The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Godless Communists
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Having recently been reminded by Ron Unz how heavily overrepresented Jews were in Bolshevik leadership positions, I wondered if relatively favorable sentiments towards communism would be detectable among American Jews.

From the survey’s inception through 1994, the GSS queried respondents on their perceptions of communism. Unfortunately, the end of the Cold War seems to have led to the question being retired after that. The following graph shows the percentages of respondents who identified communism as “the worst kind [of government] of all”. The other three choices were “it’s bad, but no worse than some others”, “it’s all right for some countries”, and “it’s a good form of government”:

Polymath Gregory Cochran recently asked about evidence of seemingly orthogonal kinds of craziness being related. With the strong correlation between educational attainment and affinity for communism here we seem to have evidence of a related phenomenon the academic Bruce Charlton memorably identified as that of the “clever sillies”.

GSS variables used: COMMUN(1), RACE, RELIG, SEX, DEGREE

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Communism, GSS 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Interesting to see the gradual change in support when compared to time in ‘learning institutions’ which obviously gives credibility to the claim that cultural Marxism is at play. Also interesting to see Women so high.

    • Agree: Talha
  2. Graduate-degree holders least favoring what is obviously the correct opinion, especially considering that the Cambodia genocide of the educated started in something like nineteen SEVENTY-fricking FIVE.

    Honestly.  People stupid enough to endorse the wanton slaughter of people like themselves should be granted that boon on the spot.  Cluelessness must be cleansed from the gene pool or it will cause even worse harm than it has thus far.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, and The Killing Fields came out in 1984!

    Peak Stupidity has 70 posts on, or related to, "The Commies". I agree with those that say history rhymes, and I think it's that time of the century when the Commies are crawling out of the woodwork again. Because it rhymes, but not necessarily repeats, it may not end as well as it eventually did last time around. The've been focusing on our country for over 5 decades now.
  3. I detest and abhor communism intensely, but I don’t consider it “the worst form of government of all.”

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion – warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one). And most people, indeed, seem to agree with this, because most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.

    A few years back, I saw a new Kebob place open up (in a nearby Hispanic area), so I entered the restaurant and spoke to the owner. He was an Afghan refugee (an alleged Uzbek, though he looked very Tajik and could speak Dari). Far from being grateful for the U.S. intervention that toppled the Talibs (and allowed him to emigrate to the U.S.), he was extremely, vociferously critical – he said that the Talibs were repressive, but they provided order. Now, he said, his family faced constant violence and extortions from gangsters and those in power, and there was little security.

    Yeah, you are welcome, bro.

    I suspect he’d vote for communism enthusiastically over the form of government currently in place in his homeland. And as soon as he becomes a U.S. citizen, he’ll probably vote for the next nearest thing, the Democrats.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.
     
    Agreed. Stability and prosperity are a lot more important than liberty. I suspect that people also crave fairness more than they crave liberty. They'd like the prosperity to be at least reasonably equally divided. It's what used to be called economic justice.

    The problem of liberty comes under the heading of First World problems. Most people don't care very much about it at all. Even in the First World it's not that big a deal.

    I've heard people complain about a lack of stability (inadequate maintenance of law and order, economic uncertainty, etc). I've heard people complain about a lack of prosperity. I've heard people complain about a lack of fairness. But I've heard very few people complain that they just don't have enough liberty.
    , @Pericles

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion – warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one).

     

    I dunno, Peter Leeson claims the opposite.

    This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement.

     

    https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I think most libertarians draw a distinction between "minarchism" and "anarchism". They tend to identify as the former, which includes limited police and military.

    How much of that Tajik's experience is a consequence of inconsistency? Is manoralism better or worse than communism? As a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life, I'm partial to the former. I really do think communism is as bad as it gets.
    , @franticpedantic
    What are you talking about?

    You cannot say an Uzbek looks more like a Tajik. Tajiks are phenotypically extremely diverse.

    Also, it is ordinary for Uzbeks in Afghanistan to be able to to speak Dari.

    Why are you affecting knowledge of this country?
  4. @Twinkie
    I detest and abhor communism intensely, but I don't consider it "the worst form of government of all."

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion - warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one). And most people, indeed, seem to agree with this, because most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.

    A few years back, I saw a new Kebob place open up (in a nearby Hispanic area), so I entered the restaurant and spoke to the owner. He was an Afghan refugee (an alleged Uzbek, though he looked very Tajik and could speak Dari). Far from being grateful for the U.S. intervention that toppled the Talibs (and allowed him to emigrate to the U.S.), he was extremely, vociferously critical - he said that the Talibs were repressive, but they provided order. Now, he said, his family faced constant violence and extortions from gangsters and those in power, and there was little security.

    Yeah, you are welcome, bro.

    I suspect he'd vote for communism enthusiastically over the form of government currently in place in his homeland. And as soon as he becomes a U.S. citizen, he'll probably vote for the next nearest thing, the Democrats.

    most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.

    Agreed. Stability and prosperity are a lot more important than liberty. I suspect that people also crave fairness more than they crave liberty. They’d like the prosperity to be at least reasonably equally divided. It’s what used to be called economic justice.

    The problem of liberty comes under the heading of First World problems. Most people don’t care very much about it at all. Even in the First World it’s not that big a deal.

    I’ve heard people complain about a lack of stability (inadequate maintenance of law and order, economic uncertainty, etc). I’ve heard people complain about a lack of prosperity. I’ve heard people complain about a lack of fairness. But I’ve heard very few people complain that they just don’t have enough liberty.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    But I’ve heard very few people complain that they just don’t have enough liberty.
     
    Come to think of it, they're often complaining about their lack of liberty to isolate themselves from the dysfunction caused by lack of security, aren't they?

    But not always, lots of people bitch about taxes, and I think they see that as a liberty issue.
    , @anon
    But I’ve heard very few people complain that they just don’t have enough liberty.

    C'mon, really? Sure, Obergefell v. Hodges cut back on some of the whining by gay lobbyists, but there's still World War T - teh sexist washroom, horrors! - most states still don't have legal pot, a lot of states won't let a woman have an abortion when she's in labor, there's still an age of consent for sex with minors, black men still get arrested or even shot just for a little armed robbery - the list goes on and on -- you should be happy that you can't hear all the wailing from the progressive retarded Trigglypuffbrains. Even in flyover land, mind you, the noise is sometimes deafening.
  5. Communism got a really bad rap (due to the bad Russian example), deliberately under McCarthyism and during the Vietnam and Korean wars (both started to attack Maos’s China from the back door). The 3 remaining ‘communist’ countries ( China, Vietnam, Cuba) are nothing like the Bolshevik tyrannical regime that ran Russia through to Stalin’ purges. Questionable whether any of the remaining are actually true ‘communist’ at all.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson 3

    Communism got a really bad rap (due to the bad Russian example)
     
    Communism got a bad rap because it murdered more innocent people, and inflicted more human suffering, than any other ideology ever. That you pretend that some type of true ‘communist’ would do anything other than what communists have done in the past demonstrates your defective perspective on history and human nature.
    , @SFG
    Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward killed 30-50 million Chinese. He may well be the greatest mass killer of history.

    Cuba and Vietnam, well, standard dictatorships, really. Wouldn't want to live there but nothing baroquely awful like Pol Pot.
  6. The practical issue is not Communism as a “form of government”. The issue is one of Communism as a vector and an enabler of mass murder, mass imprisonment, mass enslavement, mass (deliberate) starvation, and mass religious and cultural persecution, all of them on a scale and a level of brutality which makes Timur the Lame look like Santa Claus.

    Equally important is the question of the centrality of the Jewish role in each and every one of these atrocities: Communism is, inescapably, an essentially Jewish ideology. Its brutal methods, too, are observably Jewish. Communism is not simply a matter of “all for one and one for all” writ large. Rather, it has from the beginning been a specifically Jewish-inspired and Jewish-implemented program of mass societal disruption and mayhem, mass organized violence, and mass (Jewish) seizure of power and centralized control, always brutal, always totalitarian, always anti-Christian and always racist and filled with anti-gentile racist spite.

    This issue matters because of the ongoing self-serving Jewish propaganda attempt to place the Holocaust at the absolute center of world history, and to use it as a cudgel to extort billions in money, power and influence through the world. Further, the Holocaust is used as leverage to give Jews unquestioned moral high ground in their ongoing project to destroy European Christendom through mass immigration, curtailment of White fertility, and relentless degradation of European and Christian cultural, political, religious and philosophical forms.

    At the same time, these Jews attempt to deny and whitewash their role in Communism, the cause of one of the greatest bloodbaths in all human history. This cannot be permitted to continue.

    As to the various groups’ opinions of Communism as a mere “form of government,” it must be kept in mind that post-Khrushchev and post-Cultural Revolution, many younger people remember Communism as merely a form of drab, boring, lifeless authoritarianism, in which at least the workers didn’t go hungry. Few remember the nightmares of the Red Terror and of Maoism. Fewer still understand that Bolshevik Jews were responsible for the mass murder of roughly 20 million Russian and Ukrainian European Christians.

    It is specifically the Jewish character of Communism which must bear central responsibility for its manifold horrors.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Mao? Pol Pot? Lots of dead people (Mao may be the all-time champ), no Jews there.

    I'm sorry, there was Jakob Rosenfeld, the Minister of Health in the Provisional Communist Military Government of China under Mao Zedong. I'm sure he was responsible for the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, even though he died in 1952.

    Sounds to me like if you have a dictatorship you can kill lots of your own people because nobody dares object.

    , @The Dark Night
    Now it looks like we got some progress here!

    From the 60 million poor Russian Christians to 20. This is inspiring. Some time, I hope we will talk about the real numbers too.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Many of the greatest opponents of communism are also Jewish, though. And all the things Jews are allegedly doing to cut down white gentiles are also happening to Jews.
  7. No surprise regarding the jews on that graph. Since academia is utterly controlled by the jews there will always be a close correlation between what jews want and what graduates are made to think.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  8. 1. If you’re talking about communism vis-a-vis other forms of government in the abstract, Jews would be mentally comparing it to fascism, the most prominent example of which was extremely bad for the Jews. Nobody’s going to think of pre-1938 Italy when there’s Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. And in the 90s more people would have remembered WW2.

    Technically you can bring up Revisionist Zionism, but they didn’t call themselves fascist after Mussolini embraced Hitler, and would be unlikely to do so now.

    Do you have the equivalent questions for democracy, capitalism, and fascism? Are there any about it being the best form of government? (I suspect you’d find the same pattern, but it’s a good way to check.)

    2. Communism got rid of religion (or aimed to where not dominant), which was one of the major handicaps to full Jewish participation in society before about 1945.

    3. Media, academia, yes, but those are downstream effects of 1. and 2.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I suspect you’d find the same pattern

    With regard to democracy, I suspect that the responses by educational level would be similiar.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    There are not questions about other governmental forms beyond how well democracy is perceived to work.
  9. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The practical issue is not Communism as a "form of government". The issue is one of Communism as a vector and an enabler of mass murder, mass imprisonment, mass enslavement, mass (deliberate) starvation, and mass religious and cultural persecution, all of them on a scale and a level of brutality which makes Timur the Lame look like Santa Claus.

