The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Hubert Collins Archive
No Peter Brimelow, I Am Not Reviewing Jonah [Expletive Deleted] Goldberg's New Book
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
JONAH

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Would you read a book written by a guy with this photo as his profile on Amazon?

A few months ago, VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow asked me if I might review neoconservative #NeverTrumper Jonah Goldberg’s new book,Suicide of the West. I value my free time highly, so I was pretty dubious—Jonah Goldberg, who has been a media-touted professional token Conservative for all of my life (he’s Gen X, I’m Gen Y), has never to my knowledge said anything interesting, and there are plenty of books I would like to read that are certain to be good. I promptly wrote back to Mr. Brimelow: “I just checked on Amazon and Jonah Goldberg’s new book is 464 pages long. I wouldn’t be willing to read that for less than a ridiculous sum that I wouldn’t accept from anyone to just read a useless book and review it.” Mr. Brimelow dropped the matter after that, and the brilliant Paul Gottfried reviewed it for VDARE.com instead.

Then, more recently, Mr. Brimelow emailed me a mixed review of the book [Jonah Goldberg’s Burkean Turn, June 26, 2018] by Matt Purple at The American Conservative and asked me again if I might review it. While I am aware of the longstanding tradition of writers shamelessly reviewing books without reading them (two brilliant writers, George Orwelland Joe Sobran, both did this, the former even writing an amusing essay about the practice.), I think this practice is detestable, and hope to never do it. So I replied to Mr. Brimelow: “Ugh. I’d be willing to write you an amusing polemical article-length explanation as to why I am not willing to read/review it. That’s the best offer I can give.”

And incredibly, Mr. Brimelow said “Sure.” So, dear reader, here we are.

Mr. Goldberg’s thesis, gleaned from reviews and his endless electronic media appearances, is that the biggest thing (if not the only thing) that makes “the West” great are our Enlightenment/Lockean/Classical Liberal values. These values champion and protect individualism, relatively free trade, relatively unregulated markets, and simple and straightforward laws and jurisprudence that apply to everyone equally.

At present, Mr. Goldberg feels that these values are besieged by Left and Right. To the Left are non-white identitarians and Cultural Marxists, to the Right are populist nationalists. Both groups, in Mr. Goldberg’s eyes, reject the Classical Liberal values that have made the West great, and instead are “tribalists.” As tribalists, they simply want their team to defeat and dominate other teams, and do not care about markets, equality under the law, etc.

Mr. Goldberg fears these forces might defeat the Classical Liberal center, and in so doing, will cause the “Suicide of the West.”

This argument is retarded because of mankind’s historical record between the late seventeenth century (when Mr. Goldberg marks the emergence of his preferred values), and the 1960s. During these 300 or so years, each and every Lockean, free marketer, Classical Liberal, and Enlightenment proponent was a “tribalist” by Mr. Goldberg’s standards—and “racist” by the standards of basically everyone alive today.

The Founding Fathers of America were deeply influenced by all that Mr. Goldberg likes (Locke, markets, etc.), and they were also de facto white nationalists.(See What the Founders Really Thought About Race, by Jared Taylor, National Policy Institute, January 17, 2012[PDF]) As Mr. Goldberg may, or may not, be aware, many also owned black slaves and killed American Indians in combat. America’s first immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, allowed citizenship for “free white men of good character.” This is not ambiguous or subject to interpretation, it is an inarguable objective fact about American history.

During the same 300-year span, the United Kingdom, where most all Classical Liberal values originated and were adhered to, managed a global empire that was racially aware—to say the least—and (for a while) practiced race-based slavery. If John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Adam Smith hopped into a time machine today and surveyed the planet’s political, cultural, and racial norms, they would not say: “Boy, things were going just as we wanted up until recently. Let’s hope America eschews Donald Trump’s style of politics and those of Black Lives Matter.”

But, in a nutshell, that is what Mr. Goldberg wants us to believe.

Fundamentally, only in the 1960s did anybody even suggest that the Anglo political tradition of small governments, free markets, and individual rights was incontrovertibly at odds with any level of national or racial consciousness. I know that Mr. Goldberg does not address this in his tome, so there is no point in reading it. His entire thesis is rebuked by 300 years of history.

Another thing that should never be forgotten about Jonah Goldberg: he supported George W. Bush. President Bush, readers may remember, started the Iraq War. That war was pointless and stupid. The estimated number of human deaths caused by it currently sits at just south of 1.5 million. The national debt we accumulated to have that war is in the trillions. And for what? Not a goddamn thing. Iraq was a total Trumpian s***hole before we invaded it and is still a total s***hole.

Furthermore, President Bush made repeated efforts to extend a massive Amnesty to illegal aliens. And he also greatly expanded the Federal government’s ability and right to spy on its citizens, most famously through the PATRIOT ACT. And at the end of the Bush Presidency, there was an economic crash so monumental that it is second in American history only to the Great Depression.

Jonah Goldberg liked President Bush, and still defends him. He thought there nothing incongruous about conservative and/or GOP support for him. But he has written a book about how monstrous Donald Trump is because this President wants to change our immigration laws and tweak our trade policies to benefit Americans.

No-one can support George W. Bush, oppose Donald Trump, and be taken seriously. Maybe if President Trump messes up, launches a catastrophic invasion of some Third World hellhole, and then the economy crashes to an extent on par with the Great Recession, the case could be made that he is worse than Bush II. But until then, no way.

Another point worth noting; the title of Mr. Goldberg’s new book is taken from James Burnham’s 1964 work, Suicide of the West. Just as with the Lockeans of the past few centuries that Mr. Goldberg admires, the late Burnham was “racist” by today’s standards. Back in the day, he wrote for National Review, today, he would be purged just as John O’Sullivan, Peter Brimelow, Joe Sobran, John Derbyshire, and a whole host of others were. In a 2016 essay disparaging James Burnham, the anti-white Leftist Jeet Heer correctly noted that,

Burnham was also a white supremacist. As Samuel Francis noted in the magazine Chronicles Magazine in 2002, “in the 1960’s, Burnham defended segregation on pragmatic and constitutional (though not explicitly racial) grounds and, by the 70’s, was suggesting actual racial separation of blacks in a ‘non-contiguous’ area accorded ‘limited sovereignty.’ He also defended both Rhodesia and South Africa, as well as other right-wing states.” In fact, Burnham thought that South Africa’s Apartheid system could be a model for America, with blacks confined to Bantustans.

[Nostalgia for Flawed Thinkers Won’t Solve the Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual, by Jeet Heer, The New Republic, October 31, 2016.]

Perhaps Mr. Goldberg knows all this, and simply wants to set it aside and hope he doesn’t get caught obfuscating the matter. If that is the case, then Mr. Goldberg is retarded, because in the age of the internet, somebody would obviously bring this matter to light.

Or perhaps (Peter Brimelow’s theory) Mr. Goldberg is just not aware of any of this, and has simply not read any of Burnham’s body of work. If that is the case, Mr. Goldberg is retarded. James Burnham was a genius, and should be read by everyone interested in American conservatism, contemporary power structures, and foreign policy.

As an aside, Burnham was also right about all the things for which Mr. Heer attacked him.

The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have. Lockean and Classical Liberal values were introduced to the world in a time when racial and national consciousness were an absolute given.

What does threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values is the rising tide of color, mass immigration, Cultural Marxism, and an emboldened Left—all of which also threaten the traditional Western nation state, and the white race as a whole.

But who in their right mind would take tips from Jonah Goldberg as to how to push back against any of those threats? What track record does he have of success in this? What about his belief system is compelling, and could be trusted to emerge victorious against the Left in the “marketplace/battlefield of ideas”?

When is it that Gen Y millennials like me and the subsequent Generation Z will warm up to the seductive ideals held by middle-aged Conservatism Inc.-ers like Mr. Goldberg? How soon will it be before they subscribe to colorblind Lockeanism because they finally realize how great tax breaks for the wealthy are? Or will they be first won over by the splendor of the atrocious wars Mr. Goldberg advocates?

Libertarians can at least offer them (i.e. us) peace and a whole pleasuredome of legalized vices. Socialists can at least offer college debt forgiveness and medical care. Identitarians can offer community and stability.

What does Conservatism Inc offer? A country perpetually at war in faraway lands whose domestic politics and culture are a cross between the cubicles of a call center and an Evangelical church?

Mr. Goldberg’s history is wrong, and his politics are awful. So no, I am not going to waste my time reading his stupid new book.

Hubert Collins writes regularly for American Renaissance, Social Matter, and here at VDARE.com.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 268 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. CMC says:

    Promote this guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "Promote this guy."

    Agreed. His article is a blast. And the promotion of pseudo intellectuals like Goldberg and the rest of his ilk proves how vapid and corrupt the DC/NYC swamp is; these neocon agents of Israel need to be shamed.
    , @Mark P Miller
    My faith in the Youth of Today (not to be confused with "utes") is reborn.
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I tried to read the Goldberg book on the recommendation of a relative, but I found myself merely scanning many sections. As this reviewer notes, it isn’t worth the effort to plow through all of the pages.

    I plan to see what I can find of James Burnham, however. I have read his masterful The Managerial Revolution and this article whets my appetite for more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Solbakken
    Please forgive me if this cut & pasted quote from Burnham's "Suicide of the West" is too long, but I think it is a perfect example of his genius in a nut shell.

    "James Burnham, Suicide of the West, p.105
    1. Some years ago liberals concerned with social reform and urban renewal, as it has come to be called, turned their attention to Skid Row. In accord with the canons of ideological thinking, Skid Row was understood as a "problem"; and, since it was a problem, liberals had a duty to "solve" it. During the past decade they have attempted a direct and, it would seem, sufficiently drastic solution: in a number of American cities, including some of the largest (New York, Boston, St. Louis, San Francisco) they have been simply destroying the local embodiments [p.106]of Skid Row and replacing these with boulevards, parks, garden apartments, new shopping areas, etc.

    But what exactly is Skid Row? In reality it is not, other than incidentally, a spatial concept at all, but a functional concept; and not so much a special "problem" as merely a natural, indeed inevitable, condition of every articulated community of any size, except perhaps for some artificial communities like zoned bedroom suburbs or carefully controlled company towns—and even these are not usually exceptions for long.

    Skid Row is the end of the line; and there must be an end of the line somewhere. It is the state of those individuals who by destiny or choice drop out of normal society, even out of criminal society, which is after all part of the normal order of things. Most of these individuals are alcoholics and some are drug addicts. Where they are is Skid Row; and Skid Row exists in every city, and always has.

    In the natural course of events, when the process is not interfered with by ideologues relentlessly determined to solve problems, the citizens of Skid Row usually gather together in one particular district of each town and city: in New York it was the Bowery, as everyone knew, the most famous of America's Skid Rows. That district is always frightfully run-down. It has cheap bars selling rotten liquor, and cheap stores selling even rottener liquor substitutes; flophouses offering flea-bitten cots for a few cents a night; greasy hamburger joints; vacant lots where bonfires can be made of old boards and packing boxes; a tenth-rate pawnshop or two; sagging doorways where the cops won't bother a man while he sleeps off his drunk; a commercial blood bank where you can sell a pint of blood every month or so if you don't have an active disease; a dreary Catholic church and two or three evangelical chapels in old loft buildings; a Salvation Army station where you can get some soup or stew in exchange for singing a hymn; a city-run flophouse where you can have, when the mood strikes you now and then, a delousing and shower along with a plate of food and a bed for the night. This district is where the Skid Row ers stay when they [p.107]are in town; and where they head for when they arrive, since every certified Skid Rower is equipped with a built-in homing compass.
    James Burnham, Suicide of the West, p.107
    To the respectable citizen Skid Row seems a macabre place, but in its own way Skid Row is an ingenious product of the long and wonderfully intricate natural evolution of the City. In society as it really is—hierarchical and differentiating, not equalized or regimented—there has to be an end of the line. The localization of Skid Row and the growth of its distinctive institutions and customs are gradual developments serving to take care of those at the end of the line in a way that recognizes the reality of the condition, makes appropriate exceptions to the usual social rules, adds a certain warmth and humaneness along with exits left open for those—they are not many—who wish to take one, and shields the rest of society from Skid Row 's potentially destructive effects.

    But this cannot be the way liberalism understands Skid Row. For liberalism, Skid Row is not a natural and inevitable social condition but a definite place—the Bowery, the Embarcadero, South State Street, wherever—that constitutes, as I began by noting, a problem: a "blighted area." The people in it are-they must be, by the principles of liberalism—the exploited victims of the area's blight, of inadequate education and bad institutions. Therefore the area must be renewed and the victims reformed. This is the reasoning that has produced the recent movement to abolish Skid Row, as a result of which New York's Bowery and a number of its equivalents in other cities have in fact been in varying degrees cleaned up. The law clamped down on the flophouses, bars and sleeping drunks—they were always illegal, of course, but before the renewers struck, the cops, knowing the condition with which they were dealing, looked the other way. The rotted buildings were bulldozed aside, and the exiled inhabitants invited to the joys of rehabilitation.

    The whole operation has proved to be, inevitably, an ideological illusion. Since Skid Row is not in reality a static thing or a place, it cannot be abolished or rubbed out. The most noticeable consequence of this anti- Skid Row campaign has merely been to diffuse Skid Row, for a while, throughout the City. The displaced alcoholics, hoboes and junkies, who had their own localized and more or less self-sufficient society along the Bowery or South State Street, have been lurching all over New York, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis, trying to cadge money for drinks or dope, knocking into the respectable citizens, making scenes in decent bars, and in general acting, with more than a little justification, like resentful aliens. But of course the liberal reformers can drive you through the old locales and show you triumphantly that Skid Row has vanished. There are not a few who hope that it will be refounded; and it will be.
    , @Per/Norway
    me to, i found these on archive.org

    https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A"Burnham%2C+James%2C+1905-1987."
    joined wait lists, downloading and borrowed all i could 2 min ago:)
    , @Russ
    Jonah Goldberg; Rich Lowry; William F. Buckley Jr.; Christopher Buckley -- ultimately silly and insipid men one and all in many ways.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Evisceration. Much better than book review.

    I’m Gen X and I approve of this message.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    What is encouraging is that there seems to be a backlash among young generations against the established powers and ideas of people like Goldberg. It would be wonderful to see this grow into a full-blown youth rebellion reminiscent of the baby boomer 1960s but in the right direction this time.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Indeed. If I had known that people paid good money for written eviscerations, Peak Stupidity would have had a bigger endownment than the $PLC by now, all for nonprofit purposes ... of course.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.
    , @Jeff Stryker
    Considering Gen Y live at home at age 30 and masturbate to pornography all day (Indeed porn used to be the obsession of budding serial killers who haunted sleazy sex stores) and are all bisexuals I don't know what Conservatism can do for them.

    Still, I sort of feel empathy for them.

    I was born in 1974 and when I was their age in 1999 young people had better things to do than to fight with Carl the Cuck on the street. We were making money in the roaring 90's. Traveling. Had careers.

    It is sad to see people well into their 20's, with a few Gen X old-timers like Richard Spencer or V Roosh who were old enough to have gone to Nirvana concerts, fighting over the rights of gays or calling one another "white males" on the street.

    Gen Y has no decent-paying career. No decent kind of sex life. Lives at home at 30, 35 (The economy dropped off really fast after Bush's election and a Gen Y who is only 8 years younger than me has a different experience in life).
    , @pyrrhus
    Yes, 5 stars for accuracy and brevity...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:

    By devoting a whole article to this RINOtard you are basically promoting him.

    Jonah Goldberg is The Economist type of “Classical Liberal”. They shill endlessly for individual liberty which means anyone should be able to live anywhere he wishes, as such nation states and borders are a hindrance to individual liberty and should be done away with. The Economist has never met an immigrant they didn’t like. To them all immigrants are a boon to their host nations, regardless of aptitude, attitude, criminal history, the more the better, anyone who says otherwise is just a racist.

    Yet at the same time these ‘tards contradict themselves by always egging for the US to be the world police and bomb any country they don’t like a.k.a. Israel’s enemies (Syria, Iraq, Iran) or any country that stands in the way of their Jew World Order like Russia.

    If there is no nation state, how are governments elected? Who elects that government and what is its jurisdiction if there are no borders?

    Like multiculturalism and open borders, “classical liberalism” is a completely FAILED concept and classical liberals are a bunch of idiots that no one should take seriously, like all other liberals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    @ anon If there is no nation state, how are governments elected? Who elects that government and what is its jurisdiction if there are no borders?..

    This question requires much more exploration then it has received.. first off ,what is government? my definition it is the group of unemployable corruptible control freak persons that Pharaohs and their corporate empires trust enough to be put in charge in order to write the laws according to the dictate of the Pharaohs and their massively wealthy corporate arms and to write the laws and to charge and collect from the masses sufficient funds to pay the police and to maintain the military of the masses. Additionally, the control freak pharaoh appointed governorships shall also collect from the masses sufficient to both train those among the masses who are capable sufficiently well enough to serve the needs of the Pharaoh and to provide for the hospital care, aging and other masses social needs necessary to prevent identification and rebellion among the masses against the Pharaoh.

    So your question or the question your observation raises, is a real problem for the masses. Why is it necessary to elect a government, or for that matter to have a government? why can't all of us serve in the government, just as most of us must do in the military?? If only the penalty for Corruption [even the tiniest amount were based on the results of a trial by a jury of 49 people (one from each state except the state or place or residence of the accused) were to be instant death, inflicted by the jury itself after hearing all of the facts and deciding the guilt, by method of draw and quartering], a formal government would not be needed. No damned lawyers would be needed. Instead a revolving council of people would be drafted by lottery to serve in the national and again at each state and local government, at all levels in those governments, in all job types, without exception, No el presidente no VP, no Congress, no Governor, no Mayor, no City council election would ever be needed, no nothing would be needed. The most wealthy among us might be janitor, or president it would depend on the luck of the draw. No person can serve in the same government twice.

    You serve for two years, your draw might be janitor or president, and all laws made by the previous governments end on the date of the new government, and the new government can vote to keep or eliminate those laws it wants or make their own new ones.

    Before the Internet this might no have been possible, but if Americans ratified such a government it could do as the US constitution did to the Articles of Confederation government in 1789 (use the process of ratification to toss out the old government and to start with a new government).
    , @FvS
    Free enterprise, civil liberties, and non-interventionism within a racial or ethnic nationalist framework. I can think of no better system.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Maple Curtain
    Evisceration. Much better than book review.

    I'm Gen X and I approve of this message.

    What is encouraging is that there seems to be a backlash among young generations against the established powers and ideas of people like Goldberg. It would be wonderful to see this grow into a full-blown youth rebellion reminiscent of the baby boomer 1960s but in the right direction this time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Thomm says:

    Jonah Goldberg married a woman 6 years older than him. No wonder he hates Donald Trump.

    Cuckservatism is just a left-wing ideology.

    White Trashionalism is also a leftist ideology, on account of their left-wing economic views. That is why so many White Trashionalists were Bernie Sanders supporters.

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Thanks,
    -Kartik

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Spoken like a Christ-hating, white Gentile-hating Jew whose ideology is Libertarianism rather than Marxism or Socialism.
    , @Biff

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”? Maybe you’re thinking of conservatives? Right wingers I always felt were Bush supporters, and his favored BIG Government policies(Medicare part D), BIG Government wars, BIG Government spending, BIG Government military,BIG Government spying, BIG Government taxes, BIG Government corporate handouts, and BIG Government protected (un-free)market monopolies. Right wingers were lemmings behind Bush, and the Republican Party. Nothing conservative about that crowd.
    , @Bill

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.
    , @FvS
    Racial and ethnic identity are perfectly compatible with libertarianism. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Race is a biological fact, and there are significant differences between Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, Capoids, Americoids, Australoids and all the various sub-races/hybrids. White nationalist libertarianism is the peak political philosophy for Whites. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race. There is nothing wrong with loving and supporting your own people.
    , @Stripes Duncan
    Everyone with an iota of sense left libertarianism the moment Trump burst on the scene. It filled up during the GWB administration when true conservatives realized they had no home, trudged along through the Obama years, then deflated like a popped balloon the moment an alternative appeared. Only the most autistic remain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Biff says:

    At heart Goldberg is the epitome of a “violent liberal” interrelated to the quiet American, and in the same category as Thomas Freidman. Know nothings with a pen and some dangerous ideas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Sean says:

    The “white race” is best served by not mentioning it. Nation states are best served by espousing the cause of your own. Goldberg understands these things

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @Maple Curtain
    Evisceration. Much better than book review.

    I'm Gen X and I approve of this message.

    Indeed. If I had known that people paid good money for written eviscerations, Peak Stupidity would have had a bigger endownment than the $PLC by now, all for nonprofit purposes … of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. This comment is not a full review of your article, Mr. Collins, as I find it easier to just skim. What I got out of it was that you are pretty sure Jonah Goldberg is a retard. You are correct, and I therefore give this article 4 1/2 stars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Out of four?

    Or five?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Miro23 says:

    Thanks for the fine contextual review of Goldberg’s book.

    You can do a similar thing with Orwell by reading the four volumes of his “Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters 1920-1950″ to get an understanding of the back story to “Animal Farm” and “1984″.

    Take Orwell’s experiences at Eton, his unwanted police work in Burma, living with North of England industrial workers, and fighting with the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (witnessing the treason to Socialism of the Bolsheviks), and the story is already there.

    Orwell certainly understood Totalitarianism and Empire, but at the same time, had too much faith in Socialist Planning, same as Goldberg doesn’t understand ( or fashionably pretends not to understand) the need for community/group identity/socialism while he pushes profitable “World is Flat” frontier-less neoliberal Globalization.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    From his books I did not get the impression that George Orwell had much faith in anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. These western values, I’m not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied ‘that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people’s land’.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius’ crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, ‘Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland’, Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HobbesianM
    Many of these inventions were British, yet Germany wanted to destroy Britain. Values.

    That Indian Chief who was burned alive reserved to his own nation the right to wage war on neighboring nations, abduct the women and torture the men and slaughter them on an industrial scale in spectacular and bloodthirsty ritual ceremonies. Values.

    War between nations, and conquest of some nations by others, are features of human life that have been with us since prehistory.

    One thing we can be sure of: Goldberg has no problem with war and conquest.

    , @Nordlingen
    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were " God`s will " .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .
    , @Malinche
    Probably you haver never spoken to hispanoamericans that explained you how the conquest ,and the independence , of the americas was done , since you seem to repeat like a parrot the lies of the supremacist protestants against catholics and against Spain .

    Hispanoamericans will tell you that the conquest of America was done by the indians , and the indepence in the early 1800's by the spaniards . So ???????

    Well ,do you think that Cortès with just 500 men could have conquered the Aztec Empire ??? and do you think that Pizarro could have conquered the Incaic Empire with just 200 men ??? . Come on .....

    What happened is that both the aztec and incaic empires were terrible tirannies , the aztec and inca etnias dominated many other etnias , took heavy taxes from them , and did a lot of human sacrifices with prisoners from other etnias . When the spanish apeared many tribes joined forces with the spanish ( which seemed to come from a strong foreing power , technically advanced ) to get rid of aztec or inca tiranny . For instance tlaxcaltecas were the bulk of Cortes ` army in the conquest of Tenochitlan . The same thing happened in the inca empire in Cuzco . And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites .

    And the indepence of Hispanic America was carried by the " criollos " or the descendants of spaniards , by the spanish whites , the indians fought with Spain , with the Spanish Crown , which granted them their rights , while the criollos betrayed Spain , that in that time was occupied and ravaged by the french genocidal antichrist Napoleon ,
    , @Anon
    Cortez had a few hundred Spanish soldiers and 80,000 Mayan soldiers. The Mayans and Aztecs were enemies for centuries with the Mayans being the losers.

    As soon as the Spanish landed the Mayans allied with the Spanish to attack the Aztecs.

    A century later thousands of miles to the north the hereditary enemies the Hurons and Iroquois Indians allied with the French and English to continue their tribal war fare .

    The French allied with the Huron, the Iroquois with the English. During the revolutionary war the English & Iroquois allied against the revolutionaries

    Get off your European psuedo intellectual anti American high horse and look into your own history of the Dutch colonies of Indonesia, the Dutch slavery Carribean islands, Dutch piracy of the Spanish treasure ships. the Dutch slave trade the Dutch planters in what’s now New York State making White Dutch farm laborers heridatory slaves and the fact that the first African slaves brought to the British colonies in 1619 was a Dutch slave ship.

    The Pope dividing S America into Portuguese and Spanish territory? What’s wrong with that? It was an excellent idea

    Rather than getting into endless wars about who got what, the Portuguese and Spanish decided to find an independent arbitrator to divide the territory. That prevented endless war fare. Seems like a good idea to me. I believe it’s called diplomacy.

    Contrast that with the French and English in N America, just endless wars and skirmishes , thousands killed for more than a century until the English won in 1759.

    You’re not the only person in the world who ever read a few history books.

    Maybe you should read about the history of the Dutch East Indies for a start. And what about the Dutch alliance with the Turks in the late 1500s?
    , @Squills
    Great Post, points to a lot of the confusion concerning "suicide of the West" and the unwillingness to state precisely what is committing suicide, ie not simply morally superior values. Have you read These German Genius (in forget the author, sorry) talks about your last point.
    , @Anon
    It was 1494.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Maple Curtain
    Evisceration. Much better than book review.

    I'm Gen X and I approve of this message.

    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that — they embraced a liberal view of humanity,

    ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,”

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles — that’s true even if you attempt to caveat out -” they meant white men” in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of “liberal values.” I won’t bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think “racist” one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly — so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    “The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have.”

    If you don’t understand how these threaten the democracy you live in — then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase — “Your either with us or against us.”

    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians — they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    Read More
    • Troll: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    I agree with this comment.

    While I am not a believer in the absolute equality of all races that is the core belief of the progressive left, discrimination against an individual on the basis of skin color is neither wise nor moral.

    A realistic way forward is to get away from the system of racial spoils and treat all individuals as equal under the law. But stop the nonsense that we are all equal and any finding of societal inequalities is evidence for racism.

    We have no other choice in a multiracial society.

    Finally, stop doubling down on the merits of diversity and the fiction that the West is gaining a great deal by importing massive numbers of people from the Third World.

    , @Eosinophil
    It isn't the colour of the skin and if you read this blog you must be smart enough to know this. The whole world could comprise green skinned peoples but the behaviours, predilections and habits that pertain to different groups evolved in different areas would remain. Currently we can recognise our group through appearance and preferences and trespass of in-group norms would be punished by the group - and therefor accepted as fair and right. If someone wanted to erase observable differences they would interbreed with the added benefit of erasing or at least mixing up all other group characteristics. Then we replace beliefs and habits with some sort of ideology and punish straying from those " rules" ie political correctness and other lefty hysterics. Punishment of course is not accepted as fair or right in this arrangement. This "flattened" world is now supposedly peaceful and fair with reduced anxiety. I kinda liked having Tuareg and Frenchmen and Dutchmen and Namibians and Thais. Each group policed their own according to their lights.
    , @Stripes Duncan
    One day, Thomas Jefferson's mouldering corpse will rise from his grave, take an Uber from Monticello to the National Archives, smash the glass protecting the Declaration and take it with him, take another Uber to the Capitol, walk into Congress, slam the Declaration down on a table and yell "goddam it I said MEN, not niggers!"

    Maybe then you will understand. Because I don't know what the hell else it's going to take to get through the heads of people like you that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" he wasn't talking about Mohammedans, Amazon tribesmen, or the slaves living on his back forty. Then they reaffirmed again in the Constitution this country was for them and their posterity. Then again in 1790 they stated that a man must be free, white and of good character to become a citizen.

    Nothing was "set in motion" by these men. They gave us tools and expected that we would continue to use them properly. They probably never envisioned something as flatly retarded as universal suffrage, aka mob rule. They expected that you'd remain strong. They expected that you'd stand up to your women. Somewhere along the lines we failed to do this. The failure is within us, not the system. That's a cop-out.

    There can only be one nation, one culture, and we're living in a time that it's going to be determined what that is. There cannot be several separate nations under one flag. Someone is going to rule this land. You hope it's white men just as much as I do, despite your lofty principles.
    , @Anonymous

    EliteConn: "The fault of the founders is just that — they embraced a liberal view of humanity"
     
    Never read the founders, have you?

    "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography
     
    The "liberal view of humanity" stems from the International Jew you worship.

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations. (((Matthew 28:19)))
     
    And sure enough, the Rabbi-worshipers started recruiting Africans (Acts 8:26-40) and elevating them to roles of leadership (Acts 13:1,) pronto.

    So let's correct your assertion above, as follows: The fault of the Christianity is just that — it embraces a liberal view of humanity.

    Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
     
    , @Mark P Miller
    "lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy"

    you can have it, no charge.
    , @Dave Bowman

    you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy
     
    Help me out here. I'm intrigued. What exactly makes you think any "normal", sane, rational, half-educated intelligent person with an active brain cell gives two shits about their society being called a "liberal democracy" ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    Jonah Goldberg is the Thomas Friedman of the right. His audience is upper middle class dorks who are above average in intelligence and sophistication but far away from being true intellectuals. But, you see, they really want to be – they want to think of themselves as geniuses, so they buy this tripe. They read it and come away thinking they are then somehow smarter or more cultured. They are not. These books are just ego boosters for insecure, aging boomers scared the yunguns are going to raise their taxes.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. DFH says:

    The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have. Lockean and Classical Liberal values were introduced to the world in a time when racial and national consciousness were an absolute given.

    I’m glad to see someone saying this when the response from the stupider sections of nationalism has been to accept the premise that they’re contradictory

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neuday

    Lockean and Classical Liberal values were introduced to the world in a time when racial and national consciousness were an absolute given.
     
    Some charge that Classical Liberal values are racist and should therefore be discarded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    Oh, the irony. That picture of Goldberg typing on a product known for form over function (overly expensive, stylish crap for babies and gen x hipsters). The perfect characterization of his newest book: a work that posits a thesis rejected within the first 100 or so words of this review; like an Apple Macbook, it’s more about looking good than being right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. “Maybe if President Trump messes up, launches a catastrophic invasion of some Third World hellhole, and then the economy crashes to an extent on par with the Great Recession, the case could be made that he is worse than Bush II.”

    It’s not like the neocons aren’t pushing hard for all this. My only concern with Mr. Trump is that he is actually quite linguini-spined in the face of concerted push-back from his neocon handlers, and the only saving grace is his indefatigable ability to go 20+ hours a day, longer than they can, allowing us brief Twitter moments when we get actually-productive Trumpiness that they then have to fall in and get behind. The face of Bolton setting up the Helsinki summit was but an example of this.

    Your “review” is spot on. Of course, I haven’t read Goldberg’s book, but his public spoutings for the past few years suggest, as you surmise, that reading it would be a waste of time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    AGREED
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. If only Trump would just sign America up to be cash cows and cannon fodder for yet another Israeli war of aggression. Then Jonah would turn around and write a whole new book, this one twice as long, about how Trump is the best POTUS ever.

    Read More
    • Agree: renfro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Mulegino1 says:

    The foundation of the west is Christian/Virtus (virtus meaning manliness, not Victorian tea table etiquette).

    Lockean “conservatism” is a front for Judeocentrism and the reign of quantity. Democracy is degeneration. “Democratic” means are just that-means for an end. We elect our leaders in democratic fashion, but they must govern authoritatively- and so we must never elect women or fools to govern us. In America, unfortunately, we have elected a surfeit of fools, and narrowly avoided the disaster of a woman (however unfeminine) as our leader. Trump is hardly ideal, but he is a far sight better than the alternative we were offered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The foundation of the west is Christian/Virtus (virtus meaning manliness, not Victorian tea table etiquette)."

    No, the foundation of the West is what people individually and collectively make it out to be. I understand your pain and frustration because you hold a viewpoint that is held but by a few people. But as the human race progresses, and employs liberty, they make decisions for their society.

    "Democracy is degeneration."

    Democracy is empowerment.

    "We elect our leaders in democratic fashion, but they must govern authoritatively".

    Our leaders govern by the laws of our nation, which may or may not be authoritative in nature.

    "and so we must never elect women or fools to govern us."

    You may choose not to elect women, but that would be foolish, especially if they are not a fool.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Maple Curtain
    Evisceration. Much better than book review.

    I'm Gen X and I approve of this message.

    Considering Gen Y live at home at age 30 and masturbate to pornography all day (Indeed porn used to be the obsession of budding serial killers who haunted sleazy sex stores) and are all bisexuals I don’t know what Conservatism can do for them.

    Still, I sort of feel empathy for them.

    I was born in 1974 and when I was their age in 1999 young people had better things to do than to fight with Carl the Cuck on the street. We were making money in the roaring 90′s. Traveling. Had careers.

    It is sad to see people well into their 20′s, with a few Gen X old-timers like Richard Spencer or V Roosh who were old enough to have gone to Nirvana concerts, fighting over the rights of gays or calling one another “white males” on the street.

    Gen Y has no decent-paying career. No decent kind of sex life. Lives at home at 30, 35 (The economy dropped off really fast after Bush’s election and a Gen Y who is only 8 years younger than me has a different experience in life).

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Zogby says:

    No-one can support George W. Bush, oppose Donald Trump, and be taken seriously.

    This sums it up well enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Jake says:

    “Mr. Goldberg’s thesis, gleaned from reviews and his endless electronic media appearances, is that the biggest thing (if not the only thing) that makes “the West” great are our Enlightenment/Lockean/Classical Liberal values. These values champion and protect individualism, relatively free trade, relatively unregulated markets, and simple and straightforward laws and jurisprudence that apply to everyone equally.

    At present, Mr. Goldberg feels that these values are besieged by Left and Right. To the Left are non-white identitarians and Cultural Marxists, to the Right are populist nationalists. Both groups, in Mr. Goldberg’s eyes, reject the Classical Liberal values that have made the West great, and instead are “tribalists.” As tribalists, they simply want their team to defeat and dominate other teams, and do not care about markets, equality under the law, etc.”

    That is it in a nutshell. Save that Goldberg is yet another in an endless line of Jewish hypocrites. Partial Gentile genes and professed Christian affiliation do not, in most cases, alter the identity more than a jot or two. The onus is to work tirelessly to keep the West in a state of post-Christendom, as well as to work tirelessly to prevent any rebirth of true nationalism among white Gentiles.

    But there is no need to bash Jonah as unique, nor even Jews who drip their hatred of white Gentiles with every word and body movement. The matter is Christendom or Chaos, and that means the vast majority of white Gentiles also serve the cause of destruction. That features – not merely includes – all those who have made global and continue to defend and promote the lives and works and fruits of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell. The deal with Satan to gain the whole world has a due notice, and we are seeing its front end.

    The funny part of that in terms of Jews is that should we get to the point of utter destruction of ‘the West,’ there will be nobody to protect Jews. Mohammedans will act to exterminate the claimed seed of Isaac and be willing to lose a few hundred million of their own kind to get the job done.

    For their part, Jews will be willing to nuke the planet to death in order to try to avoid paying for their sins on this earth. Just like true WASPs.

    Anglo-Zionist Empire – antithetical to Christendom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    To Goldberg and other race-denialist, "invite-the world/invade-the world," "proposition nation" "conservatives"/"neoconservatives," gentile and Jewish, the "identity politics" and "tribalism" of race-realists and white advocates and immigration restrictionists, the only people who want to prevent the "suicide of the West" in fact as opposed to theory by preserving what's left of white America and European civilization, are exactly the same as or the "mirror-image" of white-hating leftists of all races who want to destroy white America and European civilization.
    , @Anonymous
    "Jews who drip their hatred of white Gentiles" include the Rabbi Jesus; see Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25.

    "Jews will be willing to nuke the planet to death" include the Rabbi Jesus; see Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33.

    Jesus hates you (and anybody who cares for the things of this world.) Hate him back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Jake says:
    @Thomm
    Jonah Goldberg married a woman 6 years older than him. No wonder he hates Donald Trump.

    Cuckservatism is just a left-wing ideology.

    White Trashionalism is also a leftist ideology, on account of their left-wing economic views. That is why so many White Trashionalists were Bernie Sanders supporters.

