The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
Is It Time to Turn Reagan’s Picture to the Wall?
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

I never cease to marvel at the seemingly invincible ignorance of Establishment figures about what is actually going on in this nation, in the lives of regular families and with working folks. Perhaps it is an unwillingness on the part of these kleptocrats who govern the country to recognize reality, or perhaps they simply don’t care, as long as the Democrat and Republican duopoly that controls our destiny continues in power.

Watching Joe Scarborough on the MSNBC network on this topic is revelatory. Scarborough is a former Republican congressman from Florida, and against the standard GOP template, he has understood more than most the mood, the despair, the bubbling-over anger, and the frustration of millions of Americans who are and have been effectively disenfranchised in what is supposedly a “democracy.” And, by extension, he thus understands how this year’s Movement Conservative candidates—Rubio and Ted Cruz (both of whom continue to draw upon the same Inside-the-Beltway think tanks and policy wonks)—continue to disfigure the already seriously disfigured concept of “conservatism.”

Since the George H. W. Bush years, at least, Movement Conservatives have been mostly talking to themselves. It sounds good when you’re only talking to someone who agrees with you, even if what you’re saying is rubbish. Movement Conservatives think that they are presenting a fresh “Reaganite narrative” to the American citizenry, but in reality whatever valuable ideas that percolated during the years before Reagan’s election and during his first years in office have long since been cast aside or so critically undermined as to make all talk of a new Reagan “revolution” almost nugatory.

For the past few decades there have been, politically but more importantly, culturally, rising murmurs, then outright opposition, to the Inside-the-Beltway Movement Conservative establishment and their Republican acolytes. In recent years grass roots demonstrations of rebellion have broken out, with challenges to Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Thad Cochran (in Mississippi), and others, and to what such political figures actually represent. In 2016 this “revolution from the base” goes much deeper and spreads out much farther than ever before.

Since 1988 the presidential standard bearers of the Republican Party have been George H. W. Bush, Dole, George W. Bush, McCain, and Romney, all claiming to be “conservatives” and followers of Reagan. Almost every Republican now claims the conservative mantle to the point that the term “conservatism” now encompasses all manner of diverse and often contradictory definitions. Self-appointed guardians at National Review,The Weekly Standard, and Fox News continually attempt to circumscribe such discussion and impose a kind of orthodoxy. For the past three decades they have been more or less successful, but this year all bets are off.

The 2016 Republican primary cycle has included Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ted Cruz, each proclaiming that he is the “true conservative,” and announcing it with different formulations and modes of persuasion. Indeed, there are differences between them, but they all partake essentially of the same corrupted and stale “movement” dialectic, one a bit more to the “right,” another a bit more to the “left.” Not one of them understands the history of what is called “the conservative movement,” not one of them understands the essential principles and philosophy that originally made “conservatism” a very real alternative to the managerial welfare state that now seems to overwhelm the American nation.

Since the fall of Communism the intellectual foundations of Movement Conservatism have remained imprisoned stubbornly in Cold War ideology and in the implicit acceptance of the same Progressivist narrative of the Movement’s supposed enemies on the Left….only explaining how the Movement can achieve the same goals more economically and with less discomfort. And as the Movement appears increasingly incapable of addressing fundamental issues that actually affect American citizens, Movement Conservatism has literally ceased to exist as a viable option for those searching for answers and solutions.

But it was not always that way.

In 1953 the late Dr. Russell Kirk published his path breaking and seminal volume The Conservative Mind, and gave first voice to a critical understanding of Anglo-American conservatism, and of the existence of a veritable conservative intellectual tradition in America. And throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s that older conservatism was the most attractive and exciting beacon in American intellectual life, drawing to its banners the most accomplished writers and journalists, in journals like Modern Age and the (old) National Review.

Kirk’s evocation of conservatism included an understanding of the supreme importance of tradition and custom in the existence of a nation. America, Kirk insisted, was not founded on a democratic, hegemonic ideology, but as an expression and continuation of European traditions and strong localist, familial and religious belief. Undoing or destroying the legacies and heritage of our ancestors would be fatal to the nation. Conservatives should also celebrate local traditions, customs, and the inherited legacies of other peoples, and not attempt to destroy them. “Conservatism,” as Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the globe.

The United States had no business in trying to impose its system of government or its culture on other nations. Egalitarianism and democracy were not, he added, conservative principles; and, indeed, the Founders of the American republic understood that egalitarianism and democracy could well lead to the actual loss of liberties. The variety of social institutions in society—the family, the church, the professional associations, schools and colleges—provided a necessary buffer between individuals and the natural tendency of the central state to enlarge its powers. And religion, in particular Christian religious belief, was an essential cement that bound all generations together, the living and the dead, in an organic whole.

Beginning in the 1970s and into the Reagan years, new voices—the self-denominated Neoconservatives—migrated into the movement, and many of these voices came from the Trotskyite Left, many traumatized by the revelations of unspeakable Soviet brutality or anti-semitism. Represented by such Jewish luminaries as Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, at first they were welcomed by the custodians of the Old Right in the struggle against world communism and collectivism. With strong academic connections and financial sources, the Neocons soon took control of most of the older conservative foundations, think tanks, and publications, and they did so with an iron hand, reminiscent of former days, when their Marxism was readily visible. And, more significantly, through this control of most “conservative” institutions, especially those centered in Washington, D. C., they very soon began to provide experts and advisors to the national Republican Party and its candidates. Their dominance manifested itself in organs such as the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and in publications like Commentary, The Public Interest, and National Review (which shed its previous attachments to Old Right conservatism). The advent of the Rupert Murdoch media empire, with Fox News television, The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, and the New York Post as its notable voices, cemented this influence, which manifested itself abundantly in post-Reagan GOP policies and prescriptions.

And almost immediately their essential base principles, which remained over on the philosophical Left, clashed with the precepts and principles of the older conservatives. The principles which so characterized the Old Right were replaced with an ideological zeal for the very opposite of those principles. Older conservative icons such as Southerners John Randolph and John C. Calhoun, included prominently in Kirk’s pantheon of great conservatives, were, due to their opposition to egalitarianism, expelled from the Neoconservative lexicon, to be replaced by Abraham Lincoln, and later figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Lincoln, who was not included in Kirk’s pantheon, became the new and real “Founder” of the American republic, as the editor of the post-William Buckley National Review, Rich Lowry, contends. The civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, with its far-reaching and radical court decisions, was pronounced to be “conservative,” and, at the same time, Southern conservatives, such as the brilliant Mel Bradford, and anti-egalitarians, such as Dr. Samuel Francis, were purged out of the “movement.” Scholars such as Bradford, Joseph Sobran, and the internationally-recognized political scientist/historian, Paul Gottfried, had their careers attacked, were denied well-deserved professional positions, and were banished from formerly conservative publications and access to the largesse of formerly conservative foundations.

The Neoconservative template bears an uncanny resemblance to its older Marxist/ Progressivist internationalist narrative, which, in effect, has never been fully discarded. Let me cite just one very striking example from writer Stephen Schwartz of the “new” National Review. Pay particular attention to his praise of Marxist internationalism and Trotsky:

To my last breath, I will defend Trotsky who alone and pursued from country to country and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling to Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit that he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists and Stalinists in their second childhood make of it what they will.”[see Paul Gottfried's commentary on Takimag.com, April 17, 2007]

In the execution of their policies, the Neocons and their Republican subalterns have led the American republic into unwinnable and extremely unwise wars everywhere in the name of international crusades for democracy. They have scorned the older conservatism that rejects egalitarian nostrums, liberal democracy, feminism, and all the hoary stream of aberrations that have come from those barbarities. They zealously, with near religious desire, seek to remake this nation, with “amnesty” and accepting millions of illegals who will transform and radically alter our culture (which is already under severe attack). They have enacted global trade and commercial deals that have destroyed native American manufacturing and eliminated millions of American jobs, shipping them overseas. Even more, these very same Neocons (and their GOP camp followers) have warmed to and even endorsed same sex marriage, transgenderism, and “moderate” feminism (i.e., in the National Review, The Wall Street Journal, and from their pulpits at Fox News, etc.), views which were once considered anathema to historic conservatism.

But out in the nation, in the homes of millions of hard-pressed Americans whose everyday challenges have little to do with Inside-the-Beltway rhetoric, the decline and disappearance of the traditions and culture that once sustained them has continued unabated, increasingly severe. These are the folks on the edge who work hard sometimes twelve hours a day in the trades, who barely hold on in service jobs, who work long hours in factories that Bush, Cruz, and Rubio (not to mention Obama and the establishment GOP) want to send to China and Mexico; these are the young professionals with young families who see the once-vaunted American dream slipping uncontrollably away from them, forever gone; these are our friends (and we each have some) who have seen their jobs go to cheap illegal labor, while the “anchor babies” of those illegals get “free” education (at taxpayer expense), “free” lunches (at taxpayer expense), “free” tuition (at taxpayer expense) and “free” welfare (at taxpayer expense); these are those retired persons who wake up like Dorothy in Oz, and remark, “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore!” And these are the citizens for whom the Establishment narrative now increasingly seems more like run-off sewage, used, recycled, smelly, and foul.

In 2016 the accumulated anger and frustration rising up from the grass roots citizenry has challenged, first, the corrupt Republican Party establishment, but also, indirectly but just as certainly, the Neocon elites in DC and New York, the Bill Kristols, the Charles Krauthammers, and the George Wills, who bring down those quarter-million dollar salaries with perks, simply because they edit a “magazine of conservative opinion” or because they appear as “a knowledgeable commentator” on Fox. The “conservative elites” enjoy their cocktails in New York’s Upper East Side with the Leftist friends they supposedly oppose, and they still don’t “get it,” or perhaps they do but they think if somehow the elites can rally around just one establishment Republican candidate in 2016, things will go back to the old tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum dialectic, with them continuing the opposition charade in which they’ve been engaged now for three or four decades?

It is important to remember: for a century and more these self-congratulatory elites have heralded that “the people rule,” that “more rights are what we all need,” that “more democracy will give you more freedom,” and at the very same time they have assured the grass roots time and time again, “trust us, don’t worry, we’ve got everything under control.”

The late scion of the famous John Adams family, Henry Adams (featured in Kirk’s book, The Conservative Mind), wrote in his volume, The Degradation of Democratic Dogma, of the tendency for demagogic elites to rise when “democracy” becomes little more than a talismanic slogan. And the late Samuel Francis (another great conservative intellect expelled by Movement Conservatism) warned of an emerging managerial class, unelected, powerful, and authoritarian, whose rule and control is worse than any old fashioned dictatorship ever was.

Most of our citizens are not academics or philosophers, but most can still intuit through all the suffocating fog and propagandizing that what Adams and Francis wrote and warned about is occurring and has occurred with a vengeance. Most now see that our American democracy is, to paraphrase the late Southern Regionalist author Donald Davidson, a “tousled whore” who sells herself to the highest bidder, to a kleptocratic regime, to an oligarchic duopoly.

Movement Conservatism is an integral and eager part of this decadent regime, and its emphasis is to protect its position, its power, its income sources. For years we have followed along, placing in it hope against despair, but in 2016, perhaps no longer. Before our eyes “the Movement” has seemingly fractured and run aground. There is panic in the offices of National Review and in the cubicles at Fox News and the Murdoch media empire. Rupert recently attended a $2,700 a plate fund raiser for Hillary Clinton, and other establishment GOP donors plot a possible brokered convention or a desperate third party effort (with maybe Mitt Romney as the “conservative” standard bearer) should Donald Trump succeed in his nomination quest.

The panic of the Establishment betrays their fear of losing power, control, and financial bounty. A nationalist/populist revolution rises, intent on chasing the money changers out of the temple and cleaning out the Augean stables filled with dross and filth.

Sometimes it takes a veritable bull-dozer, an unruly wrecking ball, to clear away the detritus, before a real renaissance can occur. In 2016 just possibly that agent of change may be Donald Trump. Trump has taken identifiably Old Right positions on American overseas intervention, Russia and Syria, US trade policies, and immigration, and he knows that his enemies come from the Neocon intelligentsia and their GOP camp followers. None of the other candidates will or can pull off a revolution. It may be a slim hope, but The Donald just might. And if he does that nasty, thankless job, we are willing to forgive him a whole list of personal sins. For the times are truly perilous, and 2016 may well offer our last chance.

Movement Conservatism is dying a well-merited death. Perhaps it is time finally to turn Ronald Reagan’s portrait to the wall? His conservative descendants have squandered and abused whatever inheritance he left them.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
    []
  1. Movement conservatism died in the 50s as far as I’m concerned. Reagan was a good PR figure for something or other. I don’t know what. I do know he didn’t deliver on anything, and I’m not sure he ever meant to (or was ever meant to).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/article/is-it-time-to-turn-reagans-picture-to-the-wall/#comment-1344777
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Ronald Reagan is dead. He died some years ago. He is not coming back. There will never be another Ronald Reagan. Recognize that fact. Learn to live with that fact. Ronald Reagan be dead, I say again. Let us look to a live person who may lead us out of the wilderness, a person with Reaganesque qualities, possibly, but not another Ronald Reagan, who is dead and buried and ain’t comin’ back, no matter what.

    Read More
  3. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    We need to talk about the JUG: Jewish Urban Globalists.

    Read More
  4. I kinda had to laugh at this:

    “Conservatism,” as Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the globe”

    When was Ronald Reagan on-board with with that? Or mainstream American conservatives, for that matter? Of course, if one ‘neglects’ to recall, example given, USA Latin America policy prior to say, 1960, such fantasies may be entertained. Burying Reagan’s Iran-Contra legacy with the passing of time is more problematic. What Reagan was to the conservatives is little different to what Obama is to the liberals, a front to conceal rampant crimes spree enriching the military-industrial complex, when jacking up the armaments race while driving deficit spending to new records.

    Insofar as Murdoch attending a neo-liberal fundraiser for Hillary, I have no idea why anyone would find that remarkable (other than it can’t be blamed on Jews, ha.)

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/08/09/hillary-clinton-in-four-short-paragraphs/

    ^

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    I can't think of anyone Russell kirk would have identified as a conservative who was a booster of US Latin America policy before 1960 but I concede that this may be so. However, it is incontestable that:

    1. US policy on Latin America before 1960 could at least be considered in the national interest or, failing that, in the interest of some subset of Americans. If otherwise isolationist American 'conservatives' supported it, it was probably for solid, pocket-lining reasons. That is to say, reasons that actually make sense and have limits. Even if sordid.

    2. US policy on Latin America or any other subject before 1960 [or at least from the 1900s to 1960] was by definition the policy of Progressive and New Deal America. I can't think of any President other than perhaps Coolidge from those years who would qualify as a conservative by Kirkean, or perhaps even Reaganaut standards. Not even Ike, unless perhaps for his general policy toward the military.


    Reagan didn't actually intervene abroad by open wars, so by the standards of the last 16 years he was practically an isolationist. Or at least he limited his really big military buildup and posturing to the Cold War context. One major screw up wrt the Middle East- Beirut.

    Central America is more interesting, but then again, the COld war still strikes me as a much more valid ideological framework for intervention than what the neocons have been doing, and by modern standards it was pretty limited intervention, and mostly proxy. Standard great power work. Not revolutionary agendas at all.

    Never did see the problem with Iran contra. It was an embarrassing scam, but it's not like they actually used congressionally appropriated funds...

  5. In defense of Ronald Reagan, he was elected 36 years ago. Reagan is to us as Thomas Dewey was to Reagan–not terribly relevant. For those of us who remember Jimmy Carter’s “national malaise of the spirit” and the Desert One debacle, Ronald Reagan’s election was a genuine relief. But I very much doubt that Ronald Reagan could be elected today. That’s not a criticism; Thomas Dewey and probably even Franklin Roosevelt could not have been elected in 1980. So it’s okay for even alternative right advocates to admire Ronald Reagan as appropriate for his time and plwce. Noneed to turn his picture to the wall!

    It does seem that there is something fundamental happening this election cycle. What to me is most significant is that the people have changed. Although Dewey and Roosevelt’s America was different from Reagan’s, the racial composition of the people remained very similar. Today that has changed (not for the better) and the difference is correspondingly greater.

    Read More
  6. That silly trope about neocons being rooted in Trotskyism sure is persistent. A splinter of a splinter of former Trotskyists, the Schachtmanites, had a salon with Rooseveltian internationalist liberals, who eventually morphed through Cold War liberalism to eventually become the neoconservatives, in the halls of academia. That’s it. The Schachtmanites ended up in the Socialist Party USA, which was heading in a direction about as Marxist as Tony Blair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am unsure of the number of times an article that says, "the neos stole our conservative mojo" leavened with a splash of current events, is useful.
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite. The neoconservative circle coalesced around him and a handful of other mostly Jewish former leftists who fell out of sympathy with the policies that their liberal/progressive confreres increasingly favored in the '70s and '80s - namely, abandonment of support for Israel and the introduction of racial quotas into university admissions. These were, needless to say, bad for the Jews.
  7. all the neocons i can think of are rooted in judaism/zionism no matter the country of origin

    Read More
  8. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    As a “person”…there was nothing redeeming about Ronnie Reagan. He was an obvious phony and corporate whore who shilled for nuclear power and thermonuclear weapons of mass extermination…that is for GE….whose CEO Jack Welch violently hated…”SQUEEZE “EM LIKE A GRAPE!!!!!!…The Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Ronnie Reagan POTUS morphed into a human vegtable in his second term.

    Larger issue:Ronnie Reagan was the icon of the Republican White Male Cold War against the Soviet Union-Russian. And Republican What Males got from this as a reward is an invite the World Immigration Policy that resulted in the election of a homosexual Kenyan Foreigner War Criminal who has exponentially accelerated the process of White Male racial dispossession across America.

    The Soviet-Union-Russian was not the mortal existential threat to Native Born White Americans….The Ronnie Reagan Administration..the JFK Administration….Bush 1+2..Clinton…Kenyan Administrations were the NUMBER ONE threat to the continued physical existence of the Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    The Cold War was a demographic death sentence for The Historic Native Born White American Majority.

    Even at this very late stage in the Game, former Reagan Yoot Enthusiast Peter Brimelow writes over at vdare.com about how America!!!!! could have defeated the Viet Cong. Don’t worry Peter Brimelow…Vietnam was reduced to a basket case…poisoned and burnt…and now is a hot destination spot for homosexual pedophile Republican Ronnie Reagan worshipping Husbands and Husbands for their homosexual honeymoons in Vietnam where they can rape underage Vietnamese boys for hours at a time.

    The White Male USMC Marines who were served in Vietnam homo-normed Social-Culturally Conservative Vietnam…whether they knew this or not.

    Read More
  9. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountian"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    And I want to follow up my comments above by committing blasphemy against all JFK worship-iconography.

    The passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=THE PASSAGE OF THE 1965 NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN EXTERMINATION ACT!!!! was reprobate Teddy’s permanent monument of unrelenting demographic extermination of The Historic Native Born White American Majority to his War Criminal and Traitor Brother JFK.

    JFK was a mortal….fatal….existential threat to the continued existence of The Historic Native Born White American Majority. Russian Naval Commander Vitali Akhipov saved The Historic Native Born White American Majority…America was 90 percent demographically White back in 1962….from being thermonuclear exterminated by the War Criminal and Traitor JFK.

    JFK also gave us the forced busing of Boston Irish Catholic Teenage Girls into Urban Black High Schools for sexual assaults…groping..and rape!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    As far as I am concerned:JFK ROT IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
  10. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I say lets throw ideology and all the increasingly irrelevant labeling out the window. It’s all become more of a hindrance than help. Just a couple basic questions need be raised, such as ‘what’s beneficial for the majority of American citizens?’. Let the theory be formed from action, not the other way around. People benefit from and understand best the pragmatic and concrete; they don’t want the smoke and mirrors of pursuing elusive abstractions. Another key pillar that would be tremendously popular would be the introduction of basic, everyman morality into foreign and domestic policy. By this I don’t mean the lies and contortions we’ve been fed all along, ‘creating democracy’ in other countries by dropping bombs upon them and inflicting torment around the world. Just a simple ‘thou shalt not kill’, if at all possible, coupled with a recognition that our government has caused millions to die and be displaced around the world even as we’re distracted from this fact by the constant pounding of the drumbeat that other dictators in history were worse and that thus we’re angels by comparison. Just some basic honesty without falling into self-flagellation or overreaction would be a good way to start anew. I don’t care what they’ll call it, let’s just have it and create a whole new terminology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polistra
    Amen and double amen.

    1. Do good for OUR people, not for SOME OTHER COUNTRY's people.

    2. Don't start any fights, but resist fiercely when attacked.

    That's all the ideology we need.

    Rulers who follow these basic rules become popular. In the current world, Putin is a fair example.
  11. My problem with our current political class is not at all ideological. It’s that they are liars, thieves, murderers and traitors.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian

    My problem with our current political class is not at all ideological. It’s that they are liars, thieves, murderers and traitors.
     
    Lots of truth there. And in only two short sentences. Well done.
    , @Thirdeye
    A purist ideology makes it easier to rationalize being a liar, thief, murderer, or traitor. When facts conflict with ideology, the ideologue is more likely to fudge the facts. Postmodernism attacks the very notion of truth. Neocons intersect with postmodernists in their embrace of "creating reality."
  12. For the times are truly perilous, and 2016 may well offer our last chance.

    It is not our last chance. It is our last gasp.

    Whether Trump gets the Republican nomination or not, and whether he wins or loses against Hillary, the set back for the Republican establishment will be temporary. In any case, the eternal wars, support for unlimited immigration and fealty to global capitalism are just as strong in the Democratic Party. There is no political movement that tries to advance the interests of ordinary people. The absence of a political movement that favors ordinary Americans insures that this disruption will be temporary. Looking at what the demographics will be in the near future, we can see that in the future there will not be a strong enough “core” to obtain and exert political power.

    Turn out the lights.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    iffen

    Trump is the last gasp of immigration reform policy wonkery.

    Last night Trump blew a major opportunity to denounce the H1B..L1 B Visa Chinese legal immigrant scab labor program.

    Here is a thought experiment:what if during last nights debate Donald Trump said:"The H1 amd L1 B Visa Program is a scab labor program whose open intent is to genocidally exterminate Native Born White Male Tech Workers. Labor scarcities are wonderfull!!!!!!!!!!..and they will raise the real wages of Native Born White American Workers...and wouldn't that be great!!!!! I accuse Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg of MEGA GREED and TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"....What would be the reaction today in the US post-debate?

    Unfortunately, Trump came out in favor the H1..L1 B Visa Chinese Scab Labor Program...therefore I will not vote for Donald Trump Nov 8...
  13. This critique of our current situation from across the pond is spot on! Why the whole banking system is a scam – Godfrey Bloom MEP

    • European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013

    • Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

    Read More
  14. Another fine piece by Dr. Cathey. I am especially pleased to note that he correctly identifies Ted Cruz as an inside-the-beltway candidate, while Rush Limbaugh and a large portion of Evangelicals continue to tout Cruz as an outsider and to lump him in with Trump as part of the opposition, just because Cruz once threw a hissy fit at Mitch McConnell, or something like that. As I have explained before, when Ted Cruz bashes some neocon establishment figure, he does not do so because he is standing up for true conservatism; he does so because he is a nasty man who enjoys savaging anybody he has no use for. He will happily score rhetorical points at anybody’s expense, which is why nobody likes him. Where are the former coworkers of Ted Cruz who have come out to say what a swell guy he is? By contrast, Donald Trump has a long history of kindness and generosity towards strangers who could never do him any earthly favor. Rush Limbaugh is well out into the woods on this one and I hope he comes around before leading his listeners over a cliff.

    Now, to the 7 commenters above me ending at Thirdeye: Did any of you guys even read the freaking article? It seems you have utterly missed Dr. Cathey’s point, which was not to defend Reagan’s legacy as one of “true conservatism” in contrast to the neoconservatism of today, but to inoculate readers against the pied piping of neocon candidates who wish to ingratiate themselves with the electorate by claiming to be the heirs of Reagan. It seems like all you did was use the occasion of this article to chime in with your own reflexive thoughts, which were nothing to the point.

    Thank you for reminding me that the alt-right is filled with a bunch of self-important, whining, farty old idiots. It’s no wonder your wives are sleeping with the pool boy and you’re losing your jobs to H1-B replacements. If you had bothered to make yourselves useful and pleasant to be around, things might not have gotten to this point.

    Read More
  15. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    For the times are truly perilous, and 2016 may well offer our last chance.

    It is not our last chance. It is our last gasp.

    Whether Trump gets the Republican nomination or not, and whether he wins or loses against Hillary, the set back for the Republican establishment will be temporary. In any case, the eternal wars, support for unlimited immigration and fealty to global capitalism are just as strong in the Democratic Party. There is no political movement that tries to advance the interests of ordinary people. The absence of a political movement that favors ordinary Americans insures that this disruption will be temporary. Looking at what the demographics will be in the near future, we can see that in the future there will not be a strong enough "core" to obtain and exert political power.

    Turn out the lights.

    iffen

    Trump is the last gasp of immigration reform policy wonkery.

    Last night Trump blew a major opportunity to denounce the H1B..L1 B Visa Chinese legal immigrant scab labor program.

    Here is a thought experiment:what if during last nights debate Donald Trump said:”The H1 amd L1 B Visa Program is a scab labor program whose open intent is to genocidally exterminate Native Born White Male Tech Workers. Labor scarcities are wonderfull!!!!!!!!!!..and they will raise the real wages of Native Born White American Workers…and wouldn’t that be great!!!!! I accuse Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg of MEGA GREED and TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”….What would be the reaction today in the US post-debate?

    Unfortunately, Trump came out in favor the H1..L1 B Visa Chinese Scab Labor Program…therefore I will not vote for Donald Trump Nov 8…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Craig
    I too was disappointed when Trump rolled over on H1B visas. I work in high tech and they simply won't hire native born white males. New positions are almost exclusively for URMs: Under Represented Minorities. They are hiring interns from which they will eventually hire full time employees and I recently sent the resume of a friend's son to the hiring manager. His response was "sorry but the positions are all for URMs". In any given meeting of 20 workers you will find maybe 10 Indians, 6 Chinese, 2 Eastern Europeans and 2 Americans. The average age of the Americans will be 20 years older than the others. In a recent meeting they introduced 30 new hires for the year for our division. None were native born white males. Once there are no native born white males in the company will they become URMs? Not unless the acronym changes to mean Undesirable Racist Monsters.
  16. @Ronald Thomas West
    I kinda had to laugh at this:

    “Conservatism,” as Kirk explained it, encompassed an inherent distrust of liberal democracy, staunch opposition to egalitarianism, and an extreme reluctance to commit the United States to global “crusades” to impose American “values” on “unenlightened” countries around the globe"

    When was Ronald Reagan on-board with with that? Or mainstream American conservatives, for that matter? Of course, if one 'neglects' to recall, example given, USA Latin America policy prior to say, 1960, such fantasies may be entertained. Burying Reagan's Iran-Contra legacy with the passing of time is more problematic. What Reagan was to the conservatives is little different to what Obama is to the liberals, a front to conceal rampant crimes spree enriching the military-industrial complex, when jacking up the armaments race while driving deficit spending to new records.

    Insofar as Murdoch attending a neo-liberal fundraiser for Hillary, I have no idea why anyone would find that remarkable (other than it can't be blamed on Jews, ha.)

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/08/09/hillary-clinton-in-four-short-paragraphs/

    ^

    I can’t think of anyone Russell kirk would have identified as a conservative who was a booster of US Latin America policy before 1960 but I concede that this may be so. However, it is incontestable that:

    1. US policy on Latin America before 1960 could at least be considered in the national interest or, failing that, in the interest of some subset of Americans. If otherwise isolationist American ‘conservatives’ supported it, it was probably for solid, pocket-lining reasons. That is to say, reasons that actually make sense and have limits. Even if sordid.

    2. US policy on Latin America or any other subject before 1960 [or at least from the 1900s to 1960] was by definition the policy of Progressive and New Deal America. I can’t think of any President other than perhaps Coolidge from those years who would qualify as a conservative by Kirkean, or perhaps even Reaganaut standards. Not even Ike, unless perhaps for his general policy toward the military.

    Reagan didn’t actually intervene abroad by open wars, so by the standards of the last 16 years he was practically an isolationist. Or at least he limited his really big military buildup and posturing to the Cold War context. One major screw up wrt the Middle East- Beirut.

    Central America is more interesting, but then again, the COld war still strikes me as a much more valid ideological framework for intervention than what the neocons have been doing, and by modern standards it was pretty limited intervention, and mostly proxy. Standard great power work. Not revolutionary agendas at all.

    Never did see the problem with Iran contra. It was an embarrassing scam, but it’s not like they actually used congressionally appropriated funds…

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Reagan was an interventionist:Grenada and continuation of Carter's policy of creating Al Queda in Afghanistan....this plus a treasonous immigration policy=9/11..

    Reagan joked about starting nuclear WW3 on his Sunday afternoon broadcast...he wasn't joking...he meant it!!

    The Russians went to launch on warning because of Reagan's threatning Cold War Policy...a flock of pidgeons nearly started Nuclear World War Three. The Military Channel did a documentary on how the Reagan Administration brought the World to edge of thermonuclear extinction..within minutes ..so there are two well documented incidents of Reagan's enthusiasm for thermonuclear mass murder.

    None of this should be shocking since Reagan was a spokesman for Thermonuclear extermination=GE....

    There was massive civil disobedience and resistance to Reagan...Go google former US Marine Brian Wilson who had both his legs hacked off by a Train carrying Amo for offloading to Central America. Brian Wilson laid down on the track in a courageous act of civil disobedience..in full view of the Train Engineer. You can find the news story and the actual news footage delimbing of Brian Wilson I believe on You Tube. It will bring tears to your eyes...

    Ronnie Reagan...another chickenhawk War Hawk..
    , @Ronald Thomas West
    It was big oil and weapons sales geo-political engineering in Smedley Butler's time (includes TR, bridges Coolidge era and stumbles along to resurrection under FDR)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

    It was big oil in the Dulles brothers (Eisenhower's) time (overthrow of Iran's elected government in 1954, if United Fruit in Latin American were merely a personal pocket lining hobby of the Dulles brothers), and it's been big oil ever since. Really, the only difference today is scale. Big oil has gotten bigger, so has the related weapons sales scams. Why not just appoint the boards of directors of the major corporations to fill the senate and other institutions, it'd be more honest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d50SYyLqFNo

    Kind of an interesting thought, if the weapons sales (propping up big oil and today's other extraction industries) were curtailed, it'd likely finish off the western economies.

    And this

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    Just a few examples. The 'out of the closet' wars of the current era likely don't come close (yet) to matching the covert wars of the preceding century -

    , @MarkinLA
    Reagan's central American "refugees" are the beach head for the current invasion of illiterate peasants.

    Reagan's constant belligerence put the Soviets in a high state of alert during a NATO war game.

    http://nuclearinfo.org/blog/peter-burt/2013/11/thirty-years-ago-nuclear-crisis-which-frightened-thatcher-and-reagan-ending
  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Last week in the Huffington Post, Noam Chomsky admitted that White Males are experiencing genocide(Why hasn’t Steve Sailer commented on this Chomsky commentary in Huff Post?).