    Equally important is the question of the centrality of the Jewish role in each and every one of these atrocities: Communism is, inescapably, an essentially Jewish ideology. Its brutal methods, too, are observably Jewish. Communism is not simply a matter of "all for one and one for all" writ large. Rather, it has from the beginning been a specifically Jewish-inspired and Jewish-implemented program of mass societal disruption and mayhem, mass organized violence, and mass (Jewish) seizure of power and centralized control, always brutal, always totalitarian, always anti-Christian and always racist and filled with anti-gentile racist spite.

    This issue matters because of the ongoing self-serving Jewish propaganda attempt to place the Holocaust at the absolute center of world history, and to use it as a cudgel to extort billions in money, power and influence through the world. Further, the Holocaust is used as leverage to give Jews unquestioned moral high ground in their ongoing project to destroy European Christendom through mass immigration, curtailment of White fertility, and relentless degradation of European and Christian cultural, political, religious and philosophical forms.

    At the same time, these Jews attempt to deny and whitewash their role in Communism, the cause of one of the greatest bloodbaths in all human history. This cannot be permitted to continue.

    As to the various groups' opinions of Communism as a mere "form of government," it must be kept in mind that post-Khrushchev and post-Cultural Revolution, many younger people remember Communism as merely a form of drab, boring, lifeless authoritarianism, in which at least the workers didn't go hungry. Few remember the nightmares of the Red Terror and of Maoism. Fewer still understand that Bolshevik Jews were responsible for the mass murder of roughly 20 million Russian and Ukrainian European Christians.

    It is specifically the Jewish character of Communism which must bear central responsibility for its manifold horrors.

    Mao? Pol Pot? Lots of dead people (Mao may be the all-time champ), no Jews there.

    I’m sorry, there was Jakob Rosenfeld, the Minister of Health in the Provisional Communist Military Government of China under Mao Zedong. I’m sure he was responsible for the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, even though he died in 1952.

    Sounds to me like if you have a dictatorship you can kill lots of your own people because nobody dares object.

    • Replies: @Mao was aided by jews
    Mao was aided by ambassadors from the u.s., two Jewish men, in order to succeed in the chinese civil war.
    Every time they were on the verge of failure, the ambassadors lobbied the u.s. to provide arms, aid,
    food, and other resources.

    Jews facilitated the maoist 'culture revolution' that saw tens of millions of people die.

    And this is coming from someone who is Jewish.
  10. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:

    I wonder what percentage of them would be able to explain what communism is. This is a crucial question here. And something tells me that most of them would be unable to answer it.

    Then there is a connection between an antipathetic assessment of communism, whatever that means and an association of the respondents with the Mother f. Church.

    Interesting!

  11. @SFG
    1. If you're talking about communism vis-a-vis other forms of government in the abstract, Jews would be mentally comparing it to fascism, the most prominent example of which was extremely bad for the Jews. Nobody's going to think of pre-1938 Italy when there's Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. And in the 90s more people would have remembered WW2.

    Technically you can bring up Revisionist Zionism, but they didn't call themselves fascist after Mussolini embraced Hitler, and would be unlikely to do so now.

    Do you have the equivalent questions for democracy, capitalism, and fascism? Are there any about it being the best form of government? (I suspect you'd find the same pattern, but it's a good way to check.)

    2. Communism got rid of religion (or aimed to where not dominant), which was one of the major handicaps to full Jewish participation in society before about 1945.

    3. Media, academia, yes, but those are downstream effects of 1. and 2.

    I suspect you’d find the same pattern

    With regard to democracy, I suspect that the responses by educational level would be similiar.

  12. Now, do the correlation between Jewishness and Democrat party membership, not that there’s much difference between the modern US Democratic Party and Communism as experienced in the USSR.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Jews are less Democrat than blacks, obviously, and also less Democrat than subcontinentals, so they are not the most pro-Democrat demographic in the US.
  13. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:

    I always try to point this out to people who use “fascist” as the ultimate epithet. As an ardent empiricist and utilitarian, I recognize that communism was far more deadly than fascism, and therefore we shouldn’t worry about so-called fascism gaining traction in the West (not actually happening anyway) until we have fully eradicated communism.

  14. I believe that declarations of anti-communism used to be a way to virtue signal, so that might distort the results and mask the fact that some of these people had more radical politics. This was before Twitter, when virtue-signaling wasn’t as refined and insane. And memories of the Berlin Wall were still fresh.

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO. The true test of morality is in the long-term. And the greatest sins of communism were associated with lack of development.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn’t great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I’m sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel’s Germany.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO.
     
    Agreed. It's the most damaging to the very foundations of civilised society and the most damaging to the soul.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn’t great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I’m sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel’s Germany.
     
    East Germany was interesting because it was about the only example of a communist state that was already an advanced industrialised nation. OK, maybe Czechoslovakia might qualify, being fairly industrialised.

    When you look at other communist countries you have to remember that they were pretty backward before they became communist.
    , @SFG
    Neo-liberalism is the worst?

    I think Dreher's getting out ahead of the curve with his Benedict Option, but in actual recorded history the Commies used to put religious people in jail for practicing their faith. You can still have a hetero 1950s marriage with kids if you want one, and there are religions like Mormonism and evangelical Christianity that will help you to do that.

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).

    I'd certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we're seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America, but it's still better than Communism.

    , @John Regan

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO. The true test of morality is in the long-term. And the greatest sins of communism were associated with lack of development.
     
    One might perhaps put it as: Communism is worse for people in the short term, neo-liberalism is worse for the nation in the long term. The former has genocide of millions but keeps a largely functional and somewhat sane society for the majority of the people, while the latter mostly lacks "hard" genocide with commissars putting a pistol to your neck, but destroys your country and your children's future through replacement immigration, society-wide demoralization and looting of the economy. The damage is less obvious because the process is more drawn out, but the end result is objectively worse.

    There is the occasional unusually extreme kind of communism (e.g., Khmer Rouge) which does wreck society more or less completely, but for the most part even North Korea has managed to preserve civilization, which it presently appears uncertain at best if the "West" will be able to.

  15. Interesting to see how dislike of communism declines the further up the educational ladder you go, but this isn’t really all that surprising, as I’m sure we’d see the same thing on affirmative action, or questions on how much institutional racism plays in the disparate outcomes we see and so on.

    A large part of this I think is due to the fact that our elites – in media, politics, academia – are higher IQ people who spend little to no time around people who are average or below average in intelligence. A lot of these people don’t realize just how many people are below them in ability and how that affects their decision making and trajectory in life, and it leads to them to either utopian schemes like communism or to quasi-religious systems of belief like anti-racism. They think that if you can obliterate class distinctions or racism then little Cletus or Dontay could end up as the founder of a unicorn startup, when those who spend a great deal of time around the bottom half of society know this is ridiculous. The less educated/lower class in our society are more likely to attribute lack of effort or genes (‘blood tells’) to the failure of most people than their would-be masters.

  16. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The practical issue is not Communism as a "form of government". The issue is one of Communism as a vector and an enabler of mass murder, mass imprisonment, mass enslavement, mass (deliberate) starvation, and mass religious and cultural persecution, all of them on a scale and a level of brutality which makes Timur the Lame look like Santa Claus.

    Equally important is the question of the centrality of the Jewish role in each and every one of these atrocities: Communism is, inescapably, an essentially Jewish ideology. Its brutal methods, too, are observably Jewish. Communism is not simply a matter of "all for one and one for all" writ large. Rather, it has from the beginning been a specifically Jewish-inspired and Jewish-implemented program of mass societal disruption and mayhem, mass organized violence, and mass (Jewish) seizure of power and centralized control, always brutal, always totalitarian, always anti-Christian and always racist and filled with anti-gentile racist spite.

    This issue matters because of the ongoing self-serving Jewish propaganda attempt to place the Holocaust at the absolute center of world history, and to use it as a cudgel to extort billions in money, power and influence through the world. Further, the Holocaust is used as leverage to give Jews unquestioned moral high ground in their ongoing project to destroy European Christendom through mass immigration, curtailment of White fertility, and relentless degradation of European and Christian cultural, political, religious and philosophical forms.

    At the same time, these Jews attempt to deny and whitewash their role in Communism, the cause of one of the greatest bloodbaths in all human history. This cannot be permitted to continue.

    As to the various groups' opinions of Communism as a mere "form of government," it must be kept in mind that post-Khrushchev and post-Cultural Revolution, many younger people remember Communism as merely a form of drab, boring, lifeless authoritarianism, in which at least the workers didn't go hungry. Few remember the nightmares of the Red Terror and of Maoism. Fewer still understand that Bolshevik Jews were responsible for the mass murder of roughly 20 million Russian and Ukrainian European Christians.

    It is specifically the Jewish character of Communism which must bear central responsibility for its manifold horrors.

    Now it looks like we got some progress here!

    From the 60 million poor Russian Christians to 20. This is inspiring. Some time, I hope we will talk about the real numbers too.

  17. Those last 5 shaded/graded blue bars are really something. The more education, the stupider you are, I guess, with an exception or two (not sure about y’all).

    I’m also REALLY surprised at the men/women results. Rosie, I’m SO SO SORRY! ;-}

    BTW, with my usual skepticism, I ask this to A.E.: Was it just a yes/no question on Communism, or were there other choices? That could explain it, if there were ideologies that some respondents didn’t really know or understand.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    It sounds from AE's article like the question asked was whether communism was THE WORST form of government anywhere.

    Which (leaving aside the question of whether communism is a form of government exactly, because if it isn't, it's close enough for practical purposes, as the engineer said in the joke), as commenter Twinkie pointed out, it isn't. Even in the Spanish Civil War, when the Stalinists took over the anarchist territory and murdered a number of the anarchists, their takeover reduced the random terror that had preceded it. Not that the Stalinists were slow to use terror and torture, it's just that there was some moderate degree of order about it.`

    So here for once I'm with the Jews and the obrazovanshchina.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The other three choices were “it’s bad, but no worse than some others”, “it’s all right for some countries”, and “it’s a good form of government”.
  18. @Mr. Rational
    Graduate-degree holders least favoring what is obviously the correct opinion, especially considering that the Cambodia genocide of the educated started in something like nineteen SEVENTY-fricking FIVE.

    Honestly.  People stupid enough to endorse the wanton slaughter of people like themselves should be granted that boon on the spot.  Cluelessness must be cleansed from the gene pool or it will cause even worse harm than it has thus far.

    Yep, and The Killing Fields came out in 1984!

    Peak Stupidity has 70 posts on, or related to, “The Commies”. I agree with those that say history rhymes, and I think it’s that time of the century when the Commies are crawling out of the woodwork again. Because it rhymes, but not necessarily repeats, it may not end as well as it eventually did last time around. The’ve been focusing on our country for over 5 decades now.

  19. @songbird
    I believe that declarations of anti-communism used to be a way to virtue signal, so that might distort the results and mask the fact that some of these people had more radical politics. This was before Twitter, when virtue-signaling wasn't as refined and insane. And memories of the Berlin Wall were still fresh.

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO. The true test of morality is in the long-term. And the greatest sins of communism were associated with lack of development.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn't great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I'm sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel's Germany.

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO.

    Agreed. It’s the most damaging to the very foundations of civilised society and the most damaging to the soul.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn’t great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I’m sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel’s Germany.

    East Germany was interesting because it was about the only example of a communist state that was already an advanced industrialised nation. OK, maybe Czechoslovakia might qualify, being fairly industrialised.