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Thanks,
    -Kartik

    Spoken like a Christ-hating, white Gentile-hating Jew whose ideology is Libertarianism rather than Marxism or Socialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Speaking of Gentile-hating Jews, have you ever read Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25? The Rabbi Jesus certainly hated the Gentile's white patriarchy. Why would you worship somebody who hates you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Miro23
    Thanks for the fine contextual review of Goldberg's book.

    You can do a similar thing with Orwell by reading the four volumes of his "Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters 1920-1950" to get an understanding of the back story to "Animal Farm" and "1984".

    Take Orwell's experiences at Eton, his unwanted police work in Burma, living with North of England industrial workers, and fighting with the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War (witnessing the treason to Socialism of the Bolsheviks), and the story is already there.

    Orwell certainly understood Totalitarianism and Empire, but at the same time, had too much faith in Socialist Planning, same as Goldberg doesn't understand ( or fashionably pretends not to understand) the need for community/group identity/socialism while he pushes profitable "World is Flat" frontier-less neoliberal Globalization.

    From his books I did not get the impression that George Orwell had much faith in anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Jake says:

    As for the name of Goldberg’s book: I assume that it is not an homage to Burnham, but a marker that it is to be a replacement for Burnham’s book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erasmus
    Exactly, the name was chosen with intention. Try finding Burnham's original work now, it's much more difficult because all searches find Goldberg's instead. There are several other works that the same thing has been done to. Intentional obfuscation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    if i recall correctly (((Jonah))) can be found extremely tribal in earlier books that are anti muslim when he was writing as a judeocon its only now that everyone else has understood they have problems similar to Israel only orders magnitude worse and want israeli solution too that (((Jonaah))) has the vapors.the fact is the west didnt get this problem accidentally it was engineered by jews, to give camouflage and cove to themselves occupying western nations and to assist them in the destruction of the wests current owners who they intended to rob.this entire russia thing is jews angry that Putin stopped jews from looting russia when they were only 75% finished,jews invented communism and overthrew the russian empire were exporting that murderous revolution throughout europe including the genocide of Ukraine before the Nazis decided to stop it happening in germany but the jews already had FDRs ear and influence in britain. It bears repeating here the jews operate as capitalist and communists in neither capacity are they what whites think of as caps or coms they dont give a shit about altruistic motives or about free markets and ass values they only care about money and power to increase the jews hegemony and that last part is the most important and because of it they can play good cop bad cop as both caps and coms without fear of each other rather exploiting the stupid goyims naive inability to understand anything could transcend ideology.whites are constrained by frankly being to good our christian values and the cultures of enlightenment etc that arise from this prevent us from seeing the world as it is.even as we have allowed the jews to force us to abandon our christianity while retaining its cucked slave morality as basic human rights and enlightenment values we are never the less still martyrs we would rather every last white man die and white nation perish than compromise our values. jews will always compromise values for pragmatism and expect each other too.whites by adopting this game theory of rather die than defect from the rules were able to build much more complex civilizations, however they only work in all white nations once others like jews discover these societies its lights out they are easily exploited by any willing to defect from the schelling points of slave morality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Mr. #393, can I just give you some advice about your future? One word, PARAGRAPHS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @jilles dykstra
    These western values, I'm not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied 'that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people's land'.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius' crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, 'Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland', Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    Many of these inventions were British, yet Germany wanted to destroy Britain. Values.

    That Indian Chief who was burned alive reserved to his own nation the right to wage war on neighboring nations, abduct the women and torture the men and slaughter them on an industrial scale in spectacular and bloodthirsty ritual ceremonies. Values.

    War between nations, and conquest of some nations by others, are features of human life that have been with us since prehistory.

    One thing we can be sure of: Goldberg has no problem with war and conquest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Great to know all these things about this chief.
    For an Indian view:
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
    , @Wally
    said:
    Bingo. The idea of the 'noble savage' is pure fantasy.

    ‘Noble savages’ debunked, excerpt from:
    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/
    excerpt:


    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.
    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.
     
    , @HdC
    As far as I know Germany has never declared war on Britain; Britain however declared war on Germany twice in the last century for economic and political reasons.

    So who tried to destroy whom? And with what result? Hdc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Biff says:
    @Thomm
    Jonah Goldberg married a woman 6 years older than him. No wonder he hates Donald Trump.

    Cuckservatism is just a left-wing ideology.

    White Trashionalism is also a leftist ideology, on account of their left-wing economic views. That is why so many White Trashionalists were Bernie Sanders supporters.

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Thanks,
    -Kartik

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”? Maybe you’re thinking of conservatives? Right wingers I always felt were Bush supporters, and his favored BIG Government policies(Medicare part D), BIG Government wars, BIG Government spending, BIG Government military,BIG Government spying, BIG Government taxes, BIG Government corporate handouts, and BIG Government protected (un-free)market monopolies. Right wingers were lemmings behind Bush, and the Republican Party. Nothing conservative about that crowd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    These different terms can be bandied about until the cows come home, but, to me, the term for the people you describe is simply "members of the Republican party", or maybe GOPe, though I never understood what the "e" was for, so I don't get the pun or what-have-you.

    "Right-wing" is a term that used to describe real conservatives, but now is for anyone more conservative than whomever the nutcases of the ctrl-left are being led by at the time.

    I agree completely, Biff, that there was NOTHING conservative about the policies promoted during the Bush, Jr, years. Since the end of the Cold War, the Big-Gov support has come from both squads of The Party.

    , @Mr. Anon

    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”?
     
    He's referring to imaginary categories floating around in the watery porridge that is his mind. 'Thomm' is a simpering idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @jilles dykstra
    These western values, I'm not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied 'that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people's land'.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius' crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, 'Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland', Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were ” God`s will ” .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .

    Read More
    • Agree: Dr. Krieger
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Christianity got forced down Nordic throats in the Northern Crusades. Warm-climate Christianity doesn't well suit cool-blooded Nordics, so they modified the invading religion to better suit their culture. Luther was the revenge of the Vikings. Next time, keep your Jesus in your pants.
    , @RadicalCenter
    The word Protestant indicates, uh, protest. As for destruction and the rest, that doesn’t necessarily follow in terms of the word’s plain usual meaning, or in terms of logic.

    As for Protestant versus catholic, they both sound ridiculous when trying to blame the other for everything and themselves for nothing.

    And wouldn’t it seem high time for all Christians to get together and fight for their survival? Practicing Christians will be outnumbered by Muslims in most of Europe within 20 years. Just as a shrinking pool of aged white people will be outnumbered by hostile, much younger nonwhites — hostile thanks in part but only in part to that charming religion of peace — in the uk and much of Europe within thirty.

    But let’s keep the catholic versus Protestant hatred burning, that’s what matters.

    , @RadicalCenter
    Yes, Protestantism is inherently bad and so are Protestants. Good point.

    For one thing, Protestants need to learn from the RC church (and old “mainline” Protestant Churches) and be more active in destroying my country.

    The less lefty, non-self-hating (non-“mainline”) Protestants need to get with the program by being more like their pussified naive establishment brethren and with your dear RCC by bringing in, funding, settling, and advocating for every possible other people in the world, at our expense in every sense of the word.

    Yes, good Christians should be like Jorge Bergoglio and lecture us from a tightly guarded opulent tower about how we are bad Christians if we don’t surrender our common language and culture, our earnings, our resources, our land, our social cohesiveness, our trust for fellow citizens, and even the safety of our own children.

    Protestants also need to do a better job having their clergy molest preteens, push homosexual perversion on teens, foster rampant homosexualism in their religious training programs, and cover up all the aforesaid while insulting admitted and known victims.

    It’s increasingly clear that the systematically sordid record of at least the recent RC Church on this score, is not fabricated by the antiChristian bigots in our government and establishment media. Not sure that the RC church’s record of abuse, perversion, and coverup has been even exaggerated by people with a preexisting ax to grind against Catholics or Christianity. But either way, this is no small, local, or short-lived problem, and it doesn’t seem to be improving.

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.

    , @jilles dykstra
    You seem to suffer from the illusion that before Luther there were no wars in Europe.
    Suppose you also do not know that the first crusade was in Europe:
    Marcus Bull, 'Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, The Limousin and Gascony, c.970 - c.1130', New York, 1998

    All over history wars needed moral pretexts, indeed, protestantism and catholicism next to each other provided pretexts, for wars that otherwise also would have been waged.
    Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 are present day pretexts.

    The great achievement of Luther was independent thinking.
    There are those who assert that he started the beginning of the end of belief, quite possible.
    But I do suppose that science also was furthered by Luther, except for Calvin do not know of any protestant leader claiming, as even the pope did around 1870, the monopoly on philosophy, for example.

    The Dutch conflict with Spain, our Eighty Years War, indeed was fought apparently for religion.
    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.
    The problem was that Philips II was sent from Brussels to Spain to be raised and educated.
    , @Olorin

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe
     
    Well, thanks for revealing yourself as somebody who never spent much time around North and Baltic seafaring and shipbuilding people. Worth bearing in mind when reading your comments.

    Also good job remembering the Edenic state of Europe prior to 1517. No wars, no protest, no rebellion, no destruction, no incest. It's a wonder my ancestors bothered to sail elsewhere at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. anonymous[851] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    Spoken like a Christ-hating, white Gentile-hating Jew whose ideology is Libertarianism rather than Marxism or Socialism.

    Speaking of Gentile-hating Jews, have you ever read Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25? The Rabbi Jesus certainly hated the Gentile’s white patriarchy. Why would you worship somebody who hates you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    25So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. 26But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves
     
    How exactly is this supposed to express hatred of gentiles?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nordlingen
    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were " God`s will " .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .

    Christianity got forced down Nordic throats in the Northern Crusades. Warm-climate Christianity doesn’t well suit cool-blooded Nordics, so they modified the invading religion to better suit their culture. Luther was the revenge of the Vikings. Next time, keep your Jesus in your pants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix-Culpa
    Strut your stuff, baby.
    What is God compared with your power of Cool?
    , @RVBlake
    Even earlier than the Northern Crusades...Witness the "evangelization" of Norway by Olaf Tryggvason, and of the Saxons by Charlemagne.
    , @Anon
    And now Scandinavia, Germany, England , France, Belgium, Netherlands are non Christian, officially secular but will soon be Muslim under sharia law.

    Poland, also Christianized in the northern crusades is the last bastion of European Christian civilization in the soon to be Muslim north.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    By devoting a whole article to this RINOtard you are basically promoting him.

    Jonah Goldberg is The Economist type of "Classical Liberal". They shill endlessly for individual liberty which means anyone should be able to live anywhere he wishes, as such nation states and borders are a hindrance to individual liberty and should be done away with. The Economist has never met an immigrant they didn't like. To them all immigrants are a boon to their host nations, regardless of aptitude, attitude, criminal history, the more the better, anyone who says otherwise is just a racist.

    Yet at the same time these 'tards contradict themselves by always egging for the US to be the world police and bomb any country they don't like a.k.a. Israel's enemies (Syria, Iraq, Iran) or any country that stands in the way of their Jew World Order like Russia.

    If there is no nation state, how are governments elected? Who elects that government and what is its jurisdiction if there are no borders?

    Like multiculturalism and open borders, "classical liberalism" is a completely FAILED concept and classical liberals are a bunch of idiots that no one should take seriously, like all other liberals.

    @ anon If there is no nation state, how are governments elected? Who elects that government and what is its jurisdiction if there are no borders?..

    This question requires much more exploration then it has received.. first off ,what is government? my definition it is the group of unemployable corruptible control freak persons that Pharaohs and their corporate empires trust enough to be put in charge in order to write the laws according to the dictate of the Pharaohs and their massively wealthy corporate arms and to write the laws and to charge and collect from the masses sufficient funds to pay the police and to maintain the military of the masses. Additionally, the control freak pharaoh appointed governorships shall also collect from the masses sufficient to both train those among the masses who are capable sufficiently well enough to serve the needs of the Pharaoh and to provide for the hospital care, aging and other masses social needs necessary to prevent identification and rebellion among the masses against the Pharaoh.

    So your question or the question your observation raises, is a real problem for the masses. Why is it necessary to elect a government, or for that matter to have a government? why can’t all of us serve in the government, just as most of us must do in the military?? If only the penalty for Corruption [even the tiniest amount were based on the results of a trial by a jury of 49 people (one from each state except the state or place or residence of the accused) were to be instant death, inflicted by the jury itself after hearing all of the facts and deciding the guilt, by method of draw and quartering], a formal government would not be needed. No damned lawyers would be needed. Instead a revolving council of people would be drafted by lottery to serve in the national and again at each state and local government, at all levels in those governments, in all job types, without exception, No el presidente no VP, no Congress, no Governor, no Mayor, no City council election would ever be needed, no nothing would be needed. The most wealthy among us might be janitor, or president it would depend on the luck of the draw. No person can serve in the same government twice.

    You serve for two years, your draw might be janitor or president, and all laws made by the previous governments end on the date of the new government, and the new government can vote to keep or eliminate those laws it wants or make their own new ones.

    Before the Internet this might no have been possible, but if Americans ratified such a government it could do as the US constitution did to the Articles of Confederation government in 1789 (use the process of ratification to toss out the old government and to start with a new government).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Biff

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”? Maybe you’re thinking of conservatives? Right wingers I always felt were Bush supporters, and his favored BIG Government policies(Medicare part D), BIG Government wars, BIG Government spending, BIG Government military,BIG Government spying, BIG Government taxes, BIG Government corporate handouts, and BIG Government protected (un-free)market monopolies. Right wingers were lemmings behind Bush, and the Republican Party. Nothing conservative about that crowd.

    These different terms can be bandied about until the cows come home, but, to me, the term for the people you describe is simply “members of the Republican party”, or maybe GOPe, though I never understood what the “e” was for, so I don’t get the pun or what-have-you.

    “Right-wing” is a term that used to describe real conservatives, but now is for anyone more conservative than whomever the nutcases of the ctrl-left are being led by at the time.

    I agree completely, Biff, that there was NOTHING conservative about the policies promoted during the Bush, Jr, years. Since the end of the Cold War, the Big-Gov support has come from both squads of The Party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neuday
    The "e" in GOPe is for establishment. Conservatism, Inc.

    All they had to do was protect the borders and the girls bathroom and they could've had their tax cuts and ME wars. But, no, because effective tactics is Not Who We Are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @The Alarmist

    "Maybe if President Trump messes up, launches a catastrophic invasion of some Third World hellhole, and then the economy crashes to an extent on par with the Great Recession, the case could be made that he is worse than Bush II."
     
    It's not like the neocons aren't pushing hard for all this. My only concern with Mr. Trump is that he is actually quite linguini-spined in the face of concerted push-back from his neocon handlers, and the only saving grace is his indefatigable ability to go 20+ hours a day, longer than they can, allowing us brief Twitter moments when we get actually-productive Trumpiness that they then have to fall in and get behind. The face of Bolton setting up the Helsinki summit was but an example of this.

    Your "review" is spot on. Of course, I haven't read Goldberg's book, but his public spoutings for the past few years suggest, as you surmise, that reading it would be a waste of time.

    AGREED

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. No Hubert Collins, Peter Brimelow is not the answer to Jonah Goldberg. But E. Michael Jones is. See: The Weber Thesis: Capitalism and its Myths of Origin, available online.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Nordlingen
    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were " God`s will " .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .

    The word Protestant indicates, uh, protest. As for destruction and the rest, that doesn’t necessarily follow in terms of the word’s plain usual meaning, or in terms of logic.

    As for Protestant versus catholic, they both sound ridiculous when trying to blame the other for everything and themselves for nothing.

    And wouldn’t it seem high time for all Christians to get together and fight for their survival? Practicing Christians will be outnumbered by Muslims in most of Europe within 20 years. Just as a shrinking pool of aged white people will be outnumbered by hostile, much younger nonwhites — hostile thanks in part but only in part to that charming religion of peace — in the uk and much of Europe within thirty.

    But let’s keep the catholic versus Protestant hatred burning, that’s what matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix-Culpa
    Thanks for the Jack Handy theology lesson: (”Why does there always have to be a right answer? Can’t we all just love each other?” ) Now there’s a philosophy we can all unite under to take down Jewish hegemony!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Stick says:

    Goldberg suffers from lack of exposure to reality. The things he knows are untrue and the things he hates are real. Never thought conservatives would produce Trustafarians, but then I never envisioned the insidiousness of Kindler Gentler Conservativism; aka; NWO Wankerism. The only redeeming feature of NWO Wankerism is it was apolitical but vastly enriching for its adherents. No surprise that Clinton, as soon as he was elected president, decided to sign NAFTA, thus eviscerating his core voters – the bitter clingers. Bushies and Clintons dreamed of family dynasties as emperors of the Western Hemisphere.

    When Goldberg picks up an M-16 and marches off to Crusade for Democracy for Hadji while his homeland is daily invaded , then, and only then, will he be introduced to reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. vinteuil says:

    Sorry, not impressed.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.

    He’s still wrong, of course – but this sort of article is a total waste of everybody’s time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Sorry, not impressed.
     
    I've never been impressed with anything you've written.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.
     
    Maybe he strikes you as obviously smarter than you. Maybe he is.

    He's a graduate of Goucher College, which has a higher acceptance rate than Chico State.

    Top. Men.
    , @Druid
    What a stupid statement. Nobody cares about his tribal work ethic. He concede he's wrong. That's what matters !
    , @Bill Jones
    Goldberg is thick as a brick, and a deceitful parasite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. What’s interesting is not what Mr Collins says but his reasoning process, which is typical of Generation Y. I call them the Storm Trooper Generation because they see ideologies as complete closed sets of ideas, a bit like those airline meals where starter, main course and dessert are all served up on a single plastic plate. They pick the ideology that best suits their prejudices and they go marching along, mindlessly mouthing the appropriate slogans. “I am a [fill in the blank]. Please tell me what a [blank] thinks so I can think it too”. Unable to reason logically, anyone who dares to disagree is subjected to an irrational and often venomous “sledge hammer to a peanut” attack. Thus, that a book of 464 pages would be too much for him to digest is unsurprising.
    Goldberg, by the way (born 1969) isn’t Generation X. That generation doesn’t start until the early years of the 1970s. His generation, call it the 80s generation, if you will, runs from the late 1950s up to that point. You can see the difference in approach very clearly in France. Marine Le Pen (1968) is Goldberg’s generation. Emmanuel Macron (1977) is generation X. Since each generation tends to react against the preceding one (in the way that Goldberg’s did against the 60s generation), the idea that Generation Z, the post-millennials, which runs from a point between 1995 and 2000 (the psychologists aren’t yet agreed!) to a point as yet undeterminable, will simply march meekly behind generation Y is improbable. The reaction of the Parkland students (and the fury that reaction unleashed in certain quarters!) confirms that.
    Thus, all that Mr Collins is doing is blindly positioning himself behind his “guru”, positioning Goldberg behind a different “guru” and then, without any logical argument, announcing that his “guru” is right and Goldberg’s is wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. J. Goldberg is a typical left wing Bolshevik ziocon.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid, Them Guys
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. pyrrhus says:
    @Maple Curtain
    Evisceration. Much better than book review.

    I'm Gen X and I approve of this message.

    Yes, 5 stars for accuracy and brevity…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Bill says:
    @Thomm
    Jonah Goldberg married a woman 6 years older than him. No wonder he hates Donald Trump.

    Cuckservatism is just a left-wing ideology.

    White Trashionalism is also a leftist ideology, on account of their left-wing economic views. That is why so many White Trashionalists were Bernie Sanders supporters.

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Thanks,
    -Kartik

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.
     
    False. You obviously have no clue.

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.

    At least, the above are the American definitions. Europe is a little different (Adolf Hitler technically is left-wing under the US definition).
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Libertarians are snickering mediocrities who think they're smarter than everyone else. They reduce the complexities of the human experience to shallow frat-boy buzzwords. The highlight of their year is attending the annual convention of frat-boy wisdom in Las Vegas and paying for oral gratification from a transsexual hooker.
    , @Anon
    I don’t mean to insult anyone but pompous pseudo intellectual anti American Jilles but.

    It’s my opinion that libertarianism is a refuge of White Heterosexual men in denial of feminism anti White racism and the liberal war against Whites.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil
     
    Ah, but the kings didn't send you a nosy income statement form for you to fill out, or draft you into their armies.

    And the state didn't have anything to do with marriage, as it was a sacrament. That was a Protestant innovation.

    And dog and cock fights and bear baiting were still legal. And you could put anything you wanted into your vat and still call it beer. (The Bavarians ruined that.)

    So your rightwing golden age was still quite libertarian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. David JW says:

    Er… Goldberg is a tribalist too.. for his own tribe… one of the lost tribes of…. (ethnic group often described as globalists)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Nordlingen
    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were " God`s will " .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .

    Yes, Protestantism is inherently bad and so are Protestants. Good point.

    For one thing, Protestants need to learn from the RC church (and old “mainline” Protestant Churches) and be more active in destroying my country.

    The less lefty, non-self-hating (non-“mainline”) Protestants need to get with the program by being more like their pussified naive establishment brethren and with your dear RCC by bringing in, funding, settling, and advocating for every possible other people in the world, at our expense in every sense of the word.

    Yes, good Christians should be like Jorge Bergoglio and lecture us from a tightly guarded opulent tower about how we are bad Christians if we don’t surrender our common language and culture, our earnings, our resources, our land, our social cohesiveness, our trust for fellow citizens, and even the safety of our own children.

    Protestants also need to do a better job having their clergy molest preteens, push homosexual perversion on teens, foster rampant homosexualism in their religious training programs, and cover up all the aforesaid while insulting admitted and known victims.

    It’s increasingly clear that the systematically sordid record of at least the recent RC Church on this score, is not fabricated by the antiChristian bigots in our government and establishment media. Not sure that the RC church’s record of abuse, perversion, and coverup has been even exaggerated by people with a preexisting ax to grind against Catholics or Christianity. But either way, this is no small, local, or short-lived problem, and it doesn’t seem to be improving.

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.
     
    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae---the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts. Protestantism is exactly like the so-called Roman Catholic Church of today, since the two of them are the same thing.

    You would really have to be some sort of oblivious numbnutz not to recognize this, but look who I'm talking to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    100 years ago – my people, English speaking White Anglos (in this case the British) ruled/administered Jerusalem. Imagine what it would be like to hear the best live version of Handel’s Messiah in Jerusalem, Bethlehem or celebrate Easter with a traditional, heterosexual, married Anglo Anglican priest/Bishop celebrating the triumphant return of Jesus Christ to Jerusalem.

    OK, my people got dispossessed, driven out of Jerusalem/British mandated Palestine by Jewish terrorists in the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

    That’s life.

    But imagine if the situation now in Israel was the same as the situation here in “Conservative inc” in the United States.

    Imagine if my people – White English speaking Anglo Christians had remained in Jerusalem/Israel at say 3% of the population. But somehow we managed to rig the situation that our 3% of White Anglo Christians managed to dominate all the Israeli media including the supposedly “Conservative” media.

    Imagine if I or some traditional British Anglo Christian guy could make a comfortable living writing and speaking rediculous nonsense demanding open borders immigration in to Israel (that’s the entire Arab/Muslim/Black African populations at least 500 million!) and somehow packaging this suicidal insanity as something

    Conservative, patriotic, classical free market Adam Smith and John Locke.

    Imagine if my people White English speaking Anglo Christians comprising ~ 3% of the Israeli population, imagine if we somehow had the power to smear, marginalize and purge any Jewish Israeli Conservatives (an equivalent of John Derbyshire) who dared say anything “racist” like saying that maybe open borders mass Arab and Muslim and Black African immigration in the tens of millions to Israel wasn’t really a good thing and Libertarian free market economics were kind of a huge distraction.

    That’s my feeling about the lunatic rantings of the likes of Jewish Neo Conservatives like Jonah Goldberg.

    Why exactly do I have to read or listen to this nonsense?

    The guy would be stoned to death in Israel for preaching this insanity

    “OPEN BORDERS FOR ISRAEL” – what let the entire populations of Gaza, Algeria, Pakistan and Somalia simply migrate in to Israel?

    What the F*****

    Jews in Israel do not accept any of the lies of Neo Conservative Jews in the USA – accept of course supporting all American Jewish Neo Conservative wars, intrigues against secular Arabs in Iraq, Syria, bombing Iran etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Malinche says:
    @jilles dykstra
    These western values, I'm not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied 'that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people's land'.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius' crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, 'Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland', Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    Probably you haver never spoken to hispanoamericans that explained you how the conquest ,and the independence , of the americas was done , since you seem to repeat like a parrot the lies of the supremacist protestants against catholics and against Spain .

    Hispanoamericans will tell you that the conquest of America was done by the indians , and the indepence in the early 1800′s by the spaniards . So ???????

    Well ,do you think that Cortès with just 500 men could have conquered the Aztec Empire ??? and do you think that Pizarro could have conquered the Incaic Empire with just 200 men ??? . Come on …..

    What happened is that both the aztec and incaic empires were terrible tirannies , the aztec and inca etnias dominated many other etnias , took heavy taxes from them , and did a lot of human sacrifices with prisoners from other etnias . When the spanish apeared many tribes joined forces with the spanish ( which seemed to come from a strong foreing power , technically advanced ) to get rid of aztec or inca tiranny . For instance tlaxcaltecas were the bulk of Cortes ` army in the conquest of Tenochitlan . The same thing happened in the inca empire in Cuzco . And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites .

    And the indepence of Hispanic America was carried by the ” criollos ” or the descendants of spaniards , by the spanish whites , the indians fought with Spain , with the Spanish Crown , which granted them their rights , while the criollos betrayed Spain , that in that time was occupied and ravaged by the french genocidal antichrist Napoleon ,

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, Pizarro was a philantropist, and he brought civilisation.
    Like the French in Indochine, the mission civilisatrice, syphilisatrice was the joke, that ended within Dien Bien Phu.
    I'm flabbergasted that even now someone writes this nonsense.
    You obviously know nothing about the well organised Aztec empire, etc.
    " And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites ."
    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Mr. Anon says:
    @Biff

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”? Maybe you’re thinking of conservatives? Right wingers I always felt were Bush supporters, and his favored BIG Government policies(Medicare part D), BIG Government wars, BIG Government spending, BIG Government military,BIG Government spying, BIG Government taxes, BIG Government corporate handouts, and BIG Government protected (un-free)market monopolies. Right wingers were lemmings behind Bush, and the Republican Party. Nothing conservative about that crowd.

    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”?

    He’s referring to imaginary categories floating around in the watery porridge that is his mind. ‘Thomm’ is a simpering idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    Yawn.... you are just butthurt that I have destroyed you umpteen times. Plus, you have forgotten that as a WN wigger, you are just the waste matter that we want to expel from the gene pool of functional whites.

    Get off my lawn, faggot! You are getting in the way of your betters.

    Heh heh heh heh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Mr. Anon says:

    Neocons like Goldberg wear their “conservatism” like the Iriquois wore deer-hides – both as a trophy and as camoflage.

    What has Goldberg or any of the other ostensible conservatives at NR ever conserved?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Mr. Anon says:
    @vinteuil
    Sorry, not impressed.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.

    He's still wrong, of course - but this sort of article is a total waste of everybody's time.

    Sorry, not impressed.

    I’ve never been impressed with anything you’ve written.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.

    Maybe he strikes you as obviously smarter than you. Maybe he is.

    He’s a graduate of Goucher College, which has a higher acceptance rate than Chico State.

    Top. Men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil

    I’ve never been impressed with anything you’ve written.
     
    I cut my beard to please myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @HobbesianM
    Many of these inventions were British, yet Germany wanted to destroy Britain. Values.

    That Indian Chief who was burned alive reserved to his own nation the right to wage war on neighboring nations, abduct the women and torture the men and slaughter them on an industrial scale in spectacular and bloodthirsty ritual ceremonies. Values.

    War between nations, and conquest of some nations by others, are features of human life that have been with us since prehistory.

    One thing we can be sure of: Goldberg has no problem with war and conquest.

    Great to know all these things about this chief.
    For an Indian view:
    Ward Churchill, ‘A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present’, San Francisco 1997

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    A citation only? That's it?

    I could cite witchraft books, as well as books which claim the Germans made soap out of Jews.

    Must be true, someone said so.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Anon
    You believe Ward Churchill??? You naive fool. Ward Churchill is pure European. Because colleges and universities only hire Jewish homosexual and communist grandparents White men, Churchill
    Wisely checked the American Indian box on all his applications. It was the only way he could get hired.

    He wrote endless pro Indian anti White books for years and taught an anti White studies course.

    Then it came out. He is a direct descendant of the only survivor of an Indian massacre and slave raid.

    It was the habit of the White settlers to live on isolated farms. Indians kept an aye on the farms. When, and only when the men and older boys were away the Indians struck.

    The father was away. About 20 Indian men invaded the farm. The mother was killed 2 teenage daughters were kidnapped into slavery and never seen again. The livestock were stolen.

    Ward’s direct ancestor was the 11 or 12 year old boy who watched his mother’s murder and slave raid on his sisters from his hiding place in the woods.

    That murder slave raid and theft of livestock when there were no men or 15 year old boys at home was the standard Indian practice for centuries. It was why White women hated Indians far more than White men.

    Were it not for affirmative action discrimination against Whites Churchill
    would not have had to claim to be an Indian to get a job.

    How’s Rotterdam by the way? Any Dutch left in that Muslim colony?
    , @Olorin
    Ward Churchill was a fraud, not an "Indian."

    http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

    https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/university-of-colorado-axes-ward-churchill-on-charges-of-academic-misconduct-imaCl0w0BUKmUqftIqJGww/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Corvinus says:
    @Mulegino1
    The foundation of the west is Christian/Virtus (virtus meaning manliness, not Victorian tea table etiquette).

    Lockean "conservatism" is a front for Judeocentrism and the reign of quantity. Democracy is degeneration. "Democratic" means are just that-means for an end. We elect our leaders in democratic fashion, but they must govern authoritatively- and so we must never elect women or fools to govern us. In America, unfortunately, we have elected a surfeit of fools, and narrowly avoided the disaster of a woman (however unfeminine) as our leader. Trump is hardly ideal, but he is a far sight better than the alternative we were offered.

    “The foundation of the west is Christian/Virtus (virtus meaning manliness, not Victorian tea table etiquette).”

    No, the foundation of the West is what people individually and collectively make it out to be. I understand your pain and frustration because you hold a viewpoint that is held but by a few people. But as the human race progresses, and employs liberty, they make decisions for their society.

    “Democracy is degeneration.”

    Democracy is empowerment.

    “We elect our leaders in democratic fashion, but they must govern authoritatively”.

    Our leaders govern by the laws of our nation, which may or may not be authoritative in nature.

    “and so we must never elect women or fools to govern us.”

    You may choose not to elect women, but that would be foolish, especially if they are not a fool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    No, the foundation of the West is what people individually and collectively make it out to be.
     
    No, you witless boob - it is what it is, not what people susequently construe it to be.

    You don't seem to believe in any external reality beyond the consensus of a mob.

    You are a a human being who began as a zygote. That fact remains true even if you eventually decide that you sprouted from an acorn.

    Our leaders govern by the laws of our nation, which may or may not be authoritative in nature.
     
    Our "leaders" (the very word is vile to a free people) govern according to the dictates of the wealthy interests that jerk their choke-chains. This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult. Was your mental development frozen in the School-House Rock phase?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

    Do you dispute that the interests of wealthy people don't come before those of the hoi-polloi?

    Did you have to work at it to get this stupid, or have you always been this way?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. I think every week there is a new book about this theme, the end of democracy. There must be hundred of such books. The translation of the book by Madeleine Albright appeared in Germany a short time ago. Every cultural programe on tv talked about it. It must be a very important book. The title in German is “Faschismus: Eine Warnung” (Fascism, a warning).

    Most surprising is the case of Yascha Mounk. The family comes originally from Poland and immigrated to Germany. He wrote a book with a title like “Why I’m a Jew” or something similar. I haven’t read the book but I think he complains about Germany because he was well treated, or because someone said once something less agreeable in school to him, I don’t know exaclty. Now he also wrote a book about the end of democracy (“The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It”) because of Trump (I also didn’t read this book). Really surprising is how he got to teach in Harvard as author of such a book. Professors in Harvard used to be brillant people like John Rawls, Robert Nozick. Fukuyama made a part of his studies in Harvard, I believe. Now you can get to teach in Harvard having done nothing more than assembly-line work. Maybe this is a sign of the end of liberal democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Uncle Sam says:

    Jonah Goldberg is a Trotskyite revolutionary Jew who uses America to pursue the age-old Jewish dream of world domination. Part of that desire and plan is to adulterate the white race, because he and other Jews like him see the white race as the biggest obstacle along the road to world domination.

    These revolutionary Jews obviously cannot exterminate the white race. So the next best thing is to have them inbreed with less capable nonwhites, which would over time effectively exterminate the white race. Any white person who cannot see this is stupid beyond belief. Who do you think is responsible for these increasing number of television commercials featuring mixed race couples? The answer: people like Jonah Goldberg, George Soros and the rest of their co-religionists who think and behave the way they do. I am not blaming all Jews, obviously. There is certainly at least a minority of decent and honorable Jews who do not engage in these activities.

    Finally, let me say this. This catastrophic state of affairs that exists in the Western world, particularly its Anglo-Saxon component, is due to the monumental stupidity, corruption, hubris and degeneracy of the Anglo-Saxon ruling classes who over the last 300 or so years have allowed their Jewish populations to have entirely too much influence and power. The price, assuming nothing is done about it, will be the complete destruction of Anglo-Saxon culture and civilization. Let me quickly add: This is not an indictment of the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who are in the main a fine and good people who brought a great civilization into the world, but an indictment of their ruling elites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cleburne
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @Malinche
    Probably you haver never spoken to hispanoamericans that explained you how the conquest ,and the independence , of the americas was done , since you seem to repeat like a parrot the lies of the supremacist protestants against catholics and against Spain .

    Hispanoamericans will tell you that the conquest of America was done by the indians , and the indepence in the early 1800's by the spaniards . So ???????

    Well ,do you think that Cortès with just 500 men could have conquered the Aztec Empire ??? and do you think that Pizarro could have conquered the Incaic Empire with just 200 men ??? . Come on .....

    What happened is that both the aztec and incaic empires were terrible tirannies , the aztec and inca etnias dominated many other etnias , took heavy taxes from them , and did a lot of human sacrifices with prisoners from other etnias . When the spanish apeared many tribes joined forces with the spanish ( which seemed to come from a strong foreing power , technically advanced ) to get rid of aztec or inca tiranny . For instance tlaxcaltecas were the bulk of Cortes ` army in the conquest of Tenochitlan . The same thing happened in the inca empire in Cuzco . And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites .

    And the indepence of Hispanic America was carried by the " criollos " or the descendants of spaniards , by the spanish whites , the indians fought with Spain , with the Spanish Crown , which granted them their rights , while the criollos betrayed Spain , that in that time was occupied and ravaged by the french genocidal antichrist Napoleon ,

    Indeed, Pizarro was a philantropist, and he brought civilisation.
    Like the French in Indochine, the mission civilisatrice, syphilisatrice was the joke, that ended within Dien Bien Phu.
    I’m flabbergasted that even now someone writes this nonsense.
    You obviously know nothing about the well organised Aztec empire, etc.
    ” And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites .”
    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eurocretins
    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred
    of thousands of indonesians just a few decades ago . WWI , WWII ..... etc... And those minipseudocountries pretend to give lessons to everyone on earth , fuck the EU , fuck the europeans , your soul is dead .
    , @Anonymous
    Actually, jilles, in this case, 'Malinche' is right, which explains why, over the course of three centuries, revolts against the Spaniards by civilized Indians (Mayans, Quechua, etc.) were pretty rare. (Of course, yet-to-be-conquered savage Indians, such as the Yaquí and the Commanches, fought the Spanish tooth and nail.)

    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.
     
