the Sigrune, and of course the uniforms, the buildings, the Parteitagen, these are all powerful stuff. A lot of it is used in popular culture, e.g. pop/rock/metal concerts vs. party rallies, or Nazi hats used by bikers, or eagles used by heavy metal bands, or whatever.

    But I do think about what the actual Nazis actually did, and don't like it that much. I'd be able to like a Nazi Germany which stopped at its 1939 borders (minus Bohemia, plus maybe Danzig itself, definitely not the corridor - had Hitler not invaded rump Czechia in March 1939, he'd probably have been able to negotiate Danzig with the Poles). Had that happened, one could easily overlook the violence (up to then) against Jews (which would've decreased anyway as the Jews would've left Germany for good), or some other less than ideal things (like chasing away Paul Hindemith).

    Anyway, even Soviet aesthetics had some good things about it, as did Confederate, etc. aesthetics. Did Nazi Germany still exist, its aesthetic would already be at least somewhat different from what it had been before 1945. We need to create our own, new aesthetics.
    , @James Richard
    Everyone likes NAZI uniforms. That's why they are always swanking about in them in WWII films mostly produced by leftist Hollywood Jews. I do prefer the British Army's belted style replete with Sam Brown belt and swagger stick. The USMC still maintains a belted jacket although political correctness has proletarianized the Army uniform into Soviet ugliness. It's a shame that they had to give up the Sam Brown belt and swagger sticks though. Those sticks come in handy when whipping a slash across the face of the lower echelons.
  50. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Maybe Randal will disagree (I don't think so, but who knows?), but let me give you my point of view.

    He's talking about people openly Nazi. (So do I.) I.e. those who are using actual WW2 Nazi imagery, wearing actual WW2 Nazi uniforms, telling everyone how Adolf Hitler was the greatest historical personality since... ever, etc. Obviously, even these people might be actually something different than real Nazis: for example a huge portion of them (probably majority) are sincere holocaust deniers. Now the real Nazis didn't totally deny the holocaust (Hitler and Goebbels often talked quite openly how the extermination of European Jewry will be the result of Jews' scheming etc.), or if they did, they were simply lying about it. A sincere holocaust denier cannot be an actual Nazi, as a joke I heard in Hungary in 2010 (when holocaust denial was made illegal) depicts it, "Do you deny the holocaust?" "God forbid! I wholeheartedly support it!"

    Your "investigations" involve uncovering the secret thoughts of people, an effort which is futile and also usually leads to witch-hunts. You cannot prove what some other person's secret thoughts are, and it's not very fruitful to try to infer those thoughts from "actual Hitlerjugend haircuts" or whatever.

    In other words, open Hitler-worshippers are people who are either really bad guys (if they know what Hitler really stood for) or misinformed (if they think Hitler was a white nationalist who loved all whites like Poles and Russians and out of pure humanism never committed a single atrocity against Jews, even if he understood their insidiousness), so it's best not associating with them. You don't need to investigate their secret motives at all. Similarly, if someone says he doesn't support Hitlerism, and instead supports democracy, then also you don't need to investigate whether he was lying or not. As long as he's not voicing pro-Hitler views (whichever) and not using actual Nazi imagery etc., he's OK, his secret thoughts (which are unknown and unknowable to us) notwithstanding.

    they were simply lying about it

    I thought, according to you, that we can’t know this. :)

    I am not sure that you understand my position.

    Let’s be specific to get at what I think.

    If I wanted to create a political organization to fight for and defend American nationalism, I would exclude those individuals who do not share the goals of American nationalism and those individuals who would prevent the growth and success of the organization. One such group would be Holocaust deniers. A second group would be people who have the haircut that Holocaust deniers have trademarked and have that haircut specifically to identify with Holocaust deniers.

    I don’t see it as that complicated. I truly do not understand people who think that there are no consequences in not separating oneself upon the basis of political beliefs.

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?
     
    Yes, and the only answer to that situation is to end the political taboo that achieves that for the left/establishment right.

    The approach you advocate, of desperately apologising to the left and the identity lobbyists, and dissociating oneself from anyone successfully smeared as a closet Nazi/racist/homophobe/sexist, was tried by the "respectable" right for decades, and it just justifies the taboo and invites further witch-finding and ever more progressively drawn lines that it is unacceptable to cross. And meanwhile the identity lobbyists behind whichever particular smear it is (jewish nationalists, black anti-white racists, homosexualists, feminists) just get handed an ever sharper weapon to use to cut down anyone who stands in their way, and their lobby fodder gets ever more bitter about their suppose victimhood and ever more willing to justify, support and engage in prohibition, censorship and violence against those they are told are responsible for past, present and future injustices.


    You are just saying, “Nobody can interfere with my rights of association,” as some sort of free-floating idealism. Look at the practical effects, not some ideal that will not secure your goal.
     
    You have it backwards. It's your method that has been tried for decades now and failed completely.

    Witch-hunting is a failed analogy; there are no witches. There are actual nazis.

     

    The problem with witch-finding was not that there were no witches, but that innocent people were regularly accused of being witches by zealots and opportunists and railroaded into being held guilty of it.

    There are actual nazis.
     
    A fringe of a fringe. Though the more the left commits the kind of violence against peaceful political expression seen with Black Lives Matter and the attack on the Charlottesville gathering, the more the actual nazis will seem attractive, of course.
    , @reiner Tor

    I thought, according to you, that we can’t know this.
     
    About actual, historical Nazis? We do know, because they wrote a large number of secret documents. It's easy to compare those with their public stance or their later protestations of ignorance of the issue.

    One such group would be Holocaust deniers.
     
    As long as it's a public position, it's easy to exclude them. But how easy it is if they lie about it? How can you know there's no holocaust denier in the US Senate? You can't, because it's impossible for mortals to know.

    A second group would be people who have the haircut that Holocaust deniers have trademarked
     
    "Fashy" haircuts are trademarked by the Spencer-type alt-right, which - to my knowledge - is not denying the holocaust, and Spencer is (or was? not sure) actually associated with Paul Gottfried, a Jew.

    and have that haircut specifically to identify with Holocaust deniers
     
    How do you know why someone has a specific haircut?

    I have mine because I don't like spending money on hairdressers, and most people are actually surprised I cut my own hair (which means it's probably not fantastic, but it's okay). I perhaps also have it because I view it as manlier than a lot (but of course not all) of the alternatives. Also my hair is curly, and the longer it gets, the more Afro it becomes. There are just not many good alternatives for me. I certainly don't want to be associated with lowbrow skinheads, but I never shave my head totally bald. (Okay, that's mostly not because I care for skinheads one way or the other, but because my skin is sensitive - I don't want a sunburnt skull.) A fashy hairstyle might look better than the current one, or one where I used an enormous amounts of grease - I don't know. I once tried to become metrosexual, but I have so little interest in my appearance that it kept falling apart. Now my interest in other people's haircuts is even less than in my own. You can imagine how deranged I think people who try to sniff out... Nazi haircuts.

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?
     
    The media would associate us no matter what. Look, they are associating Eric Trump's frigging haircut with Nazis. How deranged is that? And yet it works among a significant portion of the populace.

    The way to deal with it is how Trump dealt with it in the campaign: he just brushed it off. Nationalist parties often didn't follow that advice (not to speak of more mainstream conservatives), instead tried the "apologize and disassociate oneself from" strategy, which proved to be a failure, over and over again.
  51. iffen says:
    @Randal
    What reiner Tor said, pretty much.

    The witch-hunting for Nazis (/homophobes/racists/sexists etc) amongst people who decline to publicly endorse nazism is part and parcel of the general leftist smearing of moderate right-wing, conservative, nativist and nationalist opinions and people. If communists, anti-white racists and other mass murderous and implicitly violent radicals of the left are going to be accepted as part of legitimate political discourse, as they have been for decades now, then so should Nazis, white nationalists etc. be allowed to have their say and be protected from the consequences of upsetting people just as the left extremists are.

    You are being pig-headed.

    You are just saying, “Nobody can interfere with my rights of association,” as some sort of free-floating idealism. Look at the practical effects, not some ideal that will not secure your goal.

    Let the frigging nazis defend themselves, don’t do it for them.

    Read More
  52. Truth says:
    @Priss Factor
    The TRUTH About Charlottesville

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVOg3ti5MLk

    No, that’s not the truth about “Charlottesille.” The real truth about Charlottesille is:

    PRISS FACTOR WASN’T THERE. HE WAS AT HOME PUTTING UP BORING 2,600 WORD RESPONSES NO ONE READS, TELLING OTHER WHITE MEN WHAT TO DO, BECAUSE HE’S A BIG, PINK CHICKENSCHEISS!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    PRISS FACTOR WASN’T THERE. HE WAS AT HOME PUTTING UP BORING 2,600 WORD

    You is wisest Negro, Truth.

    You is so right.

    Having growed up with Negroes in my youth and observed their behavior, I learned the most precious lesson of life.

    The ten commandments of survival.

    1. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    2. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    3. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    4. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    5. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    6. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    7. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    8. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    9. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    10. Run some mo' and try to hide.

    That's how the Negroes survived. They ran at the first sign of trouble, and there aint no way I'm gong to Charlottesville which have some scary looking Negroes.

    DID YOU SEE THIS BIG-MUSCLED NEGROID?

    https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B9aCcsVKojQ/WZDhV3-pTXI/AAAAAAAAZ_w/XgebAdryRU4ivVZIjniu-xRcJfVLCHHiwCLcBGAs/s1600/Flamethrower.jpg

    One look at that dude, and I'm running like a mothafuc*a and never return to where he be.
    Dude's crazy. He looks tough enough to whup every white boy there but he still brought a blow torch. Only a hippo can whup his ass.

    You might whup his, being a Negroid yourself, but I'm just running and hiding.
  53. Wulf says:
    @reiner Tor
    Your link says that haircut was popular among the working class and it was mainstream fashion during the jazz age in the 1920s and 1930s. It is a macho hairstyle. Frigging Brad Pitt uses it, and he's the epitome of leftiness. Why shouldn't it be used by right-wingers?

    My hair is short everywhere, because I cut my hair with a shaver (to maybe 1/5 of an inch), and then let it grow until it reaches an inch. I guess you disapprove, because skinheads. Long hair might be associated with the fringe NSBM musical movement. So what's left? Do you approve the Speer or Goebbels haircut?

    You need everything explained to you like a little child, and I have not the time nor the patience to deal with thick types.

    I indeed disapprove of your retarded hairstyle. I would recommend the full retard hairstyle instead:

    https://travelswithstanchaks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/img_3187.jpg?w=700&h=

    Or something like this if you insist on having it short:

    Have a good day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The "fashy" haircut looks good, why is it a problem that members of the alt-right often use it? How many alternatives there are? You seem to disapprove of all short manly haircuts, so how should alt-right people look like? Do you think it's realistic to expect of a movement not to have a hairstyle fashion? Do you think it's realistic to expect a rightist movement for that fashion not to be some sort of short, manly, military style haircut? I mean, come on.
  54. iffen says:
    @Randal
    What reiner Tor said, pretty much.

    The witch-hunting for Nazis (/homophobes/racists/sexists etc) amongst people who decline to publicly endorse nazism is part and parcel of the general leftist smearing of moderate right-wing, conservative, nativist and nationalist opinions and people. If communists, anti-white racists and other mass murderous and implicitly violent radicals of the left are going to be accepted as part of legitimate political discourse, as they have been for decades now, then so should Nazis, white nationalists etc. be allowed to have their say and be protected from the consequences of upsetting people just as the left extremists are.

    Witch-hunting is a failed analogy; there are no witches.

    There are actual nazis.

    Read More
  55. @Daniel Chieh
    My knowledge of the unironic Nazis is that they try not to think too hard about what Hitler really believed, which is a fair thing, because he also changed his mind a few times. Its the overall aesthetic that draws them and the general ideas, in the form of religion, gets modified to fit the thinker's ideas.

    Few of them bother to think deeply enough to worry that Hitler wanted to kill a lot of Slavs, that had Germany won the war, the SS had plans to create themselves a permanent aristocratic class over other Germans, or that Hitler even said favorable things about Islam plus the weird confusing mess with Germany supporting at various turns, Japan and China.

    They're seeking an ideology. Ideology is pure and allows them to believe in pure and impossible things. The Reich, in comparison, had to exist in the real world and seemed willing to compromise ideology for survival and power multiple times.

    To be honest, I also like the aesthetic. A recommended reading is “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics” by Frederic Spotts. Hitler really had some artistic talents (he’d have been a formidable architect and perhaps an opera director), and his talents were basically best fit for a dictator designing the imagery of his dictatorship. Which he just happened to be. It’s a pity because of his murderous policies that imagery seems to be tainted for the rest of history (though who knows, what will happen once the current Western civilization collapses? which is bound to happen sooner or later), because swastikas are cool symbols, as is the Sigrune, and of course the uniforms, the buildings, the Parteitagen, these are all powerful stuff. A lot of it is used in popular culture, e.g. pop/rock/metal concerts vs. party rallies, or Nazi hats used by bikers, or eagles used by heavy metal bands, or whatever.

    But I do think about what the actual Nazis actually did, and don’t like it that much. I’d be able to like a Nazi Germany which stopped at its 1939 borders (minus Bohemia, plus maybe Danzig itself, definitely not the corridor – had Hitler not invaded rump Czechia in March 1939, he’d probably have been able to negotiate Danzig with the Poles). Had that happened, one could easily overlook the violence (up to then) against Jews (which would’ve decreased anyway as the Jews would’ve left Germany for good), or some other less than ideal things (like chasing away Paul Hindemith).

    Anyway, even Soviet aesthetics had some good things about it, as did Confederate, etc. aesthetics. Did Nazi Germany still exist, its aesthetic would already be at least somewhat different from what it had been before 1945. We need to create our own, new aesthetics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard
    Hitler had no intention of negotiating Danzig with the Poles with whom he had just disingenuously conspired to annex the Sudetenland. Read Mein Kampf for God's sake.
  56. Talha says:
    @James Richard
    Why isn't this guy wearing a shirt?

    Clickbait??!!

    He might even…not be wearing pants!!!

    Read More
  57. Randal says:
    @iffen
    they were simply lying about it

    I thought, according to you, that we can’t know this. :)

    I am not sure that you understand my position.

    Let’s be specific to get at what I think.

    If I wanted to create a political organization to fight for and defend American nationalism, I would exclude those individuals who do not share the goals of American nationalism and those individuals who would prevent the growth and success of the organization. One such group would be Holocaust deniers. A second group would be people who have the haircut that Holocaust deniers have trademarked and have that haircut specifically to identify with Holocaust deniers.

    I don’t see it as that complicated. I truly do not understand people who think that there are no consequences in not separating oneself upon the basis of political beliefs.

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?

    Yes, and the only answer to that situation is to end the political taboo that achieves that for the left/establishment right.

    The approach you advocate, of desperately apologising to the left and the identity lobbyists, and dissociating oneself from anyone successfully smeared as a closet Nazi/racist/homophobe/sexist, was tried by the “respectable” right for decades, and it just justifies the taboo and invites further witch-finding and ever more progressively drawn lines that it is unacceptable to cross. And meanwhile the identity lobbyists behind whichever particular smear it is (jewish nationalists, black anti-white racists, homosexualists, feminists) just get handed an ever sharper weapon to use to cut down anyone who stands in their way, and their lobby fodder gets ever more bitter about their suppose victimhood and ever more willing to justify, support and engage in prohibition, censorship and violence against those they are told are responsible for past, present and future injustices.

    You are just saying, “Nobody can interfere with my rights of association,” as some sort of free-floating idealism. Look at the practical effects, not some ideal that will not secure your goal.

    You have it backwards. It’s your method that has been tried for decades now and failed completely.

    Witch-hunting is a failed analogy; there are no witches. There are actual nazis.

    The problem with witch-finding was not that there were no witches, but that innocent people were regularly accused of being witches by zealots and opportunists and railroaded into being held guilty of it.

    There are actual nazis.

    A fringe of a fringe. Though the more the left commits the kind of violence against peaceful political expression seen with Black Lives Matter and the attack on the Charlottesville gathering, the more the actual nazis will seem attractive, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Actual Nazis have little going for them other than their reputation for extremism (which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis). The actual policies and concerns of 1930s NatSocs are of concern, as you said, only to an incredibly small and politically irrelevant group.
    , @iffen
    Well, the organizers of Unite the Right seem to share your enthusiasm for a big tent with a safe space for nazis, we'll see out it plays out. I can't see any benefit to anyone except nazis.
  58. Just a quick reminder:Richard Spencer did not organize and fund the NEO-NAZI Coup in the Ukraine….The homosexual Keneyan Foreigner POTUS gave a direct order to organize and fund the NEO-NAZI Coup in the Ukraine. Who did the Antifa cockroaches in Charlottesville vote for in 2008-2012 for POTUS?

    Answer:The homosexual Kenyan Foreigner Negro from Kenyan….

    The Historic Native Born White American Working Class is under no obligation to tolerate being voted into a violently persecuted racial minority by Asian LEGAL IMMIGRANTS and their US born Asian GENELINE….and Pakistani Muslim “Americans” also…

    THEY WILL NOT REPLACE US!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    THEY WILL NOT REPLACE US!!!!
     
    Agreed - White people will be around till the Day of Judgement. They aren't going anywhere - they're just in kind of a rut right now. Took them a while to get here, but they'll get up, dust it off and be back in the game soon - I just don't know when exactly but I'm certain it'll happen.

    Peace.
  59. THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN MAJORITY

    THEY WILL NOT REPLACE US!!!!

    AMERICA DOES NOT BELONG TO THE TATA INSTITUTE GRADS….

    FUCK YOU NOAM CHOMSKY!!!

    Read More
  60. @Daniel Chieh
    I do not think the Confederacy should be conflated with the Nazis. They were massively different in mentality and though outdated, I would argue that the South did actually have a coherent culture and lifestyle of existence. We have no evidence that the Reich would ever manage that - from the notes in their plans, it seemed really chaotic even had they managed to defeat the world.

    The Third Reich were the enablers of the Bosnian Muzzies….just like the Charlottesville Antifa’s favorite pinup girl:The old farting-horse-fly-green pantsuit-wearing hairy mole-on-the-face-bulldyke Hillary Clinton…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey WFBM,

    The Third Reich were the enablers of the Bosnian Muzzies
     
    This is true. Given that the USSR was decidedly anti-religion (if you don't know what the Soviet leadership did to Christian and Muslim religious leadership, I suggest you read up on it), the Bosnians went with the side that would at least respect their religious identity.

    They weren't all that much into Nazi claims to awesomeness though, they were much more interested in how Germany could assist them in holding their turf:
    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/

    "The Nazis tried to cater to the Muslim religious needs of their recruits, but the soldiers themselves cared more about protecting their homeland (as promised by the Nazis), than anything else the SS and Himmler told them about racial equality/superiority to the inferior Jews…The soldiers were only interested in protecting their homeland in Bosnia, so any incursions into Croatia or Serbia to help the Nazi allies or war effort there met with consternation among the soldiers, and even more desertions."
    https://ww2gravestone.com/muslim-members-waffen-ss-13th-division/

    Peace.
  61. What do the Antifas and Governor Terry McAuliffe want?

    ANSWER:The demographic extermination of the HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS….

    WE WILL NOT BE REPLACED!!!!

    Read More
  62. Talha says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Just a quick reminder:Richard Spencer did not organize and fund the NEO-NAZI Coup in the Ukraine....The homosexual Keneyan Foreigner POTUS gave a direct order to organize and fund the NEO-NAZI Coup in the Ukraine. Who did the Antifa cockroaches in Charlottesville vote for in 2008-2012 for POTUS?


    Answer:The homosexual Kenyan Foreigner Negro from Kenyan....


    The Historic Native Born White American Working Class is under no obligation to tolerate being voted into a violently persecuted racial minority by Asian LEGAL IMMIGRANTS and their US born Asian GENELINE....and Pakistani Muslim "Americans" also...


    THEY WILL NOT REPLACE US!!!!

    THEY WILL NOT REPLACE US!!!!

    Agreed – White people will be around till the Day of Judgement. They aren’t going anywhere – they’re just in kind of a rut right now. Took them a while to get here, but they’ll get up, dust it off and be back in the game soon – I just don’t know when exactly but I’m certain it’ll happen.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    The race revolt should have commenced in 1979 when the Iranians held US Embassy Workers Hostage....I am for being friends with Shia Muslim Iran...but Post-1979....all Iranians should have been expelled out of our America....along with the Paki Muslim "Americans"....in 2017..the California secessionist movement is lead by a billionaire Iranian "American"...fuck this shit...and fuck Richard Spencer's White Ethnostate...California belongs to our People....BRING BACK THE CHINESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!
  63. Newly discovered species of cockroach by entymologists:Terrius McAuliffus Blattarious….which lives and breeds up in Hillary Clinton’s filthy fat arse…..

    Read More
  64. @Wulf
    Now, before accusing people of doing what you yourself just did, namely going full retard, how about you use that underpowered brain of yours and google hitlerjugend haarschnitt and nazi haircut?

    https://www.google.de/search?q=hitlerjugend+haarschnitt&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbsvCvg9fVAhUMb1AKHXgMDFMQ_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    https://www.google.de/search?q=nazi+haircut&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgtqzSidfVAhXRKlAKHRV_Ai4Q_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=666

    From Wikipedia

    "In Nazi Germany, a version of this haircut which was long on top but shaved at the back and sides was popular among Wehrmacht officers.[5]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Origins

    There is a general perception, whether we like it or not, that associates that haircut with the far right and Nazi Germany, because Allies' military haircuts used to be more neutral, ie shorter at the top and longer at the sides in the case of officers, with less contrast between layers, no matter what Brad Pitt sports in the latests WWII movies, which are German WWII military haircuts. So please spare me the bullshit of "generic military haircuts".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercut_%28hairstyle%29#Association_with_the_far_right

    I admit that the undercut haircut is lately fashionable - and so are bomber jackets and dr Marteens boots - but unless you look like a complete hipster or have a rockabilly style, I would avoid sporting it, as I would avoid wearing a bomber jacket, dr marteens long boots and a buzzcut to assist to a White Nationalist rally and I do not want to give the impression of being a Nazi skinhead.

    Do we want to be taken seriously? so ditch the fucking HJ-SS haircut unless you sport it with a hipster moustache or beard and hipster or vintage rockabilly clothes.

    Otherwise you just look like Richard Spencer, a retarded clown "jokingly" using the roman salute, screaming Heil Trump, tolerating people seriously using the roman salute at his meetings and generally not to be taken seriously.

    I was always displeased when my sergeants in the USMC would make me get “whitewalls.” Now that I am older and wiser I realize that it was standard practice in the Corps to keep lance corporals in a constant state of murderous (but controlled) rage. It’s what the Corps is all about.

    Richard Spencer is a poser.

    Read More
  65. @Talha

    THEY WILL NOT REPLACE US!!!!
     
    Agreed - White people will be around till the Day of Judgement. They aren't going anywhere - they're just in kind of a rut right now. Took them a while to get here, but they'll get up, dust it off and be back in the game soon - I just don't know when exactly but I'm certain it'll happen.

    Peace.

    The race revolt should have commenced in 1979 when the Iranians held US Embassy Workers Hostage….I am for being friends with Shia Muslim Iran…but Post-1979….all Iranians should have been expelled out of our America….along with the Paki Muslim “Americans”….in 2017..the California secessionist movement is lead by a billionaire Iranian “American”…fuck this shit…and fuck Richard Spencer’s White Ethnostate…California belongs to our People….BRING BACK THE CHINESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Bro - you're shouting at the wrong guy. You gotta let your representatives know you want to repeal all the immigration laws and retroactively send non-White immigrants back to countries of origin. There is a normal procedure to repeal laws (even at the highest level) - see the Volstead Act as a prime example. As I have stated before, I am a law-abiding citizen. If the Federal government sends me an official notice that my citizenship has been revoked and my right to residence has been repealed - I will make plans and leave.

    As yet, I see a bunch of noise on the Internet, but my White neighbors get along swell with me and send their kids to my house to play with my boys (maybe they're spying on me) - so I need something more substantial than random shouting on the Internet by anonymous people that shows I need to get the hell outta Dodge.

    Peace.
  66. Talha says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The Third Reich were the enablers of the Bosnian Muzzies....just like the Charlottesville Antifa's favorite pinup girl:The old farting-horse-fly-green pantsuit-wearing hairy mole-on-the-face-bulldyke Hillary Clinton.....

    Hey WFBM,

    The Third Reich were the enablers of the Bosnian Muzzies

    This is true. Given that the USSR was decidedly anti-religion (if you don’t know what the Soviet leadership did to Christian and Muslim religious leadership, I suggest you read up on it), the Bosnians went with the side that would at least respect their religious identity.

    They weren’t all that much into Nazi claims to awesomeness though, they were much more interested in how Germany could assist them in holding their turf:

    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/

    “The Nazis tried to cater to the Muslim religious needs of their recruits, but the soldiers themselves cared more about protecting their homeland (as promised by the Nazis), than anything else the SS and Himmler told them about racial equality/superiority to the inferior Jews…The soldiers were only interested in protecting their homeland in Bosnia, so any incursions into Croatia or Serbia to help the Nazi allies or war effort there met with consternation among the soldiers, and even more desertions.”

    https://ww2gravestone.com/muslim-members-waffen-ss-13th-division/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Your a fucking fool...

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People....


    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline....

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe....

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians...Go Fuck yourself....Go fuck yourself...
  67. @iffen
    they were simply lying about it

    I thought, according to you, that we can’t know this. :)

    I am not sure that you understand my position.

    Let’s be specific to get at what I think.

    If I wanted to create a political organization to fight for and defend American nationalism, I would exclude those individuals who do not share the goals of American nationalism and those individuals who would prevent the growth and success of the organization. One such group would be Holocaust deniers. A second group would be people who have the haircut that Holocaust deniers have trademarked and have that haircut specifically to identify with Holocaust deniers.

    I don’t see it as that complicated. I truly do not understand people who think that there are no consequences in not separating oneself upon the basis of political beliefs.

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?

    I thought, according to you, that we can’t know this.

    About actual, historical Nazis? We do know, because they wrote a large number of secret documents. It’s easy to compare those with their public stance or their later protestations of ignorance of the issue.

    One such group would be Holocaust deniers.

    As long as it’s a public position, it’s easy to exclude them. But how easy it is if they lie about it? How can you know there’s no holocaust denier in the US Senate? You can’t, because it’s impossible for mortals to know.

    A second group would be people who have the haircut that Holocaust deniers have trademarked

    “Fashy” haircuts are trademarked by the Spencer-type alt-right, which – to my knowledge – is not denying the holocaust, and Spencer is (or was? not sure) actually associated with Paul Gottfried, a Jew.

    and have that haircut specifically to identify with Holocaust deniers

    How do you know why someone has a specific haircut?

    I have mine because I don’t like spending money on hairdressers, and most people are actually surprised I cut my own hair (which means it’s probably not fantastic, but it’s okay). I perhaps also have it because I view it as manlier than a lot (but of course not all) of the alternatives. Also my hair is curly, and the longer it gets, the more Afro it becomes. There are just not many good alternatives for me. I certainly don’t want to be associated with lowbrow skinheads, but I never shave my head totally bald. (Okay, that’s mostly not because I care for skinheads one way or the other, but because my skin is sensitive – I don’t want a sunburnt skull.) A fashy hairstyle might look better than the current one, or one where I used an enormous amounts of grease – I don’t know. I once tried to become metrosexual, but I have so little interest in my appearance that it kept falling apart. Now my interest in other people’s haircuts is even less than in my own. You can imagine how deranged I think people who try to sniff out… Nazi haircuts.

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?

    The media would associate us no matter what. Look, they are associating Eric Trump’s frigging haircut with Nazis. How deranged is that? And yet it works among a significant portion of the populace.

    The way to deal with it is how Trump dealt with it in the campaign: he just brushed it off. Nationalist parties often didn’t follow that advice (not to speak of more mainstream conservatives), instead tried the “apologize and disassociate oneself from” strategy, which proved to be a failure, over and over again.

    Read More
  68. Let’s be honest…the young Antifa “female” who was killed Saturday…came to Charlottesville with intent to injure….maime….possibly kill Richard Spencer and other Alt Right Men and Women….

    Read More
  69. @Wulf
    You need everything explained to you like a little child, and I have not the time nor the patience to deal with thick types.

    I indeed disapprove of your retarded hairstyle. I would recommend the full retard hairstyle instead:

    https://travelswithstanchaks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/img_3187.jpg?w=700&h=

    Or something like this if you insist on having it short:

    http://www.jokeoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hair.jpg

    Have a good day.

    The “fashy” haircut looks good, why is it a problem that members of the alt-right often use it? How many alternatives there are? You seem to disapprove of all short manly haircuts, so how should alt-right people look like? Do you think it’s realistic to expect of a movement not to have a hairstyle fashion? Do you think it’s realistic to expect a rightist movement for that fashion not to be some sort of short, manly, military style haircut? I mean, come on.

    Read More
  70. @Daniel Chieh
    My knowledge of the unironic Nazis is that they try not to think too hard about what Hitler really believed, which is a fair thing, because he also changed his mind a few times. Its the overall aesthetic that draws them and the general ideas, in the form of religion, gets modified to fit the thinker's ideas.

    Few of them bother to think deeply enough to worry that Hitler wanted to kill a lot of Slavs, that had Germany won the war, the SS had plans to create themselves a permanent aristocratic class over other Germans, or that Hitler even said favorable things about Islam plus the weird confusing mess with Germany supporting at various turns, Japan and China.

    They're seeking an ideology. Ideology is pure and allows them to believe in pure and impossible things. The Reich, in comparison, had to exist in the real world and seemed willing to compromise ideology for survival and power multiple times.

    Everyone likes NAZI uniforms. That’s why they are always swanking about in them in WWII films mostly produced by leftist Hollywood Jews. I do prefer the British Army’s belted style replete with Sam Brown belt and swagger stick. The USMC still maintains a belted jacket although political correctness has proletarianized the Army uniform into Soviet ugliness. It’s a shame that they had to give up the Sam Brown belt and swagger sticks though. Those sticks come in handy when whipping a slash across the face of the lower echelons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Soviet ugliness
     
    Post-1943 (especially post-1969) Soviet uniforms weren't so bad. But present Russian uniforms look better.
  71. Talha says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The race revolt should have commenced in 1979 when the Iranians held US Embassy Workers Hostage....I am for being friends with Shia Muslim Iran...but Post-1979....all Iranians should have been expelled out of our America....along with the Paki Muslim "Americans"....in 2017..the California secessionist movement is lead by a billionaire Iranian "American"...fuck this shit...and fuck Richard Spencer's White Ethnostate...California belongs to our People....BRING BACK THE CHINESE LEGAL IMMIGRANT EXCLUSION ACT!!

    Bro – you’re shouting at the wrong guy. You gotta let your representatives know you want to repeal all the immigration laws and retroactively send non-White immigrants back to countries of origin. There is a normal procedure to repeal laws (even at the highest level) – see the Volstead Act as a prime example. As I have stated before, I am a law-abiding citizen. If the Federal government sends me an official notice that my citizenship has been revoked and my right to residence has been repealed – I will make plans and leave.

    As yet, I see a bunch of noise on the Internet, but my White neighbors get along swell with me and send their kids to my house to play with my boys (maybe they’re spying on me) – so I need something more substantial than random shouting on the Internet by anonymous people that shows I need to get the hell outta Dodge.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    Hi Talha.

    I'm glad to hear you get along with your neighbors. But do you think that you might be suffering from the kind of sampling bias that I have discussed here before? You are a highly educated person, and so presumably are your neighbors, so you are likely to get along with each other better than either of you might with people at a closer genetic distance but at a far greater social distance.
    , @neutral
    As the number of non whites become ever more, then white flight happens, this is pretty much always the case. If ever more non whites like you make up the neighborhood then expect this "get along" thing to rapidly change.
  72. @Talha
    Hey WFBM,

    The Third Reich were the enablers of the Bosnian Muzzies
     
    This is true. Given that the USSR was decidedly anti-religion (if you don't know what the Soviet leadership did to Christian and Muslim religious leadership, I suggest you read up on it), the Bosnians went with the side that would at least respect their religious identity.

    They weren't all that much into Nazi claims to awesomeness though, they were much more interested in how Germany could assist them in holding their turf:
    http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/

    "The Nazis tried to cater to the Muslim religious needs of their recruits, but the soldiers themselves cared more about protecting their homeland (as promised by the Nazis), than anything else the SS and Himmler told them about racial equality/superiority to the inferior Jews…The soldiers were only interested in protecting their homeland in Bosnia, so any incursions into Croatia or Serbia to help the Nazi allies or war effort there met with consternation among the soldiers, and even more desertions."
    https://ww2gravestone.com/muslim-members-waffen-ss-13th-division/

    Peace.

    Your a fucking fool…

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People….

    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline….

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe….

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians…Go Fuck yourself….Go fuck yourself…

    Read More
    • Troll: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Talha

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe
     
    Yeah - pretty much and they had belts saying "God is with us"...whack! You don't have to convince me of this - there are a few others on UNZ that seem to think the Nazis didn't do as good a job as they should have - you should talk to them.

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians
     
    Uh - yeah, reflexively, since I am Muslim. But I just posted links to how most Bosnian Muslims in the SS weren't interested in fighting to expand German territory and deserted when they were marched into Croatia or Serbia so I don't see your point - I wish more SS soldiers would have had the same mentality when marched into foreign territory - would have saved a whole lot of death and destruction. If you think Communist takeover of Yugoslavia was fantastic stuff, that's your opinion - why should I feel the same?

    Peace.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you're correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.
    , @The Big Red Scary
    Yeah, this machine killed fascists:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina#/media/File%3ARoza_Shanina.jpg
    , @melanf

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People….
    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline….
     
    The girl who was the model for this sculpture
    http://imgur.com/a/BabO9
    was wounded in battle, taken prisoner, and hanged by the Germans on 29 November 1941
  73. Donald Trump just threw the Alt Right overboard…

    How much does the Slovenian Whore charge Donald Trump per hour?

    Read More
  74. @James Richard
    Everyone likes NAZI uniforms. That's why they are always swanking about in them in WWII films mostly produced by leftist Hollywood Jews. I do prefer the British Army's belted style replete with Sam Brown belt and swagger stick. The USMC still maintains a belted jacket although political correctness has proletarianized the Army uniform into Soviet ugliness. It's a shame that they had to give up the Sam Brown belt and swagger sticks though. Those sticks come in handy when whipping a slash across the face of the lower echelons.

    Soviet ugliness

    Post-1943 (especially post-1969) Soviet uniforms weren’t so bad. But present Russian uniforms look better.

    Read More
  75. @reiner Tor
    To be honest, I also like the aesthetic. A recommended reading is "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics" by Frederic Spotts. Hitler really had some artistic talents (he'd have been a formidable architect and perhaps an opera director), and his talents were basically best fit for a dictator designing the imagery of his dictatorship. Which he just happened to be. It's a pity because of his murderous policies that imagery seems to be tainted for the rest of history (though who knows, what will happen once the current Western civilization collapses? which is bound to happen sooner or later), because swastikas are cool symbols, as is the Sigrune, and of course the uniforms, the buildings, the Parteitagen, these are all powerful stuff. A lot of it is used in popular culture, e.g. pop/rock/metal concerts vs. party rallies, or Nazi hats used by bikers, or eagles used by heavy metal bands, or whatever.

    But I do think about what the actual Nazis actually did, and don't like it that much. I'd be able to like a Nazi Germany which stopped at its 1939 borders (minus Bohemia, plus maybe Danzig itself, definitely not the corridor - had Hitler not invaded rump Czechia in March 1939, he'd probably have been able to negotiate Danzig with the Poles). Had that happened, one could easily overlook the violence (up to then) against Jews (which would've decreased anyway as the Jews would've left Germany for good), or some other less than ideal things (like chasing away Paul Hindemith).

    Anyway, even Soviet aesthetics had some good things about it, as did Confederate, etc. aesthetics. Did Nazi Germany still exist, its aesthetic would already be at least somewhat different from what it had been before 1945. We need to create our own, new aesthetics.

    Hitler had no intention of negotiating Danzig with the Poles with whom he had just disingenuously conspired to annex the Sudetenland. Read Mein Kampf for God’s sake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I never stated Hitler had any such intentions.

    I only said I'd have no problem with Nazi Germany if that was what it did. Then it would only have murdered a few thousand people, which is a lot, but perhaps worthy if Germany than would have an explicitly racialist ideology with no intention of replacing its population, encouraging similar worldviews in other countries in its sphere of influence.

    Of course Hitler was never interested in it, he was more interested in an apocalyptic struggle for lebensraum.
    , @utu
    No, he did. Till March 1939 even Poles were open to it. British guarantees changed all of this. If Poles had any brains they would have come to some agreement with Hitler. Instead they opted to be the first victim of him which was the worst scenarios from the point of view of Poland's interest.
  76. Talha says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Your a fucking fool...

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People....


    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline....

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe....

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians...Go Fuck yourself....Go fuck yourself...

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe

    Yeah – pretty much and they had belts saying “God is with us”…whack! You don’t have to convince me of this – there are a few others on UNZ that seem to think the Nazis didn’t do as good a job as they should have – you should talk to them.

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians

    Uh – yeah, reflexively, since I am Muslim. But I just posted links to how most Bosnian Muslims in the SS weren’t interested in fighting to expand German territory and deserted when they were marched into Croatia or Serbia so I don’t see your point – I wish more SS soldiers would have had the same mentality when marched into foreign territory – would have saved a whole lot of death and destruction. If you think Communist takeover of Yugoslavia was fantastic stuff, that’s your opinion – why should I feel the same?

    Peace.

    Read More
  77. @War for Blair Mountain
    Your a fucking fool...

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People....


    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline....

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe....

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians...Go Fuck yourself....Go fuck yourself...

    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you’re correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you’re correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.
     

    Well the reality is that as far as the three way political struggle in pre-WW2 Germany is concerned, between liberal-ish democracy on the one hand and leftist socialist and nationalist authoritarians on the other, it was the Nazis who won absolutely hands down, even before they were in a position to fully rig the elections. National and volkische solidarity had a far stronger appeal than either leftist internationalist ideology or liberal theorising. If Hitler hadn't over-reached himself in his foreign policies once in power (yes, as he'd always dreamed of being able to do), who can say what the outcome would have been?

    All the same techniques were used against them and the parties of the right then as are used against the non-establishment political right now - "hate speech" censorship and criminalisation, organised violent attacks on their supporters, parties and meetings by the socialists, exclusion from respectable society. One key difference between then and now is that economic times are not as hard and we in the US sphere aren't in the aftermath of a total military defeat (modern US interventionist wars of choice are not to be compared with a real war like WW1/2). Another is that there was much less leftist infiltration of the key state organs (courts, police etc) than there is in the societies of today's US sphere.

    How important those differences will prove to be remains to be seen. Personally, I don't think we are in a precursor situation to an authoritarian nationalist victory, unless the leftist elites really do keep pushing as hard as they are doing at the moment and the establishment right keeps siding with them until it's too late for anything but a choice between totalitarianisms..

    , @The Big Red Scary
    Not to mention that the last time fascists went to war with commies, the commies won.
  78. @James Richard
    Hitler had no intention of negotiating Danzig with the Poles with whom he had just disingenuously conspired to annex the Sudetenland. Read Mein Kampf for God's sake.

    I never stated Hitler had any such intentions.

    I only said I’d have no problem with Nazi Germany if that was what it did. Then it would only have murdered a few thousand people, which is a lot, but perhaps worthy if Germany than would have an explicitly racialist ideology with no intention of replacing its population, encouraging similar worldviews in other countries in its sphere of influence.

    Of course Hitler was never interested in it, he was more interested in an apocalyptic struggle for lebensraum.

    Read More
  79. @War for Blair Mountain
    Your a fucking fool...

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People....


    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline....

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe....

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians...Go Fuck yourself....Go fuck yourself...

    Yeah, this machine killed fascists:

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    That was supposed to have a picture of Roza Shanina. How does one include images and urls? Anyway, here is something from her Wikipedia page:

    She once told a story when "about half a hundred frenzied fascists with wild cries" attacked a trench accommodating twelve female snipers, including Shanina: "Some fell from our well-aimed bullets, some we finished with our bayonets, grenades, shovels, and some we took prisoners, having restrained their arms."
  80. @Talha
    Bro - you're shouting at the wrong guy. You gotta let your representatives know you want to repeal all the immigration laws and retroactively send non-White immigrants back to countries of origin. There is a normal procedure to repeal laws (even at the highest level) - see the Volstead Act as a prime example. As I have stated before, I am a law-abiding citizen. If the Federal government sends me an official notice that my citizenship has been revoked and my right to residence has been repealed - I will make plans and leave.

    As yet, I see a bunch of noise on the Internet, but my White neighbors get along swell with me and send their kids to my house to play with my boys (maybe they're spying on me) - so I need something more substantial than random shouting on the Internet by anonymous people that shows I need to get the hell outta Dodge.

    Peace.

    Hi Talha.

    I’m glad to hear you get along with your neighbors. But do you think that you might be suffering from the kind of sampling bias that I have discussed here before? You are a highly educated person, and so presumably are your neighbors, so you are likely to get along with each other better than either of you might with people at a closer genetic distance but at a far greater social distance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TBRS,

    Yes indeed - I do admit I'm in a very nice (and well-to-do) part of the Chicago area. Many people here are inclusive (whether Left or Right) and fairly cool with people of other ethnicities. I totally agree with you about the genetic distance vs social distance. There are parts of my native Pakistan I have no wish to step in just like many of my White neighbors have little wish to step into certain White-majority areas in the US. But, again, my neighbors and other Whites in the US (for instance very sincere converts that I know and am closer to than any run-of-the-mill Pakistani) are part of the US milieu and their opinion counts just as much as the ones that want me out. So for me, it's simply a numbers game to be decided at the Federal level - where all these immigration/residency/citizenship issues are hashed out. What do I care if some guy in San Diego or Tulsa wants me to leave - I don't deal with him on a daily basis nor he with me.

    Peace.
  81. @The Big Red Scary
    Yeah, this machine killed fascists:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina#/media/File%3ARoza_Shanina.jpg

    That was supposed to have a picture of Roza Shanina. How does one include images and urls? Anyway, here is something from her Wikipedia page:

    She once told a story when “about half a hundred frenzied fascists with wild cries” attacked a trench accommodating twelve female snipers, including Shanina: “Some fell from our well-aimed bullets, some we finished with our bayonets, grenades, shovels, and some we took prisoners, having restrained their arms.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There's no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there. A German battalion facing a Soviet battalion would have noticeably lower losses than the same battalion facing a Soviet battalion plus such a super-sniper.
    , @res

    That was supposed to have a picture of Roza Shanina. How does one include images and urls? Anyway, here is something from her Wikipedia page:
     
    I think you need to make sure of the following:
    - The link ends in jpg (or png, etc.), things like width or height tags at the end prevent inline expansion.
    - The link needs to be to the jpg itself. Yours was to the jpg shown in some kind of browser viewer.

    Let's see if this works: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Roza_Shanina.jpg

    I got that link by right clicking on the image itself at your link and selecting "Copy image address"
  82. Talha says:
    @The Big Red Scary
    Hi Talha.

    I'm glad to hear you get along with your neighbors. But do you think that you might be suffering from the kind of sampling bias that I have discussed here before? You are a highly educated person, and so presumably are your neighbors, so you are likely to get along with each other better than either of you might with people at a closer genetic distance but at a far greater social distance.

    Hey TBRS,

    Yes indeed – I do admit I’m in a very nice (and well-to-do) part of the Chicago area. Many people here are inclusive (whether Left or Right) and fairly cool with people of other ethnicities. I totally agree with you about the genetic distance vs social distance. There are parts of my native Pakistan I have no wish to step in just like many of my White neighbors have little wish to step into certain White-majority areas in the US. But, again, my neighbors and other Whites in the US (for instance very sincere converts that I know and am closer to than any run-of-the-mill Pakistani) are part of the US milieu and their opinion counts just as much as the ones that want me out. So for me, it’s simply a numbers game to be decided at the Federal level – where all these immigration/residency/citizenship issues are hashed out. What do I care if some guy in San Diego or Tulsa wants me to leave – I don’t deal with him on a daily basis nor he with me.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    You mean converts to Islam? What is their religious background? What are their motivations?
  83. @The Big Red Scary
    That was supposed to have a picture of Roza Shanina. How does one include images and urls? Anyway, here is something from her Wikipedia page:

    She once told a story when "about half a hundred frenzied fascists with wild cries" attacked a trench accommodating twelve female snipers, including Shanina: "Some fell from our well-aimed bullets, some we finished with our bayonets, grenades, shovels, and some we took prisoners, having restrained their arms."

    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There’s no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there. A German battalion facing a Soviet battalion would have noticeably lower losses than the same battalion facing a Soviet battalion plus such a super-sniper.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    That's interesting. I'll look into it.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The only German report of women fighters I recall in Ostfront was a note that a battalion was attacked by small arms fire, which they retaliated with tank cannons. They were something odd about the enemy, which they discovered later when they confirmed the bodies of women in peasant dresses, presumably going on a suicidal run after losing their husbands.
    , @melanf

    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There’s no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there.
     
    How? Suppose a woman sniper killed 100 German soldiers throughout the year. How this can be reflected in the "trace in German reports" ?

    In this case, the German documents can not prove anything. Was german soldier Fritz killed by a stray bullet, or killed by Roza Shanina - German documents do not give an answer to this question

  84. Randal says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you're correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.

    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you’re correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.

    Well the reality is that as far as the three way political struggle in pre-WW2 Germany is concerned, between liberal-ish democracy on the one hand and leftist socialist and nationalist authoritarians on the other, it was the Nazis who won absolutely hands down, even before they were in a position to fully rig the elections. National and volkische solidarity had a far stronger appeal than either leftist internationalist ideology or liberal theorising. If Hitler hadn’t over-reached himself in his foreign policies once in power (yes, as he’d always dreamed of being able to do), who can say what the outcome would have been?

    All the same techniques were used against them and the parties of the right then as are used against the non-establishment political right now – “hate speech” censorship and criminalisation, organised violent attacks on their supporters, parties and meetings by the socialists, exclusion from respectable society. One key difference between then and now is that economic times are not as hard and we in the US sphere aren’t in the aftermath of a total military defeat (modern US interventionist wars of choice are not to be compared with a real war like WW1/2). Another is that there was much less leftist infiltration of the key state organs (courts, police etc) than there is in the societies of today’s US sphere.

    How important those differences will prove to be remains to be seen. Personally, I don’t think we are in a precursor situation to an authoritarian nationalist victory, unless the leftist elites really do keep pushing as hard as they are doing at the moment and the establishment right keeps siding with them until it’s too late for anything but a choice between totalitarianisms..

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard

    there was much less leftist infiltration of the key state organs (courts, police etc) than there is in the societies of today’s US sphere.
     
    Then you are totally unaware of the "critical legal studies" ideology that is being taught in our most elite law schools. Obama spent eight years assiduously installing folks of this ilk into federal judgeships and the Justice Department's prosecutorial and administrative bureaucracy.
  85. @Daniel Chieh
    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you're correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.

    Not to mention that the last time fascists went to war with commies, the commies won.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Not to mention that the last time fascists went to war with commies, the commies won.
     
    If you mean WW2, that was Germany and allies versus the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the US and allies, with a combined gdp ratio of more than two to one in the Allies' favour. It wasn't "commies versus fascists".

    If you are looking for that, a better example might be the Spanish Civil War.
  86. @reiner Tor
    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There's no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there. A German battalion facing a Soviet battalion would have noticeably lower losses than the same battalion facing a Soviet battalion plus such a super-sniper.

    That’s interesting. I’ll look into it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'd love to see something reliable on the topic, because what I wrote is not very reliable. But I couldn't refute it at the time, and haven't read anything on the subject since then.
  87. @Talha
    Hey TBRS,

    Yes indeed - I do admit I'm in a very nice (and well-to-do) part of the Chicago area. Many people here are inclusive (whether Left or Right) and fairly cool with people of other ethnicities. I totally agree with you about the genetic distance vs social distance. There are parts of my native Pakistan I have no wish to step in just like many of my White neighbors have little wish to step into certain White-majority areas in the US. But, again, my neighbors and other Whites in the US (for instance very sincere converts that I know and am closer to than any run-of-the-mill Pakistani) are part of the US milieu and their opinion counts just as much as the ones that want me out. So for me, it's simply a numbers game to be decided at the Federal level - where all these immigration/residency/citizenship issues are hashed out. What do I care if some guy in San Diego or Tulsa wants me to leave - I don't deal with him on a daily basis nor he with me.

    Peace.

    You mean converts to Islam? What is their religious background? What are their motivations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hi TBRS,

    Well, I haven't heard everybody's convert story, but just to take two guys:

    1) One is from an Eastern European background. Used to have a Muslim girlfriend, then started learning about the religion and then joined a Sufi Order (same one as me). Then he ditched her (because she wasn't really down with more religion in her life) and finally got married a few years later to more religious woman. His background was like most people - tangential relationship to Christianity but it really didn't give him much guidance on how to live life so he was going with the flow. He liked what Islam had to offer on that front.
    2) Another guy from some muttish Irish, German, etc. background also wasn't raised with much religion. He had a Black friend that introduced him to Islam, he actually wanted to join the Nation of Islam (no kidding!!!), but they wouldn't take him because he was White. So his friend told him to go the regular Muslim route and he did. He is also very traditional in his outlook. Married a wonderful Somali woman and had four kids with her.

    And there's plenty more with different motivations - for instance, a couple of White men converted to marry two of my cousins. One of them seems to pray and generally live a Muslim life, while the other guy doesn't seem to care much (neither does his wife honestly).

    Here's a White convert scholar I keep up with on a daily basis for information on Islamic knowledge:
    https://www.joebradford.net/

    He wrote this brilliant article on the appeal of Salafism from the prism of free-market economics:
    https://muftah.org/salafism-politics-free-market-religion/#.WZICSVV95tQ

    Peace.
  88. @The Big Red Scary
    That's interesting. I'll look into it.

    I’d love to see something reliable on the topic, because what I wrote is not very reliable. But I couldn’t refute it at the time, and haven’t read anything on the subject since then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    Most of the interesting references in the Wikipedia article on Roza Shanina (for example, with data from her diary) are in Russian. So if you don't read Russian, it could be hard to follow up on this. Could make an interesting subject for a carefully researched historical novel. Unlike Anatoly, I really don't have much interest in guns, but I admit that even I get a little excited about a gun-toting beauty like Shanina.
  89. @reiner Tor
    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There's no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there. A German battalion facing a Soviet battalion would have noticeably lower losses than the same battalion facing a Soviet battalion plus such a super-sniper.

    The only German report of women fighters I recall in Ostfront was a note that a battalion was attacked by small arms fire, which they retaliated with tank cannons. They were something odd about the enemy, which they discovered later when they confirmed the bodies of women in peasant dresses, presumably going on a suicidal run after losing their husbands.

    Read More
  90. Randal says:

    US President Donald Trump has spoken out against racist violence after the killing of a protester in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday.

    “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs,” he told reporters.

    He said the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and white supremacists were “repugnant” to everything Americans held dear.

    OK, here’s a test case. Trump has chosen to go down the familiar route for the wannabe respectable right, advocated in several comments above, of appeasing the anti-racist zealots and loudly dissociating himself from the “evil” racists.

    Let’s see if the result is:

    1 a softening of the attitudes of the leftists and establishment right types who hate Trump and are actively trying to overthrow him, and a boost for the fortunes of the “respectable” right, or;

    2 a further encouragement of the demonisation and witch-hunting against anyone expressing moderate conservative, nationalist, traditionalist or nativist opinions, increased leftist violence and calls for censorship and hounding out of employment of such people for the slightest perceived crimethought, and an absolutely undiminished hatred of Trump from all the usual suspects, deriding his political abasement as “too little too late”.

    Read More
  91. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor
    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There's no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there. A German battalion facing a Soviet battalion would have noticeably lower losses than the same battalion facing a Soviet battalion plus such a super-sniper.

    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There’s no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there.

    How? Suppose a woman sniper killed 100 German soldiers throughout the year. How this can be reflected in the “trace in German reports” ?

    In this case, the German documents can not prove anything. Was german soldier Fritz killed by a stray bullet, or killed by Roza Shanina – German documents do not give an answer to this question

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy. Consider Hathcock or Hayha.
    , @reiner Tor
    Here's Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn't sound very plausible.

    I also think that soldiers killed by snipers (I think Pavlichenko would be "semi-sniper" in the present American terminology) can often be identified, because they often get killed when the front is otherwise quiet. Snipers are like spiders, patiently waiting for their kills. At least that's my understanding of sniper work. Maybe some expert (like Andrei Martyanov) could weigh in.

    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females - I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it's not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It's quite good propaganda, if you think about it: shaming the men into sacrificing their lives, because, hey, even a woman could kill 300 Germans...

    Again, and that's crucial, that's only true if we can really find no trace of them in German reports. How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941? Because in those two and a half months at most 150,000 Germans were killed on all fronts altogether (including places like Africa; the vast majority of them not by snipers, I guess), it seems suspicious that Pavlichenko alone could kill 187 while there. Maybe many of them were Romanians. But still.
  92. Randal says:
    @The Big Red Scary
    Not to mention that the last time fascists went to war with commies, the commies won.

    Not to mention that the last time fascists went to war with commies, the commies won.

    If you mean WW2, that was Germany and allies versus the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the US and allies, with a combined gdp ratio of more than two to one in the Allies’ favour. It wasn’t “commies versus fascists”.

    If you are looking for that, a better example might be the Spanish Civil War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    I meant Germany versus the Soviet Union. To first order, other players were irrelevant.
  93. utu says:
    @James Richard
    Hitler had no intention of negotiating Danzig with the Poles with whom he had just disingenuously conspired to annex the Sudetenland. Read Mein Kampf for God's sake.

    No, he did. Till March 1939 even Poles were open to it. British guarantees changed all of this. If Poles had any brains they would have come to some agreement with Hitler. Instead they opted to be the first victim of him which was the worst scenarios from the point of view of Poland’s interest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard
    When I said he negotiated with them in bad faith I meant it. You are dreaming if you think he was thinking otherwise.
  94. @Randal

    I think a good strategy is never to seek association with these types, and perhaps not allowing Nazi or KKK regalia into one’s rallies might be a good strategy. But I don’t think anybody should actively attack Nazi or KKK types. And don’t get unhinged when faced with things like that. You’re not a Nazi, I get it. Neither am I. You don’t wear such regalia. Neither do I. We got it. The MSM will never get it, no matter what. So just ignore them. And never go full retard, like using the expression “actual Hitlerjugend haircut”.
     
    I think this is a pretty good balance between the establishment right's active appeasement of, or even collaboration with, the left's attempt to maintain the racism and nazi taboos (see for instance the American Conservative's Rod Dreher's desperate attempts to be respectable), and the basic and desperately urgent requirement of smashing those taboos if any political progress is ever to be made.

    My position is that I and my views are not Nazi or white supremacist, but they are smeared as such by the left and establishment right, and always will be no matter how much I might try to appease them by joining in their witch-hunts and demonization of actual nazis and white supremacists. I don't think I'm alone in being in that position. And further, I do not regard nazi and white supremacist view as being inherently evil, or at any rate, not in any way more evil than the mainstream leftist view that promote mass immigration and interventionism to destroy nations for dogma or for profit.

    If the left and establishment right insist that I'm either with them or against them on nazism and white supremacism, then I'm against them.

    see for instance the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher’s desperate attempts to be respectable

    I don’t think that with Dreher it’s about any desire to be respectable, he really does think like that. You’ve got to realize two things about him:
    1.) He’s not a political writer, and imo his writing doesn’t actually belong in a political magazine. He’s a Christian moralist, and in some ways a pretty narrow-minded one. Everything in his writing revolves around his religion, there is nothing else really.
    2.) From his background and his associations he always was a bad fit for what the American conservative was originally about. I’ve been reading the magazine’s website since 2003, and originally it was founded mainly to promote non-interventionism (against the background of the 2003 Iraq war) and immigration restriction. Dreher was never fully on board with that. He supported the Iraq war in 2003. He still thinks George W Bush is a decent man and good Christian. He’s pro-Israel and very much against anything that looks even remotely like antisemitism. He’s friends with establishment journalists like David Brooks (and even with a neoconservative like John Podhoretz iirc). I can’t recall him approvingly linking to articles by Pat Buchanan or other paleocons, but he’s constantly linking to pieces by establishment journos like Brooks, to pieces in National Review or even in that demented neocon rag Commentary, as if they were fountains of wisdom.
    So you’ve got to realize that Dreher is in many ways much closer to the mainstream consensus in the US than American conservative originally was (and that explains his obsessive focus on the mainly sex-related culture war issues religious conservatives in the US love to talk about, whereas he has very little to say about the issues the magazine was once focused on). Personally I think it’s a disappointing development for the magazine, but it’s probably reflective of the situation in the US and what sells there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I agree with much of what you write there. I too followed TAC from its beginnings because it was exactly in step with my own primary political goals at the time - conservative anti-interventionism.

    Dreher I've only been aware of more recently, and I agree with you that he is very much out of step with the original raison d'etre of TAC.

    Most likely Dreher does believe what he writes on "racism". It's very obvious that he has fully internalised the basic leftist "good versus evil" dogma on that subject. That doesn't mean he isn't driven by a need to stay respectable.

    Yes, the jewish stuff is probably to do with his Christianity. US Christianity is notoriously over-deferential towards jewish interests and Israel in particular (though it's more usually the protestants than the Catholic/Orthodox types like Dreher - most likely it's a cultural overspill in his case). But his anti-racist stuff is imo definitely a case of his desperately rationalising to ensure he remains on the right side of US cultural respectability. You can see this by the dishonest way he conflates any kind of racism, no matter how technical or reasonable or moderate, with "hatred" in order to render it unChristian. And his pretence at even-handedness in supposedly condemning both sides is just an extension of that false conflation of opinion with hatred.

    He would probably love to do the same thing with homosexuality, but struggles much more to twist all disapproval of homosexual behaviour into hatred mostly because Christianity so obviously disapproves of all sexual activity outside marriage. Short of accepting the openly dishonest modern leftist distortion of marriage, he just can't manage the rationalisation as well as he can with racism.

    The irony shows up right there - he is (wrongly imo) accused of hating homosexuals by the ideologues of the left and the homosexual activity lobby simply because he doesn't accept their extremist dogmas, and he does exactly the same thing to moderate "racists".

    There's plenty that's good about Dreher - I don't want to come across as condemning him wholesale. He's an educated, informed and intelligent commentator, a genuine Christian, and doubtless a nice guy on most issues. But on the racism issue in particular he, like TAC overall, is part of the problem and is not making any contribution towards the solution.

    Personally I think it’s a disappointing development for the magazine, but it’s probably reflective of the situation in the US and what sells there.
     
    Yes, I understand his columns are by a very long distance the most widely read on the TAC site.
  95. I’m a proud Native Born White American Racist…no more….no less racist than Donald’s……and his expensive Slovenian call girl’s……precious Jewish People in Israel……

    WE WILL NOT BE REPLACED!!!!

    Read More
  96. @Randal

    Not to mention that the last time fascists went to war with commies, the commies won.
     
    If you mean WW2, that was Germany and allies versus the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the US and allies, with a combined gdp ratio of more than two to one in the Allies' favour. It wasn't "commies versus fascists".

    If you are looking for that, a better example might be the Spanish Civil War.

    I meant Germany versus the Soviet Union. To first order, other players were irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Yea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Anzio, D-Day, etc., were irrelevant. Yea, right. Not to mention Lend Lease.
  97. @Randal

    The key to victory is to be more extreme than the NatSocs, you’re correct.

    Clearly they were too moderate.
     

    Well the reality is that as far as the three way political struggle in pre-WW2 Germany is concerned, between liberal-ish democracy on the one hand and leftist socialist and nationalist authoritarians on the other, it was the Nazis who won absolutely hands down, even before they were in a position to fully rig the elections. National and volkische solidarity had a far stronger appeal than either leftist internationalist ideology or liberal theorising. If Hitler hadn't over-reached himself in his foreign policies once in power (yes, as he'd always dreamed of being able to do), who can say what the outcome would have been?

    All the same techniques were used against them and the parties of the right then as are used against the non-establishment political right now - "hate speech" censorship and criminalisation, organised violent attacks on their supporters, parties and meetings by the socialists, exclusion from respectable society. One key difference between then and now is that economic times are not as hard and we in the US sphere aren't in the aftermath of a total military defeat (modern US interventionist wars of choice are not to be compared with a real war like WW1/2). Another is that there was much less leftist infiltration of the key state organs (courts, police etc) than there is in the societies of today's US sphere.

    How important those differences will prove to be remains to be seen. Personally, I don't think we are in a precursor situation to an authoritarian nationalist victory, unless the leftist elites really do keep pushing as hard as they are doing at the moment and the establishment right keeps siding with them until it's too late for anything but a choice between totalitarianisms..

    there was much less leftist infiltration of the key state organs (courts, police etc) than there is in the societies of today’s US sphere.

    Then you are totally unaware of the “critical legal studies” ideology that is being taught in our most elite law schools. Obama spent eight years assiduously installing folks of this ilk into federal judgeships and the Justice Department’s prosecutorial and administrative bureaucracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I think you've got my comment the wrong way around, there, unless I'm misunderstanding your reply.
  98. @reiner Tor
    I'd love to see something reliable on the topic, because what I wrote is not very reliable. But I couldn't refute it at the time, and haven't read anything on the subject since then.

    Most of the interesting references in the Wikipedia article on Roza Shanina (for example, with data from her diary) are in Russian. So if you don’t read Russian, it could be hard to follow up on this. Could make an interesting subject for a carefully researched historical novel. Unlike Anatoly, I really don’t have much interest in guns, but I admit that even I get a little excited about a gun-toting beauty like Shanina.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Richard
    C'mon, this is a classic example of Soviet propaganda and disinformation.
  99. Donald Trump

    with the spine of a jelly fish….

    breast fed by the homosexual pedophile Roy Cohen…

    and don’t forget the Slovenian Whore…

    Who changes his adult diapers……

    Read More
  100. @utu
    No, he did. Till March 1939 even Poles were open to it. British guarantees changed all of this. If Poles had any brains they would have come to some agreement with Hitler. Instead they opted to be the first victim of him which was the worst scenarios from the point of view of Poland's interest.

    When I said he negotiated with them in bad faith I meant it. You are dreaming if you think he was thinking otherwise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    When I said he negotiated with them in good faith I meant it. You are dreaming if you think he was thinking otherwise.
  101. @The Big Red Scary
    Most of the interesting references in the Wikipedia article on Roza Shanina (for example, with data from her diary) are in Russian. So if you don't read Russian, it could be hard to follow up on this. Could make an interesting subject for a carefully researched historical novel. Unlike Anatoly, I really don't have much interest in guns, but I admit that even I get a little excited about a gun-toting beauty like Shanina.

    C’mon, this is a classic example of Soviet propaganda and disinformation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    The quote about the "frenzied fascists" seems to be from a Soviet war reporter, so may very well have been war propaganda. But the whole story of Roza Shanina seems far too detailed (look at the Wikipedia article) to be completely made up, given that such level of detail is not really necessary for war-time progaganda. If it is made up, then people in the propaganda department had way too much time on their hands.
    , @melanf

    C’mon, this is a classic example of Soviet propaganda and disinformation
     
    What in the history of Roza Shanina do you consider "disinformation"? She volunteered to the front. After military training (as a sniper) in the period from April 2, 1944 to 28 Jan 1945 (when she was killed in the battle), she according to Soviet documents killed 59 German soldiers (and three captured).
    What is misinformation? Perhaps the number of dead Germans are too high, but what does it change?

    Because of her appearance
    http://imgur.com/a/9vX1n
    war correspondents took a lot of pictures of Roza, but her story is real, it is not a propaganda fiction

  102. Talha says:
    @The Big Red Scary
    You mean converts to Islam? What is their religious background? What are their motivations?

    Hi TBRS,

    Well, I haven’t heard everybody’s convert story, but just to take two guys:

    1) One is from an Eastern European background. Used to have a Muslim girlfriend, then started learning about the religion and then joined a Sufi Order (same one as me). Then he ditched her (because she wasn’t really down with more religion in her life) and finally got married a few years later to more religious woman. His background was like most people – tangential relationship to Christianity but it really didn’t give him much guidance on how to live life so he was going with the flow. He liked what Islam had to offer on that front.
    2) Another guy from some muttish Irish, German, etc. background also wasn’t raised with much religion. He had a Black friend that introduced him to Islam, he actually wanted to join the Nation of Islam (no kidding!!!), but they wouldn’t take him because he was White. So his friend told him to go the regular Muslim route and he did. He is also very traditional in his outlook. Married a wonderful Somali woman and had four kids with her.

    And there’s plenty more with different motivations – for instance, a couple of White men converted to marry two of my cousins. One of them seems to pray and generally live a Muslim life, while the other guy doesn’t seem to care much (neither does his wife honestly).

    Here’s a White convert scholar I keep up with on a daily basis for information on Islamic knowledge:

    https://www.joebradford.net/

    He wrote this brilliant article on the appeal of Salafism from the prism of free-market economics:

    https://muftah.org/salafism-politics-free-market-religion/#.WZICSVV95tQ

    Peace.

    Read More
  103. melanf says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Your a fucking fool...

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People....


    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline....

    The Nazis leadership were fucking freaks who destroyed Christian Europe....

    Your siding with the fucking Bosnia Muslims over Serbian Christians...Go Fuck yourself....Go fuck yourself...

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People….
    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline….

    The girl who was the model for this sculpture

    View post on imgur.com

    was wounded in battle, taken prisoner, and hanged by the Germans on 29 November 1941

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    To save others the time in doing a reverse image search, the girl was Vera Voloshina.
  104. @James Richard
    C'mon, this is a classic example of Soviet propaganda and disinformation.

    The quote about the “frenzied fascists” seems to be from a Soviet war reporter, so may very well have been war propaganda. But the whole story of Roza Shanina seems far too detailed (look at the Wikipedia article) to be completely made up, given that such level of detail is not really necessary for war-time progaganda. If it is made up, then people in the propaganda department had way too much time on their hands.

    Read More
  105. utu says:
    @James Richard
    When I said he negotiated with them in bad faith I meant it. You are dreaming if you think he was thinking otherwise.

    When I said he negotiated with them in good faith I meant it. You are dreaming if you think he was thinking otherwise.

    Read More
  106. Talha says:

    Also of interest…why people outside the US fly the Confederate flag and the various interpretations/motivations for it:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-the-confederate-flag-flown-outside-the-us-2015-6

    Peace.

    Read More
  107. melanf says:
    @James Richard
    C'mon, this is a classic example of Soviet propaganda and disinformation.

    C’mon, this is a classic example of Soviet propaganda and disinformation

    What in the history of Roza Shanina do you consider “disinformation”? She volunteered to the front. After military training (as a sniper) in the period from April 2, 1944 to 28 Jan 1945 (when she was killed in the battle), she according to Soviet documents killed 59 German soldiers (and three captured).
    What is misinformation? Perhaps the number of dead Germans are too high, but what does it change?

    Because of her appearance

    View post on imgur.com

    war correspondents took a lot of pictures of Roza, but her story is real, it is not a propaganda fiction

    Read More
  108. @melanf

    The Nazis were the enemy of European People….
    Here is what the Nazis gave us:Blonde hair blue eyed Russian beauty and sniper Rozina wasting blue-eyed Waffen SS Soldier Hienz who never went on to sire a Geneline….
     
    The girl who was the model for this sculpture
    http://imgur.com/a/BabO9
    was wounded in battle, taken prisoner, and hanged by the Germans on 29 November 1941

    To save others the time in doing a reverse image search, the girl was Vera Voloshina.

    Read More
  109. To state the very obvious:

    Judge Janine Pirro=Old Wrinkly Sicilian Fucking Whore with permanent rancid breath from a career hooking on 42 second street….

    Read More
  110. Randal says:
    @James Richard

    there was much less leftist infiltration of the key state organs (courts, police etc) than there is in the societies of today’s US sphere.
     
    Then you are totally unaware of the "critical legal studies" ideology that is being taught in our most elite law schools. Obama spent eight years assiduously installing folks of this ilk into federal judgeships and the Justice Department's prosecutorial and administrative bureaucracy.

    I think you’ve got my comment the wrong way around, there, unless I’m misunderstanding your reply.

    Read More
  111. res says:
    @The Big Red Scary
    That was supposed to have a picture of Roza Shanina. How does one include images and urls? Anyway, here is something from her Wikipedia page:

    She once told a story when "about half a hundred frenzied fascists with wild cries" attacked a trench accommodating twelve female snipers, including Shanina: "Some fell from our well-aimed bullets, some we finished with our bayonets, grenades, shovels, and some we took prisoners, having restrained their arms."

    That was supposed to have a picture of Roza Shanina. How does one include images and urls? Anyway, here is something from her Wikipedia page:

    I think you need to make sure of the following:
    - The link ends in jpg (or png, etc.), things like width or height tags at the end prevent inline expansion.
    - The link needs to be to the jpg itself. Yours was to the jpg shown in some kind of browser viewer.

    Let’s see if this works:

    I got that link by right clicking on the image itself at your link and selecting “Copy image address”

    Read More
  112. @Truth
    No, that's not the truth about "Charlottesille." The real truth about Charlottesille is:

    PRISS FACTOR WASN'T THERE. HE WAS AT HOME PUTTING UP BORING 2,600 WORD RESPONSES NO ONE READS, TELLING OTHER WHITE MEN WHAT TO DO, BECAUSE HE'S A BIG, PINK CHICKENSCHEISS!

    PRISS FACTOR WASN’T THERE. HE WAS AT HOME PUTTING UP BORING 2,600 WORD

    You is wisest Negro, Truth.

    You is so right.

    Having growed up with Negroes in my youth and observed their behavior, I learned the most precious lesson of life.

    The ten commandments of survival.

    1. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    2. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    3. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    4. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    5. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    6. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    7. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    8. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    9. Run like a mothafuc*a.
    10. Run some mo’ and try to hide.

    That’s how the Negroes survived. They ran at the first sign of trouble, and there aint no way I’m gong to Charlottesville which have some scary looking Negroes.

    DID YOU SEE THIS BIG-MUSCLED NEGROID?

    One look at that dude, and I’m running like a mothafuc*a and never return to where he be.
    Dude’s crazy. He looks tough enough to whup every white boy there but he still brought a blow torch. Only a hippo can whup his ass.

    You might whup his, being a Negroid yourself, but I’m just running and hiding.

    Read More
  113. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    see for instance the American Conservative’s Rod Dreher’s desperate attempts to be respectable
     
    I don't think that with Dreher it's about any desire to be respectable, he really does think like that. You've got to realize two things about him:
    1.) He's not a political writer, and imo his writing doesn't actually belong in a political magazine. He's a Christian moralist, and in some ways a pretty narrow-minded one. Everything in his writing revolves around his religion, there is nothing else really.
    2.) From his background and his associations he always was a bad fit for what the American conservative was originally about. I've been reading the magazine's website since 2003, and originally it was founded mainly to promote non-interventionism (against the background of the 2003 Iraq war) and immigration restriction. Dreher was never fully on board with that. He supported the Iraq war in 2003. He still thinks George W Bush is a decent man and good Christian. He's pro-Israel and very much against anything that looks even remotely like antisemitism. He's friends with establishment journalists like David Brooks (and even with a neoconservative like John Podhoretz iirc). I can't recall him approvingly linking to articles by Pat Buchanan or other paleocons, but he's constantly linking to pieces by establishment journos like Brooks, to pieces in National Review or even in that demented neocon rag Commentary, as if they were fountains of wisdom.
    So you've got to realize that Dreher is in many ways much closer to the mainstream consensus in the US than American conservative originally was (and that explains his obsessive focus on the mainly sex-related culture war issues religious conservatives in the US love to talk about, whereas he has very little to say about the issues the magazine was once focused on). Personally I think it's a disappointing development for the magazine, but it's probably reflective of the situation in the US and what sells there.

    I agree with much of what you write there. I too followed TAC from its beginnings because it was exactly in step with my own primary political goals at the time – conservative anti-interventionism.

    Dreher I’ve only been aware of more recently, and I agree with you that he is very much out of step with the original raison d’etre of TAC.

    Most likely Dreher does believe what he writes on “racism”. It’s very obvious that he has fully internalised the basic leftist “good versus evil” dogma on that subject. That doesn’t mean he isn’t driven by a need to stay respectable.

    Yes, the jewish stuff is probably to do with his Christianity. US Christianity is notoriously over-deferential towards jewish interests and Israel in particular (though it’s more usually the protestants than the Catholic/Orthodox types like Dreher – most likely it’s a cultural overspill in his case). But his anti-racist stuff is imo definitely a case of his desperately rationalising to ensure he remains on the right side of US cultural respectability. You can see this by the dishonest way he conflates any kind of racism, no matter how technical or reasonable or moderate, with “hatred” in order to render it unChristian. And his pretence at even-handedness in supposedly condemning both sides is just an extension of that false conflation of opinion with hatred.

    He would probably love to do the same thing with homosexuality, but struggles much more to twist all disapproval of homosexual behaviour into hatred mostly because Christianity so obviously disapproves of all sexual activity outside marriage. Short of accepting the openly dishonest modern leftist distortion of marriage, he just can’t manage the rationalisation as well as he can with racism.

    The irony shows up right there – he is (wrongly imo) accused of hating homosexuals by the ideologues of the left and the homosexual activity lobby simply because he doesn’t accept their extremist dogmas, and he does exactly the same thing to moderate “racists”.

    There’s plenty that’s good about Dreher – I don’t want to come across as condemning him wholesale. He’s an educated, informed and intelligent commentator, a genuine Christian, and doubtless a nice guy on most issues. But on the racism issue in particular he, like TAC overall, is part of the problem and is not making any contribution towards the solution.

    Personally I think it’s a disappointing development for the magazine, but it’s probably reflective of the situation in the US and what sells there.

    Yes, I understand his columns are by a very long distance the most widely read on the TAC site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Yes, the jewish stuff is probably to do with his Christianity. US Christianity is notoriously over-deferential towards jewish interests and Israel in particular (though it’s more usually the protestants than the Catholic/Orthodox types like Dreher – most likely it’s a cultural overspill in his case)
     
    I think his family background is actually Methodist, he only converted to Catholicism, then Orthodoxy as an adult; and iirc he once mentioned that in early adolescence he read The late, great planet earth (total fundie stuff of the kind common amongst the Protestant religious right in the US) and was greatly impressed by it at the time. Obviously he's moved beyond that, to some degree at least, but the reflexive pro-Israel attitude widespread among many white Americans is still very much there with him.
    He also has very conventional views of WW2 of the type common among mainstream US conservatives, a pretty cartoonish view imo ("badass" Americans heroically beating Nazis), so it's not surprising that he's especially triggered by those Nazi clowns in Charlottesville.

    There’s plenty that’s good about Dreher – I don’t want to come across as condemning him wholesale. He’s an educated, informed and intelligent commentator, a genuine Christian, and doubtless a nice guy on most issues.
     
    I don't want to bash him too much either, he does have some insights and certainly means well. But after having read his writing for some years it does seem pretty deficient to me in many ways. I don't think it qualifies as serious political analysis and some of it seems quite comical at times (e.g. one template for a typical Dreher article is moral panic of the kind "Christian parents beware, you're losing your children to dark forces!"...one week it's atheism, the next transgenderism, then porn addiction, and now the threat of the day is the heathen alt-right).
    On the whole I'm just disappointed how American conservative turned out. I know the US is very different in some ways from Europe, but in the magazine's first years it did seem to me that it represented a kind of conservatism that I as a secular European with somewhat nationalist inclinations could at least understand and to some extent relate to. I can't say the same about Dreher's blog which is just utterly alien to me in its religious focus and its general tone (and I don't think it's an accident that a large percentage of Dreher's regular commenters are liberals and lefties - he's even got some joker who's a fan of Lenin and the early Bolsheviks). And that's not even mentioning some of the other contributors (like Milmann who comes up with stuff like being in favour of banning cash and negative interest rates, or writes bizarre stuff about Europe and Africa should be one civilization).
  114. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Given your Russian nationalism, I have to say that I am a bit surprised by your relaxed attitude towards the presence of Neo-Nazis in the alt-right. After all, the original Nazis brought unspeakable destruction, death, and demographic damage to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus and also murdered the majority of the Jewish cognitive elite in Ukraine and Belarus (Russia proper had a much smaller Holocaust since most of it was unoccupied by the Nazis).

    Indeed, are those the kind of people whom you want the alt-right to associate with?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Why should I particularly care about Nazis if they're pro-Russian?

    The Western elites have no problems with Nazis doing their dirty work elsewhere, so why, exactly, should Russia balk at reciprocating?

    Especially when according to Hillary and the Blue Checkmarks we're supposed to be heading the Fascist International anyway?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCZVhfBVoAESity.jpg
  115. @utu
    When I said he negotiated with them in good faith I meant it. You are dreaming if you think he was thinking otherwise.

    :rolleyes: Yes, you really should read Mein Kampf.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I did . Poland or Poles are mentioned in Mein Kampf c. 4 times. Never in terms of future but only in terms of historical events w/o any demands or belligerence.
    , @fnn
    Something he wrote when he was a young man in the his thirties and a powerless political prisoner.

    Historian John Lukacs (certainly no Hitlerite) says he often dismissed the book after he became Chancellor. Most historians describe him as an opportunist as a politician. But his opportunities became much more limited when Britain refused peace terms and it became obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war. But he still was not totally bereft of ideas, he met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to get the Sovs to become full members of the Axis. Molotov pretty much spat in his eye, and the decision to invade the USSR came a month later. Adam Tooze said Hitler needed the resources of the USSR to have a chance against the power of the North American Colossus and its British junior partner.

  116. neutral says:
    @Talha
    Bro - you're shouting at the wrong guy. You gotta let your representatives know you want to repeal all the immigration laws and retroactively send non-White immigrants back to countries of origin. There is a normal procedure to repeal laws (even at the highest level) - see the Volstead Act as a prime example. As I have stated before, I am a law-abiding citizen. If the Federal government sends me an official notice that my citizenship has been revoked and my right to residence has been repealed - I will make plans and leave.

    As yet, I see a bunch of noise on the Internet, but my White neighbors get along swell with me and send their kids to my house to play with my boys (maybe they're spying on me) - so I need something more substantial than random shouting on the Internet by anonymous people that shows I need to get the hell outta Dodge.

    Peace.

    As the number of non whites become ever more, then white flight happens, this is pretty much always the case. If ever more non whites like you make up the neighborhood then expect this “get along” thing to rapidly change.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    If ever more non whites like you make up the neighborhood
     
    Trust me - if more people like me make up my neighborhood, my neighbors (White or not have nothing to worry about) since my teachers have impressed upon me the sacred obligation to be good to neighbors.

    If you mean random ethnic Pakistanis that want to act thuggish, then yes, I will leave the neighborhood as well - I don't want my kids being influenced by people like that.

    If my White neighbors simply move because they feel comfortable around more Whites, then I wish them the best and feel zero antipathy towards them.

    Peace.
  117. Talha says:
    @neutral
    As the number of non whites become ever more, then white flight happens, this is pretty much always the case. If ever more non whites like you make up the neighborhood then expect this "get along" thing to rapidly change.

    If ever more non whites like you make up the neighborhood

    Trust me – if more people like me make up my neighborhood, my neighbors (White or not have nothing to worry about) since my teachers have impressed upon me the sacred obligation to be good to neighbors.

    If you mean random ethnic Pakistanis that want to act thuggish, then yes, I will leave the neighborhood as well – I don’t want my kids being influenced by people like that.

    If my White neighbors simply move because they feel comfortable around more Whites, then I wish them the best and feel zero antipathy towards them.

    Peace.

    Read More
  118. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Randal

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?
     
    Yes, and the only answer to that situation is to end the political taboo that achieves that for the left/establishment right.

    The approach you advocate, of desperately apologising to the left and the identity lobbyists, and dissociating oneself from anyone successfully smeared as a closet Nazi/racist/homophobe/sexist, was tried by the "respectable" right for decades, and it just justifies the taboo and invites further witch-finding and ever more progressively drawn lines that it is unacceptable to cross. And meanwhile the identity lobbyists behind whichever particular smear it is (jewish nationalists, black anti-white racists, homosexualists, feminists) just get handed an ever sharper weapon to use to cut down anyone who stands in their way, and their lobby fodder gets ever more bitter about their suppose victimhood and ever more willing to justify, support and engage in prohibition, censorship and violence against those they are told are responsible for past, present and future injustices.


    You are just saying, “Nobody can interfere with my rights of association,” as some sort of free-floating idealism. Look at the practical effects, not some ideal that will not secure your goal.
     
    You have it backwards. It's your method that has been tried for decades now and failed completely.

    Witch-hunting is a failed analogy; there are no witches. There are actual nazis.

     

    The problem with witch-finding was not that there were no witches, but that innocent people were regularly accused of being witches by zealots and opportunists and railroaded into being held guilty of it.

    There are actual nazis.
     
    A fringe of a fringe. Though the more the left commits the kind of violence against peaceful political expression seen with Black Lives Matter and the attack on the Charlottesville gathering, the more the actual nazis will seem attractive, of course.

    Actual Nazis have little going for them other than their reputation for extremism (which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis). The actual policies and concerns of 1930s NatSocs are of concern, as you said, only to an incredibly small and politically irrelevant group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Actual Nazis have little going for them other than their reputation for extremism (which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis). The actual policies and concerns of 1930s NatSocs are of concern, as you said, only to an incredibly small and politically irrelevant group.
     
    Indeed, but your example of prison and bikers reinforces my point about the only way we might see a real upsurge in actual Nazism/white supremacism being if we continue to see the left, winked at by the establishment right, using open violence against conservative/traditionalist/nativist/nationalist people, parties and events.

    In such a situation, the attraction of having people on your side who are organised for violence and with a reputation for it is obvious - that was at the heart of how the Nazis rose in influence in Germany after all, in the general street-fighting between the radical left and civilised people. When you are going to be attacked by leftists anyway if you try to hold a peaceful demonstration of your views (as Trump supporters found in the US a few months ago), you might find the only demos safe to attend are those organised by people who can and will defend themselves.
    , @notanon

    which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis
     
    this is the perfect analogy
  119. neutral says:

    I have raised this issue before, but I feel I have to do it again. RT is clearly a left wing media outlet, just like in the past where depicting America as racist was a good propaganda scoop for the USSR, now they want to depict the altright as some kind of evil American trait to score propaganda points. This is standard leftist behaviour, but do any of the staff realize that siding with the leftists in America is pure stupidity, its not exactly a secret just how much the left hate Russia.

    I am not saying they should talk like the Dailystormer, but they should try take a more neutral stance on this issue. Things are moving so rapidly now, that I can already foresee the day where Russia is condemned simply for being too white.

    Read More
  120. iffen says:
    @Randal

    Are nationalist parties in Europe not damaged in the minds of the broader electorate by their association with nazi types?
     
    Yes, and the only answer to that situation is to end the political taboo that achieves that for the left/establishment right.

    The approach you advocate, of desperately apologising to the left and the identity lobbyists, and dissociating oneself from anyone successfully smeared as a closet Nazi/racist/homophobe/sexist, was tried by the "respectable" right for decades, and it just justifies the taboo and invites further witch-finding and ever more progressively drawn lines that it is unacceptable to cross. And meanwhile the identity lobbyists behind whichever particular smear it is (jewish nationalists, black anti-white racists, homosexualists, feminists) just get handed an ever sharper weapon to use to cut down anyone who stands in their way, and their lobby fodder gets ever more bitter about their suppose victimhood and ever more willing to justify, support and engage in prohibition, censorship and violence against those they are told are responsible for past, present and future injustices.


    You are just saying, “Nobody can interfere with my rights of association,” as some sort of free-floating idealism. Look at the practical effects, not some ideal that will not secure your goal.
     
    You have it backwards. It's your method that has been tried for decades now and failed completely.

    Witch-hunting is a failed analogy; there are no witches. There are actual nazis.

     

    The problem with witch-finding was not that there were no witches, but that innocent people were regularly accused of being witches by zealots and opportunists and railroaded into being held guilty of it.

    There are actual nazis.
     
    A fringe of a fringe. Though the more the left commits the kind of violence against peaceful political expression seen with Black Lives Matter and the attack on the Charlottesville gathering, the more the actual nazis will seem attractive, of course.

    Well, the organizers of Unite the Right seem to share your enthusiasm for a big tent with a safe space for nazis, we’ll see out it plays out. I can’t see any benefit to anyone except nazis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    My "enthusiasm", as I noted above, is for the position set out by reiner Tor in the first comment to which I replied. Namely officially excluding open Nazi regalia etc displays from a march organised by a non-Nazi party, but not feeling any need to actively root out any Nazis who feel inclined to attend. Just announce: "we're not Nazis, but if any Nazis want to support us then that's fine with us as long as they aren't taking over the demonstration with their own symbols".

    I'd further make a point of responding to leftist/establishment right/identity lobby "demands" that they be rooted out and "disassociated" from with open contempt.

    Well, the organizers of Unite the Right seem to share your enthusiasm for a big tent with a safe space for nazis, we’ll see out it plays out.
     
    If you think that, if the Charlotteville demo organisers had made a point of excluding all supposed actual nazis from their event and declaring their hostility to actual nazis and nazism (even more than they did, I mean), there would have been any less leftist aggression against them (or even any fewer accusations of their being nazis), then I think you are, at best, being very naïve.

    In fact, that's most likely how it will go, as usual, with the organisers of the various groupings on the "alt right" declaring their distance from actual Nazis and actual Nazism, and the leftist thugs and mainstream media and politicians continuing to call them nazis and violently attack them, and to withdraw police protection from them anyway.
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    The ANTIFAS waging violent race war on millions Conservative Christian Russians through their Ukraino Nazi puppets....this is why they voted twice for the narcissistic nosepicking homosexual Kenyan War Criminal Negro Foreigner in 2008 and 2012.....
  121. @Randal
    I agree with much of what you write there. I too followed TAC from its beginnings because it was exactly in step with my own primary political goals at the time - conservative anti-interventionism.

    Dreher I've only been aware of more recently, and I agree with you that he is very much out of step with the original raison d'etre of TAC.

    Most likely Dreher does believe what he writes on "racism". It's very obvious that he has fully internalised the basic leftist "good versus evil" dogma on that subject. That doesn't mean he isn't driven by a need to stay respectable.

    Yes, the jewish stuff is probably to do with his Christianity. US Christianity is notoriously over-deferential towards jewish interests and Israel in particular (though it's more usually the protestants than the Catholic/Orthodox types like Dreher - most likely it's a cultural overspill in his case). But his anti-racist stuff is imo definitely a case of his desperately rationalising to ensure he remains on the right side of US cultural respectability. You can see this by the dishonest way he conflates any kind of racism, no matter how technical or reasonable or moderate, with "hatred" in order to render it unChristian. And his pretence at even-handedness in supposedly condemning both sides is just an extension of that false conflation of opinion with hatred.

    He would probably love to do the same thing with homosexuality, but struggles much more to twist all disapproval of homosexual behaviour into hatred mostly because Christianity so obviously disapproves of all sexual activity outside marriage. Short of accepting the openly dishonest modern leftist distortion of marriage, he just can't manage the rationalisation as well as he can with racism.

    The irony shows up right there - he is (wrongly imo) accused of hating homosexuals by the ideologues of the left and the homosexual activity lobby simply because he doesn't accept their extremist dogmas, and he does exactly the same thing to moderate "racists".

    There's plenty that's good about Dreher - I don't want to come across as condemning him wholesale. He's an educated, informed and intelligent commentator, a genuine Christian, and doubtless a nice guy on most issues. But on the racism issue in particular he, like TAC overall, is part of the problem and is not making any contribution towards the solution.

    Personally I think it’s a disappointing development for the magazine, but it’s probably reflective of the situation in the US and what sells there.
     
    Yes, I understand his columns are by a very long distance the most widely read on the TAC site.

    Yes, the jewish stuff is probably to do with his Christianity. US Christianity is notoriously over-deferential towards jewish interests and Israel in particular (though it’s more usually the protestants than the Catholic/Orthodox types like Dreher – most likely it’s a cultural overspill in his case)

    I think his family background is actually Methodist, he only converted to Catholicism, then Orthodoxy as an adult; and iirc he once mentioned that in early adolescence he read The late, great planet earth (total fundie stuff of the kind common amongst the Protestant religious right in the US) and was greatly impressed by it at the time. Obviously he’s moved beyond that, to some degree at least, but the reflexive pro-Israel attitude widespread among many white Americans is still very much there with him.
    He also has very conventional views of WW2 of the type common among mainstream US conservatives, a pretty cartoonish view imo (“badass” Americans heroically beating Nazis), so it’s not surprising that he’s especially triggered by those Nazi clowns in Charlottesville.

    There’s plenty that’s good about Dreher – I don’t want to come across as condemning him wholesale. He’s an educated, informed and intelligent commentator, a genuine Christian, and doubtless a nice guy on most issues.

    I don’t want to bash him too much either, he does have some insights and certainly means well. But after having read his writing for some years it does seem pretty deficient to me in many ways. I don’t think it qualifies as serious political analysis and some of it seems quite comical at times (e.g. one template for a typical Dreher article is moral panic of the kind “Christian parents beware, you’re losing your children to dark forces!”…one week it’s atheism, the next transgenderism, then porn addiction, and now the threat of the day is the heathen alt-right).
    On the whole I’m just disappointed how American conservative turned out. I know the US is very different in some ways from Europe, but in the magazine’s first years it did seem to me that it represented a kind of conservatism that I as a secular European with somewhat nationalist inclinations could at least understand and to some extent relate to. I can’t say the same about Dreher’s blog which is just utterly alien to me in its religious focus and its general tone (and I don’t think it’s an accident that a large percentage of Dreher’s regular commenters are liberals and lefties – he’s even got some joker who’s a fan of Lenin and the early Bolsheviks). And that’s not even mentioning some of the other contributors (like Milmann who comes up with stuff like being in favour of banning cash and negative interest rates, or writes bizarre stuff about Europe and Africa should be one civilization).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I think his family background is actually Methodist, he only converted to Catholicism, then Orthodoxy as an adult
     
    That explains the childish pro-Israel stance and the overly worshipful attitude towards the jewish identity lobby's concerns and taboos, then.


    On the whole I’m just disappointed how American conservative turned out. I know the US is very different in some ways from Europe, but in the magazine’s first years it did seem to me that it represented a kind of conservatism that I as a secular European with somewhat nationalist inclinations could at least understand and to some extent relate to.
     
    It became too mainstream imo, perhaps because it refused to follow its original anti-interventionist and anti-mass immigration positions to their logical conclusions. Poison for any kind of real conservatism when the mainstream is so fundamentally and overwhelmingly leftist. It still is better than most mainstream US publications, but that reflects mostly the dramatic left-wing bias of the US sphere media establishment, and the capture of what little there is of a right-wing media by the neocon interventionists and immigrationists.

    Larison's very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.
  122. Randal says:
    @iffen
    Well, the organizers of Unite the Right seem to share your enthusiasm for a big tent with a safe space for nazis, we'll see out it plays out. I can't see any benefit to anyone except nazis.

    My “enthusiasm”, as I noted above, is for the position set out by reiner Tor in the first comment to which I replied. Namely officially excluding open Nazi regalia etc displays from a march organised by a non-Nazi party, but not feeling any need to actively root out any Nazis who feel inclined to attend. Just announce: “we’re not Nazis, but if any Nazis want to support us then that’s fine with us as long as they aren’t taking over the demonstration with their own symbols”.

    I’d further make a point of responding to leftist/establishment right/identity lobby “demands” that they be rooted out and “disassociated” from with open contempt.

    Well, the organizers of Unite the Right seem to share your enthusiasm for a big tent with a safe space for nazis, we’ll see out it plays out.

    If you think that, if the Charlotteville demo organisers had made a point of excluding all supposed actual nazis from their event and declaring their hostility to actual nazis and nazism (even more than they did, I mean), there would have been any less leftist aggression against them (or even any fewer accusations of their being nazis), then I think you are, at best, being very naïve.

    In fact, that’s most likely how it will go, as usual, with the organisers of the various groupings on the “alt right” declaring their distance from actual Nazis and actual Nazism, and the leftist thugs and mainstream media and politicians continuing to call them nazis and violently attack them, and to withdraw police protection from them anyway.

    Read More
  123. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Looks like Anatoly’s hot take isn’t as hot today.

    I think it’s important to differentiate something though. AK is right that anti-anti-white sentiment has a strong future among whites in America. Why wouldn’t it? No one wants to hear that they’re the cause of all of the country’s problems, especially when it’s obviously untrue, so it’s natural that young whites would gravitate away from anti-white Dems.

    But that doesn’t mean that they’re going to become Nazis or join groups that welcome Nazi iconography. Don’t see that happening.

    And the alt-righters who flirt with Nazis, whether LARPers or believers, are hurting Trump politically. The 2016 election was pretty close. It’s conceivable that Nazi iconography at a few rallies could have swung it the other way.

    Good thread by Varad Mehta on CVille, btw:

    Read More
  124. @Mr. XYZ
    @Anatoly Karlin: Given your Russian nationalism, I have to say that I am a bit surprised by your relaxed attitude towards the presence of Neo-Nazis in the alt-right. After all, the original Nazis brought unspeakable destruction, death, and demographic damage to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus and also murdered the majority of the Jewish cognitive elite in Ukraine and Belarus (Russia proper had a much smaller Holocaust since most of it was unoccupied by the Nazis).

    Indeed, are those the kind of people whom you want the alt-right to associate with?

    Why should I particularly care about Nazis if they’re pro-Russian?

    The Western elites have no problems with Nazis doing their dirty work elsewhere, so why, exactly, should Russia balk at reciprocating?

    Especially when according to Hillary and the Blue Checkmarks we’re supposed to be heading the Fascist International anyway?

    Read More
  125. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    Yes, the jewish stuff is probably to do with his Christianity. US Christianity is notoriously over-deferential towards jewish interests and Israel in particular (though it’s more usually the protestants than the Catholic/Orthodox types like Dreher – most likely it’s a cultural overspill in his case)
     
    I think his family background is actually Methodist, he only converted to Catholicism, then Orthodoxy as an adult; and iirc he once mentioned that in early adolescence he read The late, great planet earth (total fundie stuff of the kind common amongst the Protestant religious right in the US) and was greatly impressed by it at the time. Obviously he's moved beyond that, to some degree at least, but the reflexive pro-Israel attitude widespread among many white Americans is still very much there with him.
    He also has very conventional views of WW2 of the type common among mainstream US conservatives, a pretty cartoonish view imo ("badass" Americans heroically beating Nazis), so it's not surprising that he's especially triggered by those Nazi clowns in Charlottesville.

    There’s plenty that’s good about Dreher – I don’t want to come across as condemning him wholesale. He’s an educated, informed and intelligent commentator, a genuine Christian, and doubtless a nice guy on most issues.
     
    I don't want to bash him too much either, he does have some insights and certainly means well. But after having read his writing for some years it does seem pretty deficient to me in many ways. I don't think it qualifies as serious political analysis and some of it seems quite comical at times (e.g. one template for a typical Dreher article is moral panic of the kind "Christian parents beware, you're losing your children to dark forces!"...one week it's atheism, the next transgenderism, then porn addiction, and now the threat of the day is the heathen alt-right).
    On the whole I'm just disappointed how American conservative turned out. I know the US is very different in some ways from Europe, but in the magazine's first years it did seem to me that it represented a kind of conservatism that I as a secular European with somewhat nationalist inclinations could at least understand and to some extent relate to. I can't say the same about Dreher's blog which is just utterly alien to me in its religious focus and its general tone (and I don't think it's an accident that a large percentage of Dreher's regular commenters are liberals and lefties - he's even got some joker who's a fan of Lenin and the early Bolsheviks). And that's not even mentioning some of the other contributors (like Milmann who comes up with stuff like being in favour of banning cash and negative interest rates, or writes bizarre stuff about Europe and Africa should be one civilization).

    I think his family background is actually Methodist, he only converted to Catholicism, then Orthodoxy as an adult

    That explains the childish pro-Israel stance and the overly worshipful attitude towards the jewish identity lobby’s concerns and taboos, then.

    On the whole I’m just disappointed how American conservative turned out. I know the US is very different in some ways from Europe, but in the magazine’s first years it did seem to me that it represented a kind of conservatism that I as a secular European with somewhat nationalist inclinations could at least understand and to some extent relate to.

    It became too mainstream imo, perhaps because it refused to follow its original anti-interventionist and anti-mass immigration positions to their logical conclusions. Poison for any kind of real conservatism when the mainstream is so fundamentally and overwhelmingly leftist. It still is better than most mainstream US publications, but that reflects mostly the dramatic left-wing bias of the US sphere media establishment, and the capture of what little there is of a right-wing media by the neocon interventionists and immigrationists.

    Larison’s very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Larison’s very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.
     
    His positions on immigration etc. seem too pc for my taste (e.g. he criticised Trump's travel ban rather excessively imo), but I agree, he's to be commended for his efforts like pointing out US complicity in the carnage wrought by Saudi-Arabia's war in Yemen. That's a courageous stance. I guess he could be criticized for his articles being of an entirely negative nature, but then there's just such an awful lot to criticize about the foreign policy positions of the US mainstream.
    Regarding the American conservative on the whole, I think there was some change of ownership some years ago which may explain the changed profile of the magazine (I've forgotten the exact details and am too lazy to look them up now); and while they still run Pat Buchanan's articles on the website, they don't have a prominent place there nowadays (also not much anymore by people like Paul Gottfried or Steve Sailer who once had pieces published there as well). Apparently the magazine wasn't commercially successful in its original incarnation.
  126. Randal says:
    @Anon
    Actual Nazis have little going for them other than their reputation for extremism (which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis). The actual policies and concerns of 1930s NatSocs are of concern, as you said, only to an incredibly small and politically irrelevant group.

    Actual Nazis have little going for them other than their reputation for extremism (which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis). The actual policies and concerns of 1930s NatSocs are of concern, as you said, only to an incredibly small and politically irrelevant group.

    Indeed, but your example of prison and bikers reinforces my point about the only way we might see a real upsurge in actual Nazism/white supremacism being if we continue to see the left, winked at by the establishment right, using open violence against conservative/traditionalist/nativist/nationalist people, parties and events.

    In such a situation, the attraction of having people on your side who are organised for violence and with a reputation for it is obvious – that was at the heart of how the Nazis rose in influence in Germany after all, in the general street-fighting between the radical left and civilised people. When you are going to be attacked by leftists anyway if you try to hold a peaceful demonstration of your views (as Trump supporters found in the US a few months ago), you might find the only demos safe to attend are those organised by people who can and will defend themselves.

    Read More
  127. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @melanf

    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There’s no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there.
     
    How? Suppose a woman sniper killed 100 German soldiers throughout the year. How this can be reflected in the "trace in German reports" ?

    In this case, the German documents can not prove anything. Was german soldier Fritz killed by a stray bullet, or killed by Roza Shanina - German documents do not give an answer to this question

    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy. Consider Hathcock or Hayha.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy
     
    How? Roza Shanina (according to Soviet sources) for 10 months has killed 59 of the Germans (by shots from a far distance, from the shelter). It was the second half of the 44 - during this period, the Germans (because of the rapid defeat) was not able to count their own losses. During this period, warfare was not trench warfare, the front was moving rapidly to the West, German troops (whom Roza Shanina fought) is constantly changing

    The only way the Germans could learn about Roza Shanina - from Soviet Newspapers
  128. @Randal

    I think his family background is actually Methodist, he only converted to Catholicism, then Orthodoxy as an adult
     
    That explains the childish pro-Israel stance and the overly worshipful attitude towards the jewish identity lobby's concerns and taboos, then.


    On the whole I’m just disappointed how American conservative turned out. I know the US is very different in some ways from Europe, but in the magazine’s first years it did seem to me that it represented a kind of conservatism that I as a secular European with somewhat nationalist inclinations could at least understand and to some extent relate to.
     
    It became too mainstream imo, perhaps because it refused to follow its original anti-interventionist and anti-mass immigration positions to their logical conclusions. Poison for any kind of real conservatism when the mainstream is so fundamentally and overwhelmingly leftist. It still is better than most mainstream US publications, but that reflects mostly the dramatic left-wing bias of the US sphere media establishment, and the capture of what little there is of a right-wing media by the neocon interventionists and immigrationists.

    Larison's very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.

    Larison’s very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.

    His positions on immigration etc. seem too pc for my taste (e.g. he criticised Trump’s travel ban rather excessively imo), but I agree, he’s to be commended for his efforts like pointing out US complicity in the carnage wrought by Saudi-Arabia’s war in Yemen. That’s a courageous stance. I guess he could be criticized for his articles being of an entirely negative nature, but then there’s just such an awful lot to criticize about the foreign policy positions of the US mainstream.
    Regarding the American conservative on the whole, I think there was some change of ownership some years ago which may explain the changed profile of the magazine (I’ve forgotten the exact details and am too lazy to look them up now); and while they still run Pat Buchanan’s articles on the website, they don’t have a prominent place there nowadays (also not much anymore by people like Paul Gottfried or Steve Sailer who once had pieces published there as well). Apparently the magazine wasn’t commercially successful in its original incarnation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    German_Reader:

    The way I heard it (all second/third hand) was that the ordinal purpose of the American Conservative was to oppose one of the Iraq Wars. It was originally bankrolled by Taki, the Greek businessman/playboy, who still writes witty columns for the Spectator (London) and Chronicles magazine. Taki got disillusioned with the AC and its original editor, Scott McConnell, for running through his money. Since that time it has been floundering (at one time being a big proponent for gay marriage). Interestingly, at another time it was bankrolled by our own Ron Unz. There appears to have been some kerfuffle where Ron was persona non grata and forbidden to write for the magazine even though he may still have been underwriting the operation. I have the impression it is presently being underwritten by some type of preservationist group. All in all a sad story of what might have been.

    On another matter, Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book.

    , @Randal
    Glancing at TAC.s website this morning is pretty typical. You've got Larison making an absolutely correct criticism of the US regime's dishonesty or delusion over North Korea (North Korea and McMaster’s Deterrence Dishonesty), and Dreher dancing around trying to square the circle of keeping his goodwhite credentials on the inherent evil of racism, real and supposed, whilst recognising the basic aggression of the left that underlies events like those in Charlottesville. Desperately blaming the victims to ensure he doesn't find himself on the side of the badwhites, even though it's obvious he understands the truth on some level from his writings around the topic.

    And yes I don't doubt Larison's domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher's, it's just that I've only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he's mostly accurate and honest, and therefore well out of step with the US mainstream.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.
  129. utu says:
    @James Richard
    :rolleyes: Yes, you really should read Mein Kampf.

    I did . Poland or Poles are mentioned in Mein Kampf c. 4 times. Never in terms of future but only in terms of historical events w/o any demands or belligerence.

    Read More
  130. Dan Hayes says:
    @German_reader

    Larison’s very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.
     
    His positions on immigration etc. seem too pc for my taste (e.g. he criticised Trump's travel ban rather excessively imo), but I agree, he's to be commended for his efforts like pointing out US complicity in the carnage wrought by Saudi-Arabia's war in Yemen. That's a courageous stance. I guess he could be criticized for his articles being of an entirely negative nature, but then there's just such an awful lot to criticize about the foreign policy positions of the US mainstream.
    Regarding the American conservative on the whole, I think there was some change of ownership some years ago which may explain the changed profile of the magazine (I've forgotten the exact details and am too lazy to look them up now); and while they still run Pat Buchanan's articles on the website, they don't have a prominent place there nowadays (also not much anymore by people like Paul Gottfried or Steve Sailer who once had pieces published there as well). Apparently the magazine wasn't commercially successful in its original incarnation.

    German_Reader:

    The way I heard it (all second/third hand) was that the ordinal purpose of the American Conservative was to oppose one of the Iraq Wars. It was originally bankrolled by Taki, the Greek businessman/playboy, who still writes witty columns for the Spectator (London) and Chronicles magazine. Taki got disillusioned with the AC and its original editor, Scott McConnell, for running through his money. Since that time it has been floundering (at one time being a big proponent for gay marriage). Interestingly, at another time it was bankrolled by our own Ron Unz. There appears to have been some kerfuffle where Ron was persona non grata and forbidden to write for the magazine even though he may still have been underwriting the operation. I have the impression it is presently being underwritten by some type of preservationist group. All in all a sad story of what might have been.

    On another matter, Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    The only people I think that AC currently appeals to is moderate liberals (a rapidly shrinking group) who wish that is how conservatives are.
    , @German_reader
    Thanks, that's roughly what I recall as well (even if I don't understand the details...like what the role of the current publisher Jon Basil Utley is; but in any case, it was founded by Taki, Pat Buchanan and Mcconnell in opposition to the Iraq war in 2003, presenting an alternative to the neoconservatives on the right was its original purpose). And yes, they did have some totally ridiculous articles about marriage for homosexuals being a "conservative" stance (though one hopes such delusions would have died by now, given that "progressives" become ever more crazy and now push something like transgenderism).
    I find Dreher's self-promotion of his books pretty questionable at times as well (iirc he wrote a book about his dead sister, tbh I find it dubious when people drag intimate family matters to the public like that). And Benedict option is just a silly term...it's not like Dreher intends to give up his bourgeois lifestyle and become a monk after all.
    , @The True and Original David
    "Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book."

    Will Dreher ever shut up about the need to be silent?
  131. neutral says:
    @Dan Hayes
    German_Reader:

    The way I heard it (all second/third hand) was that the ordinal purpose of the American Conservative was to oppose one of the Iraq Wars. It was originally bankrolled by Taki, the Greek businessman/playboy, who still writes witty columns for the Spectator (London) and Chronicles magazine. Taki got disillusioned with the AC and its original editor, Scott McConnell, for running through his money. Since that time it has been floundering (at one time being a big proponent for gay marriage). Interestingly, at another time it was bankrolled by our own Ron Unz. There appears to have been some kerfuffle where Ron was persona non grata and forbidden to write for the magazine even though he may still have been underwriting the operation. I have the impression it is presently being underwritten by some type of preservationist group. All in all a sad story of what might have been.

    On another matter, Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book.

    The only people I think that AC currently appeals to is moderate liberals (a rapidly shrinking group) who wish that is how conservatives are.

    Read More
  132. @Dan Hayes
    German_Reader:

    The way I heard it (all second/third hand) was that the ordinal purpose of the American Conservative was to oppose one of the Iraq Wars. It was originally bankrolled by Taki, the Greek businessman/playboy, who still writes witty columns for the Spectator (London) and Chronicles magazine. Taki got disillusioned with the AC and its original editor, Scott McConnell, for running through his money. Since that time it has been floundering (at one time being a big proponent for gay marriage). Interestingly, at another time it was bankrolled by our own Ron Unz. There appears to have been some kerfuffle where Ron was persona non grata and forbidden to write for the magazine even though he may still have been underwriting the operation. I have the impression it is presently being underwritten by some type of preservationist group. All in all a sad story of what might have been.

    On another matter, Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book.

    Thanks, that’s roughly what I recall as well (even if I don’t understand the details…like what the role of the current publisher Jon Basil Utley is; but in any case, it was founded by Taki, Pat Buchanan and Mcconnell in opposition to the Iraq war in 2003, presenting an alternative to the neoconservatives on the right was its original purpose). And yes, they did have some totally ridiculous articles about marriage for homosexuals being a “conservative” stance (though one hopes such delusions would have died by now, given that “progressives” become ever more crazy and now push something like transgenderism).
    I find Dreher’s self-promotion of his books pretty questionable at times as well (iirc he wrote a book about his dead sister, tbh I find it dubious when people drag intimate family matters to the public like that). And Benedict option is just a silly term…it’s not like Dreher intends to give up his bourgeois lifestyle and become a monk after all.

    Read More
  133. rw95 says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN

    Irish mick scum who has to go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    divide and rule

    or in your case divide and then keep dividing until the host society collapses cos you haz no brakes.
  134. notanon says:
    @Wulf

    “neo-nazi types” are *extremely* useful in meme warfare. they’re natural court jesters mocking the SJW king.
     
    Extremely useful in meme warfare? natural court jesters mocking the SJW king?

    Neo-nazis may be useful by providing a backstop to excessive compromise?

    Get a grip fool. The alt-right is doomed as long as clowns wearing kkk costumes, nazi parafernalia and white supremacist and AB symbols - including clear Hitlerjugend haircuts - are associated with it.

    Come to terms with it and quit embarrassing yourself.

    It’s important to recognize most of the larpy “neo-nazis” are FBI / media plants
     

    The FBI needs no plants having fools like yourself plus yesterdays clowns dressed as KKK and Nazi thugs. Again get a grip.

    two separate points

    1) the original comment mentioned “neo nazi types” but that label actually covers a lot of ground and includes

    - white kids rebelling against the anti-white indoctrination in the schools and adopting the aesthetics of the most culturally demonized white groups

    and

    - people like Anglin or Sam Hyde (and dozens more) who are instinctive court jesters and therefore compelled to poke fun at the biggest taboos

    anyone who says they haven’t been useful in the meme war doesn’t know what they’re talking about

    #

    2) how to deal with media attacks

    if no-one on the alt-right wears anything that can be used to push a “nazi” narrative the media will create some so any counter tactic has to work for situation that too and pathetic hysterical policing of haircuts won’t work and leads to GOPe.

    the only solution i can see is:
    - don’t do it yourself
    - don’t encourage people to do it
    - but totally ignore media attacks on the issue

    as soon as you let the media herd you, you’ve lost

    Read More
  135. notanon says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I do not think the Confederacy should be conflated with the Nazis. They were massively different in mentality and though outdated, I would argue that the South did actually have a coherent culture and lifestyle of existence. We have no evidence that the Reich would ever manage that - from the notes in their plans, it seemed really chaotic even had they managed to defeat the world.

    I do not think the Confederacy should be conflated with the Nazis. They were massively different in mentality and though outdated, I would argue that the South did actually have a coherent culture and lifestyle of existence.

    that’s part of my point. the kids using these symbols are using them because they’re the most demonized symbols of white identity – the content of those symbols isn’t really the issue.

    Read More
  136. notanon says:
    @Anon
    Actual Nazis have little going for them other than their reputation for extremism (which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis). The actual policies and concerns of 1930s NatSocs are of concern, as you said, only to an incredibly small and politically irrelevant group.

    which is the only reason you have biker and prison neo-Nazis

    this is the perfect analogy

    Read More
  137. notanon says:
    @rw95
    Irish mick scum who has to go back.

    divide and rule

    or in your case divide and then keep dividing until the host society collapses cos you haz no brakes.

    Read More
  138. Merkel has given a statement about Charlottesville:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charlottesville-virginia-angela-merkel-response-nazi-repulsive-far-right-violence-victim-killed-a7892431.html

    Probably part of the megalomaniacal delusion that she’s now the leader of the “free world”. Interesting that she thinks she can comment on the internal affairs of other countries…when she has so very little to say on all the crimes committed by the people she let into Germany.
    I really don’t like Trump, but when one sees those totally rotten transatlantic elites opposed to him one is tempted to forgive a lot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Another old farting hairy bulldyke....
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    https://twitter.com/27khv/status/897087008836907008
    , @The True and Original David
    “I don’t understand the details…like what the role of the current publisher Jon Basil Utley”

    In my undergraduate days I took a political science course taught by a bearded communist professor named Utley. He was Jewish by heritage. All F’s for students who didn’t agree with his hate-Whitey (hate-gentile) politics.

    I remember he wrote on one of my papers that if I were to read this paper “aloud on a streetcorner” I would have to be “very careful” which streetcorner I picked. (IOW, a not-so-subtle threat.)

    Utley is a name to look askance at.
  139. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @War for Blair Mountain
    NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN

    You’re an Irish American geezer from Long Island. You’re native to Ireland. Go back to Ireland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN...That makes me by many orders of genetic magnitude way more American than Khizir Khan and his late son.....and the rest of Pakistani Muslim "America" that highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc that the homo filth and disease Hillary Clinton Voters will never ever force to bake a wedding cake ....for two homo bikers who want to exchange torn...bloody...syphyllitic...wedding bowels in a Presbyterian "Christian" Church.....
  140. @Anonymous
    You're an Irish American geezer from Long Island. You're native to Ireland. Go back to Ireland.

    NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN…That makes me by many orders of genetic magnitude way more American than Khizir Khan and his late son…..and the rest of Pakistani Muslim “America” that highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc that the homo filth and disease Hillary Clinton Voters will never ever force to bake a wedding cake ….for two homo bikers who want to exchange torn…bloody…syphyllitic…wedding bowels in a Presbyterian “Christian” Church…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yes, you're not a Paki. You're native to Ireland.
  141. @German_reader
    Merkel has given a statement about Charlottesville:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charlottesville-virginia-angela-merkel-response-nazi-repulsive-far-right-violence-victim-killed-a7892431.html

    Probably part of the megalomaniacal delusion that she's now the leader of the "free world". Interesting that she thinks she can comment on the internal affairs of other countries...when she has so very little to say on all the crimes committed by the people she let into Germany.
    I really don't like Trump, but when one sees those totally rotten transatlantic elites opposed to him one is tempted to forgive a lot.

    Another old farting hairy bulldyke….

    Read More
  142. @iffen
    Well, the organizers of Unite the Right seem to share your enthusiasm for a big tent with a safe space for nazis, we'll see out it plays out. I can't see any benefit to anyone except nazis.

    The ANTIFAS waging violent race war on millions Conservative Christian Russians through their Ukraino Nazi puppets….this is why they voted twice for the narcissistic nosepicking homosexual Kenyan War Criminal Negro Foreigner in 2008 and 2012…..

    Read More
  143. I have a very bad gut feeling that the CHIKENHAWK Draft Doger Donald Trump is going to bomb the innocent North Korean People very soon…..

    Read More
  144. melanf says:
    @Anon
    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy. Consider Hathcock or Hayha.

    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy

    How? Roza Shanina (according to Soviet sources) for 10 months has killed 59 of the Germans (by shots from a far distance, from the shelter). It was the second half of the 44 – during this period, the Germans (because of the rapid defeat) was not able to count their own losses. During this period, warfare was not trench warfare, the front was moving rapidly to the West, German troops (whom Roza Shanina fought) is constantly changing

    The only way the Germans could learn about Roza Shanina – from Soviet Newspapers

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well, I wasn't talking about Miss Shanina specifically, about whom I know next to nothing, but let's consider her case anyway. With what German units was she in contact? Over what area did she operate? What were the ranks of the officers, if any, that she killed? When you say "the shelter", do you simply mean what we would call over here "cover", or are you talking about some physical structure? What were the Soviet rules for confirmation of kills?

    Re "how?", military intelligence is not limited to the reading of newspapers, though this can be a valuable supplement.
    , @Anon
    Oh, and if you credit TBRS's story, the Germans are supposed to have known not only of the existence of her contingent but its location at one point, losing 100 men (!) in an attempt to storm it.
  145. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    Larison’s very good on foreign policy, by the standards of the American mainstream.
     
    His positions on immigration etc. seem too pc for my taste (e.g. he criticised Trump's travel ban rather excessively imo), but I agree, he's to be commended for his efforts like pointing out US complicity in the carnage wrought by Saudi-Arabia's war in Yemen. That's a courageous stance. I guess he could be criticized for his articles being of an entirely negative nature, but then there's just such an awful lot to criticize about the foreign policy positions of the US mainstream.
    Regarding the American conservative on the whole, I think there was some change of ownership some years ago which may explain the changed profile of the magazine (I've forgotten the exact details and am too lazy to look them up now); and while they still run Pat Buchanan's articles on the website, they don't have a prominent place there nowadays (also not much anymore by people like Paul Gottfried or Steve Sailer who once had pieces published there as well). Apparently the magazine wasn't commercially successful in its original incarnation.

    Glancing at TAC.s website this morning is pretty typical. You’ve got Larison making an absolutely correct criticism of the US regime’s dishonesty or delusion over North Korea (North Korea and McMaster’s Deterrence Dishonesty), and Dreher dancing around trying to square the circle of keeping his goodwhite credentials on the inherent evil of racism, real and supposed, whilst recognising the basic aggression of the left that underlies events like those in Charlottesville. Desperately blaming the victims to ensure he doesn’t find himself on the side of the badwhites, even though it’s obvious he understands the truth on some level from his writings around the topic.

    And yes I don’t doubt Larison’s domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher’s, it’s just that I’ve only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he’s mostly accurate and honest, and therefore well out of step with the US mainstream.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.
     
    Well to be sure there's certainly a lot that can be legitimately criticized about Trump, I'm skeptical about him myself. What I find so repellent about Dreher's (often hysterical) criticism of Trump is how he approvingly cites all those establishment journos from the NYT, National Review etc. and all those mainstream politicians - people who should be absolutely discredited and not listened to at all given the disasters they've caused over the last 25 years - and gullibly takes up their hypocritical talking points. When you're starting to laud George W Bush as a thoroughly decent man or get indignant about how horrible it is when Trump bashes the "hero" McCain, you're really not much different anymore from the establishment TAC initially set out to oppose. Dreher has very poor judgment in all of this imo.
    , @Art Deco
    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Self-aggrandizement is the whole point of TAC. They have no coherent portfolio of measures they advocate. Their target has always been the conventional right (and, in the case of Trump, working elected officials).

    I think the sugar daddy at TAC is now Wick Allison, a successful publisher of business magazines who was once an associate of Wm. Buckley. The editor for a number of years was Daniel McCarthy. Samuel Francis used to complain (rightly if hypocritically) about 'career conservatives'. Well, that's McCarthy. Dreher has long been the columnist who attracted attention, because he can spark an interesting discussion. He is, however, a socially-anxious, other-directed, and status conscious man whose public writings are an extension of his personal issues. He also has some missing pieces, among them a very truncated if not absent sense of honor. See, for example Joseph Bottum's commentary on his dealings with Dreher, or ask yourself why Dreher is so insistent that a crudnik like Damon Linker never be criticized on his comment boards. Noah Millman is not a member of the starboard and has never pretended to be. Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He's never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He's never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?

    , @Matra
    And yes I don’t doubt Larison’s domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher’s, it’s just that I’ve only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he’s mostly accurate and honest

    Larison was somewhat interesting when he had his own basically paleocon blog. As soon as he started working for TAC he wrote like he was angling for the conservative spot at the NY Times that eventually went to Douthat. It's actually pretty safe to write long-winded* column after column about how GOPers/conservatives are wrong on foreign policy as there are still plenty of influential liberals and leftists who enjoy those - both the principled anti-war kind and the unprincipled ones who just love DL's bashing of Republicans. He seems to delight in being the conservative who gets quoted by the left to ever return to paleocon social/immigration issues. Maybe he no longer cares about anything other than foreign policy.

    * He really is a very tedious writer. Even when he had his own blog it took him an eternity to make a point. He has not improved at all.

  146. aleksis says:

    leftists blew up dozens of people in Europe every single year

    It turned out that many of atrocities attributed to leftists were in fact the deeds of Operation Gladio-like stay-behind armies. The members of these stay-behind armies can be described as “rightist” if you like.

    Read More
  147. @German_reader
    Merkel has given a statement about Charlottesville:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charlottesville-virginia-angela-merkel-response-nazi-repulsive-far-right-violence-victim-killed-a7892431.html

    Probably part of the megalomaniacal delusion that she's now the leader of the "free world". Interesting that she thinks she can comment on the internal affairs of other countries...when she has so very little to say on all the crimes committed by the people she let into Germany.
    I really don't like Trump, but when one sees those totally rotten transatlantic elites opposed to him one is tempted to forgive a lot.

    Read More
  148. Hibernian says:
    @The Big Red Scary
    I meant Germany versus the Soviet Union. To first order, other players were irrelevant.

    Yea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Anzio, D-Day, etc., were irrelevant. Yea, right. Not to mention Lend Lease.

    Read More
  149. Trump has just RT’ed Jack Posobiec.

    He’s also back-peddling somewhat.

    As with Putin, it’s wise not to rush to zrada/peremoga-type conclusions with Trump. He tends to see-saw back and forth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Neither of them are ideologically committed, so they see both sides of these kinds of disputes.

    That's both a strength when it comes to resisting getting swept up in the usual hysterias, and a weakness when something actually needs to be done.
    , @Randal
    A pretty robust session from Trump tonight, showing some testicular fortitude:

    Both sides to blame in Virginia - Trump
  150. Randal says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Trump has just RT'ed Jack Posobiec.

    He's also back-peddling somewhat.

    As with Putin, it's wise not to rush to zrada/peremoga-type conclusions with Trump. He tends to see-saw back and forth.

    Neither of them are ideologically committed, so they see both sides of these kinds of disputes.

    That’s both a strength when it comes to resisting getting swept up in the usual hysterias, and a weakness when something actually needs to be done.

    Read More
  151. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @melanf

    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy
     
    How? Roza Shanina (according to Soviet sources) for 10 months has killed 59 of the Germans (by shots from a far distance, from the shelter). It was the second half of the 44 - during this period, the Germans (because of the rapid defeat) was not able to count their own losses. During this period, warfare was not trench warfare, the front was moving rapidly to the West, German troops (whom Roza Shanina fought) is constantly changing

    The only way the Germans could learn about Roza Shanina - from Soviet Newspapers

    Well, I wasn’t talking about Miss Shanina specifically, about whom I know next to nothing, but let’s consider her case anyway. With what German units was she in contact? Over what area did she operate? What were the ranks of the officers, if any, that she killed? When you say “the shelter”, do you simply mean what we would call over here “cover”, or are you talking about some physical structure? What were the Soviet rules for confirmation of kills?

    Re “how?”, military intelligence is not limited to the reading of newspapers, though this can be a valuable supplement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Well, I wasn’t talking about Miss Shanina specifically, about whom I know next to nothing, but let’s consider her case anyway. With what German units was she in contact? Over what area did she operate? What were the ranks of the officers, if any, that she killed? When you say “the shelter”, do you simply mean what we would call over here “cover”, or are you talking about some physical structure? What were the Soviet rules for confirmation of kills?
     
    In this case, start historical research on these issues. For you in particular will help the diary of Rosa Shanina

    "Akimova says — "I do not believe that Roza Shanina killed so many Germans, it's fake".
    It turned out so. In defense, sometimes a lot of shooting - dark matter, killed it or not. But I always just shot at the target, and stand-up Fritz is also in most cases I get. I shoot in most cases the Germans who stand or walk ( running Germans hard to get ). Sometimes the Germans whom I killed do not take into account, and sometimes the opposite to me attribute to those whom I did not kill, but my score (dead Germans) are correct. If once in my list mistakenly added dead German, other times mistakenly not added
    "

    (Говорит Алкимова — я, мол, не верю, что Роза уничтожила столько фрицев, приписали.
    Получилось так. В обороне иногда много стреляешь по целям, но темное дело, убит он или нет. Здраво рассуждать, я по мишени всегда точно била и по стоячему фрицу тоже чаще попадаю, чем мимо, а стреляю в большинстве случаев по стоячим и пешеходам, по перебежчикам трудно, только пугать их. Иногда совсем не напишут, а иногда напишут на авось, иногда и зря, но на моем счету нет ни одного убитого фрица, ложного. Если в один раз зря написали, другой раз убила, но не записали, когда как придется".)
  152. @melanf

    I read somewhere that extremely successful Soviet female snipers (with dozens or hundreds of kills) were products of Soviet propaganda. There’s no trace of them in German reports, even though a sniper killing dozens or even (in some cases) hundreds of officers or even soldiers would show up there.
     
    How? Suppose a woman sniper killed 100 German soldiers throughout the year. How this can be reflected in the "trace in German reports" ?

    In this case, the German documents can not prove anything. Was german soldier Fritz killed by a stray bullet, or killed by Roza Shanina - German documents do not give an answer to this question

    Here’s Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn’t sound very plausible.

    I also think that soldiers killed by snipers (I think Pavlichenko would be “semi-sniper” in the present American terminology) can often be identified, because they often get killed when the front is otherwise quiet. Snipers are like spiders, patiently waiting for their kills. At least that’s my understanding of sniper work. Maybe some expert (like Andrei Martyanov) could weigh in.

    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females – I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it’s not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It’s quite good propaganda, if you think about it: shaming the men into sacrificing their lives, because, hey, even a woman could kill 300 Germans…

    Again, and that’s crucial, that’s only true if we can really find no trace of them in German reports. How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941? Because in those two and a half months at most 150,000 Germans were killed on all fronts altogether (including places like Africa; the vast majority of them not by snipers, I guess), it seems suspicious that Pavlichenko alone could kill 187 while there. Maybe many of them were Romanians. But still.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    Here’s Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn’t sound very plausible...
    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females – I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it’s not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It’s quite good propaganda

     

    These arguments seem to me unconvincing. Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä according to Finnish sources for three months (during Winter war) killed 505 officers and soldiers of the Soviet Army (i.e. 165 per month). KIA of the Soviet Army per month - about 15 000. I.e., Simo Häyhä was responsible for 1% of Soviet KIA at the time.
    What do you think, should we assume that Simo Häyhä actually killed not 500, but 50 or maybe only 5 Soviet soldiers? I.e., Simo Häyhä is Finnish propaganda fake, and it's not totally impossible that the numbers for other Finnish snipers are equally inflated (10-100 times)?

    You can consider the question from a different angle. In the USSR during the war were systematically trained women snipers (it was believed that for this military "profession" they are perfect). Women snipers in the Soviet army was a large number. By virtue of the simple laws of statistics, it is inevitable that among these numerous snipers were fighters extra class (and they were glorified by propaganda, not some random girl in a military uniform).
    Most likely the numbers of Pavlichenko, Shanina, etc. inflated (as well as high achievements of almost all the snipers of all armies, in all wars). But female snipers is a reality and not a myth of Soviet propaganda

    , @melanf

    How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941?
     
    Odessa was besieged by the Romanians not by the Germans (German troops also participated, but they were small). The losses (Romanians+ German ) killed and missing during the siege - 28 000 (from the Romanian Wikipedia).
  153. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @melanf

    Such extremely successful snipers become known to the enemy
     
    How? Roza Shanina (according to Soviet sources) for 10 months has killed 59 of the Germans (by shots from a far distance, from the shelter). It was the second half of the 44 - during this period, the Germans (because of the rapid defeat) was not able to count their own losses. During this period, warfare was not trench warfare, the front was moving rapidly to the West, German troops (whom Roza Shanina fought) is constantly changing

    The only way the Germans could learn about Roza Shanina - from Soviet Newspapers

    Oh, and if you credit TBRS’s story, the Germans are supposed to have known not only of the existence of her contingent but its location at one point, losing 100 men (!) in an attempt to storm it.

    Read More
  154. @Dan Hayes
    German_Reader:

    The way I heard it (all second/third hand) was that the ordinal purpose of the American Conservative was to oppose one of the Iraq Wars. It was originally bankrolled by Taki, the Greek businessman/playboy, who still writes witty columns for the Spectator (London) and Chronicles magazine. Taki got disillusioned with the AC and its original editor, Scott McConnell, for running through his money. Since that time it has been floundering (at one time being a big proponent for gay marriage). Interestingly, at another time it was bankrolled by our own Ron Unz. There appears to have been some kerfuffle where Ron was persona non grata and forbidden to write for the magazine even though he may still have been underwriting the operation. I have the impression it is presently being underwritten by some type of preservationist group. All in all a sad story of what might have been.

    On another matter, Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book.

    “Dreher seems to spend almost all his time at AC flogging his Benedict Option book.”

    Will Dreher ever shut up about the need to be silent?

    Read More
  155. @German_reader
    Merkel has given a statement about Charlottesville:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/charlottesville-virginia-angela-merkel-response-nazi-repulsive-far-right-violence-victim-killed-a7892431.html

    Probably part of the megalomaniacal delusion that she's now the leader of the "free world". Interesting that she thinks she can comment on the internal affairs of other countries...when she has so very little to say on all the crimes committed by the people she let into Germany.
    I really don't like Trump, but when one sees those totally rotten transatlantic elites opposed to him one is tempted to forgive a lot.

    “I don’t understand the details…like what the role of the current publisher Jon Basil Utley”

    In my undergraduate days I took a political science course taught by a bearded communist professor named Utley. He was Jewish by heritage. All F’s for students who didn’t agree with his hate-Whitey (hate-gentile) politics.

    I remember he wrote on one of my papers that if I were to read this paper “aloud on a streetcorner” I would have to be “very careful” which streetcorner I picked. (IOW, a not-so-subtle threat.)

    Utley is a name to look askance at.

    Read More
  156. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Oh, and if you credit TBRS's story, the Germans are supposed to have known not only of the existence of her contingent but its location at one point, losing 100 men (!) in an attempt to storm it.

    My mistake, 50 men.

    Read More
  157. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor
    Here's Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn't sound very plausible.

    I also think that soldiers killed by snipers (I think Pavlichenko would be "semi-sniper" in the present American terminology) can often be identified, because they often get killed when the front is otherwise quiet. Snipers are like spiders, patiently waiting for their kills. At least that's my understanding of sniper work. Maybe some expert (like Andrei Martyanov) could weigh in.

    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females - I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it's not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It's quite good propaganda, if you think about it: shaming the men into sacrificing their lives, because, hey, even a woman could kill 300 Germans...

    Again, and that's crucial, that's only true if we can really find no trace of them in German reports. How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941? Because in those two and a half months at most 150,000 Germans were killed on all fronts altogether (including places like Africa; the vast majority of them not by snipers, I guess), it seems suspicious that Pavlichenko alone could kill 187 while there. Maybe many of them were Romanians. But still.

    Here’s Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn’t sound very plausible…
    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females – I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it’s not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It’s quite good propaganda

    These arguments seem to me unconvincing. Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä according to Finnish sources for three months (during Winter war) killed 505 officers and soldiers of the Soviet Army (i.e. 165 per month). KIA of the Soviet Army per month – about 15 000. I.e., Simo Häyhä was responsible for 1% of Soviet KIA at the time.
    What do you think, should we assume that Simo Häyhä actually killed not 500, but 50 or maybe only 5 Soviet soldiers? I.e., Simo Häyhä is Finnish propaganda fake, and it’s not totally impossible that the numbers for other Finnish snipers are equally inflated (10-100 times)?

    You can consider the question from a different angle. In the USSR during the war were systematically trained women snipers (it was believed that for this military “profession” they are perfect). Women snipers in the Soviet army was a large number. By virtue of the simple laws of statistics, it is inevitable that among these numerous snipers were fighters extra class (and they were glorified by propaganda, not some random girl in a military uniform).
    Most likely the numbers of Pavlichenko, Shanina, etc. inflated (as well as high achievements of almost all the snipers of all armies, in all wars). But female snipers is a reality and not a myth of Soviet propaganda

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I personally think Häyhä's numbers could easily be inflated, at least somewhat. It would be good to see Soviet reports on losses. According to sources the Soviets tried to kill Häyhä, so he was well known to the Soviets. It might be interesting to do a thorough research, because I think this is quite unlike ace pilots or tank aces where kills were easier to confirm, and where they were really matched to opposite reports. As it turned out, German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same (I think they always took the lowest possible estimate, and then multiplied it by 0.8 or something, and still their estimates were occasionally too high... It's just very easy to overestimate enemy losses.) Therefore, I'm a little more inclined to accept extraordinary Axis performance (actually, only German and Finnish - the Finns because the Germans thought the Finns were their equals, the only nation they really thought their equals in military matters), than extraordinary Soviet performance. Also, because of the feminist propaganda (which was also prevalent in communist countries, though less crazy than in the current West), I'm a bit more skeptical of extraordinary female performance than of extraordinary male performance (therefore, I'm a bit more skeptical of Pavlichenko than of Ivan Sidorenko, though I suspect the latter's numbers might also be inflated, just as possibly Häyhä's numbers).

    As I said, it should be possible to match these extraordinary claims with enemy reports on both sides.
  158. @Randal
    Glancing at TAC.s website this morning is pretty typical. You've got Larison making an absolutely correct criticism of the US regime's dishonesty or delusion over North Korea (North Korea and McMaster’s Deterrence Dishonesty), and Dreher dancing around trying to square the circle of keeping his goodwhite credentials on the inherent evil of racism, real and supposed, whilst recognising the basic aggression of the left that underlies events like those in Charlottesville. Desperately blaming the victims to ensure he doesn't find himself on the side of the badwhites, even though it's obvious he understands the truth on some level from his writings around the topic.

    And yes I don't doubt Larison's domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher's, it's just that I've only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he's mostly accurate and honest, and therefore well out of step with the US mainstream.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Well to be sure there’s certainly a lot that can be legitimately criticized about Trump, I’m skeptical about him myself. What I find so repellent about Dreher’s (often hysterical) criticism of Trump is how he approvingly cites all those establishment journos from the NYT, National Review etc. and all those mainstream politicians – people who should be absolutely discredited and not listened to at all given the disasters they’ve caused over the last 25 years – and gullibly takes up their hypocritical talking points. When you’re starting to laud George W Bush as a thoroughly decent man or get indignant about how horrible it is when Trump bashes the “hero” McCain, you’re really not much different anymore from the establishment TAC initially set out to oppose. Dreher has very poor judgment in all of this imo.

    Read More
  159. melanf says:
    @Anon
    Well, I wasn't talking about Miss Shanina specifically, about whom I know next to nothing, but let's consider her case anyway. With what German units was she in contact? Over what area did she operate? What were the ranks of the officers, if any, that she killed? When you say "the shelter", do you simply mean what we would call over here "cover", or are you talking about some physical structure? What were the Soviet rules for confirmation of kills?

    Re "how?", military intelligence is not limited to the reading of newspapers, though this can be a valuable supplement.

    Well, I wasn’t talking about Miss Shanina specifically, about whom I know next to nothing, but let’s consider her case anyway. With what German units was she in contact? Over what area did she operate? What were the ranks of the officers, if any, that she killed? When you say “the shelter”, do you simply mean what we would call over here “cover”, or are you talking about some physical structure? What were the Soviet rules for confirmation of kills?

    In this case, start historical research on these issues. For you in particular will help the diary of Rosa Shanina

    Akimova says — “I do not believe that Roza Shanina killed so many Germans, it’s fake”.
    It turned out so. In defense, sometimes a lot of shooting – dark matter, killed it or not. But I always just shot at the target, and stand-up Fritz is also in most cases I get. I shoot in most cases the Germans who stand or walk ( running Germans hard to get ). Sometimes the Germans whom I killed do not take into account, and sometimes the opposite to me attribute to those whom I did not kill, but my score (dead Germans) are correct. If once in my list mistakenly added dead German, other times mistakenly not added

    (Говорит Алкимова — я, мол, не верю, что Роза уничтожила столько фрицев, приписали.
    Получилось так. В обороне иногда много стреляешь по целям, но темное дело, убит он или нет. Здраво рассуждать, я по мишени всегда точно била и по стоячему фрицу тоже чаще попадаю, чем мимо, а стреляю в большинстве случаев по стоячим и пешеходам, по перебежчикам трудно, только пугать их. Иногда совсем не напишут, а иногда напишут на авось, иногда и зря, но на моем счету нет ни одного убитого фрица, ложного. Если в один раз зря написали, другой раз убила, но не записали, когда как придется”.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Thanks for that. It bears out my and RT's theory that kill numbers are wildly overestimated, since they seem to rely on self-reporting which is almost always an overestimate.

    One thing that confuses me at least in the English-language version I found is that this is described as a diary but presented as a series of letters to a war correspondent. Surely I must be missing something?
  160. @melanf

    Here’s Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn’t sound very plausible...
    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females – I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it’s not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It’s quite good propaganda

     

    These arguments seem to me unconvincing. Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä according to Finnish sources for three months (during Winter war) killed 505 officers and soldiers of the Soviet Army (i.e. 165 per month). KIA of the Soviet Army per month - about 15 000. I.e., Simo Häyhä was responsible for 1% of Soviet KIA at the time.
    What do you think, should we assume that Simo Häyhä actually killed not 500, but 50 or maybe only 5 Soviet soldiers? I.e., Simo Häyhä is Finnish propaganda fake, and it's not totally impossible that the numbers for other Finnish snipers are equally inflated (10-100 times)?

    You can consider the question from a different angle. In the USSR during the war were systematically trained women snipers (it was believed that for this military "profession" they are perfect). Women snipers in the Soviet army was a large number. By virtue of the simple laws of statistics, it is inevitable that among these numerous snipers were fighters extra class (and they were glorified by propaganda, not some random girl in a military uniform).
    Most likely the numbers of Pavlichenko, Shanina, etc. inflated (as well as high achievements of almost all the snipers of all armies, in all wars). But female snipers is a reality and not a myth of Soviet propaganda

    I personally think Häyhä’s numbers could easily be inflated, at least somewhat. It would be good to see Soviet reports on losses. According to sources the Soviets tried to kill Häyhä, so he was well known to the Soviets. It might be interesting to do a thorough research, because I think this is quite unlike ace pilots or tank aces where kills were easier to confirm, and where they were really matched to opposite reports. As it turned out, German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same (I think they always took the lowest possible estimate, and then multiplied it by 0.8 or something, and still their estimates were occasionally too high… It’s just very easy to overestimate enemy losses.) Therefore, I’m a little more inclined to accept extraordinary Axis performance (actually, only German and Finnish – the Finns because the Germans thought the Finns were their equals, the only nation they really thought their equals in military matters), than extraordinary Soviet performance. Also, because of the feminist propaganda (which was also prevalent in communist countries, though less crazy than in the current West), I’m a bit more skeptical of extraordinary female performance than of extraordinary male performance (therefore, I’m a bit more skeptical of Pavlichenko than of Ivan Sidorenko, though I suspect the latter’s numbers might also be inflated, just as possibly Häyhä’s numbers).

    As I said, it should be possible to match these extraordinary claims with enemy reports on both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Magical Finnish snipers were a propaganda story for the foreign press and I hear much more of them from foreign history nerds than other Finns. It would not be surprising if the numbers are inflated, I've never understood how would you even confirm these kills, an army in the middle of war has more important things to do than forensics over which bullet killed which guy.

    I think it's reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all individual performance stories in wars, even fighter pilots and generals get propaganda myths built around them when a dismal record is easily verifiable.
    , @melanf

    German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same
     
    The Luga defensive area, August 11, 1941

    "The Germans declared the destruction in battle of 64 Soviet tanks. The loss of the Soviet 1st tank division on August 11 was sensitive, but significantly lower than claimed by the Germans — 5 KV, 7 T-28, 3 BT-7 and 2 BA-10"
    1941 [From the border to Leningrad]
    Isaev Alexey https://military.wikireading.ru/4260

    And it is common practice
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I am in the camp that Pavlichenko was probably legit.

    First, as melanf points out, it is a common phenomenon that a large share of "success" in any endevour accrues to a small proportion of the best at it, so the very existence of super-snipers is not anything surprising.

    Second, our tendency towards HBD-realism, though extremely useful, might lead us to a blindsight in particular cases. Marksmanship is one of the very few sports where women are strongly competitive with men. Why? Lower center of gravity due to big hips, cushioning from the breasts. So the existence of female super-snipers is not at all infeasible, as opposed to boxers or swordswomen like Brienne or whatever.
  161. The problem with the Nazi LARPers is not that they’re too extreme, it’s that they’re not a real extreme. People who dress up like past militant right-wingers are not the same thing as current militant right-wingers and I don’t believe for a second that these imitators would even be as bold and radical as Hitler if they got a chance to seize power.

    There is a big difference between an imitator and the original. For the actual Elvis, the unusual costumes and distinctive styles risked ridicule but worked to his advantage in the end as he passed the test of audiences. If you are a contemporary singer, wearing the same costumes marks you as an Elvis imitator, a safe bet if you’re a singer (or lip syncer) wishing to pay some bills, but you’ll never become the next big singer by imitating someone else’s style.

    Imitation is the sign of wanting to play it safe by following a tested script and it’s the opposite of radical. The same holds for leftists, of course, and we have these tiny “revolutionary communist” parties all led by some guy with a goatee thinking people will think he’s the next Lenin if he repeats the same slogans and the same aesthetics. No reason to worry about them – they’re people who want a risk-free way to build up an image as radical revolutionaries and with that psychological profile they’re not leading any revolution.

    The mainstream conservatives obsessing over condemning these LARPers are double pathetic – not only are they jumping when the left demands them to jump, they’re implicitly ceding the right-wing political pole to the unserious costume party crowd. Our left doesn’t treat the hammer-and-sickle Lenin goatee LARP crowd as a serious, more radical version of themselves that “moderates” need to “disavow”, why does the right need to be so stupid in dealing with the swastika LARP crowd?

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That's a very perceptive comment. I was also thinking that these LARPers never were anything but clowns, but I couldn't think it through as clearly as you did.
  162. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor
    Here's Lyudmila Pavlichenko, who allegedly killed over 300 Germans over the course of perhaps 10 months. The Germans at the time were losing perhaps 40-50,000 men killed on a monthly basis, so Pavlichenko was responsible for almost 0.1% of German KIA at the time. On the face of it, it doesn't sound very plausible.

    I also think that soldiers killed by snipers (I think Pavlichenko would be "semi-sniper" in the present American terminology) can often be identified, because they often get killed when the front is otherwise quiet. Snipers are like spiders, patiently waiting for their kills. At least that's my understanding of sniper work. Maybe some expert (like Andrei Martyanov) could weigh in.

    Now because the numbers for Pavlichenko (and some similar snipers, especially the females - I think the Germans were aware of some of the most successful males) seem quite a bit exaggerated (like 300 instead of 30, or maybe 300 instead of 3), it's not totally impossible that the numbers for other snipers are equally inflated. It's quite good propaganda, if you think about it: shaming the men into sacrificing their lives, because, hey, even a woman could kill 300 Germans...

    Again, and that's crucial, that's only true if we can really find no trace of them in German reports. How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941? Because in those two and a half months at most 150,000 Germans were killed on all fronts altogether (including places like Africa; the vast majority of them not by snipers, I guess), it seems suspicious that Pavlichenko alone could kill 187 while there. Maybe many of them were Romanians. But still.

    How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941?

    Odessa was besieged by the Romanians not by the Germans (German troops also participated, but they were small). The losses (Romanians+ German ) killed and missing during the siege – 28 000 (from the Romanian Wikipedia).

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I'm not saying you totally convinced me, but definitely moved my thinking in that I now think Pavlichenko's numbers at least have a decent chance of roughly being correct.
  163. @Jaakko Raipala
    The problem with the Nazi LARPers is not that they're too extreme, it's that they're not a real extreme. People who dress up like past militant right-wingers are not the same thing as current militant right-wingers and I don't believe for a second that these imitators would even be as bold and radical as Hitler if they got a chance to seize power.

    There is a big difference between an imitator and the original. For the actual Elvis, the unusual costumes and distinctive styles risked ridicule but worked to his advantage in the end as he passed the test of audiences. If you are a contemporary singer, wearing the same costumes marks you as an Elvis imitator, a safe bet if you're a singer (or lip syncer) wishing to pay some bills, but you'll never become the next big singer by imitating someone else's style.

    Imitation is the sign of wanting to play it safe by following a tested script and it's the opposite of radical. The same holds for leftists, of course, and we have these tiny "revolutionary communist" parties all led by some guy with a goatee thinking people will think he's the next Lenin if he repeats the same slogans and the same aesthetics. No reason to worry about them - they're people who want a risk-free way to build up an image as radical revolutionaries and with that psychological profile they're not leading any revolution.

    The mainstream conservatives obsessing over condemning these LARPers are double pathetic - not only are they jumping when the left demands them to jump, they're implicitly ceding the right-wing political pole to the unserious costume party crowd. Our left doesn't treat the hammer-and-sickle Lenin goatee LARP crowd as a serious, more radical version of themselves that "moderates" need to "disavow", why does the right need to be so stupid in dealing with the swastika LARP crowd?

    That’s a very perceptive comment. I was also thinking that these LARPers never were anything but clowns, but I couldn’t think it through as clearly as you did.

    Read More
  164. @melanf

    How many Germans were killed by snipers around Odessa in the summer and early fall of 1941?
     
    Odessa was besieged by the Romanians not by the Germans (German troops also participated, but they were small). The losses (Romanians+ German ) killed and missing during the siege - 28 000 (from the Romanian Wikipedia).

    I’m not saying you totally convinced me, but definitely moved my thinking in that I now think Pavlichenko’s numbers at least have a decent chance of roughly being correct.

    Read More
  165. @reiner Tor
    I personally think Häyhä's numbers could easily be inflated, at least somewhat. It would be good to see Soviet reports on losses. According to sources the Soviets tried to kill Häyhä, so he was well known to the Soviets. It might be interesting to do a thorough research, because I think this is quite unlike ace pilots or tank aces where kills were easier to confirm, and where they were really matched to opposite reports. As it turned out, German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same (I think they always took the lowest possible estimate, and then multiplied it by 0.8 or something, and still their estimates were occasionally too high... It's just very easy to overestimate enemy losses.) Therefore, I'm a little more inclined to accept extraordinary Axis performance (actually, only German and Finnish - the Finns because the Germans thought the Finns were their equals, the only nation they really thought their equals in military matters), than extraordinary Soviet performance. Also, because of the feminist propaganda (which was also prevalent in communist countries, though less crazy than in the current West), I'm a bit more skeptical of extraordinary female performance than of extraordinary male performance (therefore, I'm a bit more skeptical of Pavlichenko than of Ivan Sidorenko, though I suspect the latter's numbers might also be inflated, just as possibly Häyhä's numbers).

    As I said, it should be possible to match these extraordinary claims with enemy reports on both sides.

    Magical Finnish snipers were a propaganda story for the foreign press and I hear much more of them from foreign history nerds than other Finns. It would not be surprising if the numbers are inflated, I’ve never understood how would you even confirm these kills, an army in the middle of war has more important things to do than forensics over which bullet killed which guy.

    I think it’s reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all individual performance stories in wars, even fighter pilots and generals get propaganda myths built around them when a dismal record is easily verifiable.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @melanf

    I think it’s reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all individual performance stories in wars, even fighter pilots and generals get propaganda myths built around them when a dismal record is easily verifiable.
     
    This is absolutely correct.

    However, the discussion started about Roza Shanina - if she was a war hero? Here is an excerpt from her diary:

    "8 Aug. I recently went A. W. O. L.... I knew that our training company will not go on the offensive, and will be located in the rear. And I have to be at the forefront, to see what it is, a real war. ... I went for the battalion, which was heading to the front, and on the same day have been in combat. Next to me people were dying. I shot, and successfully. And then captured 3 German prisoners....
    I'm happy ! Although A. W. O. L the commander gave me an earful, I even got a penalty
    ."

    You can invent fake the deaths of Germans from sniper fire, but prisoners.... 19 year girl on their own initiative goes to battle (violating the order), and returned with three prisoners. This blonde really was a top class warrior

  166. Art Deco says:
    @Randal
    Glancing at TAC.s website this morning is pretty typical. You've got Larison making an absolutely correct criticism of the US regime's dishonesty or delusion over North Korea (North Korea and McMaster’s Deterrence Dishonesty), and Dreher dancing around trying to square the circle of keeping his goodwhite credentials on the inherent evil of racism, real and supposed, whilst recognising the basic aggression of the left that underlies events like those in Charlottesville. Desperately blaming the victims to ensure he doesn't find himself on the side of the badwhites, even though it's obvious he understands the truth on some level from his writings around the topic.

    And yes I don't doubt Larison's domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher's, it's just that I've only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he's mostly accurate and honest, and therefore well out of step with the US mainstream.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Self-aggrandizement is the whole point of TAC. They have no coherent portfolio of measures they advocate. Their target has always been the conventional right (and, in the case of Trump, working elected officials).

    I think the sugar daddy at TAC is now Wick Allison, a successful publisher of business magazines who was once an associate of Wm. Buckley. The editor for a number of years was Daniel McCarthy. Samuel Francis used to complain (rightly if hypocritically) about ‘career conservatives’. Well, that’s McCarthy. Dreher has long been the columnist who attracted attention, because he can spark an interesting discussion. He is, however, a socially-anxious, other-directed, and status conscious man whose public writings are an extension of his personal issues. He also has some missing pieces, among them a very truncated if not absent sense of honor. See, for example Joseph Bottum’s commentary on his dealings with Dreher, or ask yourself why Dreher is so insistent that a crudnik like Damon Linker never be criticized on his comment boards. Noah Millman is not a member of the starboard and has never pretended to be. Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He’s never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He’s never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He’s never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He’s never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?
     
    I judge general opinion writers by their output, not by their background. Larison pretty consistently writes sense and draws attention to the grosser stupidities and hypocrisies in US mainstream and regime opinion on foreign policy. probably being an outsider is an advantage in dealing with a group-thinking bipartisan idiocracy like the US foreign policy elite.

    Specific experience is useful, but as often misleads and biases as it inspires. Those with a particular background are often unable to escape the box of that experience. And experience is no guarantee of wisdom.

    For instance, there were plenty of experienced military men and highly qualified experts on the region who were absolutely convinced that invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea. There were also plenty who took the other view. In the end the decision has to be taken by someone who is not an expert, based upon assessing the arguments and applying general experience and what we term wisdom. Humans can do that, you know, even if some like Bush II make a spectacular pig's ear of it in particular cases.

    It's a bit like the claim by race and sex identity lobbyists that nobody who isn't one of their particular minority can understand or speak about their experience. It's bollocks.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He’s never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He’s never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?
     
    Any port in a storm...
    , @Randal
    A courtesy flag to let you know that I referenced your comment about Dreher here:

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/russia-nazi-myths/#comment-1974207
  167. once I filtered out 2 users, the comments sections just improved by a few hundred percent.

    Read More
  168. melanf says:
    @reiner Tor
    I personally think Häyhä's numbers could easily be inflated, at least somewhat. It would be good to see Soviet reports on losses. According to sources the Soviets tried to kill Häyhä, so he was well known to the Soviets. It might be interesting to do a thorough research, because I think this is quite unlike ace pilots or tank aces where kills were easier to confirm, and where they were really matched to opposite reports. As it turned out, German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same (I think they always took the lowest possible estimate, and then multiplied it by 0.8 or something, and still their estimates were occasionally too high... It's just very easy to overestimate enemy losses.) Therefore, I'm a little more inclined to accept extraordinary Axis performance (actually, only German and Finnish - the Finns because the Germans thought the Finns were their equals, the only nation they really thought their equals in military matters), than extraordinary Soviet performance. Also, because of the feminist propaganda (which was also prevalent in communist countries, though less crazy than in the current West), I'm a bit more skeptical of extraordinary female performance than of extraordinary male performance (therefore, I'm a bit more skeptical of Pavlichenko than of Ivan Sidorenko, though I suspect the latter's numbers might also be inflated, just as possibly Häyhä's numbers).

    As I said, it should be possible to match these extraordinary claims with enemy reports on both sides.

    German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same

    The Luga defensive area, August 11, 1941

    The Germans declared the destruction in battle of 64 Soviet tanks. The loss of the Soviet 1st tank division on August 11 was sensitive, but significantly lower than claimed by the Germans — 5 KV, 7 T-28, 3 BT-7 and 2 BA-10
    1941 [From the border to Leningrad]
    Isaev Alexey https://military.wikireading.ru/4260

    And it is common practice

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As I wrote:

    and still their estimates were occasionally too high…
     
  169. @melanf

    German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same
     
    The Luga defensive area, August 11, 1941

    "The Germans declared the destruction in battle of 64 Soviet tanks. The loss of the Soviet 1st tank division on August 11 was sensitive, but significantly lower than claimed by the Germans — 5 KV, 7 T-28, 3 BT-7 and 2 BA-10"
    1941 [From the border to Leningrad]
    Isaev Alexey https://military.wikireading.ru/4260

    And it is common practice

    As I wrote:

    and still their estimates were occasionally too high…

    Read More
  170. Randal says:
    @Art Deco
    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Self-aggrandizement is the whole point of TAC. They have no coherent portfolio of measures they advocate. Their target has always been the conventional right (and, in the case of Trump, working elected officials).

    I think the sugar daddy at TAC is now Wick Allison, a successful publisher of business magazines who was once an associate of Wm. Buckley. The editor for a number of years was Daniel McCarthy. Samuel Francis used to complain (rightly if hypocritically) about 'career conservatives'. Well, that's McCarthy. Dreher has long been the columnist who attracted attention, because he can spark an interesting discussion. He is, however, a socially-anxious, other-directed, and status conscious man whose public writings are an extension of his personal issues. He also has some missing pieces, among them a very truncated if not absent sense of honor. See, for example Joseph Bottum's commentary on his dealings with Dreher, or ask yourself why Dreher is so insistent that a crudnik like Damon Linker never be criticized on his comment boards. Noah Millman is not a member of the starboard and has never pretended to be. Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He's never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He's never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?

    Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He’s never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He’s never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?

    I judge general opinion writers by their output, not by their background. Larison pretty consistently writes sense and draws attention to the grosser stupidities and hypocrisies in US mainstream and regime opinion on foreign policy. probably being an outsider is an advantage in dealing with a group-thinking bipartisan idiocracy like the US foreign policy elite.

    Specific experience is useful, but as often misleads and biases as it inspires. Those with a particular background are often unable to escape the box of that experience. And experience is no guarantee of wisdom.

    For instance, there were plenty of experienced military men and highly qualified experts on the region who were absolutely convinced that invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea. There were also plenty who took the other view. In the end the decision has to be taken by someone who is not an expert, based upon assessing the arguments and applying general experience and what we term wisdom. Humans can do that, you know, even if some like Bush II make a spectacular pig’s ear of it in particular cases.

    It’s a bit like the claim by race and sex identity lobbyists that nobody who isn’t one of their particular minority can understand or speak about their experience. It’s bollocks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I judge general opinion writers by their output, not by their background. Larison pretty consistently writes sense and draws attention to the grosser stupidities and hypocrisies in US mainstream and regime opinion on foreign policy.

    You're telling me you fancy you and he are of exceptional perspicacity.
  171. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @War for Blair Mountain
    NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN...That makes me by many orders of genetic magnitude way more American than Khizir Khan and his late son.....and the rest of Pakistani Muslim "America" that highly racialized Democratic Party Voting Bloc that the homo filth and disease Hillary Clinton Voters will never ever force to bake a wedding cake ....for two homo bikers who want to exchange torn...bloody...syphyllitic...wedding bowels in a Presbyterian "Christian" Church.....

    Yes, you’re not a Paki. You’re native to Ireland.

    Read More
  172. Matra says:
    @Randal
    Glancing at TAC.s website this morning is pretty typical. You've got Larison making an absolutely correct criticism of the US regime's dishonesty or delusion over North Korea (North Korea and McMaster’s Deterrence Dishonesty), and Dreher dancing around trying to square the circle of keeping his goodwhite credentials on the inherent evil of racism, real and supposed, whilst recognising the basic aggression of the left that underlies events like those in Charlottesville. Desperately blaming the victims to ensure he doesn't find himself on the side of the badwhites, even though it's obvious he understands the truth on some level from his writings around the topic.

    And yes I don't doubt Larison's domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher's, it's just that I've only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he's mostly accurate and honest, and therefore well out of step with the US mainstream.

    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    And yes I don’t doubt Larison’s domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher’s, it’s just that I’ve only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he’s mostly accurate and honest

    Larison was somewhat interesting when he had his own basically paleocon blog. As soon as he started working for TAC he wrote like he was angling for the conservative spot at the NY Times that eventually went to Douthat. It’s actually pretty safe to write long-winded* column after column about how GOPers/conservatives are wrong on foreign policy as there are still plenty of influential liberals and leftists who enjoy those – both the principled anti-war kind and the unprincipled ones who just love DL’s bashing of Republicans. He seems to delight in being the conservative who gets quoted by the left to ever return to paleocon social/immigration issues. Maybe he no longer cares about anything other than foreign policy.

    * He really is a very tedious writer. Even when he had his own blog it took him an eternity to make a point. He has not improved at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    It’s actually pretty safe to write long-winded* column after column about how GOPers/conservatives are wrong on foreign policy as there are still plenty of influential liberals and leftists who enjoy those – both the principled anti-war kind and the unprincipled ones who just love DL’s bashing of Republicans.
     
    I seem to recall him being very ready to criticise Obama's foreign policies where they were driven by the left (Clinton) half of the bipartisan US interventionist consensus.

    In all fairness, and I speak as a visceral conservative who identified Obama as the American Blair (not a compliment coming from me, to say the least) back during his nomination campaign in 2007, in foreign policy terms Obama himself was somewhat of an improvement on what went before, which is more a reflection of the utter degradation of the Clinton and Bush II years than any real statement of confidence in the man himself.
  173. melanf says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    Magical Finnish snipers were a propaganda story for the foreign press and I hear much more of them from foreign history nerds than other Finns. It would not be surprising if the numbers are inflated, I've never understood how would you even confirm these kills, an army in the middle of war has more important things to do than forensics over which bullet killed which guy.

    I think it's reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all individual performance stories in wars, even fighter pilots and generals get propaganda myths built around them when a dismal record is easily verifiable.

    I think it’s reasonable to be extremely skeptical of all individual performance stories in wars, even fighter pilots and generals get propaganda myths built around them when a dismal record is easily verifiable.

    This is absolutely correct.

    However, the discussion started about Roza Shanina – if she was a war hero? Here is an excerpt from her diary:

    8 Aug. I recently went A. W. O. L…. I knew that our training company will not go on the offensive, and will be located in the rear. And I have to be at the forefront, to see what it is, a real war. … I went for the battalion, which was heading to the front, and on the same day have been in combat. Next to me people were dying. I shot, and successfully. And then captured 3 German prisoners….
    I’m happy ! Although A. W. O. L the commander gave me an earful, I even got a penalty
    .”

    You can invent fake the deaths of Germans from sniper fire, but prisoners…. 19 year girl on their own initiative goes to battle (violating the order), and returned with three prisoners. This blonde really was a top class warrior

    Read More
  174. Randal says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Trump has just RT'ed Jack Posobiec.

    He's also back-peddling somewhat.

    As with Putin, it's wise not to rush to zrada/peremoga-type conclusions with Trump. He tends to see-saw back and forth.

    A pretty robust session from Trump tonight, showing some testicular fortitude:

    Both sides to blame in Virginia – Trump

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    That's actually pretty impressive...and would be the commonsense view if antifa violence hadn't been systematically normalized and excused for so long by the mainstream left (just look at the spin the BBC reporter gives this in your linked piece...these people are beyond any rational discussion).
    , @Vinteuil
    Wow. Amazing. Maybe he really gets it.
    , @Vinteuil
    Just when I thought the PTB were going to get away, yet again, with their usual crap - the God Emperor himself steps up to the plate and hits it out of the park.
  175. Randal says:
    @Matra
    And yes I don’t doubt Larison’s domestic politics are as desperately apologist as Dreher’s, it’s just that I’ve only really seen him write on foreign affairs, where he’s mostly accurate and honest

    Larison was somewhat interesting when he had his own basically paleocon blog. As soon as he started working for TAC he wrote like he was angling for the conservative spot at the NY Times that eventually went to Douthat. It's actually pretty safe to write long-winded* column after column about how GOPers/conservatives are wrong on foreign policy as there are still plenty of influential liberals and leftists who enjoy those - both the principled anti-war kind and the unprincipled ones who just love DL's bashing of Republicans. He seems to delight in being the conservative who gets quoted by the left to ever return to paleocon social/immigration issues. Maybe he no longer cares about anything other than foreign policy.

    * He really is a very tedious writer. Even when he had his own blog it took him an eternity to make a point. He has not improved at all.

    It’s actually pretty safe to write long-winded* column after column about how GOPers/conservatives are wrong on foreign policy as there are still plenty of influential liberals and leftists who enjoy those – both the principled anti-war kind and the unprincipled ones who just love DL’s bashing of Republicans.

    I seem to recall him being very ready to criticise Obama’s foreign policies where they were driven by the left (Clinton) half of the bipartisan US interventionist consensus.

    In all fairness, and I speak as a visceral conservative who identified Obama as the American Blair (not a compliment coming from me, to say the least) back during his nomination campaign in 2007, in foreign policy terms Obama himself was somewhat of an improvement on what went before, which is more a reflection of the utter degradation of the Clinton and Bush II years than any real statement of confidence in the man himself.

    Read More
  176. @Randal
    A pretty robust session from Trump tonight, showing some testicular fortitude:

    Both sides to blame in Virginia - Trump

    That’s actually pretty impressive…and would be the commonsense view if antifa violence hadn’t been systematically normalized and excused for so long by the mainstream left (just look at the spin the BBC reporter gives this in your linked piece…these people are beyond any rational discussion).

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the "respect" box for me there.

    if antifa violence hadn’t been systematically normalized and excused for so long by the mainstream left (just look at the spin the BBC reporter gives this in your linked piece…these people are beyond any rational discussion).
     
    It's the inevitable logical consequence of the "racism/nazism/etc is evil" dogma.

    If people are evil or espouse evil views then fighting them is not just allowable, it's required, for anyone but a principled pacifist (and there aren't many of those around).

    That's one of the points the likes of Dreher, as we were discussing above, just don't get about their kowtowing to the "racism is evil" dogma. He thinks he can say "racism is evil" but at the same time "you shouldn't actually fight it", and expect to be taken seriously by either side. It's fatuous naïvety on his part.
  177. Randal says:
    @German_reader
    That's actually pretty impressive...and would be the commonsense view if antifa violence hadn't been systematically normalized and excused for so long by the mainstream left (just look at the spin the BBC reporter gives this in your linked piece...these people are beyond any rational discussion).

    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the “respect” box for me there.

    if antifa violence hadn’t been systematically normalized and excused for so long by the mainstream left (just look at the spin the BBC reporter gives this in your linked piece…these people are beyond any rational discussion).

    It’s the inevitable logical consequence of the “racism/nazism/etc is evil” dogma.

    If people are evil or espouse evil views then fighting them is not just allowable, it’s required, for anyone but a principled pacifist (and there aren’t many of those around).

    That’s one of the points the likes of Dreher, as we were discussing above, just don’t get about their kowtowing to the “racism is evil” dogma. He thinks he can say “racism is evil” but at the same time “you shouldn’t actually fight it”, and expect to be taken seriously by either side. It’s fatuous naïvety on his part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the “respect” box for me there.

    Looks like those dumb rednecks who elected him knew what they were doing after all.
  178. iffen says:
    @Randal
    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the "respect" box for me there.

    if antifa violence hadn’t been systematically normalized and excused for so long by the mainstream left (just look at the spin the BBC reporter gives this in your linked piece…these people are beyond any rational discussion).
     
    It's the inevitable logical consequence of the "racism/nazism/etc is evil" dogma.

    If people are evil or espouse evil views then fighting them is not just allowable, it's required, for anyone but a principled pacifist (and there aren't many of those around).

    That's one of the points the likes of Dreher, as we were discussing above, just don't get about their kowtowing to the "racism is evil" dogma. He thinks he can say "racism is evil" but at the same time "you shouldn't actually fight it", and expect to be taken seriously by either side. It's fatuous naïvety on his part.

    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the “respect” box for me there.

    Looks like those dumb rednecks who elected him knew what they were doing after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I was always explicitly a Trump supporter (though not a hero-worshipper) during the campaign, though some of his actions since being elected have concerned me.

    I wrote before he was elected that in some ways he is the most genuinely American, for good and ill, presidential candidate for many years, and has the potential, if he gets the chance, to be a very good President. I suspect a lot of the dumb rednecks to whom you refer recognised that in him more readily than some of the supposedly more sophisticated political actors and commenters.

    Anyway, he's for sure no angel, just a human being, but he's shown genuine political courage tonight imo.

    Let's just hope it's not "courageous" in the "Yes, Minister" sense....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik8JT2S-kBE

    , @Truth
    Yeah...at least until they get sick.
  179. @Art Deco
    Most of the TAC writers I have noticed were indeed, and are, desperately snobbish about Trump, yes.

    Self-aggrandizement is the whole point of TAC. They have no coherent portfolio of measures they advocate. Their target has always been the conventional right (and, in the case of Trump, working elected officials).

    I think the sugar daddy at TAC is now Wick Allison, a successful publisher of business magazines who was once an associate of Wm. Buckley. The editor for a number of years was Daniel McCarthy. Samuel Francis used to complain (rightly if hypocritically) about 'career conservatives'. Well, that's McCarthy. Dreher has long been the columnist who attracted attention, because he can spark an interesting discussion. He is, however, a socially-anxious, other-directed, and status conscious man whose public writings are an extension of his personal issues. He also has some missing pieces, among them a very truncated if not absent sense of honor. See, for example Joseph Bottum's commentary on his dealings with Dreher, or ask yourself why Dreher is so insistent that a crudnik like Damon Linker never be criticized on his comment boards. Noah Millman is not a member of the starboard and has never pretended to be. Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He's never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He's never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?

    Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He’s never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He’s never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?

    Any port in a storm…

    Read More
  180. Art Deco says:
    @Randal

    Daniel Larison is a failed academic who managed in his graduate-school years to parlay logorrhea into a semi-career as an internet pundit. He has no history in the military, the intelligence services, or the Foreign Service. He’s never been posted abroad as a foreign correspondent. He’s never had any disciplined study at any level of international relations, comparative politics, military technology, diplomatic hisgtory, or any department of economics. I think his foreign language is something like Byzantine koine. This is your go-to foreign policy guy?
     
    I judge general opinion writers by their output, not by their background. Larison pretty consistently writes sense and draws attention to the grosser stupidities and hypocrisies in US mainstream and regime opinion on foreign policy. probably being an outsider is an advantage in dealing with a group-thinking bipartisan idiocracy like the US foreign policy elite.

    Specific experience is useful, but as often misleads and biases as it inspires. Those with a particular background are often unable to escape the box of that experience. And experience is no guarantee of wisdom.

    For instance, there were plenty of experienced military men and highly qualified experts on the region who were absolutely convinced that invading Iraq in 2003 was a great idea. There were also plenty who took the other view. In the end the decision has to be taken by someone who is not an expert, based upon assessing the arguments and applying general experience and what we term wisdom. Humans can do that, you know, even if some like Bush II make a spectacular pig's ear of it in particular cases.

    It's a bit like the claim by race and sex identity lobbyists that nobody who isn't one of their particular minority can understand or speak about their experience. It's bollocks.

    I judge general opinion writers by their output, not by their background. Larison pretty consistently writes sense and draws attention to the grosser stupidities and hypocrisies in US mainstream and regime opinion on foreign policy.

    You’re telling me you fancy you and he are of exceptional perspicacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Experience over the past two decades seems to have borne us out.

    More likely, however, is that the US foreign policy establishment is of exceptional dysfunctionality.
  181. Randal says:
    @iffen
    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the “respect” box for me there.

    Looks like those dumb rednecks who elected him knew what they were doing after all.

    I was always explicitly a Trump supporter (though not a hero-worshipper) during the campaign, though some of his actions since being elected have concerned me.

    I wrote before he was elected that in some ways he is the most genuinely American, for good and ill, presidential candidate for many years, and has the potential, if he gets the chance, to be a very good President. I suspect a lot of the dumb rednecks to whom you refer recognised that in him more readily than some of the supposedly more sophisticated political actors and commenters.

    Anyway, he’s for sure no angel, just a human being, but he’s shown genuine political courage tonight imo.

    Let’s just hope it’s not “courageous” in the “Yes, Minister” sense….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik8JT2S-kBE

    Read More
  182. Randal says:
    @Art Deco
    I judge general opinion writers by their output, not by their background. Larison pretty consistently writes sense and draws attention to the grosser stupidities and hypocrisies in US mainstream and regime opinion on foreign policy.

    You're telling me you fancy you and he are of exceptional perspicacity.

    Experience over the past two decades seems to have borne us out.

    More likely, however, is that the US foreign policy establishment is of exceptional dysfunctionality.

    Read More
  183. Dr. X says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Looks like Spencer is going to follow your advice.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHJnSh4WsAElegL.jpg

    Re-Anglin. I will admit to occasionally checking in on The Daily Stormer. There is a method to his madness - the over the top Nazi shtick is very conscious.

    Besides, he generates something like 25% of the memes in the far right-osphere, I think the Daily Stormer has the highest readership of any far right site, period, and he's one heck of a funny writer (you have to be somewhat inured to having your moral sensibilities offended to really appreciate it, but I suppose you can practice on /pol/).

    Well, it looks like the powers-that-be just took down the Daily Stormer. Google revoked their domain — one week after it fired the un-PC software engineer. Will they go after Unz next?

    Free speech only exists for left-wingers and pornographers, I guess…

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/15/daily-stormer-down-white-supremacist-site-loses-domain-in-wake-charlottesville-violence.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    They just screwed up the DNS. They moved it from GoDaddy (which at least gave them 24 hours warning) to fucking Google of all places (which promptly shoahed them).



    Easily solvable problem.

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can't get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they'd built up would be nuked).

    Unz.com is pretty milquetoast, all things considered, so we have a long ways to go before this becomes a concern. *famous last words*

    I am also reasonably sure Ron won't do something stupid like that.

    If Unz.com's domain registrar refuses to do business, and it looks like we're becoming ostracized in the US/Western Europe, even then I'm sure arrangements can be done in someplace like Latvia or Bulgaria.
  184. Dr. X says:
    @Priss Factor
    What strange dynamics.

    We have globalist capitalists using neo-communist bottom-feeders, aka Antifa, to attack social-nationalists.

    What strange dynamics.

    We have globalist capitalists using neo-communist bottom-feeders, aka Antifa, to attack social-nationalists.

    Not strange at all. More than a century ago Jay Gould boasted that he could “hire half the working class to kill the other half.”

    Read More
  185. Vinteuil says:
    @Randal
    A pretty robust session from Trump tonight, showing some testicular fortitude:

    Both sides to blame in Virginia - Trump

    Wow. Amazing. Maybe he really gets it.

    Read More
  186. Vinteuil says:
    @Randal
    A pretty robust session from Trump tonight, showing some testicular fortitude:

    Both sides to blame in Virginia - Trump

    Just when I thought the PTB were going to get away, yet again, with their usual crap – the God Emperor himself steps up to the plate and hits it out of the park.

    Read More
  187. Randal says:
    @Vinteuil
    Just when I thought the PTB were going to get away, yet again, with their usual crap - the God Emperor himself steps up to the plate and hits it out of the park.

    It is actually pretty inspiring stuff.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Not for everybody:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-press-conference-fallout/

    I especially like the last paragraph:

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment. Nearly two out of three Americans disapprove of the president. That’s bad news for any president, but in Trump’s case, it’s worse, because he’s so polarizing. If this country were to face a serious crisis — a war, in the worst case — do you really see the nation uniting around Donald Trump? If I were an enemy of America, I would see this as an opportunity.
     
    The only thing missing is insinuation that Putin wrote Trump's statement.
  188. @Randal
    It is actually pretty inspiring stuff.

    Not for everybody:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-press-conference-fallout/

    I especially like the last paragraph:

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment. Nearly two out of three Americans disapprove of the president. That’s bad news for any president, but in Trump’s case, it’s worse, because he’s so polarizing. If this country were to face a serious crisis — a war, in the worst case — do you really see the nation uniting around Donald Trump? If I were an enemy of America, I would see this as an opportunity.

    The only thing missing is insinuation that Putin wrote Trump’s statement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment.
     
    Some of us think that this might be our greatest hour in quite a while.
    , @Randal
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Apart from the bit you highlight, note Dreher's contemptible "guilt by association" drivel:


    Who among this crew is a “very fine” person? The rally was called “Unite The Right,” so named by organizers because they wanted to bring together all the far-right groups. If you went down to that protest this weekend and marched alongside neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen, you deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
     
    Note his insistence that Trump must under no circumstances do anything to disrupt the leftist liars in the media establishing their own false narrative of violence and a death caused by the people who were actually the victims:

    Trump’s point is perfectly legitimate, and an important one. But the aftermath of Charlottesville is not the time or the context in which to discuss it. It is also perfectly legitimate to discuss the role of violent antifa provocateurs — but not when you are the President of the United States, and you are under fire for being unable to straightforwardly condemn neo-Nazis and Klansmen.
     
    Note his determination to blame the victims, and wilful ignoring of reality in order to do so:

    The Left is emboldened now, and fired up. Trump is an accelerant. They will get nastier and more confrontational.
     
    As though the fact that leftists were willing to travel as a mob to Charlottesville with masks and weapons to harass a lawful political demonstration and to beat up people whose politics they disapproved of was not a problem before Trump finally drew attention to it.

    Dreher and TAC seem to have chosen their side and it is the wrong one. And note, their kind of delusional apologism for leftist violence all stems from the deranging effects of the "racism/nazism is evil" dogma to which he and they adhere.

    Once you declare that a political position is "evil", you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.
  189. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    Not for everybody:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-press-conference-fallout/

    I especially like the last paragraph:

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment. Nearly two out of three Americans disapprove of the president. That’s bad news for any president, but in Trump’s case, it’s worse, because he’s so polarizing. If this country were to face a serious crisis — a war, in the worst case — do you really see the nation uniting around Donald Trump? If I were an enemy of America, I would see this as an opportunity.
     
    The only thing missing is insinuation that Putin wrote Trump's statement.

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment.

    Some of us think that this might be our greatest hour in quite a while.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Well, it's probably true that the US is dangerously polarized (at least it looks like that from the outside).
    I just don't get how people like Dreher can pretend this is all solely Trump's fault. Personally I dislike quite a few things about Trump, but it's also been clear that right from the start there have been extraordinary attempts to sabotage his presidency. And the "progressives", "liberals" or whatever they may call themselves on both sides of the Atlantic have gone simply insane...it's disturbing how stupid, authoritarian and completely incapable of self-criticism these people are.
  190. @iffen

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment.
     
    Some of us think that this might be our greatest hour in quite a while.

    Well, it’s probably true that the US is dangerously polarized (at least it looks like that from the outside).
    I just don’t get how people like Dreher can pretend this is all solely Trump’s fault. Personally I dislike quite a few things about Trump, but it’s also been clear that right from the start there have been extraordinary attempts to sabotage his presidency. And the “progressives”, “liberals” or whatever they may call themselves on both sides of the Atlantic have gone simply insane…it’s disturbing how stupid, authoritarian and completely incapable of self-criticism these people are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II

    extraordinary attempts to sabotage his presidency.
     
    so, same ole thing? because the reds were the opposition party for the last 8 years. but I have to said, trump seems to be targeted by both parties.
    , @iffen
    Well, it’s probably true that the US is dangerously polarized

    What do you cite as the authority that polarization is a "bad thing"?

  191. @German_reader
    Well, it's probably true that the US is dangerously polarized (at least it looks like that from the outside).
    I just don't get how people like Dreher can pretend this is all solely Trump's fault. Personally I dislike quite a few things about Trump, but it's also been clear that right from the start there have been extraordinary attempts to sabotage his presidency. And the "progressives", "liberals" or whatever they may call themselves on both sides of the Atlantic have gone simply insane...it's disturbing how stupid, authoritarian and completely incapable of self-criticism these people are.

    extraordinary attempts to sabotage his presidency.

    so, same ole thing? because the reds were the opposition party for the last 8 years. but I have to said, trump seems to be targeted by both parties.

    Read More
  192. So Peter Turchin’s prediction of a peak in socio-political instability in the 2020s seems all the more plausible now.

    social unreast for sure, but the entire point, purpose of our “democratic system” is to ensure the survival of the state/govt. these protests, riots, are the built-in ways the system lets out steam so any problems that the system encounters =/= explosion, cville war.

    that is why democracies, when working = no violent revolutions.

    Read More
  193. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    Well, it's probably true that the US is dangerously polarized (at least it looks like that from the outside).
    I just don't get how people like Dreher can pretend this is all solely Trump's fault. Personally I dislike quite a few things about Trump, but it's also been clear that right from the start there have been extraordinary attempts to sabotage his presidency. And the "progressives", "liberals" or whatever they may call themselves on both sides of the Atlantic have gone simply insane...it's disturbing how stupid, authoritarian and completely incapable of self-criticism these people are.

    Well, it’s probably true that the US is dangerously polarized

    What do you cite as the authority that polarization is a “bad thing”?

    Read More
  194. @reiner Tor
    I personally think Häyhä's numbers could easily be inflated, at least somewhat. It would be good to see Soviet reports on losses. According to sources the Soviets tried to kill Häyhä, so he was well known to the Soviets. It might be interesting to do a thorough research, because I think this is quite unlike ace pilots or tank aces where kills were easier to confirm, and where they were really matched to opposite reports. As it turned out, German aces probably really had the extraordinary performance credited to them (or at least 80% of it). German reports on enemy losses were also way more accurate than Soviet (or British, or American) reports of the same (I think they always took the lowest possible estimate, and then multiplied it by 0.8 or something, and still their estimates were occasionally too high... It's just very easy to overestimate enemy losses.) Therefore, I'm a little more inclined to accept extraordinary Axis performance (actually, only German and Finnish - the Finns because the Germans thought the Finns were their equals, the only nation they really thought their equals in military matters), than extraordinary Soviet performance. Also, because of the feminist propaganda (which was also prevalent in communist countries, though less crazy than in the current West), I'm a bit more skeptical of extraordinary female performance than of extraordinary male performance (therefore, I'm a bit more skeptical of Pavlichenko than of Ivan Sidorenko, though I suspect the latter's numbers might also be inflated, just as possibly Häyhä's numbers).

    As I said, it should be possible to match these extraordinary claims with enemy reports on both sides.

    I am in the camp that Pavlichenko was probably legit.

    First, as melanf points out, it is a common phenomenon that a large share of “success” in any endevour accrues to a small proportion of the best at it, so the very existence of super-snipers is not anything surprising.

    Second, our tendency towards HBD-realism, though extremely useful, might lead us to a blindsight in particular cases. Marksmanship is one of the very few sports where women are strongly competitive with men. Why? Lower center of gravity due to big hips, cushioning from the breasts. So the existence of female super-snipers is not at all infeasible, as opposed to boxers or swordswomen like Brienne or whatever.

    Read More
  195. @Dr. X
    Well, it looks like the powers-that-be just took down the Daily Stormer. Google revoked their domain -- one week after it fired the un-PC software engineer. Will they go after Unz next?

    Free speech only exists for left-wingers and pornographers, I guess...

    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/08/15/daily-stormer-down-white-supremacist-site-loses-domain-in-wake-charlottesville-violence.html

    They just screwed up the DNS. They moved it from GoDaddy (which at least gave them 24 hours warning) to fucking Google of all places (which promptly shoahed them).

    [MORE]

    Easily solvable problem.

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can’t get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they’d built up would be nuked).

    Unz.com is pretty milquetoast, all things considered, so we have a long ways to go before this becomes a concern. *famous last words*

    I am also reasonably sure Ron won’t do something stupid like that.

    If Unz.com’s domain registrar refuses to do business, and it looks like we’re becoming ostracized in the US/Western Europe, even then I’m sure arrangements can be done in someplace like Latvia or Bulgaria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    It would be a clear case of Anti-Semetism to shut down Unz.com.
    , @Randal

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can’t get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they’d built up would be nuked).
     
    Looks like Daily Stormer's problems are a lot wider, as is the general crackdown on internet dissent:

    Daily Stormer: Cloudflare drops neo-Nazi site


    Earlier in the week, the Daily Stormer was set up as a site on the dark web and later relocated its open web presence to a Russian domain name ending ".ru".

    A spokesman for the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor said it had asked web firm Ru-Center to shut this down.

    A BBC check on Thursday morning found that the .ru address no longer appeared to be working.

    The Daily Stormer has faced frustration elsewhere in recent days.

    Three Twitter accounts associated with the site that had previously been active were suddenly listed as "suspended" on Wednesday.

    And cyber-security researcher Joseph Evers announced that he had stopped hosting an internet chat channel he said was used by staff at the Daily Stormer.

    Describing himself as having once been a "free speech absolutist", Mr Evers added: "I'm glad to do my small part in countering white supremacy."

    Donations blocked

    Besides the Daily Stormer's case, this week Paypal reiterated its stance on blocking donations to organisations that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.

    "This includes organizations that advocate racist views, such as the KKK, white supremacist groups or Nazi groups," the payment-processing firm said.
     

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the "hate speech" exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.

    This is a big shift, albeit part of something that has been moving for some time and has a lot further to go. Anyone who is complacent about where it will end is a fool, I think. Basically it's the end of the classical liberal idea of freedom of speech as a foundational principle which, albeit as often honoured in the breach as in the observance, has dominated UK/US society since the late C18th (as reflected in the US First Amendment - now increasingly an endangered anachronism).

    The lines are clear - we all just have to choose which side we are on. Make no mistake, anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don't like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

  196. fnn says:
    @James Richard
    :rolleyes: Yes, you really should read Mein Kampf.

    Something he wrote when he was a young man in the his thirties and a powerless political prisoner.

    Historian John Lukacs (certainly no Hitlerite) says he often dismissed the book after he became Chancellor. Most historians describe him as an opportunist as a politician. But his opportunities became much more limited when Britain refused peace terms and it became obvious that FDR was gearing up to enter the war. But he still was not totally bereft of ideas, he met with Molotov in Nov. 1940 to get the Sovs to become full members of the Axis. Molotov pretty much spat in his eye, and the decision to invade the USSR came a month later. Adam Tooze said Hitler needed the resources of the USSR to have a chance against the power of the North American Colossus and its British junior partner.

    Read More
  197. I don’t see this as much of a surprise. After all, isn’t that what happened when in 1941 the US linked up with the Soviets once the European nationalists were painted unapproachable as anti-liberty, anti-personal economics and pro-war mongering expansionists who took away every mother’s child to fight for the state? But it was hardly a surprise in terms of strategy. Because if the capitalist globalists helped the communist globalists defeat the European nationalists, there was a chance that the capitalist globalists could take half of what belonged to the European nationalists before the communist globalists took it all. And that’s precisely what happened with the race to Berlin. Had the European nationalists defeated the communist globalists, the european nationalists would have become twice as powerful and the capitalist globalists would have gained nothing. There was no scenario where the capitalist globalists could have taken half of what belonged to the communist globalists before the European nationalists cleaned house. The geopolitical geography is incompatible with such a model.

    Ideologically one might think that the capitalist globalists would have been more inclined to work with the European nationalists. And actually they were, particularly in so far as keeping communism from overrunning Europe through internal revolution. And post-1918, the globalist capitalists linked up with the hardline nationalists to cleanse the nations of Europe of the threat of a communist takeover. And built the European nationalists up so they would be able to resist a takeover by the communist globalists spreading outwards from the Soviet Union.

    The lesson to be learned is the capitalist globalists are financially guided opportunists, who will be happy to turn the communists loose against the nationalists and vice versa as long as there is something to gain, as long as one side is perceived to be a bigger threat than the other, as long as this keeps both sides in check and allows for the capitalist globalists to reign supreme.

    Read More
  198. Randal says:
    @German_reader
    Not for everybody:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-press-conference-fallout/

    I especially like the last paragraph:

    The nation is at an extraordinarily weak moment. Nearly two out of three Americans disapprove of the president. That’s bad news for any president, but in Trump’s case, it’s worse, because he’s so polarizing. If this country were to face a serious crisis — a war, in the worst case — do you really see the nation uniting around Donald Trump? If I were an enemy of America, I would see this as an opportunity.
     
    The only thing missing is insinuation that Putin wrote Trump's statement.

    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Apart from the bit you highlight, note Dreher’s contemptible “guilt by association” drivel:

    Who among this crew is a “very fine” person? The rally was called “Unite The Right,” so named by organizers because they wanted to bring together all the far-right groups. If you went down to that protest this weekend and marched alongside neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen, you deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

    Note his insistence that Trump must under no circumstances do anything to disrupt the leftist liars in the media establishing their own false narrative of violence and a death caused by the people who were actually the victims:

    Trump’s point is perfectly legitimate, and an important one. But the aftermath of Charlottesville is not the time or the context in which to discuss it. It is also perfectly legitimate to discuss the role of violent antifa provocateurs — but not when you are the President of the United States, and you are under fire for being unable to straightforwardly condemn neo-Nazis and Klansmen.

    Note his determination to blame the victims, and wilful ignoring of reality in order to do so:

    The Left is emboldened now, and fired up. Trump is an accelerant. They will get nastier and more confrontational.

    As though the fact that leftists were willing to travel as a mob to Charlottesville with masks and weapons to harass a lawful political demonstration and to beat up people whose politics they disapproved of was not a problem before Trump finally drew attention to it.

    Dreher and TAC seem to have chosen their side and it is the wrong one. And note, their kind of delusional apologism for leftist violence all stems from the deranging effects of the “racism/nazism is evil” dogma to which he and they adhere.

    Once you declare that a political position is “evil”, you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Once you declare that a political position is “evil”, you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.
     
    That's what happened in my own country. There was a wave of neonazi violence after reunification in the 1990s (with some genuinely horrible racist murders, I don't dispute that), and as a consequence the state (especially from 1998 onwards) declared a Kampf gegen Rechts ("fighting the right"), with the left steadily pushing the line that all "democrats" had to stand united against the right-wing threat, that it was right to deny far right activists political rights of assembly, demonstration etc. and that far left antifa groups should be supported by the state, because they're on the side of good (and if anything, their violence is "only" against property, or horrible right-wingers or policemen, not against marginalized and vulnerable groups like that of neonazis). And admittedly for a long time it was possible to believe that, despite some excesses, this would be limited to actions against genuine Nazi types. But in the last few years it's become clear where the end point of that development lies: We've now got a government that pursues insane policies of mass immigration that will ruin the country, and dissent against this is declared to be illegitimate by the establishment, and brutally attacked again and again by Antifa activists. That's the result of decades of normalizing and excusing political violence if only it's directed against targets which are considered to deserve it by the political establishment and the media. The left will never stop widening the definion of what's "Nazi" or "racist" and will never rein in its own militants if it can get away with it.
    Dreher has just completely lost the plot imo. But read the comments under his piece...mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It's scary how hysterical these people are.
    , @iffen
    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope; all you have to do is wear cleats.
    , @notanon

    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre
     
    the people who own GOPe and the media want open borders for cheap labor.

    the Left and antifa want open borders because they hate white people.

    GOPe, media, Dems and antifa are all on the same side.
    , @Art Deco
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Again, his stated viewpoint is a function of the day's social anxieties. He has no principles, just a series of emotional reactions.
  199. @Randal
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Apart from the bit you highlight, note Dreher's contemptible "guilt by association" drivel:


    Who among this crew is a “very fine” person? The rally was called “Unite The Right,” so named by organizers because they wanted to bring together all the far-right groups. If you went down to that protest this weekend and marched alongside neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen, you deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
     
    Note his insistence that Trump must under no circumstances do anything to disrupt the leftist liars in the media establishing their own false narrative of violence and a death caused by the people who were actually the victims:

    Trump’s point is perfectly legitimate, and an important one. But the aftermath of Charlottesville is not the time or the context in which to discuss it. It is also perfectly legitimate to discuss the role of violent antifa provocateurs — but not when you are the President of the United States, and you are under fire for being unable to straightforwardly condemn neo-Nazis and Klansmen.
     
    Note his determination to blame the victims, and wilful ignoring of reality in order to do so:

    The Left is emboldened now, and fired up. Trump is an accelerant. They will get nastier and more confrontational.
     
    As though the fact that leftists were willing to travel as a mob to Charlottesville with masks and weapons to harass a lawful political demonstration and to beat up people whose politics they disapproved of was not a problem before Trump finally drew attention to it.

    Dreher and TAC seem to have chosen their side and it is the wrong one. And note, their kind of delusional apologism for leftist violence all stems from the deranging effects of the "racism/nazism is evil" dogma to which he and they adhere.

    Once you declare that a political position is "evil", you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.

    Once you declare that a political position is “evil”, you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.

    That’s what happened in my own country. There was a wave of neonazi violence after reunification in the 1990s (with some genuinely horrible racist murders, I don’t dispute that), and as a consequence the state (especially from 1998 onwards) declared a Kampf gegen Rechts (“fighting the right”), with the left steadily pushing the line that all “democrats” had to stand united against the right-wing threat, that it was right to deny far right activists political rights of assembly, demonstration etc. and that far left antifa groups should be supported by the state, because they’re on the side of good (and if anything, their violence is “only” against property, or horrible right-wingers or policemen, not against marginalized and vulnerable groups like that of neonazis). And admittedly for a long time it was possible to believe that, despite some excesses, this would be limited to actions against genuine Nazi types. But in the last few years it’s become clear where the end point of that development lies: We’ve now got a government that pursues insane policies of mass immigration that will ruin the country, and dissent against this is declared to be illegitimate by the establishment, and brutally attacked again and again by Antifa activists. That’s the result of decades of normalizing and excusing political violence if only it’s directed against targets which are considered to deserve it by the political establishment and the media. The left will never stop widening the definion of what’s “Nazi” or “racist” and will never rein in its own militants if it can get away with it.
    Dreher has just completely lost the plot imo. But read the comments under his piece…mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It’s scary how hysterical these people are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The left will never stop widening the definion of what’s “Nazi” or “racist” and will never rein in its own militants if it can get away with it.
     
    Exactly so. They never punch left.

    Our side is not so focussed and disciplined.

    Dreher has just completely lost the plot imo. But read the comments under his piece…mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It’s scary how hysterical these people are.
     
    Well bear in mind that he just censors or bans people who are insufficiently respectful towards his anti-racist etc dogmas, so he ends up with the usual echo chamber.
    , @Art Deco
    But read the comments under his piece…mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It’s scary how hysterical these people are

    Dreher dotes on such people, and prefers them in his boxes. They're supplemented with palaeos. What he doesn't care for is the conventional right. He seldom has more than a couple of regulars. He's banned me multiple times.
  200. iffen says:
    @Randal
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Apart from the bit you highlight, note Dreher's contemptible "guilt by association" drivel:


    Who among this crew is a “very fine” person? The rally was called “Unite The Right,” so named by organizers because they wanted to bring together all the far-right groups. If you went down to that protest this weekend and marched alongside neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen, you deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
     
    Note his insistence that Trump must under no circumstances do anything to disrupt the leftist liars in the media establishing their own false narrative of violence and a death caused by the people who were actually the victims:

    Trump’s point is perfectly legitimate, and an important one. But the aftermath of Charlottesville is not the time or the context in which to discuss it. It is also perfectly legitimate to discuss the role of violent antifa provocateurs — but not when you are the President of the United States, and you are under fire for being unable to straightforwardly condemn neo-Nazis and Klansmen.
     
    Note his determination to blame the victims, and wilful ignoring of reality in order to do so:

    The Left is emboldened now, and fired up. Trump is an accelerant. They will get nastier and more confrontational.
     
    As though the fact that leftists were willing to travel as a mob to Charlottesville with masks and weapons to harass a lawful political demonstration and to beat up people whose politics they disapproved of was not a problem before Trump finally drew attention to it.

    Dreher and TAC seem to have chosen their side and it is the wrong one. And note, their kind of delusional apologism for leftist violence all stems from the deranging effects of the "racism/nazism is evil" dogma to which he and they adhere.

    Once you declare that a political position is "evil", you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.

    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope; all you have to do is wear cleats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Phobia is irrational fear. If the fear is rational, it's not a phobia. For example it's not arachnophobic to be afraid of a black widow, because that's a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational by any stretch of imagination.

    Since it's well known how Auschwitz is used to condemn even the mildest criticism of the Israel lobby, or KKK lynchings and slavery are used to condemn even the slightest expression of white racial solidarity etc., I think a good case can be made that these slopes really are slippery, we have decades of experience backing this up.
    , @Anon
    But what if it's muddy and not icy?
    , @Randal

    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope
     
    Your hyperbole aside, concern about the dangers of slippery slopes is pretty much fundamental to being conservative.

    I recall the arguments about legalising male homosexual activity, and the main conservative argument against legalising it (apart from just: "it's wrong so it should be illegal") was the "slippery slope" argument. The argument was that removing the barrier of criminality from homosexual activity would result in a descent of society into decriminalisation and normalisation of ever more depraved behaviour, and in ever greater corruption of society.

    That "slippery slope" argument has been proved by subsequent experience to have been absolutely correct. There can be little doubt that if, in 1967, the people of Britain had known that decriminalising would result, within just a half century, in marriage being twisted to allow for pairs of people who engage in homosexual activity to be "married", in children being raised by pairs of homosexuals, including adoption agencies being coerced into colluding with this, in 16 year old boys being made into legal and supposedly legitimate targets for homosexual activity, and in laws against criticising homosexuality passed in Parliament, then there would have been an overwhelming outcry against it and any support for it would have been swept away.

    Not for the first or the last time, the people of Britain were misled into supporting something that had dire consequences for their society.

    The "slippery slope" argument was derided by homosexuality advocates as paranoid nonsense, with much ridiculing of the supposed idea that there could be any causative link between decriminalisation and further steps in the future, entirely missing the point that it is not about causative links, but about removing a barrier to further "progress".

    And as I noted above, those warning of the slippery slope effect have been comprehensively proven correct, by subsequent events.
    , @German_reader
    It's not a phobia, it's based on my view of developments in Western Europe over the last 25-30 years.
    Now you might argue that the US is different, with its constitutional guarantees for free speech, right of assembly etc., and certainly the idea that even people with abhorrent views have political rights has always been more widespread in the US than in Europe. But given trends over the last few years I don't think you should be complacent, US progressives do seem increasingly to be moving to the view that some views can't absolutely be tolerated ever and that even violence might be justified in combating them.
  201. @iffen
    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope; all you have to do is wear cleats.

    Phobia is irrational fear. If the fear is rational, it’s not a phobia. For example it’s not arachnophobic to be afraid of a black widow, because that’s a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational by any stretch of imagination.

    Since it’s well known how Auschwitz is used to condemn even the mildest criticism of the Israel lobby, or KKK lynchings and slavery are used to condemn even the slightest expression of white racial solidarity etc., I think a good case can be made that these slopes really are slippery, we have decades of experience backing this up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    to be afraid of a black widow, because that’s a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational

    Point taken, but it is irrational to be afraid on an inanimate collection of debris that evokes the image of a spider.

    , @iffen
    How about a comment from you here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-charlottesville-and-what-it-means-for-us/#comment-1970712
  202. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope; all you have to do is wear cleats.

    But what if it’s muddy and not icy?

    Read More
  203. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Phobia is irrational fear. If the fear is rational, it's not a phobia. For example it's not arachnophobic to be afraid of a black widow, because that's a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational by any stretch of imagination.

    Since it's well known how Auschwitz is used to condemn even the mildest criticism of the Israel lobby, or KKK lynchings and slavery are used to condemn even the slightest expression of white racial solidarity etc., I think a good case can be made that these slopes really are slippery, we have decades of experience backing this up.

    to be afraid of a black widow, because that’s a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational

    Point taken, but it is irrational to be afraid on an inanimate collection of debris that evokes the image of a spider.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Point taken, but it is irrational to be afraid on an inanimate collection of debris that evokes the image of a spider.
     
    Rather as the posing of modern day attention seekers evokes the image of the 1930s NSDAP for you?
  204. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Phobia is irrational fear. If the fear is rational, it's not a phobia. For example it's not arachnophobic to be afraid of a black widow, because that's a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational by any stretch of imagination.

    Since it's well known how Auschwitz is used to condemn even the mildest criticism of the Israel lobby, or KKK lynchings and slavery are used to condemn even the slightest expression of white racial solidarity etc., I think a good case can be made that these slopes really are slippery, we have decades of experience backing this up.
    Read More
  205. Randal says:
    @iffen
    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope; all you have to do is wear cleats.

    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope

    Your hyperbole aside, concern about the dangers of slippery slopes is pretty much fundamental to being conservative.

    I recall the arguments about legalising male homosexual activity, and the main conservative argument against legalising it (apart from just: “it’s wrong so it should be illegal”) was the “slippery slope” argument. The argument was that removing the barrier of criminality from homosexual activity would result in a descent of society into decriminalisation and normalisation of ever more depraved behaviour, and in ever greater corruption of society.

    That “slippery slope” argument has been proved by subsequent experience to have been absolutely correct. There can be little doubt that if, in 1967, the people of Britain had known that decriminalising would result, within just a half century, in marriage being twisted to allow for pairs of people who engage in homosexual activity to be “married”, in children being raised by pairs of homosexuals, including adoption agencies being coerced into colluding with this, in 16 year old boys being made into legal and supposedly legitimate targets for homosexual activity, and in laws against criticising homosexuality passed in Parliament, then there would have been an overwhelming outcry against it and any support for it would have been swept away.

    Not for the first or the last time, the people of Britain were misled into supporting something that had dire consequences for their society.

    The “slippery slope” argument was derided by homosexuality advocates as paranoid nonsense, with much ridiculing of the supposed idea that there could be any causative link between decriminalisation and further steps in the future, entirely missing the point that it is not about causative links, but about removing a barrier to further “progress”.

    And as I noted above, those warning of the slippery slope effect have been comprehensively proven correct, by subsequent events.

    Read More
  206. Randal says:
    @iffen
    to be afraid of a black widow, because that’s a really dangerous spider, and so fearing it is not irrational

    Point taken, but it is irrational to be afraid on an inanimate collection of debris that evokes the image of a spider.

    Point taken, but it is irrational to be afraid on an inanimate collection of debris that evokes the image of a spider.

    Rather as the posing of modern day attention seekers evokes the image of the 1930s NSDAP for you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Rather as the posing of modern day attention seekers evokes the image of the 1930s NSDAP for you?

    Captain: What we've got here is failure to communicate.
     
    I admit that seeing people waving Nazi flags and giving the Nazi salute make me believe that they wish to be thought of as Nazis. It doesn't make me think that we are in the beginning stage of the 4th Reich.
  207. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    Once you declare that a political position is “evil”, you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.
     
    That's what happened in my own country. There was a wave of neonazi violence after reunification in the 1990s (with some genuinely horrible racist murders, I don't dispute that), and as a consequence the state (especially from 1998 onwards) declared a Kampf gegen Rechts ("fighting the right"), with the left steadily pushing the line that all "democrats" had to stand united against the right-wing threat, that it was right to deny far right activists political rights of assembly, demonstration etc. and that far left antifa groups should be supported by the state, because they're on the side of good (and if anything, their violence is "only" against property, or horrible right-wingers or policemen, not against marginalized and vulnerable groups like that of neonazis). And admittedly for a long time it was possible to believe that, despite some excesses, this would be limited to actions against genuine Nazi types. But in the last few years it's become clear where the end point of that development lies: We've now got a government that pursues insane policies of mass immigration that will ruin the country, and dissent against this is declared to be illegitimate by the establishment, and brutally attacked again and again by Antifa activists. That's the result of decades of normalizing and excusing political violence if only it's directed against targets which are considered to deserve it by the political establishment and the media. The left will never stop widening the definion of what's "Nazi" or "racist" and will never rein in its own militants if it can get away with it.
    Dreher has just completely lost the plot imo. But read the comments under his piece...mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It's scary how hysterical these people are.

    The left will never stop widening the definion of what’s “Nazi” or “racist” and will never rein in its own militants if it can get away with it.

    Exactly so. They never punch left.

    Our side is not so focussed and disciplined.

    Dreher has just completely lost the plot imo. But read the comments under his piece…mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It’s scary how hysterical these people are.

    Well bear in mind that he just censors or bans people who are insufficiently respectful towards his anti-racist etc dogmas, so he ends up with the usual echo chamber.

    Read More
  208. @Anatoly Karlin
    They just screwed up the DNS. They moved it from GoDaddy (which at least gave them 24 hours warning) to fucking Google of all places (which promptly shoahed them).



    Easily solvable problem.

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can't get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they'd built up would be nuked).

    Unz.com is pretty milquetoast, all things considered, so we have a long ways to go before this becomes a concern. *famous last words*

    I am also reasonably sure Ron won't do something stupid like that.

    If Unz.com's domain registrar refuses to do business, and it looks like we're becoming ostracized in the US/Western Europe, even then I'm sure arrangements can be done in someplace like Latvia or Bulgaria.

    It would be a clear case of Anti-Semetism to shut down Unz.com.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    why shut it down? if they can take over 4chan and control it, controlling unz would be easy in comparison.
  209. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @melanf

    Well, I wasn’t talking about Miss Shanina specifically, about whom I know next to nothing, but let’s consider her case anyway. With what German units was she in contact? Over what area did she operate? What were the ranks of the officers, if any, that she killed? When you say “the shelter”, do you simply mean what we would call over here “cover”, or are you talking about some physical structure? What were the Soviet rules for confirmation of kills?
     
    In this case, start historical research on these issues. For you in particular will help the diary of Rosa Shanina

    "Akimova says — "I do not believe that Roza Shanina killed so many Germans, it's fake".
    It turned out so. In defense, sometimes a lot of shooting - dark matter, killed it or not. But I always just shot at the target, and stand-up Fritz is also in most cases I get. I shoot in most cases the Germans who stand or walk ( running Germans hard to get ). Sometimes the Germans whom I killed do not take into account, and sometimes the opposite to me attribute to those whom I did not kill, but my score (dead Germans) are correct. If once in my list mistakenly added dead German, other times mistakenly not added
    "

    (Говорит Алкимова — я, мол, не верю, что Роза уничтожила столько фрицев, приписали.
    Получилось так. В обороне иногда много стреляешь по целям, но темное дело, убит он или нет. Здраво рассуждать, я по мишени всегда точно била и по стоячему фрицу тоже чаще попадаю, чем мимо, а стреляю в большинстве случаев по стоячим и пешеходам, по перебежчикам трудно, только пугать их. Иногда совсем не напишут, а иногда напишут на авось, иногда и зря, но на моем счету нет ни одного убитого фрица, ложного. Если в один раз зря написали, другой раз убила, но не записали, когда как придется".)

    Thanks for that. It bears out my and RT’s theory that kill numbers are wildly overestimated, since they seem to rely on self-reporting which is almost always an overestimate.

    One thing that confuses me at least in the English-language version I found is that this is described as a diary but presented as a series of letters to a war correspondent. Surely I must be missing something?

    Read More
  210. @iffen
    You and GR seem to have some sort of off the chart phobia about a slippery slope; all you have to do is wear cleats.

    It’s not a phobia, it’s based on my view of developments in Western Europe over the last 25-30 years.
    Now you might argue that the US is different, with its constitutional guarantees for free speech, right of assembly etc., and certainly the idea that even people with abhorrent views have political rights has always been more widespread in the US than in Europe. But given trends over the last few years I don’t think you should be complacent, US progressives do seem increasingly to be moving to the view that some views can’t absolutely be tolerated ever and that even violence might be justified in combating them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    1st Amendment rights are readily trampled upon if you've a partisan judiciary and local officialdom tell the police to stand down. That's what's up, there. See some brief biographical accounts of one Scott Lively, who was once press secretary to an activist group called the Oregon Citizens Alliance. The Alliance and it's founder were antagonists of Big Gay, who have been for 25 years the judiciary's favorite mascots.
    , @iffen
    But given trends over the last few years I don’t think you should be complacent

    I certainly agree that it looks beak. It may just be the moment (what's the word for thinking that this particular little moment is earth shattering?) but I am more pessimistic by the day.
  211. iffen says:
    @Randal

    Point taken, but it is irrational to be afraid on an inanimate collection of debris that evokes the image of a spider.
     
    Rather as the posing of modern day attention seekers evokes the image of the 1930s NSDAP for you?

    Rather as the posing of modern day attention seekers evokes the image of the 1930s NSDAP for you?

    Captain: What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.

    I admit that seeing people waving Nazi flags and giving the Nazi salute make me believe that they wish to be thought of as Nazis. It doesn’t make me think that we are in the beginning stage of the 4th Reich.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    If you say so. Clearly for many of the people who think as you do about the need to demonise and exclude such people, that's exactly what they fear (or claim to fear).
  212. Randal says:
    @iffen
    Rather as the posing of modern day attention seekers evokes the image of the 1930s NSDAP for you?

    Captain: What we've got here is failure to communicate.
     
    I admit that seeing people waving Nazi flags and giving the Nazi salute make me believe that they wish to be thought of as Nazis. It doesn't make me think that we are in the beginning stage of the 4th Reich.

    If you say so. Clearly for many of the people who think as you do about the need to demonise and exclude such people, that’s exactly what they fear (or claim to fear).

    Read More
  213. Art Deco says:
    @German_reader
    It's not a phobia, it's based on my view of developments in Western Europe over the last 25-30 years.
    Now you might argue that the US is different, with its constitutional guarantees for free speech, right of assembly etc., and certainly the idea that even people with abhorrent views have political rights has always been more widespread in the US than in Europe. But given trends over the last few years I don't think you should be complacent, US progressives do seem increasingly to be moving to the view that some views can't absolutely be tolerated ever and that even violence might be justified in combating them.

    1st Amendment rights are readily trampled upon if you’ve a partisan judiciary and local officialdom tell the police to stand down. That’s what’s up, there. See some brief biographical accounts of one Scott Lively, who was once press secretary to an activist group called the Oregon Citizens Alliance. The Alliance and it’s founder were antagonists of Big Gay, who have been for 25 years the judiciary’s favorite mascots.

    Read More
  214. notanon says:
    @Randal
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Apart from the bit you highlight, note Dreher's contemptible "guilt by association" drivel:


    Who among this crew is a “very fine” person? The rally was called “Unite The Right,” so named by organizers because they wanted to bring together all the far-right groups. If you went down to that protest this weekend and marched alongside neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen, you deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
     
    Note his insistence that Trump must under no circumstances do anything to disrupt the leftist liars in the media establishing their own false narrative of violence and a death caused by the people who were actually the victims:

    Trump’s point is perfectly legitimate, and an important one. But the aftermath of Charlottesville is not the time or the context in which to discuss it. It is also perfectly legitimate to discuss the role of violent antifa provocateurs — but not when you are the President of the United States, and you are under fire for being unable to straightforwardly condemn neo-Nazis and Klansmen.
     
    Note his determination to blame the victims, and wilful ignoring of reality in order to do so:

    The Left is emboldened now, and fired up. Trump is an accelerant. They will get nastier and more confrontational.
     
    As though the fact that leftists were willing to travel as a mob to Charlottesville with masks and weapons to harass a lawful political demonstration and to beat up people whose politics they disapproved of was not a problem before Trump finally drew attention to it.

    Dreher and TAC seem to have chosen their side and it is the wrong one. And note, their kind of delusional apologism for leftist violence all stems from the deranging effects of the "racism/nazism is evil" dogma to which he and they adhere.

    Once you declare that a political position is "evil", you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.

    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre

    the people who own GOPe and the media want open borders for cheap labor.

    the Left and antifa want open borders because they hate white people.

    GOPe, media, Dems and antifa are all on the same side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    the people who own GOPe and the media want open borders for cheap labor.

    the Left and antifa want open borders because they hate white people.
     
    Yes, this is the "unholy alliance" that drives mass immigration and globalisation.
  215. Art Deco says:
    @Randal
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Apart from the bit you highlight, note Dreher's contemptible "guilt by association" drivel:


    Who among this crew is a “very fine” person? The rally was called “Unite The Right,” so named by organizers because they wanted to bring together all the far-right groups. If you went down to that protest this weekend and marched alongside neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen, you deserve to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
     
    Note his insistence that Trump must under no circumstances do anything to disrupt the leftist liars in the media establishing their own false narrative of violence and a death caused by the people who were actually the victims:

    Trump’s point is perfectly legitimate, and an important one. But the aftermath of Charlottesville is not the time or the context in which to discuss it. It is also perfectly legitimate to discuss the role of violent antifa provocateurs — but not when you are the President of the United States, and you are under fire for being unable to straightforwardly condemn neo-Nazis and Klansmen.
     
    Note his determination to blame the victims, and wilful ignoring of reality in order to do so:

    The Left is emboldened now, and fired up. Trump is an accelerant. They will get nastier and more confrontational.
     
    As though the fact that leftists were willing to travel as a mob to Charlottesville with masks and weapons to harass a lawful political demonstration and to beat up people whose politics they disapproved of was not a problem before Trump finally drew attention to it.

    Dreher and TAC seem to have chosen their side and it is the wrong one. And note, their kind of delusional apologism for leftist violence all stems from the deranging effects of the "racism/nazism is evil" dogma to which he and they adhere.

    Once you declare that a political position is "evil", you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.

    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Again, his stated viewpoint is a function of the day’s social anxieties. He has no principles, just a series of emotional reactions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    He has no principles, just a series of emotional reactions.

    You write this like it is a bad thing.
  216. Art Deco says:
    @German_reader

    Once you declare that a political position is “evil”, you cannot plausibly resist the advocates of violence against it. And furthermore, you have no line to hold to when the aggressors steadily shift the definition of what is classed as being part of that evil forwards. This is the process we are witnessing in action.
     
    That's what happened in my own country. There was a wave of neonazi violence after reunification in the 1990s (with some genuinely horrible racist murders, I don't dispute that), and as a consequence the state (especially from 1998 onwards) declared a Kampf gegen Rechts ("fighting the right"), with the left steadily pushing the line that all "democrats" had to stand united against the right-wing threat, that it was right to deny far right activists political rights of assembly, demonstration etc. and that far left antifa groups should be supported by the state, because they're on the side of good (and if anything, their violence is "only" against property, or horrible right-wingers or policemen, not against marginalized and vulnerable groups like that of neonazis). And admittedly for a long time it was possible to believe that, despite some excesses, this would be limited to actions against genuine Nazi types. But in the last few years it's become clear where the end point of that development lies: We've now got a government that pursues insane policies of mass immigration that will ruin the country, and dissent against this is declared to be illegitimate by the establishment, and brutally attacked again and again by Antifa activists. That's the result of decades of normalizing and excusing political violence if only it's directed against targets which are considered to deserve it by the political establishment and the media. The left will never stop widening the definion of what's "Nazi" or "racist" and will never rein in its own militants if it can get away with it.
    Dreher has just completely lost the plot imo. But read the comments under his piece...mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It's scary how hysterical these people are.

    But read the comments under his piece…mostly unhinged lefties/liberals. It’s scary how hysterical these people are

    Dreher dotes on such people, and prefers them in his boxes. They’re supplemented with palaeos. What he doesn’t care for is the conventional right. He seldom has more than a couple of regulars. He’s banned me multiple times.

    Read More
  217. @Daniel Chieh
    It would be a clear case of Anti-Semetism to shut down Unz.com.

    why shut it down? if they can take over 4chan and control it, controlling unz would be easy in comparison.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    I don't even really know what 4chan is, but how is it "controlled"? And how could that happen to Unz.com?
  218. Truth says:
    @iffen
    Yes, Trump gained another tick in the “respect” box for me there.

    Looks like those dumb rednecks who elected him knew what they were doing after all.

    Yeah…at least until they get sick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Death panels! Fucking Death Panels!
    , @iffen
    OT

    Is it true that your Obama phone is being updated to an iPhone 7?
  219. @Astuteobservor II
    why shut it down? if they can take over 4chan and control it, controlling unz would be easy in comparison.

    I don’t even really know what 4chan is, but how is it “controlled”? And how could that happen to Unz.com?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    4chan, is supposed to be this 1000% lawless zone of the internet. where internet virgins are supposed to be sacrificed every second. remember the female celebrity nude leaks??? it all originated from 4chan. that is just trivial. if there is anything on the internet, exists on the internet, they can find it for you, for a price. the running theme is they are a bunch of trolls, living memes, hackers(this mainly), basement dwellers etc.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=4chan+owner+got+bought+reddit&oq=4chan+owner+got+bought+reddit&gs_l=psy-ab.3...18458.19707.0.19881.7.7.0.0.0.0.134.692.6j1.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.416...33i160k1j33i21k1.4rgEA3-9e7U

    to truly understand what it is , you need to use it for about a few months. since it got sold, it has become alot more pc and sjw-ish. alot of accounts got banned etc. the purge so to speak. even if you compare the neutered 4chan to other sites, it would still be pretty wild, but no where near as free and uncontrollable as before. there were talk of starting 8chan from the ashes of 4chan, but I have no idea if it took off or died. I never checked.

  220. iffen says:
    @Art Deco
    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre, and utterly contemptible.

    Again, his stated viewpoint is a function of the day's social anxieties. He has no principles, just a series of emotional reactions.

    He has no principles, just a series of emotional reactions.

    You write this like it is a bad thing.

    Read More
  221. iffen says:
    @German_reader
    It's not a phobia, it's based on my view of developments in Western Europe over the last 25-30 years.
    Now you might argue that the US is different, with its constitutional guarantees for free speech, right of assembly etc., and certainly the idea that even people with abhorrent views have political rights has always been more widespread in the US than in Europe. But given trends over the last few years I don't think you should be complacent, US progressives do seem increasingly to be moving to the view that some views can't absolutely be tolerated ever and that even violence might be justified in combating them.

    But given trends over the last few years I don’t think you should be complacent

    I certainly agree that it looks beak. It may just be the moment (what’s the word for thinking that this particular little moment is earth shattering?) but I am more pessimistic by the day.

    Read More
  222. iffen says:
    @Truth
    Yeah...at least until they get sick.

    OT

    Is it true that your Obama phone is being updated to an iPhone 7?

    Read More
  223. @German_reader
    I don't even really know what 4chan is, but how is it "controlled"? And how could that happen to Unz.com?

    4chan, is supposed to be this 1000% lawless zone of the internet. where internet virgins are supposed to be sacrificed every second. remember the female celebrity nude leaks??? it all originated from 4chan. that is just trivial. if there is anything on the internet, exists on the internet, they can find it for you, for a price. the running theme is they are a bunch of trolls, living memes, hackers(this mainly), basement dwellers etc.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=4chan+owner+got+bought+reddit&oq=4chan+owner+got+bought+reddit&gs_l=psy-ab.3…18458.19707.0.19881.7.7.0.0.0.0.134.692.6j1.7.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.416…33i160k1j33i21k1.4rgEA3-9e7U

    to truly understand what it is , you need to use it for about a few months. since it got sold, it has become alot more pc and sjw-ish. alot of accounts got banned etc. the purge so to speak. even if you compare the neutered 4chan to other sites, it would still be pretty wild, but no where near as free and uncontrollable as before. there were talk of starting 8chan from the ashes of 4chan, but I have no idea if it took off or died. I never checked.

    Read More
  224. Randal says:
    @notanon

    That Dreher piece is a real classic of the self-hating conservative genre
     
    the people who own GOPe and the media want open borders for cheap labor.

    the Left and antifa want open borders because they hate white people.

    GOPe, media, Dems and antifa are all on the same side.

    the people who own GOPe and the media want open borders for cheap labor.

    the Left and antifa want open borders because they hate white people.

    Yes, this is the “unholy alliance” that drives mass immigration and globalisation.

    Read More
  225. Randal says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    They just screwed up the DNS. They moved it from GoDaddy (which at least gave them 24 hours warning) to fucking Google of all places (which promptly shoahed them).



    Easily solvable problem.

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can't get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they'd built up would be nuked).

    Unz.com is pretty milquetoast, all things considered, so we have a long ways to go before this becomes a concern. *famous last words*

    I am also reasonably sure Ron won't do something stupid like that.

    If Unz.com's domain registrar refuses to do business, and it looks like we're becoming ostracized in the US/Western Europe, even then I'm sure arrangements can be done in someplace like Latvia or Bulgaria.

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can’t get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they’d built up would be nuked).

    Looks like Daily Stormer’s problems are a lot wider, as is the general crackdown on internet dissent:

    Daily Stormer: Cloudflare drops neo-Nazi site

    Earlier in the week, the Daily Stormer was set up as a site on the dark web and later relocated its open web presence to a Russian domain name ending “.ru”.

    A spokesman for the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor said it had asked web firm Ru-Center to shut this down.

    A BBC check on Thursday morning found that the .ru address no longer appeared to be working.

    The Daily Stormer has faced frustration elsewhere in recent days.

    Three Twitter accounts associated with the site that had previously been active were suddenly listed as “suspended” on Wednesday.

    And cyber-security researcher Joseph Evers announced that he had stopped hosting an internet chat channel he said was used by staff at the Daily Stormer.

    Describing himself as having once been a “free speech absolutist”, Mr Evers added: “I’m glad to do my small part in countering white supremacy.”

    Donations blocked

    Besides the Daily Stormer’s case, this week Paypal reiterated its stance on blocking donations to organisations that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.

    “This includes organizations that advocate racist views, such as the KKK, white supremacist groups or Nazi groups,” the payment-processing firm said.

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.

    This is a big shift, albeit part of something that has been moving for some time and has a lot further to go. Anyone who is complacent about where it will end is a fool, I think. Basically it’s the end of the classical liberal idea of freedom of speech as a foundational principle which, albeit as often honoured in the breach as in the observance, has dominated UK/US society since the late C18th (as reflected in the US First Amendment – now increasingly an endangered anachronism).

    The lines are clear – we all just have to choose which side we are on. Make no mistake, anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don’t like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.
     
    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don't like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There's no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views...free speech just means the state won't punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.
    , @iffen
    anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don’t like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

    First they came for the Nazis, then, etc., etc.

    Yawn.
  226. @Randal

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can’t get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they’d built up would be nuked).
     
    Looks like Daily Stormer's problems are a lot wider, as is the general crackdown on internet dissent:

    Daily Stormer: Cloudflare drops neo-Nazi site


    Earlier in the week, the Daily Stormer was set up as a site on the dark web and later relocated its open web presence to a Russian domain name ending ".ru".

    A spokesman for the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor said it had asked web firm Ru-Center to shut this down.

    A BBC check on Thursday morning found that the .ru address no longer appeared to be working.

    The Daily Stormer has faced frustration elsewhere in recent days.

    Three Twitter accounts associated with the site that had previously been active were suddenly listed as "suspended" on Wednesday.

    And cyber-security researcher Joseph Evers announced that he had stopped hosting an internet chat channel he said was used by staff at the Daily Stormer.

    Describing himself as having once been a "free speech absolutist", Mr Evers added: "I'm glad to do my small part in countering white supremacy."

    Donations blocked

    Besides the Daily Stormer's case, this week Paypal reiterated its stance on blocking donations to organisations that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.

    "This includes organizations that advocate racist views, such as the KKK, white supremacist groups or Nazi groups," the payment-processing firm said.
     

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the "hate speech" exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.

    This is a big shift, albeit part of something that has been moving for some time and has a lot further to go. Anyone who is complacent about where it will end is a fool, I think. Basically it's the end of the classical liberal idea of freedom of speech as a foundational principle which, albeit as often honoured in the breach as in the observance, has dominated UK/US society since the late C18th (as reflected in the US First Amendment - now increasingly an endangered anachronism).

    The lines are clear - we all just have to choose which side we are on. Make no mistake, anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don't like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There’s no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views…free speech just means the state won’t punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There’s no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views…free speech just means the state won’t punish you for it.
     
    Yes, that's free speech 101, but it is not relevant to the point I was making about the shift in attitudes.

    The problem is that corporate power cannot be just ignored in protecting freedom of speech. We recognised this in the C20th by regulating who can own major traditional media corporations and restricting monopoly ownership, supposedly in order to prevent rich people controlling the access to news.

    But today the threat to freedom of speech is not rich capitalists, but rather an overwhelming, suffocating ideology of political correctness on all aspects of society from race to sexual activity, and the adherents to that ideology are using their effectively monopoly control of the media to suppress the expression of opinion and news that dissents from that ideology. The corporate internet resisted that control for a while because it was founded and run largely by people who had a more positive view of freedom of speech, but those people are being replaced by more compliant, orthodox individuals, or are shifting their views to align them with power.


    (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
     
    Vdare is just getting a taste of what will be coming to it once the Charlottesville types are suppressed, and what would have been coming to it anyway regardless of the Charlottesville pretext. The censors were always going to keep pushing until they provoked responses that would justify crackdowns.

    Vdare with it's snobbish contempt for "Nazis" is just like the rest of the respectable right - selling out those on its right in the desperate hope that it will be regarded as respectable enough by those who actually hate it uncompromisingly and unchangeably, to be allowed to survive. It won't, unless the Charlottesville types manage to somehow continue the fight, against all the odds and the repression they will face, and thereby allow Vdare to present itself as the face of the "less racist" right while the thugs throw rocks and swing bats at the Charlottesville types instead.


    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.
     
    Indeed, but the crackdown would have come anyway. As always, defend the likes of Anglin or concede the right of those in power to punish dissenters.

    That's how the left came to dominate in the first place, after all. Defend the indefensible in order to make the somewhat less indefensible seem reasonable by contrast.

    , @Randal
    And as a PS, here's one supposed solution that will have to be tried but probably won't work:

    An excellent recent LA Times piece looked at the consequence of extreme voices being sidelined on the internet.

    It detailed how we are already seeing an alt-right-powered internet, with entire companies set up to give voices kicked off other platforms a chance to express their views.

    Almost every major internet service is getting its alt-right counterpart.

    Instead of Patreon, a site that allows donations for causes or projects, see Hatreon, a site that has allowed the support of white supremacists (the man behind the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, being one of them).

    Instead of GoFundMe, there’s WeSearchr. Instead of Reddit, there’s Gab. This trend will continue.
     
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40958499

    These services will be the next target, and being outside the big corporates they will be easily picked off by harassment and, if necessary, government action, enabled if necessary by the oncoming "hate speech exception" to the First Amendment. With the respectable right fully subordinated to the leftist view of the "hate" right as existentially evil, who will be able to effectively argue against such an exception?
    , @reiner Tor
    Unpopular and offensive views like the mocking of the woman killed in Charlottesville needs especially strong protection.

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights.
     
    That's not totally true, in my opinion. "Free speech" means just that: the right to freely speak your right. There are many ways to restrict it, and many institutions could do that. For example in a medieval setting, a lord could restrict the speech rights of his serfs, would this be the government? In Soviet Russia, it was often not the government, but officials of a "party" who restricted free speech.

    If there are just a few monopolistic tech companies, they can just as effectively shut you out of everything (employment, domain hosting, etc.) as a communist party could.

    You are only correct under the present legal framework: in present law, there's very little protection against non-government actors (like private companies) shutting down your free speech rights (under the assumption that there are many of them, and so you could always choose another one), but your free speech gets hurt anyway. Yes, you don't have the "right" to free speech, just as you don't really have a right to your life (unless laws protecting such rights can be enforced). OK, theoretically, your right to life is codified, but it wouldn't matter much if you traveled to Zimbabwe or something.
    , @Astuteobservor II

    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.
     
    that is the biggest problem with the alt-right right now. you have crazies who are calling the terrorist driver a "patriot". some of them are right in this comments thread. the only reason the death count is just 1 woman was because the car ram into 2 other cars ahead of it. other wise the body count would be close to the france/nice attack numbers. most of the people I discussed this with in my own circle, equates the alt right with kkk and nazis now. I don't blame them. even if it is not 100% right, it isn't far off.
    , @Dr. X

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There’s no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views…free speech just means the state won’t punish you for it.
     
    Theoretically, yes, but it's not that simple in reality. In the U.S. we have anti-monopoly laws and civil rights laws that require private property owners to accommodate and hire blacks, women, gays, Jews, etc. Why oughtn't the same concept be applied to Internet providers, then? You can't say that a hotel must be forced to rent private property to blacks, but that a private Internet provider that has an effective monopoly can censor speech. It's a contradiction, and it'll end up in court for sure.
  227. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.
     
    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don't like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There's no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views...free speech just means the state won't punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There’s no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views…free speech just means the state won’t punish you for it.

    Yes, that’s free speech 101, but it is not relevant to the point I was making about the shift in attitudes.

    The problem is that corporate power cannot be just ignored in protecting freedom of speech. We recognised this in the C20th by regulating who can own major traditional media corporations and restricting monopoly ownership, supposedly in order to prevent rich people controlling the access to news.

    But today the threat to freedom of speech is not rich capitalists, but rather an overwhelming, suffocating ideology of political correctness on all aspects of society from race to sexual activity, and the adherents to that ideology are using their effectively monopoly control of the media to suppress the expression of opinion and news that dissents from that ideology. The corporate internet resisted that control for a while because it was founded and run largely by people who had a more positive view of freedom of speech, but those people are being replaced by more compliant, orthodox individuals, or are shifting their views to align them with power.

    (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).

    Vdare is just getting a taste of what will be coming to it once the Charlottesville types are suppressed, and what would have been coming to it anyway regardless of the Charlottesville pretext. The censors were always going to keep pushing until they provoked responses that would justify crackdowns.

    Vdare with it’s snobbish contempt for “Nazis” is just like the rest of the respectable right – selling out those on its right in the desperate hope that it will be regarded as respectable enough by those who actually hate it uncompromisingly and unchangeably, to be allowed to survive. It won’t, unless the Charlottesville types manage to somehow continue the fight, against all the odds and the repression they will face, and thereby allow Vdare to present itself as the face of the “less racist” right while the thugs throw rocks and swing bats at the Charlottesville types instead.

    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    Indeed, but the crackdown would have come anyway. As always, defend the likes of Anglin or concede the right of those in power to punish dissenters.

    That’s how the left came to dominate in the first place, after all. Defend the indefensible in order to make the somewhat less indefensible seem reasonable by contrast.

    Read More
  228. Randal says:
    @German_reader

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.
     
    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don't like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There's no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views...free speech just means the state won't punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    And as a PS, here’s one supposed solution that will have to be tried but probably won’t work:

    An excellent recent LA Times piece looked at the consequence of extreme voices being sidelined on the internet.

    It detailed how we are already seeing an alt-right-powered internet, with entire companies set up to give voices kicked off other platforms a chance to express their views.

    Almost every major internet service is getting its alt-right counterpart.

    Instead of Patreon, a site that allows donations for causes or projects, see Hatreon, a site that has allowed the support of white supremacists (the man behind the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin, being one of them).

    Instead of GoFundMe, there’s WeSearchr. Instead of Reddit, there’s Gab. This trend will continue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40958499

    These services will be the next target, and being outside the big corporates they will be easily picked off by harassment and, if necessary, government action, enabled if necessary by the oncoming “hate speech exception” to the First Amendment. With the respectable right fully subordinated to the leftist view of the “hate” right as existentially evil, who will be able to effectively argue against such an exception?

    Read More
  229. @German_reader

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.
     
    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don't like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There's no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views...free speech just means the state won't punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    Unpopular and offensive views like the mocking of the woman killed in Charlottesville needs especially strong protection.

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights.

    That’s not totally true, in my opinion. “Free speech” means just that: the right to freely speak your right. There are many ways to restrict it, and many institutions could do that. For example in a medieval setting, a lord could restrict the speech rights of his serfs, would this be the government? In Soviet Russia, it was often not the government, but officials of a “party” who restricted free speech.

    If there are just a few monopolistic tech companies, they can just as effectively shut you out of everything (employment, domain hosting, etc.) as a communist party could.

    You are only correct under the present legal framework: in present law, there’s very little protection against non-government actors (like private companies) shutting down your free speech rights (under the assumption that there are many of them, and so you could always choose another one), but your free speech gets hurt anyway. Yes, you don’t have the “right” to free speech, just as you don’t really have a right to your life (unless laws protecting such rights can be enforced). OK, theoretically, your right to life is codified, but it wouldn’t matter much if you traveled to Zimbabwe or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    If there are just a few monopolistic tech companies, they can just as effectively shut you out of everything (employment, domain hosting, etc.) as a communist party could.
     
    Yes, but what's your basis for complaining about it if a private corporation refuses to provide you services or do business with you? That it's "discrimination"? Well, personally I'm absolutely against the anti-discrimination laws existing in Western nations (if someone doesn't want to employ or do business with Muslims, blacks or homosexuals he/she should be absolutely free to do so), and I'd suppose most right-wingers are as well. Arguing that there should be some right to have a platform for your views being provided seems contradictory and only justifiable as a somewhat hypocritical stance for advancing our own political interests (which might be fine of course, but then we should be at least honest in admitting to ourselves that it isn't about some abstract principle, just a tactical measure for acquiring power).
  230. @reiner Tor
    Unpopular and offensive views like the mocking of the woman killed in Charlottesville needs especially strong protection.

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights.
     
    That's not totally true, in my opinion. "Free speech" means just that: the right to freely speak your right. There are many ways to restrict it, and many institutions could do that. For example in a medieval setting, a lord could restrict the speech rights of his serfs, would this be the government? In Soviet Russia, it was often not the government, but officials of a "party" who restricted free speech.

    If there are just a few monopolistic tech companies, they can just as effectively shut you out of everything (employment, domain hosting, etc.) as a communist party could.

    You are only correct under the present legal framework: in present law, there's very little protection against non-government actors (like private companies) shutting down your free speech rights (under the assumption that there are many of them, and so you could always choose another one), but your free speech gets hurt anyway. Yes, you don't have the "right" to free speech, just as you don't really have a right to your life (unless laws protecting such rights can be enforced). OK, theoretically, your right to life is codified, but it wouldn't matter much if you traveled to Zimbabwe or something.

    If there are just a few monopolistic tech companies, they can just as effectively shut you out of everything (employment, domain hosting, etc.) as a communist party could.

    Yes, but what’s your basis for complaining about it if a private corporation refuses to provide you services or do business with you? That it’s “discrimination”? Well, personally I’m absolutely against the anti-discrimination laws existing in Western nations (if someone doesn’t want to employ or do business with Muslims, blacks or homosexuals he/she should be absolutely free to do so), and I’d suppose most right-wingers are as well. Arguing that there should be some right to have a platform for your views being provided seems contradictory and only justifiable as a somewhat hypocritical stance for advancing our own political interests (which might be fine of course, but then we should be at least honest in admitting to ourselves that it isn’t about some abstract principle, just a tactical measure for acquiring power).

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Well, personally I’m absolutely against the anti-discrimination laws existing in Western nations (if someone doesn’t want to employ or do business with Muslims, blacks or homosexuals he/she should be absolutely free to do so), and I’d suppose most right-wingers are as well

    You really think it's okay to:

    1. refuse service at a restaurant to someone because of their race?
    2. make blacks sit at the back of the bus (of a privately-owned operator, as many municipal bus services are)?
    3. have separate restrooms for black and white people?
    4. for a credit card company to refuse to do business with you on account of your race, or because they don't like your politics?

    Apart from moral issues, this doesn't really seem like a winning strategy to me. Because in the first instance you are going to lose the support of people like me (who are probably more numerous than those who think like you) and would otherwise be on your side. And, perhaps more importantly, you are setting yourself, and sites like this, to be easily shut down because they depend on the "fairness" of private actors (hosting sites, credit card companies, PayPal, etc.).
    , @reiner Tor
    I think my views are similar to those of for-the-record. I do support some anti-discrimination measures. Cell phone providers shouldn't be able to deny service to convicted pedophiles. A court should be able to prohibit him the use of cell phones, but private companies shouldn't have such rights.

    It's different for family based businesses, where discrimination should be possible. Corporations don't have freedom of association, individuals do.
  231. iffen says:
    @Randal

    Not sure Google has the legal authority to just seize a domain name parked with them. Even if they can’t get it back, they can just create a new domain name like thedailystormer.com or whatever and carry on as usual (though the SEO they’d built up would be nuked).
     
    Looks like Daily Stormer's problems are a lot wider, as is the general crackdown on internet dissent:

    Daily Stormer: Cloudflare drops neo-Nazi site


    Earlier in the week, the Daily Stormer was set up as a site on the dark web and later relocated its open web presence to a Russian domain name ending ".ru".

    A spokesman for the Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor said it had asked web firm Ru-Center to shut this down.

    A BBC check on Thursday morning found that the .ru address no longer appeared to be working.

    The Daily Stormer has faced frustration elsewhere in recent days.

    Three Twitter accounts associated with the site that had previously been active were suddenly listed as "suspended" on Wednesday.

    And cyber-security researcher Joseph Evers announced that he had stopped hosting an internet chat channel he said was used by staff at the Daily Stormer.

    Describing himself as having once been a "free speech absolutist", Mr Evers added: "I'm glad to do my small part in countering white supremacy."

    Donations blocked

    Besides the Daily Stormer's case, this week Paypal reiterated its stance on blocking donations to organisations that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance.

    "This includes organizations that advocate racist views, such as the KKK, white supremacist groups or Nazi groups," the payment-processing firm said.
     

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the "hate speech" exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.

    This is a big shift, albeit part of something that has been moving for some time and has a lot further to go. Anyone who is complacent about where it will end is a fool, I think. Basically it's the end of the classical liberal idea of freedom of speech as a foundational principle which, albeit as often honoured in the breach as in the observance, has dominated UK/US society since the late C18th (as reflected in the US First Amendment - now increasingly an endangered anachronism).

    The lines are clear - we all just have to choose which side we are on. Make no mistake, anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don't like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

    anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don’t like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

    First they came for the Nazis, then, etc., etc.

    Yawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, another slippery slope like the historical one I pointed out to you above, which conservatives seem to be more alert to than others such as, evidently, yourself.
  232. Randal says:
    @iffen
    anyone who fails to defend the freedom of speech of white supremacists and Nazis, because they don’t like their views, or they are embarrassed or frightened of being seen as standing beside them, has chosen the anti-liberty side. Having sold the pass, they will find no strong line on which to stand against the tide that is coming.

    First they came for the Nazis, then, etc., etc.

    Yawn.

    Yes, another slippery slope like the historical one I pointed out to you above, which conservatives seem to be more alert to than others such as, evidently, yourself.

    Read More
  233. @German_reader

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.
     
    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don't like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There's no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views...free speech just means the state won't punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    that is the biggest problem with the alt-right right now. you have crazies who are calling the terrorist driver a “patriot”. some of them are right in this comments thread. the only reason the death count is just 1 woman was because the car ram into 2 other cars ahead of it. other wise the body count would be close to the france/nice attack numbers. most of the people I discussed this with in my own circle, equates the alt right with kkk and nazis now. I don’t blame them. even if it is not 100% right, it isn’t far off.

    Read More
  234. Dr. X says:
    @German_reader

    Mr Evers and Mr Prince highlight the ongoing hypocritical shift of former free speech advocates amongst the US sphere elites into endorsing the “hate speech” exception that basically ends freedom of dissent.
     
    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don't like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There's no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views...free speech just means the state won't punish you for it.
    Obviously a very bad situation, and it seems like Charlottesville just was a pretext for measures that had already been planned (even comparatively moderate sites like Vdare which had no part in the Charlottesville situation are affected).
    But it has to be admitted, people like this Anglin asshole with his nihilistic mockery of the woman that had been killed in Charlottesville really do provide the perfect pretext for such a crackdown.

    As long as it is private corporations refusing to provide services for people/groups they don’t like, not direct censorship by the state with threat of jail, fines etc. it seems difficult to me to claim this violates free speech rights. There’s no right, as far as I can see, to a platform for spreading your views…free speech just means the state won’t punish you for it.

    Theoretically, yes, but it’s not that simple in reality. In the U.S. we have anti-monopoly laws and civil rights laws that require private property owners to accommodate and hire blacks, women, gays, Jews, etc. Why oughtn’t the same concept be applied to Internet providers, then? You can’t say that a hotel must be forced to rent private property to blacks, but that a private Internet provider that has an effective monopoly can censor speech. It’s a contradiction, and it’ll end up in court for sure.

    Read More
  235. @German_reader

    If there are just a few monopolistic tech companies, they can just as effectively shut you out of everything (employment, domain hosting, etc.) as a communist party could.
     
    Yes, but what's your basis for complaining about it if a private corporation refuses to provide you services or do business with you? That it's "discrimination"? Well, personally I'm absolutely against the anti-discrimination laws existing in Western nations (if someone doesn't want to employ or do business with Muslims, blacks or homosexuals he/she should be absolutely free to do so), and I'd suppose most right-wingers are as well. Arguing that there should be some right to have a platform for your views being provided seems contradictory and only justifiable as a somewhat hypocritical stance for advancing our own political interests (which might be fine of course, but then we should be at least honest in admitting to ourselves that it isn't about some abstract principle, just a tactical measure for acquiring power).

    Well, personally I’m absolutely against the anti-discrimination laws existing in Western nations (if someone doesn’t want to employ or do business with Muslims, blacks or homosexuals he/she should be absolutely free to do so), and I’d suppose most right-wingers are as well

    You really think it’s okay to:

    1. refuse service at a restaurant to someone because of their race?
    2. make blacks sit at the back of the bus (of a privately-owned operator, as many municipal bus services are)?
    3. have separate restrooms for black and white people?
    4. for a credit card company to refuse to do business with you on account of your race, or because they don’t like your politics?

    Apart from moral issues, this doesn’t really seem like a winning strategy to me. Because in the first instance you are going to lose the support of people like me (who are probably more numerous than those who think like you) and would otherwise be on your side. And, perhaps more importantly, you are setting yourself, and sites like this, to be easily shut down because they depend on the “fairness” of private actors (hosting sites, credit card companies, PayPal, etc.).

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    The examples you cite are pretty specific to the segregation era in the American south, and that was a whole system of discrimination backed by the state (like prohibition of interracial marriage, laws designed to keep voting rights from the black population, inferior public schools for the black population, discriminatory arrangements in public buildings, state-funded universities etc.). Maybe it would have been enough to get rid of that legal discrimination directly tied to the state, maybe more extensive legislation to prevent discrimination by private entities was justified given the historical background of pervasive oppression of American blacks - that's not really for me to decide (I probably should comment less on American matters anyway, the US isn't my country and in many ways profoundly alien to me).
    But in principle I'm opposed to anti-discrimination laws and the attempts by left-wingers in Europe to introduce them. I can see absolutely no reason for example why it would be immoral for a privately owned discotheque to state "We don't allow entry to Arabs or Africans since in the past we've had too many negative experiences with guests from those groups" (and in any case, the left's stance on this is totally hypocritical, since they're only against discrimination when their favored groups are affected, but actively agitating for discrimination against right-wingers - e.g. in Munich the Social Democrats are actively demanding right-wing activists shouldn't be served in restaurants and have driven a restaurant that wouldn't comply into ruin).

    But that's really a side issue imo to the core of the problem here, that is can you force a private corporation to provide a platform for spreading views, whatever their content? It's not clear at all to me how this can be justified. I mean, would you think a printing company should be forced by judicial order to print pamphletes by organized pedophiles calling for legalization of child rape, because free speech is sacred even for abhorrent views (and with some justification, at least this Anglin person would be regarded as just as vile by most people)? Can you force people to assist in the spreading of views they regard as harmful or evil? What would be the justification for this?

  236. @for-the-record
    Well, personally I’m absolutely against the anti-discrimination laws existing in Western nations (if someone doesn’t want to employ or do business with Muslims, blacks or homosexuals he/she should be absolutely free to do so), and I’d suppose most right-wingers are as well

    You really think it's okay to:

    1. refuse service at a restaurant to someone because of their race?
    2. make blacks sit at the back of the bus (of a privately-owned operator, as many municipal bus services are)?
    3. have separate restrooms for black and white people?
    4. for a credit card company to refuse to do business with you on account of your race, or because they don't like your politics?

    Apart from moral issues, this doesn't really seem like a winning strategy to me. Because in the first instance you are going to lose the support of people like me (who are probably more numerous than those who think like you) and would otherwise be on your side. And, perhaps more importantly, you are setting yourself, and sites like this, to be easily shut down because they depend on the "fairness" of private actors (hosting sites, credit card companies, PayPal, etc.).

    The examples you cite are pretty specific to the segregation era in the American south, and that was a whole system of discrimination backed by the state (like prohibition of interracial marriage, laws designed to keep voting rights from the black population, inferior public schools for the black population, discriminatory arrangements in public buildings, state-funded universities etc.). Maybe it would have been enough to get rid of that legal discrimination directly tied to the state, maybe more extensive legislation to prevent discrimination by private entities was justified given the historical background of pervasive oppression of American blacks – that’s not really for me to decide (I probably should comment less on American matters anyway, the US isn’t my country and in many ways profoundly alien to me).
    But in principle I’m opposed to anti-discrimination laws and the attempts by left-wingers in Europe to introduce them. I can see absolutely no reason for example why it would be immoral for a privately owned discotheque to state “We don’t allow entry to Arabs or Africans since in the past we’ve had too many negative experiences with guests from those groups” (and in any case, the left’s stance on this is totally hypocritical, since they’re only against discrimination when their favored groups are affected, but actively agitating for discrimination against right-wingers – e.g. in Munich the Social Democrats are actively demanding right-wing activists shouldn’t be served in restaurants and have driven a restaurant that wouldn’t comply into ruin).

    But that’s really a side issue imo to the core of the problem here, that is can you force a private corporation to provide a platform for spreading views, whatever their content? It’s not clear at all to me how this can be justified. I mean, would you think a printing company should be forced by judicial order to print pamphletes by organized pedophiles calling for legalization of child rape, because free speech is sacred even for abhorrent views (and with some justification, at least this Anglin person would be regarded as just as vile by most people)? Can you force people to assist in the spreading of views they regard as harmful or evil? What would be the justification for this?

    Read More
  237. But that’s really a side issue imo to the core of the problem here, that is can you force a private corporation to provide a platform for spreading views, whatever their content? It’s not clear at all to me how this can be justified. I mean, would you think a printing company should be forced by judicial order to print pamphletes by organized pedophiles calling for legalization of child rape, because free speech is sacred even for abhorrent views (and with some justification, at least this Anglin person would be regarded as just as vile by most people)?

    That is a tricky issue, I agree. But once you give the “private” sector the right to decide what should and should not be disseminated, then for sure you’re going to arrive to a situation where views counter to the norm are going to be censored. My view is that if you pay a print shop to print something, it’s not their business to even read it. If what you are publishing is illegal (and obviously there should be a very strict standard for that, like child pornography), it is for the state to take action, not a private company. This holds even more when there is an effective monopoly, or oligopoly, of “printing presses”, which is certainly the case with Internet providers.

    If your view is put into effect (which seems increasingly likely, alas), we can say goodbye to “alternative” sites like Unz, the only question is how much longer they will last.

    Your point about the hypocrisy of the “left” is no doubt valid. My problem is that I inhabit the ever-vanishing middle, from where it seems like the rest of the world has gone entirely crazy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "If your view is put into effect (which seems increasingly likely, alas), we can say goodbye to “alternative” sites like Unz, the only question is how much longer they will last."

    It's not necessarily even "my" view, it's just that I haven't been able to come up with an effective counter-argument against it. And much of the political right has at least somewhat authoritarian views on many matters, so it looks a bit hypocritical for them/us to argue for free speech absolutism. I don't see any intellectually satisfying solution to this problem.

    "My problem is that I inhabit the ever-vanishing middle, from where it seems like the rest of the world has gone entirely crazy."

    Well, I guess that's true (even though to some degree that perception is media-driven, the media just loves extremes)...I've never been a moderate, but I've certainly become increasingly radicalized over the last few years.

  238. @for-the-record
    But that’s really a side issue imo to the core of the problem here, that is can you force a private corporation to provide a platform for spreading views, whatever their content? It’s not clear at all to me how this can be justified. I mean, would you think a printing company should be forced by judicial order to print pamphletes by organized pedophiles calling for legalization of child rape, because free speech is sacred even for abhorrent views (and with some justification, at least this Anglin person would be regarded as just as vile by most people)?

    That is a tricky issue, I agree. But once you give the "private" sector the right to decide what should and should not be disseminated, then for sure you're going to arrive to a situation where views counter to the norm are going to be censored. My view is that if you pay a print shop to print something, it's not their business to even read it. If what you are publishing is illegal (and obviously there should be a very strict standard for that, like child pornography), it is for the state to take action, not a private company. This holds even more when there is an effective monopoly, or oligopoly, of "printing presses", which is certainly the case with Internet providers.

    If your view is put into effect (which seems increasingly likely, alas), we can say goodbye to "alternative" sites like Unz, the only question is how much longer they will last.

    Your point about the hypocrisy of the "left" is no doubt valid. My problem is that I inhabit the ever-vanishing middle, from where it seems like the rest of the world has gone entirely crazy.

    “If your view is put into effect (which seems increasingly likely, alas), we can say goodbye to “alternative” sites like Unz, the only question is how much longer they will last.”

    It’s not necessarily even “my” view, it’s just that I haven’t been able to come up with an effective counter-argument against it. And much of the political right has at least somewhat authoritarian views on many matters, so it looks a bit hypocritical for them/us to argue for free speech absolutism. I don’t see any intellectually satisfying solution to this problem.

    “My problem is that I inhabit the ever-vanishing middle, from where it seems like the rest of the world has gone entirely crazy.”

    Well, I guess that’s true (even though to some degree that perception is media-driven, the media just loves extremes)…I’ve never been a moderate, but I’ve certainly become increasingly radicalized over the last few years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey G_R,

    free speech absolutism
     
    No such thing. There are multiple crimes that even the freest of societies prosecute that involve no more action that what comes out of a person's mouth; fraud, defamation/libel, conspiracy, treason, etc.

    Speech is restricted based on balancing what harm it brings to individuals or the society in general - and that determination is subjective and varies from society to society.

    Peace.
  239. Talha says:
    @German_reader
    "If your view is put into effect (which seems increasingly likely, alas), we can say goodbye to “alternative” sites like Unz, the only question is how much longer they will last."

    It's not necessarily even "my" view, it's just that I haven't been able to come up with an effective counter-argument against it. And much of the political right has at least somewhat authoritarian views on many matters, so it looks a bit hypocritical for them/us to argue for free speech absolutism. I don't see any intellectually satisfying solution to this problem.

    "My problem is that I inhabit the ever-vanishing middle, from where it seems like the rest of the world has gone entirely crazy."

    Well, I guess that's true (even though to some degree that perception is media-driven, the media just loves extremes)...I've never been a moderate, but I've certainly become increasingly radicalized over the last few years.

    Hey G_R,

    free speech absolutism

    No such thing. There are multiple crimes that even the freest of societies prosecute that involve no more action that what comes out of a person’s mouth; fraud, defamation/libel, conspiracy, treason, etc.

    Speech is restricted based on balancing what harm it brings to individuals or the society in general – and that determination is subjective and varies from society to society.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    That's certainly true, with free speech absolutism I meant to refer to the position that accepts only the absolute minimum of restrictions on speech (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, direct incitements to violence).
    , @iffen
    much of the political right has at least somewhat authoritarian views on many matters

    I think that bringing absolutism into the picture is not addressing the issue at hand. My view is that the extreme right has no more use for normal free speech rules than does the crazed left, and I think that is what G_R was saying. All this current blather about muh 1st Amendment by the fascists is theatrical and posturing.
  240. @Talha
    Hey G_R,

    free speech absolutism
     
    No such thing. There are multiple crimes that even the freest of societies prosecute that involve no more action that what comes out of a person's mouth; fraud, defamation/libel, conspiracy, treason, etc.

    Speech is restricted based on balancing what harm it brings to individuals or the society in general - and that determination is sub