    When you look at other communist countries you have to remember that they were pretty backward before they became communist.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    Liberalism in the modern era has been a limited hangout for neoliberals like the elites gathered around the Obamas (and Clintons) who are in reality ruthless capitalists. Neoliberalism is the operating system for the acolytes of the Light-Bringer.
  20. Noting the time frame ” . . . the end of the Cold War seems to have led to the question being retired after that.” I am not sure it is retired, China, and others remain communist

    The negatives are probably largely the result of the cold ward and the retraction of Soviet Communism.

    For the college educated communism theory more benign than communism applied.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    Those last 5 shaded/graded blue bars are really something. The more education, the stupider you are, I guess, with an exception or two (not sure about y'all).

    I'm also REALLY surprised at the men/women results. Rosie, I'm SO SO SORRY! ;-}

    BTW, with my usual skepticism, I ask this to A.E.: Was it just a yes/no question on Communism, or were there other choices? That could explain it, if there were ideologies that some respondents didn't really know or understand.

    It sounds from AE’s article like the question asked was whether communism was THE WORST form of government anywhere.

    Which (leaving aside the question of whether communism is a form of government exactly, because if it isn’t, it’s close enough for practical purposes, as the engineer said in the joke), as commenter Twinkie pointed out, it isn’t. Even in the Spanish Civil War, when the Stalinists took over the anarchist territory and murdered a number of the anarchists, their takeover reduced the random terror that had preceded it. Not that the Stalinists were slow to use terror and torture, it’s just that there was some moderate degree of order about it.`

    So here for once I’m with the Jews and the obrazovanshchina.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks, RSDB, and sorry, A.E. I missed that part, gotta slow down.
  22. @RSDB
    It sounds from AE's article like the question asked was whether communism was THE WORST form of government anywhere.

    Which (leaving aside the question of whether communism is a form of government exactly, because if it isn't, it's close enough for practical purposes, as the engineer said in the joke), as commenter Twinkie pointed out, it isn't. Even in the Spanish Civil War, when the Stalinists took over the anarchist territory and murdered a number of the anarchists, their takeover reduced the random terror that had preceded it. Not that the Stalinists were slow to use terror and torture, it's just that there was some moderate degree of order about it.`

    So here for once I'm with the Jews and the obrazovanshchina.

    Thanks, RSDB, and sorry, A.E. I missed that part, gotta slow down.

  23. @songbird
    I believe that declarations of anti-communism used to be a way to virtue signal, so that might distort the results and mask the fact that some of these people had more radical politics. This was before Twitter, when virtue-signaling wasn't as refined and insane. And memories of the Berlin Wall were still fresh.

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO. The true test of morality is in the long-term. And the greatest sins of communism were associated with lack of development.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn't great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I'm sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel's Germany.

    Neo-liberalism is the worst?

    I think Dreher’s getting out ahead of the curve with his Benedict Option, but in actual recorded history the Commies used to put religious people in jail for practicing their faith. You can still have a hetero 1950s marriage with kids if you want one, and there are religions like Mormonism and evangelical Christianity that will help you to do that.

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).

    I’d certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we’re seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America, but it’s still better than Communism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You can still have a hetero 1950s marriage with kids if you want one, and there are religions like Mormonism and evangelical Christianity that will help you to do that.
     
    At the moment.

    We're rapidly approaching the point where you will be able to adhere to traditional values and beliefs and practices, as long as you don't want to to be able to get a decent job or get into a university or enjoy the full benefits of citizenship. In Australia if you adhere to Christian values you're banned from representing the country in Rugby. In fact you're banned from playing Rugby at the top levels.

    What we're seeing is a rapid move towards active harassment of those who espouse any kind of traditional beliefs, such as a belief in actual marriage. That harassment will get steadily more extreme. At some point the harassment will cross the line into outright persecution.

    What's interesting is that communist regimes tended to start out being very hostile to traditional values but that hostility was gradually relaxed as the communist leaderships realised the disastrous consequences. Modern western neoliberal society is going in exactly the opposite direction - hostility to traditional values is becoming more and more extreme. The neoliberal agenda is so extreme that many people simply refuse to accept the evidence.

    That's the really worrying point. The communists seemed to have at least some capacity for recognising their mistakes. We're doubling down on our mistakes.

    So yes, in the long run neoliberalism will prove to be much more disastrous than even Stalinism.
    , @songbird

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).
     
    Neoliberalism has its own death toll. Nothing to sneeze at. Of course, it pales in comparison, but we might not have really added it up yet. Future events haven't unfolded.

    Philosophically, it's hard to judge the death toll of Communism because it only seems to come about two ways, either military invasion, or violent revolution in a society with certain hallmarks, like low literacy. If you take those things away, and consider a certain level of development, then the death toll decreases dramatically.

    For instance, as I mentioned, take the case of East Germany. On the one hand, over the decades, about 519 people were killed while trying to escape. That's obviously bad, but the regime otherwise did not really use violence. Arguably, this was because East Germany was a developed country and had the highest standard of living in any communist country.

    I’d certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we’re seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America
     
    That's the thing: I'm not sure it will self-correct. Rather, what I'm thinking of is what things might be like a 100 or even just 50 years into the future.

    To use your example of religion, Eastern Europe seems to be more faithful now than Western. If anything, in the longterm, it seems to have better preserved religion.
  24. Why would it surprise you that Jews support communism in larger numbers?

    As I have argued on this site repeatedly, Jewish cultural hegemony is the result of being more moral and idealistic than the white community, which has completely surrendered to materialism.

    And communism is objectively the most idealistic of the secular ideologies. It is the only ideology one could wish worked. No one wishes capitalism were true, people reluctantly acquiesce in it.

    The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical. So its a spiritual-secular hybrid – and that is practically disastrous. So it is obviously a corruption – but white ideologies, like materialism, survival of the fittest, and the like, don’t even retain a trace of the spiritual. They unabashedly pander to our lowest instincts.

    • Troll: Gordo
  25. I’m guessing that the correlation between Jews and higher education is extremely high, so that’s probably the prime mover here.

    (Not that there isn’t going to be some ethnic component, but probably very small when you adjust for education.)

  26. i abhor and detest communism but these were the commies who saved Russia from the rectionary feudal Tzarist clan and turned it into a superpower.

  27. @SFG
    Mao? Pol Pot? Lots of dead people (Mao may be the all-time champ), no Jews there.

    I'm sorry, there was Jakob Rosenfeld, the Minister of Health in the Provisional Communist Military Government of China under Mao Zedong. I'm sure he was responsible for the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, even though he died in 1952.

    Sounds to me like if you have a dictatorship you can kill lots of your own people because nobody dares object.

    Mao was aided by ambassadors from the u.s., two Jewish men, in order to succeed in the chinese civil war.
    Every time they were on the verge of failure, the ambassadors lobbied the u.s. to provide arms, aid,
    food, and other resources.

    Jews facilitated the maoist ‘culture revolution’ that saw tens of millions of people die.

    And this is coming from someone who is Jewish.

  28. anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:

    Asking people who have probably never read a book by Marx what they think of communism is fairly useless. Matter of fact, since half the population is either mentally average, which is no great shakes, or below average, what they “think” about something that’s beyond their level of understanding is a waste of time. That is, unless one is trying to see how much stupidity is out there. Nowadays the supposed leftism that’s out and about are various forms of identity politics, PC-cult-think that’s become something of a religion. It’s not Marxist, or communist, by any means yet people regularly conflate all of it together into one confusing mess. People have opinions on all sorts of subjects of which they know nothing about.

  29. @Twinkie
    I detest and abhor communism intensely, but I don't consider it "the worst form of government of all."

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion - warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one). And most people, indeed, seem to agree with this, because most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.

    A few years back, I saw a new Kebob place open up (in a nearby Hispanic area), so I entered the restaurant and spoke to the owner. He was an Afghan refugee (an alleged Uzbek, though he looked very Tajik and could speak Dari). Far from being grateful for the U.S. intervention that toppled the Talibs (and allowed him to emigrate to the U.S.), he was extremely, vociferously critical - he said that the Talibs were repressive, but they provided order. Now, he said, his family faced constant violence and extortions from gangsters and those in power, and there was little security.

    Yeah, you are welcome, bro.

    I suspect he'd vote for communism enthusiastically over the form of government currently in place in his homeland. And as soon as he becomes a U.S. citizen, he'll probably vote for the next nearest thing, the Democrats.

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion – warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one).

    I dunno, Peter Leeson claims the opposite.

    This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement.

    https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    "Hey, 300,000 people died in the civil war, but they do have more TV's per capita now! Progress!"

    Libertarians/economists at GMU make me cringe.

    In all seriousness, comparing the Somali economy immediately prior to the civil war, when the country might have had a "central government," but was in fact already highly fragmented and in the process of imploding, and then comparing that to the semblance of peace that exists under the current balance of power among warlords is cherry-picking at its best.
  30. Usually groups that lean toward a communist model are those that think they are part of the out group. And the only way to get their fare share in via a communist model in which fair distribution is forced. And that of course equates to a system which is totalitarian in practice and warped in application by human nature.

    The best safeguards against human nature’s excesses in my view is a democratic system linked to capital markets.

    Of course nothing woks if it has to lean on an ethos that ignores objective realities.
    ——————————————————-

    Christians have survived a lot of abuse. And I am doubtful that the fear mongering that goes on about christian separation is more of the same fear mongering that has been running apace since 2001. And when that fear mongering is coming from the same circles that pressed for war in 2001 based on the fact that a small number of Muslims (as the case is traditionally understood) trapped a lot of christians into policies that were unwarranted and in the end exposed them to serious credibility gaps. Because as the smoke cleared and the reality set in, they were left holding the bag of some very rancid policies, including past practices regarding the system as it defended abuses by the system.

    But the US has enough christians in it who can and should adjust and move forward. And that moving forward does not require them to abandon their country they helped forge, because the the less than honest others were on the same bandwagon and wrong headed ethos about color, slavery, authority of government, discrimination practices as they as to the faults of the country. They are no more exonerated than the christians they are pointing fingers at. And christians if they are smart are going to acknowledge where they went wrong without drinking the filth being poured by their opponents. You don’t reconcile errors the past by doubling down on the same or by folding to every nonsensical unbiblical mish mash nonsensical idea that gets shoved your way. You don’t reconcile issues with blacks by supporting illegal immigration, condoning same sex behavior, and engaging in politics against surface ills while gobbling down a mote of others such decrying an unconventional leader as such Pres. Trump as you jump on a cart manufacturing a case for impeachment because he’s not your “kind of fellow”.

    Nor do you endorse everything the president does or says merely as a poke in the eye to your opponents.

    Integrity of faith matters. And i would add this. It was Jesus Christ and the Apostles who spoke about a time when the world would see christians as the enemy. That time has yet to come in my view. An d the more than than 150 million christians in the US don’t have to go crawling into the catacombs just yet. What they do need is a back bone. As for conservative christians, they should have always held government authority on a short leash. Because by not doing so, they have empowered government to use those very tools against them when the time comes. But there is plenty of time to push back or at the very least stand. Though, it will take more courage than I have seen by anyone to divorce christianity from whiteness.

    And you don’t save the country by importing people who have no idea or intention of embracing our national ethos, because they christians — faith is not synonymous to democratic governance as we practice it in the US by the principles of the Declaration and the rules of the Constitution.

    Clearly based on the evidence the two are not the same.

    —————————

    Note: EliteCommInc. is not a reference to any political philosophy.

  31. @dfordoom

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO.
     
    Agreed. It's the most damaging to the very foundations of civilised society and the most damaging to the soul.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn’t great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I’m sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel’s Germany.
     