    That's not true at all. The Negroes were imported for agriculture, not mining. Pretty much all mining under the Spaniards was done by Indians, who already had a long history of mining before the Spaniards turned up. The bulk of the Negro slaves were to be found in the tropic belt, ranging from northern S. America (Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) up through the Caribbean islands, and across the southern part of N. America. There were very few Negroes elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere for several centuries. I once spent nearly an entire year living in Chile, for example, and the only black person I encountered the whole time was another American ex-pat. (The producers of Breaking Bad seem to be unaware of the fact that are no blacks in Chile.)

    I suspect that 'Malinche' is Hispanic--possibly Mexican. Not only is the syntax very Spanish-sounding, but the name Malinche is well-known in Mexican history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche
    , @Anon
    Why do you ignore the Dutch treatment of Indonesia in favor of constant ignorant attacks on English and Spanish America ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @RadicalCenter
    The word Protestant indicates, uh, protest. As for destruction and the rest, that doesn’t necessarily follow in terms of the word’s plain usual meaning, or in terms of logic.

    As for Protestant versus catholic, they both sound ridiculous when trying to blame the other for everything and themselves for nothing.

    And wouldn’t it seem high time for all Christians to get together and fight for their survival? Practicing Christians will be outnumbered by Muslims in most of Europe within 20 years. Just as a shrinking pool of aged white people will be outnumbered by hostile, much younger nonwhites — hostile thanks in part but only in part to that charming religion of peace — in the uk and much of Europe within thirty.

    But let’s keep the catholic versus Protestant hatred burning, that’s what matters.

    Thanks for the Jack Handy theology lesson: (”Why does there always have to be a right answer? Can’t we all just love each other?” ) Now there’s a philosophy we can all unite under to take down Jewish hegemony!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @anonymous
    Christianity got forced down Nordic throats in the Northern Crusades. Warm-climate Christianity doesn't well suit cool-blooded Nordics, so they modified the invading religion to better suit their culture. Luther was the revenge of the Vikings. Next time, keep your Jesus in your pants.

    Strut your stuff, baby.
    What is God compared with your power of Cool?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corvinus
    "The foundation of the west is Christian/Virtus (virtus meaning manliness, not Victorian tea table etiquette)."

    No, the foundation of the West is what people individually and collectively make it out to be. I understand your pain and frustration because you hold a viewpoint that is held but by a few people. But as the human race progresses, and employs liberty, they make decisions for their society.

    "Democracy is degeneration."

    Democracy is empowerment.

    "We elect our leaders in democratic fashion, but they must govern authoritatively".

    Our leaders govern by the laws of our nation, which may or may not be authoritative in nature.

    "and so we must never elect women or fools to govern us."

    You may choose not to elect women, but that would be foolish, especially if they are not a fool.

    No, the foundation of the West is what people individually and collectively make it out to be.

    No, you witless boob – it is what it is, not what people susequently construe it to be.

    You don’t seem to believe in any external reality beyond the consensus of a mob.

    You are a a human being who began as a zygote. That fact remains true even if you eventually decide that you sprouted from an acorn.

    Our leaders govern by the laws of our nation, which may or may not be authoritative in nature.

    Our “leaders” (the very word is vile to a free people) govern according to the dictates of the wealthy interests that jerk their choke-chains. This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult. Was your mental development frozen in the School-House Rock phase?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

    Do you dispute that the interests of wealthy people don’t come before those of the hoi-polloi?

    Did you have to work at it to get this stupid, or have you always been this way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It is what it is" comes into being as a result of people individually and collectively making a decision on something they construe to be true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate, etc. Waxing philosophical is way above your pay grade. I'll try to dumb things down so as even you can understand.

    "You don’t seem to believe in any external reality beyond the consensus of a mob."

    That would be a strawman on your part.

    "Our “leaders” (the very word is vile to a free people)..."

    You have an odd way of phrasing here. There is nothing observably "vile" for a free people to be able to elect their leaders, or look to a person or a group of people as a leader. Perhaps it is "vile" to you that we have certain people in leadership capacities, but not to other people. Are you following along here?

    "This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult."

    That would be another strawman on your part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Nordlingen
    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were " God`s will " .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .

    You seem to suffer from the illusion that before Luther there were no wars in Europe.
    Suppose you also do not know that the first crusade was in Europe:
    Marcus Bull, ‘Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, The Limousin and Gascony, c.970 – c.1130′, New York, 1998

    All over history wars needed moral pretexts, indeed, protestantism and catholicism next to each other provided pretexts, for wars that otherwise also would have been waged.
    Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 are present day pretexts.

    The great achievement of Luther was independent thinking.
    There are those who assert that he started the beginning of the end of belief, quite possible.
    But I do suppose that science also was furthered by Luther, except for Calvin do not know of any protestant leader claiming, as even the pope did around 1870, the monopoly on philosophy, for example.

    The Dutch conflict with Spain, our Eighty Years War, indeed was fought apparently for religion.
    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.
    The problem was that Philips II was sent from Brussels to Spain to be raised and educated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.
     
    Maybe one of the stupidest things I've ever read
    , @Anon
    In the late 1500s the time of your glorious revolution against Spain, the Netherlands still had the feudal system of heridatory serfdom aka heridatory slavery. Your guild system kept businesses heridatory for centuries
    The only way to practice a trade or run a business, even a market stall was to inherit it.

    Everybody else was either a serf or day laborer

    At the time of your glorious revolution against Spain your country was still an obscure part of the Hapsburg Spanish empire that was given to Phillip when Emperor Charles 5&1 died.

    Brussels was never part of your insignificant little landfill country. Your glorious revolution was English funded and fomented and led as part of the endless wars between Spain and England. Your country would not exist as an independent state if not for England.

    Look at your own history before you endlessly recite the faults of other countries

    And the reformation was 500 years ago. Get over it.

    Face the fact that Protestantism in dead in Europe. It only survives in the America’s, both North and South that you despise so much.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. vinteuil says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Sorry, not impressed.
     
    I've never been impressed with anything you've written.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.
     
    Maybe he strikes you as obviously smarter than you. Maybe he is.

    He's a graduate of Goucher College, which has a higher acceptance rate than Chico State.

    Top. Men.

    I’ve never been impressed with anything you’ve written.

    I cut my beard to please myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I cut my beard to please myself.
     
    But you cut it in public.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. lavoisier says: • Website
    @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    I agree with this comment.

    While I am not a believer in the absolute equality of all races that is the core belief of the progressive left, discrimination against an individual on the basis of skin color is neither wise nor moral.

    A realistic way forward is to get away from the system of racial spoils and treat all individuals as equal under the law. But stop the nonsense that we are all equal and any finding of societal inequalities is evidence for racism.

    We have no other choice in a multiracial society.

    Finally, stop doubling down on the merits of diversity and the fiction that the West is gaining a great deal by importing massive numbers of people from the Third World.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    You get no argument from me on the last sentence and I think I can agree with most of the rest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, Pizarro was a philantropist, and he brought civilisation.
    Like the French in Indochine, the mission civilisatrice, syphilisatrice was the joke, that ended within Dien Bien Phu.
    I'm flabbergasted that even now someone writes this nonsense.
    You obviously know nothing about the well organised Aztec empire, etc.
    " And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites ."
    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.

    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred
    of thousands of indonesians just a few decades ago . WWI , WWII ….. etc… And those minipseudocountries pretend to give lessons to everyone on earth , fuck the EU , fuck the europeans , your soul is dead .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    At least Belgium was the Grand Duchy of Burgundy, the wealthiest and very important territory in Western Europe for more than a thousand years and the Crown Jewel of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Empire.

    What’s now the Netherlands was insignificant swamp and landfill along the North Sea until the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Then the Dutch made enough money as pirates attacking the Spanish treasure ships to become major slave traders and finance the conquest of Indonesia.

    Dutch Indonesia was one of the worst ruled, most exploited financially and most cruelly treated of all the European colonies

    And Jilles beloved Dutch Reformed Church has all but disappeared into atheism and debauchery. Who’d a thunk that the country of the Dutch Reformed Church would become one of the worst countries in the world for the sex trafficking of Eastern European women?

    Legal prostitution has some good points. But it has never worked anywhere because the countries where it is legal still allow pimps to enslave the prostitutes. And the Netherlands hugely taxes the unfortunate prostitutes but never the pimps.
    , @DFH

    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred
     
    KEK, totally absurd

    thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/24/mythologies-about-leopolds-congo-free-state/
    , @jilles dykstra
    Any basis for your assertion about killing hundreds of thousands in Dutch East Indies ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. DFH says:
    @anonymous
    Speaking of Gentile-hating Jews, have you ever read Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25? The Rabbi Jesus certainly hated the Gentile's white patriarchy. Why would you worship somebody who hates you?

    25So Jesus declared, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them call themselves benefactors. 26But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves

    How exactly is this supposed to express hatred of gentiles?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. DFH says:
    @jilles dykstra
    You seem to suffer from the illusion that before Luther there were no wars in Europe.
    Suppose you also do not know that the first crusade was in Europe:
    Marcus Bull, 'Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, The Limousin and Gascony, c.970 - c.1130', New York, 1998

    All over history wars needed moral pretexts, indeed, protestantism and catholicism next to each other provided pretexts, for wars that otherwise also would have been waged.
    Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 are present day pretexts.

    The great achievement of Luther was independent thinking.
    There are those who assert that he started the beginning of the end of belief, quite possible.
    But I do suppose that science also was furthered by Luther, except for Calvin do not know of any protestant leader claiming, as even the pope did around 1870, the monopoly on philosophy, for example.

    The Dutch conflict with Spain, our Eighty Years War, indeed was fought apparently for religion.
    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.
    The problem was that Philips II was sent from Brussels to Spain to be raised and educated.

    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.

    Maybe one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reason
    Yes indeed , you can not reason with people like this , so dutch-centric .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Neuday says:
    @DFH

    The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have. Lockean and Classical Liberal values were introduced to the world in a time when racial and national consciousness were an absolute given.
     
    I'm glad to see someone saying this when the response from the stupider sections of nationalism has been to accept the premise that they're contradictory

    Lockean and Classical Liberal values were introduced to the world in a time when racial and national consciousness were an absolute given.

    Some charge that Classical Liberal values are racist and should therefore be discarded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Neuday says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    These different terms can be bandied about until the cows come home, but, to me, the term for the people you describe is simply "members of the Republican party", or maybe GOPe, though I never understood what the "e" was for, so I don't get the pun or what-have-you.

    "Right-wing" is a term that used to describe real conservatives, but now is for anyone more conservative than whomever the nutcases of the ctrl-left are being led by at the time.

    I agree completely, Biff, that there was NOTHING conservative about the policies promoted during the Bush, Jr, years. Since the end of the Cold War, the Big-Gov support has come from both squads of The Party.

    The “e” in GOPe is for establishment. Conservatism, Inc.

    All they had to do was protect the borders and the girls bathroom and they could’ve had their tax cuts and ME wars. But, no, because effective tactics is Not Who We Are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I disagree. Their tactics were very effective. You have to view their success through the eyes of the traitorous bastards that they are.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    BTW, thanks for the explanation for the "e", Neuday.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    These western values, I'm not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied 'that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people's land'.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius' crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, 'Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland', Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    Cortez had a few hundred Spanish soldiers and 80,000 Mayan soldiers. The Mayans and Aztecs were enemies for centuries with the Mayans being the losers.

    As soon as the Spanish landed the Mayans allied with the Spanish to attack the Aztecs.

    A century later thousands of miles to the north the hereditary enemies the Hurons and Iroquois Indians allied with the French and English to continue their tribal war fare .

    The French allied with the Huron, the Iroquois with the English. During the revolutionary war the English & Iroquois allied against the revolutionaries

    Get off your European psuedo intellectual anti American high horse and look into your own history of the Dutch colonies of Indonesia, the Dutch slavery Carribean islands, Dutch piracy of the Spanish treasure ships. the Dutch slave trade the Dutch planters in what’s now New York State making White Dutch farm laborers heridatory slaves and the fact that the first African slaves brought to the British colonies in 1619 was a Dutch slave ship.

    The Pope dividing S America into Portuguese and Spanish territory? What’s wrong with that? It was an excellent idea

    Rather than getting into endless wars about who got what, the Portuguese and Spanish decided to find an independent arbitrator to divide the territory. That prevented endless war fare. Seems like a good idea to me. I believe it’s called diplomacy.

    Contrast that with the French and English in N America, just endless wars and skirmishes , thousands killed for more than a century until the English won in 1759.

    You’re not the only person in the world who ever read a few history books.

    Maybe you should read about the history of the Dutch East Indies for a start. And what about the Dutch alliance with the Turks in the late 1500s?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Bad reader, the pope divided the whole world outside Europe.
    That locals allied with invaders, I knew, it happened all over the world.
    That my country did not differ too much from contemporary countries, I knew.
    What about the Turks ?
    They won our 80 Years War for us.
    I can recommend
    Russell Shorto, ‘The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony That Shaped America’, 2004 New York
    , @Wally
    Indeed, in all of Peru there were never more 190 Spaniards.

    The Incas, as accomplished and evil as their elite were, were so reviled by the other natives that finding allies against them was easy.

    https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/heart-human-sacrifice.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Reason says:
    @DFH

    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.
     
    Maybe one of the stupidest things I've ever read

    Yes indeed , you can not reason with people like this , so dutch-centric .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    You seem to suffer from the illusion that before Luther there were no wars in Europe.
    Suppose you also do not know that the first crusade was in Europe:
    Marcus Bull, 'Knightly Piety and the Lay Response to the First Crusade, The Limousin and Gascony, c.970 - c.1130', New York, 1998

    All over history wars needed moral pretexts, indeed, protestantism and catholicism next to each other provided pretexts, for wars that otherwise also would have been waged.
    Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 are present day pretexts.

    The great achievement of Luther was independent thinking.
    There are those who assert that he started the beginning of the end of belief, quite possible.
    But I do suppose that science also was furthered by Luther, except for Calvin do not know of any protestant leader claiming, as even the pope did around 1870, the monopoly on philosophy, for example.

    The Dutch conflict with Spain, our Eighty Years War, indeed was fought apparently for religion.
    The real cause was quite different, Dutch trade and industry could not have existed under the Spanish feudal system.
    The problem was that Philips II was sent from Brussels to Spain to be raised and educated.

    In the late 1500s the time of your glorious revolution against Spain, the Netherlands still had the feudal system of heridatory serfdom aka heridatory slavery. Your guild system kept businesses heridatory for centuries
    The only way to practice a trade or run a business, even a market stall was to inherit it.

    Everybody else was either a serf or day laborer

    At the time of your glorious revolution against Spain your country was still an obscure part of the Hapsburg Spanish empire that was given to Phillip when Emperor Charles 5&1 died.

    Brussels was never part of your insignificant little landfill country. Your glorious revolution was English funded and fomented and led as part of the endless wars between Spain and England. Your country would not exist as an independent state if not for England.

    Look at your own history before you endlessly recite the faults of other countries

    And the reformation was 500 years ago. Get over it.

    Face the fact that Protestantism in dead in Europe. It only survives in the America’s, both North and South that you despise so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    For a somewhat different contemporary opinion:
    D.J. Roorda, ‘Ambassadeur in de Lage Landen, William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces’, Haarlem 1978
    Temple was British ambassador.
    I wonder, do you believe your nonsens ?
    Or read
    Simon Schama, 'Overvloed en Onbehagen, De Nederlandse Cultuur in de Gouden Eeuw', Amsterdam, 1988.
    The original was in english.
    , @Chapeau
    Disclaimer

    Magnificent comment , chapeau , thank you

    In that time , like you say , Spain was part of the House of Hapsburg .

    In the Hapburg catholic troops in Flanders there were more catholic belges , catholic dutch , and germans , than spaniards . The French and English helped the protestants .

    It was a civil war , a religious war , and a protestant England intervention like you say , in which Spain participated backing the catholic Hapsburgs .

    The hate some dutch feel towards Spain is completely sick and vicious .
    , @JRB
    Nearly every sentence you wrote contains a major mistake. Well done, quiet an achievement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Thomm says:
    @Bill

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.

    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.

    False. You obviously have no clue.

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.

    At least, the above are the American definitions. Europe is a little different (Adolf Hitler technically is left-wing under the US definition).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.
     
    Ultimately irrelevant. As Jared Taylor had said:

    Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

    And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

    Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
     
    https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
    , @Jasper Been
    How would you define small government?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Neuday
    The "e" in GOPe is for establishment. Conservatism, Inc.

    All they had to do was protect the borders and the girls bathroom and they could've had their tax cuts and ME wars. But, no, because effective tactics is Not Who We Are.

    I disagree. Their tactics were very effective. You have to view their success through the eyes of the traitorous bastards that they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. RVBlake says:
    @anonymous
    Christianity got forced down Nordic throats in the Northern Crusades. Warm-climate Christianity doesn't well suit cool-blooded Nordics, so they modified the invading religion to better suit their culture. Luther was the revenge of the Vikings. Next time, keep your Jesus in your pants.

    Even earlier than the Northern Crusades…Witness the “evangelization” of Norway by Olaf Tryggvason, and of the Saxons by Charlemagne.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    I'm shocked. Christianity spread throughout Europe. Who knew?

    Yawn.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. I agree mostly with this essay except for the idea that the Iraq war was “pointless” and that before the us invasion Iraq was a “shithole” country. What Iraq WAS was a Ba’ath Socialist secular state.similar to the Ba’ath Socialist secular states of (formerly) Lybia and Syria. The fact that these states have/do promote Arab unity (with no religious political parties), sovereignty in organizational governance and socializing the commanding hieghts of their respective economies is what attracted The Empires desire for destruction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Bowman

    what attracted The Empires desire for destruction.
     
    The Satan-worshipping, anti-White racist, JEWISH cultural marxist Empire

    Fixed that for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Neuday
    The "e" in GOPe is for establishment. Conservatism, Inc.

    All they had to do was protect the borders and the girls bathroom and they could've had their tax cuts and ME wars. But, no, because effective tactics is Not Who We Are.

    BTW, thanks for the explanation for the “e”, Neuday.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Diversity Heretic
    I tried to read the Goldberg book on the recommendation of a relative, but I found myself merely scanning many sections. As this reviewer notes, it isn't worth the effort to plow through all of the pages.

    I plan to see what I can find of James Burnham, however. I have read his masterful The Managerial Revolution and this article whets my appetite for more.

    Please forgive me if this cut & pasted quote from Burnham’s “Suicide of the West” is too long, but I think it is a perfect example of his genius in a nut shell.

    “James Burnham, Suicide of the West, p.105
    1. Some years ago liberals concerned with social reform and urban renewal, as it has come to be called, turned their attention to Skid Row. In accord with the canons of ideological thinking, Skid Row was understood as a “problem”; and, since it was a problem, liberals had a duty to “solve” it. During the past decade they have attempted a direct and, it would seem, sufficiently drastic solution: in a number of American cities, including some of the largest (New York, Boston, St. Louis, San Francisco) they have been simply destroying the local embodiments [p.106]of Skid Row and replacing these with boulevards, parks, garden apartments, new shopping areas, etc.

    But what exactly is Skid Row? In reality it is not, other than incidentally, a spatial concept at all, but a functional concept; and not so much a special “problem” as merely a natural, indeed inevitable, condition of every articulated community of any size, except perhaps for some artificial communities like zoned bedroom suburbs or carefully controlled company towns—and even these are not usually exceptions for long.

    [MORE]

    Skid Row is the end of the line; and there must be an end of the line somewhere. It is the state of those individuals who by destiny or choice drop out of normal society, even out of criminal society, which is after all part of the normal order of things. Most of these individuals are alcoholics and some are drug addicts. Where they are is Skid Row; and Skid Row exists in every city, and always has.

    In the natural course of events, when the process is not interfered with by ideologues relentlessly determined to solve problems, the citizens of Skid Row usually gather together in one particular district of each town and city: in New York it was the Bowery, as everyone knew, the most famous of America’s Skid Rows. That district is always frightfully run-down. It has cheap bars selling rotten liquor, and cheap stores selling even rottener liquor substitutes; flophouses offering flea-bitten cots for a few cents a night; greasy hamburger joints; vacant lots where bonfires can be made of old boards and packing boxes; a tenth-rate pawnshop or two; sagging doorways where the cops won’t bother a man while he sleeps off his drunk; a commercial blood bank where you can sell a pint of blood every month or so if you don’t have an active disease; a dreary Catholic church and two or three evangelical chapels in old loft buildings; a Salvation Army station where you can get some soup or stew in exchange for singing a hymn; a city-run flophouse where you can have, when the mood strikes you now and then, a delousing and shower along with a plate of food and a bed for the night. This district is where the Skid Row ers stay when they [p.107]are in town; and where they head for when they arrive, since every certified Skid Rower is equipped with a built-in homing compass.
    James Burnham, Suicide of the West, p.107
    To the respectable citizen Skid Row seems a macabre place, but in its own way Skid Row is an ingenious product of the long and wonderfully intricate natural evolution of the City. In society as it really is—hierarchical and differentiating, not equalized or regimented—there has to be an end of the line. The localization of Skid Row and the growth of its distinctive institutions and customs are gradual developments serving to take care of those at the end of the line in a way that recognizes the reality of the condition, makes appropriate exceptions to the usual social rules, adds a certain warmth and humaneness along with exits left open for those—they are not many—who wish to take one, and shields the rest of society from Skid Row ‘s potentially destructive effects.

    But this cannot be the way liberalism understands Skid Row. For liberalism, Skid Row is not a natural and inevitable social condition but a definite place—the Bowery, the Embarcadero, South State Street, wherever—that constitutes, as I began by noting, a problem: a “blighted area.” The people in it are-they must be, by the principles of liberalism—the exploited victims of the area’s blight, of inadequate education and bad institutions. Therefore the area must be renewed and the victims reformed. This is the reasoning that has produced the recent movement to abolish Skid Row, as a result of which New York’s Bowery and a number of its equivalents in other cities have in fact been in varying degrees cleaned up. The law clamped down on the flophouses, bars and sleeping drunks—they were always illegal, of course, but before the renewers struck, the cops, knowing the condition with which they were dealing, looked the other way. The rotted buildings were bulldozed aside, and the exiled inhabitants invited to the joys of rehabilitation.

    The whole operation has proved to be, inevitably, an ideological illusion. Since Skid Row is not in reality a static thing or a place, it cannot be abolished or rubbed out. The most noticeable consequence of this anti- Skid Row campaign has merely been to diffuse Skid Row, for a while, throughout the City. The displaced alcoholics, hoboes and junkies, who had their own localized and more or less self-sufficient society along the Bowery or South State Street, have been lurching all over New York, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis, trying to cadge money for drinks or dope, knocking into the respectable citizens, making scenes in decent bars, and in general acting, with more than a little justification, like resentful aliens. But of course the liberal reformers can drive you through the old locales and show you triumphantly that Skid Row has vanished. There are not a few who hope that it will be refounded; and it will be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    the largest (New York, Boston, St. Louis, San Francisco)
     
    St Louis sure isn't one of the largest cities anymore.

    New York and San Francisco may have grown about ten percent since Burnham wrote (or more likely, lost ten percent then grown fifteen), but in the meantime the entire country's population has doubled. So their relevance has halved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @CMC
    Promote this guy.

    “Promote this guy.”

    Agreed. His article is a blast. And the promotion of pseudo intellectuals like Goldberg and the rest of his ilk proves how vapid and corrupt the DC/NYC swamp is; these neocon agents of Israel need to be shamed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @eurocretins
    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred
    of thousands of indonesians just a few decades ago . WWI , WWII ..... etc... And those minipseudocountries pretend to give lessons to everyone on earth , fuck the EU , fuck the europeans , your soul is dead .

    At least Belgium was the Grand Duchy of Burgundy, the wealthiest and very important territory in Western Europe for more than a thousand years and the Crown Jewel of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Empire.

    What’s now the Netherlands was insignificant swamp and landfill along the North Sea until the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Then the Dutch made enough money as pirates attacking the Spanish treasure ships to become major slave traders and finance the conquest of Indonesia.

    Dutch Indonesia was one of the worst ruled, most exploited financially and most cruelly treated of all the European colonies

    And Jilles beloved Dutch Reformed Church has all but disappeared into atheism and debauchery. Who’d a thunk that the country of the Dutch Reformed Church would become one of the worst countries in the world for the sex trafficking of Eastern European women?

    Legal prostitution has some good points. But it has never worked anywhere because the countries where it is legal still allow pimps to enslave the prostitutes. And the Netherlands hugely taxes the unfortunate prostitutes but never the pimps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I forgot to add that the unfortunate Dutch prostitutes pay high income taxes to the government and the traditional big percentage to the pimps who pay no taxes.

    Such an honorable upstanding moral country that pays for benefits infrastructure and the government by the taxes of unfortunate sex slave women but doesn’t tax the pimps who run the whole legal prostitution system
    , @jilles dykstra
    " Dutch Indonesia was one of the worst ruled, most exploited financially and most cruelly treated of all the European colonies "

    Independent Indonesia reached the income per head of 1940 somewhere in the seventies

    About religion, I'm an atheist/agnost, most in the Netherlands are quite happy no longer to wear the yoke of religion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    At least Belgium was the Grand Duchy of Burgundy, the wealthiest and very important territory in Western Europe for more than a thousand years and the Crown Jewel of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Empire.

    What’s now the Netherlands was insignificant swamp and landfill along the North Sea until the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Then the Dutch made enough money as pirates attacking the Spanish treasure ships to become major slave traders and finance the conquest of Indonesia.

    Dutch Indonesia was one of the worst ruled, most exploited financially and most cruelly treated of all the European colonies

    And Jilles beloved Dutch Reformed Church has all but disappeared into atheism and debauchery. Who’d a thunk that the country of the Dutch Reformed Church would become one of the worst countries in the world for the sex trafficking of Eastern European women?

    Legal prostitution has some good points. But it has never worked anywhere because the countries where it is legal still allow pimps to enslave the prostitutes. And the Netherlands hugely taxes the unfortunate prostitutes but never the pimps.

    I forgot to add that the unfortunate Dutch prostitutes pay high income taxes to the government and the traditional big percentage to the pimps who pay no taxes.

    Such an honorable upstanding moral country that pays for benefits infrastructure and the government by the taxes of unfortunate sex slave women but doesn’t tax the pimps who run the whole legal prostitution system

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Prostitution indeed is legal, so indeed taxes are paid.
    If there are pimps in the legal prostitution, I doubt it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Bill

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.

    Libertarians are snickering mediocrities who think they’re smarter than everyone else. They reduce the complexities of the human experience to shallow frat-boy buzzwords. The highlight of their year is attending the annual convention of frat-boy wisdom in Las Vegas and paying for oral gratification from a transsexual hooker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @lavoisier
    I agree with this comment.

    While I am not a believer in the absolute equality of all races that is the core belief of the progressive left, discrimination against an individual on the basis of skin color is neither wise nor moral.

    A realistic way forward is to get away from the system of racial spoils and treat all individuals as equal under the law. But stop the nonsense that we are all equal and any finding of societal inequalities is evidence for racism.

    We have no other choice in a multiracial society.

    Finally, stop doubling down on the merits of diversity and the fiction that the West is gaining a great deal by importing massive numbers of people from the Third World.

    You get no argument from me on the last sentence and I think I can agree with most of the rest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. DFH says:
    @eurocretins
    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred
    of thousands of indonesians just a few decades ago . WWI , WWII ..... etc... And those minipseudocountries pretend to give lessons to everyone on earth , fuck the EU , fuck the europeans , your soul is dead .

    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred

    KEK, totally absurd

    thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/07/24/mythologies-about-leopolds-congo-free-state/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Anon
    In the late 1500s the time of your glorious revolution against Spain, the Netherlands still had the feudal system of heridatory serfdom aka heridatory slavery. Your guild system kept businesses heridatory for centuries
    The only way to practice a trade or run a business, even a market stall was to inherit it.

    Everybody else was either a serf or day laborer

    At the time of your glorious revolution against Spain your country was still an obscure part of the Hapsburg Spanish empire that was given to Phillip when Emperor Charles 5&1 died.

    Brussels was never part of your insignificant little landfill country. Your glorious revolution was English funded and fomented and led as part of the endless wars between Spain and England. Your country would not exist as an independent state if not for England.

    Look at your own history before you endlessly recite the faults of other countries

    And the reformation was 500 years ago. Get over it.

    Face the fact that Protestantism in dead in Europe. It only survives in the America’s, both North and South that you despise so much.

    For a somewhat different contemporary opinion:
    D.J. Roorda, ‘Ambassadeur in de Lage Landen, William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces’, Haarlem 1978
    Temple was British ambassador.
    I wonder, do you believe your nonsens ?
    Or read
    Simon Schama, ‘Overvloed en Onbehagen, De Nederlandse Cultuur in de Gouden Eeuw’, Amsterdam, 1988.
    The original was in english.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You attack America because of our treatment of Indians. I’ll
    Attack you for your piracy, your slave trade including a Dutch slave ship dumping the first Africans in Jamestown Va in 1619 and your horrendous treatment of Indonesia.

    May I ask you 4 questions?

    Why do you endlessly post about the Netherlands revolution against Spain 450 years ago on this America pro White site?

    And are you some kind of Calvinist Dutch Reformed Old Testament preacher?

    Are you one of the only 144 000 people who will go to heaven?

    As a strict Calvinist preacher what do you think of the Muslim takeover of the Netherlands and Europe?

    , @Druid
    Simon Schama for one is a joke!
    , @Dave Bowman
    Simon Schama...??

    But... But... you ARE aware.. OF COURSE you are... ?? that Simon Schama is an utterly morally-DISHONEST, lying, cheating, anti-White racist, pseudo-"intellectual" Jew charlatan, who forged his academic qualifications, has a beyond-mediocre reputation for academic ability let alone integrity among his peers, and above all else, sees himself first and last as a Jewish political agitator, who wants to see the END of the White world, and all it ever achieved, as Jews and their Black pets do it all so much better...?

    Ahh.. You DIDN'T know that..? Ok.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Corvinus says:
    @Mr. Anon

    No, the foundation of the West is what people individually and collectively make it out to be.
     
    No, you witless boob - it is what it is, not what people susequently construe it to be.

    You don't seem to believe in any external reality beyond the consensus of a mob.

    You are a a human being who began as a zygote. That fact remains true even if you eventually decide that you sprouted from an acorn.

    Our leaders govern by the laws of our nation, which may or may not be authoritative in nature.
     
    Our "leaders" (the very word is vile to a free people) govern according to the dictates of the wealthy interests that jerk their choke-chains. This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult. Was your mental development frozen in the School-House Rock phase?

    https://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

    Do you dispute that the interests of wealthy people don't come before those of the hoi-polloi?

    Did you have to work at it to get this stupid, or have you always been this way?

    “It is what it is” comes into being as a result of people individually and collectively making a decision on something they construe to be true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate, etc. Waxing philosophical is way above your pay grade. I’ll try to dumb things down so as even you can understand.

    “You don’t seem to believe in any external reality beyond the consensus of a mob.”

    That would be a strawman on your part.

    “Our “leaders” (the very word is vile to a free people)…”

    You have an odd way of phrasing here. There is nothing observably “vile” for a free people to be able to elect their leaders, or look to a person or a group of people as a leader. Perhaps it is “vile” to you that we have certain people in leadership capacities, but not to other people. Are you following along here?

    “This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult.”

    That would be another strawman on your part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You have an odd way of phrasing here. There is nothing observably “vile” for a free people to be able to elect their leaders, or look to a person or a group of people as a leader. Perhaps it is “vile” to you that we have certain people in leadership capacities, but not to other people. Are you following along here?
     
    The term "leader" is beneath a free people. Those in government are government officials, not leaders. But you are welcome to your bottom-bunk-prison-bitch understanding of the World, nitwit.

    “This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult.”

    That would be another strawman on your part.
     
    No, it isn't. Your posts are uniform in their panglossian stupidity. You are an idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Anon
    At least Belgium was the Grand Duchy of Burgundy, the wealthiest and very important territory in Western Europe for more than a thousand years and the Crown Jewel of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Empire.

    What’s now the Netherlands was insignificant swamp and landfill along the North Sea until the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Then the Dutch made enough money as pirates attacking the Spanish treasure ships to become major slave traders and finance the conquest of Indonesia.

    Dutch Indonesia was one of the worst ruled, most exploited financially and most cruelly treated of all the European colonies

    And Jilles beloved Dutch Reformed Church has all but disappeared into atheism and debauchery. Who’d a thunk that the country of the Dutch Reformed Church would become one of the worst countries in the world for the sex trafficking of Eastern European women?

    Legal prostitution has some good points. But it has never worked anywhere because the countries where it is legal still allow pimps to enslave the prostitutes. And the Netherlands hugely taxes the unfortunate prostitutes but never the pimps.

    ” Dutch Indonesia was one of the worst ruled, most exploited financially and most cruelly treated of all the European colonies ”

    Independent Indonesia reached the income per head of 1940 somewhere in the seventies

    About religion, I’m an atheist/agnost, most in the Netherlands are quite happy no longer to wear the yoke of religion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Anon
    I forgot to add that the unfortunate Dutch prostitutes pay high income taxes to the government and the traditional big percentage to the pimps who pay no taxes.

    Such an honorable upstanding moral country that pays for benefits infrastructure and the government by the taxes of unfortunate sex slave women but doesn’t tax the pimps who run the whole legal prostitution system

    Prostitution indeed is legal, so indeed taxes are paid.
    If there are pimps in the legal prostitution, I doubt it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It’s well known. Most of the prostitutes are sex trafficated Eastern European women brought to the Netherlands by Albanian and other Muslim pimps.

    In fact, there was an article on Drudge Report.com and freerepublic. Com a day ago about the red light district of Amsterdam. The police claim the district is out of control and dangerous. Maybe if Insane Dutch liberals allowed the police to enforce the laws the red light district wouldn’t be out of control.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Great to know all these things about this chief.
    For an Indian view:
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997

    A citation only? That’s it?

    I could cite witchraft books, as well as books which claim the Germans made soap out of Jews.

    Must be true, someone said so.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Wally says:
    @HobbesianM
    Many of these inventions were British, yet Germany wanted to destroy Britain. Values.

    That Indian Chief who was burned alive reserved to his own nation the right to wage war on neighboring nations, abduct the women and torture the men and slaughter them on an industrial scale in spectacular and bloodthirsty ritual ceremonies. Values.

    War between nations, and conquest of some nations by others, are features of human life that have been with us since prehistory.

    One thing we can be sure of: Goldberg has no problem with war and conquest.

    said:
    Bingo. The idea of the ‘noble savage’ is pure fantasy.

    ‘Noble savages’ debunked, excerpt from:

    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/

    excerpt:

    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.
    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Jilles believes the entire non European world, including the Turkish Empire existed in a state of prosperity and harmony until the evil English and Spanish conquered the Americas.

    Indonesia was the only exception They were uncivilized barbarians until the oh so benevolent Dutch brought the benefits of civilization to the Dutch East Indies as well as African slaves to Virginia as early as 1619.

    He’s such a caricature of the 2 generations out of the potato field educated European who hates America and Americans because they naively believe everything the communists told them during the Cold War.

    “ America has no public transit America has no health care. Americans don’t read. Americans lynch blacks. Americans killed all the Indians. America has no welfare. Americans don’t know the difference between Holland and The Netherlands Americans are ignorant of made in Moscow anti American Cold War propaganda “. Blah blah blah.

    Psychologists claim that people who constantly put down others do it because they have low self esteem.

    It applies to countries too, particularly the N W European countries who make it a national pastime of non stop lecturing Americans about our shortcomings.

    In the case of the Netherlands it’s a mouse attacking a lion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Anon
    Cortez had a few hundred Spanish soldiers and 80,000 Mayan soldiers. The Mayans and Aztecs were enemies for centuries with the Mayans being the losers.

    As soon as the Spanish landed the Mayans allied with the Spanish to attack the Aztecs.

    A century later thousands of miles to the north the hereditary enemies the Hurons and Iroquois Indians allied with the French and English to continue their tribal war fare .