    The racial hated of Native Born White Americans Males by the Greedy Cheating White Male MEGA-CEOS is at level 10 on the race-hate Richter Scale. Its an open declaration of War. There needs to be some very serious Post-Trump POTUS strategizing.

    We should encourage violent hatred of the Greedy Cheating White Male MEGA CEO Class…laser-beam-like focus on these fat greedy repellant cockroaches….

    “Intelligent” Design

    Who annointed you Hall Monitor?…You are a boring grotty little man….paleocon variety….

    Read More
  18. More than a few recent columns on Unz, especially those focused on excoriating Buckley, have decided to retcon the entire Cold War as a proto-neocon crusade and an inevitable generator of racially mixed homo-America, or some such.

    I don’t think history is quite as deterministic as that. It was perfectly possible to see the Soviets as a major strategic and political challenge to America, insofar as America was the only other superpower, under any ideological tendency it represented an alternative form of government and society to that of the Soviets and much of the world was weighing them both, and it relied for its own prosperity and freedom of action on a world in which it had allies and trading partners positively disposed to it.

    There are no circumstances under which the America of, say, 1950, could have prospered without a revived and friendly western Europe or a growing Asia. Back when America made stuff, those places were buyers. The goods were shipped by sea over sealanes ultimately guaranteed by the US Navy, as previously by the Royal Navy. That arrangement would not have been identically beneficial if they were uncontrolled, contested in any serious way, or eventually controlled by a Soviet [or in an alternate outcome had been controlled by a German] Navy. Those countries would not have participated in a world economic order that advantaged America if they had not been America’s military, political and trading partners rather than the Soviets’.

    In circumstances in which Europe and northeast Asia were in the Soviet sphere, America would not have been stationing troops and ships in these areas, true enough. It would have been stationing larger fleets in Hawaii [I like to think the Azores would have made a nice counterpart] and on its own coasts, and probably more in Latin America to keep it on side. I doubt the cost would have been less, and it would have been for less gain considering how much ground would already have been ceded.

    And to the extent America was the manufacturing hub of the world, yep, it all even benefited the white American working class who manned the assembly lines for all those high-paid union jobs that allowed a single wage earner to own house, cars, and have three kids. Autarky wasn’t going to produce that comparatively easy economic world. It never had- even when America was settling and creating a huge continental domestic market, it was still exporting and trading, right back to the 13 colonies.

    Was it all unsustainable? You bet. The other factor that permitted America to do all this was that Europe and Asia were in ruins in 1945. As they ceased to be ruins, America’s share of manufacturing declined.

    Did it have to collapse as far? I don’t know. I like to think not, and share the opinion of many others on this site as to what policies may have made it worse. But 1950s-60s prosperity in all of North America was a hothouse flower in the long term. It wasn’t ever going to last more than a couple of generations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    A thoughtful post--there's always the tendency to read history backwards: everything must have led to this undesirable outcome, even if there were possibilities of even worse outcomes had different decisions been made. Opposition to the Soviet Union was justified--it was governed by an ideology hostile to the West. After the USSR dissolved and become "mere Russia" again, I think opportunities were missed for the U.S. to withdraw from outdated alliance arrangements. George Kennan referred to the expansion of NATO into the east as a "strategic blunder of epic proportions."
    , @Rich
    I realize it's become a common opinion that the rest of the world being in ruins after WWII is what allowed the US to prosper, but I disagree strongly with this assumption. The US is, and has been for some time, a huge country and marketplace. Within the US are 50 states as well as over 300 million people with vast tracts of farmland and a tremendous industrial sector. The US could have been, before WWII, after the war, and even today, a self sustaining economy. The main problem, as I see it, is that there's never enough for our sociopathic elites, who have to fill their coffers to care for their progeny down to the twentieth generation. Remember, the single paycheck household was the norm in the US and the rest of the West, for centuries. It wasn't invented after WWII.
  19. Reagan made mistakes, but he erred on the side of old fashioned conservative principles. His biggest weakness was granting illegal aliens amnesty, giving the civil rights crazies a pass, and signing that MLK holiday into law (though, to be honest, had he demurred, GHW Bush would have gladly done so). Reagan was a very humane person who could be hard as steel when needed. (Can you imagine GHW Bush de-certifying the air controllers union?) Reagan’s vision was no “kinder, gentler” America. It was a robust nation that knew its place in the world and stayed out of other nations’ business.

    Read More
  20. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @random observer
    I can't think of anyone Russell kirk would have identified as a conservative who was a booster of US Latin America policy before 1960 but I concede that this may be so. However, it is incontestable that:

    1. US policy on Latin America before 1960 could at least be considered in the national interest or, failing that, in the interest of some subset of Americans. If otherwise isolationist American 'conservatives' supported it, it was probably for solid, pocket-lining reasons. That is to say, reasons that actually make sense and have limits. Even if sordid.

    2. US policy on Latin America or any other subject before 1960 [or at least from the 1900s to 1960] was by definition the policy of Progressive and New Deal America. I can't think of any President other than perhaps Coolidge from those years who would qualify as a conservative by Kirkean, or perhaps even Reaganaut standards. Not even Ike, unless perhaps for his general policy toward the military.


    Reagan didn't actually intervene abroad by open wars, so by the standards of the last 16 years he was practically an isolationist. Or at least he limited his really big military buildup and posturing to the Cold War context. One major screw up wrt the Middle East- Beirut.

    Central America is more interesting, but then again, the COld war still strikes me as a much more valid ideological framework for intervention than what the neocons have been doing, and by modern standards it was pretty limited intervention, and mostly proxy. Standard great power work. Not revolutionary agendas at all.

    Never did see the problem with Iran contra. It was an embarrassing scam, but it's not like they actually used congressionally appropriated funds...

    Reagan was an interventionist:Grenada and continuation of Carter’s policy of creating Al Queda in Afghanistan….this plus a treasonous immigration policy=9/11..

    Reagan joked about starting nuclear WW3 on his Sunday afternoon broadcast…he wasn’t joking…he meant it!!

    The Russians went to launch on warning because of Reagan’s threatning Cold War Policy…a flock of pidgeons nearly started Nuclear World War Three. The Military Channel did a documentary on how the Reagan Administration brought the World to edge of thermonuclear extinction..within minutes ..so there are two well documented incidents of Reagan’s enthusiasm for thermonuclear mass murder.

    None of this should be shocking since Reagan was a spokesman for Thermonuclear extermination=GE….

    There was massive civil disobedience and resistance to Reagan…Go google former US Marine Brian Wilson who had both his legs hacked off by a Train carrying Amo for offloading to Central America. Brian Wilson laid down on the track in a courageous act of civil disobedience..in full view of the Train Engineer. You can find the news story and the actual news footage delimbing of Brian Wilson I believe on You Tube. It will bring tears to your eyes…

    Ronnie Reagan…another chickenhawk War Hawk..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    *** Reagan joked about starting nuclear WW3...he wasn’t joking***

    Please. Reagan was joking. Don't try to inflate it into a desire to start WWIII.

    There wasn't "massive civil disobedience and resistance to Reagan." Your anecdote about Mr. Wilson isn't evidence to the contrary. An individual did an tragically stupid thing and paid the price. Are you insinuating the train engineer could have stopped the train but chose to drive over Wilson?
  21. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    And I also should mention that the Family Values Ronnie Reagan Administration kidnapped a 12 year old Russian boy from his Russian Family..and 2)if you take the Washington Times story seriously..the Reagan Administration was infested with pedophiles…

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    YEah and what about being a notorious labor fink, fingering his pals in the SAGuild getting people ''blackballed'', used to be a Good Democrat'', oxymoronic. Like Tricky Dick, sneaky back door operators. not much of an actor too.
  22. @random observer
    I can't think of anyone Russell kirk would have identified as a conservative who was a booster of US Latin America policy before 1960 but I concede that this may be so. However, it is incontestable that:

    1. US policy on Latin America before 1960 could at least be considered in the national interest or, failing that, in the interest of some subset of Americans. If otherwise isolationist American 'conservatives' supported it, it was probably for solid, pocket-lining reasons. That is to say, reasons that actually make sense and have limits. Even if sordid.

    2. US policy on Latin America or any other subject before 1960 [or at least from the 1900s to 1960] was by definition the policy of Progressive and New Deal America. I can't think of any President other than perhaps Coolidge from those years who would qualify as a conservative by Kirkean, or perhaps even Reaganaut standards. Not even Ike, unless perhaps for his general policy toward the military.


    Reagan didn't actually intervene abroad by open wars, so by the standards of the last 16 years he was practically an isolationist. Or at least he limited his really big military buildup and posturing to the Cold War context. One major screw up wrt the Middle East- Beirut.

    Central America is more interesting, but then again, the COld war still strikes me as a much more valid ideological framework for intervention than what the neocons have been doing, and by modern standards it was pretty limited intervention, and mostly proxy. Standard great power work. Not revolutionary agendas at all.

    Never did see the problem with Iran contra. It was an embarrassing scam, but it's not like they actually used congressionally appropriated funds...

    It was big oil and weapons sales geo-political engineering in Smedley Butler’s time (includes TR, bridges Coolidge era and stumbles along to resurrection under FDR)

    It was big oil in the Dulles brothers (Eisenhower’s) time (overthrow of Iran’s elected government in 1954, if United Fruit in Latin American were merely a personal pocket lining hobby of the Dulles brothers), and it’s been big oil ever since. Really, the only difference today is scale. Big oil has gotten bigger, so has the related weapons sales scams. Why not just appoint the boards of directors of the major corporations to fill the senate and other institutions, it’d be more honest.

    Kind of an interesting thought, if the weapons sales (propping up big oil and today’s other extraction industries) were curtailed, it’d likely finish off the western economies.

    And this

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    Just a few examples. The ‘out of the closet’ wars of the current era likely don’t come close (yet) to matching the covert wars of the preceding century -

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    More "Big Oil" nonsense.

    Oil company profits from a gallon of gas is 5 cents.

    Big Government taxes on a gallon of gas, let's say in California, are 72 cents.
  23. Ronald Reagan was an actor all his life – both in and outside the White House and controlled by the Organized Jewry at Hollywood and White House.

    James Baker, Reagan’s “Conservative) secretary of Treasury, and recently an aid to Jeb Bush campaign, had been odd with the AIPAC. In March 2015, good-old Baker was the keynote speaker at J Street, an Israel lobby group’s fifth annual conference in Washington DC. A third of 3000 people who attended the conference were young Jews, who applauded Baker repeatedly, just like they did during Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC conference in March 2015 and a year before.

    The powerful AIPAC Jewish lobby and other Israeli moles in the US are very angry at J Street for honoring Jim Baker. They have accused Baker and his boss, then-president George H. W. Bush Sr. of “standing up to Israel”.

    An Angry Republican radio talk show host, Mark Levin, spits his Zionist hatred, by saying: “James Baker much like Barack Obama, has always had a hate on for Israel.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/03/25/james-baker-the-antisemite-jews-love/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Look up his connections/interactions with the Annenberg empire.
  24. @anonymous
    I say lets throw ideology and all the increasingly irrelevant labeling out the window. It's all become more of a hindrance than help. Just a couple basic questions need be raised, such as 'what's beneficial for the majority of American citizens?'. Let the theory be formed from action, not the other way around. People benefit from and understand best the pragmatic and concrete; they don't want the smoke and mirrors of pursuing elusive abstractions. Another key pillar that would be tremendously popular would be the introduction of basic, everyman morality into foreign and domestic policy. By this I don't mean the lies and contortions we've been fed all along, 'creating democracy' in other countries by dropping bombs upon them and inflicting torment around the world. Just a simple 'thou shalt not kill', if at all possible, coupled with a recognition that our government has caused millions to die and be displaced around the world even as we're distracted from this fact by the constant pounding of the drumbeat that other dictators in history were worse and that thus we're angels by comparison. Just some basic honesty without falling into self-flagellation or overreaction would be a good way to start anew. I don't care what they'll call it, let's just have it and create a whole new terminology.

    Amen and double amen.

    1. Do good for OUR people, not for SOME OTHER COUNTRY’s people.

    2. Don’t start any fights, but resist fiercely when attacked.

    That’s all the ideology we need.

    Rulers who follow these basic rules become popular. In the current world, Putin is a fair example.

    Read More
  25. @Thirdeye
    That silly trope about neocons being rooted in Trotskyism sure is persistent. A splinter of a splinter of former Trotskyists, the Schachtmanites, had a salon with Rooseveltian internationalist liberals, who eventually morphed through Cold War liberalism to eventually become the neoconservatives, in the halls of academia. That's it. The Schachtmanites ended up in the Socialist Party USA, which was heading in a direction about as Marxist as Tony Blair.

    I am unsure of the number of times an article that says, “the neos stole our conservative mojo” leavened with a splash of current events, is useful.

    Read More
  26. @WorkingClass
    My problem with our current political class is not at all ideological. It's that they are liars, thieves, murderers and traitors.

    My problem with our current political class is not at all ideological. It’s that they are liars, thieves, murderers and traitors.

    Lots of truth there. And in only two short sentences. Well done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Thanks R.U.

    Do all Reactionary Utopians appreciate brevity?

    When I was in the army I was given instruction on how to address an officer AFTER obtaining permission to speak.

    State your business.
    Be brief.
    Move out smartly.

    And a grizzled old NCO gave me this:

    Son you only need twenty one words to be a soldier. And five of them are fu*k.
  27. @random observer
    More than a few recent columns on Unz, especially those focused on excoriating Buckley, have decided to retcon the entire Cold War as a proto-neocon crusade and an inevitable generator of racially mixed homo-America, or some such.

    I don't think history is quite as deterministic as that. It was perfectly possible to see the Soviets as a major strategic and political challenge to America, insofar as America was the only other superpower, under any ideological tendency it represented an alternative form of government and society to that of the Soviets and much of the world was weighing them both, and it relied for its own prosperity and freedom of action on a world in which it had allies and trading partners positively disposed to it.

    There are no circumstances under which the America of, say, 1950, could have prospered without a revived and friendly western Europe or a growing Asia. Back when America made stuff, those places were buyers. The goods were shipped by sea over sealanes ultimately guaranteed by the US Navy, as previously by the Royal Navy. That arrangement would not have been identically beneficial if they were uncontrolled, contested in any serious way, or eventually controlled by a Soviet [or in an alternate outcome had been controlled by a German] Navy. Those countries would not have participated in a world economic order that advantaged America if they had not been America's military, political and trading partners rather than the Soviets'.

    In circumstances in which Europe and northeast Asia were in the Soviet sphere, America would not have been stationing troops and ships in these areas, true enough. It would have been stationing larger fleets in Hawaii [I like to think the Azores would have made a nice counterpart] and on its own coasts, and probably more in Latin America to keep it on side. I doubt the cost would have been less, and it would have been for less gain considering how much ground would already have been ceded.

    And to the extent America was the manufacturing hub of the world, yep, it all even benefited the white American working class who manned the assembly lines for all those high-paid union jobs that allowed a single wage earner to own house, cars, and have three kids. Autarky wasn't going to produce that comparatively easy economic world. It never had- even when America was settling and creating a huge continental domestic market, it was still exporting and trading, right back to the 13 colonies.

    Was it all unsustainable? You bet. The other factor that permitted America to do all this was that Europe and Asia were in ruins in 1945. As they ceased to be ruins, America's share of manufacturing declined.

    Did it have to collapse as far? I don't know. I like to think not, and share the opinion of many others on this site as to what policies may have made it worse. But 1950s-60s prosperity in all of North America was a hothouse flower in the long term. It wasn't ever going to last more than a couple of generations.

    A thoughtful post–there’s always the tendency to read history backwards: everything must have led to this undesirable outcome, even if there were possibilities of even worse outcomes had different decisions been made. Opposition to the Soviet Union was justified–it was governed by an ideology hostile to the West. After the USSR dissolved and become “mere Russia” again, I think opportunities were missed for the U.S. to withdraw from outdated alliance arrangements. George Kennan referred to the expansion of NATO into the east as a “strategic blunder of epic proportions.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of "world revolution" in the 1930s. The conflict that emerged in the early postwar years was about the Soviet desire for a security buffer in eastern Europe, not about any supposed Soviet desire for world revolution. It later grew into a more generalized, but no more ideological, conflict over spheres of influence in Asia. The Soviets' stances towards revolutions in China, Korea, and Vietnam were driven by the dynamics of the Cold War more than by ideological affinity. Soviet-occupied territory in Manchuria was transferred to the Kuomintang, not the PLA. Stalin ended up supporting the PLA only after the breakup of the Chinese coalition government and the prospect that the Kuomintang would form a hostile, US-aligned government that would form a cordon with US forces in Japan. That was similar to their concern over Korea. The Soviets also had little sense of communist solidarity with Mao and aligned with capitalist India to head off the influence communist China. Their support of Vietnam served to curtail Chinese influence as well as US influence. The Chinese were no more thrilled at the prospect of Soviet bases in Vietnam than the US was.
  28. @Ronald Thomas West
    It was big oil and weapons sales geo-political engineering in Smedley Butler's time (includes TR, bridges Coolidge era and stumbles along to resurrection under FDR)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

    It was big oil in the Dulles brothers (Eisenhower's) time (overthrow of Iran's elected government in 1954, if United Fruit in Latin American were merely a personal pocket lining hobby of the Dulles brothers), and it's been big oil ever since. Really, the only difference today is scale. Big oil has gotten bigger, so has the related weapons sales scams. Why not just appoint the boards of directors of the major corporations to fill the senate and other institutions, it'd be more honest.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d50SYyLqFNo

    Kind of an interesting thought, if the weapons sales (propping up big oil and today's other extraction industries) were curtailed, it'd likely finish off the western economies.

    And this

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/30/usaid-in-central-africa/

    Just a few examples. The 'out of the closet' wars of the current era likely don't come close (yet) to matching the covert wars of the preceding century -

    More “Big Oil” nonsense.

    Oil company profits from a gallon of gas is 5 cents.

    Big Government taxes on a gallon of gas, let’s say in California, are 72 cents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
    Yeah right Wally

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE

    ^
  29. It may be almost redundant to note that I fully agree with the judgments of Boyd Cathey regarding the devolution of the American “conservative” movement into the instrument of both the GOP establishment and neocon “policy advisers.” Dr. Cathey is also correct to underline the general irrelevance of Reagan’s political example if we’re looking for an illustration of what can be understood as the traditionalist position on the American right. Reagan’s major achievements at home were to identify “conservatism” with the preservation of a centralized administrative state bequeathed to Reagan from his Democratic predecessor and the empowerment of neoconservative office-seekers. The creation of a cult of RR and its perpetuation by neocon and Republican foundations and journalists have served to freeze the Right in 1980s nostalgia. This nostalgia has nothing to do with real political history, and it might be appropriate to recall here Nietzsche’s aphorism about life-stunting invocations of the past.There are times, taught Nietzsche, when the possibility of enhancing life requires that we forget certain histories. In this case, we would do well to forget a particular hagiography because it is based on a distorted representation of the past that also has impeded the evolution of the American Right.

    Read More
  30. @Thirdeye
    That silly trope about neocons being rooted in Trotskyism sure is persistent. A splinter of a splinter of former Trotskyists, the Schachtmanites, had a salon with Rooseveltian internationalist liberals, who eventually morphed through Cold War liberalism to eventually become the neoconservatives, in the halls of academia. That's it. The Schachtmanites ended up in the Socialist Party USA, which was heading in a direction about as Marxist as Tony Blair.

    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite. The neoconservative circle coalesced around him and a handful of other mostly Jewish former leftists who fell out of sympathy with the policies that their liberal/progressive confreres increasingly favored in the ’70s and ’80s – namely, abandonment of support for Israel and the introduction of racial quotas into university admissions. These were, needless to say, bad for the Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite.
     
    The campus group he associated with, the YPSL (FI) was no longer Trotskyist. Trotskyists were anti-Stalinist but not anti-communist. The YPSL (FI) and its leadership in the Workers Party were anti-Stalinist and anti-communist. It would be accurate to say that Kristol cut his political teeth as a left-influenced anti-communist.
    , @manton
    Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined "neoconservative" and he meant it as an insult.
    , @iffen
    abandonment of support for Israel

    Who are these people? How many congressmen, how many Senators, how many influential opinion makers and spinners? Can you name names?
  31. World Military Spending

    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

    This page: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending.

    To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version: http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/75

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

    Read More
  32. @random observer
    More than a few recent columns on Unz, especially those focused on excoriating Buckley, have decided to retcon the entire Cold War as a proto-neocon crusade and an inevitable generator of racially mixed homo-America, or some such.

    I don't think history is quite as deterministic as that. It was perfectly possible to see the Soviets as a major strategic and political challenge to America, insofar as America was the only other superpower, under any ideological tendency it represented an alternative form of government and society to that of the Soviets and much of the world was weighing them both, and it relied for its own prosperity and freedom of action on a world in which it had allies and trading partners positively disposed to it.

    There are no circumstances under which the America of, say, 1950, could have prospered without a revived and friendly western Europe or a growing Asia. Back when America made stuff, those places were buyers. The goods were shipped by sea over sealanes ultimately guaranteed by the US Navy, as previously by the Royal Navy. That arrangement would not have been identically beneficial if they were uncontrolled, contested in any serious way, or eventually controlled by a Soviet [or in an alternate outcome had been controlled by a German] Navy. Those countries would not have participated in a world economic order that advantaged America if they had not been America's military, political and trading partners rather than the Soviets'.

    In circumstances in which Europe and northeast Asia were in the Soviet sphere, America would not have been stationing troops and ships in these areas, true enough. It would have been stationing larger fleets in Hawaii [I like to think the Azores would have made a nice counterpart] and on its own coasts, and probably more in Latin America to keep it on side. I doubt the cost would have been less, and it would have been for less gain considering how much ground would already have been ceded.

    And to the extent America was the manufacturing hub of the world, yep, it all even benefited the white American working class who manned the assembly lines for all those high-paid union jobs that allowed a single wage earner to own house, cars, and have three kids. Autarky wasn't going to produce that comparatively easy economic world. It never had- even when America was settling and creating a huge continental domestic market, it was still exporting and trading, right back to the 13 colonies.

    Was it all unsustainable? You bet. The other factor that permitted America to do all this was that Europe and Asia were in ruins in 1945. As they ceased to be ruins, America's share of manufacturing declined.

    Did it have to collapse as far? I don't know. I like to think not, and share the opinion of many others on this site as to what policies may have made it worse. But 1950s-60s prosperity in all of North America was a hothouse flower in the long term. It wasn't ever going to last more than a couple of generations.

    I realize it’s become a common opinion that the rest of the world being in ruins after WWII is what allowed the US to prosper, but I disagree strongly with this assumption. The US is, and has been for some time, a huge country and marketplace. Within the US are 50 states as well as over 300 million people with vast tracts of farmland and a tremendous industrial sector. The US could have been, before WWII, after the war, and even today, a self sustaining economy. The main problem, as I see it, is that there’s never enough for our sociopathic elites, who have to fill their coffers to care for their progeny down to the twentieth generation. Remember, the single paycheck household was the norm in the US and the rest of the West, for centuries. It wasn’t invented after WWII.

    Read More
  33. @Rehmat
    Ronald Reagan was an actor all his life - both in and outside the White House and controlled by the Organized Jewry at Hollywood and White House.

    James Baker, Reagan's "Conservative) secretary of Treasury, and recently an aid to Jeb Bush campaign, had been odd with the AIPAC. In March 2015, good-old Baker was the keynote speaker at J Street, an Israel lobby group’s fifth annual conference in Washington DC. A third of 3000 people who attended the conference were young Jews, who applauded Baker repeatedly, just like they did during Netanyahu’s speech at AIPAC conference in March 2015 and a year before.

    The powerful AIPAC Jewish lobby and other Israeli moles in the US are very angry at J Street for honoring Jim Baker. They have accused Baker and his boss, then-president George H. W. Bush Sr. of “standing up to Israel”.

    An Angry Republican radio talk show host, Mark Levin, spits his Zionist hatred, by saying: “James Baker much like Barack Obama, has always had a hate on for Israel.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/03/25/james-baker-the-antisemite-jews-love/

    Look up his connections/interactions with the Annenberg empire.

    Read More
  34. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @War for Blair Mountain
    And I also should mention that the Family Values Ronnie Reagan Administration kidnapped a 12 year old Russian boy from his Russian Family..and 2)if you take the Washington Times story seriously..the Reagan Administration was infested with pedophiles...

    YEah and what about being a notorious labor fink, fingering his pals in the SAGuild getting people ”blackballed”, used to be a Good Democrat”, oxymoronic. Like Tricky Dick, sneaky back door operators. not much of an actor too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Reagan did the Lord's work by working against the communist scum in the SAG. He didn't get anyone blackballed. The studios did that all by themselves.

    I bet you think he parted his hair on the wrong side.
  35. @WorkingClass
    My problem with our current political class is not at all ideological. It's that they are liars, thieves, murderers and traitors.

    A purist ideology makes it easier to rationalize being a liar, thief, murderer, or traitor. When facts conflict with ideology, the ideologue is more likely to fudge the facts. Postmodernism attacks the very notion of truth. Neocons intersect with postmodernists in their embrace of “creating reality.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Whats up Thirdeye:

    "A purist ideology makes it easier to rationalize being a liar, thief, murderer, or traitor."

    Agreed. But being a psychopath makes it even easier. Clinton (either one), Bush (either one) and Obama to name five pols with maximum name recognition may pay lip service but demonstrate no real enthusiasm for any particular ideology. They are in it for the money. I don't have the chops to write a political book but I have the title. The Scum Also Rises.
  36. @Wally
    More "Big Oil" nonsense.

    Oil company profits from a gallon of gas is 5 cents.

    Big Government taxes on a gallon of gas, let's say in California, are 72 cents.

    Yeah right Wally

    ^

    Read More
  37. Reagan broke the spells of progressive taxation and of Soviet inevitability. You have to give him that. He also ignored the AIDS “crisis” as long as he could, which was the conservative thing to do. And he pulled us out of Lebanon, if not Korea and Iceland.

    Most, if not all, of the political degradation is cultural in origin, and culture is not the job of the president. He’s not the king.

    It took a century to build the managerial state, and it will take a century to wind it down. That Reagan made any progress at all in any area is amazing.

    Goldwater was the most conservative candidate in the lives of those alive today (unless you can remember Coolidge). His best states and counties also happened to be FDR’s best just twenty years earlier. Think about that one for a moment.

    Read More
  38. @Diversity Heretic
    A thoughtful post--there's always the tendency to read history backwards: everything must have led to this undesirable outcome, even if there were possibilities of even worse outcomes had different decisions been made. Opposition to the Soviet Union was justified--it was governed by an ideology hostile to the West. After the USSR dissolved and become "mere Russia" again, I think opportunities were missed for the U.S. to withdraw from outdated alliance arrangements. George Kennan referred to the expansion of NATO into the east as a "strategic blunder of epic proportions."

    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s. The conflict that emerged in the early postwar years was about the Soviet desire for a security buffer in eastern Europe, not about any supposed Soviet desire for world revolution. It later grew into a more generalized, but no more ideological, conflict over spheres of influence in Asia. The Soviets’ stances towards revolutions in China, Korea, and Vietnam were driven by the dynamics of the Cold War more than by ideological affinity. Soviet-occupied territory in Manchuria was transferred to the Kuomintang, not the PLA. Stalin ended up supporting the PLA only after the breakup of the Chinese coalition government and the prospect that the Kuomintang would form a hostile, US-aligned government that would form a cordon with US forces in Japan. That was similar to their concern over Korea. The Soviets also had little sense of communist solidarity with Mao and aligned with capitalist India to head off the influence communist China. Their support of Vietnam served to curtail Chinese influence as well as US influence. The Chinese were no more thrilled at the prospect of Soviet bases in Vietnam than the US was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Mr. Thirdeye:
    I believe you are making erroneous statement, saying

    the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Victor Suvorov in his books, e.g. in
    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II,
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    shows extremely convincingly, that Stalin in 1925-1940s
    was preparing USSR for the occupation of all the Europe.
    He used Comintern quite actively for that purpose.
    But mostly, Stalin militarized all the economy of USSR for that future war.
    , @dfordoom

    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Stalin in the 1930s gave up on the notion of openly planning immediate “world revolution” in favour of a more patient and more opportunistic strategy. The goal of world revolution was not abandoned but merely deferred to a more favourable opportunity. The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements. When that opportunity presented itself Stalin intended to strike.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin's death. Certainly they abandoned it after the fall of Khrushchev. Under Brezhnev their geopolitical strategy was essentially defensive. World revolution was clearly not going to happen and a military victory over the West was equally clearly impossible. Live and let live was the only realistic strategy.

    Reagan and the neocons were still operating on the assumption that Uncle Joe was still in charge and the Russian hordes were going to come pouring into western Europe at any moment.

    On the whole the Cold War was a good thing. Two superpowers is a much healthier situation than one superpower. I felt safe and secure and secure during the Cold War. I haven't felt safe and secure since.
  39. Trotskyists, Zionists, Neoconservatives (common denominator = Jews) took over the conservative movement in the US. Once they did, everything went downhill for conservatism in America,… Can conservatives show a single accomplishment? Did they stop gay marriage, abortion, forcing a baker to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple…? No, but instead they gave us Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya…The role of Jews must be addressed.

    The Jewish Century, Yuri Slezkine

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691127603

    The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Benjamin Ginsberg

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Fatal-Embrace-Jews-State/dp/0226296660

    Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Albert S. Lindemann

    http://www.amazon.com/Esaus-Tears-Modern-Anti-Semitism-Rise/dp/0521795389

    STALIN’S WILLING EXECUTIONERS, Kevin MacDonald

    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/slezkinerev.pdf

    Understanding Jewish Influence, Kevin MacDonald

    http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Jewish-Influence-Kevin-MacDonald/dp/1593680171

    The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel , Stephen J. Sniegoski

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Transparent-Cabal-Neoconservative-National/dp/1932528172

    Read More
  40. @Crawfurdmuir
    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite. The neoconservative circle coalesced around him and a handful of other mostly Jewish former leftists who fell out of sympathy with the policies that their liberal/progressive confreres increasingly favored in the '70s and '80s - namely, abandonment of support for Israel and the introduction of racial quotas into university admissions. These were, needless to say, bad for the Jews.

    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite.

    The campus group he associated with, the YPSL (FI) was no longer Trotskyist. Trotskyists were anti-Stalinist but not anti-communist. The YPSL (FI) and its leadership in the Workers Party were anti-Stalinist and anti-communist. It would be accurate to say that Kristol cut his political teeth as a left-influenced anti-communist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Not a supporter of Trotsky, not a supporter of Stalin, but anti-communist. Where and what was the communism that evoked the anti?
    , @guest
    You miss the part about them being EX-Trotskyites. I don't know about Kristol specifically, but a lot of the most anti- anti-communists were former communists.
  41. @War for Blair Mountain
    iffen

    Trump is the last gasp of immigration reform policy wonkery.

    Last night Trump blew a major opportunity to denounce the H1B..L1 B Visa Chinese legal immigrant scab labor program.

    Here is a thought experiment:what if during last nights debate Donald Trump said:"The H1 amd L1 B Visa Program is a scab labor program whose open intent is to genocidally exterminate Native Born White Male Tech Workers. Labor scarcities are wonderfull!!!!!!!!!!..and they will raise the real wages of Native Born White American Workers...and wouldn't that be great!!!!! I accuse Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg of MEGA GREED and TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"....What would be the reaction today in the US post-debate?