    East Germany was interesting because it was about the only example of a communist state that was already an advanced industrialised nation. OK, maybe Czechoslovakia might qualify, being fairly industrialised.

    When you look at other communist countries you have to remember that they were pretty backward before they became communist.

    Liberalism in the modern era has been a limited hangout for neoliberals like the elites gathered around the Obamas (and Clintons) who are in reality ruthless capitalists. Neoliberalism is the operating system for the acolytes of the Light-Bringer.

  32. ” The 3 remaining ‘communist’ countries ( China, Vietnam, Cuba) are nothing like the Bolshevik tyrannical regime that ran Russia through to Stalin’ purges. Questionable whether any of the remaining are actually true ‘communist’ at all.”

    I am not sure there is any evidence of this. The history of the intial phase of communist dogma in the most profound examples, indicates that it is required to purge the old system clean, including the purging of those who profligated it in any way.

    And by way of example, that demonstration has been one of mass murder. The examples you cite are past those early stages. The cleansing is generally thought to be over. All that is needed now are the occasional reminders and enforced oppressive reminders.

    Communist countries

    https://www.thoughtco.com/communist-countries-overview-1435178

    Interesting to note that they are all in countries considered “high context”.

  33. Communism is another Sabbatean religious construct. Destructive theologies always have “Tikkun Olam” and victim-hood at their core.

    “Two more, both largely Jewish in their origins: Marxism and Freudianism…Both Marxism and Freudianism were organized religions, with their own churches and sacred texts, and both Marx and Freud were true messiahs.” – Yuri Slezkine, Jewish Century

  34. The Dark Night [AKA "Sagi Harari"] says:

    Prior to the Jewish godless communist coup d’état most of the Russian people were illiterate peasants. According to the 1897 Population Census, literate people made up 28.4 percent of the population. In 1926, the literacy rate was 56.6 percent of the population; in 1937 – according to census data, 86 percent.

    The average lifespan in Russia was 32 years in 1913 and reached 44 in 1926.

    At the same time the Russian culture suffered from communist propaganda, censorship and in general poisonous atmosphere which was created. A lot of promintent writers, artists and composers immigrated to Europe and were replaced with much less talented people who produced a huge pile of books which no one wanted to read, but was made to and an immense amount of patriotic songs which no one wanted to sing, but had to.

    In the end there was a positive and negative effect in it. Some European countries adopted the education policies of these godless communist Jews and belong now to the most successful nations in the world with balanced population and lowest crime rates. Some Asian countries adopted the communist ideas but turned them into something monstrous.

  35. @BlackDragon
    Communism got a really bad rap (due to the bad Russian example), deliberately under McCarthyism and during the Vietnam and Korean wars (both started to attack Maos's China from the back door). The 3 remaining 'communist' countries ( China, Vietnam, Cuba) are nothing like the Bolshevik tyrannical regime that ran Russia through to Stalin' purges. Questionable whether any of the remaining are actually true 'communist' at all.

    Communism got a really bad rap (due to the bad Russian example)

    Communism got a bad rap because it murdered more innocent people, and inflicted more human suffering, than any other ideology ever. That you pretend that some type of true ‘communist’ would do anything other than what communists have done in the past demonstrates your defective perspective on history and human nature.

  36. @BlackDragon
    Communism got a really bad rap (due to the bad Russian example), deliberately under McCarthyism and during the Vietnam and Korean wars (both started to attack Maos's China from the back door). The 3 remaining 'communist' countries ( China, Vietnam, Cuba) are nothing like the Bolshevik tyrannical regime that ran Russia through to Stalin' purges. Questionable whether any of the remaining are actually true 'communist' at all.

    Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward killed 30-50 million Chinese. He may well be the greatest mass killer of history.

    Cuba and Vietnam, well, standard dictatorships, really. Wouldn’t want to live there but nothing baroquely awful like Pol Pot.

  37. @Twinkie
    I detest and abhor communism intensely, but I don't consider it "the worst form of government of all."

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion - warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one). And most people, indeed, seem to agree with this, because most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.

    A few years back, I saw a new Kebob place open up (in a nearby Hispanic area), so I entered the restaurant and spoke to the owner. He was an Afghan refugee (an alleged Uzbek, though he looked very Tajik and could speak Dari). Far from being grateful for the U.S. intervention that toppled the Talibs (and allowed him to emigrate to the U.S.), he was extremely, vociferously critical - he said that the Talibs were repressive, but they provided order. Now, he said, his family faced constant violence and extortions from gangsters and those in power, and there was little security.

    Yeah, you are welcome, bro.

    I suspect he'd vote for communism enthusiastically over the form of government currently in place in his homeland. And as soon as he becomes a U.S. citizen, he'll probably vote for the next nearest thing, the Democrats.

    I think most libertarians draw a distinction between “minarchism” and “anarchism”. They tend to identify as the former, which includes limited police and military.

    How much of that Tajik’s experience is a consequence of inconsistency? Is manoralism better or worse than communism? As a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life, I’m partial to the former. I really do think communism is as bad as it gets.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life
     
    That's an ideal I share, but the shire, as such, wouldn't last long without powerful protectors.

    I think most libertarians draw a distinction between “minarchism” and “anarchism”. They tend to identify as the former, which includes limited police and military.
     
    Well, in a world without central governments, "limited police and military" can be overwhelmed by a warlord (aka gang leader or bandit chief) with sufficient resources to gather a larger army or perhaps even a confederation of warlords who covet what the limited police and military purport to protect.

    From the time immemorial a civilized life without walls and armies has been a short, nasty, and brutish one in the face of predators, bandits, and nomadic (or semi-nomadic) warbands.
  38. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The practical issue is not Communism as a "form of government". The issue is one of Communism as a vector and an enabler of mass murder, mass imprisonment, mass enslavement, mass (deliberate) starvation, and mass religious and cultural persecution, all of them on a scale and a level of brutality which makes Timur the Lame look like Santa Claus.

    Equally important is the question of the centrality of the Jewish role in each and every one of these atrocities: Communism is, inescapably, an essentially Jewish ideology. Its brutal methods, too, are observably Jewish. Communism is not simply a matter of "all for one and one for all" writ large. Rather, it has from the beginning been a specifically Jewish-inspired and Jewish-implemented program of mass societal disruption and mayhem, mass organized violence, and mass (Jewish) seizure of power and centralized control, always brutal, always totalitarian, always anti-Christian and always racist and filled with anti-gentile racist spite.

    This issue matters because of the ongoing self-serving Jewish propaganda attempt to place the Holocaust at the absolute center of world history, and to use it as a cudgel to extort billions in money, power and influence through the world. Further, the Holocaust is used as leverage to give Jews unquestioned moral high ground in their ongoing project to destroy European Christendom through mass immigration, curtailment of White fertility, and relentless degradation of European and Christian cultural, political, religious and philosophical forms.

    At the same time, these Jews attempt to deny and whitewash their role in Communism, the cause of one of the greatest bloodbaths in all human history. This cannot be permitted to continue.

    As to the various groups' opinions of Communism as a mere "form of government," it must be kept in mind that post-Khrushchev and post-Cultural Revolution, many younger people remember Communism as merely a form of drab, boring, lifeless authoritarianism, in which at least the workers didn't go hungry. Few remember the nightmares of the Red Terror and of Maoism. Fewer still understand that Bolshevik Jews were responsible for the mass murder of roughly 20 million Russian and Ukrainian European Christians.

    It is specifically the Jewish character of Communism which must bear central responsibility for its manifold horrors.

    Many of the greatest opponents of communism are also Jewish, though. And all the things Jews are allegedly doing to cut down white gentiles are also happening to Jews.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    For example?
  39. @SFG
    Neo-liberalism is the worst?

    I think Dreher's getting out ahead of the curve with his Benedict Option, but in actual recorded history the Commies used to put religious people in jail for practicing their faith. You can still have a hetero 1950s marriage with kids if you want one, and there are religions like Mormonism and evangelical Christianity that will help you to do that.

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).

    I'd certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we're seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America, but it's still better than Communism.

    You can still have a hetero 1950s marriage with kids if you want one, and there are religions like Mormonism and evangelical Christianity that will help you to do that.

    At the moment.

    We’re rapidly approaching the point where you will be able to adhere to traditional values and beliefs and practices, as long as you don’t want to to be able to get a decent job or get into a university or enjoy the full benefits of citizenship. In Australia if you adhere to Christian values you’re banned from representing the country in Rugby. In fact you’re banned from playing Rugby at the top levels.

    What we’re seeing is a rapid move towards active harassment of those who espouse any kind of traditional beliefs, such as a belief in actual marriage. That harassment will get steadily more extreme. At some point the harassment will cross the line into outright persecution.

    What’s interesting is that communist regimes tended to start out being very hostile to traditional values but that hostility was gradually relaxed as the communist leaderships realised the disastrous consequences. Modern western neoliberal society is going in exactly the opposite direction – hostility to traditional values is becoming more and more extreme. The neoliberal agenda is so extreme that many people simply refuse to accept the evidence.

    That’s the really worrying point. The communists seemed to have at least some capacity for recognising their mistakes. We’re doubling down on our mistakes.

    So yes, in the long run neoliberalism will prove to be much more disastrous than even Stalinism.

    • Agree: songbird
  40. @songbird
    I believe that declarations of anti-communism used to be a way to virtue signal, so that might distort the results and mask the fact that some of these people had more radical politics. This was before Twitter, when virtue-signaling wasn't as refined and insane. And memories of the Berlin Wall were still fresh.

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO. The true test of morality is in the long-term. And the greatest sins of communism were associated with lack of development.

    Was East Germany, which was already somewhat developed, such a bad place to live? Oh, it wasn't great. It was poor and their were a lot of petty bureaucrats that could ruin your life. But I'm sure many would prefer it to the infinite invasion culture of Merkel's Germany.

    The worst system of government is neo-liberalism, IMO. The true test of morality is in the long-term. And the greatest sins of communism were associated with lack of development.

    One might perhaps put it as: Communism is worse for people in the short term, neo-liberalism is worse for the nation in the long term. The former has genocide of millions but keeps a largely functional and somewhat sane society for the majority of the people, while the latter mostly lacks “hard” genocide with commissars putting a pistol to your neck, but destroys your country and your children’s future through replacement immigration, society-wide demoralization and looting of the economy. The damage is less obvious because the process is more drawn out, but the end result is objectively worse.

    There is the occasional unusually extreme kind of communism (e.g., Khmer Rouge) which does wreck society more or less completely, but for the most part even North Korea has managed to preserve civilization, which it presently appears uncertain at best if the “West” will be able to.

  41. @Twinkie
    I detest and abhor communism intensely, but I don't consider it "the worst form of government of all."

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion - warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one). And most people, indeed, seem to agree with this, because most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.

    A few years back, I saw a new Kebob place open up (in a nearby Hispanic area), so I entered the restaurant and spoke to the owner. He was an Afghan refugee (an alleged Uzbek, though he looked very Tajik and could speak Dari). Far from being grateful for the U.S. intervention that toppled the Talibs (and allowed him to emigrate to the U.S.), he was extremely, vociferously critical - he said that the Talibs were repressive, but they provided order. Now, he said, his family faced constant violence and extortions from gangsters and those in power, and there was little security.

    Yeah, you are welcome, bro.

    I suspect he'd vote for communism enthusiastically over the form of government currently in place in his homeland. And as soon as he becomes a U.S. citizen, he'll probably vote for the next nearest thing, the Democrats.