    The French allied with the Huron, the Iroquois with the English. During the revolutionary war the English & Iroquois allied against the revolutionaries

    Get off your European psuedo intellectual anti American high horse and look into your own history of the Dutch colonies of Indonesia, the Dutch slavery Carribean islands, Dutch piracy of the Spanish treasure ships. the Dutch slave trade the Dutch planters in what’s now New York State making White Dutch farm laborers heridatory slaves and the fact that the first African slaves brought to the British colonies in 1619 was a Dutch slave ship.

    The Pope dividing S America into Portuguese and Spanish territory? What’s wrong with that? It was an excellent idea

    Rather than getting into endless wars about who got what, the Portuguese and Spanish decided to find an independent arbitrator to divide the territory. That prevented endless war fare. Seems like a good idea to me. I believe it’s called diplomacy.

    Contrast that with the French and English in N America, just endless wars and skirmishes , thousands killed for more than a century until the English won in 1759.

    You’re not the only person in the world who ever read a few history books.

    Maybe you should read about the history of the Dutch East Indies for a start. And what about the Dutch alliance with the Turks in the late 1500s?

    Bad reader, the pope divided the whole world outside Europe.
    That locals allied with invaders, I knew, it happened all over the world.
    That my country did not differ too much from contemporary countries, I knew.
    What about the Turks ?
    They won our 80 Years War for us.
    I can recommend
    Russell Shorto, ‘The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony That Shaped America’, 2004 New York

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I’m an American, I know all about Manhattan. And how long did you keep Manhattan? 50 years?

    How any European can support the Turks against other Europeans is unspeakable. Of course Turkish slavers never roamed the North Sea as they did the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

    If Spain had not protected N west Europe the Turks would have seized 6 year old Dutch boys for the Janissaries and 6 year old girls for the harems. It’s all over. The Netherlands, especially Rotterdam is now just another Muslim colony enjoy it.

    Your grandchildren and gr grandchildren might have to move to Spain to avoid forcible conversion to Spain.
    , @Anon
    So you wish the Turks had won the Battle of Leopanto, destroyed the Spanish fleet and conquered N west Europe including your insignificant landfill?

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism but to turn Muslim due to hatred and bigotry?

    I thought you are an enlightened liberal intellectual. Do you belong to some secret sect or something? And why keep posting your bigotry on this American site?

    Start your own site, JillesHatesSpain.com
    , @Anon
    I had no idea that the Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Indians of India Afghans other Central Asians Greeks Russians and other Christian orthodox Japanese Siberians even knew of the Pope’s arbitratration of territorial disputes as the Portuguese and Spanish did.

    Arbitration rather than endless war is a good idea. So what if the Pope was asked to be the arbitrator. It worked very well as the Portuguese and Spanish never had a war over South America.

    It was 524 years ago. It never affected the Netherlands or any countries but Spain and Portugual at all. And it was good for those countries.

    And you are all enraged about it. How deep, unreasonable and extreme your hatred must be. Maybe your hatred has something to do with the acquisition of Portuguese South Africa by the Dutch centuries later?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Wally says:
    @RVBlake
    Even earlier than the Northern Crusades...Witness the "evangelization" of Norway by Olaf Tryggvason, and of the Saxons by Charlemagne.

    I’m shocked. Christianity spread throughout Europe. Who knew?

    Yawn.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @eurocretins
    around 1900 the belgian killed 10,000.000 black congolese , the dutch killed a few hundred
    of thousands of indonesians just a few decades ago . WWI , WWII ..... etc... And those minipseudocountries pretend to give lessons to everyone on earth , fuck the EU , fuck the europeans , your soul is dead .

    Any basis for your assertion about killing hundreds of thousands in Dutch East Indies ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Check any university library except the ones in the holier than thou Netherlands.

    By the way, when were Dutch Catholics given back their civil liberties?

    When did the Dutch slave trade stop?

    India keeps English as the official language and the English laws and systems of government. India and England still have very close ties and many Indians prefer to migrate to England

    The French African Arab colonies keep the official language of French and the French laws and systems of government. France is full of Algerians Moroccans and Africans who prefer France. The relations between France and its former colonies are very close. Every time there is an earthquake or other disaster the French are right there.

    Spain and S America still have very close ties and the S Americans are very proud of their Spanish heritage.

    But because of the way the Dutch treated them, the Indonesians cut all ties upon independence


    It’s ridiculous that on this American pro European White race site you keep being up the silly English funded and fought rebellion against Philip Hapsburg 450 years ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Chapeau says:
    @Anon
    In the late 1500s the time of your glorious revolution against Spain, the Netherlands still had the feudal system of heridatory serfdom aka heridatory slavery. Your guild system kept businesses heridatory for centuries
    The only way to practice a trade or run a business, even a market stall was to inherit it.

    Everybody else was either a serf or day laborer

    At the time of your glorious revolution against Spain your country was still an obscure part of the Hapsburg Spanish empire that was given to Phillip when Emperor Charles 5&1 died.

    Brussels was never part of your insignificant little landfill country. Your glorious revolution was English funded and fomented and led as part of the endless wars between Spain and England. Your country would not exist as an independent state if not for England.

    Look at your own history before you endlessly recite the faults of other countries

    And the reformation was 500 years ago. Get over it.

    Face the fact that Protestantism in dead in Europe. It only survives in the America’s, both North and South that you despise so much.

    Disclaimer

    Magnificent comment , chapeau , thank you

    In that time , like you say , Spain was part of the House of Hapsburg .

    In the Hapburg catholic troops in Flanders there were more catholic belges , catholic dutch , and germans , than spaniards . The French and English helped the protestants .

    It was a civil war , a religious war , and a protestant England intervention like you say , in which Spain participated backing the catholic Hapsburgs .

    The hate some dutch feel towards Spain is completely sick and vicious .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Especially 500 years later. When Charles 5 of the Holy Roman Empire who was also Charles 1 of Spain and new Spain conquered, sacked and occupied Rome and the papal territories in 1530s he used not Spanish but his German Burgundian Cleve etc troops.

    He ,Charles Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain is the only reason Luther was able to spread his Protestant religion. Charles ruled the Spanish colonies, the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and had some sort of feudal overlordship of the Kings of Portugal
    Which gave him access to the Portuguese territories in Africa India and Macao in China.

    In Europe, Charles 5&1 ruled most of the continent but France Poland and the small Papal territory in Italy. He inherited N Italy from Grandps Macmillan and S Italy from Grandparents Ferdinand and Isabella.

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe. Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.

    Luther was anti the Pope and Catholics so Charles 5&1 backed and protected Luther.

    Were it not for Charles Luther would probably be one of the numerous Catholic Saints whatever the reformer. Or exiled to some monastery to translate books into the numerous languages he knew. Maybe imprisoned and forced to recant and then sent to house arrest as a translator.

    The reformation was 500 years ago It’s done. Whites should unite and keep fighting about what happened 500
    Years ago. Why Jilles keeps bringing it I have no idea, especially as most Americans are unaware of the English funded and fomented Dutch revolt against Charles son Philip and the Dutch Alliance with Turkey in the late 1500s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Cortez had a few hundred Spanish soldiers and 80,000 Mayan soldiers. The Mayans and Aztecs were enemies for centuries with the Mayans being the losers.

    As soon as the Spanish landed the Mayans allied with the Spanish to attack the Aztecs.

    A century later thousands of miles to the north the hereditary enemies the Hurons and Iroquois Indians allied with the French and English to continue their tribal war fare .

    The French allied with the Huron, the Iroquois with the English. During the revolutionary war the English & Iroquois allied against the revolutionaries

    Get off your European psuedo intellectual anti American high horse and look into your own history of the Dutch colonies of Indonesia, the Dutch slavery Carribean islands, Dutch piracy of the Spanish treasure ships. the Dutch slave trade the Dutch planters in what’s now New York State making White Dutch farm laborers heridatory slaves and the fact that the first African slaves brought to the British colonies in 1619 was a Dutch slave ship.

    The Pope dividing S America into Portuguese and Spanish territory? What’s wrong with that? It was an excellent idea

    Rather than getting into endless wars about who got what, the Portuguese and Spanish decided to find an independent arbitrator to divide the territory. That prevented endless war fare. Seems like a good idea to me. I believe it’s called diplomacy.

    Contrast that with the French and English in N America, just endless wars and skirmishes , thousands killed for more than a century until the English won in 1759.

    You’re not the only person in the world who ever read a few history books.

    Maybe you should read about the history of the Dutch East Indies for a start. And what about the Dutch alliance with the Turks in the late 1500s?

    Indeed, in all of Peru there were never more 190 Spaniards.

    The Incas, as accomplished and evil as their elite were, were so reviled by the other natives that finding allies against them was easy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @RadicalCenter
    Yes, Protestantism is inherently bad and so are Protestants. Good point.

    For one thing, Protestants need to learn from the RC church (and old “mainline” Protestant Churches) and be more active in destroying my country.

    The less lefty, non-self-hating (non-“mainline”) Protestants need to get with the program by being more like their pussified naive establishment brethren and with your dear RCC by bringing in, funding, settling, and advocating for every possible other people in the world, at our expense in every sense of the word.

    Yes, good Christians should be like Jorge Bergoglio and lecture us from a tightly guarded opulent tower about how we are bad Christians if we don’t surrender our common language and culture, our earnings, our resources, our land, our social cohesiveness, our trust for fellow citizens, and even the safety of our own children.

    Protestants also need to do a better job having their clergy molest preteens, push homosexual perversion on teens, foster rampant homosexualism in their religious training programs, and cover up all the aforesaid while insulting admitted and known victims.

    It’s increasingly clear that the systematically sordid record of at least the recent RC Church on this score, is not fabricated by the antiChristian bigots in our government and establishment media. Not sure that the RC church’s record of abuse, perversion, and coverup has been even exaggerated by people with a preexisting ax to grind against Catholics or Christianity. But either way, this is no small, local, or short-lived problem, and it doesn’t seem to be improving.

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.

    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae—the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts. Protestantism is exactly like the so-called Roman Catholic Church of today, since the two of them are the same thing.

    You would really have to be some sort of oblivious numbnutz not to recognize this, but look who I’m talking to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Macarena
    Intelligent Dasein : You are right
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae—the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts.
     
    Usual way of thinking typical of classical religionists. It can be argued that 2nd Vatican Council was the best thing that happened to the Catholic Church in the 20th C because it delayed her gradual disintegration which would have come earlier in the case of stubbornly sticking to dogmas unacceptable to the modern mind.

    The problem with Catholic Church has more to do with the collapse of cultural medievalism throughout the entire Western world, which would have affected the Church sooner or later. Partial successes of Evangelical fundamentalism is nothing more than fleeting phenomenon of American influence, basically a Hamburger Christianity.
    , @Anonymous
    Whoah - that's some serious sedevacantism, podner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Olorin says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    This comment is not a full review of your article, Mr. Collins, as I find it easier to just skim. What I got out of it was that you are pretty sure Jonah Goldberg is a retard. You are correct, and I therefore give this article 4 1/2 stars.

    Out of four?

    Or five?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    It's got to be out of 5, right? I'm not like one of those football coaches:

    "I want you to give 110 percent out there today!"

    "But coach, doing my very best is defined as 100%."

    "What? What've ya' been doing, son, going to class? WHO TOLD YOU TO GO TO CLASS?"

    "Now, 10 extra laps tomorrow during CLASS TIME! I want to see 112 %, just to make up for your smart-ass comment, college boy!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Great to know all these things about this chief.
    For an Indian view:
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997

    You believe Ward Churchill??? You naive fool. Ward Churchill is pure European. Because colleges and universities only hire Jewish homosexual and communist grandparents White men, Churchill
    Wisely checked the American Indian box on all his applications. It was the only way he could get hired.

    He wrote endless pro Indian anti White books for years and taught an anti White studies course.

    Then it came out. He is a direct descendant of the only survivor of an Indian massacre and slave raid.

    It was the habit of the White settlers to live on isolated farms. Indians kept an aye on the farms. When, and only when the men and older boys were away the Indians struck.

    The father was away. About 20 Indian men invaded the farm. The mother was killed 2 teenage daughters were kidnapped into slavery and never seen again. The livestock were stolen.

    Ward’s direct ancestor was the 11 or 12 year old boy who watched his mother’s murder and slave raid on his sisters from his hiding place in the woods.

    That murder slave raid and theft of livestock when there were no men or 15 year old boys at home was the standard Indian practice for centuries. It was why White women hated Indians far more than White men.

    Were it not for affirmative action discrimination against Whites Churchill
    would not have had to claim to be an Indian to get a job.

    How’s Rotterdam by the way? Any Dutch left in that Muslim colony?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Olorin says:
    @Nordlingen
    When Erasmus of Rotterdam blamed Luther for the terrible wars that caused protestantism in Europe , spetially in central and northern Europe , Luther answered that these wars were " God`s will " .

    Protestantism caused many wars , both protestants-protestants and catholics-protestants . Only in the 30 Years War ( 1618 -1648 ) there were 10 million deaths , mainly in central Europe . Protestantism ruined Germany , Germany was in caos for nearly 3 centuries thanks to Luther while Catholic Spain and Portugal were in peace , Spain toghether with italians rejected turkish invasions in the eastern mediterranean and civilized America , a continent in which cannibalism , human sacrifices and incest were prevalent , America was backwarded 3 millenia in comparison with the grecoroman and euroasiatic culture brought by Spain and Portugal . Spain linked the Americas to Europe , maybe the Americas will end up linked to China in the future .

    http://interaccionalternativa.blogspot.com/2012/08/lo-que-aporto-espana-al-continente.html

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe , produced all the progressist political delusions that have caused the ruin of old Christianity . Protestantism , as the word indicates , is protest ,rebelion , destruction , not creation .

    Protestantism is puritanism , fanaticism , ruined the joy of living in Europe

    Well, thanks for revealing yourself as somebody who never spent much time around North and Baltic seafaring and shipbuilding people. Worth bearing in mind when reading your comments.

    Also good job remembering the Edenic state of Europe prior to 1517. No wars, no protest, no rebellion, no destruction, no incest. It’s a wonder my ancestors bothered to sail elsewhere at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Olorin says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Great to know all these things about this chief.
    For an Indian view:
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Prostitution indeed is legal, so indeed taxes are paid.
    If there are pimps in the legal prostitution, I doubt it.

    It’s well known. Most of the prostitutes are sex trafficated Eastern European women brought to the Netherlands by Albanian and other Muslim pimps.

    In fact, there was an article on Drudge Report.com and freerepublic. Com a day ago about the red light district of Amsterdam. The police claim the district is out of control and dangerous. Maybe if Insane Dutch liberals allowed the police to enforce the laws the red light district wouldn’t be out of control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @anon
    if i recall correctly (((Jonah))) can be found extremely tribal in earlier books that are anti muslim when he was writing as a judeocon its only now that everyone else has understood they have problems similar to Israel only orders magnitude worse and want israeli solution too that (((Jonaah))) has the vapors.the fact is the west didnt get this problem accidentally it was engineered by jews, to give camouflage and cove to themselves occupying western nations and to assist them in the destruction of the wests current owners who they intended to rob.this entire russia thing is jews angry that Putin stopped jews from looting russia when they were only 75% finished,jews invented communism and overthrew the russian empire were exporting that murderous revolution throughout europe including the genocide of Ukraine before the Nazis decided to stop it happening in germany but the jews already had FDRs ear and influence in britain. It bears repeating here the jews operate as capitalist and communists in neither capacity are they what whites think of as caps or coms they dont give a shit about altruistic motives or about free markets and ass values they only care about money and power to increase the jews hegemony and that last part is the most important and because of it they can play good cop bad cop as both caps and coms without fear of each other rather exploiting the stupid goyims naive inability to understand anything could transcend ideology.whites are constrained by frankly being to good our christian values and the cultures of enlightenment etc that arise from this prevent us from seeing the world as it is.even as we have allowed the jews to force us to abandon our christianity while retaining its cucked slave morality as basic human rights and enlightenment values we are never the less still martyrs we would rather every last white man die and white nation perish than compromise our values. jews will always compromise values for pragmatism and expect each other too.whites by adopting this game theory of rather die than defect from the rules were able to build much more complex civilizations, however they only work in all white nations once others like jews discover these societies its lights out they are easily exploited by any willing to defect from the schelling points of slave morality.

    Mr. #393, can I just give you some advice about your future? One word, PARAGRAPHS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Olorin
    Out of four?

    Or five?

    It’s got to be out of 5, right? I’m not like one of those football coaches:

    “I want you to give 110 percent out there today!”

    “But coach, doing my very best is defined as 100%.”

    “What? What’ve ya’ been doing, son, going to class? WHO TOLD YOU TO GO TO CLASS?”

    “Now, 10 extra laps tomorrow during CLASS TIME! I want to see 112 %, just to make up for your smart-ass comment, college boy!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chapeau
    Disclaimer

    Magnificent comment , chapeau , thank you

    In that time , like you say , Spain was part of the House of Hapsburg .

    In the Hapburg catholic troops in Flanders there were more catholic belges , catholic dutch , and germans , than spaniards . The French and English helped the protestants .

    It was a civil war , a religious war , and a protestant England intervention like you say , in which Spain participated backing the catholic Hapsburgs .

    The hate some dutch feel towards Spain is completely sick and vicious .

    Especially 500 years later. When Charles 5 of the Holy Roman Empire who was also Charles 1 of Spain and new Spain conquered, sacked and occupied Rome and the papal territories in 1530s he used not Spanish but his German Burgundian Cleve etc troops.

    He ,Charles Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain is the only reason Luther was able to spread his Protestant religion. Charles ruled the Spanish colonies, the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and had some sort of feudal overlordship of the Kings of Portugal
    Which gave him access to the Portuguese territories in Africa India and Macao in China.

    In Europe, Charles 5&1 ruled most of the continent but France Poland and the small Papal territory in Italy. He inherited N Italy from Grandps Macmillan and S Italy from Grandparents Ferdinand and Isabella.

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe. Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.

    Luther was anti the Pope and Catholics so Charles 5&1 backed and protected Luther.

    Were it not for Charles Luther would probably be one of the numerous Catholic Saints whatever the reformer. Or exiled to some monastery to translate books into the numerous languages he knew. Maybe imprisoned and forced to recant and then sent to house arrest as a translator.

    The reformation was 500 years ago It’s done. Whites should unite and keep fighting about what happened 500
    Years ago. Why Jilles keeps bringing it I have no idea, especially as most Americans are unaware of the English funded and fomented Dutch revolt against Charles son Philip and the Dutch Alliance with Turkey in the late 1500s

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    in 1530s
     
    It was 1527

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe
     
    Pure fantasy, it was to stop a pro-French pope, nothing to do with a 'united Europe'


    Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.
     
    Again, fantastical. He inherited Bohemia, Hungary was forced upon his brother in order to prevent it falling to the Turks. His only territorial expansionism was in the North-East Netherlands. Otherwise his foreign policy was a response to French aggression, historically in the Duchy of Burgundy and Francis I's renewed attempts to conquer Italy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Anon[219] • Disclaimer says:

    “if i recall correctly (((Jonah))) can be found extremely tribal in earlier books that are anti muslim”

    Golberg praised the Battlestar Galactica reboot back in the day when he thought its themes were anti-muslim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @Thomm

    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.
     
    False. You obviously have no clue.

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.

    At least, the above are the American definitions. Europe is a little different (Adolf Hitler technically is left-wing under the US definition).

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.

    Ultimately irrelevant. As Jared Taylor had said:

    Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

    And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

    Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.

    https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations. You can have a welfare state with a high standard of living but the high standard of living precedes the welfare state, not vice versa. Capitalism means secure property rights and the rule of law so Somalia hardly qualifies. A Sweden with a welfare state is wealthier than Somalia but a free-market Sweden would be even more wealthy than Somalia.
    , @Druid
    Taylor resorts to extremes on both sides and you agree and trot him out!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Thomm

    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.
     
    False. You obviously have no clue.

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.

    At least, the above are the American definitions. Europe is a little different (Adolf Hitler technically is left-wing under the US definition).

    How would you define small government?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    How would you define small government?
     
    i) Low tax rate (under 10% of GDP).
    ii) Little to no deficit spending.
    iii) Hence, government involvement in business and social matters is very small. Government only does the things that only Government can do (courts, roads, a small military, basic research, etc.).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Diversity Heretic
    I tried to read the Goldberg book on the recommendation of a relative, but I found myself merely scanning many sections. As this reviewer notes, it isn't worth the effort to plow through all of the pages.

    I plan to see what I can find of James Burnham, however. I have read his masterful The Managerial Revolution and this article whets my appetite for more.

    me to, i found these on archive.org

    https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A”Burnham%2C+James%2C+1905-1987.”
    joined wait lists, downloading and borrowed all i could 2 min ago:)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Anonymous[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, Pizarro was a philantropist, and he brought civilisation.
    Like the French in Indochine, the mission civilisatrice, syphilisatrice was the joke, that ended within Dien Bien Phu.
    I'm flabbergasted that even now someone writes this nonsense.
    You obviously know nothing about the well organised Aztec empire, etc.
    " And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites ."
    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.

    Actually, jilles, in this case, ‘Malinche’ is right, which explains why, over the course of three centuries, revolts against the Spaniards by civilized Indians (Mayans, Quechua, etc.) were pretty rare. (Of course, yet-to-be-conquered savage Indians, such as the Yaquí and the Commanches, fought the Spanish tooth and nail.)

    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.

    That’s not true at all. The Negroes were imported for agriculture, not mining. Pretty much all mining under the Spaniards was done by Indians, who already had a long history of mining before the Spaniards turned up. The bulk of the Negro slaves were to be found in the tropic belt, ranging from northern S. America (Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) up through the Caribbean islands, and across the southern part of N. America. There were very few Negroes elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere for several centuries. I once spent nearly an entire year living in Chile, for example, and the only black person I encountered the whole time was another American ex-pat. (The producers of Breaking Bad seem to be unaware of the fact that are no blacks in Chile.)

    I suspect that ‘Malinche’ is Hispanic–possibly Mexican. Not only is the syntax very Spanish-sounding, but the name Malinche is well-known in Mexican history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche

    Read More
    • Replies: @wrd9
    Not anymore. There are tens of thousands of Haitians, even over a 100,000, in Chile now.

    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article202590949.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. DFH says:
    @Anon
    Especially 500 years later. When Charles 5 of the Holy Roman Empire who was also Charles 1 of Spain and new Spain conquered, sacked and occupied Rome and the papal territories in 1530s he used not Spanish but his German Burgundian Cleve etc troops.

    He ,Charles Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain is the only reason Luther was able to spread his Protestant religion. Charles ruled the Spanish colonies, the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire and had some sort of feudal overlordship of the Kings of Portugal
    Which gave him access to the Portuguese territories in Africa India and Macao in China.

    In Europe, Charles 5&1 ruled most of the continent but France Poland and the small Papal territory in Italy. He inherited N Italy from Grandps Macmillan and S Italy from Grandparents Ferdinand and Isabella.

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe. Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.

    Luther was anti the Pope and Catholics so Charles 5&1 backed and protected Luther.

    Were it not for Charles Luther would probably be one of the numerous Catholic Saints whatever the reformer. Or exiled to some monastery to translate books into the numerous languages he knew. Maybe imprisoned and forced to recant and then sent to house arrest as a translator.

    The reformation was 500 years ago It’s done. Whites should unite and keep fighting about what happened 500
    Years ago. Why Jilles keeps bringing it I have no idea, especially as most Americans are unaware of the English funded and fomented Dutch revolt against Charles son Philip and the Dutch Alliance with Turkey in the late 1500s

    in 1530s

    It was 1527

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe

    Pure fantasy, it was to stop a pro-French pope, nothing to do with a ‘united Europe’

    Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.

    Again, fantastical. He inherited Bohemia, Hungary was forced upon his brother in order to prevent it falling to the Turks. His only territorial expansionism was in the North-East Netherlands. Otherwise his foreign policy was a response to French aggression, historically in the Duchy of Burgundy and Francis I’s renewed attempts to conquer Italy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy. You are also confusing Charles 5&1 and his son Philip.
    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy?

    Read my post again. It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy, no matter which Pope or who backed him and Catholic supremacy in Europe not Charles’ conflicts with France.

    Protestants should love and admire Charles 1&5 because he made the reformation possible on the continent.

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years. And when Henry 8 requested a legal divorce from the Pope Charles informed the Pope that if the divorce was granted Rome and the papal terrorities would be sacked again and again along with the thousands of deaths that would result.

    As temporal leader the Pope prevented the death of thousands of his subjects by following Charles 1&5 orders Re: Henry’s divorce.

    The Netherlands were inherited from the Holy Roman Hapsburg Emperor Macmillan by his only grandson Charles 5 of the Empire and also Charles 1 of Spain the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.

    And it occurred 40 to 50 years after the sack of Rome when Charles’ son Phillip was King of Spain and what was termed the Spanish Netherlands until
    England succeeded in wresting what’s now the Netherlands from Spain.

    , @Anon
    Francois 1 died 20 years before the Dutch revolt against Spain. Why don’t you and Jilles get together and spare the rest of us from his weird obsession
    , @Anon
    I wrote 1527 and that Bohemia had long been part of the empire. The sack was not nearly so important as the 1530s occupation that split England from Roman Catholicism.

    Stanford beats Wikipedia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. You are what you read. Generally speaking, and more to the point, you are what you don’t read.

    Read More
    • Agree: lavoisier
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "You are what you read. Generally speaking, and more to the point, you are what you don’t read."

    That's brilliant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Any basis for your assertion about killing hundreds of thousands in Dutch East Indies ?

    Check any university library except the ones in the holier than thou Netherlands.

    By the way, when were Dutch Catholics given back their civil liberties?

    When did the Dutch slave trade stop?

    India keeps English as the official language and the English laws and systems of government. India and England still have very close ties and many Indians prefer to migrate to England

    The French African Arab colonies keep the official language of French and the French laws and systems of government. France is full of Algerians Moroccans and Africans who prefer France. The relations between France and its former colonies are very close. Every time there is an earthquake or other disaster the French are right there.

    Spain and S America still have very close ties and the S Americans are very proud of their Spanish heritage.

    But because of the way the Dutch treated them, the Indonesians cut all ties upon independence

    It’s ridiculous that on this American pro European White race site you keep being up the silly English funded and fought rebellion against Philip Hapsburg 450 years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Z-man says:

    You gotta get a more recent picture of Goldberg, he looks too goy in that one. (Grin)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. SMK says: • Website
    @Jake
    "Mr. Goldberg’s thesis, gleaned from reviews and his endless electronic media appearances, is that the biggest thing (if not the only thing) that makes “the West” great are our Enlightenment/Lockean/Classical Liberal values. These values champion and protect individualism, relatively free trade, relatively unregulated markets, and simple and straightforward laws and jurisprudence that apply to everyone equally.

    At present, Mr. Goldberg feels that these values are besieged by Left and Right. To the Left are non-white identitarians and Cultural Marxists, to the Right are populist nationalists. Both groups, in Mr. Goldberg’s eyes, reject the Classical Liberal values that have made the West great, and instead are “tribalists.” As tribalists, they simply want their team to defeat and dominate other teams, and do not care about markets, equality under the law, etc."

    That is it in a nutshell. Save that Goldberg is yet another in an endless line of Jewish hypocrites. Partial Gentile genes and professed Christian affiliation do not, in most cases, alter the identity more than a jot or two. The onus is to work tirelessly to keep the West in a state of post-Christendom, as well as to work tirelessly to prevent any rebirth of true nationalism among white Gentiles.

    But there is no need to bash Jonah as unique, nor even Jews who drip their hatred of white Gentiles with every word and body movement. The matter is Christendom or Chaos, and that means the vast majority of white Gentiles also serve the cause of destruction. That features - not merely includes - all those who have made global and continue to defend and promote the lives and works and fruits of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell. The deal with Satan to gain the whole world has a due notice, and we are seeing its front end.

    The funny part of that in terms of Jews is that should we get to the point of utter destruction of 'the West,' there will be nobody to protect Jews. Mohammedans will act to exterminate the claimed seed of Isaac and be willing to lose a few hundred million of their own kind to get the job done.

    For their part, Jews will be willing to nuke the planet to death in order to try to avoid paying for their sins on this earth. Just like true WASPs.

    Anglo-Zionist Empire - antithetical to Christendom.

    To Goldberg and other race-denialist, “invite-the world/invade-the world,” “proposition nation” “conservatives”/”neoconservatives,” gentile and Jewish, the “identity politics” and “tribalism” of race-realists and white advocates and immigration restrictionists, the only people who want to prevent the “suicide of the West” in fact as opposed to theory by preserving what’s left of white America and European civilization, are exactly the same as or the “mirror-image” of white-hating leftists of all races who want to destroy white America and European civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    In practice as opposed to theory, in effects as opposed to motives and intentions, Goldberg and his ilk are exactly the same as leftists and liberals of all races in supporting an invasion of nonwhites, overwhelmingly Mestizos and pure "indios" from Mexico and Central America with large minorities of "Asians" and blacks and Muslims, that will soon transform the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country. And they also support an invasion of Muslims and Blacks in the UK and Western Europe that has gravely and irreversibly harmed and poisoned and will ultimately destroy what's left of European civilization. And Goldberg and his ilk agree with the left that race "beneath the skin" is an "artificial social construct" Which explains why they join the left in espousing and imposing laws and policies that make the "suicide of the West" ineluctable and irremediable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Some baby boomer guy in Texas has the answer for Jonah Goldberg and his anti-White pals:

    Yes, Jen Rubin can join with other ex-GOPers like Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Max Boot, John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg in a new party that favors mass immigration into the US and endless wars in the Middle East.

    I’ve got the perfect name for it.

    Likud

    .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. I didn’t know doughy pantload was still alive.
    How did he turn his mom’s outing of the human humidor into a “writing” gig?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    in 1530s
     
    It was 1527

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe
     
    Pure fantasy, it was to stop a pro-French pope, nothing to do with a 'united Europe'


    Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.
     
    Again, fantastical. He inherited Bohemia, Hungary was forced upon his brother in order to prevent it falling to the Turks. His only territorial expansionism was in the North-East Netherlands. Otherwise his foreign policy was a response to French aggression, historically in the Duchy of Burgundy and Francis I's renewed attempts to conquer Italy.

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy. You are also confusing Charles 5&1 and his son Philip.
    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy?

    Read my post again. It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy, no matter which Pope or who backed him and Catholic supremacy in Europe not Charles’ conflicts with France.

    Protestants should love and admire Charles 1&5 because he made the reformation possible on the continent.

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years. And when Henry 8 requested a legal divorce from the Pope Charles informed the Pope that if the divorce was granted Rome and the papal terrorities would be sacked again and again along with the thousands of deaths that would result.

    As temporal leader the Pope prevented the death of thousands of his subjects by following Charles 1&5 orders Re: Henry’s divorce.

    The Netherlands were inherited from the Holy Roman Hapsburg Emperor Macmillan by his only grandson Charles 5 of the Empire and also Charles 1 of Spain the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.

    And it occurred 40 to 50 years after the sack of Rome when Charles’ son Phillip was King of Spain and what was termed the Spanish Netherlands until
    England succeeded in wresting what’s now the Netherlands from Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy
     
    They are the same thing. The lands in the Netherlands were only ruled by the Duke of Burgundy.

    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy

     

    Yes, the pope Clement VII (who also fathered a mulatto child with his African servant girl) had already allied with France to declare war on Charles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac#Prelude

    It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy
     
    This is clearly the opposite of reality. Charles fought multiple wars to destroy Protestantism in Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Interim

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years.
     
    This is probably true (although Henry wasn't a Protestant) but doesn't show that Charles supported Protestantism, but that he loved his aunt. You could say the same thing about Catherine herself and her refusal to go into a nunnery.

    It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.
     
    I was not referring to the Dutch revolt, but to Charles' conquest of various principalities in the North East Netherlands like East Frisia and the bishopric of Utrecht.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Generation X

    Generation X the variable or Generation X the Roman numeral for the tenth generation of Americans born since Andrew Jackson was born in 1767?

    Use 21 years as generational markers as William the Conqueror did for tax purposes.

    1767 to 1788 GENERATION I

    1789 to 1810

    1811 to 1832

    1833 to 1854

    1855 to 1876

    1877 to 1898

    1899 to 1920

    1921 to 1942

    1943 to 1964

    1965 to 1986 GENERATION X

    White Core Americans born between 1965 and 1986 are in the tenth generation of Americans born since the birth year of Andrew Jackson.

    Andrew Jackson was born in colonial America and he became president of the United States.

    Generation X or Generation 10 or Generation Ten will be the generation that removes from power the anti-White ruling class rats that are attacking and destroying the United States.

    The baby boomers will be financially liquidated when the federal funds rate goes back to its normal level of 6 percent. It is now 2 percent or so. The baby boomers must be financially liquidated in order to remove the anti-White ruling class rats from power.

    Remember, in 1981 the federal funds rate went over 20 percent. Currently, a ten percent federal funds rate would vaporize the asset bubbles in bonds, stocks and real estate in two weeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    The baby boomers will be financially liquidated when the federal funds rate goes back to its normal level of 6 percent.
     
    The Fed Funds rate will never be 6% again. It won't even stay above 2% for very long.

    Technological deflation is pervading everything. China has figured out how to monetize it through their Central Bank. The US stumbled onto the discovery sooner, but foolishly refused to see what was in plain sight.
    , @Jeff Stryker
    Generation X is 1965 through 1981, when the first cohort turned 18. Honestly, though, the people we think of as real Gen X-the alternative slackers of the 1990's-were born from 1970 to 1975.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Bad reader, the pope divided the whole world outside Europe.
    That locals allied with invaders, I knew, it happened all over the world.
    That my country did not differ too much from contemporary countries, I knew.
    What about the Turks ?
    They won our 80 Years War for us.
    I can recommend
    Russell Shorto, ‘The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony That Shaped America’, 2004 New York

    I’m an American, I know all about Manhattan. And how long did you keep Manhattan? 50 years?

    How any European can support the Turks against other Europeans is unspeakable. Of course Turkish slavers never roamed the North Sea as they did the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

    If Spain had not protected N west Europe the Turks would have seized 6 year old Dutch boys for the Janissaries and 6 year old girls for the harems. It’s all over. The Netherlands, especially Rotterdam is now just another Muslim colony enjoy it.

    Your grandchildren and gr grandchildren might have to move to Spain to avoid forcible conversion to Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.

    - Nigel Powers

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. SMK says: • Website
    @SMK
    To Goldberg and other race-denialist, "invite-the world/invade-the world," "proposition nation" "conservatives"/"neoconservatives," gentile and Jewish, the "identity politics" and "tribalism" of race-realists and white advocates and immigration restrictionists, the only people who want to prevent the "suicide of the West" in fact as opposed to theory by preserving what's left of white America and European civilization, are exactly the same as or the "mirror-image" of white-hating leftists of all races who want to destroy white America and European civilization.

    In practice as opposed to theory, in effects as opposed to motives and intentions, Goldberg and his ilk are exactly the same as leftists and liberals of all races in supporting an invasion of nonwhites, overwhelmingly Mestizos and pure “indios” from Mexico and Central America with large minorities of “Asians” and blacks and Muslims, that will soon transform the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country. And they also support an invasion of Muslims and Blacks in the UK and Western Europe that has gravely and irreversibly harmed and poisoned and will ultimately destroy what’s left of European civilization. And Goldberg and his ilk agree with the left that race “beneath the skin” is an “artificial social construct” Which explains why they join the left in espousing and imposing laws and policies that make the “suicide of the West” ineluctable and irremediable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. “Fundamentally, only in the 1960s did anybody even suggest that the Anglo political tradition of small governments, free markets, and individual rights was incontrovertibly at odds with any level of national or racial consciousness. I know that Mr. Goldberg does not address this in his tome,”

    Why should he? He’s a Jew. Anglo traditions have nothing to do with him or his ilk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. Squills says:
    @jilles dykstra
    These western values, I'm not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied 'that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people's land'.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius' crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, 'Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland', Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    Great Post, points to a lot of the confusion concerning “suicide of the West” and the unwillingness to state precisely what is committing suicide, ie not simply morally superior values. Have you read These German Genius (in forget the author, sorry) talks about your last point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    German Genius, no.
    But in my mind there is no doubt that the Germans are the most capable people in the world.
    This was the German problem, together with having no natural borders.
    Made in Germany is the best example, the effort by GB to prevent British from buying German products.
    It had the opposite effect.
    Merkel's policy to destroy that genius by immigration, very sad.
    Sarrazin already warned in 2010:
    Thilo Sarrazin, 'Deutschland schafft sich ab, Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen', München 2010
    Translation 'Germany destroys itself, how we gamble with our country'.
    Very intelligent man, Sarrazin, his book
    Thilo Sarrazin, 'Europa braucht den Euro nicht, Wie uns politisches Wunschdenken in die Krise geführt hat', 2012 München
    'Europa does not need the euro, how wishful thinking caused the crisis' contains the first understandable explanation of te derivatives mess: USA model builders believing their own phantasies in models calculating absolute minimum value of derivates.
    When his first book was published Sarrazin, member of the board of the German central bank, was fired immediately by Merkel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    For a somewhat different contemporary opinion:
    D.J. Roorda, ‘Ambassadeur in de Lage Landen, William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces’, Haarlem 1978
    Temple was British ambassador.
    I wonder, do you believe your nonsens ?
    Or read
    Simon Schama, 'Overvloed en Onbehagen, De Nederlandse Cultuur in de Gouden Eeuw', Amsterdam, 1988.
    The original was in english.

    You attack America because of our treatment of Indians. I’ll
    Attack you for your piracy, your slave trade including a Dutch slave ship dumping the first Africans in Jamestown Va in 1619 and your horrendous treatment of Indonesia.

    May I ask you 4 questions?

    Why do you endlessly post about the Netherlands revolution against Spain 450 years ago on this America pro White site?

    And are you some kind of Calvinist Dutch Reformed Old Testament preacher?

    Are you one of the only 144 000 people who will go to heaven?

    As a strict Calvinist preacher what do you think of the Muslim takeover of the Netherlands and Europe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Macarena says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.
     
    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae---the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts. Protestantism is exactly like the so-called Roman Catholic Church of today, since the two of them are the same thing.

    You would really have to be some sort of oblivious numbnutz not to recognize this, but look who I'm talking to.

    Intelligent Dasein : You are right

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Indeed, Pizarro was a philantropist, and he brought civilisation.
    Like the French in Indochine, the mission civilisatrice, syphilisatrice was the joke, that ended within Dien Bien Phu.
    I'm flabbergasted that even now someone writes this nonsense.
    You obviously know nothing about the well organised Aztec empire, etc.
    " And , as history shows, spaniards were better rules than the tiranic aztec or inca elites ."
    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.

    Why do you ignore the Dutch treatment of Indonesia in favor of constant ignorant attacks on English and Spanish America ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. To each his own!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Bad reader, the pope divided the whole world outside Europe.
    That locals allied with invaders, I knew, it happened all over the world.
    That my country did not differ too much from contemporary countries, I knew.
    What about the Turks ?
    They won our 80 Years War for us.
    I can recommend
    Russell Shorto, ‘The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony That Shaped America’, 2004 New York

    So you wish the Turks had won the Battle of Leopanto, destroyed the Spanish fleet and conquered N west Europe including your insignificant landfill?

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism but to turn Muslim due to hatred and bigotry?

    I thought you are an enlightened liberal intellectual. Do you belong to some secret sect or something? And why keep posting your bigotry on this American site?

    Start your own site, JillesHatesSpain.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism
     
    The Belgians managed to break from Madrid without breaking from Rome. So did the Portuguese, and half of South America.

    Anyway, Mohammed was the first Protestant.
    , @Jake
    More than a few Protestants of that era proclaimed that they would join the Turks before going back to the Church.

    Have you considered that Jilles is a Mohammedan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @James Solbakken
    Please forgive me if this cut & pasted quote from Burnham's "Suicide of the West" is too long, but I think it is a perfect example of his genius in a nut shell.

    "James Burnham, Suicide of the West, p.105
    1. Some years ago liberals concerned with social reform and urban renewal, as it has come to be called, turned their attention to Skid Row. In accord with the canons of ideological thinking, Skid Row was understood as a "problem"; and, since it was a problem, liberals had a duty to "solve" it. During the past decade they have attempted a direct and, it would seem, sufficiently drastic solution: in a number of American cities, including some of the largest (New York, Boston, St. Louis, San Francisco) they have been simply destroying the local embodiments [p.106]of Skid Row and replacing these with boulevards, parks, garden apartments, new shopping areas, etc.

    But what exactly is Skid Row? In reality it is not, other than incidentally, a spatial concept at all, but a functional concept; and not so much a special "problem" as merely a natural, indeed inevitable, condition of every articulated community of any size, except perhaps for some artificial communities like zoned bedroom suburbs or carefully controlled company towns—and even these are not usually exceptions for long.

    Skid Row is the end of the line; and there must be an end of the line somewhere. It is the state of those individuals who by destiny or choice drop out of normal society, even out of criminal society, which is after all part of the normal order of things. Most of these individuals are alcoholics and some are drug addicts. Where they are is Skid Row; and Skid Row exists in every city, and always has.

    In the natural course of events, when the process is not interfered with by ideologues relentlessly determined to solve problems, the citizens of Skid Row usually gather together in one particular district of each town and city: in New York it was the Bowery, as everyone knew, the most famous of America's Skid Rows. That district is always frightfully run-down. It has cheap bars selling rotten liquor, and cheap stores selling even rottener liquor substitutes; flophouses offering flea-bitten cots for a few cents a night; greasy hamburger joints; vacant lots where bonfires can be made of old boards and packing boxes; a tenth-rate pawnshop or two; sagging doorways where the cops won't bother a man while he sleeps off his drunk; a commercial blood bank where you can sell a pint of blood every month or so if you don't have an active disease; a dreary Catholic church and two or three evangelical chapels in old loft buildings; a Salvation Army station where you can get some soup or stew in exchange for singing a hymn; a city-run flophouse where you can have, when the mood strikes you now and then, a delousing and shower along with a plate of food and a bed for the night. This district is where the Skid Row ers stay when they [p.107]are in town; and where they head for when they arrive, since every certified Skid Rower is equipped with a built-in homing compass.
    James Burnham, Suicide of the West, p.107
    To the respectable citizen Skid Row seems a macabre place, but in its own way Skid Row is an ingenious product of the long and wonderfully intricate natural evolution of the City. In society as it really is—hierarchical and differentiating, not equalized or regimented—there has to be an end of the line. The localization of Skid Row and the growth of its distinctive institutions and customs are gradual developments serving to take care of those at the end of the line in a way that recognizes the reality of the condition, makes appropriate exceptions to the usual social rules, adds a certain warmth and humaneness along with exits left open for those—they are not many—who wish to take one, and shields the rest of society from Skid Row 's potentially destructive effects.

    But this cannot be the way liberalism understands Skid Row. For liberalism, Skid Row is not a natural and inevitable social condition but a definite place—the Bowery, the Embarcadero, South State Street, wherever—that constitutes, as I began by noting, a problem: a "blighted area." The people in it are-they must be, by the principles of liberalism—the exploited victims of the area's blight, of inadequate education and bad institutions. Therefore the area must be renewed and the victims reformed. This is the reasoning that has produced the recent movement to abolish Skid Row, as a result of which New York's Bowery and a number of its equivalents in other cities have in fact been in varying degrees cleaned up. The law clamped down on the flophouses, bars and sleeping drunks—they were always illegal, of course, but before the renewers struck, the cops, knowing the condition with which they were dealing, looked the other way. The rotted buildings were bulldozed aside, and the exiled inhabitants invited to the joys of rehabilitation.

    The whole operation has proved to be, inevitably, an ideological illusion. Since Skid Row is not in reality a static thing or a place, it cannot be abolished or rubbed out. The most noticeable consequence of this anti- Skid Row campaign has merely been to diffuse Skid Row, for a while, throughout the City. The displaced alcoholics, hoboes and junkies, who had their own localized and more or less self-sufficient society along the Bowery or South State Street, have been lurching all over New York, Chicago, Boston and St. Louis, trying to cadge money for drinks or dope, knocking into the respectable citizens, making scenes in decent bars, and in general acting, with more than a little justification, like resentful aliens. But of course the liberal reformers can drive you through the old locales and show you triumphantly that Skid Row has vanished. There are not a few who hope that it will be refounded; and it will be.

    the largest (New York, Boston, St. Louis, San Francisco)

    St Louis sure isn’t one of the largest cities anymore.

    New York and San Francisco may have grown about ten percent since Burnham wrote (or more likely, lost ten percent then grown fifteen), but in the meantime the entire country’s population has doubled. So their relevance has halved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Right, St Louis gets smaller every year because of black crime. Boston has lost itinfluence except for its universities.

    The tech industry is mostly 50 to
    100 miles south of San Francisco. There are a few tech companies in San Mateo near San Francisco. San Francisco was a major Pacific port until the Port authorities refused to change to accommodate container shipping.

    So the shippers moved to Oakland.

    Now it’s a combination of a financial
    center and a squalid Chinatown dependent on tourists who are being driven away by the homeless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. the Anglo political tradition

    There is no “Anglo” political tradition, there is an Anglo-Saxon, or English, one.

    “Anglo” is to “Anglo-Saxon” what “Latino” is to “Latin American”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Anglo means Anglia a part of England Saxon means the 500 to 700 AD German invaders of England.

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions. The term Anglo Saxon didn’t exist till the early 19th century Romantic Movement in England. Sir Walter Scott’s novels rediscovered the Saxon heritage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.

    I don’t mean to insult anyone but pompous pseudo intellectual anti American Jilles but.

    It’s my opinion that libertarianism is a refuge of White Heterosexual men in denial of feminism anti White racism and the liberal war against Whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Anon
    So you wish the Turks had won the Battle of Leopanto, destroyed the Spanish fleet and conquered N west Europe including your insignificant landfill?

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism but to turn Muslim due to hatred and bigotry?

    I thought you are an enlightened liberal intellectual. Do you belong to some secret sect or something? And why keep posting your bigotry on this American site?

    Start your own site, JillesHatesSpain.com

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism

    The Belgians managed to break from Madrid without breaking from Rome. So did the Portuguese, and half of South America.

    Anyway, Mohammed was the first Protestant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It’s still not reasonable to prefer Islam to Catholicism as Jilles does.

    I just detest all these pompous ass N. Europeans who constantly criticize America and Americans.

    Jilles reminds me of the pompous supercilious ignorant English asshole Emmanuel College Cambridge graduate who told me and my sister that “ there is no public transportation in New York City” . Yeah right.

    The worst is the common European sneer that “ Americans don’t read”

    So what country was the first to have free open to anyone public libraries in every village and neighborhood?

    In what country was the mail order Book of the Month Club created that sent out monthly catalogs and shipped books to the most remote areas?

    Amozon is American and it stared selling just books over the internet.

    America is the only country in the world in which the big book stores like Borders and B&N were anchor stores in the big malls.

    Liberal intellectuals are despicable. They, like Jilles are also incredibly naive as they will believe anything including Ward Churchill’s frauds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Jake says:
    @Anon
    So you wish the Turks had won the Battle of Leopanto, destroyed the Spanish fleet and conquered N west Europe including your insignificant landfill?

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism but to turn Muslim due to hatred and bigotry?

    I thought you are an enlightened liberal intellectual. Do you belong to some secret sect or something? And why keep posting your bigotry on this American site?

    Start your own site, JillesHatesSpain.com

    More than a few Protestants of that era proclaimed that they would join the Turks before going back to the Church.

    Have you considered that Jilles is a Mohammedan?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Really, I didn’t know that.

    Surely there was a compromise, like a Protestant church. Maybe Jilles is a Muslim immigrant . Maybe he belongs to some sort of reverse the reconquista Muslim movement. Spain will be ours again and the infidels will turn over their 10 to 14 year old girls to our brothels and harems.!!!! Allah Akbar!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Anon
    I’m an American, I know all about Manhattan. And how long did you keep Manhattan? 50 years?

    How any European can support the Turks against other Europeans is unspeakable. Of course Turkish slavers never roamed the North Sea as they did the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.

    If Spain had not protected N west Europe the Turks would have seized 6 year old Dutch boys for the Janissaries and 6 year old girls for the harems. It’s all over. The Netherlands, especially Rotterdam is now just another Muslim colony enjoy it.

    Your grandchildren and gr grandchildren might have to move to Spain to avoid forcible conversion to Spain.

    There are only two things I can’t stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures, and the Dutch.

    - Nigel Powers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    in 1530s
     
    It was 1527

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe
     
    Pure fantasy, it was to stop a pro-French pope, nothing to do with a 'united Europe'


    Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.
     
    Again, fantastical. He inherited Bohemia, Hungary was forced upon his brother in order to prevent it falling to the Turks. His only territorial expansionism was in the North-East Netherlands. Otherwise his foreign policy was a response to French aggression, historically in the Duchy of Burgundy and Francis I's renewed attempts to conquer Italy.

    Francois 1 died 20 years before the Dutch revolt against Spain. Why don’t you and Jilles get together and spare the rest of us from his weird obsession

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Francois 1 died 20 years before the Dutch revolt against Spain
     
    What does that have to do with anything?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    the Anglo political tradition
     
    There is no "Anglo" political tradition, there is an Anglo-Saxon, or English, one.

    "Anglo" is to "Anglo-Saxon" what "Latino" is to "Latin American".

    Anglo means Anglia a part of England Saxon means the 500 to 700 AD German invaders of England.

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions. The term Anglo Saxon didn’t exist till the early 19th century Romantic Movement in England. Sir Walter Scott’s novels rediscovered the Saxon heritage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    Anglo means the Germanic Angels who als invaded England. Anglia is named after these Angles!!!!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions
     
    No, it should be Angle. Speak English, dammit!

    Anthony Burgess suggested that British Airways should really be called Loftangle.
    , @MarkinLA
    I thought the Anglo part came from the Angles - another invading Germanic tribe.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Angle-people
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    It isn’t the colour of the skin and if you read this blog you must be smart enough to know this. The whole world could comprise green skinned peoples but the behaviours, predilections and habits that pertain to different groups evolved in different areas would remain. Currently we can recognise our group through appearance and preferences and trespass of in-group norms would be punished by the group – and therefor accepted as fair and right. If someone wanted to erase observable differences they would interbreed with the added benefit of erasing or at least mixing up all other group characteristics. Then we replace beliefs and habits with some sort of ideology and punish straying from those ” rules” ie political correctness and other lefty hysterics. Punishment of course is not accepted as fair or right in this arrangement. This “flattened” world is now supposedly peaceful and fair with reduced anxiety. I kinda liked having Tuareg and Frenchmen and Dutchmen and Namibians and Thais. Each group policed their own according to their lights.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. DFH says:
    @Anon
    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy. You are also confusing Charles 5&1 and his son Philip.
    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy?

    Read my post again. It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy, no matter which Pope or who backed him and Catholic supremacy in Europe not Charles’ conflicts with France.

    Protestants should love and admire Charles 1&5 because he made the reformation possible on the continent.

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years. And when Henry 8 requested a legal divorce from the Pope Charles informed the Pope that if the divorce was granted Rome and the papal terrorities would be sacked again and again along with the thousands of deaths that would result.

    As temporal leader the Pope prevented the death of thousands of his subjects by following Charles 1&5 orders Re: Henry’s divorce.

    The Netherlands were inherited from the Holy Roman Hapsburg Emperor Macmillan by his only grandson Charles 5 of the Empire and also Charles 1 of Spain the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella. It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.

    And it occurred 40 to 50 years after the sack of Rome when Charles’ son Phillip was King of Spain and what was termed the Spanish Netherlands until
    England succeeded in wresting what’s now the Netherlands from Spain.

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy

    They are the same thing. The lands in the Netherlands were only ruled by the Duke of Burgundy.

    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy

    Yes, the pope Clement VII (who also fathered a mulatto child with his African servant girl) had already allied with France to declare war on Charles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac#Prelude

    It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy

    This is clearly the opposite of reality. Charles fought multiple wars to destroy Protestantism in Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Interim

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years.

    This is probably true (although Henry wasn’t a Protestant) but doesn’t show that Charles supported Protestantism, but that he loved his aunt. You could say the same thing about Catherine herself and her refusal to go into a nunnery.

    It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.

    I was not referring to the Dutch revolt, but to Charles’ conquest of various principalities in the North East Netherlands like East Frisia and the bishopric of Utrecht.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You should have read Jilles original post and my response. It was about the 1568 Dutch revolt when Philip was King of Spain not 40 years earlier.

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.
    , @Anon
    Charles never even meet his aunt. For whatever reason, he prevented the Pope from granting the divorce

    Charles probably did it so his cousin Mary could become sovereign Queen when Henry died without any sons by a second wife. Then England and Spain would unite and alternate wars against France one year and the Empire the next.

    All these closely related royals didn’t let family relations prevent them from warring against first cousins, aunts, uncles and husbands of their sisters for 1500 years.
    , @Anon
    Hey, if my territory were under attack by Spanish / Hapsburg Empire I’d try to ally with another powerful country against Spanish Hapsburg Empire.

    TheHapsburg Empire was always occupying N Italy and fought with the Papacy for centuries. It was just a continuation of centuries of war.
    , @Anon
    Wikipedia? Wikepedia? You got your knowledge of Luther and Charles from Wikipedia? No wonder you’re so confused. I never click on wikepedia links because it’s so superficial and often wrong.

    And I, who’s spent so much time in great university libraries has no need of Wikipedia.

    Whatever, Luther prevailed over Catholicism in Charles’ German territories because Charles backed Luther's religion against the Pope.

    Remember, Charles’ Mother was Spanish but his Father was Hapsburg and the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries.

    And Clement had a mulatto child. BFD. Is that supposed to shock me?Unlike American slave owners, who often sold their mulatto children to other slave owners Popes took care of their children.

    As long as we’re trading Papal trivia, Henry 7 begged Pope Borgia for a marriage with Lucretia and his son Henry. Borgia refused because there were dozens of Englishmen with equal or better claims to the throne than the Tudors and that the Tudor dynasty wouldn’t last. Borgia was right.

    If you’re interested in that era, you should get a card for your nearest university library. Wikipedia, lol.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Mark G. says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.
     
    Ultimately irrelevant. As Jared Taylor had said:

    Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

    And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

    Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
     
    https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/

    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations. You can have a welfare state with a high standard of living but the high standard of living precedes the welfare state, not vice versa. Capitalism means secure property rights and the rule of law so Somalia hardly qualifies. A Sweden with a welfare state is wealthier than Somalia but a free-market Sweden would be even more wealthy than Somalia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Free market is not the crucial issue. Those ideological controversies (big government, abortion, sexual liberalism, gun control, same sex marriage, ..) are of secondary importance.

    What matters is race & race only (I mean whites plus Western culture, not racialist Nordicist fantasies or anything similar).
    , @Thomm

    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations.
     
    Bingo. The White Trashionalists think that everything is 100% nature, which is just as extreme as the blank-slatists who think everything is 100% nurture.

    Among White Trashionalists, there is also deep denial that THEY are not the admirable whites. White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.

    Singapore is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and at this point, with more actual freedom than the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It’s reasonable to turn Protestant due to hatred of Spain and Catholicism
     
    The Belgians managed to break from Madrid without breaking from Rome. So did the Portuguese, and half of South America.

    Anyway, Mohammed was the first Protestant.

    It’s still not reasonable to prefer Islam to Catholicism as Jilles does.

    I just detest all these pompous ass N. Europeans who constantly criticize America and Americans.

    Jilles reminds me of the pompous supercilious ignorant English asshole Emmanuel College Cambridge graduate who told me and my sister that “ there is no public transportation in New York City” . Yeah right.

    The worst is the common European sneer that “ Americans don’t read”

    So what country was the first to have free open to anyone public libraries in every village and neighborhood?

    In what country was the mail order Book of the Month Club created that sent out monthly catalogs and shipped books to the most remote areas?

    Amozon is American and it stared selling just books over the internet.

    America is the only country in the world in which the big book stores like Borders and B&N were anchor stores in the big malls.

    Liberal intellectuals are despicable. They, like Jilles are also incredibly naive as they will believe anything including Ward Churchill’s frauds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. renfro says:

    Goldberg sucks. Period.

    Ex-Israeli prison guard and Iraq Attaq advocate Jeffrey Goldberg …
    http://www.unz.com/…/ex-israeli-prison-guard-and-iraq-attaq-advocate-jeffrey-goldberg-na…;

    Nov 8, 2016 – Brooklyn-born former Israeli army prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg has been named editor of The Atlantic, capping a memorable journalistic …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It’s interesting how many attorneys named Goldberg were counsel on the pro school desegregation, pro school busing pro affirmative action side of the lawsuits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    the largest (New York, Boston, St. Louis, San Francisco)
     
    St Louis sure isn't one of the largest cities anymore.

    New York and San Francisco may have grown about ten percent since Burnham wrote (or more likely, lost ten percent then grown fifteen), but in the meantime the entire country's population has doubled. So their relevance has halved.

    Right, St Louis gets smaller every year because of black crime. Boston has lost itinfluence except for its universities.

    The tech industry is mostly 50 to
    100 miles south of San Francisco. There are a few tech companies in San Mateo near San Francisco. San Francisco was a major Pacific port until the Port authorities refused to change to accommodate container shipping.

    So the shippers moved to Oakland.

    Now it’s a combination of a financial
    center and a squalid Chinatown dependent on tourists who are being driven away by the homeless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. DFH says:
    @Anon
    Francois 1 died 20 years before the Dutch revolt against Spain. Why don’t you and Jilles get together and spare the rest of us from his weird obsession

    Francois 1 died 20 years before the Dutch revolt against Spain

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You mixed up Francois and Charles with Jilles rant against Phillip and the Dutch revolt. Jilles posts about the revolt are unclear about dates and facts, just “ I hate Philip “

    And I thought American southerners are chauvinistic about the Civil War. I thought the pull down confederate monuments and get rid of the rebel flag liberals are hateful bigots

    Then I read Jules opinions of America and Americans and Philip and Spain. I realized the pull down the confederate flag crew are far less bigoted than Jilles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy
     
    They are the same thing. The lands in the Netherlands were only ruled by the Duke of Burgundy.

    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy

     

    Yes, the pope Clement VII (who also fathered a mulatto child with his African servant girl) had already allied with France to declare war on Charles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac#Prelude

    It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy
     
    This is clearly the opposite of reality. Charles fought multiple wars to destroy Protestantism in Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Interim

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years.
     
    This is probably true (although Henry wasn't a Protestant) but doesn't show that Charles supported Protestantism, but that he loved his aunt. You could say the same thing about Catherine herself and her refusal to go into a nunnery.

    It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.
     
    I was not referring to the Dutch revolt, but to Charles' conquest of various principalities in the North East Netherlands like East Frisia and the bishopric of Utrecht.

    You should have read Jilles original post and my response. It was about the 1568 Dutch revolt when Philip was King of Spain not 40 years earlier.

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.
     
    The Duchy of Burgundy is in a strict sense only the French province. Sometimes the other territories ruled by the Duke of Burgundy are referred to as part of Burgundy, but this does not make them part of the Duchy of Burgundy. Charles wanted to recover this French province because it had been stolen by the French after Anne of Burgundy's death in a French war of aggression. There has never been a 'Grand duchy of burgundy'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Erasmus says:
    @Jake
    As for the name of Goldberg's book: I assume that it is not an homage to Burnham, but a marker that it is to be a replacement for Burnham's book.

    Exactly, the name was chosen with intention. Try finding Burnham’s original work now, it’s much more difficult because all searches find Goldberg’s instead. There are several other works that the same thing has been done to. Intentional obfuscation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy
     
    They are the same thing. The lands in the Netherlands were only ruled by the Duke of Burgundy.

    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy

     

    Yes, the pope Clement VII (who also fathered a mulatto child with his African servant girl) had already allied with France to declare war on Charles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac#Prelude

    It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy
     
    This is clearly the opposite of reality. Charles fought multiple wars to destroy Protestantism in Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Interim

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years.
     
    This is probably true (although Henry wasn't a Protestant) but doesn't show that Charles supported Protestantism, but that he loved his aunt. You could say the same thing about Catherine herself and her refusal to go into a nunnery.

    It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.
     
    I was not referring to the Dutch revolt, but to Charles' conquest of various principalities in the North East Netherlands like East Frisia and the bishopric of Utrecht.

    Charles never even meet his aunt. For whatever reason, he prevented the Pope from granting the divorce

    Charles probably did it so his cousin Mary could become sovereign Queen when Henry died without any sons by a second wife. Then England and Spain would unite and alternate wars against France one year and the Empire the next.

    All these closely related royals didn’t let family relations prevent them from warring against first cousins, aunts, uncles and husbands of their sisters for 1500 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Charles probably did it so his cousin Mary could become sovereign Queen when Henry died without any sons by a second wife. Then England and Spain would unite and alternate wars against France one year and the Empire the next.
     
    That is obviously wrong since Mary didn't marry Philip until twenty years later, so there was no reason for Charles to think her succession would have united anything.

    In any case, I have no idea how any of this shows that Charles supported Protestantism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Mark G.
    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations. You can have a welfare state with a high standard of living but the high standard of living precedes the welfare state, not vice versa. Capitalism means secure property rights and the rule of law so Somalia hardly qualifies. A Sweden with a welfare state is wealthier than Somalia but a free-market Sweden would be even more wealthy than Somalia.

    Free market is not the crucial issue. Those ideological controversies (big government, abortion, sexual liberalism, gun control, same sex marriage, ..) are of secondary importance.

    What matters is race & race only (I mean whites plus Western culture, not racialist Nordicist fantasies or anything similar).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    What matters is race & race only (I mean Germanic Y-DNA plus Nordic culture, not "Western" fantasies or anything similar).

    http://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/ae/64/c4ae642e77c6fe09f2bc79ff22ce2454.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.
     
    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae---the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts. Protestantism is exactly like the so-called Roman Catholic Church of today, since the two of them are the same thing.

    You would really have to be some sort of oblivious numbnutz not to recognize this, but look who I'm talking to.

    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae—the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts.

    Usual way of thinking typical of classical religionists. It can be argued that 2nd Vatican Council was the best thing that happened to the Catholic Church in the 20th C because it delayed her gradual disintegration which would have come earlier in the case of stubbornly sticking to dogmas unacceptable to the modern mind.

    The problem with Catholic Church has more to do with the collapse of cultural medievalism throughout the entire Western world, which would have affected the Church sooner or later. Partial successes of Evangelical fundamentalism is nothing more than fleeting phenomenon of American influence, basically a Hamburger Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    Evangelical fundamentalism as Hamburger Christianity! I like that!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Russ says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I tried to read the Goldberg book on the recommendation of a relative, but I found myself merely scanning many sections. As this reviewer notes, it isn't worth the effort to plow through all of the pages.

    I plan to see what I can find of James Burnham, however. I have read his masterful The Managerial Revolution and this article whets my appetite for more.

    Jonah Goldberg; Rich Lowry; William F. Buckley Jr.; Christopher Buckley — ultimately silly and insipid men one and all in many ways.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Thomm says:
    @Mark G.
    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations. You can have a welfare state with a high standard of living but the high standard of living precedes the welfare state, not vice versa. Capitalism means secure property rights and the rule of law so Somalia hardly qualifies. A Sweden with a welfare state is wealthier than Somalia but a free-market Sweden would be even more wealthy than Somalia.

    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations.

    Bingo. The White Trashionalists think that everything is 100% nature, which is just as extreme as the blank-slatists who think everything is 100% nurture.

    Among White Trashionalists, there is also deep denial that THEY are not the admirable whites. White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.

    Singapore is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and at this point, with more actual freedom than the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.
     
    BOOM. Mic drop.

    Well, almost - without getting into the wigger edition of the "No True Scotsman" argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.

    Wiggers are generally lower-middle class. They grow out of it by the middle of high school and eventually take their place in their parents' demographic.

    By contrast, white trash start behind the 8-ball, and later an 8-ball (or latterly, meth) is the only thing that helps dull the pain of life in their demographic. Some try to migrate upwards (usually by joining the military), but they are dragged down by pretty much every aspect of their lives - from their genes on out.

    .

    If wiggers got their own country it would wind up very similar to any white country, ex the top 1-2% of the IQ distribution. It would skew towards relatively low productivity, but it wouldn't be a basket case.

    If white trash got their own country, it would make Haiti look like Sweden.

    .

    I actually have more sympathy for white-trash kids than I do for inner-urban black kids, because nobody is looking to advance the life expectations of broke-ass crackers: racism and paternalism are competing influences in the life of black kids, whereas broke-ass white kids experience systemic neglect and indifference.
    , @Dan3433
    "White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti".

    They "would", huh? Where is your empirical evidence? Because most of what is observable contradicts what you state. Most WNs are not "wiggers". Moreover, the lower tier hasn't been given the chance to develop outside of oppression and cultural Marxism. And they are a minority.

    You're a Jewish nigger who can't fathom living apart from the "Whites" that you are terrified of. This defines your nigger status. The most culturally insular parts of Israel aren't as functional as the worst parts of Ireland.

    White genetic variance is not "very high". "White" isn't a genetic term, nigger. When speaking in genetic terminology, speak in genetic terminology or STFU. What haplotype subclades are you referring to, specifically? You know, so we can check your evidence. When speaking of Western European subclades, those "Whites" have the lowest genetic variance on the planet. An alternate signal for you for this fact, besides having the specific subject knowledge that you obviously lack, would have been a cursory knowledge of recessive genetics and their "variance" implications in comparison with the overwhelmingly dominant genetics of other races. Crack a book Jew, before adopting a pretense toward lecturing others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Thomm says:
    @Jasper Been
    How would you define small government?

    How would you define small government?

    i) Low tax rate (under 10% of GDP).
    ii) Little to no deficit spending.
    iii) Hence, government involvement in business and social matters is very small. Government only does the things that only Government can do (courts, roads, a small military, basic research, etc.).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You live in California don’t you? What’s your opinion of the 100 billion and climbing train that no one will ever use?

    It’s public transit, something only government can do and only Senator Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum, Ziffrens Pritzkers and other Democrat party donors can benefit from.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Thomm says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    Generation X

    Generation X the variable or Generation X the Roman numeral for the tenth generation of Americans born since Andrew Jackson was born in 1767?

    Use 21 years as generational markers as William the Conqueror did for tax purposes.

    1767 to 1788 GENERATION I

    1789 to 1810

    1811 to 1832

    1833 to 1854

    1855 to 1876

    1877 to 1898

    1899 to 1920

    1921 to 1942

    1943 to 1964

    1965 to 1986 GENERATION X

    White Core Americans born between 1965 and 1986 are in the tenth generation of Americans born since the birth year of Andrew Jackson.

    Andrew Jackson was born in colonial America and he became president of the United States.

    Generation X or Generation 10 or Generation Ten will be the generation that removes from power the anti-White ruling class rats that are attacking and destroying the United States.

    The baby boomers will be financially liquidated when the federal funds rate goes back to its normal level of 6 percent. It is now 2 percent or so. The baby boomers must be financially liquidated in order to remove the anti-White ruling class rats from power.

    Remember, in 1981 the federal funds rate went over 20 percent. Currently, a ten percent federal funds rate would vaporize the asset bubbles in bonds, stocks and real estate in two weeks.

    The baby boomers will be financially liquidated when the federal funds rate goes back to its normal level of 6 percent.

    The Fed Funds rate will never be 6% again. It won’t even stay above 2% for very long.

    Technological deflation is pervading everything. China has figured out how to monetize it through their Central Bank. The US stumbled onto the discovery sooner, but foolishly refused to see what was in plain sight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Wonderful essay! Really nails Goldberg and makes its main point in a very tight and memorable way, namely that the classical liberalism Goldberg appeals to always coexisted, even harmoniously, with the national, racial, nativist, and religious loyalties he decries.

    It’s good to be reminded again and again of the paradigmatic horror of the Iraq war. Let it become the neoconservative logo.

    My only criticism is that I recall reading some negative stuff about former Trotskyist Burnham. If he was right on certain issues touching ethnicity he could still be wrong about a lot of other stuff, such as his historical predications.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  149. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    More than a few Protestants of that era proclaimed that they would join the Turks before going back to the Church.

    Have you considered that Jilles is a Mohammedan?

    Really, I didn’t know that.

    Surely there was a compromise, like a Protestant church. Maybe Jilles is a Muslim immigrant . Maybe he belongs to some sort of reverse the reconquista Muslim movement. Spain will be ours again and the infidels will turn over their 10 to 14 year old girls to our brothels and harems.!!!! Allah Akbar!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    Anon, you're basically rude in your tirades
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    How would you define small government?
     
    i) Low tax rate (under 10% of GDP).
    ii) Little to no deficit spending.
    iii) Hence, government involvement in business and social matters is very small. Government only does the things that only Government can do (courts, roads, a small military, basic research, etc.).

    You live in California don’t you? What’s your opinion of the 100 billion and climbing train that no one will ever use?

    It’s public transit, something only government can do and only Senator Feinstein’s husband Richard Blum, Ziffrens Pritzkers and other Democrat party donors can benefit from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Francois 1 died 20 years before the Dutch revolt against Spain
     
    What does that have to do with anything?

    You mixed up Francois and Charles with Jilles rant against Phillip and the Dutch revolt. Jilles posts about the revolt are unclear about dates and facts, just “ I hate Philip “

    And I thought American southerners are chauvinistic about the Civil War. I thought the pull down confederate monuments and get rid of the rebel flag liberals are hateful bigots

    Then I read Jules opinions of America and Americans and Philip and Spain. I realized the pull down the confederate flag crew are far less bigoted than Jilles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    You mixed up Francois and Charles with Jilles rant against Phillip and the Dutch revolt.
     
    I didn't mix up anything; I was responding to some other very stupid comments about Charles V's alleged attempts to conquer Europe or whatever
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @renfro
    Goldberg sucks. Period.

    Ex-Israeli prison guard and Iraq Attaq advocate Jeffrey Goldberg ...
    www.unz.com/.../ex-israeli-prison-guard-and-iraq-attaq-advocate-jeffrey-goldberg-na...

    Nov 8, 2016 - Brooklyn-born former Israeli army prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg has been named editor of The Atlantic, capping a memorable journalistic ...
     

    It’s interesting how many attorneys named Goldberg were counsel on the pro school desegregation, pro school busing pro affirmative action side of the lawsuits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. That’s not the “Goldberg, J” who was a concentration camp guard in Occupied Palestine. I get the two “Goldberg, J” neocon apologists confused, sometimes.

    It’s weird that the Republican Upper-West-Sider who went to Goucher is less Zionist than the Democrat Long Islander who went to UPenn. But there you have it; it happens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  154. Druid says:
    @vinteuil
    Sorry, not impressed.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.

    He's still wrong, of course - but this sort of article is a total waste of everybody's time.

    What a stupid statement. Nobody cares about his tribal work ethic. He concede he’s wrong. That’s what matters !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    said:
    Bingo. The idea of the 'noble savage' is pure fantasy.

    ‘Noble savages’ debunked, excerpt from:
    http://principia-scientific.org/crichton-environmentalism-religion/
    excerpt:


    And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.
    How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.
     

    Jilles believes the entire non European world, including the Turkish Empire existed in a state of prosperity and harmony until the evil English and Spanish conquered the Americas.

    Indonesia was the only exception They were uncivilized barbarians until the oh so benevolent Dutch brought the benefits of civilization to the Dutch East Indies as well as African slaves to Virginia as early as 1619.

    He’s such a caricature of the 2 generations out of the potato field educated European who hates America and Americans because they naively believe everything the communists told them during the Cold War.

    “ America has no public transit America has no health care. Americans don’t read. Americans lynch blacks. Americans killed all the Indians. America has no welfare. Americans don’t know the difference between Holland and The Netherlands Americans are ignorant of made in Moscow anti American Cold War propaganda “. Blah blah blah.

    Psychologists claim that people who constantly put down others do it because they have low self esteem.

    It applies to countries too, particularly the N W European countries who make it a national pastime of non stop lecturing Americans about our shortcomings.

    In the case of the Netherlands it’s a mouse attacking a lion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy
     
    They are the same thing. The lands in the Netherlands were only ruled by the Duke of Burgundy.

    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy

     

    Yes, the pope Clement VII (who also fathered a mulatto child with his African servant girl) had already allied with France to declare war on Charles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac#Prelude

    It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy
     
    This is clearly the opposite of reality. Charles fought multiple wars to destroy Protestantism in Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Interim

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years.
     
    This is probably true (although Henry wasn't a Protestant) but doesn't show that Charles supported Protestantism, but that he loved his aunt. You could say the same thing about Catherine herself and her refusal to go into a nunnery.

    It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.
     
    I was not referring to the Dutch revolt, but to Charles' conquest of various principalities in the North East Netherlands like East Frisia and the bishopric of Utrecht.

    Hey, if my territory were under attack by Spanish / Hapsburg Empire I’d try to ally with another powerful country against Spanish Hapsburg Empire.

    TheHapsburg Empire was always occupying N Italy and fought with the Papacy for centuries. It was just a continuation of centuries of war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    The Hapsburg Empire was always occupying N Italy and fought with the Papacy for centuries
     
    The previous Hapsburg emperors had been allies of the pope; Frederick III against conciliarism and Maximillian agaisnt Venice in the Leage of Cambrai. I don't think the Hapsburgs had ever occupied Northern Italy before, since all of Maximillians attempts were unsuccesful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Thomm

    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations.
     
    Bingo. The White Trashionalists think that everything is 100% nature, which is just as extreme as the blank-slatists who think everything is 100% nurture.

    Among White Trashionalists, there is also deep denial that THEY are not the admirable whites. White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.

    Singapore is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and at this point, with more actual freedom than the US.

    White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.

    BOOM. Mic drop.

    Well, almost – without getting into the wigger edition of the “No True Scotsman” argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.

    Wiggers are generally lower-middle class. They grow out of it by the middle of high school and eventually take their place in their parents’ demographic.

    By contrast, white trash start behind the 8-ball, and later an 8-ball (or latterly, meth) is the only thing that helps dull the pain of life in their demographic. Some try to migrate upwards (usually by joining the military), but they are dragged down by pretty much every aspect of their lives – from their genes on out.

    .

    If wiggers got their own country it would wind up very similar to any white country, ex the top 1-2% of the IQ distribution. It would skew towards relatively low productivity, but it wouldn’t be a basket case.

    If white trash got their own country, it would make Haiti look like Sweden.

    .

    I actually have more sympathy for white-trash kids than I do for inner-urban black kids, because nobody is looking to advance the life expectations of broke-ass crackers: racism and paternalism are competing influences in the life of black kids, whereas broke-ass white kids experience systemic neglect and indifference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark P Miller
    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock?

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.
    , @Thomm

    Well, almost – without getting into the wigger edition of the “No True Scotsman” argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.
     
    Actually, the definition of both terms changed around 1994.

    I never insult honest, working-class whites. They are certainly not called 'trash'.

    White Trashionalists, on the other hand, are just where genetic waste matter collects. Some of them come from wealthy families, but they were designated by nature as where the waste matter should go.

    Plus, a 'Wigger' changed from someone who mimics blacks out of admiration to one who mimics blacks while ironically hating them. Hence, White Nationalists = White Trashionalists = Wiggers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Druid says:
    @jilles dykstra
    For a somewhat different contemporary opinion:
    D.J. Roorda, ‘Ambassadeur in de Lage Landen, William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces’, Haarlem 1978
    Temple was British ambassador.
    I wonder, do you believe your nonsens ?
    Or read
    Simon Schama, 'Overvloed en Onbehagen, De Nederlandse Cultuur in de Gouden Eeuw', Amsterdam, 1988.
    The original was in english.

    Simon Schama for one is a joke!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Very true. And extremely superficial as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    I believe you are confusing the old Duchy of Burgundy with the French province of Burgundy
     
    They are the same thing. The lands in the Netherlands were only ruled by the Duke of Burgundy.

    What are you saying, that the sack and occupation of Rome were to prevent the constant French attacks on the Hapsburg territories in N. Italy

     

    Yes, the pope Clement VII (who also fathered a mulatto child with his African servant girl) had already allied with France to declare war on Charles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_League_of_Cognac#Prelude

    It was about Charles’ backing of Luther and Protestantism against the Papacy
     
    This is clearly the opposite of reality. Charles fought multiple wars to destroy Protestantism in Germany.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Interim

    British Protestants owe their very existence to Charles 5&1 because Charles kept the Pope under palace arrest for years.
     
    This is probably true (although Henry wasn't a Protestant) but doesn't show that Charles supported Protestantism, but that he loved his aunt. You could say the same thing about Catherine herself and her refusal to go into a nunnery.

    It was not an attack on the Netherlands by Spain. It was a revolution of part of the Spanish Netherlands against Spain.
     
    I was not referring to the Dutch revolt, but to Charles' conquest of various principalities in the North East Netherlands like East Frisia and the bishopric of Utrecht.

    Wikipedia? Wikepedia? You got your knowledge of Luther and Charles from Wikipedia? No wonder you’re so confused. I never click on wikepedia links because it’s so superficial and often wrong.

    And I, who’s spent so much time in great university libraries has no need of Wikipedia.

    Whatever, Luther prevailed over Catholicism in Charles’ German territories because Charles backed Luther’s religion against the Pope.

    Remember, Charles’ Mother was Spanish but his Father was Hapsburg and the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries.

    And Clement had a mulatto child. BFD. Is that supposed to shock me?Unlike American slave owners, who often sold their mulatto children to other slave owners Popes took care of their children.

    As long as we’re trading Papal trivia, Henry 7 begged Pope Borgia for a marriage with Lucretia and his son Henry. Borgia refused because there were dozens of Englishmen with equal or better claims to the throne than the Tudors and that the Tudor dynasty wouldn’t last. Borgia was right.

    If you’re interested in that era, you should get a card for your nearest university library. Wikipedia, lol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Whatever, Luther prevailed over Catholicism in Charles’ German territories because Charles backed Luther’s religion against the Pope.
     
    But he didn't, as the link I posted to Charles' attempt to wipe out Protestatism demonstrate.

    the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries.
     

    No they didn't. Frederick III and Maximillian were supporters of the Popes.

    There is nothing in your comment to actually rebut the points I made.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Druid says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Big Govt = Left-wing.
    Small Govt = Right-wing.
     
    Ultimately irrelevant. As Jared Taylor had said:

    Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

    And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

    Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
     
    https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/

    Taylor resorts to extremes on both sides and you agree and trot him out!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Druid
    Simon Schama for one is a joke!

    Very true. And extremely superficial as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Ace9 says:

    Its fine if you want to invent generations, but Generation X is universally acknowledged to date from the end of the Baby Boom in 1964 to the 1980s. Do you think that since you can define ideology it exempts you from adhering to one, Boomer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Its fine if you want to invent generations, but Generation X is universally acknowledged to date from the end of the Baby Boom in 1964 to the 1980s.
     
    It is not "universally acknowledged", it's your own definition.

    Generations exist within families, not societies. My brother and my father-in-law were born three weeks apart. To say that they're in the same generation is patently ridiculous. One is my kids' uncle, the other, their grandfather.

    My much older half-brother was born while WWII was still in progress, my uncle-in-law a year after it ended. My daughter and the uncle's great-granddaughter are about the same age. Yet one girl's great-grandfather is a "boomer" while the other's uncle was in the earlier "Silent Generation."

    Mick Jagger's latest child is younger than his great-granddaughter. Devereux is slightly younger than his grandniece Ezra, so the two will be slapped with whatever label those born in the mid-teens will get.

    This is madness. When did marketing research shorthand start to seep into and poison the language of the rest of us?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Druid says:
    @Anon
    Anglo means Anglia a part of England Saxon means the 500 to 700 AD German invaders of England.

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions. The term Anglo Saxon didn’t exist till the early 19th century Romantic Movement in England. Sir Walter Scott’s novels rediscovered the Saxon heritage.

    Anglo means the Germanic Angels who als invaded England. Anglia is named after these Angles!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So there’s nothing English about either saxons or anglos They’re all German invaders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Anon
    Anglo means Anglia a part of England Saxon means the 500 to 700 AD German invaders of England.

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions. The term Anglo Saxon didn’t exist till the early 19th century Romantic Movement in England. Sir Walter Scott’s novels rediscovered the Saxon heritage.

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions

    No, it should be Angle. Speak English, dammit!

    Anthony Burgess suggested that British Airways should really be called Loftangle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    in 1530s
     
    It was 1527

    Charles 5&1 sack and occupation of Rome 1527 to about 1540 was designed to break the power of the Papacy of a unified Europe
     
    Pure fantasy, it was to stop a pro-French pope, nothing to do with a 'united Europe'


    Charles 5&1 wanted to rule all of continental Europe and hopefully expand west to Britain, north to Scandinavia and north east to Poland, Bohemia and Hungary being part of the Hapsburg Empire for centuries.
     
    Again, fantastical. He inherited Bohemia, Hungary was forced upon his brother in order to prevent it falling to the Turks. His only territorial expansionism was in the North-East Netherlands. Otherwise his foreign policy was a response to French aggression, historically in the Duchy of Burgundy and Francis I's renewed attempts to conquer Italy.

    I wrote 1527 and that Bohemia had long been part of the empire. The sack was not nearly so important as the 1530s occupation that split England from Roman Catholicism.

    Stanford beats Wikipedia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Druid says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae—the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts.
     
    Usual way of thinking typical of classical religionists. It can be argued that 2nd Vatican Council was the best thing that happened to the Catholic Church in the 20th C because it delayed her gradual disintegration which would have come earlier in the case of stubbornly sticking to dogmas unacceptable to the modern mind.

    The problem with Catholic Church has more to do with the collapse of cultural medievalism throughout the entire Western world, which would have affected the Church sooner or later. Partial successes of Evangelical fundamentalism is nothing more than fleeting phenomenon of American influence, basically a Hamburger Christianity.

    Evangelical fundamentalism as Hamburger Christianity! I like that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Bill

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.
     
    Bullshit. Right wing has never meant libertarian. Libertarians are the looniest of the loony Left. Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil.

    Right wing means throne and altar, blood and soil

    Ah, but the kings didn’t send you a nosy income statement form for you to fill out, or draft you into their armies.

    And the state didn’t have anything to do with marriage, as it was a sacrament. That was a Protestant innovation.

    And dog and cock fights and bear baiting were still legal. And you could put anything you wanted into your vat and still call it beer. (The Bavarians ruined that.)

    So your rightwing golden age was still quite libertarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Tell it to the Albigensians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Druid says:
    @Anon
    Really, I didn’t know that.

    Surely there was a compromise, like a Protestant church. Maybe Jilles is a Muslim immigrant . Maybe he belongs to some sort of reverse the reconquista Muslim movement. Spain will be ours again and the infidels will turn over their 10 to 14 year old girls to our brothels and harems.!!!! Allah Akbar!!!

    Anon, you’re basically rude in your tirades

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I’m rude to Jilles the knee jerk ignorant anti American because of his endless postings about what’s wrong with America. It’s typical N European anti Americanism.

    Did you read his claim that FDR was solely responsible for WW2? England France Italy Germany and Poland had nothing to do with it, just FDR

    And citing the discredited fraud Ward Churchill about Indians? He’s only here to lecture Americans about our endless short comings and mistreatment of Indians and blacks, lack of socialism lack of public transportation, driving cars instead of bicycles and the endless litany of brainwashed N Europeans against us, White Americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. I’m pretty sure that Mr. Goldberg’s tribe’s recent declaration of an ethnostate removes any moral and plausible critical platform that he has to declare that anything else will “die” from practicing what his tribe does.

    Moreover, I’m sure that the wellspring of Mr. Goldberg’s particular form of false conservatism, which is that of the Leninist New York Intellectuals, invalidates his platform for critique of both conservatism and what is good and bad for democracy.

    All critics of his need not stray from these two points in order to utterly bury his microphone and pen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    Anglo means Anglia a part of England Saxon means the 500 to 700 AD German invaders of England.

    The correct term should be Anglo for ancient English traditions. The term Anglo Saxon didn’t exist till the early 19th century Romantic Movement in England. Sir Walter Scott’s novels rediscovered the Saxon heritage.

    I thought the Anglo part came from the Angles – another invading Germanic tribe.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/Angle-people

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Bad reader, the pope divided the whole world outside Europe.
    That locals allied with invaders, I knew, it happened all over the world.
    That my country did not differ too much from contemporary countries, I knew.
    What about the Turks ?
    They won our 80 Years War for us.
    I can recommend
    Russell Shorto, ‘The Island at the Center of the World, The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan & The Forgotten Colony That Shaped America’, 2004 New York

    I had no idea that the Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Indians of India Afghans other Central Asians Greeks Russians and other Christian orthodox Japanese Siberians even knew of the Pope’s arbitratration of territorial disputes as the Portuguese and Spanish did.

    Arbitration rather than endless war is a good idea. So what if the Pope was asked to be the arbitrator. It worked very well as the Portuguese and Spanish never had a war over South America.

    It was 524 years ago. It never affected the Netherlands or any countries but Spain and Portugual at all. And it was good for those countries.

    And you are all enraged about it. How deep, unreasonable and extreme your hatred must be. Maybe your hatred has something to do with the acquisition of Portuguese South Africa by the Dutch centuries later?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Ace9
    Its fine if you want to invent generations, but Generation X is universally acknowledged to date from the end of the Baby Boom in 1964 to the 1980s. Do you think that since you can define ideology it exempts you from adhering to one, Boomer?

    Its fine if you want to invent generations, but Generation X is universally acknowledged to date from the end of the Baby Boom in 1964 to the 1980s.

    It is not “universally acknowledged”, it’s your own definition.

    Generations exist within families, not societies. My brother and my father-in-law were born three weeks apart. To say that they’re in the same generation is patently ridiculous. One is my kids’ uncle, the other, their grandfather.

    My much older half-brother was born while WWII was still in progress, my uncle-in-law a year after it ended. My daughter and the uncle’s great-granddaughter are about the same age. Yet one girl’s great-grandfather is a “boomer” while the other’s uncle was in the earlier “Silent Generation.”

    Mick Jagger’s latest child is younger than his great-granddaughter. Devereux is slightly younger than his grandniece Ezra, so the two will be slapped with whatever label those born in the mid-teens will get.

    This is madness. When did marketing research shorthand start to seep into and poison the language of the rest of us?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Bowman

    When did marketing research shorthand start to seep into and poison the language of the rest of us?
     
    As soon as Jew "intellectuals" took charge of the proper "forms" and limits of national and international discourse. That would be about 1965 onwards, as part of the plan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    These western values, I'm not impressed.
    The pope in 1515 divided the world outside Europe between Spain and Portugal.
    This decision was read to an Indian chief in S America, who replied 'that the pope obviously was drunk, giving away other people's land'.
    The chief was burned alive.
    Hugh Thomas, ‘Rivers of Gold, The Rise of the Spanish Empire’, London 2003
    Calvin around 1600 burned Servetius alive, on green wood, he then suffered longer.
    Servetius' crime: seeing through the third or fourth CE compromise of the Trinity.
    Goldstone, Lawrence & Nancy, ‘Out of the Flames, The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World’, New York, 2002
    And so the western re discoverer of blood circulation died, what Servetius probably did not know that the ancient Greeks already knew blood circulation
    Michel Rostovtzeff, 'Geschichte der Alten Welt, erster Band, Der Orient und Griechenland', Bremen 1961 (The History of the Ancient World)
    What I do value about the west is science and technology: steam engine, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, maybe fusion in the future, medical treatments, synthetic fertiliser, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.
    Many of these inventions were German, yet Britain wanted to destroy Germany.
    Values.

    It was 1494.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Christianity got forced down Nordic throats in the Northern Crusades. Warm-climate Christianity doesn't well suit cool-blooded Nordics, so they modified the invading religion to better suit their culture. Luther was the revenge of the Vikings. Next time, keep your Jesus in your pants.

    And now Scandinavia, Germany, England , France, Belgium, Netherlands are non Christian, officially secular but will soon be Muslim under sharia law.

    Poland, also Christianized in the northern crusades is the last bastion of European Christian civilization in the soon to be Muslim north.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Druid
    Anon, you're basically rude in your tirades

    I’m rude to Jilles the knee jerk ignorant anti American because of his endless postings about what’s wrong with America. It’s typical N European anti Americanism.

    Did you read his claim that FDR was solely responsible for WW2? England France Italy Germany and Poland had nothing to do with it, just FDR

    And citing the discredited fraud Ward Churchill about Indians? He’s only here to lecture Americans about our endless short comings and mistreatment of Indians and blacks, lack of socialism lack of public transportation, driving cars instead of bicycles and the endless litany of brainwashed N Europeans against us, White Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " Did you read his claim that FDR was solely responsible for WW2? England France Italy Germany and Poland had nothing to do with it, just FDR "
    I did write, I think, that without FDR there would not have been a WWII.
    If Britain would have declared war on Germany without Churchill's war mongering, anybody's guess.
    Fact is that Baruch already in 1928 'saw great things for Churchill in the future'.
    Fact is that the Churchill FDR correspondence began in 1933, and that most of this this correspondence still is secret.
    But anyone interested can read the specified books, and form his or her own opinion.


    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946
    Charles A. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities’, New Haven, 1948
    Irwin F. Gellman, ‘Secret affairs, Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and Sumner Welles’, 1995, 2002, New York
    William C. Bullitt, ‘The great globe itself, A Preface to World Affairs’, London, 1947
    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983
    Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath’, Caldwell, Idaho, 1953
    Frederick W. Marks III, 'Wind over Sand, The diplomacy of Franklin Roosevelt', 1988 Athens Georgia
    John T. Flynn, ´The Roosevelt Myth, A critical account of the New Deal and its creator’, New York 1948, 1949
    Dirk Bavendamm, ‘Roosevelt’s Krieg 1937-45, und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor’, München, 1993
    Bernard M. Baruch, ‘Die Jahre des Dienens’, München 1962 (The public years, New York, 1960)
    Bernard M. Baruch, Gute 88 Jahre, Autobiographie, München 1963 (New York)
    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
    Lawrence R. Pratt, 'East of Malta, West of Suez', London, 1975
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Druid
    Anglo means the Germanic Angels who als invaded England. Anglia is named after these Angles!!!!

    So there’s nothing English about either saxons or anglos They’re all German invaders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    English is a Germanic language. It has the same grammatical structure. The only big difference I can see is in the passive voice. The English put the verb after the (that I am not sure of what it is called past participle maybe) while the Germans put it at the end of the sentence. For example, He will help..... The Germans would have Er wil ..... gehilfen. The Germans also have male, female and neuter nouns each with their own ways of making you aware.


    I am not an English or German language expert and only took some in high school so this is likely not 100% accurate (especially any spelling mistakes) but the important ideas are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. FvS says:
    @Thomm
    Jonah Goldberg married a woman 6 years older than him. No wonder he hates Donald Trump.

    Cuckservatism is just a left-wing ideology.

    White Trashionalism is also a leftist ideology, on account of their left-wing economic views. That is why so many White Trashionalists were Bernie Sanders supporters.

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Thanks,
    -Kartik

    Racial and ethnic identity are perfectly compatible with libertarianism. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Race is a biological fact, and there are significant differences between Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, Capoids, Americoids, Australoids and all the various sub-races/hybrids. White nationalist libertarianism is the peak political philosophy for Whites. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race. There is nothing wrong with loving and supporting your own people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    White nationalist libertarianism is the peak political philosophy for Whites. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race.
     
    Maybe, but no such group actually exists.

    The White Trashionalists of today are just economic leftists who want to mooch off of successful whites. They are invariably underachievers and ne'er do wells. That is why their preferred candidate was Bernie Sanders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Thomm
    Jonah Goldberg married a woman 6 years older than him. No wonder he hates Donald Trump.

    Cuckservatism is just a left-wing ideology.

    White Trashionalism is also a leftist ideology, on account of their left-wing economic views. That is why so many White Trashionalists were Bernie Sanders supporters.

    The only ideology that is truly right-wing is a small government/free market ideology.

    Thanks,
    -Kartik

    Everyone with an iota of sense left libertarianism the moment Trump burst on the scene. It filled up during the GWB administration when true conservatives realized they had no home, trudged along through the Obama years, then deflated like a popped balloon the moment an alternative appeared. Only the most autistic remain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    False. Talented, driven people prefer free markets and small governments.

    Untalented, lazy people become leftists. This includes the SJW-leftist and the WN wiggers who are very left-wing in economic matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. T. Weed says:

    If Goldberg supported Bush and his neocon handlers for their war on Iraq for the sake of Israel, then he deserves to be shunned for the traitors that he and the neocons are. But Mr. Collins is wrong when he says that Iraq was a “shithole” country before the invasion, and after. Maybe after, as any country would be after suffering “shock and awe”, but not before. It was one of the more advanced Arab countries, which is why Israel had its golem destroy it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. FvS says:
    @anon
    By devoting a whole article to this RINOtard you are basically promoting him.

    Jonah Goldberg is The Economist type of "Classical Liberal". They shill endlessly for individual liberty which means anyone should be able to live anywhere he wishes, as such nation states and borders are a hindrance to individual liberty and should be done away with. The Economist has never met an immigrant they didn't like. To them all immigrants are a boon to their host nations, regardless of aptitude, attitude, criminal history, the more the better, anyone who says otherwise is just a racist.

    Yet at the same time these 'tards contradict themselves by always egging for the US to be the world police and bomb any country they don't like a.k.a. Israel's enemies (Syria, Iraq, Iran) or any country that stands in the way of their Jew World Order like Russia.

    If there is no nation state, how are governments elected? Who elects that government and what is its jurisdiction if there are no borders?

    Like multiculturalism and open borders, "classical liberalism" is a completely FAILED concept and classical liberals are a bunch of idiots that no one should take seriously, like all other liberals.

    Free enterprise, civil liberties, and non-interventionism within a racial or ethnic nationalist framework. I can think of no better system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Thomm says:
    @Stripes Duncan
    Everyone with an iota of sense left libertarianism the moment Trump burst on the scene. It filled up during the GWB administration when true conservatives realized they had no home, trudged along through the Obama years, then deflated like a popped balloon the moment an alternative appeared. Only the most autistic remain.

    False. Talented, driven people prefer free markets and small governments.

    Untalented, lazy people become leftists. This includes the SJW-leftist and the WN wiggers who are very left-wing in economic matters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stripes Duncan
    I don't generally disagree to be honest, but I don't find these terms to describe anything tangible and I find most people's faith in them to be somewhat religious in nature, lacking much in the way of introspection.
    , @Dan45324
    Thomm, your political views are too theoretical to be taken seriously.

    You tend to present assertions, with no observable foundation, as facts. You're simply noise in any serious conversation. Your views do generally resemble those of the defeated Neocon contingent, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    One day, Thomas Jefferson’s mouldering corpse will rise from his grave, take an Uber from Monticello to the National Archives, smash the glass protecting the Declaration and take it with him, take another Uber to the Capitol, walk into Congress, slam the Declaration down on a table and yell “goddam it I said MEN, not niggers!”

    Maybe then you will understand. Because I don’t know what the hell else it’s going to take to get through the heads of people like you that when Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” he wasn’t talking about Mohammedans, Amazon tribesmen, or the slaves living on his back forty. Then they reaffirmed again in the Constitution this country was for them and their posterity. Then again in 1790 they stated that a man must be free, white and of good character to become a citizen.

    Nothing was “set in motion” by these men. They gave us tools and expected that we would continue to use them properly. They probably never envisioned something as flatly retarded as universal suffrage, aka mob rule. They expected that you’d remain strong. They expected that you’d stand up to your women. Somewhere along the lines we failed to do this. The failure is within us, not the system. That’s a cop-out.

    There can only be one nation, one culture, and we’re living in a time that it’s going to be determined what that is. There cannot be several separate nations under one flag. Someone is going to rule this land. You hope it’s white men just as much as I do, despite your lofty principles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Thomm
    False. Talented, driven people prefer free markets and small governments.

    Untalented, lazy people become leftists. This includes the SJW-leftist and the WN wiggers who are very left-wing in economic matters.

    I don’t generally disagree to be honest, but I don’t find these terms to describe anything tangible and I find most people’s faith in them to be somewhat religious in nature, lacking much in the way of introspection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. JRB says: • Website
    @Anon
    In the late 1500s the time of your glorious revolution against Spain, the Netherlands still had the feudal system of heridatory serfdom aka heridatory slavery. Your guild system kept businesses heridatory for centuries
    The only way to practice a trade or run a business, even a market stall was to inherit it.

    Everybody else was either a serf or day laborer

    At the time of your glorious revolution against Spain your country was still an obscure part of the Hapsburg Spanish empire that was given to Phillip when Emperor Charles 5&1 died.

    Brussels was never part of your insignificant little landfill country. Your glorious revolution was English funded and fomented and led as part of the endless wars between Spain and England. Your country would not exist as an independent state if not for England.

    Look at your own history before you endlessly recite the faults of other countries

    And the reformation was 500 years ago. Get over it.

    Face the fact that Protestantism in dead in Europe. It only survives in the America’s, both North and South that you despise so much.

    Nearly every sentence you wrote contains a major mistake. Well done, quiet an achievement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Charles Pewitt
    Generation X

    Generation X the variable or Generation X the Roman numeral for the tenth generation of Americans born since Andrew Jackson was born in 1767?

    Use 21 years as generational markers as William the Conqueror did for tax purposes.

    1767 to 1788 GENERATION I

    1789 to 1810

    1811 to 1832

    1833 to 1854

    1855 to 1876

    1877 to 1898

    1899 to 1920

    1921 to 1942

    1943 to 1964

    1965 to 1986 GENERATION X

    White Core Americans born between 1965 and 1986 are in the tenth generation of Americans born since the birth year of Andrew Jackson.

    Andrew Jackson was born in colonial America and he became president of the United States.

    Generation X or Generation 10 or Generation Ten will be the generation that removes from power the anti-White ruling class rats that are attacking and destroying the United States.

    The baby boomers will be financially liquidated when the federal funds rate goes back to its normal level of 6 percent. It is now 2 percent or so. The baby boomers must be financially liquidated in order to remove the anti-White ruling class rats from power.

    Remember, in 1981 the federal funds rate went over 20 percent. Currently, a ten percent federal funds rate would vaporize the asset bubbles in bonds, stocks and real estate in two weeks.

    Generation X is 1965 through 1981, when the first cohort turned 18. Honestly, though, the people we think of as real Gen X-the alternative slackers of the 1990′s-were born from 1970 to 1975.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. DFH says:
    @Anon
    You should have read Jilles original post and my response. It was about the 1568 Dutch revolt when Philip was King of Spain not 40 years earlier.

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.

    The Duchy of Burgundy is in a strict sense only the French province. Sometimes the other territories ruled by the Duke of Burgundy are referred to as part of Burgundy, but this does not make them part of the Duchy of Burgundy. Charles wanted to recover this French province because it had been stolen by the French after Anne of Burgundy’s death in a French war of aggression. There has never been a ‘Grand duchy of burgundy’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

    It comprised what’s now known as Belgium and parts of modern Netherlands, N W France and S W Germany. It was part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Emperor.

    It was one of the wealthiest and most important Duchies in Europe. In the endless wars, it often sided with England against France. The Duchy of Burgundy made medieval England rich. England produced raw wool, Burgundy wove it into cloth.

    The grand dukes of Burgundy were royalty and married royalty, not nobility. They were royal highnesses.

    There’s a lot more to European history than what’s in Wikipedia.
    , @Anon
    FYI Anne, Duchess of Burgundy of whom you wrote , was the Duchess of the old grand duchy of burgundy, now Belgium on the channel and parts of present day Netherlands N France and S Germany.

    You are confused. First you claim there never was a Duchy of Burgundy and then you cite a Duchess of Burgundy to support your ignorant claim there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy


    It doesn’t exist any more.

    Can’t you find a map? The old and present province of Burgundy is way east, landlocked with no ports on the channel, and maybe 150 miles south of the old Duchy of Burgundy.

    You have confused the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, not part of France, with the French Province of Burgundy not anywhere near or in anyway associated with the medieval Duchy of Burgundy.

    If Wikipedia claims the Duchy and the province are the same thing, it’s worse than I thought

    Green Library Stanford University beats Wikipedia any time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. DFH says:
    @Anon
    Charles never even meet his aunt. For whatever reason, he prevented the Pope from granting the divorce

    Charles probably did it so his cousin Mary could become sovereign Queen when Henry died without any sons by a second wife. Then England and Spain would unite and alternate wars against France one year and the Empire the next.

    All these closely related royals didn’t let family relations prevent them from warring against first cousins, aunts, uncles and husbands of their sisters for 1500 years.

    Charles probably did it so his cousin Mary could become sovereign Queen when Henry died without any sons by a second wife. Then England and Spain would unite and alternate wars against France one year and the Empire the next.

    That is obviously wrong since Mary didn’t marry Philip until twenty years later, so there was no reason for Charles to think her succession would have united anything.

    In any case, I have no idea how any of this shows that Charles supported Protestantism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Mary didn’t marry until her father died when she was in her early 30s because Henry forbade her to marry.

    Had any of her brothers lived or Henry accepted her as his heir he would have arranged the standard early teen age royal marriage.

    Did I write Mary as a potential sovereign queen would have married Philip when she was young? No I didn’t

    What I wrote was that if Mary became a sovereign Queen she probably would have united with Spain in the endless switching of alliances that made up
    the endless square dance of European wars.

    Or not as European royals constantly warred with countries ruled by siblings first cousins and even parents and children

    Did I write marrying a Spanish Prince? No. You mis understand political and war alliances for marriage based on your Wikipedia ignorance
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. DFH says:
    @Anon
    You mixed up Francois and Charles with Jilles rant against Phillip and the Dutch revolt. Jilles posts about the revolt are unclear about dates and facts, just “ I hate Philip “

    And I thought American southerners are chauvinistic about the Civil War. I thought the pull down confederate monuments and get rid of the rebel flag liberals are hateful bigots

    Then I read Jules opinions of America and Americans and Philip and Spain. I realized the pull down the confederate flag crew are far less bigoted than Jilles.

    You mixed up Francois and Charles with Jilles rant against Phillip and the Dutch revolt.

    I didn’t mix up anything; I was responding to some other very stupid comments about Charles V’s alleged attempts to conquer Europe or whatever

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. DFH says:
    @Anon
    Wikipedia? Wikepedia? You got your knowledge of Luther and Charles from Wikipedia? No wonder you’re so confused. I never click on wikepedia links because it’s so superficial and often wrong.

    And I, who’s spent so much time in great university libraries has no need of Wikipedia.

    Whatever, Luther prevailed over Catholicism in Charles’ German territories because Charles backed Luther's religion against the Pope.

    Remember, Charles’ Mother was Spanish but his Father was Hapsburg and the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries.

    And Clement had a mulatto child. BFD. Is that supposed to shock me?Unlike American slave owners, who often sold their mulatto children to other slave owners Popes took care of their children.

    As long as we’re trading Papal trivia, Henry 7 begged Pope Borgia for a marriage with Lucretia and his son Henry. Borgia refused because there were dozens of Englishmen with equal or better claims to the throne than the Tudors and that the Tudor dynasty wouldn’t last. Borgia was right.

    If you’re interested in that era, you should get a card for your nearest university library. Wikipedia, lol.

    Whatever, Luther prevailed over Catholicism in Charles’ German territories because Charles backed Luther’s religion against the Pope.

    But he didn’t, as the link I posted to Charles’ attempt to wipe out Protestatism demonstrate.

    the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries.

    No they didn’t. Frederick III and Maximillian were supporters of the Popes.

    There is nothing in your comment to actually rebut the points I made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    BFD in a thousand years of the empire you managed to find 2 Emperors who sided with Popes in a thousand years of the “change your partners dos a do” of the square dance of European wars

    Charles’ sack of Rome was shorter but as bad as the Rape of Nanking and he occupied Rome with the Pope under palace arrest for years after.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. DFH says:
    @Anon
    Hey, if my territory were under attack by Spanish / Hapsburg Empire I’d try to ally with another powerful country against Spanish Hapsburg Empire.

    TheHapsburg Empire was always occupying N Italy and fought with the Papacy for centuries. It was just a continuation of centuries of war.

    The Hapsburg Empire was always occupying N Italy and fought with the Papacy for centuries

    The previous Hapsburg emperors had been allies of the pope; Frederick III against conciliarism and Maximillian agaisnt Venice in the Leage of Cambrai. I don’t think the Hapsburgs had ever occupied Northern Italy before, since all of Maximillians attempts were unsuccesful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Instead of reading a Wikipedia entry, get yourself to a university library and start reading the history of Western Europe from 800 to 1870

    The Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire was the overlord of most of N Italy except for Venice right up to the 1860s until Italy became a unified country. Much of N Italy was Austrian Empire territory right up to the 1860s and they rebelled and fought against the Austrian troops.

    You must have found a wikeledia entry about an alliance between. Pope and an Emperor during the thousand years of the Empire. BTW the Popes were temporal rulers of small territories.

    You don’t know how many towns and territories in N Italy were occupied by the Austrian Empire, do you? And you don’t know that Sicily and a big chunk of S Italy was The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies ruled by the Spanish Bourbons for centuries do you?

    Now I’ve told you, you can look it up
    on Wikipedia and pretend you know something
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Anon
    I’m rude to Jilles the knee jerk ignorant anti American because of his endless postings about what’s wrong with America. It’s typical N European anti Americanism.

    Did you read his claim that FDR was solely responsible for WW2? England France Italy Germany and Poland had nothing to do with it, just FDR

    And citing the discredited fraud Ward Churchill about Indians? He’s only here to lecture Americans about our endless short comings and mistreatment of Indians and blacks, lack of socialism lack of public transportation, driving cars instead of bicycles and the endless litany of brainwashed N Europeans against us, White Americans.

    ” Did you read his claim that FDR was solely responsible for WW2? England France Italy Germany and Poland had nothing to do with it, just FDR ”
    I did write, I think, that without FDR there would not have been a WWII.
    If Britain would have declared war on Germany without Churchill’s war mongering, anybody’s guess.
    Fact is that Baruch already in 1928 ‘saw great things for Churchill in the future’.
    Fact is that the Churchill FDR correspondence began in 1933, and that most of this this correspondence still is secret.
    But anyone interested can read the specified books, and form his or her own opinion.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946
    Charles A. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities’, New Haven, 1948
    Irwin F. Gellman, ‘Secret affairs, Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and Sumner Welles’, 1995, 2002, New York
    William C. Bullitt, ‘The great globe itself, A Preface to World Affairs’, London, 1947
    Thomas E. Mahl, ‘Desperate deception, British covert operations in the United States 1939-44’, Dulles, Virginia, 1998
    Bruce Allen Murphy, ‘The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices’, New York, 1983
    Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., ‘Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, A critical examination of the foreign policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and its aftermath’, Caldwell, Idaho, 1953
    Frederick W. Marks III, ‘Wind over Sand, The diplomacy of Franklin Roosevelt’, 1988 Athens Georgia
    John T. Flynn, ´The Roosevelt Myth, A critical account of the New Deal and its creator’, New York 1948, 1949
    Dirk Bavendamm, ‘Roosevelt’s Krieg 1937-45, und das Rätsel von Pearl Harbor’, München, 1993
    Bernard M. Baruch, ‘Die Jahre des Dienens’, München 1962 (The public years, New York, 1960)
    Bernard M. Baruch, Gute 88 Jahre, Autobiographie, München 1963 (New York)
    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford
    Lawrence R. Pratt, ‘East of Malta, West of Suez’, London, 1975

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Squills
    Great Post, points to a lot of the confusion concerning "suicide of the West" and the unwillingness to state precisely what is committing suicide, ie not simply morally superior values. Have you read These German Genius (in forget the author, sorry) talks about your last point.

    German Genius, no.
    But in my mind there is no doubt that the Germans are the most capable people in the world.
    This was the German problem, together with having no natural borders.
    Made in Germany is the best example, the effort by GB to prevent British from buying German products.
    It had the opposite effect.
    Merkel’s policy to destroy that genius by immigration, very sad.
    Sarrazin already warned in 2010:
    Thilo Sarrazin, ‘Deutschland schafft sich ab, Wie wir unser Land aufs Spiel setzen’, München 2010
    Translation ‘Germany destroys itself, how we gamble with our country’.
    Very intelligent man, Sarrazin, his book
    Thilo Sarrazin, ‘Europa braucht den Euro nicht, Wie uns politisches Wunschdenken in die Krise geführt hat’, 2012 München
    ‘Europa does not need the euro, how wishful thinking caused the crisis’ contains the first understandable explanation of te derivatives mess: USA model builders believing their own phantasies in models calculating absolute minimum value of derivates.
    When his first book was published Sarrazin, member of the board of the German central bank, was fired immediately by Merkel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Anon
    I stop responding to your assertions.
    Whenever you have anything of substance I will be glad to reply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I’ve found that 2 generations up from the potato field psuedo intellectual supercilious European anti Americans always back down on their ignorant anti American statements when confronted with facts, such that every American village and neighborhood has public libraries and that NYC does indeed have public transit.
    , @Anon
    At least you now admit that the Netherlands war with Spain was a revolution against a power that inherited the Netherlands instead an invasion by Spain as you have previously claimed.
    , @Anon
    And because you are a brainwashed naive gullible anti American pseudo intellectual programmed to believe any thing anti American you believed Ward Churchill is an American Indian instead of a 100 percent White man who claimed to be an Indian so he could get a job.

    If some one wrote a book claiming that every American bus train subway and light rail car was destroyed all tracks destroyed and every subway tunnel filled with concrete because the evil capitalists wanted everyone to have to drive cars and to destroy the environment you woukd believe it.

    If someone wrote a book claiming not one American Indian survived, you’d believe it. In fact you do believe that and have posted it many times.

    If someone wrote a book about the fact that by both state and federal law, every county in America must have a county hospital that gave free care to anyone who walks in, including illegals; and that each county has free clinics where anyone including illegals can be treated free of charge and that millions have Medicare and medi caid cards for free medical care you wouldn’t believe it.

    Because you are the epitome of a brainwashed naive gullible snob of a European who believes anything bad about America and nothing good about America.

    Do you walk up to Americans you’ve never met and start lecturing them about our faults? I bet you do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. wrd9 says:
    @Anonymous
    Actually, jilles, in this case, 'Malinche' is right, which explains why, over the course of three centuries, revolts against the Spaniards by civilized Indians (Mayans, Quechua, etc.) were pretty rare. (Of course, yet-to-be-conquered savage Indians, such as the Yaquí and the Commanches, fought the Spanish tooth and nail.)

    After there were no more Indians to be found working silver and gold mines, they died like flies, the import of black slaves began.
     
    That's not true at all. The Negroes were imported for agriculture, not mining. Pretty much all mining under the Spaniards was done by Indians, who already had a long history of mining before the Spaniards turned up. The bulk of the Negro slaves were to be found in the tropic belt, ranging from northern S. America (Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) up through the Caribbean islands, and across the southern part of N. America. There were very few Negroes elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere for several centuries. I once spent nearly an entire year living in Chile, for example, and the only black person I encountered the whole time was another American ex-pat. (The producers of Breaking Bad seem to be unaware of the fact that are no blacks in Chile.)

    I suspect that 'Malinche' is Hispanic--possibly Mexican. Not only is the syntax very Spanish-sounding, but the name Malinche is well-known in Mexican history:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche

    Not anymore. There are tens of thousands of Haitians, even over a 100,000, in Chile now.

    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article202590949.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @quasi_verbatim
    You are what you read. Generally speaking, and more to the point, you are what you don't read.

    “You are what you read. Generally speaking, and more to the point, you are what you don’t read.”

    That’s brilliant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Oh those destructive Protestants! Why can’t they be more like today’s RC church.
     
    The institution currently masquerading as the Roman Catholic Church has not been the true Church since the installation of Antipope John XXIII, the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae---the latter two of which were thoroughgoing Protestantizing efforts. Protestantism is exactly like the so-called Roman Catholic Church of today, since the two of them are the same thing.

    You would really have to be some sort of oblivious numbnutz not to recognize this, but look who I'm talking to.

    Whoah – that’s some serious sedevacantism, podner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anonymous[231] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    EliteConn: “The fault of the founders is just that — they embraced a liberal view of humanity”

    Never read the founders, have you?

    “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

    The “liberal view of humanity” stems from the International Jew you worship.

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations. (((Matthew 28:19)))

    And sure enough, the Rabbi-worshipers started recruiting Africans (Acts 8:26-40) and elevating them to roles of leadership (Acts 13:1,) pronto.

    So let’s correct your assertion above, as follows: The fault of the Christianity is just that — it embraces a liberal view of humanity.

    Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography"

    I respond:

    I'm afraid that Tommy Jefferson tends to be all over the map on the live or mostly die issue of race, ethnicity, European American civilization.

    Yes, the quote that you gave sounds sensible, but other times Tommy J sounds like the worst versions of John Lennon's "Imagine" or St. Paul/Pharisee Saul of Tarsus proclaiming some just around the corner utopian new age where the entire world would be united in universal equality total Bul* Sh**:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    I respond:

    TOMMY JEFFERSON WAS A FU********* slave owner, how could he be mouthing off that everyone is born equal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @CMC
    Promote this guy.

    My faith in the Youth of Today (not to be confused with “utes”) is reborn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Kratoklastes

    White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.
     
    BOOM. Mic drop.

    Well, almost - without getting into the wigger edition of the "No True Scotsman" argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.

    Wiggers are generally lower-middle class. They grow out of it by the middle of high school and eventually take their place in their parents' demographic.

    By contrast, white trash start behind the 8-ball, and later an 8-ball (or latterly, meth) is the only thing that helps dull the pain of life in their demographic. Some try to migrate upwards (usually by joining the military), but they are dragged down by pretty much every aspect of their lives - from their genes on out.

    .

    If wiggers got their own country it would wind up very similar to any white country, ex the top 1-2% of the IQ distribution. It would skew towards relatively low productivity, but it wouldn't be a basket case.

    If white trash got their own country, it would make Haiti look like Sweden.

    .

    I actually have more sympathy for white-trash kids than I do for inner-urban black kids, because nobody is looking to advance the life expectations of broke-ass crackers: racism and paternalism are competing influences in the life of black kids, whereas broke-ass white kids experience systemic neglect and indifference.

    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock?

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs top decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    There fixed it for you.
    , @Thomm

    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock
     
    Correct. This is what I am saying. Some come from wealthy, educated parents, but themselves still fall into the bottom decile of quality.

    The men of this tier become White Nationalists. The women of this tier become the fat bluehaired feminists. Both are wastebaskets of unwanted genetic matter that nature wants to eliminate from the gene pool.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    “lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy”

    you can have it, no charge.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. anonymous[655] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Free market is not the crucial issue. Those ideological controversies (big government, abortion, sexual liberalism, gun control, same sex marriage, ..) are of secondary importance.

    What matters is race & race only (I mean whites plus Western culture, not racialist Nordicist fantasies or anything similar).

    What matters is race & race only (I mean Germanic Y-DNA plus Nordic culture, not “Western” fantasies or anything similar).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So why are those pure Nordic’s and Germans allowing the Muslim African orc immigrants to gang rape and torture their women and 10 to 14 year girls and get aquitted because of their culture?

    Meanwhile, Spain, France Italy Greece and other lowly non nordics arrest prosecute and convict the African and Muslim orcs who rape their women and children. At least they are trying to protect thejr women and children from gang raping orcs instead of giving their women and children to the orcs as the English, Swedes and Germans have.

    And it’s Germany that forces the rest of the EU to take the orcs in because Germany rules the EU the way the feds rule the US.

    German culture??? If you don’t know what happens during German Carnevale you don’t know a thing about German culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Anonymous[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    "Mr. Goldberg’s thesis, gleaned from reviews and his endless electronic media appearances, is that the biggest thing (if not the only thing) that makes “the West” great are our Enlightenment/Lockean/Classical Liberal values. These values champion and protect individualism, relatively free trade, relatively unregulated markets, and simple and straightforward laws and jurisprudence that apply to everyone equally.

    At present, Mr. Goldberg feels that these values are besieged by Left and Right. To the Left are non-white identitarians and Cultural Marxists, to the Right are populist nationalists. Both groups, in Mr. Goldberg’s eyes, reject the Classical Liberal values that have made the West great, and instead are “tribalists.” As tribalists, they simply want their team to defeat and dominate other teams, and do not care about markets, equality under the law, etc."

    That is it in a nutshell. Save that Goldberg is yet another in an endless line of Jewish hypocrites. Partial Gentile genes and professed Christian affiliation do not, in most cases, alter the identity more than a jot or two. The onus is to work tirelessly to keep the West in a state of post-Christendom, as well as to work tirelessly to prevent any rebirth of true nationalism among white Gentiles.

    But there is no need to bash Jonah as unique, nor even Jews who drip their hatred of white Gentiles with every word and body movement. The matter is Christendom or Chaos, and that means the vast majority of white Gentiles also serve the cause of destruction. That features - not merely includes - all those who have made global and continue to defend and promote the lives and works and fruits of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell. The deal with Satan to gain the whole world has a due notice, and we are seeing its front end.

    The funny part of that in terms of Jews is that should we get to the point of utter destruction of 'the West,' there will be nobody to protect Jews. Mohammedans will act to exterminate the claimed seed of Isaac and be willing to lose a few hundred million of their own kind to get the job done.

    For their part, Jews will be willing to nuke the planet to death in order to try to avoid paying for their sins on this earth. Just like true WASPs.

    Anglo-Zionist Empire - antithetical to Christendom.

    “Jews who drip their hatred of white Gentiles” include the Rabbi Jesus; see Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25.

    “Jews will be willing to nuke the planet to death” include the Rabbi Jesus; see Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33.

    Jesus hates you (and anybody who cares for the things of this world.) Hate him back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Thomm says:
    @FvS
    Racial and ethnic identity are perfectly compatible with libertarianism. In fact, they are absolutely essential. Race is a biological fact, and there are significant differences between Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, Capoids, Americoids, Australoids and all the various sub-races/hybrids. White nationalist libertarianism is the peak political philosophy for Whites. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race. There is nothing wrong with loving and supporting your own people.

    White nationalist libertarianism is the peak political philosophy for Whites. Choose freedom and prosperity for the White race.

    Maybe, but no such group actually exists.

    The White Trashionalists of today are just economic leftists who want to mooch off of successful whites. They are invariably underachievers and ne’er do wells. That is why their preferred candidate was Bernie Sanders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Thomm says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Im not sure who you are referring too when you say “right-wing”?
     
    He's referring to imaginary categories floating around in the watery porridge that is his mind. 'Thomm' is a simpering idiot.

    Yawn…. you are just butthurt that I have destroyed you umpteen times. Plus, you have forgotten that as a WN wigger, you are just the waste matter that we want to expel from the gene pool of functional whites.

    Get off my lawn, faggot! You are getting in the way of your betters.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Pretty snobby for someone who lives in his uncles’ garden shed.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Yawn…. you are just butthurt that I have destroyed you umpteen times.
     
    Yes, destroyed! Absolutely destroyed!

    You sound like a teenager narrating his YouTube channel.

    Heh heh heh heh
     
    Like I said, you are a simpering idiot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @vinteuil
    Sorry, not impressed.

    Jonah Goldberg is, quite obviously, a lot smarter & a lot harder working than most of the guys biting his ankles, here.

    He's still wrong, of course - but this sort of article is a total waste of everybody's time.

    Goldberg is thick as a brick, and a deceitful parasite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    Yawn.... you are just butthurt that I have destroyed you umpteen times. Plus, you have forgotten that as a WN wigger, you are just the waste matter that we want to expel from the gene pool of functional whites.

    Get off my lawn, faggot! You are getting in the way of your betters.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Pretty snobby for someone who lives in his uncles’ garden shed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    What matters is race & race only (I mean Germanic Y-DNA plus Nordic culture, not "Western" fantasies or anything similar).

    http://i.pinimg.com/originals/c4/ae/64/c4ae642e77c6fe09f2bc79ff22ce2454.gif

    So why are those pure Nordic’s and Germans allowing the Muslim African orc immigrants to gang rape and torture their women and 10 to 14 year girls and get aquitted because of their culture?

    Meanwhile, Spain, France Italy Greece and other lowly non nordics arrest prosecute and convict the African and Muslim orcs who rape their women and children. At least they are trying to protect thejr women and children from gang raping orcs instead of giving their women and children to the orcs as the English, Swedes and Germans have.

    And it’s Germany that forces the rest of the EU to take the orcs in because Germany rules the EU the way the feds rule the US.

    German culture??? If you don’t know what happens during German Carnevale you don’t know a thing about German culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    The Hapsburg Empire was always occupying N Italy and fought with the Papacy for centuries
     
    The previous Hapsburg emperors had been allies of the pope; Frederick III against conciliarism and Maximillian agaisnt Venice in the Leage of Cambrai. I don't think the Hapsburgs had ever occupied Northern Italy before, since all of Maximillians attempts were unsuccesful.

    Instead of reading a Wikipedia entry, get yourself to a university library and start reading the history of Western Europe from 800 to 1870

    The Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire was the overlord of most of N Italy except for Venice right up to the 1860s until Italy became a unified country. Much of N Italy was Austrian Empire territory right up to the 1860s and they rebelled and fought against the Austrian troops.

    You must have found a wikeledia entry about an alliance between. Pope and an Emperor during the thousand years of the Empire. BTW the Popes were temporal rulers of small territories.

    You don’t know how many towns and territories in N Italy were occupied by the Austrian Empire, do you? And you don’t know that Sicily and a big chunk of S Italy was The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies ruled by the Spanish Bourbons for centuries do you?

    Now I’ve told you, you can look it up
    on Wikipedia and pretend you know something

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    The Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire was the overlord of most of N Italy except for Venice right up to the 1860s until Italy became a unified country.
     
    Before Charles V, there had only been two Hapsburg emperors, and neither of them had ruled Northern Italy, so your previous statement that they had been ruling Northern Empire for centuries was incorrect. Both of these emperors had also been allies of the pope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Anon
    I stop responding to your assertions.
    Whenever you have anything of substance I will be glad to reply.

    I’ve found that 2 generations up from the potato field psuedo intellectual supercilious European anti Americans always back down on their ignorant anti American statements when confronted with facts, such that every American village and neighborhood has public libraries and that NYC does indeed have public transit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Whatever, Luther prevailed over Catholicism in Charles’ German territories because Charles backed Luther’s religion against the Pope.
     
    But he didn't, as the link I posted to Charles' attempt to wipe out Protestatism demonstrate.

    the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries.
     

    No they didn't. Frederick III and Maximillian were supporters of the Popes.

    There is nothing in your comment to actually rebut the points I made.

    BFD in a thousand years of the empire you managed to find 2 Emperors who sided with Popes in a thousand years of the “change your partners dos a do” of the square dance of European wars

    Charles’ sack of Rome was shorter but as bad as the Rape of Nanking and he occupied Rome with the Pope under palace arrest for years after.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    BFD in a thousand years of the empire you managed to find 2 Emperors who sided with Popes in a thousand years of the “change your partners dos a do” of the square dance of European wars
     
    You said "the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries" so I talked about the record of the only two Hapsburg emperors prior to Charles V.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Anon
    I stop responding to your assertions.
    Whenever you have anything of substance I will be glad to reply.

    At least you now admit that the Netherlands war with Spain was a revolution against a power that inherited the Netherlands instead an invasion by Spain as you have previously claimed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I never used the expression 'invasion by Spain'.
    However, during the Eighty Years War Spanish troops went through the whole of what was or became Holland.
    Even today you can see the results, particular villages and towns the Spanish conquered being islands of catholicism.
    If it was a revolution, even that it questionable.
    Our national anthem still contains the words 'I'm loyal to the King of Spain'.
    The problem was that Philips II, raised in Spain in a feudal exclusively catholic society, had no idea how the Low Countries, including what now is Flemish Belgium, could just continue trade and industry with a lot of freedom.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.
     
    The Duchy of Burgundy is in a strict sense only the French province. Sometimes the other territories ruled by the Duke of Burgundy are referred to as part of Burgundy, but this does not make them part of the Duchy of Burgundy. Charles wanted to recover this French province because it had been stolen by the French after Anne of Burgundy's death in a French war of aggression. There has never been a 'Grand duchy of burgundy'.

    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

    It comprised what’s now known as Belgium and parts of modern Netherlands, N W France and S W Germany. It was part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Emperor.

    It was one of the wealthiest and most important Duchies in Europe. In the endless wars, it often sided with England against France. The Duchy of Burgundy made medieval England rich. England produced raw wool, Burgundy wove it into cloth.

    The grand dukes of Burgundy were royalty and married royalty, not nobility. They were royal highnesses.

    There’s a lot more to European history than what’s in Wikipedia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

     

    Firstly, there was never any 'Grand Duchy of Burgundy', but only ever a Duchy of Burgundy.
    Secondly, the Duchy of Burgundy only ever comprised a region of (present day) France. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled other territories in the Netherlands and else where, but in his capacity as, for instnace, the Duke of brabant and the Count of Flanders. Therefore they were not part of the Duchy of Burgundy; no more than Scotland was part of England or vice versa at the time of James I.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Mr. Anon says:
    @vinteuil

    I’ve never been impressed with anything you’ve written.
     
    I cut my beard to please myself.

    I cut my beard to please myself.

    But you cut it in public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Well, I dare go no further than the Quip Modest.

    And so we measure our swords and part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corvinus
    "It is what it is" comes into being as a result of people individually and collectively making a decision on something they construe to be true or untrue, accurate or inaccurate, etc. Waxing philosophical is way above your pay grade. I'll try to dumb things down so as even you can understand.

    "You don’t seem to believe in any external reality beyond the consensus of a mob."

    That would be a strawman on your part.

    "Our “leaders” (the very word is vile to a free people)..."

    You have an odd way of phrasing here. There is nothing observably "vile" for a free people to be able to elect their leaders, or look to a person or a group of people as a leader. Perhaps it is "vile" to you that we have certain people in leadership capacities, but not to other people. Are you following along here?

    "This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult."

    That would be another strawman on your part.

    You have an odd way of phrasing here. There is nothing observably “vile” for a free people to be able to elect their leaders, or look to a person or a group of people as a leader. Perhaps it is “vile” to you that we have certain people in leadership capacities, but not to other people. Are you following along here?

    The term “leader” is beneath a free people. Those in government are government officials, not leaders. But you are welcome to your bottom-bunk-prison-bitch understanding of the World, nitwit.

    “This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult.”

    That would be another strawman on your part.

    No, it isn’t. Your posts are uniform in their panglossian stupidity. You are an idiot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The term “leader” is beneath a free people."

    Actually, free people look for leaders and refer to them by that designation. Always have, always will. Perhaps you are upset that you are not a leader, so you find that term beneath you. No need to be angry about it.

    "Those in government are government officials, not leaders. But you are welcome to your bottom-bunk-prison-bitch understanding of the World, nitwit."

    Government officials are leaders. They lead the government. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    Yawn.... you are just butthurt that I have destroyed you umpteen times. Plus, you have forgotten that as a WN wigger, you are just the waste matter that we want to expel from the gene pool of functional whites.

    Get off my lawn, faggot! You are getting in the way of your betters.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Yawn…. you are just butthurt that I have destroyed you umpteen times.

    Yes, destroyed! Absolutely destroyed!

    You sound like a teenager narrating his YouTube channel.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Like I said, you are a simpering idiot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    Charles probably did it so his cousin Mary could become sovereign Queen when Henry died without any sons by a second wife. Then England and Spain would unite and alternate wars against France one year and the Empire the next.
     
    That is obviously wrong since Mary didn't marry Philip until twenty years later, so there was no reason for Charles to think her succession would have united anything.

    In any case, I have no idea how any of this shows that Charles supported Protestantism.

    Mary didn’t marry until her father died when she was in her early 30s because Henry forbade her to marry.

    Had any of her brothers lived or Henry accepted her as his heir he would have arranged the standard early teen age royal marriage.

    Did I write Mary as a potential sovereign queen would have married Philip when she was young? No I didn’t

    What I wrote was that if Mary became a sovereign Queen she probably would have united with Spain in the endless switching of alliances that made up
    the endless square dance of European wars.

    Or not as European royals constantly warred with countries ruled by siblings first cousins and even parents and children

    Did I write marrying a Spanish Prince? No. You mis understand political and war alliances for marriage based on your Wikipedia ignorance

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. DFH says:
    @Anon
    Instead of reading a Wikipedia entry, get yourself to a university library and start reading the history of Western Europe from 800 to 1870

    The Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire was the overlord of most of N Italy except for Venice right up to the 1860s until Italy became a unified country. Much of N Italy was Austrian Empire territory right up to the 1860s and they rebelled and fought against the Austrian troops.

    You must have found a wikeledia entry about an alliance between. Pope and an Emperor during the thousand years of the Empire. BTW the Popes were temporal rulers of small territories.

    You don’t know how many towns and territories in N Italy were occupied by the Austrian Empire, do you? And you don’t know that Sicily and a big chunk of S Italy was The Kingdom of the Two Sicilies ruled by the Spanish Bourbons for centuries do you?

    Now I’ve told you, you can look it up
    on Wikipedia and pretend you know something

    The Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire was the overlord of most of N Italy except for Venice right up to the 1860s until Italy became a unified country.

    Before Charles V, there had only been two Hapsburg emperors, and neither of them had ruled Northern Italy, so your previous statement that they had been ruling Northern Empire for centuries was incorrect. Both of these emperors had also been allies of the pope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. DFH says:
    @Anon
    BFD in a thousand years of the empire you managed to find 2 Emperors who sided with Popes in a thousand years of the “change your partners dos a do” of the square dance of European wars

    Charles’ sack of Rome was shorter but as bad as the Rape of Nanking and he occupied Rome with the Pope under palace arrest for years after.

    BFD in a thousand years of the empire you managed to find 2 Emperors who sided with Popes in a thousand years of the “change your partners dos a do” of the square dance of European wars

    You said “the Hapsburgs fought the papacy for centuries” so I talked about the record of the only two Hapsburg emperors prior to Charles V.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. DFH says:
    @Anon
    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

    It comprised what’s now known as Belgium and parts of modern Netherlands, N W France and S W Germany. It was part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Emperor.

    It was one of the wealthiest and most important Duchies in Europe. In the endless wars, it often sided with England against France. The Duchy of Burgundy made medieval England rich. England produced raw wool, Burgundy wove it into cloth.

    The grand dukes of Burgundy were royalty and married royalty, not nobility. They were royal highnesses.

    There’s a lot more to European history than what’s in Wikipedia.

    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

    Firstly, there was never any ‘Grand Duchy of Burgundy’, but only ever a Duchy of Burgundy.
    Secondly, the Duchy of Burgundy only ever comprised a region of (present day) France. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled other territories in the Netherlands and else where, but in his capacity as, for instnace, the Duke of brabant and the Count of Flanders. Therefore they were not part of the Duchy of Burgundy; no more than Scotland was part of England or vice versa at the time of James I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So now, after further wikepedia “ “research “ you finally admit there was a Duchy of Burgundy

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.

    It’s increasingly obvious you never heard of any of this until you googled Wikipedia to start a fight. Brabant ! Flanders! A Duchess who died 100 years before the reformation !

    What next? Maybe you can find Princess Margaret of York, sister of Edward 4 Duke of Clarence and Richard 3 and also grand duchess of Burgundy. You might even find it was an English Burgundian court that killed Joan of Ark. Or that the Duchy of Burgundy was richer and more powerful than most medieval kingdoms

    Enjoy superficial Wikipedia. At least you admit there was a Duchy if Burgundy something you denied when you began this fight. There must be some kind of university or college library in your state.

    When you started this ridiculous fight you claimed there was no Duchy of Burgundy at all, only the Province of Burgundy in east central France way south of the Duchy.
    , @Anon
    Only 2 Hapsburg Emperors ? lol. The first Hapsburg was Rudolph around 1200 last was Franz 1918, a continious line. There were also the Spanish Hapsburgs that split from the Austrian
    Hapsburgs

    My first post was that the medieval duchy of Burgundy consisted of a long narrow strip from the Swiss border in the east to the channel in the west; the present Belgium and parts of the present Netherlands N France and S Germany

    First you denied the duchy of burgundy ever existed, only the French province 150 miles south

    And after denying that the duchy of burgundy ever existed and intensive Wikipedia “ “research “ LOL you found that what I first posted was right and that you were wrong

    Now you’re throwing in things about the Duchy you never heard of till your Wikipedia research LOL.

    I knew about Flanders and Brabant and Bruges and Brussels and Antwerp and the great Italian Lombard bankers in the Duchies’ cities and the textile industry and the canal and river traffic before Wikipedia and certainly before you discovered those things a couple hours ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    The old Hapsburg Grand Duchy of Burgundy was not the French province of Burgundy which was part of France not the Empire.
     
    The Duchy of Burgundy is in a strict sense only the French province. Sometimes the other territories ruled by the Duke of Burgundy are referred to as part of Burgundy, but this does not make them part of the Duchy of Burgundy. Charles wanted to recover this French province because it had been stolen by the French after Anne of Burgundy's death in a French war of aggression. There has never been a 'Grand duchy of burgundy'.

    FYI Anne, Duchess of Burgundy of whom you wrote , was the Duchess of the old grand duchy of burgundy, now Belgium on the channel and parts of present day Netherlands N France and S Germany.

    You are confused. First you claim there never was a Duchy of Burgundy and then you cite a Duchess of Burgundy to support your ignorant claim there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy

    It doesn’t exist any more.

    Can’t you find a map? The old and present province of Burgundy is way east, landlocked with no ports on the channel, and maybe 150 miles south of the old Duchy of Burgundy.

    You have confused the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, not part of France, with the French Province of Burgundy not anywhere near or in anyway associated with the medieval Duchy of Burgundy.

    If Wikipedia claims the Duchy and the province are the same thing, it’s worse than I thought

    Green Library Stanford University beats Wikipedia any time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

     

    Firstly, there was never any 'Grand Duchy of Burgundy', but only ever a Duchy of Burgundy.
    Secondly, the Duchy of Burgundy only ever comprised a region of (present day) France. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled other territories in the Netherlands and else where, but in his capacity as, for instnace, the Duke of brabant and the Count of Flanders. Therefore they were not part of the Duchy of Burgundy; no more than Scotland was part of England or vice versa at the time of James I.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png

    So now, after further wikepedia “ “research “ you finally admit there was a Duchy of Burgundy

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.

    It’s increasingly obvious you never heard of any of this until you googled Wikipedia to start a fight. Brabant ! Flanders! A Duchess who died 100 years before the reformation !

    What next? Maybe you can find Princess Margaret of York, sister of Edward 4 Duke of Clarence and Richard 3 and also grand duchess of Burgundy. You might even find it was an English Burgundian court that killed Joan of Ark. Or that the Duchy of Burgundy was richer and more powerful than most medieval kingdoms

    Enjoy superficial Wikipedia. At least you admit there was a Duchy if Burgundy something you denied when you began this fight. There must be some kind of university or college library in your state.

    When you started this ridiculous fight you claimed there was no Duchy of Burgundy at all, only the Province of Burgundy in east central France way south of the Duchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    You are confused. First you claim there never was a Duchy of Burgundy and then you cite a Duchess of Burgundy to support your ignorant claim there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy
     
    Please quote when I claimed that there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy.


    You have confused the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, not part of France, with the French Province of Burgundy not anywhere near or in anyway associated with the medieval Duchy of Burgundy.
     
    When did I say that they were the same thing?

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.
     
    It was never known as a 'grand duchy'. It was not a term in use in Medieval Western Europe. Please cite somewhere where Burgundy is described as a 'Grand Duchy'.

    The first Hapsburg was Rudolph around 1200 last was Franz 1918, a continious line.

     

    Rudolf was never crowned Emperor, only King of the Romans. As for 'a continuous line'; this should be obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about the Holy Roman Empire. Are you claiming that Frederick II or Henry VII or Sigismund were Hapsburgs?

    My first post was that the medieval duchy of Burgundy consisted of a long narrow strip from the Swiss border in the east to the channel in the west; the present Belgium and parts of the present Netherlands N France and S Germany
     
    Again, you are confused. The Duchy of Burgundy was only ever the province shown in the map above. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled many other principalities, but this did not make them parts of the Duchy of Burgundy, in the same way that James I being King of both England and Scotland did not make England part of Scotland or vice-versa.

    Is English not your first language? You seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    The Grand Duchy of Burgundy was a long narrow stretch of territory that ran from what’s now the western Swiss border to the channel .

     

    Firstly, there was never any 'Grand Duchy of Burgundy', but only ever a Duchy of Burgundy.
    Secondly, the Duchy of Burgundy only ever comprised a region of (present day) France. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled other territories in the Netherlands and else where, but in his capacity as, for instnace, the Duke of brabant and the Count of Flanders. Therefore they were not part of the Duchy of Burgundy; no more than Scotland was part of England or vice versa at the time of James I.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Karte_Haus_Burgund_4_EN.png

    Only 2 Hapsburg Emperors ? lol. The first Hapsburg was Rudolph around 1200 last was Franz 1918, a continious line. There were also the Spanish Hapsburgs that split from the Austrian
    Hapsburgs

    My first post was that the medieval duchy of Burgundy consisted of a long narrow strip from the Swiss border in the east to the channel in the west; the present Belgium and parts of the present Netherlands N France and S Germany

    First you denied the duchy of burgundy ever existed, only the French province 150 miles south

    And after denying that the duchy of burgundy ever existed and intensive Wikipedia “ “research “ LOL you found that what I first posted was right and that you were wrong

    Now you’re throwing in things about the Duchy you never heard of till your Wikipedia research LOL.

    I knew about Flanders and Brabant and Bruges and Brussels and Antwerp and the great Italian Lombard bankers in the Duchies’ cities and the textile industry and the canal and river traffic before Wikipedia and certainly before you discovered those things a couple hours ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. @Anon
    At least you now admit that the Netherlands war with Spain was a revolution against a power that inherited the Netherlands instead an invasion by Spain as you have previously claimed.

    I never used the expression ‘invasion by Spain’.
    However, during the Eighty Years War Spanish troops went through the whole of what was or became Holland.
    Even today you can see the results, particular villages and towns the Spanish conquered being islands of catholicism.
    If it was a revolution, even that it questionable.
    Our national anthem still contains the words ‘I’m loyal to the King of Spain’.
    The problem was that Philips II, raised in Spain in a feudal exclusively catholic society, had no idea how the Low Countries, including what now is Flemish Belgium, could just continue trade and industry with a lot of freedom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Anon
    I stop responding to your assertions.
    Whenever you have anything of substance I will be glad to reply.

    And because you are a brainwashed naive gullible anti American pseudo intellectual programmed to believe any thing anti American you believed Ward Churchill is an American Indian instead of a 100 percent White man who claimed to be an Indian so he could get a job.

    If some one wrote a book claiming that every American bus train subway and light rail car was destroyed all tracks destroyed and every subway tunnel filled with concrete because the evil capitalists wanted everyone to have to drive cars and to destroy the environment you woukd believe it.

    If someone wrote a book claiming not one American Indian survived, you’d believe it. In fact you do believe that and have posted it many times.

    If someone wrote a book about the fact that by both state and federal law, every county in America must have a county hospital that gave free care to anyone who walks in, including illegals; and that each county has free clinics where anyone including illegals can be treated free of charge and that millions have Medicare and medi caid cards for free medical care you wouldn’t believe it.

    Because you are the epitome of a brainwashed naive gullible snob of a European who believes anything bad about America and nothing good about America.

    Do you walk up to Americans you’ve never met and start lecturing them about our faults? I bet you do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Arthur Koestler hated yiddish because, according to him, it was impossible to express anything concrete in the language, just vague emotions.
    I always doubted what he wrote, after reading your post my doubts seem to have been confirmed: it is not the language.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Anon
    And because you are a brainwashed naive gullible anti American pseudo intellectual programmed to believe any thing anti American you believed Ward Churchill is an American Indian instead of a 100 percent White man who claimed to be an Indian so he could get a job.

    If some one wrote a book claiming that every American bus train subway and light rail car was destroyed all tracks destroyed and every subway tunnel filled with concrete because the evil capitalists wanted everyone to have to drive cars and to destroy the environment you woukd believe it.

    If someone wrote a book claiming not one American Indian survived, you’d believe it. In fact you do believe that and have posted it many times.

    If someone wrote a book about the fact that by both state and federal law, every county in America must have a county hospital that gave free care to anyone who walks in, including illegals; and that each county has free clinics where anyone including illegals can be treated free of charge and that millions have Medicare and medi caid cards for free medical care you wouldn’t believe it.

    Because you are the epitome of a brainwashed naive gullible snob of a European who believes anything bad about America and nothing good about America.

    Do you walk up to Americans you’ve never met and start lecturing them about our faults? I bet you do.

    Arthur Koestler hated yiddish because, according to him, it was impossible to express anything concrete in the language, just vague emotions.
    I always doubted what he wrote, after reading your post my doubts seem to have been confirmed: it is not the language.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. DFH says:
    @Anon
    So now, after further wikepedia “ “research “ you finally admit there was a Duchy of Burgundy

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.

    It’s increasingly obvious you never heard of any of this until you googled Wikipedia to start a fight. Brabant ! Flanders! A Duchess who died 100 years before the reformation !

    What next? Maybe you can find Princess Margaret of York, sister of Edward 4 Duke of Clarence and Richard 3 and also grand duchess of Burgundy. You might even find it was an English Burgundian court that killed Joan of Ark. Or that the Duchy of Burgundy was richer and more powerful than most medieval kingdoms

    Enjoy superficial Wikipedia. At least you admit there was a Duchy if Burgundy something you denied when you began this fight. There must be some kind of university or college library in your state.

    When you started this ridiculous fight you claimed there was no Duchy of Burgundy at all, only the Province of Burgundy in east central France way south of the Duchy.

    You are confused. First you claim there never was a Duchy of Burgundy and then you cite a Duchess of Burgundy to support your ignorant claim there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy

    Please quote when I claimed that there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy.

    You have confused the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, not part of France, with the French Province of Burgundy not anywhere near or in anyway associated with the medieval Duchy of Burgundy.

    When did I say that they were the same thing?

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.

    It was never known as a ‘grand duchy’. It was not a term in use in Medieval Western Europe. Please cite somewhere where Burgundy is described as a ‘Grand Duchy’.

    The first Hapsburg was Rudolph around 1200 last was Franz 1918, a continious line.

    Rudolf was never crowned Emperor, only King of the Romans. As for ‘a continuous line’; this should be obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about the Holy Roman Empire. Are you claiming that Frederick II or Henry VII or Sigismund were Hapsburgs?

    My first post was that the medieval duchy of Burgundy consisted of a long narrow strip from the Swiss border in the east to the channel in the west; the present Belgium and parts of the present Netherlands N France and S Germany

    Again, you are confused. The Duchy of Burgundy was only ever the province shown in the map above. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled many other principalities, but this did not make them parts of the Duchy of Burgundy, in the same way that James I being King of both England and Scotland did not make England part of Scotland or vice-versa.

    Is English not your first language? You seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That map is from about 900. By the time of the revolution of a Netherlands province against Spain late 1500s, the French province was not part of the Duchy it was French territory and the 2 were separated by about 150 miles.
    , @Anon
    Ah, so you did check Wikipedia about Rudolph. If you had access to an actual history book you would know that King of the Romans is another title of the Holy Roman Emperor. But you don’t. And you confuse 900 with the late 1500s.

    5th grade teachers tell children Wikipedia isn’t always accurate.

    Again, Stanford history department knows more about the Empire and early modern & renaissance European affairs than does someone who never heard of any of this until he decided to start a fight and checked the notoriously inaccurate Wikipedia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. vinteuil says:
    @Mr. Anon

    I cut my beard to please myself.
     
    But you cut it in public.

    Well, I dare go no further than the Quip Modest.

    And so we measure our swords and part.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Well, I dare go no further than the Quip Modest.

    And so we measure our swords and part.
     
    Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

    (I didn't get your first reference, but I did the second. And, yes, I had to look up my retort.)

    You're okay, Vinteuil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    Everyone here should stockpile copies of

    Jean Respail “Camp of the Saints”.

    The truer to live work of fiction simply blows away all and I do mean all of these neo Con job, individualist, open borders immigration “free market” cuckservatives W&E*&$Q#.

    Another effective tactic is to give up on trying to reason with these enemies, traitors, idiots and drop them off in the worst “undocumented” neighborhoods in Chicago, no go Muslim areas of Londonstan – let them try to reason their way out of getting their throat cut in some migrant camp in Calais France or just the 3rd world parts of California now suffering infectious hepatitis and bubonic plagues.

    The Neo Conservatives are the worst – I like Chicago’s Black gang bangers more than this tribe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  229. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    EliteConn: "The fault of the founders is just that — they embraced a liberal view of humanity"
     
    Never read the founders, have you?

    "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography
     
    The "liberal view of humanity" stems from the International Jew you worship.

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations. (((Matthew 28:19)))
     
    And sure enough, the Rabbi-worshipers started recruiting Africans (Acts 8:26-40) and elevating them to roles of leadership (Acts 13:1,) pronto.

    So let's correct your assertion above, as follows: The fault of the Christianity is just that — it embraces a liberal view of humanity.

    Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
     

    “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography”

    I respond:

    I’m afraid that Tommy Jefferson tends to be all over the map on the live or mostly die issue of race, ethnicity, European American civilization.

    Yes, the quote that you gave sounds sensible, but other times Tommy J sounds like the worst versions of John Lennon’s “Imagine” or St. Paul/Pharisee Saul of Tarsus proclaiming some just around the corner utopian new age where the entire world would be united in universal equality total Bul* Sh**:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    I respond:

    TOMMY JEFFERSON WAS A FU********* slave owner, how could he be mouthing off that everyone is born equal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "All men are created equal" is simply political rhetoric in opposition to "the divine right of kings." Maybe you should have paid better attention in 8th grade civics class. If they have such a thing these days. Here's a bit of a start to correct your deficiencies in knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-given_right#Opposition
    , @Mr. Anon

    TOMMY JEFFERSON WAS A FU********* slave owner, how could he be mouthing off that everyone is born equal.
     
    He didn't really believe it. No sensible person does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography"

    I respond:

    I'm afraid that Tommy Jefferson tends to be all over the map on the live or mostly die issue of race, ethnicity, European American civilization.

    Yes, the quote that you gave sounds sensible, but other times Tommy J sounds like the worst versions of John Lennon's "Imagine" or St. Paul/Pharisee Saul of Tarsus proclaiming some just around the corner utopian new age where the entire world would be united in universal equality total Bul* Sh**:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    I respond:

    TOMMY JEFFERSON WAS A FU********* slave owner, how could he be mouthing off that everyone is born equal.

    “All men are created equal” is simply political rhetoric in opposition to “the divine right of kings.” Maybe you should have paid better attention in 8th grade civics class. If they have such a thing these days. Here’s a bit of a start to correct your deficiencies in knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-given_right#Opposition

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    You are confused. First you claim there never was a Duchy of Burgundy and then you cite a Duchess of Burgundy to support your ignorant claim there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy
     
    Please quote when I claimed that there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy.


    You have confused the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, not part of France, with the French Province of Burgundy not anywhere near or in anyway associated with the medieval Duchy of Burgundy.
     
    When did I say that they were the same thing?

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.
     
    It was never known as a 'grand duchy'. It was not a term in use in Medieval Western Europe. Please cite somewhere where Burgundy is described as a 'Grand Duchy'.

    The first Hapsburg was Rudolph around 1200 last was Franz 1918, a continious line.

     

    Rudolf was never crowned Emperor, only King of the Romans. As for 'a continuous line'; this should be obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about the Holy Roman Empire. Are you claiming that Frederick II or Henry VII or Sigismund were Hapsburgs?

    My first post was that the medieval duchy of Burgundy consisted of a long narrow strip from the Swiss border in the east to the channel in the west; the present Belgium and parts of the present Netherlands N France and S Germany
     
    Again, you are confused. The Duchy of Burgundy was only ever the province shown in the map above. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled many other principalities, but this did not make them parts of the Duchy of Burgundy, in the same way that James I being King of both England and Scotland did not make England part of Scotland or vice-versa.

    Is English not your first language? You seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.

    That map is from about 900. By the time of the revolution of a Netherlands province against Spain late 1500s, the French province was not part of the Duchy it was French territory and the 2 were separated by about 150 miles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    That map is from about 900.
     
    No, it's from 1465-77, as it states.

    By the time of the revolution of a Netherlands province against Spain late 1500s, the French province was not part of the Duchy it was French territory and the 2 were separated by about 150 miles
     
    You're correct in stating that the area (of what is today France) comprising Duchy of Burgundy belonged to the King of France at that time. That's why, as I stated previously, Charles wanted to reconquer it and the French king ceded it in the Treaty of Madrid (albeit this was never actually carried out). That area simply is the Duchy of Burgundy; Flanders, Brabant etc. have never been part of the Duchy of Burgundy, they merely happened to be ruled by the Duke of Burgundy. You seem to find this very simple concept inordinately difficult to grasp.

    Here is the very famous historian Henri Pirenne describing the difference;

    'But, to begin.with, what is meant by the expression, Burgundian state ? It is a modern term, and did not make its appearance before the end of the nineteenth century. It was invented to provide an exact designation for the political union in which, between the end of the fourteenth century and the middle of the sixteenth, the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands were joined under the authority of a single princely house. Although for a long time this house possessed the duchy and county of Burgundy as well, these two territories formed no part of the state which it built up, the state we are undertaking to describe. The union between them was simply a personal one, and indeed, the Burgundian state of the North never had anything in common with the two Burgundies; it possessed its own life, entirely independent of theirs, and the institutions by which it was governed did not extend their action beyond its frontiers.'
     
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1836443?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Stanford history department knows more about the Empire and early modern & renaissance European affairs
     
    Then cite where the Stanford History department contradicts anything I've claimed. For instance where do they say that, as you absurdly claimed, all the emperors from Rudolf (sic) onwards were Hapsburgs in a 'continuous line'.

    If you had access to an actual history book you would know that King of the Romans is another title of the Holy Roman Emperor.
     
    No it isn't. It is a title designating someone who is the presumptive heir to the Holy Roman Empire, a little like the Prince of Wales in England or the Prince of Asturias in Spain.

    King of the Romans (Latin: Romanorum Rex; German: Römisch-deutscher König) was, from the time of Emperor Henry II (1014–1024), the title used by the German king following his election by the princes. The title was predominantly a claim to become Holy Roman Emperor, a title, which in contemporary views of the Middle Ages, also had a religious aspect and was dependent on the coronation by the Pope.

    The title originally referred to any elected king who had not yet been granted the Imperial Regalia and title of "Emperor" at the hands of the Pope; later it came to be used solely for the heir apparent to the Imperial throne between his election (during the lifetime of a sitting Emperor) and his succession on the Emperor's death.
     
    http://www.holyromanempireassociation.com/king-of-the-romans.html

    Please cite which history book says that Rudolf was the Holy Roman Emperor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @DFH

    You are confused. First you claim there never was a Duchy of Burgundy and then you cite a Duchess of Burgundy to support your ignorant claim there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy
     
    Please quote when I claimed that there never was a medieval Duchy of Burgundy.


    You have confused the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, not part of France, with the French Province of Burgundy not anywhere near or in anyway associated with the medieval Duchy of Burgundy.
     
    When did I say that they were the same thing?

    And the Dukes and Duchesses were Grands or equal to royalty titled highness and equal to royalty. And it was known as a grand duchy. A Duchy is directly under a king and part of a kingdom. A grand duchy was independent and part of the Holy Roman Hapsburg Austrian Empire. Grand Dukes of Hesse and other grand duchies were part of the empire at certain times.
     
    It was never known as a 'grand duchy'. It was not a term in use in Medieval Western Europe. Please cite somewhere where Burgundy is described as a 'Grand Duchy'.

    The first Hapsburg was Rudolph around 1200 last was Franz 1918, a continious line.

     

    Rudolf was never crowned Emperor, only King of the Romans. As for 'a continuous line'; this should be obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about the Holy Roman Empire. Are you claiming that Frederick II or Henry VII or Sigismund were Hapsburgs?

    My first post was that the medieval duchy of Burgundy consisted of a long narrow strip from the Swiss border in the east to the channel in the west; the present Belgium and parts of the present Netherlands N France and S Germany
     
    Again, you are confused. The Duchy of Burgundy was only ever the province shown in the map above. The Duke of Burgundy also ruled many other principalities, but this did not make them parts of the Duchy of Burgundy, in the same way that James I being King of both England and Scotland did not make England part of Scotland or vice-versa.

    Is English not your first language? You seem to have problems with basic reading comprehension.

    Ah, so you did check Wikipedia about Rudolph. If you had access to an actual history book you would know that King of the Romans is another title of the Holy Roman Emperor. But you don’t. And you confuse 900 with the late 1500s.

    5th grade teachers tell children Wikipedia isn’t always accurate.

    Again, Stanford history department knows more about the Empire and early modern & renaissance European affairs than does someone who never heard of any of this until he decided to start a fight and checked the notoriously inaccurate Wikipedia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. DFH says:
    @Anon
    That map is from about 900. By the time of the revolution of a Netherlands province against Spain late 1500s, the French province was not part of the Duchy it was French territory and the 2 were separated by about 150 miles.

    That map is from about 900.

    No, it’s from 1465-77, as it states.

    By the time of the revolution of a Netherlands province against Spain late 1500s, the French province was not part of the Duchy it was French territory and the 2 were separated by about 150 miles

    You’re correct in stating that the area (of what is today France) comprising Duchy of Burgundy belonged to the King of France at that time. That’s why, as I stated previously, Charles wanted to reconquer it and the French king ceded it in the Treaty of Madrid (albeit this was never actually carried out). That area simply is the Duchy of Burgundy; Flanders, Brabant etc. have never been part of the Duchy of Burgundy, they merely happened to be ruled by the Duke of Burgundy. You seem to find this very simple concept inordinately difficult to grasp.

    Here is the very famous historian Henri Pirenne describing the difference;

    ‘But, to begin.with, what is meant by the expression, Burgundian state ? It is a modern term, and did not make its appearance before the end of the nineteenth century. It was invented to provide an exact designation for the political union in which, between the end of the fourteenth century and the middle of the sixteenth, the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands were joined under the authority of a single princely house. Although for a long time this house possessed the duchy and county of Burgundy as well, these two territories formed no part of the state which it built up, the state we are undertaking to describe. The union between them was simply a personal one, and indeed, the Burgundian state of the North never had anything in common with the two Burgundies; it possessed its own life, entirely independent of theirs, and the institutions by which it was governed did not extend their action beyond its frontiers.’

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1836443?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Stanford history department knows more about the Empire and early modern & renaissance European affairs

    Then cite where the Stanford History department contradicts anything I’ve claimed. For instance where do they say that, as you absurdly claimed, all the emperors from Rudolf (sic) onwards were Hapsburgs in a ‘continuous line’.

    If you had access to an actual history book you would know that King of the Romans is another title of the Holy Roman Emperor.

    No it isn’t. It is a title designating someone who is the presumptive heir to the Holy Roman Empire, a little like the Prince of Wales in England or the Prince of Asturias in Spain.

    King of the Romans (Latin: Romanorum Rex; German: Römisch-deutscher König) was, from the time of Emperor Henry II (1014–1024), the title used by the German king following his election by the princes. The title was predominantly a claim to become Holy Roman Emperor, a title, which in contemporary views of the Middle Ages, also had a religious aspect and was dependent on the coronation by the Pope.

    The title originally referred to any elected king who had not yet been granted the Imperial Regalia and title of “Emperor” at the hands of the Pope; later it came to be used solely for the heir apparent to the Imperial throne between his election (during the lifetime of a sitting Emperor) and his succession on the Emperor’s death.

    http://www.holyromanempireassociation.com/king-of-the-romans.html

    Please cite which history book says that Rudolf was the Holy Roman Emperor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    European history before the nation states of the 19th century is very complicated.
    There is no point in trying in a discussion here to explain all the heritage and marriage problems and changes before that period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @DFH

    That map is from about 900.
     
    No, it's from 1465-77, as it states.

    By the time of the revolution of a Netherlands province against Spain late 1500s, the French province was not part of the Duchy it was French territory and the 2 were separated by about 150 miles
     
    You're correct in stating that the area (of what is today France) comprising Duchy of Burgundy belonged to the King of France at that time. That's why, as I stated previously, Charles wanted to reconquer it and the French king ceded it in the Treaty of Madrid (albeit this was never actually carried out). That area simply is the Duchy of Burgundy; Flanders, Brabant etc. have never been part of the Duchy of Burgundy, they merely happened to be ruled by the Duke of Burgundy. You seem to find this very simple concept inordinately difficult to grasp.

    Here is the very famous historian Henri Pirenne describing the difference;

    'But, to begin.with, what is meant by the expression, Burgundian state ? It is a modern term, and did not make its appearance before the end of the nineteenth century. It was invented to provide an exact designation for the political union in which, between the end of the fourteenth century and the middle of the sixteenth, the seventeen provinces of the Netherlands were joined under the authority of a single princely house. Although for a long time this house possessed the duchy and county of Burgundy as well, these two territories formed no part of the state which it built up, the state we are undertaking to describe. The union between them was simply a personal one, and indeed, the Burgundian state of the North never had anything in common with the two Burgundies; it possessed its own life, entirely independent of theirs, and the institutions by which it was governed did not extend their action beyond its frontiers.'
     
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/1836443?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Stanford history department knows more about the Empire and early modern & renaissance European affairs
     
    Then cite where the Stanford History department contradicts anything I've claimed. For instance where do they say that, as you absurdly claimed, all the emperors from Rudolf (sic) onwards were Hapsburgs in a 'continuous line'.

    If you had access to an actual history book you would know that King of the Romans is another title of the Holy Roman Emperor.
     
    No it isn't. It is a title designating someone who is the presumptive heir to the Holy Roman Empire, a little like the Prince of Wales in England or the Prince of Asturias in Spain.

    King of the Romans (Latin: Romanorum Rex; German: Römisch-deutscher König) was, from the time of Emperor Henry II (1014–1024), the title used by the German king following his election by the princes. The title was predominantly a claim to become Holy Roman Emperor, a title, which in contemporary views of the Middle Ages, also had a religious aspect and was dependent on the coronation by the Pope.

    The title originally referred to any elected king who had not yet been granted the Imperial Regalia and title of "Emperor" at the hands of the Pope; later it came to be used solely for the heir apparent to the Imperial throne between his election (during the lifetime of a sitting Emperor) and his succession on the Emperor's death.
     
    http://www.holyromanempireassociation.com/king-of-the-romans.html

    Please cite which history book says that Rudolf was the Holy Roman Emperor.

    European history before the nation states of the 19th century is very complicated.
    There is no point in trying in a discussion here to explain all the heritage and marriage problems and changes before that period.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Corvinus says:
    @Mr. Anon

    You have an odd way of phrasing here. There is nothing observably “vile” for a free people to be able to elect their leaders, or look to a person or a group of people as a leader. Perhaps it is “vile” to you that we have certain people in leadership capacities, but not to other people. Are you following along here?
     
    The term "leader" is beneath a free people. Those in government are government officials, not leaders. But you are welcome to your bottom-bunk-prison-bitch understanding of the World, nitwit.

    “This good-government bullshit you espouse should be an embarrassment to an actual sentient grown-up adult.”

    That would be another strawman on your part.
     
    No, it isn't. Your posts are uniform in their panglossian stupidity. You are an idiot.

    “The term “leader” is beneath a free people.”

    Actually, free people look for leaders and refer to them by that designation. Always have, always will. Perhaps you are upset that you are not a leader, so you find that term beneath you. No need to be angry about it.

    “Those in government are government officials, not leaders. But you are welcome to your bottom-bunk-prison-bitch understanding of the World, nitwit.”

    Government officials are leaders. They lead the government. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Actually, free people look for leaders and refer to them by that designation. Always have, always will.
     
    Free people barely exist. How free is anyone, really?

    Government officials are leaders. They lead the government. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?
     
    Leaders of the government. They are not supposed to be leaders of the people, in a free society. They are employees, not employers.

    You are evidently too stupid to understand any of this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    So there’s nothing English about either saxons or anglos They’re all German invaders.

    English is a Germanic language. It has the same grammatical structure. The only big difference I can see is in the passive voice. The English put the verb after the (that I am not sure of what it is called past participle maybe) while the Germans put it at the end of the sentence. For example, He will help….. The Germans would have Er wil ….. gehilfen. The Germans also have male, female and neuter nouns each with their own ways of making you aware.

    I am not an English or German language expert and only took some in high school so this is likely not 100% accurate (especially any spelling mistakes) but the important ideas are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan4548
    English is a form of low German. Its more similar to Dutch than what you hear in Germany. It grew from Frisian, which was spoken on the coast just above the present day Netherlands. Wikipedia can give you all of the information that you would require on the subject.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. MarkinLA says:
    @Mark P Miller
    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock?

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs top decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    There fixed it for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    English reflects the mixed heritage of an island populated by Romans and then Germans. English grammar is German and its actual vocabulary is Latin. The actual Celtic language, despite attempts by Wales or Ireland, is more or less a dead one.

    There are also some loan words from Norse via the Normans, those descendants of Vikings who invaded England and became the ruling elite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. Thomm says:
    @Kratoklastes

    White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.
     
    BOOM. Mic drop.

    Well, almost - without getting into the wigger edition of the "No True Scotsman" argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.

    Wiggers are generally lower-middle class. They grow out of it by the middle of high school and eventually take their place in their parents' demographic.

    By contrast, white trash start behind the 8-ball, and later an 8-ball (or latterly, meth) is the only thing that helps dull the pain of life in their demographic. Some try to migrate upwards (usually by joining the military), but they are dragged down by pretty much every aspect of their lives - from their genes on out.

    .

    If wiggers got their own country it would wind up very similar to any white country, ex the top 1-2% of the IQ distribution. It would skew towards relatively low productivity, but it wouldn't be a basket case.

    If white trash got their own country, it would make Haiti look like Sweden.

    .

    I actually have more sympathy for white-trash kids than I do for inner-urban black kids, because nobody is looking to advance the life expectations of broke-ass crackers: racism and paternalism are competing influences in the life of black kids, whereas broke-ass white kids experience systemic neglect and indifference.

    Well, almost – without getting into the wigger edition of the “No True Scotsman” argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.

    Actually, the definition of both terms changed around 1994.

    I never insult honest, working-class whites. They are certainly not called ‘trash’.

    White Trashionalists, on the other hand, are just where genetic waste matter collects. Some of them come from wealthy families, but they were designated by nature as where the waste matter should go.

    Plus, a ‘Wigger’ changed from someone who mimics blacks out of admiration to one who mimics blacks while ironically hating them. Hence, White Nationalists = White Trashionalists = Wiggers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    "WHIGGER"

    In the early 90's, whiggers were known as "wannabes". The word whigger did not come into common usage until about 1993.

    In the 80's poor whites had their own style. Sean Penn's Irish-American punk in BAD BOYS summed this look up-shoulder length hair, a comb in the back pocket, a black wristband, lot's of heavy metal rings, leather jacket with jeans, single tattoo.

    Rural poor whites affected the ROADHOUSE look well into the 90's.
    , @Mr. Anon
    The foulest waste matter on display on this thread is you, pustule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Thomm says:
    @Mark P Miller
    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock?

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock

    Correct. This is what I am saying. Some come from wealthy, educated parents, but themselves still fall into the bottom decile of quality.

    The men of this tier become White Nationalists. The women of this tier become the fat bluehaired feminists. Both are wastebaskets of unwanted genetic matter that nature wants to eliminate from the gene pool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan34432
    "Correct. This is what I am saying. Some come from wealthy, educated parents, but themselves still fall into the bottom decile of quality.

    The men of this tier become White Nationalists. The women of this tier become the fat bluehaired feminists. Both are wastebaskets of unwanted genetic matter that nature wants to eliminate from the gene pool".

    Translation:

    "I, as a Jew, wish to pathologize the functional behavior of out-groups because it threatens me. Though, I will continue to practice this behavior that I ridicule for other groups because it is beneficial".

    Fixed it for you.
    , @Anonymous
    Same bottom decile of quality for Jewish Nationalists who passed passed the controversial Jewish nation-state bill into law, July 19, 2018? http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Controversial-Jewish-nation-state-bill-passes-into-law-562898
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @MarkinLA
    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs bottom decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    Whereas presumably in Haiti there is some fraction of functional blacks. But if you had to live in a country run by the bottom decile of whites vs top decile of blacks, you would still choose the former.

    There fixed it for you.

    English reflects the mixed heritage of an island populated by Romans and then Germans. English grammar is German and its actual vocabulary is Latin. The actual Celtic language, despite attempts by Wales or Ireland, is more or less a dead one.

    There are also some loan words from Norse via the Normans, those descendants of Vikings who invaded England and became the ruling elite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I do not believe that is true. The Romans weren't on the islands that long and did not control nearly as much as the Germanic tribes did. As for the Romansch influence, it came from the Norman conquest, the Norse having settled in France long enough to acquire their language. I don't think anybody was speaking the native Norse languages ( which were also Germanic) at the time of the conquest.

    From my high school days, there are plenty of verbs and nouns in English that are distinctly Germanic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @Thomm

    Well, almost – without getting into the wigger edition of the “No True Scotsman” argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.
     
    Actually, the definition of both terms changed around 1994.

    I never insult honest, working-class whites. They are certainly not called 'trash'.

    White Trashionalists, on the other hand, are just where genetic waste matter collects. Some of them come from wealthy families, but they were designated by nature as where the waste matter should go.

    Plus, a 'Wigger' changed from someone who mimics blacks out of admiration to one who mimics blacks while ironically hating them. Hence, White Nationalists = White Trashionalists = Wiggers.

    “WHIGGER”

    In the early 90′s, whiggers were known as “wannabes”. The word whigger did not come into common usage until about 1993.

    In the 80′s poor whites had their own style. Sean Penn’s Irish-American punk in BAD BOYS summed this look up-shoulder length hair, a comb in the back pocket, a black wristband, lot’s of heavy metal rings, leather jacket with jeans, single tattoo.

    Rural poor whites affected the ROADHOUSE look well into the 90′s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Mr. Anon says:
    @vinteuil
    Well, I dare go no further than the Quip Modest.

    And so we measure our swords and part.

    Well, I dare go no further than the Quip Modest.

    And so we measure our swords and part.

    Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

    (I didn’t get your first reference, but I did the second. And, yes, I had to look up my retort.)

    You’re okay, Vinteuil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @vinteuil
    Pax.

    I sometimes think I must be the only person left alive who really finds Touchstone funny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Mr. Anon says:
    @Corvinus
    "The term “leader” is beneath a free people."

    Actually, free people look for leaders and refer to them by that designation. Always have, always will. Perhaps you are upset that you are not a leader, so you find that term beneath you. No need to be angry about it.

    "Those in government are government officials, not leaders. But you are welcome to your bottom-bunk-prison-bitch understanding of the World, nitwit."

    Government officials are leaders. They lead the government. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?

    Actually, free people look for leaders and refer to them by that designation. Always have, always will.

    Free people barely exist. How free is anyone, really?

    Government officials are leaders. They lead the government. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?

    Leaders of the government. They are not supposed to be leaders of the people, in a free society. They are employees, not employers.

    You are evidently too stupid to understand any of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Free people barely exist."

    Actually, free people are thriving, in their own lives and in society.

    "How free is anyone, really?"

    Careful, now, waxing philosophical is way above your pay grade.

    "Leaders of the government. They are not supposed to be leaders of the people, in a free society. They are employees, not employers."

    Now you are doubling down here, SJW style. Leaders of the government are leaders of the people, since the people designated them or voted them into that capacity. The leaders are employed to look out for citizen interests. Furthermore, our leaders of the government are also employers, as they hire stafff to help them with facilitating how they will look out for the general welfare of society. This is really basic stuff. Do you need a primer on how our government works?

    "You are evidently too stupid to understand any of this."

    I would say that you are lashing out again. Slept on the couch last night because you didn't take out the trash as your old lady requested? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm

    Well, almost – without getting into the wigger edition of the “No True Scotsman” argument, white trash and wiggers are different sets.
     
    Actually, the definition of both terms changed around 1994.

    I never insult honest, working-class whites. They are certainly not called 'trash'.

    White Trashionalists, on the other hand, are just where genetic waste matter collects. Some of them come from wealthy families, but they were designated by nature as where the waste matter should go.

    Plus, a 'Wigger' changed from someone who mimics blacks out of admiration to one who mimics blacks while ironically hating them. Hence, White Nationalists = White Trashionalists = Wiggers.

    The foulest waste matter on display on this thread is you, pustule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Mr. Anon says:
    @anonymous
    "Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”

    Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography"

    I respond:

    I'm afraid that Tommy Jefferson tends to be all over the map on the live or mostly die issue of race, ethnicity, European American civilization.

    Yes, the quote that you gave sounds sensible, but other times Tommy J sounds like the worst versions of John Lennon's "Imagine" or St. Paul/Pharisee Saul of Tarsus proclaiming some just around the corner utopian new age where the entire world would be united in universal equality total Bul* Sh**:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    I respond:

    TOMMY JEFFERSON WAS A FU********* slave owner, how could he be mouthing off that everyone is born equal.

    TOMMY JEFFERSON WAS A FU********* slave owner, how could he be mouthing off that everyone is born equal.

    He didn’t really believe it. No sensible person does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. HdC says:
    @HobbesianM
    Many of these inventions were British, yet Germany wanted to destroy Britain. Values.

    That Indian Chief who was burned alive reserved to his own nation the right to wage war on neighboring nations, abduct the women and torture the men and slaughter them on an industrial scale in spectacular and bloodthirsty ritual ceremonies. Values.

    War between nations, and conquest of some nations by others, are features of human life that have been with us since prehistory.

    One thing we can be sure of: Goldberg has no problem with war and conquest.

    As far as I know Germany has never declared war on Britain; Britain however declared war on Germany twice in the last century for economic and political reasons.

    So who tried to destroy whom? And with what result? Hdc

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I think Britain used the opportunities surrounding WWI to declare war on Germany in order to cut the High Seas Fleet down to size. German industrial production was just flying past Britain and Britain was on the verge of seeing the German Navy eclipse their fleet in short order. Since Britain was more dependent on a navy than Germany, the British would do anything to prevent it.


    Remember, Britain was preparing for war with the US over the US navy's expansion until the Washington Naval Treaty. They were even grooming Japan as an ally in case there was a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. @EliteCommInc.
    I was fine with the article until you began attempting to justify color discrimination in a democracy.

    The problem with your generation n is that you want your cake without paying for it. The price for accepting any manner of discrimination in the US based on such superficial artifacts as color is that you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy. Nor can one embrace liberal values.

    The fault of the founders is just that -- they embraced a liberal view of humanity,


    " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

    and then proceeded to violate those very principles --- that's true even if you attempt to caveat out -" they meant white men" in one breath they set in motion a principle that undermined any real understanding or practice of "liberal values." I won't bother noting that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (private wealth or property or merely self fulfillment are not liberal values.

    What is liberal was the progressive act of the revolution to get their way. Your comprehension of color dynamics is might thin, if you think "racist" one who discriminates based on non-active traits, such as hair color, is somehow unique. the very essence of slavery based on the trait was challenged throughout the colonies repeatedly --- so no, not by todays standards by their own standard.

    "The bogeymen of “racism”, “tribalism”, and “nationalism” do not threaten Lockean and Classical Liberal values—they never have."

    If you don't understand how these threaten the democracy you live in --- then your choice to avoid a review is sound, based not the merits or lack thereof of Mr Goldberg, but your unwillingness to sift through the variations of meaning in context in which they are applied. All three of the above could be and have been engaged dangerously as you yourself note in the article of consequence of certain policy advances.

    And no, your black and white dichotomies are not the only means of understanding support or the lack therof for anyone. You sound very much akin the phrase --- "Your either with us or against us."


    Note: I did not support regime change by force. The Iraq and Afghanistan efforts were err by lack of ethical force and strategic value. Libertarians -- they never bypass a fantasy to embrace cake eating without price.

    you lose the right to call oneself a liberal democracy

    Help me out here. I’m intrigued. What exactly makes you think any “normal”, sane, rational, half-educated intelligent person with an active brain cell gives two shits about their society being called a “liberal democracy” ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. vinteuil says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Well, I dare go no further than the Quip Modest.

    And so we measure our swords and part.
     
    Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

    (I didn't get your first reference, but I did the second. And, yes, I had to look up my retort.)

    You're okay, Vinteuil.

    Pax.

    I sometimes think I must be the only person left alive who really finds Touchstone funny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. @His Dudeness
    I agree mostly with this essay except for the idea that the Iraq war was “pointless” and that before the us invasion Iraq was a “shithole” country. What Iraq WAS was a Ba’ath Socialist secular state.similar to the Ba’ath Socialist secular states of (formerly) Lybia and Syria. The fact that these states have/do promote Arab unity (with no religious political parties), sovereignty in organizational governance and socializing the commanding hieghts of their respective economies is what attracted The Empires desire for destruction.

    what attracted The Empires desire for destruction.

    The Satan-worshipping, anti-White racist, JEWISH cultural marxist Empire

    Fixed that for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. @jilles dykstra
    For a somewhat different contemporary opinion:
    D.J. Roorda, ‘Ambassadeur in de Lage Landen, William Temple, Observations upon the United Provinces’, Haarlem 1978
    Temple was British ambassador.
    I wonder, do you believe your nonsens ?
    Or read
    Simon Schama, 'Overvloed en Onbehagen, De Nederlandse Cultuur in de Gouden Eeuw', Amsterdam, 1988.
    The original was in english.

    Simon Schama…??

    But… But… you ARE aware.. OF COURSE you are… ?? that Simon Schama is an utterly morally-DISHONEST, lying, cheating, anti-White racist, pseudo-”intellectual” Jew charlatan, who forged his academic qualifications, has a beyond-mediocre reputation for academic ability let alone integrity among his peers, and above all else, sees himself first and last as a Jewish political agitator, who wants to see the END of the White world, and all it ever achieved, as Jews and their Black pets do it all so much better…?

    Ahh.. You DIDN’T know that..? Ok.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Corvinus says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Actually, free people look for leaders and refer to them by that designation. Always have, always will.
     
    Free people barely exist. How free is anyone, really?

    Government officials are leaders. They lead the government. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?
     
    Leaders of the government. They are not supposed to be leaders of the people, in a free society. They are employees, not employers.

    You are evidently too stupid to understand any of this.

    “Free people barely exist.”

    Actually, free people are thriving, in their own lives and in society.

    “How free is anyone, really?”

    Careful, now, waxing philosophical is way above your pay grade.

    “Leaders of the government. They are not supposed to be leaders of the people, in a free society. They are employees, not employers.”

    Now you are doubling down here, SJW style. Leaders of the government are leaders of the people, since the people designated them or voted them into that capacity. The leaders are employed to look out for citizen interests. Furthermore, our leaders of the government are also employers, as they hire stafff to help them with facilitating how they will look out for the general welfare of society. This is really basic stuff. Do you need a primer on how our government works?

    “You are evidently too stupid to understand any of this.”

    I would say that you are lashing out again. Slept on the couch last night because you didn’t take out the trash as your old lady requested? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. MarkinLA says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    English reflects the mixed heritage of an island populated by Romans and then Germans. English grammar is German and its actual vocabulary is Latin. The actual Celtic language, despite attempts by Wales or Ireland, is more or less a dead one.

    There are also some loan words from Norse via the Normans, those descendants of Vikings who invaded England and became the ruling elite.

    I do not believe that is true. The Romans weren’t on the islands that long and did not control nearly as much as the Germanic tribes did. As for the Romansch influence, it came from the Norman conquest, the Norse having settled in France long enough to acquire their language. I don’t think anybody was speaking the native Norse languages ( which were also Germanic) at the time of the conquest.

    From my high school days, there are plenty of verbs and nouns in English that are distinctly Germanic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    It is not in question that the plurality of English words have a Latin origin. It's nothing to do with the Roman occupation of Britain, but because of later borrowing either directly from Latin or via French.
    , @Jeff Stryker
    like the people, the language is hybrid.
    , @RadicalCenter
    You have a point. The solid majority of all English words are Latinate. But the most commonly used and basic words are mostly Germanic.

    Great video on this by Paul at Lang Focus, “Is English Really a Germanic Language?”, available on hooktube.com.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. Dan3433 says:
    @Thomm

    Sweden became wealthy when it had a much smaller government and a more free market economy. When it was a feudalistic country previously to that it was poor and had periodic mass starvations.
     
    Bingo. The White Trashionalists think that everything is 100% nature, which is just as extreme as the blank-slatists who think everything is 100% nurture.

    Among White Trashionalists, there is also deep denial that THEY are not the admirable whites. White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti.

    Singapore is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and at this point, with more actual freedom than the US.

    “White genetic variance is very high, and the WN wiggers, if given land of their own, would swiftly produce a society worse than Haiti”.

    They “would”, huh? Where is your empirical evidence? Because most of what is observable contradicts what you state. Most WNs are not “wiggers”. Moreover, the lower tier hasn’t been given the chance to develop outside of oppression and cultural Marxism. And they are a minority.

    You’re a Jewish nigger who can’t fathom living apart from the “Whites” that you are terrified of. This defines your nigger status. The most culturally insular parts of Israel aren’t as functional as the worst parts of Ireland.

    White genetic variance is not “very high”. “White” isn’t a genetic term, nigger. When speaking in genetic terminology, speak in genetic terminology or STFU. What haplotype subclades are you referring to, specifically? You know, so we can check your evidence. When speaking of Western European subclades, those “Whites” have the lowest genetic variance on the planet. An alternate signal for you for this fact, besides having the specific subject knowledge that you obviously lack, would have been a cursory knowledge of recessive genetics and their “variance” implications in comparison with the overwhelmingly dominant genetics of other races. Crack a book Jew, before adopting a pretense toward lecturing others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    Most WNs are not “wiggers”.
     
    They are, as explained above.

    To repeat, the similarities between White Trashionalists and Blacks :

    i) Both obsess over race, and see race in everything.
    ii) Both have very low IQs (around 70 in the case of WNs).
    iii) Both are extremely unproductive and essentially all-round ne'er do wells.
    iv) Both have a preference for female obesity.

    Hence, WNs can accurately be described as 'Wiggers'. Note that the definition of 'wigger' changed slightly around 1994 to what I have described above.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. MarkinLA says:
    @HdC
    As far as I know Germany has never declared war on Britain; Britain however declared war on Germany twice in the last century for economic and political reasons.

    So who tried to destroy whom? And with what result? Hdc

    I think Britain used the opportunities surrounding WWI to declare war on Germany in order to cut the High Seas Fleet down to size. German industrial production was just flying past Britain and Britain was on the verge of seeing the German Navy eclipse their fleet in short order. Since Britain was more dependent on a navy than Germany, the British would do anything to prevent it.

    Remember, Britain was preparing for war with the US over the US navy’s expansion until the Washington Naval Treaty. They were even grooming Japan as an ally in case there was a war.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    And there was the Berlin Baghdad railway, to be extended to Basra
    Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., ‘Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism’, 1923, 1924, New York
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. Dan34432 says:
    @Thomm

    Why not just say white trash is the bottom (most dysgenic) decile of the European stock
     
    Correct. This is what I am saying. Some come from wealthy, educated parents, but themselves still fall into the bottom decile of quality.

    The men of this tier become White Nationalists. The women of this tier becom