    Unfortunately, Trump came out in favor the H1..L1 B Visa Chinese Scab Labor Program...therefore I will not vote for Donald Trump Nov 8...

    I too was disappointed when Trump rolled over on H1B visas. I work in high tech and they simply won’t hire native born white males. New positions are almost exclusively for URMs: Under Represented Minorities. They are hiring interns from which they will eventually hire full time employees and I recently sent the resume of a friend’s son to the hiring manager. His response was “sorry but the positions are all for URMs”. In any given meeting of 20 workers you will find maybe 10 Indians, 6 Chinese, 2 Eastern Europeans and 2 Americans. The average age of the Americans will be 20 years older than the others. In a recent meeting they introduced 30 new hires for the year for our division. None were native born white males. Once there are no native born white males in the company will they become URMs? Not unless the acronym changes to mean Undesirable Racist Monsters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Chinese "Americans" and Hindu "Americians" have become the Gate Keepers and Mentors in the Tech-Engineering Professions....and centuries of Native Born White American Engineering-Scientific-Tech experience is being lost-destroyed forever as a consequence. The Asian "Overlords" will make certain that this remains a permanent state of affairs. This is what is happening in Engineering and Computer Science Departments across the US. And the Chinese and Hindu Foreigners who run the US Engineering Departments gloat and boast about the elimination of Native Born White America Males from the Engineering-Computer Programming Fields.

    This is what you call Genocide of Native Born White American Males.

    This is why I want to vomit when ever hear-read the White Patriotards-Constitution Tards blathering on about:"Asian immigrants are hardworking and tax paying..as long as they are tax paying its no problem to let them in."

    If only Jared Taylor had actively reached out to Native Born White Male Engineers and Computer Programmers and built the White Race Revolt around them...Instead, we got years of mind-numbing-the-eyes-glaze-over-mountains of psychometric jibber-jabbing about of IQ test sore studies. All this does is completely distracts away from the very open and deliberate RACE WAR that Chinese and Hindu LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are waging against Native Born White American Males in the Engineering-Computer-Research Science Fields. It is most definitely Genocide. There is now an epidemic of Native Born White American White Male Suicide in all age categories. Even Noam Chomsky has admitted this in the Huffington Post last week.

    Something radical is needed to reverse this...honestly..Trump is too little too late....

    Former NASA Administrator Dan Golden:"NASA IS TO OLD WHITE MALE PALE"...Hows' that for a Genocidal Statement against White Males!!!..From someone who was given awards by every major Jewish organization in the US...and the Israeli Government.....
  42. @Thirdeye
    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of "world revolution" in the 1930s. The conflict that emerged in the early postwar years was about the Soviet desire for a security buffer in eastern Europe, not about any supposed Soviet desire for world revolution. It later grew into a more generalized, but no more ideological, conflict over spheres of influence in Asia. The Soviets' stances towards revolutions in China, Korea, and Vietnam were driven by the dynamics of the Cold War more than by ideological affinity. Soviet-occupied territory in Manchuria was transferred to the Kuomintang, not the PLA. Stalin ended up supporting the PLA only after the breakup of the Chinese coalition government and the prospect that the Kuomintang would form a hostile, US-aligned government that would form a cordon with US forces in Japan. That was similar to their concern over Korea. The Soviets also had little sense of communist solidarity with Mao and aligned with capitalist India to head off the influence communist China. Their support of Vietnam served to curtail Chinese influence as well as US influence. The Chinese were no more thrilled at the prospect of Soviet bases in Vietnam than the US was.

    Mr. Thirdeye:
    I believe you are making erroneous statement, saying

    the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.

    Victor Suvorov in his books, e.g. in
    The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II,

    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/

    shows extremely convincingly, that Stalin in 1925-1940s
    was preparing USSR for the occupation of all the Europe.
    He used Comintern quite actively for that purpose.
    But mostly, Stalin militarized all the economy of USSR for that future war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Of course, there is a substantial amount of critical reviews of V Reznov's...Suvorov's real name...."Icebreaker" book series about Stalin's intent by academic Historians.

    For an intro these criticisms...for those interested...go to Stack Exchange-Stack Review Question:"is there any research explicitly contradicting facts in Suvorov's "Icebreaker' book series claiming that Stalin intended to attack Hitler in 1941"....

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.
    , @Thirdeye
    I think your source is garbage. It was common for defectors and ex-Communists to curry the favor of the Western establishment by embracing their fantasies about the Soviet Union. Stalin sought "anti-Fascist" alliances to contain Nazi Germany and was rebuffed by Britain and France. It was in fact Britain and France that saw the potential for war between Germany and the Soviet Union as an opportunity. The Anglo-French project of overturning the Russian Revolution had been suspended since 1923, but never entirely abandoned. Germany had presented itself as the replacement for Poland and Romania as the means to facilitate it. The Soviet Union and Germany would bleed themselves dry in a war and at the opportune time the British and French forces would clean up. Waiting for that occurrence (with hopes raised by the Winter War in Finland) was what the "phony war" of 1939-1940 was about. The Germans buggered that prospect by attacking France first.

    The Comintern's directive to Communist Parties in western Europe as Germany was being defeated was to stand down and seek to influence, not replace, the post-occupation governments. That policy remained in place during the 1968 uprisings in Europe, for which more orthodox Marxists never forgave the Moscow-line Communists.

    The rearmament of Germany, with its extremely hostile ideology, left the Soviets no choice but to embark on their own rearmament program. The USSR in the mid 1930s still needed to develop the industrial capacity required to support a modern military. The Red Army was weaker than its numbers suggested because of a lack of heavy armament that was up to date. The German officers who met the Soviets in Poland remarked at how poorly equipped the Red Army was, which encouraged Germany to proceed with plans for Operation Barbarossa. At the outbreak of war with Germany, the Soviets were still short on machine tools needed to boost armament production to wartime levels. Machine tools were among the first items delivered to the Soviet Union under the lend-lease program.

    Despite the "evidence" for Soviet intentions to attack Germany in forward deployment of Soviet forces in 1941, the Red Army's disposition was defensive. Their forward positions were defensive fortifications. The Red Army was under orders not to engage in, or respond to, "provocative" actions. The Red Army's heavy armament consisted mostly of artillery pieces, obsolete tanks, and obsolete aircraft, and they were critically impaired on logistics. The Soviet road and rail systems were insufficient to sustain offensive operations near the frontier with Germany and even within the Soviet Union itself. They didn't have logistic capability for sustained offensive operations until 1943. Locomotives and trucks provided by lend-lease made the difference.

  43. A lot of this was in the ‘Why I Prefer Cruz to Trump’ article.

    I agree, except on the Reagan matter. All he did was just about start a war with the USSR (thanks to advice from the Heritage Foundation), and increased oligarchic influence and revenues. He was a neocon through and through. Nothing ‘Old Right’ about spending on a huge warfare state.

    Idk why he’s venerated.

    Read More
  44. @Thirdeye
    A purist ideology makes it easier to rationalize being a liar, thief, murderer, or traitor. When facts conflict with ideology, the ideologue is more likely to fudge the facts. Postmodernism attacks the very notion of truth. Neocons intersect with postmodernists in their embrace of "creating reality."

    Whats up Thirdeye:

    “A purist ideology makes it easier to rationalize being a liar, thief, murderer, or traitor.”

    Agreed. But being a psychopath makes it even easier. Clinton (either one), Bush (either one) and Obama to name five pols with maximum name recognition may pay lip service but demonstrate no real enthusiasm for any particular ideology. They are in it for the money. I don’t have the chops to write a political book but I have the title. The Scum Also Rises.

    Read More
  45. President Reagan, someone I admire, made a great error, perhaps the greatest error of any president, that has cost America its economic future.

    He appointed Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve. He did not know his error – but it never the less has gravely cost America.

    In 1986 America’s corporations had fiduciary long-term responsibilities to their employees, customers, stock holders and country. They were expected to do right by all. They dependably provided worthwhile products, pensions, healthcare, long term employment, and sustained profits to their stockholders. Corporations served the long-term economic future of all.

    Greenspan changed that – today corporations are only run for the benefit of the corporate heads and big stockholders. Today large corporations serve big money, not people, not the wellbeing of all.

    Greenspan did this by ever extending more and more credit the Wall Street types, thus turning America’s payed for corporate assets, and free and clear owned corporations, into businesses with debt.

    Greenspan fed all the debt bubbles with ready cash. He provided money to the junk bond bubble, the savings and loan bubble, the dot-com bubble, and the housing bubble.

    In the process Greenspan turned America’s wealth over to his Jew tribe.

    There is no denying this – it is fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II. The problem was that right after Greenspan was appointed the Black Friday crash happened. If Greenspan had let that morph into a mild recession it is likely that the Savings and Loan fiasco would have been far milder since there would have been three less years of stupid lending on commercial real estate by banks and thrifts. Greenspan added liquidity and there was no immediate recession. It got to his head and he did it for every downturn in the economy after that and only dug the hole deeper until we are where we are now.
  46. @Crawfurdmuir
    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite. The neoconservative circle coalesced around him and a handful of other mostly Jewish former leftists who fell out of sympathy with the policies that their liberal/progressive confreres increasingly favored in the '70s and '80s - namely, abandonment of support for Israel and the introduction of racial quotas into university admissions. These were, needless to say, bad for the Jews.

    Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined “neoconservative” and he meant it as an insult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    And a lot of neocons take it as an insult, but not all. Some of them embrace it like gays embraced "gay."
    , @manton
    Well, they turned it around the way gays made "queer" a term of approbation (when said among themselves, at least). Harrington's line was from (I think) 1965, which was a long time ago. Certainly by the 1980s, neocon was no longer an insult. Then it sort of became one again around 2003.
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    'Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined “neoconservative” and he meant it as an insult.'

    You are correct, and I was in error to say that Kristol coined the word. Nonetheless, Kristol shortly thereafter embraced it as a description of his point of view.

    http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/0028740211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457392300&sr=8-1&keywords=Irving+Kristol

  47. @Crawfurdmuir
    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite. The neoconservative circle coalesced around him and a handful of other mostly Jewish former leftists who fell out of sympathy with the policies that their liberal/progressive confreres increasingly favored in the '70s and '80s - namely, abandonment of support for Israel and the introduction of racial quotas into university admissions. These were, needless to say, bad for the Jews.

    abandonment of support for Israel

    Who are these people? How many congressmen, how many Senators, how many influential opinion makers and spinners? Can you name names?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir
    "Who are these people?"

    For some recent examples, see:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Supporters
  48. @Reactionary Utopian

    My problem with our current political class is not at all ideological. It’s that they are liars, thieves, murderers and traitors.
     
    Lots of truth there. And in only two short sentences. Well done.

    Thanks R.U.

    Do all Reactionary Utopians appreciate brevity?

    When I was in the army I was given instruction on how to address an officer AFTER obtaining permission to speak.

    State your business.
    Be brief.
    Move out smartly.

    And a grizzled old NCO gave me this:

    Son you only need twenty one words to be a soldier. And five of them are fu*k.

    Read More
  49. @Thirdeye

    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite.
     
    The campus group he associated with, the YPSL (FI) was no longer Trotskyist. Trotskyists were anti-Stalinist but not anti-communist. The YPSL (FI) and its leadership in the Workers Party were anti-Stalinist and anti-communist. It would be accurate to say that Kristol cut his political teeth as a left-influenced anti-communist.

    Not a supporter of Trotsky, not a supporter of Stalin, but anti-communist. Where and what was the communism that evoked the anti?

    Read More
  50. Alexander Dugin on Trump and Sanders

    http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/03/alexander-dugin-america-is-righter-than.html

    “Trump is the voice of the real right America, which could care less about foreign policy and American hegemony. It cares about the second amendment, the good old traditions of one-story – in the best case, two-story America, predictable routine on the ranch and the freedom to use freedom as you’d like, and not as prescribed by liberals. It’s a quite nice America, often religious, sometimes silly, narrow-minded, unpretentious – in short, people like people without special talents, but without deviance. In the American elite there are few of those or none at all. Trump is an exception. Normal American in some kind of elitist abnormal American zoo.”

    “Then there is the phenomenon of Bernie Sanders. He is, conversely, far left wing. With one foot he stands in the ultra-liberal establishment, but flirts with socialism, outlawed in the U.S. by the same elite. His encounter with the wife of the saxophone player attracts the attention of the Democrats: the wife of the saxophone player invariably loses, but well-organized Hillary’s storm troopers successfully fake the results and take care of the electoral college. There is no more dumber and corrupt voting system than American. This is a disgrace and not a democracy: the vast majority is for Sanders, and Hillary wins, buying off the votes. And these people dare to teach us human rights and how to fight against corruption?”

    “And here’s the thing: the real American majority – the silent American majority and even the dispossessed American majority — which does not have proper representation in the elite will be somewhere between Trump and Sanders, but on the opposite side of Hillary, Rubio and Cruz. That is, the American society is simultaneously to the right of Trump and to the left of Sanders. This is the real America, American America, held hostage by the globalist liberal sects, possessed by the new world order and fulfilling the order not of the American majority, but the global financial elite.”

    Read More
  51. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Craig
    I too was disappointed when Trump rolled over on H1B visas. I work in high tech and they simply won't hire native born white males. New positions are almost exclusively for URMs: Under Represented Minorities. They are hiring interns from which they will eventually hire full time employees and I recently sent the resume of a friend's son to the hiring manager. His response was "sorry but the positions are all for URMs". In any given meeting of 20 workers you will find maybe 10 Indians, 6 Chinese, 2 Eastern Europeans and 2 Americans. The average age of the Americans will be 20 years older than the others. In a recent meeting they introduced 30 new hires for the year for our division. None were native born white males. Once there are no native born white males in the company will they become URMs? Not unless the acronym changes to mean Undesirable Racist Monsters.

    Chinese “Americans” and Hindu “Americians” have become the Gate Keepers and Mentors in the Tech-Engineering Professions….and centuries of Native Born White American Engineering-Scientific-Tech experience is being lost-destroyed forever as a consequence. The Asian “Overlords” will make certain that this remains a permanent state of affairs. This is what is happening in Engineering and Computer Science Departments across the US. And the Chinese and Hindu Foreigners who run the US Engineering Departments gloat and boast about the elimination of Native Born White America Males from the Engineering-Computer Programming Fields.

    This is what you call Genocide of Native Born White American Males.

    This is why I want to vomit when ever hear-read the White Patriotards-Constitution Tards blathering on about:”Asian immigrants are hardworking and tax paying..as long as they are tax paying its no problem to let them in.”

    If only Jared Taylor had actively reached out to Native Born White Male Engineers and Computer Programmers and built the White Race Revolt around them…Instead, we got years of mind-numbing-the-eyes-glaze-over-mountains of psychometric jibber-jabbing about of IQ test sore studies. All this does is completely distracts away from the very open and deliberate RACE WAR that Chinese and Hindu LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are waging against Native Born White American Males in the Engineering-Computer-Research Science Fields. It is most definitely Genocide. There is now an epidemic of Native Born White American White Male Suicide in all age categories. Even Noam Chomsky has admitted this in the Huffington Post last week.

    Something radical is needed to reverse this…honestly..Trump is too little too late….

    Former NASA Administrator Dan Golden:”NASA IS TO OLD WHITE MALE PALE”…Hows’ that for a Genocidal Statement against White Males!!!..From someone who was given awards by every major Jewish organization in the US…and the Israeli Government…..

    Read More
  52. @Thirdeye
    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of "world revolution" in the 1930s. The conflict that emerged in the early postwar years was about the Soviet desire for a security buffer in eastern Europe, not about any supposed Soviet desire for world revolution. It later grew into a more generalized, but no more ideological, conflict over spheres of influence in Asia. The Soviets' stances towards revolutions in China, Korea, and Vietnam were driven by the dynamics of the Cold War more than by ideological affinity. Soviet-occupied territory in Manchuria was transferred to the Kuomintang, not the PLA. Stalin ended up supporting the PLA only after the breakup of the Chinese coalition government and the prospect that the Kuomintang would form a hostile, US-aligned government that would form a cordon with US forces in Japan. That was similar to their concern over Korea. The Soviets also had little sense of communist solidarity with Mao and aligned with capitalist India to head off the influence communist China. Their support of Vietnam served to curtail Chinese influence as well as US influence. The Chinese were no more thrilled at the prospect of Soviet bases in Vietnam than the US was.

    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.

    Stalin in the 1930s gave up on the notion of openly planning immediate “world revolution” in favour of a more patient and more opportunistic strategy. The goal of world revolution was not abandoned but merely deferred to a more favourable opportunity. The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements. When that opportunity presented itself Stalin intended to strike.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin’s death. Certainly they abandoned it after the fall of Khrushchev. Under Brezhnev their geopolitical strategy was essentially defensive. World revolution was clearly not going to happen and a military victory over the West was equally clearly impossible. Live and let live was the only realistic strategy.

    Reagan and the neocons were still operating on the assumption that Uncle Joe was still in charge and the Russian hordes were going to come pouring into western Europe at any moment.

    On the whole the Cold War was a good thing. Two superpowers is a much healthier situation than one superpower. I felt safe and secure and secure during the Cold War. I haven’t felt safe and secure since.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    dfordoom is correct re Stalin's policy and intent,
    see Suvorov's "Icebreake r" and his numerous other books.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065/
    , @War for Blair Mountain
    Of course you forgot to mention the Russo-Sino War...the war that Japan Won. Japan was aided and abetted by Britain with technology and Military Advisors. In fact, Britain was a technological enabler of Japan for decades(Go Google the Five Samurais who visited Britain in the 1860s to get an education on British Technology during the Industrial Revolution.

    Russia and Japan were fighting it out in Mongolia during the 1930s. The Russians were very much aware of what was coming down the road in a few years.

    Right after the Russian Revolution, The US and England invaded Russia.

    And then there were the Turks..aided and abetted by Britain for a long term.

    Poland was never a holy innocent..you would know that if you knew anything about Polish-Russian History.

    Post World War Two:The US intervenes in the Korean Civil War. The US Military marches right up to the Chinese border. The use of nukes were a very real possibility during the Korean War.In retirement, Mcarthur became a peacenick.

    The Wasp US Cold Warriors-and all around Russophobes-were the overwhelming number one threat to every Human Being on the Planet post-WW2 era. The Jewish Neocons came to power during the Reagan Administration as a junior partner in the war against Russia...and acquired total-absolute control over US Foreign Policy during the Bush W era.
    , @Thirdeye

    The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements.
     
    It's not as impressive as the numbers suggest. The force was lagging in heavy armament and its tanks and aircraft were mostly obsolete. It also lacked the mobility and logistic capability for offensive operations. More modern tanks and aircraft started to be acquired in 1940. The readiness for war was still inadequate in 1941. The shortfalls in mobility and logistic capabilities limited the ability to mount offensive operations into 1943.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin’s death.
     
    Stalin's stance towards China in the 1945-47 period is a pretty good indicator that world revolution was not his policy. The Comintern's directives to the Moscow-line Communists in Europe during the same period neutralized them as a revolutionary force.
  53. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Every movement needs a sense of moral righteousness.

    While every ideology has a moral component, certain moral components are more powerful than others.

    A sense of justice is morally more compelling than a sense of liberty.

    Libertarians do have a moral argument in saying “I want more freedom.” Freedom is good.

    But Liberals and people-of-color have had a more compelling argument due to the theme of “historical injustice”. They felt wronged and demanded JUSTICE. They even argued that the freedom and liberty of white folks were built on the blood-and-sweat of colored folks. And white Liberals felt morally superior to white Conservatives and Libertarians cuz they said, “We CARE, unlike you heartless bigots or greedy egotists!”

    The Liberal Side owned the theme of Justice. They had the blacks and the Jimmy Crow and MLK. They had the Jews. Though Neocons made their home in the GOP, most Jews stayed in the Dem party and forged an alliance with blacks. Like Spielberg made SCHINDLER and AMISTAD. Jews and blacks as allies against the common enemy of the ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ whitey.

    This became so compelling as a moral theme in America that even the GOP turned into “we are actually better for Jews and blacks” party, at least in rhetoric. GOP was loathe to say anything it stood for was good for whites, especially straight white males.
    GOP policies could be defended on the colorblind basis of being good for individuals and liberty but never ever for whites or Europeans, not even for the white poor since ALL whites were tainted with ‘white privilege’. So, well-to-do whites were expected to atone for their past sins by supporting ‘progressive’ values and unwell-to-do whites were seen as rightfully suffering for their past ‘sins’ in a kind of PC purgatory.

    Since white interests were morally worthless in PC-saturated world, the GOP became ever more slavish to win over the Noble Jews. GOP prioritized winning over Jews above all cuz Jews had the money, connections, talent, intelligence, energy, creativity, and etc. Of course, Jews were no dummies and understood what was up.

    GOP figured if it could win over Jews, they would kill two birds with one stone: get elite talent on their side AND own the theme of Justice as Jews are the Holocaust people. But it didn’t pan out that way. Most Jews remained in the Dem Party, not least because Clinton changed the Dem Party from a Labor party to Urban Globalist Yuppie party. Symbolically, the Dem party continued to make a lot of noise(the kind you see in NYT editorials) about being pro-black and caring about the have-lesses(working class), but its policies favored ‘free trade’, globalism, Wall Street deregulation, gentrification, homos replacing blacks as favored ‘victims’, and massive immigration or ‘diversity’ to pretty much undermine black power and white working class power. Browns competed with blacks, and yellows and browns economically beat the white working class with either lower wages or higher skills.
    This way, Liberal Jews could have nice gentrified cities like NY and SF and still own the theme of JUSTICE. Lock up Negroes and build a MLK statue. Stop-and-Frisk the Negroes and praise DJANGO UNCHAINED TO DEVOUR A BUCKET OF CHICKEN.

    [MORE]

    But when reality and symbolism grow too much apart, things are bound to start cracking apart.
    Surely, blacks have been noticing, especially during Obama yrs, that other groups are rising much faster than blacks in all areas, and especially in Lib cities and colleges and industries and institutions.
    NYT tells the Negroes, ‘those poor white trash KKK wanna hang you from a tree’, but in reality, there is no more KKK. And if anything, blacks routinely terrorize and whup poor whites, not the other way around. (Black-on-white violence is hidden by Lib-controlled media.)
    Blacks can see that the most of the wealth, power, and privilege are held by Liberal whites/Jews/Asians/homos in ‘progressive’ cities that are gentrifying and globalizing. Negroes can see that immigration and diversity means LESS, not more, for blacks.
    Blacks can see that the demise of white Americans is actually worse for them. At least whites can be baited for ‘white guilt’. But immigrants — Mexers, Asians, Muslims, and etc. — don’t care or care less about that Jimmy Crow stuff. And with so many groups crying about their victim-hood — with even pampered white millennials whining about micro-aggressions and triggerings — , black voices are being drowned out. So, that is why blacks have to scream extra loud with BLACK LIVES MATTER to be heard. It’s not actually about Black LIVES but about Black VOICES. It should be called BLACK VOICES LOUDER, SO LISTEN TO US.

    Jews had a good run with ‘antisemitism’ and the Holocaust, but this really worked only with white gentiles, especially of Anglo and Germanic background. Given that Italians were allied with Germans, you’d think Jews would be anti-Italian. And given Anglos fought the Nazis, you’d think Jews would love Anglos. But Jews think racially and see Anglos and Germans as of the same ethnos. As for Italians, they look more like Jews, so Jews feel closer to them. Also, Jews and Italians, for all their differences(like between Corleones and Hyman Roth), were part of the immigrant-Americans that had to climb the rungs of WASP dominated power. And both groups have long felt some degree of resentment against Northern Europeans. Just on the physical level, someone like Joe Pesci and Albert Brooks stand out in a crowd of country club Waspies.

    This Holocaust stuff have been universalized, and people all over feel a degree of sympathy. But they don’t really feel the ‘guilt’ that Europeans and white Anglos feel. So, every time Jews invoke Holocaust, it has diminishing returns as US and EU grow more diverse. In the EU, it actually has the opposite effect as Muslims hate Jews more whenever they hear about the Holocaust. Muslims think, “Holocaust? What about Zionist genocide against Palestinians? What about Jewish-controlled US destroying Muslim countries?”

    As for black Africans and blacks in general, their animating spirit, the Jafro, simply doesn’t allow much in the way of guilt feelings or conscience. Blacks evolved to jive, shuck, shake booty, and feel like they is the center of the universe. Even if blacks had committed the Holocaust, they wouldn’t feel any remorse and would just blame the victim.
    They would blame Jews for having been there for blacks to kill. If a Negro crashed into your car, he will say, “Dang, mothafuc*a, why yo’ car be here for me to crash?” This is how blacks think. The Jafro is strong in them. If a Negro plays Knock Out game and punches someone, he will blame the victim for having been there. Just look at OJ Simpson case. Just look at black lootings, rapings, murders. Blacks never feel any remorse. It’s like what Richard Pryor said of the killer Negro in jail. “Why did you kill everyone in the house?” “They was home.”

    Blacks understand fear. When they were under the massuh’s whip, they could act nice and kindly and sing Old Black Joe. But fear is not the same thing as conscience. Once Negro lost all fear of the whitey, they felt no conscience about anything. Indeed, blacks routinely kill other blacks, but they just call each other ni**az and feel no remorse.
    Indeed, blacks outsource conscience to whites. Blacks feel, “Dang, I shot dat mothafuc*a ni**a dead.” They be cackling and shi*. But then they wonder, “hey honkey, why don’t you feel sorry for that dead ni**a I done killed? Don’t you care, mothafuc*a?” A Negro is a creature that kills another Negro and then bitches that whites don’t care about the Negro he done killed.

    While it’s true that Negroes did suffer under whites, it is a fallacy to mistake history for morality. Historical suffering doesn’t mean moral conscience. In the case of blacks, it paradoxically made them morally worse cuz they can always fall back on slavery and Jimmy Crow to blame everything on others. They can rape, pillage, loot, rob, murder, and destroy cities and then say… “cuz of slavery, shoo!”

    Some will say this is a matter of intelligence, but it’s more a matter of racial personality. After all, Jews got higher intelligence, but their chutzy personality leads to the same attitude. Just consider the slimeball Max Boot saying stuff like “Better Stalin than Trump”. Stalin the killer of at least 10 million(some say 20 million)? It’s outrageous. Jews feel so self-important that any number of people should be sacrificed for their glory and benefit.

    Max Boot seems utterly blind to the number of victims due to Jewish-globalist machinations since the 1990s with sanctions against Iraq, the looting of Russia, the total disaster in Middle East, wreckage in Libya, mass migration lunacy in EU, more trouble to come in Ukraine, Russians and Iranians hurt by sanctions, etc. None of it registers. They just invoke the Holocaust and magic word of ‘antisemitism’ over and over to tell the rest of us that we should live for Jews and Jews alone.
    This has to be a innate personality trait among good number of Jews because Max Boot and his ilk are not religious Jews who literally believe that Jewish souls are holier than gentile souls or that Jews are the Chosen of God. He is a secular Jew as far I can make out. But his contempt for goyim is boundless. There has been zero soul-searching about Iraq War and other disasters among the globo-Jews. Zero!!
    The idea that the GOP should be good for both Jews and gentiles is anathema to people like Max Boot and Co. GOP must be 100% all about Jews. What Trump is proposing is ‘something for everyone’. Good relations with Russia is good for everyone. Good for Americans, good for Russians. Besides, Putin’s Russia is very nice to Jews. But Boot wants Jews to totally dominate Russia. A nation being good for both Jews and gentiles is offensive to Jews who have the personality of the jealous God that won’t tolerate any other gods. But then, the Jewish God was a projection of the Jewish personality. It’s like Ayn Rand’s hero in THE FOUNTAINHEAD smiting an entire housing project cuz it deviated slightly from his vision. God would do this in the Old Testament. He would smite entire things just because there was something He didn’t like. Trump isn’t anti-Israel. He isn’t anti-Jewish. His policies offers much for Jews but also something to white working class. But Boot and ilk think, “What? We Jews must share the largess with others?” Jews feel, “it’s gotta be our way” or “fuc* you.”

    Also, Jews are extremely Judeo-Centric. Jews see history in terms of “majority nationalism has been bad for Jews, so it must be bad.” But then, when it comes to majority nationalism in Israel, Jews are fine with that. So, the issue isn’t so much majority nationalism. If it is good for Jews and bad for Palestinians as in Israel, Jews love majority nationalism. But if it’s good for gentiles and bad for Jews, Jews are against it. Of course, given that US and EU and even Russia sees ‘antisemitism’ as a bad thing, we now live in a world that can be good for both Jews and gentiles. Gentiles are willing to accept this, but Jews will not. Jews want it so that it will be good for them at the expense of the gentiles who must be totally crushed.
    Also, Jews don’t care about gentiles. While it’s true that National Socialism was an extreme case where majority nationalism did great harm to Jews, it’s no less true that Bolshevism was an extreme case of minority radicalism that did harm to untold numbers of majority population. Under Jewish-Bolshevik rule in Russia, 50,000 churches were destroyed and millions of Slavic Christians were killed. But Jews don’t care since it happened to non-Jews, especially at a time when Jewish communists had it so good in the new system. So, even though Jews want us to remember how majority nationalism of gentiles hurt Jews, they don’t care about minority radicalism of Jews hurt so many Slavs.

    Neocons are so drunk on power that they are totally blind as to why Trump has trampled the competition. People like Jeb, Rubio, Fiorina, and etc have been chosen and groomed to be good dogs. So, their entire style is one of servitude and looking-over-the-shoulder at the Jewish donor class. They have no center, no spine. They are on a leash. So, naturally they are gonna be mauled by Trump the wolf or alpha wild dog. (To be sure, there is a possibility that Trump is really a populist tool of the Jews, a kind of David-Mamet-ian confidence game trick. I mean look at his associates.)

    Anyway, the GOP finally has a golden opportunity to own the theme of JUSTICE, and Trump’s base is running with it.
    Dems used to have all themes of justice:

    White working class and the New Deal
    Blacks and Jimmy Crow
    Jews and Holocaust, then later Jews and Wasp Golf Clubs
    Immigrants and ‘xenophobia’
    Homos and ‘homophobia’
    Women and ‘sexism’.

    GOP stood for white folks. Sure, White Conservatives could pose as victims of Big Government, but as white folks still had more than other folks, the ‘road to serfdom’ scenario just didn’t seem compelling, especially as the white working class and middle class had been the main beneficiary of the New Deal. Also, immigration out-competed the blacks long before it began to bite the whites.

    Also, white conservative opposition to Big Government came to be associated with segregation. Also, it was Big Government of FDR that fought Nazi Germany whereas small government Americans had been isolationist when WWII broke out. White Conservatives could pose as victims of black crime and thuggery, but as Libs controlled the media, most of black thuggery was swept under the rug, and the main theme continued to be about the Noble Negro and the groundhogdaying of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over and over ad nauseum.
    Also, even as black muscle was whupping white folks and black voices were hollering and scaring white folks half to death, white folks became addicted to worship of black muscle in sports and black voice in funky-ass music.