    What are you talking about?

    You cannot say an Uzbek looks more like a Tajik. Tajiks are phenotypically extremely diverse.

    Also, it is ordinary for Uzbeks in Afghanistan to be able to to speak Dari.

    Why are you affecting knowledge of this country?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You cannot say an Uzbek looks more like a Tajik. Tajiks are phenotypically extremely diverse.
     
    Both Uzbeks and Tajiks are "phenotypically" diverse, but there are "stereotypically" Uzbek and Tajik looks. His spoke of his family back home as urban dwellers and business-operating types. Aside from the very stereotypically Tajik appearance, he gave off a very Tajik vibe.

    Also, it is ordinary for Uzbeks in Afghanistan to be able to to speak Dari.
     
    What I noted was that he seemed to speak Dari with his family.

    Why are you affecting knowledge of this country?
     
    I am not affecting anything and reporting what I saw and thought at the time.

    Why is this your first and only comment here?
  42. Although it is certainly not a new point to most readers of this website, it should be kept in mind that whatever the crimes that the Soviet Communists inflicted on the Russian people, and whatever the crimes that were committed against the captive peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, when the Wall came down at the end of 1989, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as well as the the Soviet-ravaged satellite nation-states of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, were, at the end of the day, still almost exclusively and respectively populated by . . . Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians! It may take a long time for these peoples to recover from Communism, but they certainly will recover as their national identities and genetic inheritances are fully intact.

    Compare the situation in the so-called Free World. For the nation-states of both Western Europe and anglophone North America, the massive importations and invasions of third-world populations since the 1960’s have rendered the recoveries of our national identities and the salvaging of our genetic inheritances likely impossible without the expedient of near-genocidal civil wars. Even if some sufficent portions of our legacy populations were to somehow develop the stomachs for what will be largely fratricidal combats, the resultant bloodshed and material destruction will permanently scar, or even outright ruin, the Western-bloc nation-states.

    In retrospect, then, there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples. The Western regime which conjoins market economy, political freedom, and universally-applicable human rights is one of them.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In retrospect, then, there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples. The Western regime which conjoins market economy, political freedom, and universally-applicable human rights is one of them.
     
    Yes, I agree completely.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    How about communism growing out of the carcass of neo-liberalism? That strikes me as utterly horrifying--and I fear that's the direction we're heading in.
    , @iffen
    there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples.

    Possibly, but that does not apply if you got starved to death or executed. It is kind of difficult to think of something worse for one's long term health than death.
  43. As for the surprising men/women results here’s my guess. If you listed some Communist ideas without giving them the Communist label they would be more popular with women than men.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    I agree that Communist ideas without the Communist label would attract more support among women. Women are more conformist and more likely to support whoever is in power and less likely to support extremist or outside the mainstream political positions. In the U.S. this would include Communism and also other outside the mainstream positions like Libertarianism. Orwell noticed that women were the most ardent supporters of Communism, most willing to unthinkingly parrot party slogans, and most eager to denounce and turn in deviationists but that was in countries where the Communists were actually in power.
  44. @Audacious Epigone
    Many of the greatest opponents of communism are also Jewish, though. And all the things Jews are allegedly doing to cut down white gentiles are also happening to Jews.

    For example?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Ayn Rand, for one.  But one has to note just how ineffective those opponents were, almost as if they were directing opposition down blind alleys.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    In the Austrian tradition, von Mises and Rothbard. Milton Friedman. Barry Goldwater. Ayn Rand.
  45. @SFG
    Neo-liberalism is the worst?

    I think Dreher's getting out ahead of the curve with his Benedict Option, but in actual recorded history the Commies used to put religious people in jail for practicing their faith. You can still have a hetero 1950s marriage with kids if you want one, and there are religions like Mormonism and evangelical Christianity that will help you to do that.

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).

    I'd certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we're seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America, but it's still better than Communism.

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).

    Neoliberalism has its own death toll. Nothing to sneeze at. Of course, it pales in comparison, but we might not have really added it up yet. Future events haven’t unfolded.

    Philosophically, it’s hard to judge the death toll of Communism because it only seems to come about two ways, either military invasion, or violent revolution in a society with certain hallmarks, like low literacy. If you take those things away, and consider a certain level of development, then the death toll decreases dramatically.

    For instance, as I mentioned, take the case of East Germany. On the one hand, over the decades, about 519 people were killed while trying to escape. That’s obviously bad, but the regime otherwise did not really use violence. Arguably, this was because East Germany was a developed country and had the highest standard of living in any communist country.

    I’d certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we’re seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America

    That’s the thing: I’m not sure it will self-correct. Rather, what I’m thinking of is what things might be like a 100 or even just 50 years into the future.

    To use your example of religion, Eastern Europe seems to be more faithful now than Western. If anything, in the longterm, it seems to have better preserved religion.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    But it hasn't preserved birthrates. That's a big problem. Preserve the culture, the heritage, the religion--but not the people--what's the point?
  46. Once again – the form of government is secondary to the types of people who are operating it. I would prefer living in a socialist, pre diversity Sweden over living in a Democratic Liberia.

    That said, the premise of communism is a lie – no social classes, every one is an equal producer (and thus an equal consumer), and no ownership. These are impossibilities in a functioning society.

    The idea of communism was sold to the masses as a great utopian fantasy, by paranoid psychopaths who identified and thus took an opportunity to seize absolute power and put to the sword any people or groups who were deemed a threat. Jews as group, are possibly the most psychologically unstable people to walk the earth, and history has shown their pattern of latching to a host nation and proceeding to subvert its culture, drive down its population, and steal its wealth. They also hold nasty grudges and are brutal in their revenge. The result has been their perpetual expulsion from nation after nation. 100 years ago they used communism. 30 years ago it was Neoconservatism. Now it’s Globalism.

    Mao, Stalin, Polpot, Castro, etc, also managed to use the guise of communism to install themselves as supreme dictators, and use it as an excuse to provide themselves with lavish lifestyles at the expense of millions of people. Perhaps “real” communism was never actually tried, but then again, it never should be, because pure communism will never work and I expect that even its most legitimized endorsers ultimately know this.

  47. the chart delineates the net effects of infiltration/takeover of our higher learning institutions by bolshevik/marxist/commies quite succinctly.

  48. @MikeatMikedotMike
    For example?

    Ayn Rand, for one.  But one has to note just how ineffective those opponents were, almost as if they were directing opposition down blind alleys.

  49. @Jay Fink
    As for the surprising men/women results here's my guess. If you listed some Communist ideas without giving them the Communist label they would be more popular with women than men.

    I agree that Communist ideas without the Communist label would attract more support among women. Women are more conformist and more likely to support whoever is in power and less likely to support extremist or outside the mainstream political positions. In the U.S. this would include Communism and also other outside the mainstream positions like Libertarianism. Orwell noticed that women were the most ardent supporters of Communism, most willing to unthinkingly parrot party slogans, and most eager to denounce and turn in deviationists but that was in countries where the Communists were actually in power.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Orwell noticed that women were the most ardent supporters of Communism, most willing to unthinkingly parrot party slogans, and most eager to denounce and turn in deviationists but that was in countries where the Communists were actually in power.
     
    Dis he provide any evidence for that assertion, or is it just a trope in his fictional work? For my own part, I would play dumb and act like I had no idea what a purported anti-communist dissident was talking about. I imagine most women would do precisely the same.
  50. People’s Republic of China
    Body Count: 73,237,000
    1949-Present (57+ years and counting)R.J. Rummel originally estimated China’s body count between between the years of 1949-1987 to be 35,236,000 (Rummel 1994). This excluded 38,000,000 million that died of famine during the Great Leap Forward. After the release of Mao: The Unknown Story, Rummel became convinced that the Chinese government was directly responsible for the famine, thus increasing his original estimate by 38,000,000 (Rummel 2005). 1,000 was added for Tienanmen Square in 1989 (Courtois 1999).

    Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
    Body Count: 58,627,000
    1922-1991 (69 years)The body count only covers the years 1923-1987 (Rummel 1996).

    Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
    Body Count: 3,284,000
    1918-1922 (4 years)This body count does not include the 6,210,000 killed in the civil war (Rummel 1996).

  51. Some AE-type stats – On one of the old Communist countries that maintained strong religiosity in part as anti-communism –

    In Sunday’s Polish election, tho the far-right Konfederacja (Confederation) Party won 6.8% overall, amongst youth ages 18-29 in Poland, support for the far-right was over 20% … Young Poles ‘BASED’ it seems

    It seems too that the victory of the main right-wing party, PiS, was helped by the PiS ‘keep a lid on LGBT’ positioning, with Polish national public television releasing an undercover investigative documentary, a few days before the election, on how LGBT Pride events were largely led by hired, paid actors bussed around to the various events in their kooky costumes

    ‘Invasion’ on YouTube with English subtitles, 24 minutes

  52. @SFG
    1. If you're talking about communism vis-a-vis other forms of government in the abstract, Jews would be mentally comparing it to fascism, the most prominent example of which was extremely bad for the Jews. Nobody's going to think of pre-1938 Italy when there's Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. And in the 90s more people would have remembered WW2.

    Technically you can bring up Revisionist Zionism, but they didn't call themselves fascist after Mussolini embraced Hitler, and would be unlikely to do so now.

    Do you have the equivalent questions for democracy, capitalism, and fascism? Are there any about it being the best form of government? (I suspect you'd find the same pattern, but it's a good way to check.)

    2. Communism got rid of religion (or aimed to where not dominant), which was one of the major handicaps to full Jewish participation in society before about 1945.

    3. Media, academia, yes, but those are downstream effects of 1. and 2.

    There are not questions about other governmental forms beyond how well democracy is perceived to work.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Too bad, would have made a great control. Thanks anyway!
  53. @The Alarmist
    Now, do the correlation between Jewishness and Democrat party membership, not that there's much difference between the modern US Democratic Party and Communism as experienced in the USSR.

    Jews are less Democrat than blacks, obviously, and also less Democrat than subcontinentals, so they are not the most pro-Democrat demographic in the US.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Roughly 75% of Jews vote Dem, and their percentage turnout is roughly 85%: 90% of Blacks vote Dem, with only 60% turnout. I'd say the results in percentage terms are not so clear-cut (if you do a naïve multiplication of the two factors, Jewish voters are more solidly Dem, with a "score" of 0.64 vs 0.54 for Blacks).
    , @Jay Fink
    I saw an exit poll that found the majority of married Jewish men voted for Trump.
  54. @Audacious Epigone
    Jews are less Democrat than blacks, obviously, and also less Democrat than subcontinentals, so they are not the most pro-Democrat demographic in the US.

    Roughly 75% of Jews vote Dem, and their percentage turnout is roughly 85%: 90% of Blacks vote Dem, with only 60% turnout. I’d say the results in percentage terms are not so clear-cut (if you do a naïve multiplication of the two factors, Jewish voters are more solidly Dem, with a “score” of 0.64 vs 0.54 for Blacks).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Wow, 85%? Are you sure? I've never seen a turnout rate that high.
  55. @Audacious Epigone
    Jews are less Democrat than blacks, obviously, and also less Democrat than subcontinentals, so they are not the most pro-Democrat demographic in the US.

    I saw an exit poll that found the majority of married Jewish men voted for Trump.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Yes, it was on Heartiste, and then he had to find some way to weasel out of it after his commentariat complained he wasn't sufficiently counter-semitic.
  56. @Xenos
    Although it is certainly not a new point to most readers of this website, it should be kept in mind that whatever the crimes that the Soviet Communists inflicted on the Russian people, and whatever the crimes that were committed against the captive peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, when the Wall came down at the end of 1989, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as well as the the Soviet-ravaged satellite nation-states of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, were, at the end of the day, still almost exclusively and respectively populated by . . . Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians! It may take a long time for these peoples to recover from Communism, but they certainly will recover as their national identities and genetic inheritances are fully intact.

    Compare the situation in the so-called Free World. For the nation-states of both Western Europe and anglophone North America, the massive importations and invasions of third-world populations since the 1960's have rendered the recoveries of our national identities and the salvaging of our genetic inheritances likely impossible without the expedient of near-genocidal civil wars. Even if some sufficent portions of our legacy populations were to somehow develop the stomachs for what will be largely fratricidal combats, the resultant bloodshed and material destruction will permanently scar, or even outright ruin, the Western-bloc nation-states.

    In retrospect, then, there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples. The Western regime which conjoins market economy, political freedom, and universally-applicable human rights is one of them.

    In retrospect, then, there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples. The Western regime which conjoins market economy, political freedom, and universally-applicable human rights is one of them.

    Yes, I agree completely.

  57. @Jay Fink
    I saw an exit poll that found the majority of married Jewish men voted for Trump.

    Yes, it was on Heartiste, and then he had to find some way to weasel out of it after his commentariat complained he wasn’t sufficiently counter-semitic.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yes, it was on Heartiste, and then he had to find some way to weasel out of it after his commentariat complained he wasn’t sufficiently counter-semitic.
     
    It sounds like "Heartiste" is rather more charitable in his attitude toward "married Jewish men" than "married White women." Or did he give us a shout out and I just missed it?
  58. @Audacious Epigone
    There are not questions about other governmental forms beyond how well democracy is perceived to work.

    Too bad, would have made a great control. Thanks anyway!

  59. @Achmed E. Newman
    Those last 5 shaded/graded blue bars are really something. The more education, the stupider you are, I guess, with an exception or two (not sure about y'all).

    I'm also REALLY surprised at the men/women results. Rosie, I'm SO SO SORRY! ;-}

    BTW, with my usual skepticism, I ask this to A.E.: Was it just a yes/no question on Communism, or were there other choices? That could explain it, if there were ideologies that some respondents didn't really know or understand.

    The other three choices were “it’s bad, but no worse than some others”, “it’s all right for some countries”, and “it’s a good form of government”.

  60. @dfordoom

    most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.
     
    Agreed. Stability and prosperity are a lot more important than liberty. I suspect that people also crave fairness more than they crave liberty. They'd like the prosperity to be at least reasonably equally divided. It's what used to be called economic justice.

    The problem of liberty comes under the heading of First World problems. Most people don't care very much about it at all. Even in the First World it's not that big a deal.

    I've heard people complain about a lack of stability (inadequate maintenance of law and order, economic uncertainty, etc). I've heard people complain about a lack of prosperity. I've heard people complain about a lack of fairness. But I've heard very few people complain that they just don't have enough liberty.

    But I’ve heard very few people complain that they just don’t have enough liberty.

    Come to think of it, they’re often complaining about their lack of liberty to isolate themselves from the dysfunction caused by lack of security, aren’t they?

    But not always, lots of people bitch about taxes, and I think they see that as a liberty issue.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But not always, lots of people bitch about taxes, and I think they see that as a liberty issue.
     
    Yes they do. It's crazy.
  61. @SFG
    Yes, it was on Heartiste, and then he had to find some way to weasel out of it after his commentariat complained he wasn't sufficiently counter-semitic.

    Yes, it was on Heartiste, and then he had to find some way to weasel out of it after his commentariat complained he wasn’t sufficiently counter-semitic.

    It sounds like “Heartiste” is rather more charitable in his attitude toward “married Jewish men” than “married White women.” Or did he give us a shout out and I just missed it?

    • Replies: @SFG
    Heartiste was a PUA, you'd expect him to favor men over women. But by and large he's a lot more positive on white women than Jewish men; that was a one-time thing.
  62. @Mark G.
    I agree that Communist ideas without the Communist label would attract more support among women. Women are more conformist and more likely to support whoever is in power and less likely to support extremist or outside the mainstream political positions. In the U.S. this would include Communism and also other outside the mainstream positions like Libertarianism. Orwell noticed that women were the most ardent supporters of Communism, most willing to unthinkingly parrot party slogans, and most eager to denounce and turn in deviationists but that was in countries where the Communists were actually in power.

    Orwell noticed that women were the most ardent supporters of Communism, most willing to unthinkingly parrot party slogans, and most eager to denounce and turn in deviationists but that was in countries where the Communists were actually in power.

    Dis he provide any evidence for that assertion, or is it just a trope in his fictional work? For my own part, I would play dumb and act like I had no idea what a purported anti-communist dissident was talking about. I imagine most women would do precisely the same.

    • Replies: @anon
    Orwell was in Spain during the civil war. He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close. Homage to Catalonia documents some of that. He didn't live long enough to see the Chinese cultural revolution, but the pattern was very similar. This picture is worth 1,000 words.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/14/world/asia/20160515CREXPLAINER-slide-CYB7/20160515CREXPLAINER-slide-CYB7-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.
  63. anon[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    most human beings crave order and security first, then prosperity, and finally liberty when they are reasonably secure and their bellies are full.
     
    Agreed. Stability and prosperity are a lot more important than liberty. I suspect that people also crave fairness more than they crave liberty. They'd like the prosperity to be at least reasonably equally divided. It's what used to be called economic justice.

    The problem of liberty comes under the heading of First World problems. Most people don't care very much about it at all. Even in the First World it's not that big a deal.

    I've heard people complain about a lack of stability (inadequate maintenance of law and order, economic uncertainty, etc). I've heard people complain about a lack of prosperity. I've heard people complain about a lack of fairness. But I've heard very few people complain that they just don't have enough liberty.

    But I’ve heard very few people complain that they just don’t have enough liberty.

    C’mon, really? Sure, Obergefell v. Hodges cut back on some of the whining by gay lobbyists, but there’s still World War T – teh sexist washroom, horrors! – most states still don’t have legal pot, a lot of states won’t let a woman have an abortion when she’s in labor, there’s still an age of consent for sex with minors, black men still get arrested or even shot just for a little armed robbery – the list goes on and on — you should be happy that you can’t hear all the wailing from the progressive retarded Trigglypuffbrains. Even in flyover land, mind you, the noise is sometimes deafening.

  64. anon[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Orwell noticed that women were the most ardent supporters of Communism, most willing to unthinkingly parrot party slogans, and most eager to denounce and turn in deviationists but that was in countries where the Communists were actually in power.
     
    Dis he provide any evidence for that assertion, or is it just a trope in his fictional work? For my own part, I would play dumb and act like I had no idea what a purported anti-communist dissident was talking about. I imagine most women would do precisely the same.

    Orwell was in Spain during the civil war. He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close. Homage to Catalonia documents some of that. He didn’t live long enough to see the Chinese cultural revolution, but the pattern was very similar. This picture is worth 1,000 words.

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close.
     
    I'll take that as a "no."

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.
     
    Man makes unflattering generalization about women.
    Woman notes lack of evidence to support such generalization.
    Man accused woman of "ingroup preference."

    How very interesting. Do I get to say whatever I want about men and then accuse you of "ingroup preference" if you object?

    Your picture is worthless unless you can show that those women are representative of women in general.

    It seems to me that men are perfectly willing to use political correctness against their rivals nowadays. Why would it have been any different in communist China?
  65. I think that graduates correctly understand that a communist state needs lots of educated people in its administrative state. Because nobody will ever send “me” to reeducation camp.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I, for one, welcome our new X overlords (and hope to find my way into their good graces myself).

    Btw, that is Mr. Cantrill who writes for American Thinker.
  66. @franticpedantic
    What are you talking about?

    You cannot say an Uzbek looks more like a Tajik. Tajiks are phenotypically extremely diverse.

    Also, it is ordinary for Uzbeks in Afghanistan to be able to to speak Dari.

    Why are you affecting knowledge of this country?

    You cannot say an Uzbek looks more like a Tajik. Tajiks are phenotypically extremely diverse.

    Both Uzbeks and Tajiks are “phenotypically” diverse, but there are “stereotypically” Uzbek and Tajik looks. His spoke of his family back home as urban dwellers and business-operating types. Aside from the very stereotypically Tajik appearance, he gave off a very Tajik vibe.

    Also, it is ordinary for Uzbeks in Afghanistan to be able to to speak Dari.

    What I noted was that he seemed to speak Dari with his family.

    Why are you affecting knowledge of this country?

    I am not affecting anything and reporting what I saw and thought at the time.

    Why is this your first and only comment here?

  67. @Rosie

    Yes, it was on Heartiste, and then he had to find some way to weasel out of it after his commentariat complained he wasn’t sufficiently counter-semitic.
     
    It sounds like "Heartiste" is rather more charitable in his attitude toward "married Jewish men" than "married White women." Or did he give us a shout out and I just missed it?

    Heartiste was a PUA, you’d expect him to favor men over women. But by and large he’s a lot more positive on white women than Jewish men; that was a one-time thing.

  68. @Rosie

    But I’ve heard very few people complain that they just don’t have enough liberty.
     
    Come to think of it, they're often complaining about their lack of liberty to isolate themselves from the dysfunction caused by lack of security, aren't they?

    But not always, lots of people bitch about taxes, and I think they see that as a liberty issue.

    But not always, lots of people bitch about taxes, and I think they see that as a liberty issue.

    Yes they do. It’s crazy.

  69. Once again – the form of government is secondary to the types of people who are operating it. I would prefer living in a socialist, pre diversity Sweden over living in a Democratic Liberia.

    I reached the same conclusion along with the corollary which is that the libertarian ideology is a load of garbage.

    Before any libertarian cultists interject with “but but with the right people” that is the same thing the Communists say. It’s not the ideology that is the problem, it’s the people.

    Anyways Ayn Rand said that the people don’t matter and if you suggest otherwise then you are a collectivist. She denied group differences but also said if they are true then we should ignore them. So which is it Annie?

    Can someone explain why there are so many libertarians? Do they just ignore African history? Liberian capitalism should have overtaken Sweden decades ago. Gee whiz maybe Ayn Rand the anti-Christian speed user wasn’t actually genius. I honestly can’t believe websites like Reason still exist. What a joke of an ideology.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Before any libertarian cultists interject with “but but with the right people”
     
    Libertarian ideology works best with no people at all. In theory it works great. Once robots have replaced people libertarianism will function beautifully.
  70. For instance, as I mentioned, take the case of East Germany. On the one hand, over the decades, about 519 people were killed while trying to escape. That’s obviously bad, but the regime otherwise did not really use violence.

    This isn’t true at all. The Stasi routinely tortured people. If you hated your boss or husband you could just tell the Stasi that he was a counter-revolutionary and off he would go.


  71. And communism is objectively the most idealistic of the secular ideologies. It is the only ideology one could wish worked. No one wishes capitalism were true, people reluctantly acquiesce in it.

    The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical.

    Marxism was entirely materialistic and openly sought to destroy spirituality.

    It basically said we need to re-organize society and equalize the economy through a proletariat dictatorship.