    For a time, the GOP appealed to the white working class and southern whites, especially beginning with Nixon. With rising crime rates and young loony radicals running amok, many white working class folks turned into Nixon-Democrats and then Reagan-Democrats. And with black themes becoming the main moral focus of Democrats, most Southern whites turned to the GOP, oddly the party of Lincoln who attacked the South and freed the Negroes. (When Democratic Party used to be the southern party, there was a good deal of moral theme in the White South as the victim of Yankees. Sure, the South fought to preserve slavery, but there was the tragic romanticism of defeat and loss of an era, as in GONE WITH THE WIND. There was a time when a ‘progressive’ like Wilson could be friendly to the KKK and admiring of BIRTH OF A NATION. KKK back then was seen like the Black Panthers: defensive force to preserve whiteness from black brutality and thuggery.)
    But political parties depend most on elite talent and money, and both parties were losing interest in the ‘loser classes’. At least when US was the dominant manufacturing power in the world, even the lower classes meant something and carried a good deal of political weight. There were workers who formed unions and voted as an economic bloc. But with US manufacturing hammered by rise of Asia and Europe after WWII, the the lower classes of workers just turned into ‘loser classes’ to be ignored.

    Reagan understood this, which is why GOP pretty much ignored the white working classes it had won during the Nixon era and went with ‘free trade’, Wall Street deregulation, and yuppie-ism.
    Besides, the GOP thought it had at least one compelling Moral theme in its opposition to communism. Perceived weakness on communism was an albatross around the neck of Liberals. All the more so as American Jews increasingly turned anti-Soviet due to perceived ‘antisemitism’ in the USSR that also backed the Arab states against Israel. Also, black crime got so bad in the late 60s, 70s, and 80s that something like Willie Horton ads made a difference. And Dukakis was destroyed by a question about crime. He showed no emotion as he answered about his wife and hypothetical rape. Also, because pop music was essentially segregated and interracialism as practice was still anathema to most Americans and because most Americans laughed at the notion of ‘gay marriage’, the GOP still had many people on its side and even much of American Liberalism was culturally conservative. Besides, most of the older folks were culturally conservative even if politically Democratic. But as they began to die off and as Political Correctness began to indoctrinate young ones from the cradle(with even kindergartens turning into homo & MLK propaganda centers), American Conservatism was losing the culture war. And with the end of communism, GOP no longer had that as moral theme. Also, Clinton did something quite brilliant. He promised to get tough on crime but also made a lot of noise about how much he loves blacks and is like a white brotha. Negroes, being childlike and ridiculous, sucked it all up even as they was headed for prison. Sheeeiiiit.

    In the 80s, GOP figured it would win in the future. They had anti-communism as moral theme. Their pro-business policies would win over future enterprisers to the GOP. Their anti-crime policies would be popular as the 60s faded from memory. And there even seemed to be an Evangelical revival in the 80s after the 60s hangover. And feminism was increasingly becoming unpopular as dour and stalinist. Eastwood and Stallone were the main stars in the 80s.

    But they didn’t foresee the brilliant triangulation tactic of Clinton, surely one of the great master politicians of American history. Clinton made the Democratic party pro-business, all the while looking into the eyes of Americans and saying “I feel your pain.”
    Clinton told the Negroes, “I just luv you brothas and sistaz and my favorite food is cornbread, fried chicken, and watermelons” while increasing law and order and making cities safer by locking up record number of Negroes. Clinton paved the way for the rise of homo power as the new culture war theme in America. He played it both ways. He signed a law in defense of marriage while recruiting tons of homos to work in government. He also railed against greed while making it easy for Wall Street to make tons of money by playing with Silicon Valley in the massive dot.com bubble. Through Clintonism, the affluent could have it all: real privilege AND themes of moral righteousness. Under Clinton, the Dem Party gave up on class war and looted all the winning themes/policies from the GOP while, at the same, using the megaphone to blare out all the Democratic themes about ‘equality’ and ‘civil rights’. Libs could have Apple computers and MLK watermelons.

    So, GOP could only offer privilege to the elites, but as Jesus said, man doesn’t live on bread alone. Man wants to feel justified and morally superior. When Dems went pro-business, they fused their Civil Rights legacy with Yuppie SWPL-ism. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs became the face of New Democrat. And the master stroke was the rise of homomania. Through homo power, the elites could have ‘victim narrative’ and more privilege. Homos could bitch about ‘homophobia’ and play ‘victim’, but they were all about vanity and narcissism and sucking up to the rich and famous.

    As for the GOP, it was losing everything. Communism was over. Democrats got tough on crime. Democrats were pro-business and pro-free-trade, with the likes of Thomas Friedman and Larry Summers as gurus.
    Wall Street and other big hitters no longer needed the GOP to get what they wanted. They could something nearly as good or even better from Democrats. GOP appealed to Jews, and some Neocons Jews used the GOP for aggressive Zio-centric foreign policy, as in Iraq, but the Democratic Party was even more Jewish-controlled.
    Jews found the GOP useful as ‘bad cop’ in foreign policy, while the Lib Zionists in the Dem party pretended to play ‘good cop’. (But Obama’s mess in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine is proof that Lib Zionists play just as dirty.)

    If the Democratic Party were to become openly anti-Jewish — like the Labour Party in UK of late — , that might actually make a difference and drive many Jews to the GOP. But the Democratic Party is essentially the Jewish Party, so GOP could only be a lesser Jewish party no matter how much it pandered to Jewish interests. GOP even thought of appealing to homos but that was too far-fetched with most GOP voters. The homo issue was double loser for the GOP. If GOP adopted a pro-homo position, it would lose its socially conservative base. But if GOP was seriously anti-homo, Americans who’ve been brainwashed to worship homos as the new religion, would be outraged. As Jews control media and academia, homomania along with MLK-worship and Holocaust-worship, became the new sacred faith among many Americans. For majority of millennials, someone saying “a guy’s penis getting smeared with feces of another man is ewwwww” is more blasphemous than saying something bad about God or Jesus.
    Why did the GOP fail in the anti-homo struggle? Because Neocons said, “Homos are our favorite people.” Since Jews were #1 friends with homos, the idea of blocking the homo agenda would be upsetting Jews like Adelson, Goldhagen, Paul Singer, Jennifer Rubin, Krauthammer, and etc. Also, sneaky homos had made inroads into the GOP power structure, just like into the Catholic Church. As GOP elites became chummy with ‘conservative’ homo operatives, they lost the will to oppose the homo agenda that said a homo’s fecal hole is just as much a sexual organ as a woman’s vagina. The excessive fear of giving offense — offendophobia — made Conservatives more like the wussy boy Rich Lowry with the goober-boy face.

    As for Evangelicals, they simply fell out of favor. They had a good run in the 80s as part of 60s/70s hangover. But over time, Americans saw how stupid it was. Dumb Christian Zionists worshiping Israel above all. Indeed, Neocons had jigged the Evangelicals into a WAR FOR ISRAEL movement. Hagee the fatass loon became its face. Defense of Creationism and other nuttery. It was not attracting talent, and it also grew increasingly vulgar, a kind of mall church-ism.
    Also, the rise of the internet made it easier for folks in small towns to be influenced by global fashions and attitudes. The local community came to mean less.
    And the rise of trashy celebrity culture turned young people into such worshipers of mammon, sodom, and harlotry that Christianity lost its appeal.

    Anyway, there’s been this perfect storm that will give the GOP a chance to remake itself with the ONLY GAME LEFT.

    GOP or American Conservatism needs to realize it lost the rich class, the donor class, the globo class, the free trade class. Democrats won that class over.
    Bush II and Romney promised lots of goodies to the rich class, but the overwhelming number of super-rich still went with Democrats. Look at NY, Chicago, LA, SF, and even Houston and Dallas in conservative Texas, and they are Democratic and Lib. With cities becoming richer and more white, you’d think they’d turn more GOP. Nope. They’d been turning more Democratic because Dem party now offers both privilege and ‘progressive’ themes, esp about homos. Money and Morality(or symbolic morality). But the homo theme may have reached saturation point. It seemed compelling for many Americans when it pushed for ‘gay marriage’ but now that US got it, the whole homo stuff seems anticlimactic. So, homos can get ‘married’. America still has all the same problems. Besides, is it really rewarding to attend some homo parade every year where men dress like freaks and act childish?

    So, the Democrats should be seen as the donor party, the super-rich party, the decadent party, the deception party. If not for Clinton and New Democrat direction of 90s, it’s possible GOP would be the party of the rich. The rich want privilege and righteousness. If they had to choose between privilege and righteousness, they would choose privilege. But when Dems concocted a formula in in the 90s that offered both real privilege and symbolic righteousness, it was predictable that the rich would go with it, especially as Jews became a larger share of the super rich. Jews, after all, want all the money but wanna be associated with eternal victim-hood as well. Also, the cult of ‘diversity’ was a brilliant ploy to make ‘progressives’ overlook the fact that the Democratic party had given up on ‘equality’. The theme of equality became less compelling to Lib elites, esp the Jews, since it was the Lib elites in NY, SF, Chicago, Boston, LA, Seattle, Portland, etc that were growing richer and richer while blacks weren’t making progress. So, what was a good way to get people’s minds off ‘equality’? Diversity via immigration. Immigration also meant white Libs could hire browns and yellows. Also, browns and yellows would fill up cities, thereby driving out blacks and making streets safer for white Libs.

    Anyway, the fact that the Democratic Party has become the Party of the Rich gives the Moral Advantage to the GOP IF it were to become the party of ordinary Americans, especially whites of both parties and some blacks. Besides, it is so easy to expose the discrepancy between Liberal reality and Liberal rhetoric. For all their talk of ‘progress’, all stats show that Liberal Democratic cities are the most unequal, most segregated, most snobby, most arrogant, most narcissistic, most vain, and most elitist. But then, what do expect from a socio-economic group that relies on vain homos for style and expression? Just look at the obnoxious apotheosis of the Obama cult in 2008 handled by so many homos. Obama paid some lip-service to negro themes but his main focus was appeasing Wall Street Jews and sucking up to homos. After he leaves presidency, he will make $100 million in less than five yrs by giving pro-homo speeches at fortune 500 companies. He one slick mofo.

    The theme of JUSTICE is compelling because it’s about people feel wronged. And Trump and his supporters have been pushing such a theme. Ordinary American people have been wronged and done an injustice by globalism, mass immigration-invasion, and Lib urban gentry elitism.
    With the grim statistics about White Deaths, ordinary white folks can now compellingly claim victim-hood at the hands of elite-globalists(many of whom are Jewish). Also, Trump supporters can gather all the evidence of globalist Jewish hatred against whites. Jews gloating that white Europeans will be drowned by tide of color. The likes of Tim Wise celebrating the dying off of Greatest Generation whites. Newsweek’s cover mocking old whites dying off. The study showing rise in white deaths being covered up by MSM. Jews hate, hate, hate, and hate whites. And some of the murderous language used by Jews against Trump goes beyond the kind of hateful rhetoric of Kennedy yrs. And there are so many examples of privileged progs and immigrants holding up signs attacking whites.

    When ordinary whites had it better than most others, it seemed rather weak for them to cry victimhood. But now, things have gotten so bad — loss of jobs, drugs, racial violence from relocated section 8 thugs, etc — in many white communities that such cries carry weight. Also, homo agenda can be associated with privilege, globalism, and imperialism as US neo-imperialists use it as hammer to attack other nations. US, a nation that obsesses about ‘gay marriage’ when the very fabric of marriage is falling apart. US elites say we should hate Russia over ‘gay’ issues. This is what happens when Jews take over the culture. Imagine that. A new Cold War because Russia won’t homo parades funded by Wall Street, Hollywood, and George Soros. (But then, Obama and Jews seem so chummy with Saudis who kill homos. How cynical, these Jews. But then, Jews even side with neo-Nazis in Ukraine even as they call Putin the ‘new hitler’.)

    And speaking of culture, just when so many kids are growing up in single parent homes, Hollywood and TV and music fill the eyes, ears, and minds of kids with toxic culture that promotes whore behavior, pimp behavior, drug behavior, excessive behavior, tattoos, piercing, and all forms of piggish excess. Destroy American jobs and American souls. Walt Disney forces American workers to train foreign workers to replace them. And Jew-run Disney grooms girls like Miley Cyrus and puts them forth as ‘role models’ for shikse white girls. Ordinary white folks can now claim victimhood and moral righteousness vis-a-vis the globo-Jews. Of course, not all Jews are part of the globo-sickness, but the majority are, and that is a fact.

    Now, it would seem counter-intuitive that the elites would degrade the masses.
    In yrs past, the American elites were serious about turning even poor folks into diligent and responsible citizens and workers and families.
    After all, messing up lower-class American souls will lead to bad work ethic, and a society with bad workers will not function properly.
    So, why do elites do this? Because an excessively consumerist economy relies on narcissism, vanity, and piggery. Responsible people tend to be more thrifty.
    It is also because the elites can always rely on foreign workers. People who come to the US will be so grateful that they will work for low wages without complaint. If their kids succeed, they will serve in the technocratic sphere. If the kids mess up, they will add to the problem BUT, no need to worry. There will be ever more immigrants to take their place.
    And for moderate welfare payments, demoralized American masses(white, black, any color) can be bought off to just to become couch-potatoes hooked to video games and TV.

    Liberal Jewish American elites don’t want a moral majority since morality tends to make people conservative. Morality is about personal responsibility and community values. This brings people together. When US was ruled by White Gentile elites, the idea of a moral white majority didn’t bother the ruling class since all were white.
    Even if lower-class white folks were morally united and challenged richer whites, they were all about white power.
    But Jews fear a moral majority. So, they use the Vice and Vanity Industry to turn white masses into gross pigs, the kind you see on Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. Thus immoralized, white masses turn into worthless self-destructive pigs incapable of unity and collective action. And lacking morality, they have no righteous pride. If you feel like a dirty pig addicted to Howard Stern, why would you be outraged by the greedy decadent rich?

    A sane society tries to moralize its native population and hire them to be good workers. But Jewish elites are hellbent on demoralizing and piggerizing the white masses and rendering them useless in life and work. Let them all die on meth or obesity. And just get a lot of immigrants who will gratefully work for less. And if the children of immigrants turn into trash, just get more immigrants. Since immigrants have no roots in America, they feel less righteous in their demands. They just feel grateful to be given a chance, and since Jews say they are pro-immigration, the immigrants come to suck up to Jews. This is why Jews, even as they bomb Muslim nations to hell, welcome Muslim immigrants with open arms. Jewish Americans say, “we Jews love you guys and WE want to give you chance whereas those EVIL RACIST WHITE CHRISTIANS DON’T, so side with us Jews.”

    Sure, Lib Jews do offer some kind of moral vision known as PC but it isn’t true morality since it’s all about collective virtue. According to PC, even a rotten lowlife Negro is good and noble because he has ‘victim’ blood. And even a decent moral white person is tainted because he has ‘white privilege’ blood. This applies even to poor white folks or Polish immigrants whose ancestors suffered WWII. PC morality has no place for individual virtues like honor, courage, self-restraint, conscience, self-criticism, reflection, and etc. Morality is based on your identity. If you are part of a certain identity, you are noble even if you act like a pig. So, even rotten Jews on Wall Street are noble cuz they can pull out the Holocaust card or yammer about how several generations ago, some Wasp club didn’t let rich Jews play golf there.
    Or even black thugs are worthy of sympathy cuz of Jimmy Crow.

    PC coddles and encourages bad behavior among the favored ‘victim’ groups and neutralizes and disparages decent moral behavior among whites, especially white conservatives. Suppose you’re a working class white person who obeys the law, doesn’t steal, is nice to neighbors, does community service work, takes care of your family, raises your kids right, and etc. None of those personal virtues and deeds matter. You are bad because you are (1) white and especially cuz you’re (2) conservative.
    PC is bad morality cuz its right-and-wrong depends on how the elites chooses the ‘good folks’ and ‘bad folks’. Since the elites now chose decadent nutty trannies as ‘noble victims’, even women’s colleges have to admit them and sports games must include pre-surgery males-who-say-they’re-females into women’s sports. That’s how PC morality works.

    The perfect storm of mass immigration, pop cultural rot, PC lunacy, Wall Street robbery, homo decadence, tranny nuttery, endless wars for Israel, outsourcing of jobs via ‘free trade’, and 1% getting richer than ever has led to this moment when many white folks can sincerely and rightfully see themselves as the oppressed victims of the system.

    The question is ” does the GOP wanna grab this low-hanging fruit of Moral Righteousness?” Sure, there are downsides. Ordinary white Americans aren’t rich and don’t have much to offer in talent and creativity. Real power relies more on quality than quantity. Consider how tiny Singapore is more successful than much bigger black African nations. Consider how Jews, only 2% of the population, have so much power in media, academia, law, medicine, finance, and etc.

    BUT, ordinary white Americans or OWA are the only thing the GOP has left as a real genuine base. After all, GOP’s appeal to the super-rich and globalist class failed. Despite GOP’s complete servility to the 1% and Jews, the vast majority of 1% and Jews are Libs and Democratic. Some do vote for GOP but ONLY because for stuff like low taxes and more deregulation. If the Dems were sufficiently hostile to the 1% and Jews, GOP might win over the moneyed classes and Jews, but GOP has been losing even that.
    And no matter how much GOP pandered to Jews, Jews have only been saying, ‘Suck my dic* again.’ Jews gave us Obama and spread homo garbage all over. Now, Jews even want us to hate and destroy Russia so that Jews can take over that country. But what Putin stands for — majority nationalism — should be appealing to white majority Americans. Why should white American nationalists hate white Russian nationalists because Jews hate both people? Jewish Neocons really hate white Americans. They just pretend to be ‘conservative’ to fool white Americans into white Russians. Trump won’t play this game, and this is why Max Boot and his ilk hate him.

    So, what does the GOP have left? Ordinary whites. In times past, such folks would have carried less moral content because of post war boom that nearly universalized middle class status for whites. During the Great Depression, pro-ordinary-white-folks policies were morally compelling in THE-GRAPES-OF-WRATH way. This is how FDR won four elections. But once white folks got it ‘so good’ in the postwar era, the white working class came to be seen as a ‘conservative’ force, especially as they came to contend with blacks economically and socially. Even though white working class could claim victimhood periodically or ‘existentially’ depending on the economic situation — like the Great Depression — , they could not claim it ‘essentially’ like, for instance, blacks and American Indians who had been targeted for repression or expulsion as a group.
    Whites could be victims when times were good, whereas even if all blacks were to become millionaires, they could still run on ‘essential’ victimhood since their ancestors were slaves. Same goes for Jews. Jews are so rich and well-off, but they can play on essential victimhood forever just by invoking the Holocaust. Those who control the Narrative get to choose sacred historical memories.

    Anyway, things are looking very bad for ordinary white folks. As during the Great Depression, they are falling into the status of existential victimhood.
    But actually, it’s more serious this time. During the Great Depression, there was no attempt to destroy, denigrate, displace, or degrade the white race. Instead, the economy sunk and things just got really bad. But today, there is an concerted effort led by Jews to hurt, harm, insult, degrade, corrupt, demean, putrefy, pervert, and destroy the white race. Jewish-controlled PC endlessly blames whites for everything. Whites are scapegoated like Jews were scapegoated by Nazis. Even Jewish privilege hides behind ‘white privilege’. Jews gloat about how immigrants will displace white masses. Of course, the affluent whites who collaborate with Jews will have it very good, but for all the other whites? They are to fail along with blacks. Jews look down on ‘white trash’ and degrade them with Jerry Springer Show. Jews encourage immigrant kids to hate whites. Colleges are filled with Jews training collaborator white Libs to hate the white race. ‘Rape Culture’ hysteria and feminism are means to make white women hate white men. White women are encouraged to offer their wombs to black men to produce kids for the black race. Section 8 is used to move dangerous urban blacks to white areas so that black guys will beat up white guys and hump white girls. Wars for Israel in Iraq and Middle East have led to 1000s of white deaths and 10,000s of white casualties crippled for life. If the Jewish War on Whiteness, Black Thug war on whites, and immigration displacement of whites continue, then white victimhood will go from merely existential to essential. Whites must wake up to the fact that they not only suffer from periodic economic crises but from a fundamental assault on their identity and survival from Jews, globalists, white cuck-collaborators, and non-whites.

    White folks’ values and culture have been undermined and degraded by the Pop Industry. And PC mocks, taunts, and degrades white folks 24/7. Plenty of Lib Jews gloat and cackle about how white folk are dying out. It’s been said Kaganovich felt no pity for the millions dying in Ukraine during the Great Famine. And we know Madeline Albright didn’t give a crap about half-a-million dead women and children in Iraq. Jews like Tim Wise gloat and giggle like the possessed girl in THE EXORCIST.

    Charles Murray is a whore who bent over to ‘gay marriage’, but his book COMING APART details the downfall of ordinary whites and how they’ve been mocked and tossed aside like so much ‘white trash’ by the sneering, sniveling SWPL affluent class brainwashed by Jewish media and academia.

    This gives American Conservatism the golden opportunity to gain moral righteousness by representing these lost white souls. And it is the only card left for the GOP.

    Dems got blacks, browns, yellows, Jews, homos, the 1%, the yuppies, etc. Even the Bill Gateses and Warren Buffets of the world are Democratic.
    GOP has just become Dem-lite and tool of Neocons like Paul Singer and Max Boot.

    For GOP to regain footing, it needs a moral theme, and it is with ordinary white folks whose lives have been destroyed economically, culturally, and spiritually.
    Trump is making a difference because the masses, no matter how angry and confused, can’t do anything on their own. They have to be led. Without leaders, the masses don’t know what to do. It’s like the Russian masses didn’t know what to do until the Bolsheviks came along. Most people are followers, not leaders. So, as long as there was no leader of ordinary white folks, white folks just wasted away over the years even though their problems were mounting up.
    But the moment Trump decided to play follow-the-leader, we see energy and passion. This is why Jews hate Trump. Trumpism is about the French Revolutionary ideal of unity of leaders and the led.

    I’m almost sure that Trumpism isn’t real and is probably some elaborate con game — one has to be nuts to trust a man like Trump — , but some of the themes are compelling. It has shown that there is life in White America IF there are individuals willing to activate and lead it. What the Neocons did was to sever the spinal cord between white elites and white masses. White elites were made to serve Jews, worship MLK, march in homo parades, and etc. So, even as white masses were falling behind and demeaned by the Jewish elitse, they had no one to lead them since the likes of Bill Buckley and Mitt Romney were too busy at Wall Street cocktail parties and having ‘gay’ friends.

    So, is this the populist moment? Maybe. But I don’t like populism. It has the same failing as Political Correctness. It is morally too easy. It assumes that those who have less are automatically better or more virtuous than those who have more. But this isn’t true. There are decent affluent folks and there are poor morons all around who are poor cuz they are low in IQ and/or crazy in behavior.
    Populism may be useful in short-term sense in politics but it has no long-term value. Look at Venezuela and Brazil. See how they are imploding. When oil prices and commodity prices were high, they were flush in cash and give free stuff to lots of people in the name of populism. So, in the short term, it worked to win mass approval. But the fact is low moral character and low national character are pervasive among the people in both nations. Once government funds run out, populism no longer works. So, just pandering to the masses won’t work, not in the long run. The problems of a nation cannot be solved just be politicians promising to do stuff for them.

    What the Right needs to push is a kind of humanism that, while addressing the needs of ordinary folks, must also be critical of their failing and guide them in the righteous path through morality, myth, culture, creativity, storytelling, and etc. Now, politicians can’t really do this since they must pander to get votes. This job will have to be taken up by the cultural, moral, social, and spiritual wings of the Right movement.

    The problem with Alt Right is it tends to shun morality and moral issues. It is too hipsterish, too Nietzschean, too fashion-oriented, too image-oriented, etc. It acts like it’s too cool, too ‘fash’, and too ‘edgy’ for lamo moralism that is associated with ‘family values’ G-rated movies, Evangelical church life, and dumb country songs about why saliva is drooling down the side of his mouth cuz his mother died, his wife left him, his truck don’t work, and his dog ate his fixing of macaroni.
    But moralism need not be G-rated and hee haw. There is PG-13 or R-rated moralism of Dostoevsky, Kurosawa, and Scorsese and all that stuff that takes a hard look at life and all its problems without surrendering to them but instead critiquing them and learning from them.

    Politics is about pandering for votes, but Sociotics must criticize and lead as well as care for the folks. The reason why the Left failed is its moralism just coddled the favored ‘victim classes and races’. It has failed to be honest about black problems and always found some convoluted ways to blame whitey for all the black problems. So, blacks were never led to look honestly at themselves. Of course, given US history, white policies did have huge impact on black reality. But blacks messed up royally too.

    Same goes for ordinary whites. It’s not enough to just blame Jews or elites. Yes, they deserve a lot of blame for problems of small towns and white working class. But white folks messed up too big time. I know these ordinary ‘white trash’ types who blame everyone else for all their problems when, in fact, they are so full of lies, laziness, bullshit, ugliness, moronic behavior, and etc. Populism merely panders to them. Humanism, in contrast, would address their problems but also honestly criticize them for their failures.
    Also, humanism is necessary cuz the dominant moralism among white conservatives, Christianity, tends to favor dependence on God for answers than a hard honest look at one’s own life and own failings. Also, Christianity tends to make white folks identify horizontally with all the other Christians in the world.
    When most Christians were white, Christian identity was defacto pro-white. Today, when so many new Christians are brown, black, and yellow, the role of Christianity as main identity encourages white conservatives to feel closer to non-white Christians than with their white racial ancestors. Consider this article by decent Jew David Cole who points out how and why so many troublesome Samoans ended up in Salt Lake City. Dumbass Mormons spread Mormonism among non-whites and brought a bunch of fat warriors giants to mess up Utah. Mormonism was wrong to say bad stuff about non-whites, but it should have stuck to being a white Christianity. I mean if Samoans give big tough Negroes nightmare, you can imagine what they might do to the rest of us. (Otoh, if Samoans could only be limited to black communities, that might not be so bad as it’d be hilarious to see the Negroes get their asses whupped for a change.)

    http://takimag.com/article/big_willies_and_huge_polynesians_david_cole/print#axzz41zKAsMah

    White folks need rootism and ancestrism more than Christianism. White Christians should feel closer to white pagan ancestors than with black, yellow, or brown Christians.
    It’s like religious Jews feel closer to secular Jews-by-blood than with goyim who ‘converted’ to Jewish religion. If Mike Tyson were to convert to Judaism, Jews would still consider Einstein as more Jewish — even though Einstein was agnostic — than they would the ghastly tattooed low-IQ thug Negro with a gold-plated yarmulka on his head.

    Identity is firmer rooted than rootless.
    A white Irish Catholic who identifies more with a Samoan Catholic halfway around the world than with an Irish atheist is a fool.

    Another thing. If a new movement is necessary, it must be founded on Truth. It’s like what Merlin said. “When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.”

    American Conservatism failed cuz it was based on lies. Communism failed cuz it was based on lies. Nazism failed cuz it was based on lies. BLM will fail cuz it’s based on lies. Homo agenda will fail one day cuz it’s based on lies. Christianity is finally failing cuz it’s based on lies. Neoconservatism is failing cuz its’ based on lies. American Southern Neo-Confederate-ism failed cuz it was based on lies. I mean ‘state rights’, really?

    Of course, all -isms have some truth to them. Communism was right about terrible conditions under capitalism. But it failed to understand the full range of human nature and potential. Nazism was right about the importance of race but came up with crazy ideas about how ‘Aryans’ are superior and some races are ‘subhuman’. Neoconservatism pretended that Jewish interests are 100% aligned with American Conservative interests, but for how long could this charade continue? Feminism failed cuz it came up with some dumb lesbian ideology of man-hating. Slut feminism will also fail cuz acting like a whore is no useful guide through life.

    Since Conservatism Inc is crashing down, a new movement should be based on truth as the foundation. A house built on sand or mud will sink, after all.

    So, what should be these truths?

    1. Races are real. Evolution cannot happen without the process of race-formation.
    Racial identity matters since humans are essentially visual creatures that identify and judge largely through sight. Different races have different advantages but no race is superior in all things.

    2. Racial differences account for current problems in US. Jews are of higher IQ and animated by the personality force called the Schwarz. Schwarz is pushy, intense, and control-freaking, like among Jewish mothers and Max Boot. Combination of high IQ and Schwarz will makes Jews problematic to other races. Just look all around.
    The other most problematic race are blacks who are not only physically stronger but animated by the force called Jafro. Combination of harder muscle and Jafro makes blacks hostile, aggressive, jivey, wild, crazy, and flipping out; indeed, blacks will loot an entire city just for free chicken and video games. Just look all around. Of course, Libs or Progs will holler ‘racist, racist’, but if you judge them by their actions than their rhetoric, they are no less ‘racist’ than other Americans. White Libs prefer to live in safe areas without too many blacks. They use gentrification to drive out blacks. They use immigrants as buffers between themselves and blacks. They supported politicians who got tough on crime. They prefer tokens — usually mulattoes — over most blacks. They prefer homo issues over black issues cuz homos are about privilege and vanity.

    3. Tolerance of decadence is necessary in a free society, but decadence shouldn’t be celebrated cuz it leads to degeneration. Look how the celebration of homos had led to trannies and increasing nutty demands. And look how the mainstreaming of porny stuff has led total degradation of culture, tattoos, piercings, and foul behavior all around. Decadence is a fact of life in a free society. But let’s not encourage it beyond what it is worth. Let homos be homos but should we have massive parades honoring guys who do fecal penetration or cut off penises to get fake vaginas? Really? Should US be pushing this nonsense as ‘American values’ all over the world? This is what happens when Jews take over your country. Jews promote homo stuff because it promotes minority-elite-supremacism. By making people accept homo-elites as righteous rulers, Jews are paving the path for eventual Jewish takeover of entire nations. This is why Jews are so upset with Russia opposing the homo agenda.

    4. Nation must be the basic unit of economics, law, and society. All nations need to trade with other nations and learn from other nations. But each nation should have its borders, laws, and history. If a nation is overly diverse and fail to get along, it should divide and break up into smaller units that are more manageable. The core value of nationhood is homogeneity, the core character of empire is diversity.

    Nationalism as the basis for functional international cooperation and trade is what we need. Globalism as the expression of new elite imperialism must be blocked by people of every nation. Nationalism means the elites of that nation must serve the people of that nation. Globalism means the elites of each nation must serve the super-globalist elites consisting of Jew and homos.

    EU vs Russia is like this: EU is about people like Merkel serving super-elites like Soros whereas Russia is about Putin leading Russians. Now, Putin may not be the ideal for this, and Russians are a messy people, but the core idea is good. It is about Russian leaders being responsible to Russian people. In contrast, Merkel will destroy her own nation and people to appease the globo Jewish oligarchs.

    I mean what’s the point of having national elections if the national leader elected by the people won’t even serve the people but instead serves globo-elites like Adelson, Koch Bros, Warren Buffett, Saudi tycoons, Bloomberg, and etc? The increasing role of money in national politics means that candidates can be handpicked by the donor class. And it is especially poisonous if the donor class happens to be of different race or ethnic group than the vast majority of people.

    Imagine Indian elections where the candidates have been chosen and paid for by French donor class. Imagine Israeli elections where the candidates have been chosen and paid for by Chinese donor class. Why would French donor class give a crap about most Indians? Why would Chinese donor class give a crap about most Jews? French donor class will just get Indian politicians who will serve French interests than Indian interests, and Chinese donor class will just get Israeli politicians who will serve Chinese interests than Israeli-Jewish interests.

    Yet, in the US, the globo-Jewish donor class(whose main loyalty is to Israel and Jewish globo-Empire) have been handpicking candidates of both parties at least since the Clinton Era. As Jews are only 2% of US population and have a historical animus against white gentiles, what do they care about most Americans?

    The recent outbursts from neocons about Trump reveal this about Jewish hostility. Trump isn’t even anti-Jewish. He isn’t attacking Jews. He isn’t praising Hitler. He isn’t saying we should confiscate Jewish wealth. He is saying there are national interests OTHER THAN those of Jews. So, Jews should get something but not everything. Neocons are blowing their tops over this. They are greedy supremacists. Now, if Jews wanna be like this in Israel, okay. That is a Jewish state. Of if Jews wanted to act like this in the Democratic Party, it would still make some sense since most Jews are Democrats and 60% of donations to Dem party comes from Jews.

    But Jews make up only a very small percentage of Republican voters. So, who are Jews to be demanding that the GOP snub all the regular voters and go with the Adelson Agenda? I mean WTF is that?

    Read More
  54. It seems like the candidates from the Republican party now prefer to fly under the “conservative” label rather than the Republican label.

    But what really constitutes being classed as a “conservative?” After all a “conservative” is generally someone who wants to “conserve.” right? well then most everyone wants to “conserve something. The label conservative really doesn’t tell us much. Liberals after all can be called conservative in that they want to conserve such programs as abortion. The very rich and privileged want to conserve their status.

    And if being a “conservative” is desirable in some circles, would that mean being “extremely conservative” is more desirable?

    While it is generally now considered that what constitutes being classed as a “conservative” is a belief in the unconstrained “free” market, this economic formulation is considered to represent a very liberal economic belief.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Conservative" in today's parlance means being progressives' shadows. As far as specific principles go, it means empire, tax cuts, and "family values" that never actually get tested.
  55. @Thirdeye

    Nonetheless, you must admit that Irving Kristol, who coined the term neoconservative, was an ex-Trotskyite.
     
    The campus group he associated with, the YPSL (FI) was no longer Trotskyist. Trotskyists were anti-Stalinist but not anti-communist. The YPSL (FI) and its leadership in the Workers Party were anti-Stalinist and anti-communist. It would be accurate to say that Kristol cut his political teeth as a left-influenced anti-communist.

    You miss the part about them being EX-Trotskyites. I don’t know about Kristol specifically, but a lot of the most anti- anti-communists were former communists.

    Read More
  56. @manton
    Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined "neoconservative" and he meant it as an insult.

    And a lot of neocons take it as an insult, but not all. Some of them embrace it like gays embraced “gay.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @manton
    Well, they turned it around the way gays made “queer” a term of approbation (when said among themselves, at least). Harrington’s line was from (I think) 1965, which was a long time ago. Certainly by the 1980s, neocon was no longer an insult. Then it sort of became one again around 2003.
  57. @Charron
    It seems like the candidates from the Republican party now prefer to fly under the "conservative" label rather than the Republican label.

    But what really constitutes being classed as a "conservative?" After all a "conservative" is generally someone who wants to "conserve." right? well then most everyone wants to "conserve something. The label conservative really doesn't tell us much. Liberals after all can be called conservative in that they want to conserve such programs as abortion. The very rich and privileged want to conserve their status.

    And if being a "conservative" is desirable in some circles, would that mean being "extremely conservative" is more desirable?

    While it is generally now considered that what constitutes being classed as a "conservative" is a belief in the unconstrained "free" market, this economic formulation is considered to represent a very liberal economic belief.

    “Conservative” in today’s parlance means being progressives’ shadows. As far as specific principles go, it means empire, tax cuts, and “family values” that never actually get tested.

    Read More
  58. @dfordoom

    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Stalin in the 1930s gave up on the notion of openly planning immediate “world revolution” in favour of a more patient and more opportunistic strategy. The goal of world revolution was not abandoned but merely deferred to a more favourable opportunity. The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements. When that opportunity presented itself Stalin intended to strike.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin's death. Certainly they abandoned it after the fall of Khrushchev. Under Brezhnev their geopolitical strategy was essentially defensive. World revolution was clearly not going to happen and a military victory over the West was equally clearly impossible. Live and let live was the only realistic strategy.

    Reagan and the neocons were still operating on the assumption that Uncle Joe was still in charge and the Russian hordes were going to come pouring into western Europe at any moment.

    On the whole the Cold War was a good thing. Two superpowers is a much healthier situation than one superpower. I felt safe and secure and secure during the Cold War. I haven't felt safe and secure since.

    dfordoom is correct re Stalin’s policy and intent,
    see Suvorov’s “Icebreake r” and his numerous other books.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Design/dp/1591148065/

    Read More
  59. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Mr. Thirdeye:
    I believe you are making erroneous statement, saying

    the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Victor Suvorov in his books, e.g. in
    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II,
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    shows extremely convincingly, that Stalin in 1925-1940s
    was preparing USSR for the occupation of all the Europe.
    He used Comintern quite actively for that purpose.
    But mostly, Stalin militarized all the economy of USSR for that future war.

    Of course, there is a substantial amount of critical reviews of V Reznov’s…Suvorov’s real name….”Icebreaker” book series about Stalin’s intent by academic Historians.

    For an intro these criticisms…for those interested…go to Stack Exchange-Stack Review Question:”is there any research explicitly contradicting facts in Suvorov’s “Icebreaker’ book series claiming that Stalin intended to attack Hitler in 1941″….

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hey, Mountain:
    Before showing off with the supposed knowledge of the subject,
    google it, or just consult Wikipedia: Suvorov is a pen-name:

    Viktor Suvorov (Russian: Ви́ктор Суво́ров, real name Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, Russian: Влади́мир Богда́нович Резу́н, born April 20, 1947 in Barabash, Primorsky Krai) is a Russian writer, historian and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom.

    Not Reznov, and not Ukrainian.

    I see that the rest of your knowledge of the subject is at similar level.
    , @dfordoom

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.
     
    I read The Great Culprit recently. Suvorov is certainly anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet but I didn't pick up any anti-Russian vibe.
    , @Ace
    I have read many of Suvorov's books and he is not at all as you have described. A man of integrity, insight, and high intelligence is more like it.
  60. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @dfordoom

    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Stalin in the 1930s gave up on the notion of openly planning immediate “world revolution” in favour of a more patient and more opportunistic strategy. The goal of world revolution was not abandoned but merely deferred to a more favourable opportunity. The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements. When that opportunity presented itself Stalin intended to strike.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin's death. Certainly they abandoned it after the fall of Khrushchev. Under Brezhnev their geopolitical strategy was essentially defensive. World revolution was clearly not going to happen and a military victory over the West was equally clearly impossible. Live and let live was the only realistic strategy.

    Reagan and the neocons were still operating on the assumption that Uncle Joe was still in charge and the Russian hordes were going to come pouring into western Europe at any moment.

    On the whole the Cold War was a good thing. Two superpowers is a much healthier situation than one superpower. I felt safe and secure and secure during the Cold War. I haven't felt safe and secure since.

    Of course you forgot to mention the Russo-Sino War…the war that Japan Won. Japan was aided and abetted by Britain with technology and Military Advisors. In fact, Britain was a technological enabler of Japan for decades(Go Google the Five Samurais who visited Britain in the 1860s to get an education on British Technology during the Industrial Revolution.

    Russia and Japan were fighting it out in Mongolia during the 1930s. The Russians were very much aware of what was coming down the road in a few years.

    Right after the Russian Revolution, The US and England invaded Russia.

    And then there were the Turks..aided and abetted by Britain for a long term.

    Poland was never a holy innocent..you would know that if you knew anything about Polish-Russian History.

    Post World War Two:The US intervenes in the Korean Civil War. The US Military marches right up to the Chinese border. The use of nukes were a very real possibility during the Korean War.In retirement, Mcarthur became a peacenick.

    The Wasp US Cold Warriors-and all around Russophobes-were the overwhelming number one threat to every Human Being on the Planet post-WW2 era. The Jewish Neocons came to power during the Reagan Administration as a junior partner in the war against Russia…and acquired total-absolute control over US Foreign Policy during the Bush W era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Right after the Russian Revolution, The US and England invaded Russia.
     
    They intervened in the Russian Civil War, but in a very half-hearted way. Big business in the US supported the Soviet Union in a major way in the 20s and 30s. The Bolsheviks might have been mass murderers but business is business, money is money. The press in the US acted as enthusiastic cheerleaders for the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union would not have survived without US support.

    Churchill was the only one in the West who was really keen on crushing the Bolsheviks.
  61. @War for Blair Mountain
    Of course, there is a substantial amount of critical reviews of V Reznov's...Suvorov's real name...."Icebreaker" book series about Stalin's intent by academic Historians.

    For an intro these criticisms...for those interested...go to Stack Exchange-Stack Review Question:"is there any research explicitly contradicting facts in Suvorov's "Icebreaker' book series claiming that Stalin intended to attack Hitler in 1941"....

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.

    Hey, Mountain:
    Before showing off with the supposed knowledge of the subject,
    google it, or just consult Wikipedia: Suvorov is a pen-name:

    Viktor Suvorov (Russian: Ви́ктор Суво́ров, real name Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezun, Russian: Влади́мир Богда́нович Резу́н, born April 20, 1947 in Barabash, Primorsky Krai) is a Russian writer, historian and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom.

    Not Reznov, and not Ukrainian.

    I see that the rest of your knowledge of the subject is at similar level.

    Read More
  62. @manton
    Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined "neoconservative" and he meant it as an insult.

    Well, they turned it around the way gays made “queer” a term of approbation (when said among themselves, at least). Harrington’s line was from (I think) 1965, which was a long time ago. Certainly by the 1980s, neocon was no longer an insult. Then it sort of became one again around 2003.

    Read More
  63. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Neurotic Insecure Russian Immigrant of a certain ethnicity

    No, I am not an expert on Russian language historical documents. But there are research Historians who are. And they have are very skeptical view of Suvorov’s claims. There is another point of view out there you know…One which I take very seriously because of Suvorov’s very nasty political agenda for the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People.

    So, Fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!..and go back to Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Hey idiot. Both Stalin and Hitler were preparing to fight each other. Hitler got his licks in first. Uncle Joe was so terrified of provoking Hitler before he was ready, that he regularly discounted all reports that pointed to a German invasion. The large Soviet armies that fell were disposed all along the lines of the division of the spoils of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and had no reserves. The Red Army was preparing its reserves for a fight against Germany in 1942. The defeat of the French, obviated this rosy scenario for the Reds.
  64. @guest
    And a lot of neocons take it as an insult, but not all. Some of them embrace it like gays embraced "gay."

    Well, they turned it around the way gays made “queer” a term of approbation (when said among themselves, at least). Harrington’s line was from (I think) 1965, which was a long time ago. Certainly by the 1980s, neocon was no longer an insult. Then it sort of became one again around 2003.

    Read More
  65. @War for Blair Mountain
    Of course you forgot to mention the Russo-Sino War...the war that Japan Won. Japan was aided and abetted by Britain with technology and Military Advisors. In fact, Britain was a technological enabler of Japan for decades(Go Google the Five Samurais who visited Britain in the 1860s to get an education on British Technology during the Industrial Revolution.

    Russia and Japan were fighting it out in Mongolia during the 1930s. The Russians were very much aware of what was coming down the road in a few years.

    Right after the Russian Revolution, The US and England invaded Russia.

    And then there were the Turks..aided and abetted by Britain for a long term.

    Poland was never a holy innocent..you would know that if you knew anything about Polish-Russian History.

    Post World War Two:The US intervenes in the Korean Civil War. The US Military marches right up to the Chinese border. The use of nukes were a very real possibility during the Korean War.In retirement, Mcarthur became a peacenick.

    The Wasp US Cold Warriors-and all around Russophobes-were the overwhelming number one threat to every Human Being on the Planet post-WW2 era. The Jewish Neocons came to power during the Reagan Administration as a junior partner in the war against Russia...and acquired total-absolute control over US Foreign Policy during the Bush W era.

    Right after the Russian Revolution, The US and England invaded Russia.

    They intervened in the Russian Civil War, but in a very half-hearted way. Big business in the US supported the Soviet Union in a major way in the 20s and 30s. The Bolsheviks might have been mass murderers but business is business, money is money. The press in the US acted as enthusiastic cheerleaders for the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union would not have survived without US support.

    Churchill was the only one in the West who was really keen on crushing the Bolsheviks.

    Read More
  66. @War for Blair Mountain
    Of course, there is a substantial amount of critical reviews of V Reznov's...Suvorov's real name...."Icebreaker" book series about Stalin's intent by academic Historians.

    For an intro these criticisms...for those interested...go to Stack Exchange-Stack Review Question:"is there any research explicitly contradicting facts in Suvorov's "Icebreaker' book series claiming that Stalin intended to attack Hitler in 1941"....

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.

    I read The Great Culprit recently. Suvorov is certainly anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet but I didn’t pick up any anti-Russian vibe.

    Read More
  67. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    This is not about Trump.

    If Trump was what he was — a rich vulgarian braggart — but agreed 100% with Neocon proposals, he would be their favorite boy.

    After all, back in 2008, William Kristol himself proposed Sarah Pain,a vulgarian hockey mom know-nothing dodo, since she was totally for Israel and pro-Zionism.

    Neocons hate Trump because he struck a nerve with the masses who’ve been stirred from hibernation and have begun to wake up to the fact that Neocon elites do not serve their interests. Trump as toady to the likes of Adelson would be a favorite among Neocons. They would be behind him 100% despite his colorful past as celebrity and show-off.
    What is unforgivable is that Trump woke the bear from hibernation.

    Read More
  68. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Without a doubt Stalin’s atrocities against the Russian People were of 0 concern to Business Elites and the US Politicians who represented their interests. Wasn’t Henry Ford and admirer of Stalin? I wouldn’t be surprised if Bill Gates is a closet admirer of Stalin. The well known biography of Stalin is Gates’ favorite book.

    The invasion of Russia was “half-hearted” because of the ferocious resistance of the Russians….I strongly suspect.

    The invasion of Russia by the West without a doubt sent a strong message to Stalin about the intent of the US and Western Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Franklin Roosevelt was an ardent admirer of Josef Stalin.

    One of FDR's first acts as president was to recognize the Soviet Union, and to assign his secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., to work behind the backs of the State Department (they were averse to Stalin) and negotiate with USSR foreign minister Maxim Litvinov to recoup American business losses in the Soviet Union.


    Susan Liebman Bendheim Butler has surveyed FDR's correspondence with Stalin and produced two deeply flawed, fawning volumes on the close relationship between the two war leader, My Dear Mr. Stalin, and Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Friendship. Butler seems to have gotten caught up in her work and fallen in love with the Communist dictator as well as the lying, snake-charming American president.

    btw Blair, Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese in their war against the Russians, whom Shiff hated with a passion.

    , @War for Blair Mountain
    The Jap Bastards were part of the 1917 Allied Invasion of Russia also.

    Back to my larger point:It is my contention that the anti-Russkie-Commie Cold War Crusade is the economic-political cesspool that gave birth to the Civil Rights Act 0f 1965+The 1965 Immigration Reform Act Cesspool which made it 100 percent inevitable that the cesspool of 2008+2012 would occur-along with 9/11....

    Obama's Muslim Kenyan father got into the US through a Cold War Scholars Program for young Africans so that they could be indoctrinated in US gangster Cold War Era neoliberal capitalism way of things....then came the one night stand with a 17 year old screwed-up White Teenage Girl...then came baby Barry...then came Dear Leader Barry..then came legalized homo filth marriage...and homo pedophiles in the Boy Scouts....and now...very possible high probability thermonuclear war with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia in 2016-and imminent race-replacement of The Historic Native Born White American Majority....And this open and deliberate policy of rapid-replacement also includes throwing Evangelical White Christian Bakers in the American Deep South into jail to be homosexual raped and bloodied in the backside nether region.

    Muslim "American" Bakers won't be touched by homo activists because the Muzzies are part of the Democratic Party Voting Bloc Coalition. Throw the Muzzies out of America and the "Blessings of Diversity" lie unravels rather quickly-the world view foundation that forces homo filth marriage on American Society.

    I blame all of this on the Cold War-anti-Commie-anti-Russkie Ideology post-World War 2...We can extend this back further in time to the Great Schism of 1045.....
    Between the Great Schism of 1045 and the Anti-Commie Crusade, there were centuries of Western European-American Oligarchs-Plutocrats crushing the skulls in of the European-American Peasant Class. The H1B Visa ..L1B Visa Chinese LEGAL IMMIGRANT scab labor program is a continuation of this Tradition....
  69. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Without a doubt Stalin's atrocities against the Russian People were of 0 concern to Business Elites and the US Politicians who represented their interests. Wasn't Henry Ford and admirer of Stalin? I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates is a closet admirer of Stalin. The well known biography of Stalin is Gates' favorite book.

    The invasion of Russia was "half-hearted" because of the ferocious resistance of the Russians....I strongly suspect.

    The invasion of Russia by the West without a doubt sent a strong message to Stalin about the intent of the US and Western Europe.

    Franklin Roosevelt was an ardent admirer of Josef Stalin.

    One of FDR’s first acts as president was to recognize the Soviet Union, and to assign his secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., to work behind the backs of the State Department (they were averse to Stalin) and negotiate with USSR foreign minister Maxim Litvinov to recoup American business losses in the Soviet Union.

    Susan Liebman Bendheim Butler has surveyed FDR’s correspondence with Stalin and produced two deeply flawed, fawning volumes on the close relationship between the two war leader, My Dear Mr. Stalin, and Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Friendship. Butler seems to have gotten caught up in her work and fallen in love with the Communist dictator as well as the lying, snake-charming American president.

    btw Blair, Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese in their war against the Russians, whom Shiff hated with a passion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    One of FDR’s first acts as president was to recognize the Soviet Union......
     
    It's known as realist foreign policy. You know, kind of like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, it was in short supply in the 1930s.
  70. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @War for Blair Mountain
    Without a doubt Stalin's atrocities against the Russian People were of 0 concern to Business Elites and the US Politicians who represented their interests. Wasn't Henry Ford and admirer of Stalin? I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates is a closet admirer of Stalin. The well known biography of Stalin is Gates' favorite book.

    The invasion of Russia was "half-hearted" because of the ferocious resistance of the Russians....I strongly suspect.

    The invasion of Russia by the West without a doubt sent a strong message to Stalin about the intent of the US and Western Europe.

    The Jap Bastards were part of the 1917 Allied Invasion of Russia also.

    Back to my larger point:It is my contention that the anti-Russkie-Commie Cold War Crusade is the economic-political cesspool that gave birth to the Civil Rights Act 0f 1965+The 1965 Immigration Reform Act Cesspool which made it 100 percent inevitable that the cesspool of 2008+2012 would occur-along with 9/11….

    Obama’s Muslim Kenyan father got into the US through a Cold War Scholars Program for young Africans so that they could be indoctrinated in US gangster Cold War Era neoliberal capitalism way of things….then came the one night stand with a 17 year old screwed-up White Teenage Girl…then came baby Barry…then came Dear Leader Barry..then came legalized homo filth marriage…and homo pedophiles in the Boy Scouts….and now…very possible high probability thermonuclear war with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia in 2016-and imminent race-replacement of The Historic Native Born White American Majority….And this open and deliberate policy of rapid-replacement also includes throwing Evangelical White Christian Bakers in the American Deep South into jail to be homosexual raped and bloodied in the backside nether region.

    Muslim “American” Bakers won’t be touched by homo activists because the Muzzies are part of the Democratic Party Voting Bloc Coalition. Throw the Muzzies out of America and the “Blessings of Diversity” lie unravels rather quickly-the world view foundation that forces homo filth marriage on American Society.

    I blame all of this on the Cold War-anti-Commie-anti-Russkie Ideology post-World War 2…We can extend this back further in time to the Great Schism of 1045…..
    Between the Great Schism of 1045 and the Anti-Commie Crusade, there were centuries of Western European-American Oligarchs-Plutocrats crushing the skulls in of the European-American Peasant Class. The H1B Visa ..L1B Visa Chinese LEGAL IMMIGRANT scab labor program is a continuation of this Tradition….

    Read More
  71. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The Stab(establishment conservatives) say Trump and his supporters are know-nothings.
    Now, it’s probably true that Trump is not an expert on all issues, and it’s also true that many Trump supporters are not the best educated.

    But what the Stab is really about isn’t WHAT you know but WHOM you know.
    The Stab is angry because Trump energized a lot of Americans who do NOT know the ‘right kind of people’. In contrast, people at National Review, Weekly Standard, Fox News, Heritage Foundation, and etc. are people who know the ‘right kind of people’. The Stab wants to keep the politics within the circle of those who know the right-kind-of-people. They don’t want to surrender any power to the masses without inner-circle connections.

    While it’s true that many Trump supporters are not the best educated, they are beginning to realize and KNOW what is most important to themselves, i.e. that the Stab serves the globalist Donor class, not the masses of Americans whose are thrown under the bus by globalism and political correctness(that is embraced by the Stab as well in a lighter version).

    For most people, politics should be about knowing their own identity and interests. They are ordinary people with ordinary lives. They don’t live for the entire world and all its problems. They live for their families, their communities, and their nation. And they vote for politicians on the basis of those considerations.

    The Stab hates Trump because he has given voice to people who’ve come to realize that the Stab hasn’t done anything for the masses of American people. The Stab has hoodwinked the people with paper symbols like ‘prayer in school’, ‘pledge of allegiance’, and other cookie-cutter issues when, in fact, the Stab has been all about serving the globalist donor class of Wall Street, Las Vegas, and etc. that feels nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans.

    The Stab has long hoodwinked the American masses by focusing on abstract principles, international affairs, and esoteric issues that mean little to the people. The simple masses, being impressed by such fancy talk, assumed they were in good hands of well-educated intelligent folks who know so much. But such talk was smoke-and-mirrors to get the masses to ignore what is most essential to their concerns. Their security, well-being, and prosperity.
    And when the Stab did focus on issues that even ordinary people could understand, it was the sort of opiates of no real consequence, such as “Is it constitutional to have Ten Commandments displayed at some court house?” Big deal!

    Most people need to demand from politics few simple things: Do the politicians represent my identity, my interests, my people, my community, my nation.
    Jews think this way, and this is why they are so powerful and rich. They are focused on “Is it good for Jews?” On every issue, Jews first and foremost ask, “Is it good for Jews?”

    But whites, especially white working class, were led astray from thinking in such manner. Furthermore, they were made to feel it’s ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ to think in such terms. Jews pulled a fast one on whites. Jews convinced whites that it is WRONG and ATAVISTIC to think in national, racial, or tribal terms. So, whites must never think in terms of white identity, white interests, and white nationalism. BUT THEN, here’s the kicker… whites must think in terms of Jewish identity, Jewish interests, and Jewish nationalism. Whites must reject identity-and-interest for themselves but go all out to support identity-and-interests for Jews. Jews cleverly channeled suppressed white tribalism to serve glorified Jewish tribalism.

    [MORE]

    This is the spell Trump has begun to break. Amusingly enough, whites who support Trump are acting more like Jews who think and act for their own interests. Paradoxically, Jews hate Trump-supporters because they are beginning to think and act like Jews.

    Jews believe ONLY JEWS should have the privilege to think tribally. Jews can think in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?” but whites better not think in terms of “Is it good for whites?”
    It’s like the white southern massuh feared and hated a Negro slave who thought like like the massuh did. The massuh thought in terms of “Is it good for me?” The massuh didn’t want the Negro slave to think likewise, i.e. “Is it good for me, the black dude?” No, the massuh wanted the Negro to think in terms of “Sheeeiiit, it be good fo’ da massuh?” The massuh lives for himself, the slave lives for massuh.
    https://youtu.be/mWFujuasmUo?t=7s
    Jews have a plantation mentality over white masses. They see themselves as the massuh class. Jewish massuhs exist to serve their own identity and interests. White gentiles exist to serve the identity and interests of Jewish massuhs. And the cuck white gentile collaborators serve as either the overseers with the whip — like the National Review and Eric Erickson who insult and berate Trump supporters — or as ‘House Honkeys’ who sneer at the cotton-picking ‘Field Honkeys’.
    People like Rich Lowry and George Will are pissed because their ‘house honkeys’ privileges within the Jewish Mansion of Power and Prosperity are threatened.

    Trump is like Nat Turner of the Field Honkeys, and this is what frightens Jews. Jews fear a Slave Rebellion. Jews are like tycoon Tyrell in BLADE RUNNER who fears Roy Trump Batty. (Actually, Trump is hardly radical and is, in fact, a good friend of Jews, but Jews are extremely paranoid and greedy, and the idea of Trump stoking any kind of white identity and interest is unacceptable to them. Just like the Jewish God could tolerate no other gods, Jewish identity/interests cannot tolerate any other identity/interests as the main obsession of Global policy.)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Oqf4NfAIk

    Of course, Jews, being ever so clever, will say that they want the same things that white masses want. Jews will say both groups share the common interest of “Is it good for the Jews?” I mean, if Jews are for Jews and if whites are for Jews, they are on the same page, right???!!! Of course, this is like ‘Heads I win, tails you lose’.

    Now, suppose white masses said to Jews, “how about we share the same interest of ‘Is it good for white gentiles?’” Would Jews accept that? Of course not. Jews will flip out and say that is unacceptable!!! So, you see, the only common ground that Jews will accept is both Jews(who make up less than 1% of US conservatives) and white gentiles working in terms of “Is it good for the Jews?”

    Trump supporters may indeed be know-nothings on most issues, but they are becoming know-somethings on the issue that matters most to themselves: their own identity, interests, security, and prosperity. They are beginning to think in terms of “what will politicians do for me and my people?” than “what can me and my people do for the globalist super-rich class of Jews who feel contempt for white masses?”

    Jews are afraid that Trump is, wittingly or unwittingly, ‘raising consciousness’.. or race-ing consciousness.

    And this basic consciousness of politics among the white masses is what the Jewish massuhs fear most. And this is why gentile cucks and ‘house honkeys’ are fearful too since their privilege and goodies are linked to the fortunes of the Jewish massuhs.
    Trumpism represents a slave rebellion, and when slaves think in terms of ‘what is good for ourselves?’ than ‘what is good for the massuh?’, the system has begun to shake.

    Even if Trump doesn’t win(and the forces against him are too formidable for him to go all the way), the fire has been lit from this campaign that white folks must think in terms of “Is it good for OUR IDENTITY, OUR INTERESTS, AND OUR SECURITY?” Be just like the Jews who always think of their own identity, interests, and security first and foremost.

    Groucho Marx once said, “I don’t want be part of a club that would have me as a member”. Jewish elites think, “We don’t want to admit gentiles who think like we do.”
    In the Jewish-controlled world, Jews serve their own interests and guard their own identity, but NO OTHER PEOPLE better do so.
    Sure, Jews will sometimes stoke gentile nationalism if it’s temporarily useful against another nationalism. Jews encouraged far-right neo-Nazi nationalism in Ukraine against Russia. But the moment the existing regime was toppled and a new one came into place(appointed by Jews), Jews immediately began to use homo agents to spread ‘gay’ propaganda all over to make Ukraine just another spoil in their globalist empire game. If a homo flag goes up in a part of the world, it means the Jewish Globo-Empire just got a little bigger. Jews hide their globo-ambitions behind the minority-elite supremacism of the homo agenda.

    Why do Jews hide behind the homo agenda? Jews fear that if Jewish influence is too brazen, Jewish power will become overly visible, and then, it will lead to ‘antisemitism’. But if homos hide behind the homo-collaborators in every nation(as every nation has some homo activists), Jews can infiltrate and take over behind the homo-national mask. So, Jews in Ukraine hide behind Ukraine-homo mask, and Jews in Georgia hide behind Georgian-homo mask.

    Homo power is just the mask of globo Jewish power as homomania is funded by the Jewish-controlled US.

    Read More
  72. @War for Blair Mountain
    Reagan was an interventionist:Grenada and continuation of Carter's policy of creating Al Queda in Afghanistan....this plus a treasonous immigration policy=9/11..

    Reagan joked about starting nuclear WW3 on his Sunday afternoon broadcast...he wasn't joking...he meant it!!

    The Russians went to launch on warning because of Reagan's threatning Cold War Policy...a flock of pidgeons nearly started Nuclear World War Three. The Military Channel did a documentary on how the Reagan Administration brought the World to edge of thermonuclear extinction..within minutes ..so there are two well documented incidents of Reagan's enthusiasm for thermonuclear mass murder.

    None of this should be shocking since Reagan was a spokesman for Thermonuclear extermination=GE....

    There was massive civil disobedience and resistance to Reagan...Go google former US Marine Brian Wilson who had both his legs hacked off by a Train carrying Amo for offloading to Central America. Brian Wilson laid down on the track in a courageous act of civil disobedience..in full view of the Train Engineer. You can find the news story and the actual news footage delimbing of Brian Wilson I believe on You Tube. It will bring tears to your eyes...

    Ronnie Reagan...another chickenhawk War Hawk..

    *** Reagan joked about starting nuclear WW3…he wasn’t joking***

    Please. Reagan was joking. Don’t try to inflate it into a desire to start WWIII.

    There wasn’t “massive civil disobedience and resistance to Reagan.” Your anecdote about Mr. Wilson isn’t evidence to the contrary. An individual did an tragically stupid thing and paid the price. Are you insinuating the train engineer could have stopped the train but chose to drive over Wilson?

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Ace

    You obviously no 0 about the History of the Reagan Era.

    There was massive resistance to the Reagan Adminstrations policy in Central America that started with the murder of the Maryknoll nuns. The Iran Contra Scandal was a direct result of this massive opposition to the Reagan Adminstrations war gainst the Sandinistas and Death Squads in El Salvador. This massive US public resistance forced the Reagan Administration to run a covert and illegal war.

    Brian Wilson..a decorated Vietnam War Era Marine Vet...was an example of this resistance. And yes, the Train Engineer had the time and distance to stop.

    The POTUS jokes about starting Nuclear War on a his pre-radio broadcast reveals the mindset of the Reagan and the war criminals in his administration...including the sicko Evangelical Rapture Christians.
  73. @edNels


    YEah and what about being a notorious labor fink, fingering his pals in the SAGuild getting people ''blackballed'', used to be a Good Democrat'', oxymoronic. Like Tricky Dick, sneaky back door operators. not much of an actor too.

    Reagan did the Lord’s work by working against the communist scum in the SAG. He didn’t get anyone blackballed. The studios did that all by themselves.

    I bet you think he parted his hair on the wrong side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    I am by no means a Reagan apologist, but there's one good thing you have to admit about the man: he had an excellent head of hair. Thick and full, not balding and barely graying even when he was pushing 80. A lot of men would kill to have such hair.
  74. @Ace
    Reagan did the Lord's work by working against the communist scum in the SAG. He didn't get anyone blackballed. The studios did that all by themselves.

    I bet you think he parted his hair on the wrong side.

    I am by no means a Reagan apologist, but there’s one good thing you have to admit about the man: he had an excellent head of hair. Thick and full, not balding and barely graying even when he was pushing 80. A lot of men would kill to have such hair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Ronnie Reagan's pitch black coal hair was a Le Brea Tar Pit of Oxford Black shoe polish toxins rubbed into his scalp lovingly every morning by his loving wife Nancy.

    One of the very nasty consequences of this for Ronnie was that by his second term in office he devolved into a turnip that required watering every morning.


    Honestly..the EPA should declare Ronnie Reagan's pickled corpse an EPA Superfund Cleanup Site. My advice would be to seal Ronnie Reagan's very toxic corpse in lead....and then bury it very deep in a Nevada Salt Mine with all the nuclear waste generated by The Cold War....A very befitting burial for a repellant Creature who was a devoted and very well compensated spokesman for Thermonuclear Mass Extermination....of course, I am referring to GE....
    , @Ace
    I concede that point! :-)
  75. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I am by no means a Reagan apologist, but there's one good thing you have to admit about the man: he had an excellent head of hair. Thick and full, not balding and barely graying even when he was pushing 80. A lot of men would kill to have such hair.

    Ronnie Reagan’s pitch black coal hair was a Le Brea Tar Pit of Oxford Black shoe polish toxins rubbed into his scalp lovingly every morning by his loving wife Nancy.

    One of the very nasty consequences of this for Ronnie was that by his second term in office he devolved into a turnip that required watering every morning.

    Honestly..the EPA should declare Ronnie Reagan’s pickled corpse an EPA Superfund Cleanup Site. My advice would be to seal Ronnie Reagan’s very toxic corpse in lead….and then bury it very deep in a Nevada Salt Mine with all the nuclear waste generated by The Cold War….A very befitting burial for a repellant Creature who was a devoted and very well compensated spokesman for Thermonuclear Mass Extermination….of course, I am referring to GE….

    Read More
  76. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    When Communism collapsed in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the Western Left was unfazed. If anything, it was relieved cuz it no longer needed to be associated with the Totalitarian Left. It felt liberated from the association with Eastern Communism.

    So, why didn’t the same thing happen with the Western Right after WWII? With the fall of Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, the New Right could have felt liberated from association with those tyrannical and imperialist powers.

    But unlike the Western Left after the fall of communism, the Western Right wasn’t liberated by fall of the Far Right. Rather, it was burdened with the crimes of Hitler and Mussolini.

    Communism falls, the Western Left feels liberated from associations of its dark history.
    Fascism falls, the Western Right feels chained to associations of its dark history.

    So, what really matters is control of narrative.

    Since Libs control the academia and media, once communism fell and went away, the crimes of the Far Left could easily be swept under the rug and forgotten.
    But the crimes of fascism would be recycled over and over and over and over for public consumption.

    Also, while the Jews-as-victims-of-far-right narrative would be played over and over and over — every year has its new Holocaust movie — , the narrative of Jews-as-communist-villains could be banned.
    If anything, the narrative is usually about Jews-as-super-victims-under-the-far-right and Jews-as-main-victims-under-the-far-left(Soviet communism) while conveniently overlooking the fact that Jews played a prominent role in the rise of communism all over Russia and Eastern Europe.

    Those who control the narrative also control the context. It is true that Jews were victimized by Soviet communism in the long run, but they’d also helped create that system. Ignoring the larger context while only focusing on Jewish victim-hood misses the point. It’s like showing German citizens being tyrannized by Nazis and then overrun by beastly Soviets without taking into account that too many ordinary Germans had supported Hitler’s rise to power and the Nazi war-mongering that led to eventual defeat of Germany at the hands of USSR.

    Washington DC has a gigantic Holocaust Memorial and a pathetic Communist Terror Memorial. That sort of says it all. It’s all about the control of Narrative.

    If the Right controlled the Narrative, the fall of communism would not have liberated the Western Left from the ‘sins’ of history. The Right-controlled media and academia would have regurgitated over and over and over the evils carried out by the Left.
    But since the Left controlled media/academia, they could just shrug their shoulders and say, “It’s past history, forget about it, and let’s move on.” But these same people use TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD over and over and over to remind whites of ‘white guilt’. Control of Narrative.

    Someone should write an Right Novel like TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD and spread it all around and make it part of the canon. It would be about whites victimized by black crime, globalist economics, mass migration, cultural filth, and etc. An UNCLE TOM’S CABIN of the Right. After all, there have been countless white victims of the Rise of Color and Globalism.

    I haven’t read TURNER DIARIES and don’t want to because it’s stupidly fantastical. Much more effective would be a simple humanist novel about a simple white person who is done wrong by the system and by social/racial changes.

    Stupid violent fantasies are for kids. Even if a political movement eventually needs to resort to violence, it must first win moral credits by tugging at heartstrings and making people aware of the injustice faced by so many ordinary Americans who are being assaulted physically, spiritually, morally, and culturally.

    PS. There has been a revival of anti-Sovietism lately in media and academia, but it has less to do with the ideological/moral failing of communism as a leftist ideology than with the fact that communism had been dominated by EVIL GENTILES like Stalin and all those Russians who, under Putin, are the monsters all over again because they won’t bend over to the Jewish-funded agenda of Homo Imperialism.
    Timothy Snyder’s attack on the USSR isn’t really ideological. It’s about bashing Stalin as the representative of ‘Russian’ imperialism and autocraticism. He has no interest in the Jewish role in the conception and development of the most totalitarian system known to man. He is essentially just a shill of Globalist Jews who own publications like the New York Review of Books, aka the Soros Rag.

    Read More
  77. The reality isn’t that nobody since Reagan represents Reagan conservatism. The reality is that they all are essentially clones of Reagan but that the mythology of Reagan is such that people think the Reagan they remember is something other than the people now.

    Reagan never confronted affirmative action or political correctness, it grew under him.
    Reagan was no fiscal conservative he just talked like one.
    Reagan’s deregulation was mostly a disaster as the crooks ran wild in the banking sector.
    Reagan raised taxes on labor when his supply side voodoo didn’t work. He raised taxes many times but was far more brutal on labor than capital. He still managed to triple the national debt and that was with the tech boom of the 80s.
    Reagan was the instigator of free trade and NAFTA.
    The NSF under Reagan created the lies about there being a tech worker shortage that lead to the H-1B visa program.
    Reagan never did much to control the borders. The book Fast Food Nation talked about IBP sending buses to Mexico to get strikebreakers in its fight with the meatpacking unions, nothing was done as illegals flooded into the country so that the one million expected amnestied illegals became 3.1 million. Of course, that was helped along by all the fraud that the executive cared not a whit about.
    Reagan wasted a ton of money on weapons and if not for Margaret Thatcher would probably have left office babbling about “the evil empire” and still have the neocons in control of his brain.

    Just which of all the GOP presidential candidates since Reagan weren’t Reaganesque?

    Read More
  78. @guest
    "Conservative" in today's parlance means being progressives' shadows. As far as specific principles go, it means empire, tax cuts, and "family values" that never actually get tested.

    And open borders.

    Read More
  79. @War for Blair Mountain
    Of course, there is a substantial amount of critical reviews of V Reznov's...Suvorov's real name...."Icebreaker" book series about Stalin's intent by academic Historians.

    For an intro these criticisms...for those interested...go to Stack Exchange-Stack Review Question:"is there any research explicitly contradicting facts in Suvorov's "Icebreaker' book series claiming that Stalin intended to attack Hitler in 1941"....

    Suvorov is another psychopathic Ukranian who wants to mass murder the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People on behalf of Jeffrey Sachs and Lawrence Summers.

    I have read many of Suvorov’s books and he is not at all as you have described. A man of integrity, insight, and high intelligence is more like it.

    Read More
  80. @Intelligent Dasein
    I am by no means a Reagan apologist, but there's one good thing you have to admit about the man: he had an excellent head of hair. Thick and full, not balding and barely graying even when he was pushing 80. A lot of men would kill to have such hair.

    I concede that point! :-)

    Read More
  81. @Art
    President Reagan, someone I admire, made a great error, perhaps the greatest error of any president, that has cost America its economic future.

    He appointed Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve. He did not know his error – but it never the less has gravely cost America.

    In 1986 America’s corporations had fiduciary long-term responsibilities to their employees, customers, stock holders and country. They were expected to do right by all. They dependably provided worthwhile products, pensions, healthcare, long term employment, and sustained profits to their stockholders. Corporations served the long-term economic future of all.

    Greenspan changed that – today corporations are only run for the benefit of the corporate heads and big stockholders. Today large corporations serve big money, not people, not the wellbeing of all.

    Greenspan did this by ever extending more and more credit the Wall Street types, thus turning America’s payed for corporate assets, and free and clear owned corporations, into businesses with debt.

    Greenspan fed all the debt bubbles with ready cash. He provided money to the junk bond bubble, the savings and loan bubble, the dot-com bubble, and the housing bubble.

    In the process Greenspan turned America’s wealth over to his Jew tribe.

    There is no denying this – it is fact.

    Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II. The problem was that right after Greenspan was appointed the Black Friday crash happened. If Greenspan had let that morph into a mild recession it is likely that the Savings and Loan fiasco would have been far milder since there would have been three less years of stupid lending on commercial real estate by banks and thrifts. Greenspan added liquidity and there was no immediate recession. It got to his head and he did it for every downturn in the economy after that and only dug the hole deeper until we are where we are now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II" - And you, MarkinLA, probably think that Volker was great for economy, right? Yes, he did his job all right. His job was to proceed with the de-industrialization of the US. So he raised interest rates. They say "he was fighting inflation". Do you know what inflation really means for banking elites? For them inflation means too high wages and not too high prices as they want us to believe. High interest rates caused recession, closing factories, busting unions and wiping out the rust belt and caused high unemployment. And wages were stopped and remain on this level till now. Volker succeeded. Do you know that Volker was not Carter's choice? Carter could not have the guy he wanted because the plan was different. It was not Carter's plan. So everything went according to the plan and it had nothing to do with what Carter or Reagan thought they wanted. Reagan or even Carter had no clue how money is created. Presidents do not need to know. They are just the spokesmen for the Bank, so Americans like you may live under the impression that politicians matter, so you think that your vote and your opinion matter. No, they do not. Besides you do not seem to be a guy who has his opinion anyway. Your opinions are not yours. They were specially concocted for you by the Bank so they are harmless to the Bank.
    , @Art
    Greenspan added liquidity and there was no immediate recession. It got to his head and he did it for every downturn in the economy after that and only dug the hole deeper until we are where we are now.

    Exactly - to big to fail banks with zero interest rates paid to savers and free money for the mega wealthy.

    Greenspan has done more harm to America then any other human being - alive or dead.

  82. @random observer
    I can't think of anyone Russell kirk would have identified as a conservative who was a booster of US Latin America policy before 1960 but I concede that this may be so. However, it is incontestable that:

    1. US policy on Latin America before 1960 could at least be considered in the national interest or, failing that, in the interest of some subset of Americans. If otherwise isolationist American 'conservatives' supported it, it was probably for solid, pocket-lining reasons. That is to say, reasons that actually make sense and have limits. Even if sordid.

    2. US policy on Latin America or any other subject before 1960 [or at least from the 1900s to 1960] was by definition the policy of Progressive and New Deal America. I can't think of any President other than perhaps Coolidge from those years who would qualify as a conservative by Kirkean, or perhaps even Reaganaut standards. Not even Ike, unless perhaps for his general policy toward the military.


    Reagan didn't actually intervene abroad by open wars, so by the standards of the last 16 years he was practically an isolationist. Or at least he limited his really big military buildup and posturing to the Cold War context. One major screw up wrt the Middle East- Beirut.

    Central America is more interesting, but then again, the COld war still strikes me as a much more valid ideological framework for intervention than what the neocons have been doing, and by modern standards it was pretty limited intervention, and mostly proxy. Standard great power work. Not revolutionary agendas at all.

    Never did see the problem with Iran contra. It was an embarrassing scam, but it's not like they actually used congressionally appropriated funds...

    Reagan’s central American “refugees” are the beach head for the current invasion of illiterate peasants.

    Reagan’s constant belligerence put the Soviets in a high state of alert during a NATO war game.

    http://nuclearinfo.org/blog/peter-burt/2013/11/thirty-years-ago-nuclear-crisis-which-frightened-thatcher-and-reagan-ending

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Reagan’s central American “refugees” are the beach head for the current invasion of illiterate peasants.
     
    Reagan's central American "refugees" are the people who were forced to flee their homes in S America after US corporatist-CIA economic hit men destroyed their homes.

    Precisely the same modus operandi as used in the Middle East to produce evil Muslim refugees.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ

  83. @MarkinLA
    Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II. The problem was that right after Greenspan was appointed the Black Friday crash happened. If Greenspan had let that morph into a mild recession it is likely that the Savings and Loan fiasco would have been far milder since there would have been three less years of stupid lending on commercial real estate by banks and thrifts. Greenspan added liquidity and there was no immediate recession. It got to his head and he did it for every downturn in the economy after that and only dug the hole deeper until we are where we are now.

    “Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II” – And you, MarkinLA, probably think that Volker was great for economy, right? Yes, he did his job all right. His job was to proceed with the de-industrialization of the US. So he raised interest rates. They say “he was fighting inflation”. Do you know what inflation really means for banking elites? For them inflation means too high wages and not too high prices as they want us to believe. High interest rates caused recession, closing factories, busting unions and wiping out the rust belt and caused high unemployment. And wages were stopped and remain on this level till now. Volker succeeded. Do you know that Volker was not Carter’s choice? Carter could not have the guy he wanted because the plan was different. It was not Carter’s plan. So everything went according to the plan and it had nothing to do with what Carter or Reagan thought they wanted. Reagan or even Carter had no clue how money is created. Presidents do not need to know. They are just the spokesmen for the Bank, so Americans like you may live under the impression that politicians matter, so you think that your vote and your opinion matter. No, they do not. Besides you do not seem to be a guy who has his opinion anyway. Your opinions are not yours. They were specially concocted for you by the Bank so they are harmless to the Bank.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The inflation was a serious problem. If it wasn't then why all the blame put on Carter for it? He was a constant butt of jokes about inflation. The whole "no money down" real estate scam was based on high inflation. The economy was centered around high inflation and the government was happy to see average joes pushed into higher tax brackets so more and more of their pay went to taxes.

    Ending the inflationary expectations in peoples minds was a good thing.
  84. @Immigrant from former USSR
    Mr. Thirdeye:
    I believe you are making erroneous statement, saying

    the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Victor Suvorov in his books, e.g. in
    The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II,
    http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Culprit-Stalins-Grand-Design/dp/1591148065/
    shows extremely convincingly, that Stalin in 1925-1940s
    was preparing USSR for the occupation of all the Europe.
    He used Comintern quite actively for that purpose.
    But mostly, Stalin militarized all the economy of USSR for that future war.

    I think your source is garbage. It was common for defectors and ex-Communists to curry the favor of the Western establishment by embracing their fantasies about the Soviet Union. Stalin sought “anti-Fascist” alliances to contain Nazi Germany and was rebuffed by Britain and France. It was in fact Britain and France that saw the potential for war between Germany and the Soviet Union as an opportunity. The Anglo-French project of overturning the Russian Revolution had been suspended since 1923, but never entirely abandoned. Germany had presented itself as the replacement for Poland and Romania as the means to facilitate it. The Soviet Union and Germany would bleed themselves dry in a war and at the opportune time the British and French forces would clean up. Waiting for that occurrence (with hopes raised by the Winter War in Finland) was what the “phony war” of 1939-1940 was about. The Germans buggered that prospect by attacking France first.

    The Comintern’s directive to Communist Parties in western Europe as Germany was being defeated was to stand down and seek to influence, not replace, the post-occupation governments. That policy remained in place during the 1968 uprisings in Europe, for which more orthodox Marxists never forgave the Moscow-line Communists.

    The rearmament of Germany, with its extremely hostile ideology, left the Soviets no choice but to embark on their own rearmament program. The USSR in the mid 1930s still needed to develop the industrial capacity required to support a modern military. The Red Army was weaker than its numbers suggested because of a lack of heavy armament that was up to date. The German officers who met the Soviets in Poland remarked at how poorly equipped the Red Army was, which encouraged Germany to proceed with plans for Operation Barbarossa. At the outbreak of war with Germany, the Soviets were still short on machine tools needed to boost armament production to wartime levels. Machine tools were among the first items delivered to the Soviet Union under the lend-lease program.

    Despite the “evidence” for Soviet intentions to attack Germany in forward deployment of Soviet forces in 1941, the Red Army’s disposition was defensive. Their forward positions were defensive fortifications. The Red Army was under orders not to engage in, or respond to, “provocative” actions. The Red Army’s heavy armament consisted mostly of artillery pieces, obsolete tanks, and obsolete aircraft, and they were critically impaired on logistics. The Soviet road and rail systems were insufficient to sustain offensive operations near the frontier with Germany and even within the Soviet Union itself. They didn’t have logistic capability for sustained offensive operations until 1943. Locomotives and trucks provided by lend-lease made the difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The rearmament of Germany, with its extremely hostile ideology, left the Soviets no choice but to embark on their own rearmament program.
     
    So why did the Soviets offer so much assistance to German rearmament?
  85. @dfordoom

    Cold War propaganda notwithstanding, the Soviet Union gave up on the notion of “world revolution” in the 1930s.
     
    Stalin in the 1930s gave up on the notion of openly planning immediate “world revolution” in favour of a more patient and more opportunistic strategy. The goal of world revolution was not abandoned but merely deferred to a more favourable opportunity. The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements. When that opportunity presented itself Stalin intended to strike.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin's death. Certainly they abandoned it after the fall of Khrushchev. Under Brezhnev their geopolitical strategy was essentially defensive. World revolution was clearly not going to happen and a military victory over the West was equally clearly impossible. Live and let live was the only realistic strategy.

    Reagan and the neocons were still operating on the assumption that Uncle Joe was still in charge and the Russian hordes were going to come pouring into western Europe at any moment.

    On the whole the Cold War was a good thing. Two superpowers is a much healthier situation than one superpower. I felt safe and secure and secure during the Cold War. I haven't felt safe and secure since.

    The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements.

    It’s not as impressive as the numbers suggest. The force was lagging in heavy armament and its tanks and aircraft were mostly obsolete. It also lacked the mobility and logistic capability for offensive operations. More modern tanks and aircraft started to be acquired in 1940. The readiness for war was still inadequate in 1941. The shortfalls in mobility and logistic capabilities limited the ability to mount offensive operations into 1943.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin’s death.

    Stalin’s stance towards China in the 1945-47 period is a pretty good indicator that world revolution was not his policy. The Comintern’s directives to the Moscow-line Communists in Europe during the same period neutralized them as a revolutionary force.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It’s not as impressive as the numbers suggest. The force was lagging in heavy armament and its tanks and aircraft were mostly obsolete. It also lacked the mobility and logistic capability for offensive operations. More modern tanks and aircraft started to be acquired in 1940. The readiness for war was still inadequate in 1941.
     
    The Soviet Union was much better prepared for war than anyone else. The Germans were using hopelessly obsolete tanks in 1939 and were still using rubbish tanks in 1941. The Luftwaffe was mainly equipped with second-rate light bombers. Plus the Stuka, which was helpless in the face of even obsolete fighters. Their navy was a joke.

    Most of the "obsolete" Soviet tanks were in 1941 superior to the vast majority of the German tanks. The BT-7 was an excellent tank.
  86. @anonymous
    Franklin Roosevelt was an ardent admirer of Josef Stalin.

    One of FDR's first acts as president was to recognize the Soviet Union, and to assign his secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., to work behind the backs of the State Department (they were averse to Stalin) and negotiate with USSR foreign minister Maxim Litvinov to recoup American business losses in the Soviet Union.


    Susan Liebman Bendheim Butler has surveyed FDR's correspondence with Stalin and produced two deeply flawed, fawning volumes on the close relationship between the two war leader, My Dear Mr. Stalin, and Roosevelt and Stalin: Portrait of a Friendship. Butler seems to have gotten caught up in her work and fallen in love with the Communist dictator as well as the lying, snake-charming American president.

    btw Blair, Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese in their war against the Russians, whom Shiff hated with a passion.

    One of FDR’s first acts as president was to recognize the Soviet Union……

    It’s known as realist foreign policy. You know, kind of like Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, it was in short supply in the 1930s.

    Read More
  87. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Ace
    *** Reagan joked about starting nuclear WW3...he wasn’t joking***

    Please. Reagan was joking. Don't try to inflate it into a desire to start WWIII.

    There wasn't "massive civil disobedience and resistance to Reagan." Your anecdote about Mr. Wilson isn't evidence to the contrary. An individual did an tragically stupid thing and paid the price. Are you insinuating the train engineer could have stopped the train but chose to drive over Wilson?

    Ace

    You obviously no 0 about the History of the Reagan Era.

    There was massive resistance to the Reagan Adminstrations policy in Central America that started with the murder of the Maryknoll nuns. The Iran Contra Scandal was a direct result of this massive opposition to the Reagan Adminstrations war gainst the Sandinistas and Death Squads in El Salvador. This massive US public resistance forced the Reagan Administration to run a covert and illegal war.

    Brian Wilson..a decorated Vietnam War Era Marine Vet…was an example of this resistance. And yes, the Train Engineer had the time and distance to stop.

    The POTUS jokes about starting Nuclear War on a his pre-radio broadcast reveals the mindset of the Reagan and the war criminals in his administration…including the sicko Evangelical Rapture Christians.

    Read More
  88. @Thirdeye

    The military buildup in the Soviet Union in the late 30s was staggering and far in excess of any defensive requirements.
     
    It's not as impressive as the numbers suggest. The force was lagging in heavy armament and its tanks and aircraft were mostly obsolete. It also lacked the mobility and logistic capability for offensive operations. More modern tanks and aircraft started to be acquired in 1940. The readiness for war was still inadequate in 1941. The shortfalls in mobility and logistic capabilities limited the ability to mount offensive operations into 1943.

    I think it is true that the Soviet Union did gradually abandon the world revolution idea after Stalin’s death.
     
    Stalin's stance towards China in the 1945-47 period is a pretty good indicator that world revolution was not his policy. The Comintern's directives to the Moscow-line Communists in Europe during the same period neutralized them as a revolutionary force.

    It’s not as impressive as the numbers suggest. The force was lagging in heavy armament and its tanks and aircraft were mostly obsolete. It also lacked the mobility and logistic capability for offensive operations. More modern tanks and aircraft started to be acquired in 1940. The readiness for war was still inadequate in 1941.

    The Soviet Union was much better prepared for war than anyone else. The Germans were using hopelessly obsolete tanks in 1939 and were still using rubbish tanks in 1941. The Luftwaffe was mainly equipped with second-rate light bombers. Plus the Stuka, which was helpless in the face of even obsolete fighters. Their navy was a joke.

    Most of the “obsolete” Soviet tanks were in 1941 superior to the vast majority of the German tanks. The BT-7 was an excellent tank.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete. The BT-7 was a more modern design that could be fitted with a powerful gun but its armor was inadequate against the German antitank guns. Production of the T-34 began in late 1940. The Soviets' shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow. The Moscow counterattack with T-34s was the first tank operation where the Soviets had been effective.

    Most of the Soviet fighter forces in 1941 consisted of Polikarpov I-15s (a biplane) and I-16s. The German Bf-109s tore them to shreds. The best fighter in the Soviet inventory was the British Hawker Hurricane, which started showing up in late 1941. The Soviet fighter force remained heavily dependent on lend-lease aircraft while more modern Soviet fighters were being developed in and geared for production in 1941-42. The Luftwaffe maintained a qualitative edge well into 1943. The Luftwaffe bomber force was built for exactly the mission it had on the eastern front: air support of ground operations.

    The Soviet supply routes were kept open by British and American naval power and the supplies were carried in British and American freighters.

    The Soviets were severely short on radios, even for their best armor and aircraft.

    Saying that the Soviet Union was better prepared than Germany for war in 1941 is like a bad joke.
  89. @Thirdeye
    I think your source is garbage. It was common for defectors and ex-Communists to curry the favor of the Western establishment by embracing their fantasies about the Soviet Union. Stalin sought "anti-Fascist" alliances to contain Nazi Germany and was rebuffed by Britain and France. It was in fact Britain and France that saw the potential for war between Germany and the Soviet Union as an opportunity. The Anglo-French project of overturning the Russian Revolution had been suspended since 1923, but never entirely abandoned. Germany had presented itself as the replacement for Poland and Romania as the means to facilitate it. The Soviet Union and Germany would bleed themselves dry in a war and at the opportune time the British and French forces would clean up. Waiting for that occurrence (with hopes raised by the Winter War in Finland) was what the "phony war" of 1939-1940 was about. The Germans buggered that prospect by attacking France first.

    The Comintern's directive to Communist Parties in western Europe as Germany was being defeated was to stand down and seek to influence, not replace, the post-occupation governments. That policy remained in place during the 1968 uprisings in Europe, for which more orthodox Marxists never forgave the Moscow-line Communists.

    The rearmament of Germany, with its extremely hostile ideology, left the Soviets no choice but to embark on their own rearmament program. The USSR in the mid 1930s still needed to develop the industrial capacity required to support a modern military. The Red Army was weaker than its numbers suggested because of a lack of heavy armament that was up to date. The German officers who met the Soviets in Poland remarked at how poorly equipped the Red Army was, which encouraged Germany to proceed with plans for Operation Barbarossa. At the outbreak of war with Germany, the Soviets were still short on machine tools needed to boost armament production to wartime levels. Machine tools were among the first items delivered to the Soviet Union under the lend-lease program.

    Despite the "evidence" for Soviet intentions to attack Germany in forward deployment of Soviet forces in 1941, the Red Army's disposition was defensive. Their forward positions were defensive fortifications. The Red Army was under orders not to engage in, or respond to, "provocative" actions. The Red Army's heavy armament consisted mostly of artillery pieces, obsolete tanks, and obsolete aircraft, and they were critically impaired on logistics. The Soviet road and rail systems were insufficient to sustain offensive operations near the frontier with Germany and even within the Soviet Union itself. They didn't have logistic capability for sustained offensive operations until 1943. Locomotives and trucks provided by lend-lease made the difference.

    The rearmament of Germany, with its extremely hostile ideology, left the Soviets no choice but to embark on their own rearmament program.

    So why did the Soviets offer so much assistance to German rearmament?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    So why did the Soviets offer so much assistance to German rearmament?
     
    It wasn't "assistance," it was trade dating back to before the Nazi takeover. The Soviets needed foreign exchange for their own economy and they got it by exporting resources to Germany. The Soviets were also avoiding a provocative stance towards Nazi Germany, so they couldn't very well place a trade embargo. If exporting resources is deliberately aiding someone's rearmament, what was the enormous trade of scrap iron and oil from the US to Japan in the 1930s? That continued after the Japanese seized Manchuria and later Nanking. Was the US objective to aid Japan's war effort? The embargo of late 1941 was casus belli for Japan.

    The narrative that the Soviets were seeking to strengthen Germany is lame.

  90. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @MarkinLA
    Reagan's central American "refugees" are the beach head for the current invasion of illiterate peasants.

    Reagan's constant belligerence put the Soviets in a high state of alert during a NATO war game.

    http://nuclearinfo.org/blog/peter-burt/2013/11/thirty-years-ago-nuclear-crisis-which-frightened-thatcher-and-reagan-ending

    Reagan’s central American “refugees” are the beach head for the current invasion of illiterate peasants.

    Reagan’s central American “refugees” are the people who were forced to flee their homes in S America after US corporatist-CIA economic hit men destroyed their homes.

    Precisely the same modus operandi as used in the Middle East to produce evil Muslim refugees.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I won't disagree. I worked in defense then and you can't imagine the yahoos thinking we were "defending" ourselves by backing all those thugs we called "freedom fighters".
  91. @utu
    "Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II" - And you, MarkinLA, probably think that Volker was great for economy, right? Yes, he did his job all right. His job was to proceed with the de-industrialization of the US. So he raised interest rates. They say "he was fighting inflation". Do you know what inflation really means for banking elites? For them inflation means too high wages and not too high prices as they want us to believe. High interest rates caused recession, closing factories, busting unions and wiping out the rust belt and caused high unemployment. And wages were stopped and remain on this level till now. Volker succeeded. Do you know that Volker was not Carter's choice? Carter could not have the guy he wanted because the plan was different. It was not Carter's plan. So everything went according to the plan and it had nothing to do with what Carter or Reagan thought they wanted. Reagan or even Carter had no clue how money is created. Presidents do not need to know. They are just the spokesmen for the Bank, so Americans like you may live under the impression that politicians matter, so you think that your vote and your opinion matter. No, they do not. Besides you do not seem to be a guy who has his opinion anyway. Your opinions are not yours. They were specially concocted for you by the Bank so they are harmless to the Bank.

    The inflation was a serious problem. If it wasn’t then why all the blame put on Carter for it? He was a constant butt of jokes about inflation. The whole “no money down” real estate scam was based on high inflation. The economy was centered around high inflation and the government was happy to see average joes pushed into higher tax brackets so more and more of their pay went to taxes.

    Ending the inflationary expectations in peoples minds was a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    People were making more money. You call it inflation as bankers do. The job of Volker was to implement de-industrialization of America and lowering wages of American workers from which they have not recovered.
  92. @anonymous

    Reagan’s central American “refugees” are the beach head for the current invasion of illiterate peasants.
     
    Reagan's central American "refugees" are the people who were forced to flee their homes in S America after US corporatist-CIA economic hit men destroyed their homes.

    Precisely the same modus operandi as used in the Middle East to produce evil Muslim refugees.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-a6jzU0YgQ

    I won’t disagree. I worked in defense then and you can’t imagine the yahoos thinking we were “defending” ourselves by backing all those thugs we called “freedom fighters”.

    Read More
  93. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Moutain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Anon

    Not so fast…it’s what you leave out thats’ the problem. The Native Born White American Working Class is under no obligation…0 obligation..to tolerate having their communities invaded and colonized by ma-13 Central American Gang Bangers, who along with their pregnant girlfriends and wives cause a massive increase in the property tax..and the risk of tax -lien-home confiscation…even though the mortgage has been paid off for years… to be sold for a few thousands dollars to an off-the-boat Pakistani Muzzi who wants a home for his growing young Muzzi Paki Family. Moreover, the Central American “Refugees”…along with young Paki “American” Family ..get to vote Whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority in ecoli infested toilet bowl post-white “America”.

    The Architects and Planners of Reagan’s War in Central America don’t have to experience the full-blown domestic consequences of Reagan’s Central American War. The Native Born White American Working Class has to absorb the full violent impact of Reagan’s War.

    As far as the muzzie male “refugee” gang rapists in Western Europe and Scandavia go:Western European Men and Scandanavian Men should use what-ever-means necessary to eliminate the Muzzie Male Gang Rapists off of European Soil to prevent the mass rape and impregnation of their Wives….Daughters…Girlfriends..and Sisters by Muzzie Males…no holding back!

    Noam and Aviva Chomsky can go FUCK THEMSELVES with their “refugee” sob stories that they tell from their multimillion $$$$$$$$$ estate in Wellsfleet Cape Code. I really hate the Greedy Chomsky Family..

    MarkinLA

    It is one hundred percent irrelevant what their education and IQ test scores are….for the The Chinese “Americans” are enthusiastically voting Whitey into a violently persecuted racial minority on Nov 8 2016-and so are the Hindu “Americans”….

    Trump can most definitely loose on Nov 8 2016 for racial demographic reasons. And it gets worse in 2020….2024…2030….2034…2040…..

    What’s post-Trump game plan B?

    Read More
  94. @MarkinLA
    The inflation was a serious problem. If it wasn't then why all the blame put on Carter for it? He was a constant butt of jokes about inflation. The whole "no money down" real estate scam was based on high inflation. The economy was centered around high inflation and the government was happy to see average joes pushed into higher tax brackets so more and more of their pay went to taxes.

    Ending the inflationary expectations in peoples minds was a good thing.

    People were making more money. You call it inflation as bankers do. The job of Volker was to implement de-industrialization of America and lowering wages of American workers from which they have not recovered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The inflation of the 1970s was driven more by a demand for capital than it was by consumer demand. It worsened as consumer demand softened, hence the term "stagflation." Essentially, the demand for capital was exceeding the savings rate, which led to a raid on consumers' wallets to raise capital, which softened demand and further decreased the savings rate.... all the while with a tight monetary policy further constricting against the demand for capital. On top of it all, the Carter administration was having an orgy of deregulation. The cycle was broken when the Japanese got attracted to T-bills due to high interest rates (combined with a slowing world economy) and the fiscal stimulus of loosening up on the federal deficit. The deficit exploded but was not inflationary because there was a rush of foreign capital to support it. However, the Reagan recovery was disproportionately balanced towards speculation rather than growth in real goods and services which support broad wage growth. The economy needed a healthy meal and it got a hit of cocaine instead. That pattern has been repeated in every recovery since. First speculation on corporate assets, then speculation on tech and dot-com, then speculation on housing, and apparently now speculation on speculation.
  95. @MarkinLA
    Reagan thought he was getting Paul Volcker II. The problem was that right after Greenspan was appointed the Black Friday crash happened. If Greenspan had let that morph into a mild recession it is likely that the Savings and Loan fiasco would have been far milder since there would have been three less years of stupid lending on commercial real estate by banks and thrifts. Greenspan added liquidity and there was no immediate recession. It got to his head and he did it for every downturn in the economy after that and only dug the hole deeper until we are where we are now.

    Greenspan added liquidity and there was no immediate recession. It got to his head and he did it for every downturn in the economy after that and only dug the hole deeper until we are where we are now.

    Exactly – to big to fail banks with zero interest rates paid to savers and free money for the mega wealthy.

    Greenspan has done more harm to America then any other human being – alive or dead.

    Read More
  96. @dfordoom

    It’s not as impressive as the numbers suggest. The force was lagging in heavy armament and its tanks and aircraft were mostly obsolete. It also lacked the mobility and logistic capability for offensive operations. More modern tanks and aircraft started to be acquired in 1940. The readiness for war was still inadequate in 1941.
     
    The Soviet Union was much better prepared for war than anyone else. The Germans were using hopelessly obsolete tanks in 1939 and were still using rubbish tanks in 1941. The Luftwaffe was mainly equipped with second-rate light bombers. Plus the Stuka, which was helpless in the face of even obsolete fighters. Their navy was a joke.

    Most of the "obsolete" Soviet tanks were in 1941 superior to the vast majority of the German tanks. The BT-7 was an excellent tank.

    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete. The BT-7 was a more modern design that could be fitted with a powerful gun but its armor was inadequate against the German antitank guns. Production of the T-34 began in late 1940. The Soviets’ shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow. The Moscow counterattack with T-34s was the first tank operation where the Soviets had been effective.

    Most of the Soviet fighter forces in 1941 consisted of Polikarpov I-15s (a biplane) and I-16s. The German Bf-109s tore them to shreds. The best fighter in the Soviet inventory was the British Hawker Hurricane, which started showing up in late 1941. The Soviet fighter force remained heavily dependent on lend-lease aircraft while more modern Soviet fighters were being developed in and geared for production in 1941-42. The Luftwaffe maintained a qualitative edge well into 1943. The Luftwaffe bomber force was built for exactly the mission it had on the eastern front: air support of ground operations.

    The Soviet supply routes were kept open by British and American naval power and the supplies were carried in British and American freighters.

    The Soviets were severely short on radios, even for their best armor and aircraft.

    Saying that the Soviet Union was better prepared than Germany for war in 1941 is like a bad joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete.
     
    Everything I've ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.
    , @dfordoom

    The Soviets’ shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow.
     
    I don't know where the Russians got Cromwells in 1941. The Cromwell did not enter production until the end of 1942.
  97. @dfordoom

    The rearmament of Germany, with its extremely hostile ideology, left the Soviets no choice but to embark on their own rearmament program.
     
    So why did the Soviets offer so much assistance to German rearmament?

    So why did the Soviets offer so much assistance to German rearmament?

    It wasn’t “assistance,” it was trade dating back to before the Nazi takeover. The Soviets needed foreign exchange for their own economy and they got it by exporting resources to Germany. The Soviets were also avoiding a provocative stance towards Nazi Germany, so they couldn’t very well place a trade embargo. If exporting resources is deliberately aiding someone’s rearmament, what was the enormous trade of scrap iron and oil from the US to Japan in the 1930s? That continued after the Japanese seized Manchuria and later Nanking. Was the US objective to aid Japan’s war effort? The embargo of late 1941 was casus belli for Japan.

    The narrative that the Soviets were seeking to strengthen Germany is lame.

    Read More
  98. @iffen
    abandonment of support for Israel

    Who are these people? How many congressmen, how many Senators, how many influential opinion makers and spinners? Can you name names?

    “Who are these people?”

    For some recent examples, see:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Supporters

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am aware of the BDS.

    As per my original question, who are the elite decision makers, the puppets or puppet masters who have said that we (the US) should re-consider our blind support of Israel?

    Apparently Trump said something about a more even-handed approach and you see what is happening to him.

    All of you ignorant anti-Semites stay out of the conversation and crawl back under your rock.
  99. @manton
    Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined "neoconservative" and he meant it as an insult.

    ‘Michael Harrington, a leftist, coined “neoconservative” and he meant it as an insult.’

    You are correct, and I was in error to say that Kristol coined the word. Nonetheless, Kristol shortly thereafter embraced it as a description of his point of view.

    http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/0028740211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457392300&sr=8-1&keywords=Irving+Kristol

    Read More
  100. @utu
    People were making more money. You call it inflation as bankers do. The job of Volker was to implement de-industrialization of America and lowering wages of American workers from which they have not recovered.

    The inflation of the 1970s was driven more by a demand for capital than it was by consumer demand. It worsened as consumer demand softened, hence the term “stagflation.” Essentially, the demand for capital was exceeding the savings rate, which led to a raid on consumers’ wallets to raise capital, which softened demand and further decreased the savings rate…. all the while with a tight monetary policy further constricting against the demand for capital. On top of it all, the Carter administration was having an orgy of deregulation. The cycle was broken when the Japanese got attracted to T-bills due to high interest rates (combined with a slowing world economy) and the fiscal stimulus of loosening up on the federal deficit. The deficit exploded but was not inflationary because there was a rush of foreign capital to support it. However, the Reagan recovery was disproportionately balanced towards speculation rather than growth in real goods and services which support broad wage growth. The economy needed a healthy meal and it got a hit of cocaine instead. That pattern has been repeated in every recovery since. First speculation on corporate assets, then speculation on tech and dot-com, then speculation on housing, and apparently now speculation on speculation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Volker's job was to de-industrialize the US and lower the wages of American working class. This was the master plan. To the masses it was explained as fighting inflation, stagflation,....., or whatever. All those terms have no meaning beyond the realm of their reification. I can see you are still in grips of that official narrative concocted for the masses.
  101. @Crawfurdmuir
    "Who are these people?"

    For some recent examples, see:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Supporters

    I am aware of the BDS.

    As per my original question, who are the elite decision makers, the puppets or puppet masters who have said that we (the US) should re-consider our blind support of Israel?

    Apparently Trump said something about a more even-handed approach and you see what is happening to him.

    All of you ignorant anti-Semites stay out of the conversation and crawl back under your rock.

    Read More
  102. @Thirdeye
    The inflation of the 1970s was driven more by a demand for capital than it was by consumer demand. It worsened as consumer demand softened, hence the term "stagflation." Essentially, the demand for capital was exceeding the savings rate, which led to a raid on consumers' wallets to raise capital, which softened demand and further decreased the savings rate.... all the while with a tight monetary policy further constricting against the demand for capital. On top of it all, the Carter administration was having an orgy of deregulation. The cycle was broken when the Japanese got attracted to T-bills due to high interest rates (combined with a slowing world economy) and the fiscal stimulus of loosening up on the federal deficit. The deficit exploded but was not inflationary because there was a rush of foreign capital to support it. However, the Reagan recovery was disproportionately balanced towards speculation rather than growth in real goods and services which support broad wage growth. The economy needed a healthy meal and it got a hit of cocaine instead. That pattern has been repeated in every recovery since. First speculation on corporate assets, then speculation on tech and dot-com, then speculation on housing, and apparently now speculation on speculation.

    Volker’s job was to de-industrialize the US and lower the wages of American working class. This was the master plan. To the masses it was explained as fighting inflation, stagflation,….., or whatever. All those terms have no meaning beyond the realm of their reification. I can see you are still in grips of that official narrative concocted for the masses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Sure, everybody who deviates from your dogmatic argument is one of the "sheeple." Uh-huh.
  103. @Thirdeye
    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete. The BT-7 was a more modern design that could be fitted with a powerful gun but its armor was inadequate against the German antitank guns. Production of the T-34 began in late 1940. The Soviets' shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow. The Moscow counterattack with T-34s was the first tank operation where the Soviets had been effective.

    Most of the Soviet fighter forces in 1941 consisted of Polikarpov I-15s (a biplane) and I-16s. The German Bf-109s tore them to shreds. The best fighter in the Soviet inventory was the British Hawker Hurricane, which started showing up in late 1941. The Soviet fighter force remained heavily dependent on lend-lease aircraft while more modern Soviet fighters were being developed in and geared for production in 1941-42. The Luftwaffe maintained a qualitative edge well into 1943. The Luftwaffe bomber force was built for exactly the mission it had on the eastern front: air support of ground operations.

    The Soviet supply routes were kept open by British and American naval power and the supplies were carried in British and American freighters.

    The Soviets were severely short on radios, even for their best armor and aircraft.

    Saying that the Soviet Union was better prepared than Germany for war in 1941 is like a bad joke.

    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete.

    Everything I’ve ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    Everything I’ve ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.
     
    You're right. I made the incorrect assumption that the Phalangist armor defeated the Republican armor using their German-supplied tanks. They defeated them with captured T-26es (which was what happened to the overwhelming majority of them BTW). In any event, the T-26 could be defeated by anything with heavier armament than a machine gun. It was hopelessly outmatched by the Mark IV in 1941. The preponderance of the T-26, with all of its known weaknesses, in the Soviet tank forces of 1941 showed just how ill-prepared they were to fight a war with Germany.

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?
  104. @utu
    Volker's job was to de-industrialize the US and lower the wages of American working class. This was the master plan. To the masses it was explained as fighting inflation, stagflation,....., or whatever. All those terms have no meaning beyond the realm of their reification. I can see you are still in grips of that official narrative concocted for the masses.

    Sure, everybody who deviates from your dogmatic argument is one of the “sheeple.” Uh-huh.

    Read More
  105. @War for Blair Mountain
    Neurotic Insecure Russian Immigrant of a certain ethnicity

    No, I am not an expert on Russian language historical documents. But there are research Historians who are. And they have are very skeptical view of Suvorov's claims. There is another point of view out there you know...One which I take very seriously because of Suvorov's very nasty political agenda for the Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian People.

    So, Fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!..and go back to Russia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hey idiot. Both Stalin and Hitler were preparing to fight each other. Hitler got his licks in first. Uncle Joe was so terrified of provoking Hitler before he was ready, that he regularly discounted all reports that pointed to a German invasion. The large Soviet armies that fell were disposed all along the lines of the division of the spoils of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, and had no reserves. The Red Army was preparing its reserves for a fight against Germany in 1942. The defeat of the French, obviated this rosy scenario for the Reds.

    Read More
  106. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Moutain"] says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Ronnie Reagan….my least favorite vegetable.

    Read More
  107. @dfordoom

    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete.
     
    Everything I've ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.

    Everything I’ve ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.

    You’re right. I made the incorrect assumption that the Phalangist armor defeated the Republican armor using their German-supplied tanks. They defeated them with captured T-26es (which was what happened to the overwhelming majority of them BTW). In any event, the T-26 could be defeated by anything with heavier armament than a machine gun. It was hopelessly outmatched by the Mark IV in 1941. The preponderance of the T-26, with all of its known weaknesses, in the Soviet tank forces of 1941 showed just how ill-prepared they were to fight a war with Germany.

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?
     
    So the peace-loving Soviet Union needed 20,000 tanks for purely defensive purposes?

    And the Soviet Union was so ill-prepared for war in 1941 and yet Operation Barbarossa ended in complete failure? By the end of 1941 Germany had lost the war. For a country hopelessly ill-prepared for war the Soviets did pretty well to smash the German military machine, even with the Germans having the advantage of launching a surprise attack.

    The only scenario that makes sense is that the Soviets were so well-prepared for war that Germany's only hope was a pre-emptive attack.
    , @dfordoom

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?
     
    Stalin could not possibly permit National Socialist Germany to survive. National Socialism was not just a competing ideology - it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun. And there was no hope of exporting such an unpopular ideology except at the barrel of a gun.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France. The emergence of an ideology that tapped into nationalist sentiments was a mortal threat to any hope of spreading Soviet Communism into the rest of Europe.

    It also meant there was no hope of establishing Soviet-style communism in Germany, and Germany was the key to control of Europe. Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.
  108. Back on topic, yeah, go ahead and flip that thing around. Better yet, take it down and smash it. The whole postwar “conservative” edifice, movement conservatives, neoconservatives, values conservatives, whatever, was never anything more than a bait-and-switch sales pitch for elitist agendas. Ronnie was a folksy pitchman, but he was at his core as elitist as the rest of them.

    Maybe the entire “conservative” label is a misnomer for those dedicated to the founding principles of the United States. The original conservatives, the British Tories, were dedicated to conserving the remaining power of aristocracy. The thirteen colonies rebelled against aristocratic power and founded a nation on classical liberal ideas that are now called “conservative” by true believers. Aristocratic power had to again be defeated in the American Civil War. Original-Americanists should call themselves classical liberals instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The thirteen colonies rebelled against aristocratic power and founded a nation on classical liberal ideas that are now called “conservative” by true believers. Aristocratic power had to again be defeated in the American Civil War. Original-Americanists should call themselves classical liberals instead.
     
    Agreed. There is really no tradition of conservatism in the US. Liberalism is the antithesis of conservatism.

    The whole postwar “conservative” edifice, movement conservatives, neoconservatives, values conservatives, whatever, was never anything more than a bait-and-switch sales pitch for elitist agendas.
     
    Again I agree. And by the 90s all political movements in the US were merely a front for the elites. There is no opposition.
  109. @Thirdeye

    Everything I’ve ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.
     
    You're right. I made the incorrect assumption that the Phalangist armor defeated the Republican armor using their German-supplied tanks. They defeated them with captured T-26es (which was what happened to the overwhelming majority of them BTW). In any event, the T-26 could be defeated by anything with heavier armament than a machine gun. It was hopelessly outmatched by the Mark IV in 1941. The preponderance of the T-26, with all of its known weaknesses, in the Soviet tank forces of 1941 showed just how ill-prepared they were to fight a war with Germany.

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?

    So the peace-loving Soviet Union needed 20,000 tanks for purely defensive purposes?

    And the Soviet Union was so ill-prepared for war in 1941 and yet Operation Barbarossa ended in complete failure? By the end of 1941 Germany had lost the war. For a country hopelessly ill-prepared for war the Soviets did pretty well to smash the German military machine, even with the Germans having the advantage of launching a surprise attack.

    The only scenario that makes sense is that the Soviets were so well-prepared for war that Germany’s only hope was a pre-emptive attack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    So the peace-loving Soviet Union needed 20,000 tanks for purely defensive purposes?
     
    If you add the total production of all Soviet tanks of the types avilable in 1941, you get a little under 20,000. Less than 1000 T-34s were available. That total doesn't for account for those that went to the Spanish Civil War, losses against the Japanese in Mongolia, which were considerable, and losses in the Winter War, which were catastrophic.

    Large numbers of tanks do not a capable offensive force make. The Red Army was severely deficient in the logistics capabilities required to support advancing armor. They were desperately short of trucks and locomotives. The tanks themselves had flaws that impaired their suitability for offensive battles. Only one in five Soviet tanks had a radio. Soviet armor was at best capable of low mobility positional war. And that's not even considering the state of the VVS at the outbreak of war, which was pathetic. They were still developing the replacements for the I-15s and the I-16s.

    The failure of Operation Barbarossa had as much to do with German mistakes, deteriorating logistics, and weather as it had to do with Soviet might. The Soviets forces defending Moscow were outnumbered but gained an edge because the severe freeze immobilized the German equipment that had not been winterized. The Luftwaffe was grounded. The VVS was still flying and even had some spankin' new Hurricanes - the best fighter in their inventory at that time.

    Hitler knew three things about the Soviets in 1940-41. He knew that its armed forces were ill-equipped and ill-prepared. He knew that they were bending over backwards to avoid confrontation with Germany. He knew that Soviet war production was only starting to roll and that their military power would overshadow Germany's within a year. He also knew that a campaign in Russia that extended into the winter would be courting disaster. The June 1941 date for Barbarossa was dictated by the twin necessities of attacking the Soviets before 1942 and completing the campaign before the weather deteriorated. Barbarossa in 1942 just was not going to be feasible. The notion that it was a pre-emptive attack against an imminent Soviet attack is nonsense.
  110. @Thirdeye
    The The bulk of the Soviet tank force at the outbreak of war with Germany consisted of T-26es. It was a 1930 design. It was inferior to the German tanks it faced in the Spanish Civil War. It was obsolete. The BT-7 was a more modern design that could be fitted with a powerful gun but its armor was inadequate against the German antitank guns. Production of the T-34 began in late 1940. The Soviets' shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow. The Moscow counterattack with T-34s was the first tank operation where the Soviets had been effective.

    Most of the Soviet fighter forces in 1941 consisted of Polikarpov I-15s (a biplane) and I-16s. The German Bf-109s tore them to shreds. The best fighter in the Soviet inventory was the British Hawker Hurricane, which started showing up in late 1941. The Soviet fighter force remained heavily dependent on lend-lease aircraft while more modern Soviet fighters were being developed in and geared for production in 1941-42. The Luftwaffe maintained a qualitative edge well into 1943. The Luftwaffe bomber force was built for exactly the mission it had on the eastern front: air support of ground operations.

    The Soviet supply routes were kept open by British and American naval power and the supplies were carried in British and American freighters.

    The Soviets were severely short on radios, even for their best armor and aircraft.

    Saying that the Soviet Union was better prepared than Germany for war in 1941 is like a bad joke.

    The Soviets’ shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow.

    I don’t know where the Russians got Cromwells in 1941. The Cromwell did not enter production until the end of 1942.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    It must have been the other British heavy "C" tank, the Churchill, which was in service in 1941. Tanks and Hurricane fighters were among the very first weapons shipped to the Soviets under lend-lease.
  111. @Thirdeye
    Back on topic, yeah, go ahead and flip that thing around. Better yet, take it down and smash it. The whole postwar "conservative" edifice, movement conservatives, neoconservatives, values conservatives, whatever, was never anything more than a bait-and-switch sales pitch for elitist agendas. Ronnie was a folksy pitchman, but he was at his core as elitist as the rest of them.

    Maybe the entire "conservative" label is a misnomer for those dedicated to the founding principles of the United States. The original conservatives, the British Tories, were dedicated to conserving the remaining power of aristocracy. The thirteen colonies rebelled against aristocratic power and founded a nation on classical liberal ideas that are now called "conservative" by true believers. Aristocratic power had to again be defeated in the American Civil War. Original-Americanists should call themselves classical liberals instead.

    The thirteen colonies rebelled against aristocratic power and founded a nation on classical liberal ideas that are now called “conservative” by true believers. Aristocratic power had to again be defeated in the American Civil War. Original-Americanists should call themselves classical liberals instead.

    Agreed. There is really no tradition of conservatism in the US. Liberalism is the antithesis of conservatism.

    The whole postwar “conservative” edifice, movement conservatives, neoconservatives, values conservatives, whatever, was never anything more than a bait-and-switch sales pitch for elitist agendas.

    Again I agree. And by the 90s all political movements in the US were merely a front for the elites. There is no opposition.

    Read More
  112. @dfordoom

    The Soviets’ shortage of adequate battle tanks in late 1941 forced them to press lend-lease Cromwell and Grant tanks into service in the defense of Moscow.
     
    I don't know where the Russians got Cromwells in 1941. The Cromwell did not enter production until the end of 1942.

    It must have been the other British heavy “C” tank, the Churchill, which was in service in 1941. Tanks and Hurricane fighters were among the very first weapons shipped to the Soviets under lend-lease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It must have been the other British heavy “C” tank, the Churchill, which was in service in 1941.
     
    Very unlikely. The Churchill did not see service even with the British until mid-1942. The only British tank likely to have reached the Russians in 1941 was the Valentine infantry tank. The amount of Lend-Lease equipment received by the Russians in 1941 was fairly small. Obviously very large amounts reached the Russians later in the war. The Red Army did not need any help to halt the German invasion.

    The Lend-Lease equipment was not needed to save the Soviets from defeat in 1941. It did however allow the Red Army to overrun the whole of eastern Europe in 1944-45.
  113. @Thirdeye

    Everything I’ve ever read about the Spanish Civil War suggests that the T-26 outclassed the German tanks by a wide margin.
     
    You're right. I made the incorrect assumption that the Phalangist armor defeated the Republican armor using their German-supplied tanks. They defeated them with captured T-26es (which was what happened to the overwhelming majority of them BTW). In any event, the T-26 could be defeated by anything with heavier armament than a machine gun. It was hopelessly outmatched by the Mark IV in 1941. The preponderance of the T-26, with all of its known weaknesses, in the Soviet tank forces of 1941 showed just how ill-prepared they were to fight a war with Germany.

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?

    Stalin could not possibly permit National Socialist Germany to survive. National Socialism was not just a competing ideology – it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun. And there was no hope of exporting such an unpopular ideology except at the barrel of a gun.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France. The emergence of an ideology that tapped into nationalist sentiments was a mortal threat to any hope of spreading Soviet Communism into the rest of Europe.

    It also meant there was no hope of establishing Soviet-style communism in Germany, and Germany was the key to control of Europe. Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    National Socialism was not just a competing ideology – it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun.
     
    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers' paradise. The German Left as a whole had a broader base of popular support than the Nazis did, but they were so bitterly divided with infighting that they were ineffective at stopping the Nazis. The French Left also had a broad base of support but it was also bitterly divided and the Communists were increasingly suppressed by the French government until they were driven underground in 1939. The ruling classes of Britain and France were divided on whether Nazis or Communists were the greater threat. Chamberlain and Daladier were tilted towards favoring Nazis over Communists, with the hope that Nazi Germany could be brought to heel and encouraged to turn its fury against the Soviets rather than their ally Poland. Churchill thought otherwise.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France.
     
    Ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic ideologies inevitably conflict with each other. The conflict between Poland and Germany was an excellent case in point. Poland, like Nazi Germany, had a strongly ethnic-chauvinist, anti-Jewish, and expansionist sense of nationhood. One of Hitler's first moves after he came to power was to court Poland as an ally against the Soviets. But the ideologies of the two governments demanded support for conflicting expansionist aims. Poland wasn't about to make concessions over the Danzig corridor for the sake of their relationship to Germany, let alone over the issue of who had a rightful claim to the Ukraine. The only way National Socialism was going to be "exported" in Europe was if the importers decided to accept status as vassals of Germany. And a lot of French Nazi collaborators did.

    Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.
     
    Stalin would have been a fool not to seek the military strength to defeat a power that had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union. Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany's ambitions. The deterrent of massive Soviet forces kept Operation Unthinkable from being anything more than a pipe dream of Winston Churchill.
  114. @dfordoom

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?
     
    So the peace-loving Soviet Union needed 20,000 tanks for purely defensive purposes?

    And the Soviet Union was so ill-prepared for war in 1941 and yet Operation Barbarossa ended in complete failure? By the end of 1941 Germany had lost the war. For a country hopelessly ill-prepared for war the Soviets did pretty well to smash the German military machine, even with the Germans having the advantage of launching a surprise attack.

    The only scenario that makes sense is that the Soviets were so well-prepared for war that Germany's only hope was a pre-emptive attack.

    So the peace-loving Soviet Union needed 20,000 tanks for purely defensive purposes?

    If you add the total production of all Soviet tanks of the types avilable in 1941, you get a little under 20,000. Less than 1000 T-34s were available. That total doesn’t for account for those that went to the Spanish Civil War, losses against the Japanese in Mongolia, which were considerable, and losses in the Winter War, which were catastrophic.

    Large numbers of tanks do not a capable offensive force make. The Red Army was severely deficient in the logistics capabilities required to support advancing armor. They were desperately short of trucks and locomotives. The tanks themselves had flaws that impaired their suitability for offensive battles. Only one in five Soviet tanks had a radio. Soviet armor was at best capable of low mobility positional war. And that’s not even considering the state of the VVS at the outbreak of war, which was pathetic. They were still developing the replacements for the I-15s and the I-16s.

    The failure of Operation Barbarossa had as much to do with German mistakes, deteriorating logistics, and weather as it had to do with Soviet might. The Soviets forces defending Moscow were outnumbered but gained an edge because the severe freeze immobilized the German equipment that had not been winterized. The Luftwaffe was grounded. The VVS was still flying and even had some spankin’ new Hurricanes – the best fighter in their inventory at that time.

    Hitler knew three things about the Soviets in 1940-41. He knew that its armed forces were ill-equipped and ill-prepared. He knew that they were bending over backwards to avoid confrontation with Germany. He knew that Soviet war production was only starting to roll and that their military power would overshadow Germany’s within a year. He also knew that a campaign in Russia that extended into the winter would be courting disaster. The June 1941 date for Barbarossa was dictated by the twin necessities of attacking the Soviets before 1942 and completing the campaign before the weather deteriorated. Barbarossa in 1942 just was not going to be feasible. The notion that it was a pre-emptive attack against an imminent Soviet attack is nonsense.

    Read More
  115. @dfordoom

    The Soviets were ill-prepared for war in 1941 and they knew it. The notion that they were about to attack Germany is ludicrous. Are you ready to concede that?
     
    Stalin could not possibly permit National Socialist Germany to survive. National Socialism was not just a competing ideology - it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun. And there was no hope of exporting such an unpopular ideology except at the barrel of a gun.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France. The emergence of an ideology that tapped into nationalist sentiments was a mortal threat to any hope of spreading Soviet Communism into the rest of Europe.

    It also meant there was no hope of establishing Soviet-style communism in Germany, and Germany was the key to control of Europe. Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.

    National Socialism was not just a competing ideology – it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun.

    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers’ paradise. The German Left as a whole had a broader base of popular support than the Nazis did, but they were so bitterly divided with infighting that they were ineffective at stopping the Nazis. The French Left also had a broad base of support but it was also bitterly divided and the Communists were increasingly suppressed by the French government until they were driven underground in 1939. The ruling classes of Britain and France were divided on whether Nazis or Communists were the greater threat. Chamberlain and Daladier were tilted towards favoring Nazis over Communists, with the hope that Nazi Germany could be brought to heel and encouraged to turn its fury against the Soviets rather than their ally Poland. Churchill thought otherwise.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France.

    Ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic ideologies inevitably conflict with each other. The conflict between Poland and Germany was an excellent case in point. Poland, like Nazi Germany, had a strongly ethnic-chauvinist, anti-Jewish, and expansionist sense of nationhood. One of Hitler’s first moves after he came to power was to court Poland as an ally against the Soviets. But the ideologies of the two governments demanded support for conflicting expansionist aims. Poland wasn’t about to make concessions over the Danzig corridor for the sake of their relationship to Germany, let alone over the issue of who had a rightful claim to the Ukraine. The only way National Socialism was going to be “exported” in Europe was if the importers decided to accept status as vassals of Germany. And a lot of French Nazi collaborators did.

    Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.

    Stalin would have been a fool not to seek the military strength to defeat a power that had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union. Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany’s ambitions. The deterrent of massive Soviet forces kept Operation Unthinkable from being anything more than a pipe dream of Winston Churchill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers’ paradise.
     
    True enough, but that idea was mostly prevalent among intellectuals. Intellectuals as a breed are notoriously disconnected from reality. Actual workers usually have a lot more sense than intellectuals.

    National Socialism and fascism had more potential for winning genuine popular support because they combined much of the appeal of socialism with the appeal of nationalism. Nationalism wasn't very popular among intellectuals but it was very very popular with almost everyone else.

    And Soviet communism had no appeal at all in the 1930s to anyone who actually had to live under it.
    , @dfordoom

    Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany’s ambitions.
     
    What's curious is the relative feebleness of Germany's military preparations. Even after September 1939 the German economy was not put on a war footing. If it's true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces? Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?

    The campaigns in 1939 and 1940 had exposed glaring deficiencies in the German military machine. Their tanks were hopelessly outclassed by the British Matilda infantry tanks and by the French heavy tanks and the new French Somua medium tanks. Only the gross ineptitude of the French High Command and the utter futility of French military doctrine allowed Germany to defeat France. With a single armoured division de Gaulle was able to put an almighty scare into the Germans. If the French had concentrated their armour and if de Gaulle had had an armoured corps under his command the Germans would have been in real trouble.

    The Battle of Britain exposed major weaknesses in the Luftwaffe. Their medium bombers were slow, vulnerable and basically obsolete. Their Stukas were easy meat for fighters.

    The Germans had by 1941 done very little to correct these deficiencies. The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?
  116. @Thirdeye
    It must have been the other British heavy "C" tank, the Churchill, which was in service in 1941. Tanks and Hurricane fighters were among the very first weapons shipped to the Soviets under lend-lease.

    It must have been the other British heavy “C” tank, the Churchill, which was in service in 1941.

    Very unlikely. The Churchill did not see service even with the British until mid-1942. The only British tank likely to have reached the Russians in 1941 was the Valentine infantry tank. The amount of Lend-Lease equipment received by the Russians in 1941 was fairly small. Obviously very large amounts reached the Russians later in the war. The Red Army did not need any help to halt the German invasion.

    The Lend-Lease equipment was not needed to save the Soviets from defeat in 1941. It did however allow the Red Army to overrun the whole of eastern Europe in 1944-45.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    The Lend-Lease equipment was not needed to save the Soviets from defeat in 1941. It did however allow the Red Army to overrun the whole of eastern Europe in 1944-45.
     
    Bullshit!!! Lend-lease equipment only accounted for 4% of the Red Army's war materiel over the entire conflict. It was mainly important as a replacement for losses in the early months of the war, as Soviet production was severely disrupted and more modern Soviet equipment was coming in at a trickle until the Ural factories could get up to speed. The loss of Kharkov and the Donbas put a severe crimp in Soviet war production.
  117. @Thirdeye

    National Socialism was not just a competing ideology – it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun.
     
    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers' paradise. The German Left as a whole had a broader base of popular support than the Nazis did, but they were so bitterly divided with infighting that they were ineffective at stopping the Nazis. The French Left also had a broad base of support but it was also bitterly divided and the Communists were increasingly suppressed by the French government until they were driven underground in 1939. The ruling classes of Britain and France were divided on whether Nazis or Communists were the greater threat. Chamberlain and Daladier were tilted towards favoring Nazis over Communists, with the hope that Nazi Germany could be brought to heel and encouraged to turn its fury against the Soviets rather than their ally Poland. Churchill thought otherwise.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France.
     
    Ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic ideologies inevitably conflict with each other. The conflict between Poland and Germany was an excellent case in point. Poland, like Nazi Germany, had a strongly ethnic-chauvinist, anti-Jewish, and expansionist sense of nationhood. One of Hitler's first moves after he came to power was to court Poland as an ally against the Soviets. But the ideologies of the two governments demanded support for conflicting expansionist aims. Poland wasn't about to make concessions over the Danzig corridor for the sake of their relationship to Germany, let alone over the issue of who had a rightful claim to the Ukraine. The only way National Socialism was going to be "exported" in Europe was if the importers decided to accept status as vassals of Germany. And a lot of French Nazi collaborators did.

    Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.
     
    Stalin would have been a fool not to seek the military strength to defeat a power that had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union. Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany's ambitions. The deterrent of massive Soviet forces kept Operation Unthinkable from being anything more than a pipe dream of Winston Churchill.

    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers’ paradise.

    True enough, but that idea was mostly prevalent among intellectuals. Intellectuals as a breed are notoriously disconnected from reality. Actual workers usually have a lot more sense than intellectuals.

    National Socialism and fascism had more potential for winning genuine popular support because they combined much of the appeal of socialism with the appeal of nationalism. Nationalism wasn’t very popular among intellectuals but it was very very popular with almost everyone else.

    And Soviet communism had no appeal at all in the 1930s to anyone who actually had to live under it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    True enough, but [the popularity of Soviet communism] was mostly prevalent among intellectuals.
     
    The Communist Parties in Europe and the United States had a large base in the labor movement and they had the ear of union cadres because of their status as union activists. Comintern doctrine from 1933 on was that Communist Parties should establish a power base that would move Western governments towards favoring the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, rather than trying to foment revolution. The domestic approach of the Communist Parties moved towards that of the Social Democratic parties, although the two camps were bitterly divided against each other. The appeal of Soviet communism among intellectuals reached its zenith in the 1920s but started to decline as news of Stalin's repression and the generally awful situation in the USSR leaked out. The rift between the intellectual Left and the Communists widened over the purges of the late 1930s and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Whatever affinity remained between the intellectual Left and Communists was shredded by the Kruschev revelations and the emerging popularity of Frankfurt School ideas among intellectuals.

    National Socialism and fascism had more potential for winning genuine popular support because they combined much of the appeal of socialism with the appeal of nationalism. Nationalism wasn’t very popular among intellectuals but it was very very popular with almost everyone else.
     
    The populist, romantic nationalism of National Socialism etc. definitely had a broad appeal, including among some intellectuals. But the bases of support for communism and National Socialism etc. were among different segments of the population. National Socialism etc. shifted the balance in their favor by forming alliances among the ruling classes that gained them financial and material support. The Catholic hierarchy also came down on the side of National Socialism etc. Of course they had buyer's remorse once they saw National Socialism in action.
  118. @Thirdeye

    National Socialism was not just a competing ideology – it was an ideology with a lot more appeal than Soviet Communism. Soviet Communism was so hated that it could only be imposed, and then maintained, at the barrel of a gun.
     
    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers' paradise. The German Left as a whole had a broader base of popular support than the Nazis did, but they were so bitterly divided with infighting that they were ineffective at stopping the Nazis. The French Left also had a broad base of support but it was also bitterly divided and the Communists were increasingly suppressed by the French government until they were driven underground in 1939. The ruling classes of Britain and France were divided on whether Nazis or Communists were the greater threat. Chamberlain and Daladier were tilted towards favoring Nazis over Communists, with the hope that Nazi Germany could be brought to heel and encouraged to turn its fury against the Soviets rather than their ally Poland. Churchill thought otherwise.

    National Socialism on the other hand was relatively popular. And it had considerable export potential. There was no reason why variants on the theme could not develop in eastern European countries like Hungary and Poland. Or even western European countries like France.
     
    Ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic ideologies inevitably conflict with each other. The conflict between Poland and Germany was an excellent case in point. Poland, like Nazi Germany, had a strongly ethnic-chauvinist, anti-Jewish, and expansionist sense of nationhood. One of Hitler's first moves after he came to power was to court Poland as an ally against the Soviets. But the ideologies of the two governments demanded support for conflicting expansionist aims. Poland wasn't about to make concessions over the Danzig corridor for the sake of their relationship to Germany, let alone over the issue of who had a rightful claim to the Ukraine. The only way National Socialism was going to be "exported" in Europe was if the importers decided to accept status as vassals of Germany. And a lot of French Nazi collaborators did.

    Logically Stalin had to be making plans to crush National Socialist Germany. Hence the massive military buildup by the Soviets.
     
    Stalin would have been a fool not to seek the military strength to defeat a power that had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union. Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany's ambitions. The deterrent of massive Soviet forces kept Operation Unthinkable from being anything more than a pipe dream of Winston Churchill.

    Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany’s ambitions.

    What’s curious is the relative feebleness of Germany’s military preparations. Even after September 1939 the German economy was not put on a war footing. If it’s true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces? Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?

    The campaigns in 1939 and 1940 had exposed glaring deficiencies in the German military machine. Their tanks were hopelessly outclassed by the British Matilda infantry tanks and by the French heavy tanks and the new French Somua medium tanks. Only the gross ineptitude of the French High Command and the utter futility of French military doctrine allowed Germany to defeat France. With a single armoured division de Gaulle was able to put an almighty scare into the Germans. If the French had concentrated their armour and if de Gaulle had had an armoured corps under his command the Germans would have been in real trouble.

    The Battle of Britain exposed major weaknesses in the Luftwaffe. Their medium bombers were slow, vulnerable and basically obsolete. Their Stukas were easy meat for fighters.

    The Germans had by 1941 done very little to correct these deficiencies. The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    If it’s true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces?
     
    Because Germany realized that the Red Army, despite its numbers, was ludicrously ill-prepared. Their performance in the Winter War gave Germany even more confidence that a quick strike against the Soviets would succeed. Germany also realized that by mid 1942 there would be a very different balance of forces against the Soviets that Germany lacked the resources to overcome.

    We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. —Adolf Hitler
     
    Hitler was almost right. But "almost" doesn't count for much in matters of war.

    Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?
     
    Mainly, overconfidence and resource limitations. See Hitler's quote above illustrating overconfidence.

    The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.
     
    Already answered.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?
     
    Stalin's stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern's directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army. Austria and Yugoslavia were ceded independence in exchange for neutrality. If you want prima facie evidence of aggressive intentions in addition to those of Nazi Germany, I suggest you look into "Operation Unthinkable."
  119. @dfordoom

    The idea was still prevalent among opposition to the ruling classes in Europe during the 1930s that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers’ paradise.
     
    True enough, but that idea was mostly prevalent among intellectuals. Intellectuals as a breed are notoriously disconnected from reality. Actual workers usually have a lot more sense than intellectuals.

    National Socialism and fascism had more potential for winning genuine popular support because they combined much of the appeal of socialism with the appeal of nationalism. Nationalism wasn't very popular among intellectuals but it was very very popular with almost everyone else.

    And Soviet communism had no appeal at all in the 1930s to anyone who actually had to live under it.

    True enough, but [the popularity of Soviet communism] was mostly prevalent among intellectuals.

    The Communist Parties in Europe and the United States had a large base in the labor movement and they had the ear of union cadres because of their status as union activists. Comintern doctrine from 1933 on was that Communist Parties should establish a power base that would move Western governments towards favoring the Soviet Union over Nazi Germany, rather than trying to foment revolution. The domestic approach of the Communist Parties moved towards that of the Social Democratic parties, although the two camps were bitterly divided against each other. The appeal of Soviet communism among intellectuals reached its zenith in the 1920s but started to decline as news of Stalin’s repression and the generally awful situation in the USSR leaked out. The rift between the intellectual Left and the Communists widened over the purges of the late 1930s and the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Whatever affinity remained between the intellectual Left and Communists was shredded by the Kruschev revelations and the emerging popularity of Frankfurt School ideas among intellectuals.

    National Socialism and fascism had more potential for winning genuine popular support because they combined much of the appeal of socialism with the appeal of nationalism. Nationalism wasn’t very popular among intellectuals but it was very very popular with almost everyone else.

    The populist, romantic nationalism of National Socialism etc. definitely had a broad appeal, including among some intellectuals. But the bases of support for communism and National Socialism etc. were among different segments of the population. National Socialism etc. shifted the balance in their favor by forming alliances among the ruling classes that gained them financial and material support. The Catholic hierarchy also came down on the side of National Socialism etc. Of course they had buyer’s remorse once they saw National Socialism in action.

    Read More
  120. @dfordoom

    Given another year of building modern armed forces, Stalin would have had a deterrent against Germany’s ambitions.
     
    What's curious is the relative feebleness of Germany's military preparations. Even after September 1939 the German economy was not put on a war footing. If it's true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces? Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?

    The campaigns in 1939 and 1940 had exposed glaring deficiencies in the German military machine. Their tanks were hopelessly outclassed by the British Matilda infantry tanks and by the French heavy tanks and the new French Somua medium tanks. Only the gross ineptitude of the French High Command and the utter futility of French military doctrine allowed Germany to defeat France. With a single armoured division de Gaulle was able to put an almighty scare into the Germans. If the French had concentrated their armour and if de Gaulle had had an armoured corps under his command the Germans would have been in real trouble.

    The Battle of Britain exposed major weaknesses in the Luftwaffe. Their medium bombers were slow, vulnerable and basically obsolete. Their Stukas were easy meat for fighters.

    The Germans had by 1941 done very little to correct these deficiencies. The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?

    If it’s true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces?

    Because Germany realized that the Red Army, despite its numbers, was ludicrously ill-prepared. Their performance in the Winter War gave Germany even more confidence that a quick strike against the Soviets would succeed. Germany also realized that by mid 1942 there would be a very different balance of forces against the Soviets that Germany lacked the resources to overcome.

    We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. —Adolf Hitler

    Hitler was almost right. But “almost” doesn’t count for much in matters of war.

    Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?

    Mainly, overconfidence and resource limitations. See Hitler’s quote above illustrating overconfidence.

    The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.

    Already answered.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern’s directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army. Austria and Yugoslavia were ceded independence in exchange for neutrality. If you want prima facie evidence of aggressive intentions in addition to those of Nazi Germany, I suggest you look into “Operation Unthinkable.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed.
     
    Yes, it was defensive because they had conquered most of eastern Europe.

    But we were talking about Stalin’s stance towards the rest of Europe in 1939 and 1941, not 1945. I'd describe Stalin's strategy during the 30s as opportunistic rather than defensive. The nightmare scenario for the Soviets was an alliance of the western powers against him, an alliance that might have included Britain, France and Germany. He was certainly prepared to take a defensive posture in order to avoid such a nightmare. But if the western powers could be persuaded to fight among themselves he was not going to let such an opportunity slip past him. And if the Germans were foolish enough to get involved in a war with the French and the British then the chance of attacking Germany would have been too tempting to ignore. The Germans always faced the problem that a war on two fronts meant certain defeat.

    If the Soviet Union wanted security then a hostile or even potentially Germany had to be eliminated. The best way to do that would be to establish a soviet communist Germany. And the best way to achieve that, indeed the only way, was to conquer Germany. Stalin was a realist and he was prepared to be cautious when caution was advantageous but he was ambitious and cynical as well.
    , @dfordoom

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern’s directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army.
     
    I agree that the Soviet grand strategy became increasingly defensive after 1945. It was obvious that the Soviets were not going to make any further gains in Europe, at least not for a very long time.

    It's ironic that in the days when the Soviet Union really was an evil empire and an existential threat to the West the West did everything possible to prop up the Soviet regime and was prepared to give the Soviets the military aid they needed to conquer eastern Europe.

    But by the time Reagan started carrying on about the evil empire the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. It was the US that was now the aggressor.
  121. @dfordoom

    It must have been the other British heavy “C” tank, the Churchill, which was in service in 1941.
     
    Very unlikely. The Churchill did not see service even with the British until mid-1942. The only British tank likely to have reached the Russians in 1941 was the Valentine infantry tank. The amount of Lend-Lease equipment received by the Russians in 1941 was fairly small. Obviously very large amounts reached the Russians later in the war. The Red Army did not need any help to halt the German invasion.

    The Lend-Lease equipment was not needed to save the Soviets from defeat in 1941. It did however allow the Red Army to overrun the whole of eastern Europe in 1944-45.

    The Lend-Lease equipment was not needed to save the Soviets from defeat in 1941. It did however allow the Red Army to overrun the whole of eastern Europe in 1944-45.

    Bullshit!!! Lend-lease equipment only accounted for 4% of the Red Army’s war materiel over the entire conflict. It was mainly important as a replacement for losses in the early months of the war, as Soviet production was severely disrupted and more modern Soviet equipment was coming in at a trickle until the Ural factories could get up to speed. The loss of Kharkov and the Donbas put a severe crimp in Soviet war production.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Bullshit!!! Lend-lease equipment only accounted for 4% of the Red Army’s war materiel over the entire conflict. It was mainly important as a replacement for losses in the early months of the war
     
    You're making the mistake of focusing on things like tanks and aircraft and you're ignoring the several hundred thousand trucks sent to the Soviets. It was those trucks that allowed the Soviets to engage in fast-moving mobile warfare which in turn allowed them to overrun eastern Europe. Without those trucks the Red Army 's mobile warfare capabilities would have been much more limited. Without those trucks sent to the Soviets the Germans would have been able to slow the Soviet advance and much of eastern Europe would not have ended up in Stalin's hands in 1945.

    The Lend-Lease aid that mattered was not tanks and aircraft. It was things like trucks, jeeps and field telephones - all those unglamorous things that are often overlooked but without which you cannot wage war.
  122. @Thirdeye

    The Lend-Lease equipment was not needed to save the Soviets from defeat in 1941. It did however allow the Red Army to overrun the whole of eastern Europe in 1944-45.
     
    Bullshit!!! Lend-lease equipment only accounted for 4% of the Red Army's war materiel over the entire conflict. It was mainly important as a replacement for losses in the early months of the war, as Soviet production was severely disrupted and more modern Soviet equipment was coming in at a trickle until the Ural factories could get up to speed. The loss of Kharkov and the Donbas put a severe crimp in Soviet war production.

    Bullshit!!! Lend-lease equipment only accounted for 4% of the Red Army’s war materiel over the entire conflict. It was mainly important as a replacement for losses in the early months of the war

    You’re making the mistake of focusing on things like tanks and aircraft and you’re ignoring the several hundred thousand trucks sent to the Soviets. It was those trucks that allowed the Soviets to engage in fast-moving mobile warfare which in turn allowed them to overrun eastern Europe. Without those trucks the Red Army ‘s mobile warfare capabilities would have been much more limited. Without those trucks sent to the Soviets the Germans would have been able to slow the Soviet advance and much of eastern Europe would not have ended up in Stalin’s hands in 1945.

    The Lend-Lease aid that mattered was not tanks and aircraft. It was things like trucks, jeeps and field telephones – all those unglamorous things that are often overlooked but without which you cannot wage war.

    Read More
  123. @Thirdeye

    If it’s true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces?
     
    Because Germany realized that the Red Army, despite its numbers, was ludicrously ill-prepared. Their performance in the Winter War gave Germany even more confidence that a quick strike against the Soviets would succeed. Germany also realized that by mid 1942 there would be a very different balance of forces against the Soviets that Germany lacked the resources to overcome.

    We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. —Adolf Hitler
     
    Hitler was almost right. But "almost" doesn't count for much in matters of war.

    Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?
     
    Mainly, overconfidence and resource limitations. See Hitler's quote above illustrating overconfidence.

    The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.
     
    Already answered.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?
     
    Stalin's stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern's directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army. Austria and Yugoslavia were ceded independence in exchange for neutrality. If you want prima facie evidence of aggressive intentions in addition to those of Nazi Germany, I suggest you look into "Operation Unthinkable."

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed.

    Yes, it was defensive because they had conquered most of eastern Europe.

    But we were talking about Stalin’s stance towards the rest of Europe in 1939 and 1941, not 1945. I’d describe Stalin’s strategy during the 30s as opportunistic rather than defensive. The nightmare scenario for the Soviets was an alliance of the western powers against him, an alliance that might have included Britain, France and Germany. He was certainly prepared to take a defensive posture in order to avoid such a nightmare. But if the western powers could be persuaded to fight among themselves he was not going to let such an opportunity slip past him. And if the Germans were foolish enough to get involved in a war with the French and the British then the chance of attacking Germany would have been too tempting to ignore. The Germans always faced the problem that a war on two fronts meant certain defeat.

    If the Soviet Union wanted security then a hostile or even potentially Germany had to be eliminated. The best way to do that would be to establish a soviet communist Germany. And the best way to achieve that, indeed the only way, was to conquer Germany. Stalin was a realist and he was prepared to be cautious when caution was advantageous but he was ambitious and cynical as well.

    Read More
  124. @Thirdeye

    If it’s true that Germany had declared itself the mortal enemy of the Soviet Union then why did Germany end up launching Operation Barbarossa with ludicrously inadequate forces?
     
    Because Germany realized that the Red Army, despite its numbers, was ludicrously ill-prepared. Their performance in the Winter War gave Germany even more confidence that a quick strike against the Soviets would succeed. Germany also realized that by mid 1942 there would be a very different balance of forces against the Soviets that Germany lacked the resources to overcome.

    We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. —Adolf Hitler
     
    Hitler was almost right. But "almost" doesn't count for much in matters of war.

    Why was Germany entirely unprepared for a long war?
     
    Mainly, overconfidence and resource limitations. See Hitler's quote above illustrating overconfidence.

    The idea that Operation Barbarossa was a desperate gamble to get in the first blow before Stalin struck seems extremely plausible in the circumstances.
     
    Already answered.

    Are you really arguing that Stalin had no aggressive intentions at all?
     
    Stalin's stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern's directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army. Austria and Yugoslavia were ceded independence in exchange for neutrality. If you want prima facie evidence of aggressive intentions in addition to those of Nazi Germany, I suggest you look into "Operation Unthinkable."

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern’s directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army.

    I agree that the Soviet grand strategy became increasingly defensive after 1945. It was obvious that the Soviets were not going to make any further gains in Europe, at least not for a very long time.

    It’s ironic that in the days when the Soviet Union really was an evil empire and an existential threat to the West the West did everything possible to prop up the Soviet regime and was prepared to give the Soviets the military aid they needed to conquer eastern Europe.

    But by the time Reagan started carrying on about the evil empire the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Say whaaaat?
    , @Thirdeye

    And if the Germans were foolish enough to get involved in a war with the French and the British then the chance of attacking Germany would have been too tempting to ignore.
     
    But the Germans were foolish enough to to get in a war with the French and the British and the Soviets did not attack Germany while they were preoccupied with defeating France.

    It’s ironic that in the days when the Soviet Union really was an evil empire and an existential threat to the West the West did everything possible to prop up the Soviet regime and was prepared to give the Soviets the military aid they needed to conquer eastern Europe.
     
    Propping up the Soviet Union was the West's best chance to defeat Germany, which had demonstrated itself to be the existential threat. According to the Wehrmacht's loss records, between 75% and 80% of their KIA were on the eastern front.
  125. @dfordoom

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern’s directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army.
     
    I agree that the Soviet grand strategy became increasingly defensive after 1945. It was obvious that the Soviets were not going to make any further gains in Europe, at least not for a very long time.

    It's ironic that in the days when the Soviet Union really was an evil empire and an existential threat to the West the West did everything possible to prop up the Soviet regime and was prepared to give the Soviets the military aid they needed to conquer eastern Europe.

    But by the time Reagan started carrying on about the evil empire the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Say whaaaat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Say whaaaat?
     
    Carter shredded the detente. His rhetoric was about supporting human rights and democracy while he destabilized Afghanistan, leading to the Taliban takeover, and ramped up defense spending. Sound familiar? Zbigniew Brzezinski marked the beginning of neocon control over US foreign policy.
  126. @dfordoom

    Stalin’s stance towards western Europe was defensive. At the end of the war, the Soviets had what they thought they needed. The Comintern’s directives to the Communist Parties of western Europe as the axis was being defeated did not reflect a desire to establish hegemony beyond the territories occupied by the Red Army.
     
    I agree that the Soviet grand strategy became increasingly defensive after 1945. It was obvious that the Soviets were not going to make any further gains in Europe, at least not for a very long time.

    It's ironic that in the days when the Soviet Union really was an evil empire and an existential threat to the West the West did everything possible to prop up the Soviet regime and was prepared to give the Soviets the military aid they needed to conquer eastern Europe.

    But by the time Reagan started carrying on about the evil empire the Soviet Union was no longer a threat. It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    And if the Germans were foolish enough to get involved in a war with the French and the British then the chance of attacking Germany would have been too tempting to ignore.

    But the Germans were foolish enough to to get in a war with the French and the British and the Soviets did not attack Germany while they were preoccupied with defeating France.

    It’s ironic that in the days when the Soviet Union really was an evil empire and an existential threat to the West the West did everything possible to prop up the Soviet regime and was prepared to give the Soviets the military aid they needed to conquer eastern Europe.

    Propping up the Soviet Union was the West’s best chance to defeat Germany, which had demonstrated itself to be the existential threat. According to the Wehrmacht’s loss records, between 75% and 80% of their KIA were on the eastern front.

    Read More
  127. @iffen
    It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Say whaaaat?

    It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Say whaaaat?

    Carter shredded the detente. His rhetoric was about supporting human rights and democracy while he destabilized Afghanistan, leading to the Taliban takeover, and ramped up defense spending. Sound familiar? Zbigniew Brzezinski marked the beginning of neocon control over US foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.
  128. @Thirdeye

    It was the US that was now the aggressor.

    Say whaaaat?
     
    Carter shredded the detente. His rhetoric was about supporting human rights and democracy while he destabilized Afghanistan, leading to the Taliban takeover, and ramped up defense spending. Sound familiar? Zbigniew Brzezinski marked the beginning of neocon control over US foreign policy.

    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.
     
    Support was channeled through KSA before the Soviet invasion. It was Brzezinski's project.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.
     
    So what? Neocon is a geopolitical ideology, not a religion. Is Dick Cheney also not a neocon because he's not Jewish?
    , @MarkinLA
    http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    Brzezinski's own words.
  129. @iffen
    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.

    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.

    Support was channeled through KSA before the Soviet invasion. It was Brzezinski’s project.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.

    So what? Neocon is a geopolitical ideology, not a religion. Is Dick Cheney also not a neocon because he’s not Jewish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I thought leftist Jews were supposed to be the "brains" behind the whole neoconservative political posture from it inception. You are telling me that the initial kick-off to our eternal wars was put into place by a Polish-American?
  130. @Thirdeye

    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.
     
    Support was channeled through KSA before the Soviet invasion. It was Brzezinski's project.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.
     
    So what? Neocon is a geopolitical ideology, not a religion. Is Dick Cheney also not a neocon because he's not Jewish?

    I thought leftist Jews were supposed to be the “brains” behind the whole neoconservative political posture from it inception. You are telling me that the initial kick-off to our eternal wars was put into place by a Polish-American?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Jewish neocons were Cold War liberals before they were neocons. Calling that camp "leftist" is debatable at best. Ethnicity is irrelevant to whether or not someone is a neocon. Is that so difficult to grasp?
  131. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Truth is the needle that pricks the bubble of fantasy. If well-placed-and-timed, one prick of the needle can pop the biggest bubble of fantasy.

    Some folks need to be that needle. Even the biggest bubble is no match for the smallest needle.

    The enemy blow bubbles, honest folks apply the needle.

    Pop, Pop, Pop.

    Trump is much reviled cuz of the issue of Identity.

    Identity is the magnet, or the gravity, of power.

    Imagine a universe without gravity. Every particle would fly off on its own. There would be no suns, no planetary systems. It is the gravity that holds suns and planets and galaxies together.

    Without identity, we just fly apart.

    It is identity that pulls us together with a sense of history, unity, commonality, destiny, etc.

    Jews are powerful because they have the powerful pull of identity that unites past Jews with present Jews with future Jews. It unites Jews in all corners of the world: US, EU, Russia, Middle East, Latin America, North Africa, etc. Identity is the gravity of time and space for Jews.
    Without identity, Jewish individuals would still be successful and affluent, but there would no Jewish power to speak of since each Jew would be atomized.

    This is why Jews guard identity for themselves but try to take it away from others, especially white goyim.

    [MORE]

    Now, I’m not against individuality. We need both individuality and identity. Ayn Rand was nuts, but she was right about one thing. Individuals come up with the inspiration and vision to do stuff. Beethoven was an individual who did his own thing. Beethoven couldn’t have done what he did just by resting on the laurel of identity. If he stood around all day and felt, “Gee, I have German identity, and that makes me proud”, he would have been just an ordinary person. Instead, he dug into himself and uncovered his own particular brand of genius. Sure, individuals are part of a larger community and are influenced by the achievements of others. But each individual works differently with the same influences. After all, many German composers were exposed to the same musical influence that affected Beethoven, but most didn’t become Beethovens.

    If a thousand white people stand around and just share a sense of identity, they will be nothing more than ‘white’.
    For them to achieve things, they must work in the mode of individuals who create, organize, lead, envision, and etc. Without leaders, people are not even followers. They are nothing. To follow, there needs to be leaders to follow. Jews needed Moses. One can lead in vision, ideas, creativity, organization, etc. In school, each individual must do his own homework and take his own tests. He cannot just say “I’m white, so I just rely on the academic achievements of others.”

    So, individuality matters. After all, even an individual who doesn’t care one iota about identity can do great things. There have been plenty of great white leftist universalists who did remarkable things as creative individuals.
    In contrast, even a 100 million people with identity but without individuality will just stand around for someone else to do something or lead. Identity without individuality can be defensive but it is also passive since it is the individual who, by using mind and passion, becomes active. Even when people become active as a collective, they need to be led by individuals with vision and courage.

    But, in the end, individuality isn’t enough since every individual, no matter how great, lives for just several decades. For his achievement to mean something in the long run, he has to stand for something bigger than himself. The world doesn’t begin and end with an individual. Every individual is a link in a continuum.
    Identity outlasts individuality but mustn’t be a substitute for it. identity without individuality can lead to something like Nazism where Hitler was the super-individual and everyone else was like obedient sheep who, lacking individuality, just did as the super-individual Fuhrer said.
    National Socialism failed in the end because it was a Right without a mind. It looked great and did some good things, but when you shut off the mind of so many people, they will be sheep led to the slaughter. Communism failed for the same reason. Class identity without a mind.

    Trump is a showman and not to be trusted. But unwittingly, he’s ‘red-pilling’ a good number of people by serving as a conduit between white masses and the so-called Alt-Right that is serving as the needle against the bubbles of the Conservative Establishment. When National Review recruits the likes of Glenn Beck to lecture us about ‘reality’ and ‘truth’, I mean…

    To be red-pilled is the opposite of being red-diapered.

    Adults know that children are naive, innocent, and trusting. They can be made to believe in anything.

    So, principled people don’t try to politicize children from too young an age. They want to introduce children to culture, nature, arts, music, and etc. Ideology comes later as kids can think and argue critically.

    But the globo-progs are so full of themselves and so righteous in their ninny rage that they want to instill young ones with the ‘correct’ ideology as early as possible. Correct-from-Cradle. So, the kids get red-diapered Kids get rammed in the ass by PC. Progs are like ideological pedophiles. They seek to inseminate the kids with Correct Ideas as soon as possible. Also, progs prefer correctology over criticality since the critical mind asks too many questions and begins to question the very assumptions it has been instilled with.
    Also, progs prefer pageantry over pages-in-a-book since it uses the overwhelming power of sound and image to overwhelm the critical faculty.

    In the past, red-diapered meaning being raised as communist. Today, it means being raised globalist and homomaniacal.

    And the millennials are the way they are because of this kind of treatment. They’d been red-diapered. Or pink-diapered given that homomania is the new religion among the proGRelytizers.

    Then, we must red-pill the red-diapered.

    Read More
  132. @iffen
    I thought leftist Jews were supposed to be the "brains" behind the whole neoconservative political posture from it inception. You are telling me that the initial kick-off to our eternal wars was put into place by a Polish-American?

    Jewish neocons were Cold War liberals before they were neocons. Calling that camp “leftist” is debatable at best. Ethnicity is irrelevant to whether or not someone is a neocon. Is that so difficult to grasp?

    Read More
  133. Is that so difficult to grasp?

    Thanks, I am just trying to get a good grip on who and what the label covers.

    I think some people may use the term in an anti-Semitic manner.

    Read More
  134. @iffen
    I am under the impression that the US sent arms to Afghanistan as a response to the Soviet invasion.

    Besides, Brzezinski is not Jewish.
    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thanks for the link, it is always nice to have the facts.

    Do you suppose Brzezinski ever came to terms within himself for the following?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    Brzezinski: Nonsense!
  135. @MarkinLA
    http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    Brzezinski's own words.

    Thanks for the link, it is always nice to have the facts.

    Do you suppose Brzezinski ever came to terms within himself for the following?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    Brzezinski: Nonsense!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I doubt it, he will go to his grave thinking he was part of something noble.

    I think a lot of cold warrior types think the whole thing was worth it. I know when I worked in defense a lot of the people who were drafted in the late 50s early 60s thought so. They actually look at it as the US "winning" something instead of it being the massive waste of blood and treasure it became. Given him being Polish, he also had a natural hatred of all things Russian and he got to use the resources of the US government to act on it.

    George Kennan's containment wasn't about the US sticking it's nose militarily in every corner of the world in some endless hunt for hidden Soviet stooges. Due to our stupid electoral politics that is what it became and nobody could afford to be accused of being "soft" on communism..
  136. @iffen
    Thanks for the link, it is always nice to have the facts.

    Do you suppose Brzezinski ever came to terms within himself for the following?

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    Brzezinski: Nonsense!

    I doubt it, he will go to his grave thinking he was part of something noble.

    I think a lot of cold warrior types think the whole thing was worth it. I know when I worked in defense a lot of the people who were drafted in the late 50s early 60s thought so. They actually look at it as the US “winning” something instead of it being the massive waste of blood and treasure it became. Given him being Polish, he also had a natural hatred of all things Russian and he got to use the resources of the US government to act on it.

    George Kennan’s containment wasn’t about the US sticking it’s nose militarily in every corner of the world in some endless hunt for hidden Soviet stooges. Due to our stupid electoral politics that is what it became and nobody could afford to be accused of being “soft” on communism..

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
While other top brass played press agents for the administration’s war, William Odom told the truth about Iraq—though few listened.
A thousand years of meritocracy shaped the Middle Kingdom.