    I don’t think it was ever that idealistic. It called for violent revolution and suppressing dissent. Killing someone for operating a printing press doesn’t fall into any universal definition of idealism.

    If anything it was more like legalized robbery with the understanding that it wouldn’t work out for everyone.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical.
     
    Doesn't capitalism do exactly the same thing?

  72. That’s the thing: I’m not sure it will self-correct. Rather, what I’m thinking of is what things might be like a 100 or even just 50 years into the future.

    I’m not convinced it will self-correct either.

    There isn’t a correction movement for starters and it was needed decades ago.

    Conservatives basically doubled down on their assumption that minimalist government and free market capitalism are all you need. Well there is a very strange peculiarity which is that European Socialist countries have done better than African capitalist countries. But don’t expect the True Patriots(tm) at Fox/Reason/Wall St Journal to ever bring this up in a discussion. They will however mock liberals for not wanting to deal with uncomfortable realities that have economic implications.

  73. @Audacious Epigone
    I think most libertarians draw a distinction between "minarchism" and "anarchism". They tend to identify as the former, which includes limited police and military.

    How much of that Tajik's experience is a consequence of inconsistency? Is manoralism better or worse than communism? As a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life, I'm partial to the former. I really do think communism is as bad as it gets.

    a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life

    That’s an ideal I share, but the shire, as such, wouldn’t last long without powerful protectors.

    I think most libertarians draw a distinction between “minarchism” and “anarchism”. They tend to identify as the former, which includes limited police and military.

    Well, in a world without central governments, “limited police and military” can be overwhelmed by a warlord (aka gang leader or bandit chief) with sufficient resources to gather a larger army or perhaps even a confederation of warlords who covet what the limited police and military purport to protect.

    From the time immemorial a civilized life without walls and armies has been a short, nasty, and brutish one in the face of predators, bandits, and nomadic (or semi-nomadic) warbands.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life
     
    That’s an ideal I share, but the shire, as such, wouldn’t last long without powerful protectors.
     
    I'd sleep more soundly in my hobbit-hole if I knew the Shire had nukes.
  74. @Pericles

    It seem to me that the worst form of government for most people is libertarianism taken to its extreme conclusion – warlordism (whether the sci-fi high-tech variety or the very real and historically-attested Somali-style one).

     

    I dunno, Peter Leeson claims the opposite.

    This paper investigates the impact of anarchy on Somali development. The data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government. Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia’s economy and public goods in the absence of a predatory state are responsible for this improvement.

     

    https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

    “Hey, 300,000 people died in the civil war, but they do have more TV’s per capita now! Progress!”

    Libertarians/economists at GMU make me cringe.

    In all seriousness, comparing the Somali economy immediately prior to the civil war, when the country might have had a “central government,” but was in fact already highly fragmented and in the process of imploding, and then comparing that to the semblance of peace that exists under the current balance of power among warlords is cherry-picking at its best.

  75. @Twinkie

    a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life
     
    That's an ideal I share, but the shire, as such, wouldn't last long without powerful protectors.

    I think most libertarians draw a distinction between “minarchism” and “anarchism”. They tend to identify as the former, which includes limited police and military.
     
    Well, in a world without central governments, "limited police and military" can be overwhelmed by a warlord (aka gang leader or bandit chief) with sufficient resources to gather a larger army or perhaps even a confederation of warlords who covet what the limited police and military purport to protect.

    From the time immemorial a civilized life without walls and armies has been a short, nasty, and brutish one in the face of predators, bandits, and nomadic (or semi-nomadic) warbands.

    a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life

    That’s an ideal I share, but the shire, as such, wouldn’t last long without powerful protectors.

    I’d sleep more soundly in my hobbit-hole if I knew the Shire had nukes.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I’d sleep more soundly in my hobbit-hole if I knew the Shire had nukes.
     
    Nukes are nice, but there is a lack of force continuum with nukes. It becomes an on-off (sometimes suicide!) weapon. It's like The Ring.
  76. @dfordoom


    a localist who idealizes Tolkienesque shire life
     
    That’s an ideal I share, but the shire, as such, wouldn’t last long without powerful protectors.
     
    I'd sleep more soundly in my hobbit-hole if I knew the Shire had nukes.

    I’d sleep more soundly in my hobbit-hole if I knew the Shire had nukes.

    Nukes are nice, but there is a lack of force continuum with nukes. It becomes an on-off (sometimes suicide!) weapon. It’s like The Ring.

  77. @John Johnson
    Once again – the form of government is secondary to the types of people who are operating it. I would prefer living in a socialist, pre diversity Sweden over living in a Democratic Liberia.

    I reached the same conclusion along with the corollary which is that the libertarian ideology is a load of garbage.

    Before any libertarian cultists interject with "but but with the right people" that is the same thing the Communists say. It's not the ideology that is the problem, it's the people.

    Anyways Ayn Rand said that the people don't matter and if you suggest otherwise then you are a collectivist. She denied group differences but also said if they are true then we should ignore them. So which is it Annie?

    Can someone explain why there are so many libertarians? Do they just ignore African history? Liberian capitalism should have overtaken Sweden decades ago. Gee whiz maybe Ayn Rand the anti-Christian speed user wasn't actually genius. I honestly can't believe websites like Reason still exist. What a joke of an ideology.

    Before any libertarian cultists interject with “but but with the right people”

    Libertarian ideology works best with no people at all. In theory it works great. Once robots have replaced people libertarianism will function beautifully.

    • Replies: @anon
    Libertarian ideology works best with no people at all.

    Not quite. Something close to libertarianism has existed from time to time. But only among culturally homogeneous, inner-Hajnal line peoples with a common form of the Christian religion, on a frontier far from standing armies. Not quite unique but close to it.

    "Inner Hajnal" appears to be a key element, because high-trust culture is key. Oopsie.
  78. @John Johnson

    And communism is objectively the most idealistic of the secular ideologies. It is the only ideology one could wish worked. No one wishes capitalism were true, people reluctantly acquiesce in it.

    The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical.

    Marxism was entirely materialistic and openly sought to destroy spirituality.

    It basically said we need to re-organize society and equalize the economy through a proletariat dictatorship.

    I don't think it was ever that idealistic. It called for violent revolution and suppressing dissent. Killing someone for operating a printing press doesn't fall into any universal definition of idealism.

    If anything it was more like legalized robbery with the understanding that it wouldn't work out for everyone.

    The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical.

    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Reader
    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    Certainly consumerism does.

  79. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    Before any libertarian cultists interject with “but but with the right people”
     
    Libertarian ideology works best with no people at all. In theory it works great. Once robots have replaced people libertarianism will function beautifully.

    Libertarian ideology works best with no people at all.

    Not quite. Something close to libertarianism has existed from time to time. But only among culturally homogeneous, inner-Hajnal line peoples with a common form of the Christian religion, on a frontier far from standing armies. Not quite unique but close to it.

    “Inner Hajnal” appears to be a key element, because high-trust culture is key. Oopsie.

  80. @dfordoom

    The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical.
     
    Doesn't capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    Certainly consumerism does.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?
     
    Certainly consumerism does.
     
    Can you have capitalism without consumerism?
  81. @Xenos
    Although it is certainly not a new point to most readers of this website, it should be kept in mind that whatever the crimes that the Soviet Communists inflicted on the Russian people, and whatever the crimes that were committed against the captive peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, when the Wall came down at the end of 1989, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as well as the the Soviet-ravaged satellite nation-states of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, were, at the end of the day, still almost exclusively and respectively populated by . . . Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians! It may take a long time for these peoples to recover from Communism, but they certainly will recover as their national identities and genetic inheritances are fully intact.

    Compare the situation in the so-called Free World. For the nation-states of both Western Europe and anglophone North America, the massive importations and invasions of third-world populations since the 1960's have rendered the recoveries of our national identities and the salvaging of our genetic inheritances likely impossible without the expedient of near-genocidal civil wars. Even if some sufficent portions of our legacy populations were to somehow develop the stomachs for what will be largely fratricidal combats, the resultant bloodshed and material destruction will permanently scar, or even outright ruin, the Western-bloc nation-states.

    In retrospect, then, there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples. The Western regime which conjoins market economy, political freedom, and universally-applicable human rights is one of them.

    How about communism growing out of the carcass of neo-liberalism? That strikes me as utterly horrifying–and I fear that’s the direction we’re heading in.

  82. @MikeatMikedotMike
    For example?

    In the Austrian tradition, von Mises and Rothbard. Milton Friedman. Barry Goldwater. Ayn Rand.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    I was looking for an example of this statement:

    " And all the things Jews are allegedly doing to cut down white gentiles are also happening to Jews."

    As for your former statement, yes, I am aware that for every 100 or so pro communist Jews of some recognition, there is 1 who happens to be anti-communist. To what measurable benefit that has been, I'm not really sure.
  83. @songbird

    Communism still has the highest recorded death toll of any ideology (though Hitler might have bested them with a little more time).
     
    Neoliberalism has its own death toll. Nothing to sneeze at. Of course, it pales in comparison, but we might not have really added it up yet. Future events haven't unfolded.

    Philosophically, it's hard to judge the death toll of Communism because it only seems to come about two ways, either military invasion, or violent revolution in a society with certain hallmarks, like low literacy. If you take those things away, and consider a certain level of development, then the death toll decreases dramatically.

    For instance, as I mentioned, take the case of East Germany. On the one hand, over the decades, about 519 people were killed while trying to escape. That's obviously bad, but the regime otherwise did not really use violence. Arguably, this was because East Germany was a developed country and had the highest standard of living in any communist country.

    I’d certainly argue neo-liberalism has gone way too far, and we’re seeing a correction to that with the populist uprisings in Europe and North America
     
    That's the thing: I'm not sure it will self-correct. Rather, what I'm thinking of is what things might be like a 100 or even just 50 years into the future.

    To use your example of religion, Eastern Europe seems to be more faithful now than Western. If anything, in the longterm, it seems to have better preserved religion.

    But it hasn’t preserved birthrates. That’s a big problem. Preserve the culture, the heritage, the religion–but not the people–what’s the point?

    • Replies: @songbird
    If you have ever seen a baby brought into an old-age home, it is a rather white-pilling experience. I don't think that any people will really choose to abolish themselves. What really is needed is willpower, IMO. It may take time to develop, but I have faith that it will develop.

    Of course, that's in countries that preserve their borders. I'm not too optimistic on the rest - I wish I could say I was.
  84. @The Alarmist
    Roughly 75% of Jews vote Dem, and their percentage turnout is roughly 85%: 90% of Blacks vote Dem, with only 60% turnout. I'd say the results in percentage terms are not so clear-cut (if you do a naïve multiplication of the two factors, Jewish voters are more solidly Dem, with a "score" of 0.64 vs 0.54 for Blacks).

    Wow, 85%? Are you sure? I’ve never seen a turnout rate that high.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Sixth bullet down at

    https://jcpa.org/article/the-2016-election-jews-and-their-politics/

    I didn't dig into their sources, so I guess we should take it with a grain of salt.
  85. @Christopher Chantrill
    I think that graduates correctly understand that a communist state needs lots of educated people in its administrative state. Because nobody will ever send "me" to reeducation camp.

    I, for one, welcome our new X overlords (and hope to find my way into their good graces myself).

    Btw, that is Mr. Cantrill who writes for American Thinker.

  86. @anon
    Orwell was in Spain during the civil war. He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close. Homage to Catalonia documents some of that. He didn't live long enough to see the Chinese cultural revolution, but the pattern was very similar. This picture is worth 1,000 words.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/14/world/asia/20160515CREXPLAINER-slide-CYB7/20160515CREXPLAINER-slide-CYB7-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.

    He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close.

    I’ll take that as a “no.”

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.

    Man makes unflattering generalization about women.
    Woman notes lack of evidence to support such generalization.
    Man accused woman of “ingroup preference.”

    How very interesting. Do I get to say whatever I want about men and then accuse you of “ingroup preference” if you object?

    Your picture is worthless unless you can show that those women are representative of women in general.

    It seems to me that men are perfectly willing to use political correctness against their rivals nowadays. Why would it have been any different in communist China?

    • Replies: @anon
    I'll take that as a no

    Reading is fundamental. Please do so more carefully.

    How very interesting. Do I get to say whatever I want about men and then accuse you of “ingroup preference” if you object?

    There's not any evidence for men having an ingroup preference as women do. However, lack of evidence hasn't stopped you in the past from trolling this site.

    Your picture is worthless unless you can show that those women are representative of women in general.

    Category error. Logic isn't your strong point, is it?

    It seems to me that men are perfectly willing to use political correctness against their rivals nowadays. Why would it have been any different in communist China?

    The topic was whether women tend to follow groups or not (they do, it's an evolutionary feature) in the larger sense of Orwell's observation about women in Communist states. Men's behavior isn't relevant to the topic in any logical sense, but in a purely emotional "Men do that too!" sense, I'm sure it is. Pure emotion isn't reason, though. Maybe you should make a note of that?
    , @Mark G.
    John Derbyshire in his book "We Are Doomed" quoted Orwell and said he noticed the same thing when he was living in Communist China under Mao. The Derb said that if you wanted to find someone who was willing to believe all Chinese Communist government propaganda and parrot it unthinkingly your best bet was a woman. I don't know why you would resist the idea that women might be more conformist than men. I became aware of that when I was a child and noticed that girls got better grades in school because they were more eager to please the teacher and boys were more rebellious. The conformity of females, within limits, is not a bad thing because they can train children to fit in within society. The rebelliousness of males, when taken to an extreme, can create unstable conditions. A certain amount of societal cohesion is always needed and women help provide that. Conformity can become a problem, though, when you have an actively evil government like Hitler's Germany or Mao's China and you need independent thinkers who are willing to challenge the current regime.
  87. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close.
     
    I'll take that as a "no."

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.
     
    Man makes unflattering generalization about women.
    Woman notes lack of evidence to support such generalization.
    Man accused woman of "ingroup preference."

    How very interesting. Do I get to say whatever I want about men and then accuse you of "ingroup preference" if you object?

    Your picture is worthless unless you can show that those women are representative of women in general.

    It seems to me that men are perfectly willing to use political correctness against their rivals nowadays. Why would it have been any different in communist China?

    I’ll take that as a no

    Reading is fundamental. Please do so more carefully.

    How very interesting. Do I get to say whatever I want about men and then accuse you of “ingroup preference” if you object?

    There’s not any evidence for men having an ingroup preference as women do. However, lack of evidence hasn’t stopped you in the past from trolling this site.

    Your picture is worthless unless you can show that those women are representative of women in general.

    Category error. Logic isn’t your strong point, is it?

    It seems to me that men are perfectly willing to use political correctness against their rivals nowadays. Why would it have been any different in communist China?

    The topic was whether women tend to follow groups or not (they do, it’s an evolutionary feature) in the larger sense of Orwell’s observation about women in Communist states. Men’s behavior isn’t relevant to the topic in any logical sense, but in a purely emotional “Men do that too!” sense, I’m sure it is. Pure emotion isn’t reason, though. Maybe you should make a note of that?


  88. The problem with communism is it takes what is spiritual and makes it physical.

    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    That wasn’t my quote. The italics here really need to get fixed. Sometimes a preview loses italics after it is saved.


  89. In the Austrian tradition, von Mises and Rothbard. Milton Friedman. Barry Goldwater. Ayn Rand.

    The tradition of proposing an arguably more destructive in the long term alternative that includes private banking, legalized hard drugs, zero corporate regulations, and open borders to the third world. (slow clap)

    Really amusing how the Austrian/Chicago school criticizes the success of Swedish style socialism while ignoring hundreds of third world capitalist countries where capitalism didn’t magically push them ahead of Sweden.

    If I am confident of anything it is that the libertarian ideology is headed towards the trash heap along with Marxism. It simply isn’t capable of thriving with the internet. It was designed as a mainstream friendly (and especially University) globalist alternative to Marxism. There is a built in assumption that race won’t be discussed. Annie Rand would have designed it differently if she could have predicted the internet.

  90. @Audacious Epigone
    Wow, 85%? Are you sure? I've never seen a turnout rate that high.

    Sixth bullet down at

    https://jcpa.org/article/the-2016-election-jews-and-their-politics/

    I didn’t dig into their sources, so I guess we should take it with a grain of salt.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Thanks, I had no idea. The GSS has a lot of data over the years on the subject that I'll take a look at.
    , @Jay Fink
    I would guess high IQ gentiles have a high voter turnout as well. Compare college grad turnout to those with a GED.

    I have never missed an election from the time I was 18. I actually had an interest in politics since childhood. When I was 9 years old I closely followed the 1976 election between Carter and Ford and was stunned when Carter won. We had a mock election at my (heavily Jewish) school and Ford won in a landslide.
  91. @Xenos
    Although it is certainly not a new point to most readers of this website, it should be kept in mind that whatever the crimes that the Soviet Communists inflicted on the Russian people, and whatever the crimes that were committed against the captive peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, when the Wall came down at the end of 1989, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as well as the the Soviet-ravaged satellite nation-states of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, were, at the end of the day, still almost exclusively and respectively populated by . . . Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians! It may take a long time for these peoples to recover from Communism, but they certainly will recover as their national identities and genetic inheritances are fully intact.

    Compare the situation in the so-called Free World. For the nation-states of both Western Europe and anglophone North America, the massive importations and invasions of third-world populations since the 1960's have rendered the recoveries of our national identities and the salvaging of our genetic inheritances likely impossible without the expedient of near-genocidal civil wars. Even if some sufficent portions of our legacy populations were to somehow develop the stomachs for what will be largely fratricidal combats, the resultant bloodshed and material destruction will permanently scar, or even outright ruin, the Western-bloc nation-states.

    In retrospect, then, there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples. The Western regime which conjoins market economy, political freedom, and universally-applicable human rights is one of them.

    there were worse things than Communism for the longterm health and survival of nation-states and their peoples.

    Possibly, but that does not apply if you got starved to death or executed. It is kind of difficult to think of something worse for one’s long term health than death.

  92. @Rosie

    He saw Commies and Anarchist girls up close.
     
    I'll take that as a "no."

    Your ingroup preference is showing. Try to tuck it in.
     
    Man makes unflattering generalization about women.
    Woman notes lack of evidence to support such generalization.
    Man accused woman of "ingroup preference."

    How very interesting. Do I get to say whatever I want about men and then accuse you of "ingroup preference" if you object?

    Your picture is worthless unless you can show that those women are representative of women in general.

    It seems to me that men are perfectly willing to use political correctness against their rivals nowadays. Why would it have been any different in communist China?

    John Derbyshire in his book “We Are Doomed” quoted Orwell and said he noticed the same thing when he was living in Communist China under Mao. The Derb said that if you wanted to find someone who was willing to believe all Chinese Communist government propaganda and parrot it unthinkingly your best bet was a woman. I don’t know why you would resist the idea that women might be more conformist than men. I became aware of that when I was a child and noticed that girls got better grades in school because they were more eager to please the teacher and boys were more rebellious. The conformity of females, within limits, is not a bad thing because they can train children to fit in within society. The rebelliousness of males, when taken to an extreme, can create unstable conditions. A certain amount of societal cohesion is always needed and women help provide that. Conformity can become a problem, though, when you have an actively evil government like Hitler’s Germany or Mao’s China and you need independent thinkers who are willing to challenge the current regime.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  93. @The Alarmist
    Sixth bullet down at

    https://jcpa.org/article/the-2016-election-jews-and-their-politics/

    I didn't dig into their sources, so I guess we should take it with a grain of salt.

    Thanks, I had no idea. The GSS has a lot of data over the years on the subject that I’ll take a look at.

  94. @Audacious Epigone
    But it hasn't preserved birthrates. That's a big problem. Preserve the culture, the heritage, the religion--but not the people--what's the point?

    If you have ever seen a baby brought into an old-age home, it is a rather white-pilling experience. I don’t think that any people will really choose to abolish themselves. What really is needed is willpower, IMO. It may take time to develop, but I have faith that it will develop.

    Of course, that’s in countries that preserve their borders. I’m not too optimistic on the rest – I wish I could say I was.

  95. @Anonymous Reader
    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    Certainly consumerism does.

    Doesn’t capitalism do exactly the same thing?

    Certainly consumerism does.

    Can you have capitalism without consumerism?

  96. @Audacious Epigone
    In the Austrian tradition, von Mises and Rothbard. Milton Friedman. Barry Goldwater. Ayn Rand.

    I was looking for an example of this statement:

    ” And all the things Jews are allegedly doing to cut down white gentiles are also happening to Jews.”

    As for your former statement, yes, I am aware that for every 100 or so pro communist Jews of some recognition, there is 1 who happens to be anti-communist. To what measurable benefit that has been, I’m not really sure.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    High outmarriage and fertility below replacement. If white gentiles are headed for extinction, Jews are headed there even faster.
  97. @The Alarmist
    Sixth bullet down at

    https://jcpa.org/article/the-2016-election-jews-and-their-politics/

    I didn't dig into their sources, so I guess we should take it with a grain of salt.

    I would guess high IQ gentiles have a high voter turnout as well. Compare college grad turnout to those with a GED.

    I have never missed an election from the time I was 18. I actually had an interest in politics since childhood. When I was 9 years old I closely followed the 1976 election between Carter and Ford and was stunned when Carter won. We had a mock election at my (heavily Jewish) school and Ford won in a landslide.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I guess that makes you my brother by another mother, though the last few months I've found myself listening to more music and fewer podcasts, because the tone (drone?) of politics has gotten rather monotonous. I agree witb your surmise that there is a correlation there for Gentiles, and likely for other demographics.
  98. @Jay Fink
    I would guess high IQ gentiles have a high voter turnout as well. Compare college grad turnout to those with a GED.

    I have never missed an election from the time I was 18. I actually had an interest in politics since childhood. When I was 9 years old I closely followed the 1976 election between Carter and Ford and was stunned when Carter won. We had a mock election at my (heavily Jewish) school and Ford won in a landslide.

    I guess that makes you my brother by another mother, though the last few months I’ve found myself listening to more music and fewer podcasts, because the tone (drone?) of politics has gotten rather monotonous. I agree witb your surmise that there is a correlation there for Gentiles, and likely for other demographics.

  99. @MikeatMikedotMike
    I was looking for an example of this statement:

    " And all the things Jews are allegedly doing to cut down white gentiles are also happening to Jews."

    As for your former statement, yes, I am aware that for every 100 or so pro communist Jews of some recognition, there is 1 who happens to be anti-communist. To what measurable benefit that has been, I'm not really sure.

    High outmarriage and fertility below replacement. If white gentiles are headed for extinction, Jews are headed there even faster.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS