The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
General Lee Speaks: Had It Figured Out
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
RobertELee

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

“The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” Robert E. Lee

The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly the effects foreseen by General Lee.

In, say, 1950, to an appreciable though imperfect extent America resembled a confederacy. Different regions of the America had little contact with each other, and almost no influence over one another. The federal government was small and remote. Interstates did not exist, nor of course the internet, nor even direct long-distance telephone dialing. West Virginia, Alabama, Massachusetts, New York City, Texas, and California had little in common, but little conflict arose since for practical purposes they were almost different countries. They chiefly governed themselves. The proportion of federal to state law was small.

It is important to note that regional differences were great. In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn’t in the culture. The culture was uniform, so no one was upset. It is when cultures are mixed, or one rules another, that antagonism comes. Such shotgun freedom would not have worked in New York City with its variegated and often mutually hostile ethnicities.

Regions differed importantly in degree of freedom, not just in the freedom of local populations to govern themselves but also in individual freedom. It made a large difference in the tenor of life. If in Texas, rural Virginia, or West Virginia you wanted to build an addition to your house, you did. You didn’t need licenses, permits, inspections, union-certified electricians. Speed limits? Largely ignored. Federal requirements for Coast Guard approved flotation devices on your canoe? What the hell kind of crazy idea was that?

Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don’t we? Reenact the Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us alone.

States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed accordingly.

Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York’s store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington’s intelligence agencies.

Tyranny at home, said said General Lee . Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire.

Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.

Aggressive abroad, said General Lee. Is this not exactly what we see? At this moment Washington has the better part of a thousand military bases around the world, unnecessary except for the maintenance of empire. America exists in a state of constant war, bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, recently having destroyed Iraq and Libya. Washington threatens Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Its military moves deeper into Africa. Washington sanctions Cuba, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, to no effect. It constantly tries to dominate other nations, for example adding to NATO.

None of these wars and little if any of the imperial aggression interests more than a tiny fraction of the country’s people. To whom can the war against Afghanistan matter? Libya? Few people have heard of Montenegro. Does its membership in NATO or lack of it affect Idaho?

In a confederacy, states would have to approve a war. Few would unless the United States itself were threatened. They might well refuse to pay for wars not in their benefit, or to allow their sons, daughters, and transgenders to be conscripted.

But with a central government, those benefiting from war can concentrate money and influence only on that government. For example, military industry, Israel, big oil, Wall Street. Wars might carry the votes of states with arms factories. Other states would decline.

In principle, the Constitution should have prevented the hijacking of the military that we now suffer. As we all should know, and some do, America cannot under the Constitution go to war without a declaration by Congress, the last one of which occurred in 1941. But a single central government can be corrupted more easily than fifty state governments. A few billionaires, well-funded lobbies, and the remoteness of Washington from the common consciousness make controlling the legislature as easy as buying a pair of shoes.

ORDER IT NOW

And thus, just as Marse Bob expected, the federals are out of control and make war without the least reference to the nation. If America attacks North Korea, or Russia, or China, we will read of it the day after. The central government, and only the central government, decides. A few days ago I read that the Pentagon contemplates sending thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan. This combines tyranny at home and aggression abroad. Who wants to send them? A few neocons in New York, the arms industry, a few generals, and several senators. It could not happen in a confederacy.

Will this, as General Lee predicted, prove “the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.? Wait.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 143 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Rurik says:

    there’s a reason they’re taking down these monuments

    http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/new-orleans-taking-down-general-lee-statue/news-story/fc831b80c4c7f9c8fcfe131cea5ec8c6

    and everything Fred says about federalism in the US leading to tyranny is even more true when you look at globali$m

    they want that boot stamping on a human face forever that Orwell warned us all about. And they’re (and we’re) getting it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle a
    Feds had nothing to do with NOLA statue removal. That was all voted on by the city council pushed by the Mayor. Localized government can be as deadly as centralized.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/general-lee-speaks-had-it-figured-out/#comment-1899170
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions. None of the subdivisions would have the resources to intervene abroad.

    Even with the technology of the 21st Century, it will prove impossible to govern a nation as big and as increasingly diverse as the U.S. indefinitely. Some type of separation is inevitable and, sadly, it will prove bloody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    Model the USA after the canton system of Switzerland.
    , @Poupon Marx
    Let's do it this way: An ethnic White (including Asians and Hindus, selectively), Black, and Brown (Amerindian). Each to be autonomous, autocephalous, and completely self-determining. I predict recognition by China and Russia could be foreordained.
    , @David Smith
    A more homogeneous society - an actual nation (Which is really an extended family) - can be governed, being similar enough, and, as in the case of traditional America, high trust.

    Now, there's no unity, no trust, nothing that makes me distinctly American, simply because everybody can be an American. I have little to nothing in common with Chuck Schumer, Gerry Brown, or Hillary Clinton. Heck, as decent as Pablo or Mr. Singh might be, I have little in common with them either! I want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!

    If everybody's an American, then no one is!

    It's gonna blow, but how violent it'll be is anybody's guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies.

    Of course if you're involved, what exactly does "low-intensity" mean?

    "Interesting" times ahead!
    , @for-the-record
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions.

    Can you point me to a reference for this, thanks.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, we all say that around here, but Texas and California (the country's future) says nothing much will happen.

    Personally, I'm all for a AmeriEuropean homeland, even if simply semi-autonomous enclaves in a larger society. But nothing suggests that this is coming. I quietly try to get involved in groups that are 99% white but have zero racial/ethnic underpinnings figuring that if a white identity ever emerges, these will be the groups that can promote it in the same way that Jewish groups promote their own people. But nobody in any of these groups thinks in ethnic/racial terms, at least out loud.

    But, again, you don't see any white identity emerging in Texas or California or Florida or New Mexico. You just see whites fading away as they are slowly swamped.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Excellent piece. A cure all and panacea. If only the Confederacy had won! The World-and Whites-would be so much better off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    For nations as with individuals, inner life is mainly concerned with how one achieves external objectives. Strong central control is necessary for defence, but that is what the South was trying to avoid.

    One might say the Confederacy put the cart before the constitutional principles, which did not enable it to exert its full strength. The Confederacy was predicated on being treated legalistically by the USA as if a sense of shared identity existed, but that wasexactly what the Confederacy was repudiating. However the high minded, the views of the Southern politicians, only mattered because because they regarded the South as their country. Principled lawfulness does not come into politics, which is the distiction between friend and foe.

    After WW1 Germany's Weimar Constitution was designed to enable the full resources of the polity to be utilized in defence (or as it turned out, aggressive war) and that was a major reason behind Hitler's military successes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    Diversity Heretic:

    Keenan was obviously a truly great man.

    When I was young I had thought that Keenan’s containment policy was wrong. Well history proved me wrong!

    Keenan was absolutely right in condemning our policy towards Russia after the collapse of the Soviet regime.

    I hope that his advocacy of America breaking up into eight autonomous subdivisions comes true. Unfortunately, I have my doubts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    It was Soviet Union that was containing America.
    , @Carroll Price
    The Cold War was as phony as the War on Terror, and for the same reasons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Diversity Heretic
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions. None of the subdivisions would have the resources to intervene abroad.

    Even with the technology of the 21st Century, it will prove impossible to govern a nation as big and as increasingly diverse as the U.S. indefinitely. Some type of separation is inevitable and, sadly, it will prove bloody.

    Model the USA after the canton system of Switzerland.

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

    Regarding that Lee quote, I think it is good to place it in context. It was made in a letter in late 1866 per https://civilwartalk.com/threads/robert-e-lee-quote-is-there-a-source-is-it-real.117252/#post-1190369
    The link there is broken. Here is an updated link to the Acton-Lee correspondence: https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig3/acton-lee.html
    More at https://civilwartalk.com/threads/robert-e-lee-quote-is-there-a-source-is-it-real.117252/#post-1190391

    I think expanding the quote makes it even more illuminating:

    I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thanks for that!

    I'd like to call attention to the fact that the gentleman was giving credit to those who preceded him. They and he were and are correct.

    I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.
     
    Such "anti-federalist" arguments were and are as correct and prescient as they are compelling. One of my favorite pieces is is the following brief "letter" since it covers most of the points made in Fred's excellent article.:

    -Brutus (aka Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York. 18 October 1787
    http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

     

    I'd like to add further that I'm sure Adolph Hitler would have agreed with most, if not all, and that's evidence that he wasn't the evil that Allied propaganda would have us all believing to this day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Sean says:
    @Poupon Marx
    Excellent piece. A cure all and panacea. If only the Confederacy had won! The World-and Whites-would be so much better off.

    For nations as with individuals, inner life is mainly concerned with how one achieves external objectives. Strong central control is necessary for defence, but that is what the South was trying to avoid.

    One might say the Confederacy put the cart before the constitutional principles, which did not enable it to exert its full strength. The Confederacy was predicated on being treated legalistically by the USA as if a sense of shared identity existed, but that wasexactly what the Confederacy was repudiating. However the high minded, the views of the Southern politicians, only mattered because because they regarded the South as their country. Principled lawfulness does not come into politics, which is the distiction between friend and foe.

    After WW1 Germany’s Weimar Constitution was designed to enable the full resources of the polity to be utilized in defence (or as it turned out, aggressive war) and that was a major reason behind Hitler’s military successes

    Read More
    • Replies: @Poupon Marx
    The line between confederacy and republic was always blurred since the signing of the document. The real issue is the ascendancy of the Feral, I mean Federal Gummint. In the end, interpretation, logic, rectitude goes to the back of the bus, and the driver is POWER-raw, naked, and nasty.

    Supreme Court justices have said, "The Constitution means what I say it means". I get it. The North was a mesomorph, growing rapidly with access to European technology and expanding industry. It also had New York and the influence of the Jewish Banksters, for whom wars are profit gorging feasts.

    The "natural" law here, that is intuitive and common sensical, says that if you disagree with me, you have the right to walk away and disengage. The legacy of this war and its outcome has mightily contributed to the disastrous calamity we find ourselves in: the overweaning, overbearing Central Authority, Direction, and Planning; Command and Control.

    I hate it. It is unnatural, unhealthy and gives sociopaths, mentally deranged scum power of people that is uncallengeable.
    , @Wallace
    Slavery doomed the South. Bringing in blacks gave ammo to the ill-moral argument. The history of it was, and is financial. The results are what we see now. Our cities are gone. As Fred pointed out, our capacity of strength has been diminished, bases everywhere staffed with substandard people.

    A mess. But I'm hopeful things will shift. I have children that will have to grow up in this world, so I care what happens.

    A good cleansing will probably happen. Nature removes filth. When it will happen? Not sure, but it will happen.

    I can go on and on about it, but why bother. We made this mess. The earth is a good place, humanity kills it and wars etc. I'm an optimist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. What in blazes has happened to America, or the world for that matter? When I was growing up in the I930s , the population of the US was around 130 million. World population was 2 billion. We thought India at 300 million and China at 500 million were both overpopulated. Now the US is at 330 plus million, an almost threefold increase since the thirties and world population is 7 billion, again an almost threefold increase. Does this population explosion have any thing to do with the current problems Fred cites? I believe so and things can only get worse as one technological wonder after another leaves many of us bewildered. In the little town where I reside in Texas we have a large supermarket that is constantly crowded, many of the shoppers recipients of food stamps or whatever they are called these days==actually not stamps but a credit card of sorts. This supermarket is our lifeline. If it closed and the neighboring supermarket closed what would people do. The self-reliance days of yore that Fred is fond of pointing out are long gone. Just what would we do? One needs beans to have a soup kitchen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    Why would supermarkets spontaneously close? To what end?
    , @bluedog
    Well I grew up a little later than you, 40's and 50's and of course people back then were more self-sufficient, everyone in the rural area's grew their own food, had a cow or two, a small flock of chickens and raised a hog or two and now they run to the store to put it on their debit card, or use food stamps, it seems now everyone is dependent on the system to survive or so they think anyway and of course that's just what they want...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Good piece, localism is definitely a solution. Unfortunately decentralization is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. It’s very rare for institutions to relinquish power voluntarily.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    I personally think localism and federalism both have their uses. you need federalism when dealing with other nations. while I agree localism would be just about perfect for towns, cities or states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. dearieme says:
    @Simply Simon
    What in blazes has happened to America, or the world for that matter? When I was growing up in the I930s , the population of the US was around 130 million. World population was 2 billion. We thought India at 300 million and China at 500 million were both overpopulated. Now the US is at 330 plus million, an almost threefold increase since the thirties and world population is 7 billion, again an almost threefold increase. Does this population explosion have any thing to do with the current problems Fred cites? I believe so and things can only get worse as one technological wonder after another leaves many of us bewildered. In the little town where I reside in Texas we have a large supermarket that is constantly crowded, many of the shoppers recipients of food stamps or whatever they are called these days==actually not stamps but a credit card of sorts. This supermarket is our lifeline. If it closed and the neighboring supermarket closed what would people do. The self-reliance days of yore that Fred is fond of pointing out are long gone. Just what would we do? One needs beans to have a soup kitchen.

    Why would supermarkets spontaneously close? To what end?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simply Simon
    How about widespread riots?
    , @davidgmills
    Walmart has shut down a significant number of small town supermarkets and retail stores by building a new Walmart. And it has abandoned quite a few of the stores it built in rural America leaving the small towns with no food market at all.

    And evidently, the towns didn't have enough capital to replace the Walmart store.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Sean
    For nations as with individuals, inner life is mainly concerned with how one achieves external objectives. Strong central control is necessary for defence, but that is what the South was trying to avoid.

    One might say the Confederacy put the cart before the constitutional principles, which did not enable it to exert its full strength. The Confederacy was predicated on being treated legalistically by the USA as if a sense of shared identity existed, but that wasexactly what the Confederacy was repudiating. However the high minded, the views of the Southern politicians, only mattered because because they regarded the South as their country. Principled lawfulness does not come into politics, which is the distiction between friend and foe.

    After WW1 Germany's Weimar Constitution was designed to enable the full resources of the polity to be utilized in defence (or as it turned out, aggressive war) and that was a major reason behind Hitler's military successes

    The line between confederacy and republic was always blurred since the signing of the document. The real issue is the ascendancy of the Feral, I mean Federal Gummint. In the end, interpretation, logic, rectitude goes to the back of the bus, and the driver is POWER-raw, naked, and nasty.

    Supreme Court justices have said, “The Constitution means what I say it means”. I get it. The North was a mesomorph, growing rapidly with access to European technology and expanding industry. It also had New York and the influence of the Jewish Banksters, for whom wars are profit gorging feasts.

    The “natural” law here, that is intuitive and common sensical, says that if you disagree with me, you have the right to walk away and disengage. The legacy of this war and its outcome has mightily contributed to the disastrous calamity we find ourselves in: the overweaning, overbearing Central Authority, Direction, and Planning; Command and Control.

    I hate it. It is unnatural, unhealthy and gives sociopaths, mentally deranged scum power of people that is uncallengeable.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Diversity Heretic
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions. None of the subdivisions would have the resources to intervene abroad.

    Even with the technology of the 21st Century, it will prove impossible to govern a nation as big and as increasingly diverse as the U.S. indefinitely. Some type of separation is inevitable and, sadly, it will prove bloody.

    Let’s do it this way: An ethnic White (including Asians and Hindus, selectively), Black, and Brown (Amerindian). Each to be autonomous, autocephalous, and completely self-determining. I predict recognition by China and Russia could be foreordained.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RealAmerican
    That select smart Hindus and Asians would elect to live with such dim-witted jackasses, escapes me, mate.
    , @ia
    You should read The Savaged States of America, a futurist novel by Kevin Beary. The white-controlled area is called Corridor – the white male protaganist, Serenity, is married to Matt, an actual woman. Hard to believe but in a book that is extrapolating on current trends in 1998 even this pretty astute author couldn't imagine same-sex marriage and Bruce Jenner. The blacks get Malcolmland (and Islam) and the Indo-Americans have Aztlan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Flip says:

    And the Federal Reserve and its unbacked dollar gives vast power to the Federal government as it can spend without restraint as no gold needs to be held against the dollars printed. The states can’t print money and so go to the Federal government on one knee to get access, greatly reducing their influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antiwar7
    That is a huge power, being the source of money, that the federal government has over the states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Attaboy Fred. It’s a pity Lee was not president instead of the Imperialist Lincoln.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. ‘… In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn’t in the culture…’

    Welllll, I’m not so sure. Maybe not in that year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud

    Map there includes rural VA

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Well he's close because living here in N.Y. in 50's we many time took shotguns and rifles to school on the school bus to work on them, and he's right no one even thought of going on a shooting spree ,so I guess you can blame it on wars and society for they never seem to go together...
    , @polistra
    1964? I lived in Manhattan, Kansas at the time, which was certainly not a redneck community. Hunting wasn't dominant in a college town, but plenty of kids brought their guns and knives to school routinely. No big deal. I took my dad's Samurai sword (WW2 souvenir) to school for Show And Tell once. No big deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. The Scalpel says: • Website

    A bit off topic, but I hope Fred reads this.

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-american-catastrophe/

    “Everytime I hear someone say “someone would have talked” when in fact legions did talk, my hope for my country ratchets downward”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @Diversity Heretic
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions. None of the subdivisions would have the resources to intervene abroad.

    Even with the technology of the 21st Century, it will prove impossible to govern a nation as big and as increasingly diverse as the U.S. indefinitely. Some type of separation is inevitable and, sadly, it will prove bloody.

    A more homogeneous society – an actual nation (Which is really an extended family) – can be governed, being similar enough, and, as in the case of traditional America, high trust.

    Now, there’s no unity, no trust, nothing that makes me distinctly American, simply because everybody can be an American. I have little to nothing in common with Chuck Schumer, Gerry Brown, or Hillary Clinton. Heck, as decent as Pablo or Mr. Singh might be, I have little in common with them either! I want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!

    If everybody’s an American, then no one is!

    It’s gonna blow, but how violent it’ll be is anybody’s guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies.

    Of course if you’re involved, what exactly does “low-intensity” mean?

    “Interesting” times ahead!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    " want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!"

    Don't white nationalist trash the likes of you, "however decent they might be," understand that this home you talk about is Europe? You are the aliens in Amerindian land.

    You should pack your bags and get the fuck out, and back to your beloved lily white Europe.

    And, IF you can get yourselves to fuck off from every alien corner of the globe, then please feel free to kick out all other aliens from your decadent home sweet home.

    Deal?
    , @Corvinus
    "It’s gonna blow, but how violent it’ll be is anybody’s guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies."

    A sawbuck says you're dead wrong.
    , @Simply Simon
    "Everybody can be an American. If everybody's an American , then no one is." How true. Yes, there are forces at work who would dilute the word American until it is meaningless, for instance the open borders crowd, Can you imagine the state of the world where indeed all nations would have open borders? A cultural anthropologist would have a field day conjuring up the changes in demographics that would take place. My best guess is that poverty as bad as it is now in many countries would soon become worldwide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Diversity Heretic
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions. None of the subdivisions would have the resources to intervene abroad.

    Even with the technology of the 21st Century, it will prove impossible to govern a nation as big and as increasingly diverse as the U.S. indefinitely. Some type of separation is inevitable and, sadly, it will prove bloody.

    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions.

    Can you point me to a reference for this, thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The recommendation was made in Kennan's book Around the Cragged Hill, although it may have been a dozen autonomous republics.

    https://www.amazon.com/Around-Cragged-Hill-Political-Philosophy/dp/0393311457
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Renoman says:

    My man Fred is always right!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Poupon Marx
    Let's do it this way: An ethnic White (including Asians and Hindus, selectively), Black, and Brown (Amerindian). Each to be autonomous, autocephalous, and completely self-determining. I predict recognition by China and Russia could be foreordained.

    That select smart Hindus and Asians would elect to live with such dim-witted jackasses, escapes me, mate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "smart Hindus"

    These "smart" hindus you speak of believe that their epic battle known as the "awesome" Mahabarat was fought with 1.6billion warriors, all presumably within a regular sized city, and nuclear weapons were used in this battle (yes, the white race copied that knowledge from the "smart" hindus).

    "Smart" hindus also think that a cow's moo has the power to kill pathogens, a tbsp of cow's ghee can produce 1ton of oxygen, it inhales and exhales oxygen, etc., and peahens get pregnant by drinking tears of the cock.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3rvkyj/a_whatsapp_post_about_the_cow_p/

    And that is just scratching the surface of their collective "smartness"...

    These "smart" hindus living amongst you are living a duality.


    "such dim-witted jackasses"
    If you mean white trash red-necks... of course!! These idiots should actually feel proud to have amongst them, so many "smart" hindus and asians.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. bluedog says:
    @Simply Simon
    What in blazes has happened to America, or the world for that matter? When I was growing up in the I930s , the population of the US was around 130 million. World population was 2 billion. We thought India at 300 million and China at 500 million were both overpopulated. Now the US is at 330 plus million, an almost threefold increase since the thirties and world population is 7 billion, again an almost threefold increase. Does this population explosion have any thing to do with the current problems Fred cites? I believe so and things can only get worse as one technological wonder after another leaves many of us bewildered. In the little town where I reside in Texas we have a large supermarket that is constantly crowded, many of the shoppers recipients of food stamps or whatever they are called these days==actually not stamps but a credit card of sorts. This supermarket is our lifeline. If it closed and the neighboring supermarket closed what would people do. The self-reliance days of yore that Fred is fond of pointing out are long gone. Just what would we do? One needs beans to have a soup kitchen.

    Well I grew up a little later than you, 40′s and 50′s and of course people back then were more self-sufficient, everyone in the rural area’s grew their own food, had a cow or two, a small flock of chickens and raised a hog or two and now they run to the store to put it on their debit card, or use food stamps, it seems now everyone is dependent on the system to survive or so they think anyway and of course that’s just what they want…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. bluedog says:
    @anony-mouse
    '... In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn’t in the culture...'

    Welllll, I'm not so sure. Maybe not in that year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud

    Map there includes rural VA

    Well he’s close because living here in N.Y. in 50′s we many time took shotguns and rifles to school on the school bus to work on them, and he’s right no one even thought of going on a shooting spree ,so I guess you can blame it on wars and society for they never seem to go together…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. At least we can still talk about it in these cul-de-sacs, if not do anything about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. @Diversity Heretic
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions. None of the subdivisions would have the resources to intervene abroad.

    Even with the technology of the 21st Century, it will prove impossible to govern a nation as big and as increasingly diverse as the U.S. indefinitely. Some type of separation is inevitable and, sadly, it will prove bloody.

    Yeah, we all say that around here, but Texas and California (the country’s future) says nothing much will happen.

    Personally, I’m all for a AmeriEuropean homeland, even if simply semi-autonomous enclaves in a larger society. But nothing suggests that this is coming. I quietly try to get involved in groups that are 99% white but have zero racial/ethnic underpinnings figuring that if a white identity ever emerges, these will be the groups that can promote it in the same way that Jewish groups promote their own people. But nobody in any of these groups thinks in ethnic/racial terms, at least out loud.

    But, again, you don’t see any white identity emerging in Texas or California or Florida or New Mexico. You just see whites fading away as they are slowly swamped.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    It may not be whites who trigger the break-up (in fact, I don't think it will be). My money is on a Hispanic quasi-secession backed by Mexico in the Southwest. Hard to imagine today but with the demographics of 2040, it may look a whole lot more plausible.

    You do have a form of white identity in the Deep South, where they have to confront a large Negro population--whites there vote about 90% for Republicans. But I don't know where it might lead--the first effort at secession didn't end very well.

    Your involvement in mostly white organizations with an eye to someday seeking to raise white consciousness is very commendable. Keep it up!
    , @SpreadTheMessage
    "Yeah, we all say that around here, but Texas and California (the country’s future) says nothing much will happen."

    "I quietly try to get involved in groups that are 99% white but have zero racial/ethnic underpinnings ..."

    "But, again, you don’t see any white identity emerging in Texas or California or Florida or New Mexico. You just see whites fading away as they are slowly swamped."

    -----

    Consciousness is probably emerging amongst conservatives, considering all the recent nationalist and nativist politics. Trump voters are probably pretty conscious.

    People who hear about the overall demographic situation for the country will start to think differently. This is different because when a state changes people have the option of moving to another state.

    I think the most useful thing for people like us to do is have more children and convince like minded people to do the same.

    Trump got around 38% of the voters of child bearing age, and if a bunch of them have more children than anticipated things will be different.

    This message can also be spread through religious organizations convincing people to "preserve their way of life." There are already people attempting to do this.

    The point is that the message only needs to resonate with conservatives. So if you want to spread the message find people who will already be receptive to it, and then convince them to spread the message as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @for-the-record
    George Kennan made a similar observation to that of Robert E. Lee, and advocated the reconstitution of the U.S. into about eight highly autonomous subdivisions.

    Can you point me to a reference for this, thanks.

    The recommendation was made in Kennan’s book Around the Cragged Hill, although it may have been a dozen autonomous republics.

    https://www.amazon.com/Around-Cragged-Hill-Political-Philosophy/dp/0393311457

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    The recommendation was made in Kennan’s book Around the Cragged Hill, although it may have been a dozen autonomous republics.

    Muito obrigado, I've ordered the book from another site ($3.98 with shipping to Portugal, not bad)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, we all say that around here, but Texas and California (the country's future) says nothing much will happen.

    Personally, I'm all for a AmeriEuropean homeland, even if simply semi-autonomous enclaves in a larger society. But nothing suggests that this is coming. I quietly try to get involved in groups that are 99% white but have zero racial/ethnic underpinnings figuring that if a white identity ever emerges, these will be the groups that can promote it in the same way that Jewish groups promote their own people. But nobody in any of these groups thinks in ethnic/racial terms, at least out loud.

    But, again, you don't see any white identity emerging in Texas or California or Florida or New Mexico. You just see whites fading away as they are slowly swamped.

    It may not be whites who trigger the break-up (in fact, I don’t think it will be). My money is on a Hispanic quasi-secession backed by Mexico in the Southwest. Hard to imagine today but with the demographics of 2040, it may look a whole lot more plausible.

    You do have a form of white identity in the Deep South, where they have to confront a large Negro population–whites there vote about 90% for Republicans. But I don’t know where it might lead–the first effort at secession didn’t end very well.

    Your involvement in mostly white organizations with an eye to someday seeking to raise white consciousness is very commendable. Keep it up!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    I don't know why Mexican-Americans would want to secede. They left Mexico in the first place for a better place living amongst the Anglos.
    , @Corvinus
    "It may not be whites who trigger the break-up (in fact, I don’t think it will be)."

    Yet that is all you hope and pray for. It really doesn't matter, you will sit on the sidelines.

    "My money is on a Hispanic quasi-secession backed by Mexico in the Southwest."

    A sawbuck says it won't happen?

    "You do have a form of white identity in the Deep South, where they have to confront a large Negro population–whites there vote about 90% for Republicans. But I don’t know where it might lead–the first effort at secession didn’t end very well."

    And the second one won't even get off the ground.

    "Your involvement in mostly white organizations with an eye to someday seeking to raise white consciousness is very commendable. Keep it up!"

    Yes, a Medal of Honor winner in the making.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it.” Excellent article, which would have been just as good had Fred ended it right here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Flip says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    It may not be whites who trigger the break-up (in fact, I don't think it will be). My money is on a Hispanic quasi-secession backed by Mexico in the Southwest. Hard to imagine today but with the demographics of 2040, it may look a whole lot more plausible.

    You do have a form of white identity in the Deep South, where they have to confront a large Negro population--whites there vote about 90% for Republicans. But I don't know where it might lead--the first effort at secession didn't end very well.

    Your involvement in mostly white organizations with an eye to someday seeking to raise white consciousness is very commendable. Keep it up!

    I don’t know why Mexican-Americans would want to secede. They left Mexico in the first place for a better place living amongst the Anglos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Well they're not rocket scientists!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Diversity Heretic
    The recommendation was made in Kennan's book Around the Cragged Hill, although it may have been a dozen autonomous republics.

    https://www.amazon.com/Around-Cragged-Hill-Political-Philosophy/dp/0393311457

    The recommendation was made in Kennan’s book Around the Cragged Hill, although it may have been a dozen autonomous republics.

    Muito obrigado, I’ve ordered the book from another site ($3.98 with shipping to Portugal, not bad)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. If America attacks Russia or China, its very unlikely that we’ll read about it the next day. Most of the city centers and thus the newpaper plants and offices will go up in mushroom clouds, and that’s going to be the least of the worries for the doomed survivors of the first strikes.

    Maybe cockroach archeaologists a few hundred thousand years into the future might dig around and try to wonder what these silly monkeys did to themselves and why on earth would they do that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @Flip
    I don't know why Mexican-Americans would want to secede. They left Mexico in the first place for a better place living amongst the Anglos.

    Well they’re not rocket scientists!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. In this sad state of affairs only a natural EMP would eradicate all the human political diseases that we have brought among ourselves. By natural, I mean solar flares that would blast the planet as it rotates hence afflict all continents.

    Now think about this. When I say that we will all go down I am obviously not talking about the solar flare killing people directly but by destroying the electrical infrastructure as we now know to be temporary blackouts but also frying circuits in every cellphone, I-pad, vehicle, tractor and most importantly nuclear facilities including their backup systems.

    Then all of us great humanitarians of the left, right or non-aligned will go full feral and end up eating each other. The simple loss of electricity will make it all real and personal as the brothers say.

    My point is that all these endless discussions of what was good and how things should be are great for mental masturbation and all, but has anyone looked into Fukushima lately? I don’t link, but will text the coordinates of enenews.com as the best site by concerned consensus on people who keep a vigil on that unresolved catastrophe. They are young and edgy but no one else is doing the job.

    Do you want to be that elderly French farmer who died of lung cancer in 1989 because, as his friends said, he liked to enjoy a cigar after dinner only to have his friends find out many years later that the fallout from Chernobyl had encompassed all of Europe up to the English Channel and that this had a higher probability in the cause of his demise than puffing on a natural cigar?

    Living on the West coast? Feeling weak? Got a bit of a hack even though you don’t smoke? Maybe it is the revenge of Nagasaki! ( Read about the USS Ronald Reagan).

    My exasperated point is that politics and personalities come and go but is it not more important to spend energy on important things like all the crap that is making us and out children sick?

    When I bring up Fukushima among my neighbours they always give me a blank stare. They do however have an opinion about Trump.

    No one among my casual associates had ever heard of a Robert E Lee save for a fan of the Band and even then it was (without him knowing it) about a blockade running boat originally called the Monarch of the Mississippi.

    To point out that he was a General in the Confederacy? Slave owner. End of conversation. Oww my balls!

    { rant off}

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I like your comment.

    Occasionally wondering what my stopping in towns close to there may have done.

    One of the strangest effects is that the large homeless population of Tokyo has almost totally vanished. I only see two in recent years, one a scholar, the other a mad man.

    All of the others, many score in say, a 2 km radius from my flat, work on the Fukushima clean-up (which goes nowhere in general). Recruitment is run by the Mob.

    Homeless people in other places in Tokyo, where the homeless populations are larger, also vanished, for the same reason.

    This is also incovenient for garbage collection, they would also collect cans for cash under Mob control, local govts even whined about it, but they aren't here now, so many complaints from operators of vending machines that have an overflowing bin beside.

    It is very convenient for the government to have removed the very large homeless population in this way, as the stupid 'Olympics' approach.

    Of course, the Fukushima Number 1 disaster was combining an act of nature with technical failures, I am not to saying that anything is intended, except the removal of homeless people to work for Mob shell companies, and perhaps to get them out before the stupid 'Olympics'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. What May 68 Generation did to France.

    This is what Japanese ‘progressives’ want for Japan and what Polish ‘progressives’ want for Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Good article by Fred.

    Priss, you are right about the May '68 generation in France. MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit and then-Maoist, later post-modernist Baudrillard come to mind as exemplars, but then, the only reason I ever heard of Cohn-Bendit and Baudrillard's ludicrous stances at the time was in Situationist writing attacking both as exemplars of falsity.

    I still think that much Siuationist (and several member's later) writing remains of interest, but of course, except in a couple of minor events, they were politically insignificant relative to Trotskyites, 'Maoists', etc.

    When studying French overseas, my teacher one evening made it clear that she believes in the cult of May, but the only accomplishment she mentioned was the wide usage of on as a pronoun.

    As for Poles, I don't know any here, but those I met overseas ranged from fascist to religious conservative to fanatical capitalist. They were sure fun to go drinking with. Donald Tusk is surely a shit, but he is clearly in the latter category, and as much a Yank as a Pole.

    One of the remnant groups from Japan's version of the late '60s, early '70s 'upheavals' is a few hundred metres from my flat. They are Trotskys. I read their banners or pick up the occasional free newspaper when walking past, their main lines are pro the peace article in the constitution, anti-USA neo-colonialism, and pro labour rights.

    So, even those Trotsky-descent types are nothing like western 'progressives'. An older friend told me a sly nickname for their HQ in his generation, House of Crows.

    The main confederation of industry used to support high levels of immigration, but they are not making noise about it any more.

    The media likes to celebrate our long-term UNHCR, but in practice, almost all refugees during her time were refused or sent to a stupid Anglo-Zionist country (stupid as in stupid to accept them, in most cases).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Fred Reed has written some great stuff, but this tops them all. This is nothing that the constitutionalists, the gun “nuts”, the survivalists, and the old-style libertarians haven’t been saying since the time of Barry Goldwater. Though way too late to influence anyone to put a non-violent end to the Feral Beast (probably 30 years too late), it’s good to hear this from a real conservative, and not many explain this stuff as well as Fred.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Conservatives have a lot to learn from Libertarians/Constitutionalists and vice-versa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. bluedog says:

    I fully agree with being a survivalist and self sufficientnt and yet detest a conservative (or any other labeled group or party) for they are one of the biggest thieves in the country and always have been, going clear back to the old Whig Party and they haven’t improved..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. ia says:
    @Poupon Marx
    Let's do it this way: An ethnic White (including Asians and Hindus, selectively), Black, and Brown (Amerindian). Each to be autonomous, autocephalous, and completely self-determining. I predict recognition by China and Russia could be foreordained.

    You should read The Savaged States of America, a futurist novel by Kevin Beary. The white-controlled area is called Corridor – the white male protaganist, Serenity, is married to Matt, an actual woman. Hard to believe but in a book that is extrapolating on current trends in 1998 even this pretty astute author couldn’t imagine same-sex marriage and Bruce Jenner. The blacks get Malcolmland (and Islam) and the Indo-Americans have Aztlan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I don't have it any more, but The Coming Self-Destruction of the USA is an interesting variation on the theme, from the PoV of a hippy person. Strong recommendation if you appreciate retro-futures.

    The Turner Diaries is also fun, although I'd likely be on the death list, it is so OTT that, despite the clunky writing, I read it all in one session.

    I suppose admitting to having read it is a thoughtcrime in many places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Wallace says:

    Deer hunting with a shotgun?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    sure, just use a slug

    gets the job done

    , @Dr. X

    Deer hunting with a shotgun?
     
    Some jurisdictions require it and forbid rifles.
    , @gwynedd1
    Yeah. Called buck shot. And its not lethal a mile away which is nice considering hunting grounds can be near human habitation. That is besides a shot gun slug .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Rurik says:
    @Wallace
    Deer hunting with a shotgun?

    sure, just use a slug

    gets the job done

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Slugs are better, but some states allow the use of buckshot. It's pretty effective within 40 yards, especially with a full choke. If you know that the range will be close and the target running, it's a reasonable choice. I took one deer that way in Virginia.
    , @Wallace
    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.

    Anyway, Fred wrote up a good article.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Wallace says:

    A very good piece, Fred.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Rurik
    sure, just use a slug

    gets the job done

    Slugs are better, but some states allow the use of buckshot. It’s pretty effective within 40 yards, especially with a full choke. If you know that the range will be close and the target running, it’s a reasonable choice. I took one deer that way in Virginia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wallace
    A 410 is a nice easy weapon with zero kick. A mini shotgun. Deer hunting is stealth and patience. Hard to run up a deer with a 12 gu. I have shot hundreds of birds with a 410.

    Hunting takes time when the game is smart. I gave up hunting years ago. Grocery store has good meat and less trouble.

    My home defense weapon is a shotgun though. I only carry a knife when I'm out and about.
    , @Wallace
    40 yards with a shotgun? More like 40 feet, if that. If I had to use a shotgun, it would be close. Nasty weapon.

    Create some distance and let it roll. No more than a yard. Shotguns release. The end result of a shotgun is a mess. Then you have to deal with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Wallace says:
    @Rurik
    sure, just use a slug

    gets the job done

    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.

    Anyway, Fred wrote up a good article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.
     
    Nonsense. 12-gauge slug barrel, 1 oz. slug, whatever it hits dies. Just remember the 9-inch drop at 100 yards. In the woods -- the eastern woodlands -- can't beat it.
    , @Elrod
    Your comments about the shotgun vs rifle for deer hunting is true. However in some states you are NOT ALLOWED to hunt deer with a rifle. Certain blue states only allow deer hunting with slugs. Their fear is that the bullets will travel further, with slugs in a shotgun they only can go so far.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Wallace says:
    @Sean
    For nations as with individuals, inner life is mainly concerned with how one achieves external objectives. Strong central control is necessary for defence, but that is what the South was trying to avoid.

    One might say the Confederacy put the cart before the constitutional principles, which did not enable it to exert its full strength. The Confederacy was predicated on being treated legalistically by the USA as if a sense of shared identity existed, but that wasexactly what the Confederacy was repudiating. However the high minded, the views of the Southern politicians, only mattered because because they regarded the South as their country. Principled lawfulness does not come into politics, which is the distiction between friend and foe.

    After WW1 Germany's Weimar Constitution was designed to enable the full resources of the polity to be utilized in defence (or as it turned out, aggressive war) and that was a major reason behind Hitler's military successes

    Slavery doomed the South. Bringing in blacks gave ammo to the ill-moral argument. The history of it was, and is financial. The results are what we see now. Our cities are gone. As Fred pointed out, our capacity of strength has been diminished, bases everywhere staffed with substandard people.

    A mess. But I’m hopeful things will shift. I have children that will have to grow up in this world, so I care what happens.

    A good cleansing will probably happen. Nature removes filth. When it will happen? Not sure, but it will happen.

    I can go on and on about it, but why bother. We made this mess. The earth is a good place, humanity kills it and wars etc. I’m an optimist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Wallace says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Slugs are better, but some states allow the use of buckshot. It's pretty effective within 40 yards, especially with a full choke. If you know that the range will be close and the target running, it's a reasonable choice. I took one deer that way in Virginia.

    A 410 is a nice easy weapon with zero kick. A mini shotgun. Deer hunting is stealth and patience. Hard to run up a deer with a 12 gu. I have shot hundreds of birds with a 410.

    Hunting takes time when the game is smart. I gave up hunting years ago. Grocery store has good meat and less trouble.

    My home defense weapon is a shotgun though. I only carry a knife when I’m out and about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    My home defense shotgun is loaded with alternate slugs and double aught.

    Because I'm such a nice guy, the first shell is the latter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Wallace says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Slugs are better, but some states allow the use of buckshot. It's pretty effective within 40 yards, especially with a full choke. If you know that the range will be close and the target running, it's a reasonable choice. I took one deer that way in Virginia.

    40 yards with a shotgun? More like 40 feet, if that. If I had to use a shotgun, it would be close. Nasty weapon.

    Create some distance and let it roll. No more than a yard. Shotguns release. The end result of a shotgun is a mess. Then you have to deal with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    40 yards is within the range of 12ga buckshot. A slug in an unrifled barrel is effective at 50-75 yards. A shotgun shooting Sabots out of a rifled barrel can be effective over 100 yards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Wallace says:

    We just lost three Rangers today in Afghanistan. Probably good men, who knows. The media chicks are making light of it.

    This insane agenda needs to end, like now.

    I’ll stop leaving comments here. Fred finally wrote a decent article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Probably good men, ..."

    More like fodder for the fiery blaze.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Wallace
    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.

    Anyway, Fred wrote up a good article.

    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.

    Nonsense. 12-gauge slug barrel, 1 oz. slug, whatever it hits dies. Just remember the 9-inch drop at 100 yards. In the woods — the eastern woodlands — can’t beat it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wallace
    Easier with a rifle. Squared off shot is good stuff. Designed to breach door locks.

    http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/SHOTSHELL-AMMUNITION/Innovative/Blind-Side/Pages/default.aspx
    , @Workforlivn
    What do you think buckshot is for?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Wallace
    A 410 is a nice easy weapon with zero kick. A mini shotgun. Deer hunting is stealth and patience. Hard to run up a deer with a 12 gu. I have shot hundreds of birds with a 410.

    Hunting takes time when the game is smart. I gave up hunting years ago. Grocery store has good meat and less trouble.

    My home defense weapon is a shotgun though. I only carry a knife when I'm out and about.

    My home defense shotgun is loaded with alternate slugs and double aught.

    Because I’m such a nice guy, the first shell is the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Wallace says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.
     
    Nonsense. 12-gauge slug barrel, 1 oz. slug, whatever it hits dies. Just remember the 9-inch drop at 100 yards. In the woods -- the eastern woodlands -- can't beat it.

    Easier with a rifle. Squared off shot is good stuff. Designed to breach door locks.

    http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/SHOTSHELL-AMMUNITION/Innovative/Blind-Side/Pages/default.aspx

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Easier with a rifle.
     
    No, it is not. Didn't read the rest, as bloviation regarding firearm performance is rife.

    Sometimes you're better off using a rifle, sometimes a shotgun works better.

    Further argument will be Ignored.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Liza says:

    Here is some stuff about Gen. Lee I did not know (if it’s the truth in the first place). An article in theatlantic.com. “The Myth of the Kindly General Lee”.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    During the Gettysburg campaign, in which Confederate troops marched quite far into Pennsylvania, a number of Blacks were seized on the assumption that they were escaped slaves (some had in fact always been free). They were taken south to be sold. This incident suggests that Lee's forces and perhaps Lee himself had an ideological commitment to the "peculiar institution" of slavery.
    Besides slavery, there were other indications that Lee was not the near-saintly figure rolled into a military genius he has been presented as being. General Pickett, famous for the disastrous charge at Gettysburg, visited Lee after the war, and a bitter argument broke out over responsibility for the failure of Pickett's Charge. Pickett emerged, muttering, "That man destroyed my division."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    It may not be whites who trigger the break-up (in fact, I don't think it will be). My money is on a Hispanic quasi-secession backed by Mexico in the Southwest. Hard to imagine today but with the demographics of 2040, it may look a whole lot more plausible.

    You do have a form of white identity in the Deep South, where they have to confront a large Negro population--whites there vote about 90% for Republicans. But I don't know where it might lead--the first effort at secession didn't end very well.

    Your involvement in mostly white organizations with an eye to someday seeking to raise white consciousness is very commendable. Keep it up!

    “It may not be whites who trigger the break-up (in fact, I don’t think it will be).”

    Yet that is all you hope and pray for. It really doesn’t matter, you will sit on the sidelines.

    “My money is on a Hispanic quasi-secession backed by Mexico in the Southwest.”

    A sawbuck says it won’t happen?

    “You do have a form of white identity in the Deep South, where they have to confront a large Negro population–whites there vote about 90% for Republicans. But I don’t know where it might lead–the first effort at secession didn’t end very well.”

    And the second one won’t even get off the ground.

    “Your involvement in mostly white organizations with an eye to someday seeking to raise white consciousness is very commendable. Keep it up!”

    Yes, a Medal of Honor winner in the making.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Wallace
    Easier with a rifle. Squared off shot is good stuff. Designed to breach door locks.

    http://www.winchester.com/PRODUCTS/SHOTSHELL-AMMUNITION/Innovative/Blind-Side/Pages/default.aspx

    Easier with a rifle.

    No, it is not. Didn’t read the rest, as bloviation regarding firearm performance is rife.

    Sometimes you’re better off using a rifle, sometimes a shotgun works better.

    Further argument will be Ignored.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Antiwar7 says:
    @Flip
    And the Federal Reserve and its unbacked dollar gives vast power to the Federal government as it can spend without restraint as no gold needs to be held against the dollars printed. The states can't print money and so go to the Federal government on one knee to get access, greatly reducing their influence.

    That is a huge power, being the source of money, that the federal government has over the states.

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

    It started way earlier than the 1950′s. First the victory of the North in the Civil War and the Reconstruction. Then the entry into WWI and the creation of the Fed under Wilson. Finally, under FDR the Federal govt was already vastly expanded. During WWII the US was by all means and purposes already statist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Anonymous Hun, that was a short summary, but even a short one should include Amendment 16 to the US Constitution to allow the Feral Gov't to tax individual income. That was the one that broke the back of state's rights.

    Flip describes the power of the (non) Federal Reserve and I see the comment by Antiwar7 above. Listen guys, to me, the ability to collect money directly from the people is just as bad or worse as the rest of that. Think about the flow of the money. It comes up to the Feral Beast directly from us and gets handed down piecemeal to the states, along with direct expenditures.

    It used to be that if the people in Washington told Montana that "this is the law", other than anything specifically proscribed as a power of the Federal Gov't in US Constitution BOR # X, Montana could tell the Feds to pound sand. It doesn't work that way when the states are dependent on the Beast to dole out money to them, depending on if they've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes.

    Feral Gov't: "Make your speed limits 55 mph or less!

    Alabama: "Fuck you, Amendment 10 says it's none of your business how fast we drive!"

    Feral Gov't: "I guess that funding for the highways and additional Dept. of Edumacation funds won't be coming this year. We'll say it again: JUMP!

    Alabama: "How high, SIR?!"

    How can Alabama push back? It's hard to get all Alabaman taxpayers to cut out $500 from their Feral tax payments to get their own money back. It'd be great if you could get that worked out "well, the IRS can't audit everyone in Alabama, and we're gonna spring anyone from jail who gets in trouble for this.", but it's pretty nonfeasible.

    That's how Amendment 16 sucks ass. It's not just the invasion of privacy, the big bucks they want now, and the huge amount of time and money lost just in compliance - the worst part is the flow of the money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @anonHUN
    It started way earlier than the 1950's. First the victory of the North in the Civil War and the Reconstruction. Then the entry into WWI and the creation of the Fed under Wilson. Finally, under FDR the Federal govt was already vastly expanded. During WWII the US was by all means and purposes already statist.

    Anonymous Hun, that was a short summary, but even a short one should include Amendment 16 to the US Constitution to allow the Feral Gov’t to tax individual income. That was the one that broke the back of state’s rights.

    Flip describes the power of the (non) Federal Reserve and I see the comment by Antiwar7 above. Listen guys, to me, the ability to collect money directly from the people is just as bad or worse as the rest of that. Think about the flow of the money. It comes up to the Feral Beast directly from us and gets handed down piecemeal to the states, along with direct expenditures.

    It used to be that if the people in Washington told Montana that “this is the law”, other than anything specifically proscribed as a power of the Federal Gov’t in US Constitution BOR # X, Montana could tell the Feds to pound sand. It doesn’t work that way when the states are dependent on the Beast to dole out money to them, depending on if they’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes.

    Feral Gov’t: “Make your speed limits 55 mph or less!

    Alabama: “Fuck you, Amendment 10 says it’s none of your business how fast we drive!”

    Feral Gov’t: “I guess that funding for the highways and additional Dept. of Edumacation funds won’t be coming this year. We’ll say it again: JUMP!

    Alabama: “How high, SIR?!”

    How can Alabama push back? It’s hard to get all Alabaman taxpayers to cut out $500 from their Feral tax payments to get their own money back. It’d be great if you could get that worked out “well, the IRS can’t audit everyone in Alabama, and we’re gonna spring anyone from jail who gets in trouble for this.”, but it’s pretty nonfeasible.

    That’s how Amendment 16 sucks ass. It’s not just the invasion of privacy, the big bucks they want now, and the huge amount of time and money lost just in compliance - the worst part is the flow of the money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. polistra says:
    @anony-mouse
    '... In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys brought shotguns to school during deer season. Nobody shot anybody because it wasn’t in the culture...'

    Welllll, I'm not so sure. Maybe not in that year.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud

    Map there includes rural VA

    1964? I lived in Manhattan, Kansas at the time, which was certainly not a redneck community. Hunting wasn’t dominant in a college town, but plenty of kids brought their guns and knives to school routinely. No big deal. I took my dad’s Samurai sword (WW2 souvenir) to school for Show And Tell once. No big deal.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @David Smith
    A more homogeneous society - an actual nation (Which is really an extended family) - can be governed, being similar enough, and, as in the case of traditional America, high trust.

    Now, there's no unity, no trust, nothing that makes me distinctly American, simply because everybody can be an American. I have little to nothing in common with Chuck Schumer, Gerry Brown, or Hillary Clinton. Heck, as decent as Pablo or Mr. Singh might be, I have little in common with them either! I want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!

    If everybody's an American, then no one is!

    It's gonna blow, but how violent it'll be is anybody's guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies.

    Of course if you're involved, what exactly does "low-intensity" mean?

    "Interesting" times ahead!

    ” want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!”

    Don’t white nationalist trash the likes of you, “however decent they might be,” understand that this home you talk about is Europe? You are the aliens in Amerindian land.

    You should pack your bags and get the fuck out, and back to your beloved lily white Europe.

    And, IF you can get yourselves to fuck off from every alien corner of the globe, then please feel free to kick out all other aliens from your decadent home sweet home.

    Deal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here. This is a white nation and it will be defended.
    , @Liza
    Everybody go back to their ancestral homeland! One-two-three-march! Oh, wait. The ones who should be returning to Asia and Africa won't budge. What to do, what to do. Please, please, won't you keep a few of us white trash around for old times' sake? We'll be good, I promise! We'll learn ya how to make arrows again right from natural materials in your back yard and all that other neat stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, we all say that around here, but Texas and California (the country's future) says nothing much will happen.

    Personally, I'm all for a AmeriEuropean homeland, even if simply semi-autonomous enclaves in a larger society. But nothing suggests that this is coming. I quietly try to get involved in groups that are 99% white but have zero racial/ethnic underpinnings figuring that if a white identity ever emerges, these will be the groups that can promote it in the same way that Jewish groups promote their own people. But nobody in any of these groups thinks in ethnic/racial terms, at least out loud.

    But, again, you don't see any white identity emerging in Texas or California or Florida or New Mexico. You just see whites fading away as they are slowly swamped.

    “Yeah, we all say that around here, but Texas and California (the country’s future) says nothing much will happen.”

    “I quietly try to get involved in groups that are 99% white but have zero racial/ethnic underpinnings …”

    “But, again, you don’t see any white identity emerging in Texas or California or Florida or New Mexico. You just see whites fading away as they are slowly swamped.”

    —–

    Consciousness is probably emerging amongst conservatives, considering all the recent nationalist and nativist politics. Trump voters are probably pretty conscious.

    People who hear about the overall demographic situation for the country will start to think differently. This is different because when a state changes people have the option of moving to another state.

    I think the most useful thing for people like us to do is have more children and convince like minded people to do the same.

    Trump got around 38% of the voters of child bearing age, and if a bunch of them have more children than anticipated things will be different.

    This message can also be spread through religious organizations convincing people to “preserve their way of life.” There are already people attempting to do this.

    The point is that the message only needs to resonate with conservatives. So if you want to spread the message find people who will already be receptive to it, and then convince them to spread the message as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RealAmerican
    That select smart Hindus and Asians would elect to live with such dim-witted jackasses, escapes me, mate.

    “smart Hindus”

    These “smart” hindus you speak of believe that their epic battle known as the “awesome” Mahabarat was fought with 1.6billion warriors, all presumably within a regular sized city, and nuclear weapons were used in this battle (yes, the white race copied that knowledge from the “smart” hindus).

    “Smart” hindus also think that a cow’s moo has the power to kill pathogens, a tbsp of cow’s ghee can produce 1ton of oxygen, it inhales and exhales oxygen, etc., and peahens get pregnant by drinking tears of the cock.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3rvkyj/a_whatsapp_post_about_the_cow_p/

    And that is just scratching the surface of their collective “smartness”…

    These “smart” hindus living amongst you are living a duality.

    “such dim-witted jackasses”
    If you mean white trash red-necks… of course!! These idiots should actually feel proud to have amongst them, so many “smart” hindus and asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Dan Hayes
    Diversity Heretic:

    Keenan was obviously a truly great man.

    When I was young I had thought that Keenan's containment policy was wrong. Well history proved me wrong!

    Keenan was absolutely right in condemning our policy towards Russia after the collapse of the Soviet regime.

    I hope that his advocacy of America breaking up into eight autonomous subdivisions comes true. Unfortunately, I have my doubts.

    It was Soviet Union that was containing America.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. I like it, Fred, well stated.

    Bring the military home from everywhere. YOu wanna play global geopolitical games, do those on your own dime, not mine. None of those foreign mi$$adventure$$ are necessary. No wonder we are $20T in debt.

    Pare down the fed gov’t by 50% in year 1 for starters. Get rid of useless agencies like Education and Energy and Labor that just push around paper and boss around people 2000 miles away and ripoff and pizz away our tax $$. the IRS cleaned me out this year — for what? D of Education educrats to do .. what? A new DOE research center, while we have shale gas resources coming out of our rear end? another climate model from NOAA? Really? Who put these morons in charge of my money?

    and stop immigration for crying out loud. At 320 M people we already are way overpopulated and we don’t need any more *$@*& “diversity” either.

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

    The ‘Civil’ War made all this possible. In fact, Reconstruction was the first attempt to make it work.

    The blood-letting, power-worshipping empire we now have was inherent in Abraham Lincoln and the earliest Republican Party.

    I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists, of the most unctuously self-righteous sort (exceeded in the self-righteousness only by Jews). The northeastern is THE home of the WASP Elites of this collection of states. When the Union won the ‘Civil’ War, it made itself THE cultural mandarin for all the states and, most importantly, for the Federal Government that had proven it would slaughter as many Americans as necessary in order to grab and maintain rule over them.

    Honest Abe and General Grant lead right here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists..."

    Psst, Jake, the narrative here is that the vibrants are the primary source of our problems, NOT white people. Are you purposely trying to lose your white card?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wallace
    We just lost three Rangers today in Afghanistan. Probably good men, who knows. The media chicks are making light of it.

    This insane agenda needs to end, like now.

    I'll stop leaving comments here. Fred finally wrote a decent article.

    “Probably good men, …”

    More like fodder for the fiery blaze.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Elrod says:
    @Wallace
    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.

    Anyway, Fred wrote up a good article.

    Your comments about the shotgun vs rifle for deer hunting is true. However in some states you are NOT ALLOWED to hunt deer with a rifle. Certain blue states only allow deer hunting with slugs. Their fear is that the bullets will travel further, with slugs in a shotgun they only can go so far.

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

    I’ve been reading Mr Reed’s work for about 5 years now. This is his best best piece by far.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor
    What May 68 Generation did to France.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IegFemFxH0U

    This is what Japanese 'progressives' want for Japan and what Polish 'progressives' want for Poland.

    Good article by Fred.

    Priss, you are right about the May ’68 generation in France. MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit and then-Maoist, later post-modernist Baudrillard come to mind as exemplars, but then, the only reason I ever heard of Cohn-Bendit and Baudrillard’s ludicrous stances at the time was in Situationist writing attacking both as exemplars of falsity.

    I still think that much Siuationist (and several member’s later) writing remains of interest, but of course, except in a couple of minor events, they were politically insignificant relative to Trotskyites, ‘Maoists’, etc.

    When studying French overseas, my teacher one evening made it clear that she believes in the cult of May, but the only accomplishment she mentioned was the wide usage of on as a pronoun.

    As for Poles, I don’t know any here, but those I met overseas ranged from fascist to religious conservative to fanatical capitalist. They were sure fun to go drinking with. Donald Tusk is surely a shit, but he is clearly in the latter category, and as much a Yank as a Pole.

    One of the remnant groups from Japan’s version of the late ’60s, early ’70s ‘upheavals’ is a few hundred metres from my flat. They are Trotskys. I read their banners or pick up the occasional free newspaper when walking past, their main lines are pro the peace article in the constitution, anti-USA neo-colonialism, and pro labour rights.

    So, even those Trotsky-descent types are nothing like western ‘progressives’. An older friend told me a sly nickname for their HQ in his generation, House of Crows.

    The main confederation of industry used to support high levels of immigration, but they are not making noise about it any more.

    The media likes to celebrate our long-term UNHCR, but in practice, almost all refugees during her time were refused or sent to a stupid Anglo-Zionist country (stupid as in stupid to accept them, in most cases).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Dr. X says:
    @Wallace
    Deer hunting with a shotgun?

    Deer hunting with a shotgun?

    Some jurisdictions require it and forbid rifles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Agent76 says:

    December 31, 1863 (Thursday – New Year’s Eve)

    Lincoln Signs the Federal Conscription Act: THE GLOOMIEST YEAR OF OUR STRUGGLE

    http://civilwardailygazette.com/2013/

    May 3, 2012 Generals Sherman and Sheridan: The War Criminals

    http://www.examiner.com/article/generals-sherman-and-sheridan-the-war-criminals

    Jun 8, 2014 Thomas DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln’s Second American Revolution

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. Che Guava says:
    @ia
    You should read The Savaged States of America, a futurist novel by Kevin Beary. The white-controlled area is called Corridor – the white male protaganist, Serenity, is married to Matt, an actual woman. Hard to believe but in a book that is extrapolating on current trends in 1998 even this pretty astute author couldn't imagine same-sex marriage and Bruce Jenner. The blacks get Malcolmland (and Islam) and the Indo-Americans have Aztlan.

    I don’t have it any more, but The Coming Self-Destruction of the USA is an interesting variation on the theme, from the PoV of a hippy person. Strong recommendation if you appreciate retro-futures.

    The Turner Diaries is also fun, although I’d likely be on the death list, it is so OTT that, despite the clunky writing, I read it all in one session.

    I suppose admitting to having read it is a thoughtcrime in many places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IA
    Thanks, I'll check it out. The Capital of Corridor in Beary's book is called Turnertown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Corvinus says:
    @Jake
    The 'Civil' War made all this possible. In fact, Reconstruction was the first attempt to make it work.

    The blood-letting, power-worshipping empire we now have was inherent in Abraham Lincoln and the earliest Republican Party.

    I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists, of the most unctuously self-righteous sort (exceeded in the self-righteousness only by Jews). The northeastern is THE home of the WASP Elites of this collection of states. When the Union won the 'Civil' War, it made itself THE cultural mandarin for all the states and, most importantly, for the Federal Government that had proven it would slaughter as many Americans as necessary in order to grab and maintain rule over them.

    Honest Abe and General Grant lead right here.

    “I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists…”

    Psst, Jake, the narrative here is that the vibrants are the primary source of our problems, NOT white people. Are you purposely trying to lose your white card?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    No doubt many dislike pointing out the obvious when it flies in the face of their deeply held prejuduces.

    Jews are what they are in the Anglosphere because WASP Elites are what they are.
    , @nickels
    WASPs are judaizing 'Christians'. Jews helped smuggled mistranslated bibles in the reformation, introducing theological errors. The judaizing heresy is the chiliastic one (same as Bolshevism, Annabaptists, pretty much every bloody revolt), that of creating a 'heaven in earth' which is a heresy the church condemned in its 4th council.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    We need a "baizuo" button on this forum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Corvinus says:
    @David Smith
    A more homogeneous society - an actual nation (Which is really an extended family) - can be governed, being similar enough, and, as in the case of traditional America, high trust.

    Now, there's no unity, no trust, nothing that makes me distinctly American, simply because everybody can be an American. I have little to nothing in common with Chuck Schumer, Gerry Brown, or Hillary Clinton. Heck, as decent as Pablo or Mr. Singh might be, I have little in common with them either! I want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!

    If everybody's an American, then no one is!

    It's gonna blow, but how violent it'll be is anybody's guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies.

    Of course if you're involved, what exactly does "low-intensity" mean?

    "Interesting" times ahead!

    “It’s gonna blow, but how violent it’ll be is anybody’s guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies.”

    A sawbuck says you’re dead wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Smith
    And I could be right, albeit dead right!

    Frankly, I hope you're around to win that bet, and I'm around to pay you!

    But reality doesn't give a rat's hind quarters what you and I think (and even less for what we feel)!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. TG says:

    While there are some good points here, and certainly a large centralized government is ripe for corruption, I don’t think the the southern Confederacy was a panacea. I mean, even a ‘small’ state like Virginia or Texas was still pretty big, and plenty capable of centralized corruption and war-making mischief. And when the Confederacy decided to fight a bloody war in defense of human slavery, well, sure sounds like a centralized government fighting on behalf of a few powerful interests, yes? The people of West Virginia and parts of Northern Alabama begged to differ, and had mountains to help shield them, but as for the rest, the Confederacy was as centralized a despotism as the Union…

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let’s get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia. He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.

    But there is one thing that Lee did that was, in my opinion, truly great. That is that he surrendered. As General “Mad Dog” Mattis has said, we may say that a war is over, we may think that a war is over, but the enemy gets a vote. If the Southern generals had decided to go underground and fight a guerrilla war it would have been ugly beyond description. Even though the post-civil war South was not a barrel of laughs, it could have been so much worse. The only thing that Lee deserves credit for is, IMHO, his decision to truly surrender and set an example for all the other Southern troops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Let’s get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia.
     
    being a "traitor" to a 'nation' run by scoundrels is no sin. If Lee was a traitor, then so too was George Washington.

    I grew up in this country going to government schools and standing up every morning and saying "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America... blah, blah, blah"

    But I wouldn't give a plug nickel for what this nation has become. And if Texas or some other state were to write up articles of secession, then I'd likely move to such a state and defend it from the fiend in DC so that my progeny might have some small shred of a chance for a happy life free from lawless bastards and treasonous scum in our feral government.

    The ZUSA fecal government is as rotten as any that have ever slithered onto the world's stage, and that is saying a lot!!

    General Lee's quote at the head of this article could not have been more prescient.

    I'd love nothing better than to see this whole rotten charade of corruption, theft, mass murder and war crimes on acid- all dissolve into fifty separate, sovereign states of their own. With borders and a respect for the Rule of Law, something that today's fecal government has nothing but contempt for.

    He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.
     
    that's a lie. Lee hated the institution of slavery, as did many if not most of the noble and honorable men of the confederacy. They fought because Lincoln had broken the covenant that bound the south to the union in a consensual compact. The second any state did not want to belong to the union, they were free to leave. That was the covenant that made them willing to sign on in the first place. Most white men of the south suffered because of slavery. It was only wealthy men who owned slaves, and that meant that poor white men were put out of work. That was hardly something they were willing to fight for, in spite of the avalanche of contemporary media lies and propaganda to the contrary.

    They fought because the agreed to be part of These United States of America, and not The United States of America. They fought because they were being told they were no longer free men, and they said 'oh yea?' Well we'll see about that'.

    That's what it was about. Not slavery, but freedom from a tyrannical fecal government - that today has morphed into something from the Orwell's worst nightmares.

    If Lee was a traitor for hating what the fecal government had become, and considering it not just illegitimate, but criminal and a scourge upon the people of the planet, then count me with him. I'd be eternally honored.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    Yes, the United States was a nation even back then ...
     
    You mean "the United States were a nation..."? It does not compute - States are sovereign, as that is basically the definition of "State".
    , @nickels
    So were Rhode Island and Vermont 'traitors' when they didn't ratify for a year, lol?
    It was a voluntary compact, why else would there be an explicit acknowledgement of States rights in the 10th amendment?
    When the Yanks got greedy the compact was null and void.
    , @jacques sheete

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let's get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation.
     
    I'd like to hear your opinion of G. Washington and the crew. He and they were, after all, British subjects.

    And what evidence do you have that the War Against the South was all about slavery? Other issues took priority and slavery was but a pretext.

    You are correct that the government of the South was probably just as bad as the Union one, but then the revolution of '76 amounted to merely exchanging one yoke for another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Anonymous
    " want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!"

    Don't white nationalist trash the likes of you, "however decent they might be," understand that this home you talk about is Europe? You are the aliens in Amerindian land.

    You should pack your bags and get the fuck out, and back to your beloved lily white Europe.

    And, IF you can get yourselves to fuck off from every alien corner of the globe, then please feel free to kick out all other aliens from your decadent home sweet home.

    Deal?

    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here. This is a white nation and it will be defended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here.
     
    First of all, how do you know they were savages? Plenty of 'em accommodated the white trash savages that wound up terrorizing and annihilating them.

    Second, why did they need to be conquered? Ever hear of the Cherokee?

    George Washington was a terrorist. Known to the Iroquois as Conotocarious or Village Destroyer.


    Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779

    But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

    https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/washingtons-instructions-to-sullivan/

     

    This has been pretty consistent policy by bloodthirsty Amerikan presidents, btw. Similar concept to "unconditional surrender" demanded by the savage "leadership" we've been historically cursed with.

    Ya wanna talk savages do ya?? There's more...

    , @Philip Owen
    Actually, up until the rebellion against the Crown, most of it was bought and paid for. The fact that both sides cheated outrageously led to the British Proclamation Act (later used throughout the Empire in places with no native land law). Yankee property swindlers like Washington and Jefferson didn't like it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Liza says:
    @Anonymous
    " want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!"

    Don't white nationalist trash the likes of you, "however decent they might be," understand that this home you talk about is Europe? You are the aliens in Amerindian land.

    You should pack your bags and get the fuck out, and back to your beloved lily white Europe.

    And, IF you can get yourselves to fuck off from every alien corner of the globe, then please feel free to kick out all other aliens from your decadent home sweet home.

    Deal?

    Everybody go back to their ancestral homeland! One-two-three-march! Oh, wait. The ones who should be returning to Asia and Africa won’t budge. What to do, what to do. Please, please, won’t you keep a few of us white trash around for old times’ sake? We’ll be good, I promise! We’ll learn ya how to make arrows again right from natural materials in your back yard and all that other neat stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Agent76 says:

    Jun 12, 2011 The Handbook of Human Ownership

    A Manual for New Tax Farmers Hey — seriously – congratulations on your new political post!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. @Wallace
    40 yards with a shotgun? More like 40 feet, if that. If I had to use a shotgun, it would be close. Nasty weapon.

    Create some distance and let it roll. No more than a yard. Shotguns release. The end result of a shotgun is a mess. Then you have to deal with it.

    40 yards is within the range of 12ga buckshot. A slug in an unrifled barrel is effective at 50-75 yards. A shotgun shooting Sabots out of a rifled barrel can be effective over 100 yards.

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

    One simple answer. Disperse the Feds.

    Back in the 1780s and 1790s it was necessary to physically gather the “government” in a single location in that word and (slow) letter were the only means of communication. Now our representative can live among us and communicate with other representatives quite readily. Same for the other government functions, i.e. Supreme Court in Des Moines.

    Better, more direct representation and avoidance of the unholy alliances that come from concentrated power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    You should appreciate this perspective I discovered years ago.

    Dec 11, 2012 Is America Too Big?

    Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our *SIZE*.

    https://youtu.be/RCNd7h0fsdE
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Agent76 says:
    @OutWest
    One simple answer. Disperse the Feds.

    Back in the 1780s and 1790s it was necessary to physically gather the “government” in a single location in that word and (slow) letter were the only means of communication. Now our representative can live among us and communicate with other representatives quite readily. Same for the other government functions, i.e. Supreme Court in Des Moines.

    Better, more direct representation and avoidance of the unholy alliances that come from concentrated power.

    You should appreciate this perspective I discovered years ago.

    Dec 11, 2012 Is America Too Big?

    Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our *SIZE*.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Good piece, localism is definitely a solution. Unfortunately decentralization is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. It's very rare for institutions to relinquish power voluntarily.

    I personally think localism and federalism both have their uses. you need federalism when dealing with other nations. while I agree localism would be just about perfect for towns, cities or states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Rurik says:
    @TG
    While there are some good points here, and certainly a large centralized government is ripe for corruption, I don't think the the southern Confederacy was a panacea. I mean, even a 'small' state like Virginia or Texas was still pretty big, and plenty capable of centralized corruption and war-making mischief. And when the Confederacy decided to fight a bloody war in defense of human slavery, well, sure sounds like a centralized government fighting on behalf of a few powerful interests, yes? The people of West Virginia and parts of Northern Alabama begged to differ, and had mountains to help shield them, but as for the rest, the Confederacy was as centralized a despotism as the Union...

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let's get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia. He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.

    But there is one thing that Lee did that was, in my opinion, truly great. That is that he surrendered. As General "Mad Dog" Mattis has said, we may say that a war is over, we may think that a war is over, but the enemy gets a vote. If the Southern generals had decided to go underground and fight a guerrilla war it would have been ugly beyond description. Even though the post-civil war South was not a barrel of laughs, it could have been so much worse. The only thing that Lee deserves credit for is, IMHO, his decision to truly surrender and set an example for all the other Southern troops.

    Let’s get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia.

    being a “traitor” to a ‘nation’ run by scoundrels is no sin. If Lee was a traitor, then so too was George Washington.

    I grew up in this country going to government schools and standing up every morning and saying “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America… blah, blah, blah”

    But I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for what this nation has become. And if Texas or some other state were to write up articles of secession, then I’d likely move to such a state and defend it from the fiend in DC so that my progeny might have some small shred of a chance for a happy life free from lawless bastards and treasonous scum in our feral government.

    The ZUSA fecal government is as rotten as any that have ever slithered onto the world’s stage, and that is saying a lot!!

    General Lee’s quote at the head of this article could not have been more prescient.

    I’d love nothing better than to see this whole rotten charade of corruption, theft, mass murder and war crimes on acid- all dissolve into fifty separate, sovereign states of their own. With borders and a respect for the Rule of Law, something that today’s fecal government has nothing but contempt for.

    He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.

    that’s a lie. Lee hated the institution of slavery, as did many if not most of the noble and honorable men of the confederacy. They fought because Lincoln had broken the covenant that bound the south to the union in a consensual compact. The second any state did not want to belong to the union, they were free to leave. That was the covenant that made them willing to sign on in the first place. Most white men of the south suffered because of slavery. It was only wealthy men who owned slaves, and that meant that poor white men were put out of work. That was hardly something they were willing to fight for, in spite of the avalanche of contemporary media lies and propaganda to the contrary.

    They fought because the agreed to be part of These United States of America, and not The United States of America. They fought because they were being told they were no longer free men, and they said ‘oh yea?’ Well we’ll see about that’.

    That’s what it was about. Not slavery, but freedom from a tyrannical fecal government – that today has morphed into something from the Orwell’s worst nightmares.

    If Lee was a traitor for hating what the fecal government had become, and considering it not just illegitimate, but criminal and a scourge upon the people of the planet, then count me with him. I’d be eternally honored.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog, jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @TG
    While there are some good points here, and certainly a large centralized government is ripe for corruption, I don't think the the southern Confederacy was a panacea. I mean, even a 'small' state like Virginia or Texas was still pretty big, and plenty capable of centralized corruption and war-making mischief. And when the Confederacy decided to fight a bloody war in defense of human slavery, well, sure sounds like a centralized government fighting on behalf of a few powerful interests, yes? The people of West Virginia and parts of Northern Alabama begged to differ, and had mountains to help shield them, but as for the rest, the Confederacy was as centralized a despotism as the Union...

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let's get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia. He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.

    But there is one thing that Lee did that was, in my opinion, truly great. That is that he surrendered. As General "Mad Dog" Mattis has said, we may say that a war is over, we may think that a war is over, but the enemy gets a vote. If the Southern generals had decided to go underground and fight a guerrilla war it would have been ugly beyond description. Even though the post-civil war South was not a barrel of laughs, it could have been so much worse. The only thing that Lee deserves credit for is, IMHO, his decision to truly surrender and set an example for all the other Southern troops.

    Yes, the United States was a nation even back then …

    You mean “the United States were a nation…”? It does not compute – States are sovereign, as that is basically the definition of “State”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. gwynedd1 says:
    @Wallace
    Deer hunting with a shotgun?

    Yeah. Called buck shot. And its not lethal a mile away which is nice considering hunting grounds can be near human habitation. That is besides a shot gun slug .

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

    “It is a tedious task to have to expose the misstatements, both of fact and of principle, which have occupied so much attention, but it is rendered necessary by the extent to which they have been imposed upon the acceptance of the public, through reckless assertion and confident and incessant repetition.”

    Jefferson Davis (Rise and Fall..) on Northern lies that tried to diminish the nature of state sovereignty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. @res
    Regarding that Lee quote, I think it is good to place it in context. It was made in a letter in late 1866 per https://civilwartalk.com/threads/robert-e-lee-quote-is-there-a-source-is-it-real.117252/#post-1190369
    The link there is broken. Here is an updated link to the Acton-Lee correspondence: https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig3/acton-lee.html
    More at https://civilwartalk.com/threads/robert-e-lee-quote-is-there-a-source-is-it-real.117252/#post-1190391

    I think expanding the quote makes it even more illuminating:

    I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.
     

    Thanks for that!

    I’d like to call attention to the fact that the gentleman was giving credit to those who preceded him. They and he were and are correct.

    I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.

    Such “anti-federalist” arguments were and are as correct and prescient as they are compelling. One of my favorite pieces is is the following brief “letter” since it covers most of the points made in Fred’s excellent article.:

    -Brutus (aka Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York. 18 October 1787

    http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

    I’d like to add further that I’m sure Adolph Hitler would have agreed with most, if not all, and that’s evidence that he wasn’t the evil that Allied propaganda would have us all believing to this day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “...anti-federalist” arguments were and are as correct and prescient as they are compelling. One of my favorite pieces is is the following brief “letter”...”

    Extracts from JS’s “favorite” letter [advising rejecting adoption of the Constitution]:

    “But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government...

    These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.

    Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it...”

    -Brutus [Yates] 18 Oct 1787

     

    “I’d like to add further that I’m sure Adolph Hitler would have agreed with most, if not all, and that’s evidence that he wasn’t the evil that Allied propaganda would have us all believing to this day.”

    Jacues/Jacques admires antifederalists and thinks “Adolph Hitler would have agreed” and “that’s evidence that he wasn’t the evil...”

    Yates feared individual sovereignty abused by a centralized republic. Hitler’s first acts 1933-34 were to destroy the Weimar Republic and introduce the Third Reich, a centralized dictatorship that completely deprived individual Germans of their sovereignty. He installed NSDAP stooges in civil and police control in each German state. Imagine Jefferson installing his flunkies (by force) in every American state government, civilian police, and militia.

    Hitler is clearly Yates’ worst nightmare and vice-versa.

    Jacues/Jacques seems unable to comprehend the sources he hawks. Ample evidence that more vital intelligence can be found in a block of granite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. nickels says:
    @TG
    While there are some good points here, and certainly a large centralized government is ripe for corruption, I don't think the the southern Confederacy was a panacea. I mean, even a 'small' state like Virginia or Texas was still pretty big, and plenty capable of centralized corruption and war-making mischief. And when the Confederacy decided to fight a bloody war in defense of human slavery, well, sure sounds like a centralized government fighting on behalf of a few powerful interests, yes? The people of West Virginia and parts of Northern Alabama begged to differ, and had mountains to help shield them, but as for the rest, the Confederacy was as centralized a despotism as the Union...

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let's get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia. He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.

    But there is one thing that Lee did that was, in my opinion, truly great. That is that he surrendered. As General "Mad Dog" Mattis has said, we may say that a war is over, we may think that a war is over, but the enemy gets a vote. If the Southern generals had decided to go underground and fight a guerrilla war it would have been ugly beyond description. Even though the post-civil war South was not a barrel of laughs, it could have been so much worse. The only thing that Lee deserves credit for is, IMHO, his decision to truly surrender and set an example for all the other Southern troops.

    So were Rhode Island and Vermont ‘traitors’ when they didn’t ratify for a year, lol?
    It was a voluntary compact, why else would there be an explicit acknowledgement of States rights in the 10th amendment?
    When the Yanks got greedy the compact was null and void.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. If you can get hold of this Rufus Fears lecture on Lord Acton, it will fill in the background for the Robert E Lee correspondence w/ Acton —

    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/books-that-have-made-history-books-that-can-change-your-life.html (#32)

    The lodestar of Acton’s thinking was that leaders — and all persons — must make moral decisions; a leader who, for example, engages in war illegitimately [or by lying http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/liars-lying-about-nearly-everything/ ] is guilty of murder, no ifs, ands, buts; there is no exemption from moral judgment when making leadership decisions.

    Each man is his own moral agent.
    It followed, therefore, that centralized decision-making ineluctably led to authoritarianism and was an abnegation of the moral agency of each individual person.

    The two great causes for which Acton put his ideas to the test (and whose outcomes broke his heart), were the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the US Civil War.

    Acton was an Englishman and a Catholic at a time when Catholics were not permitted to enroll at universities in England. His parents sent him to the Continent to be educated, where he observed progressive ideas among Protestants and made it his mission to draw Catholicism into those more liberal ways; that included opposing papal infallibility.

    Regarding the US Civil War, Fears says of Acton:

    “The British believed the American democracy had the same flaws as the Athenian democracy and that is was a radical democracy with no check on the will of the people.

    . . . Acton wrote learned articles for the British government [and was a close and personal friend and consultant to Gladstone] explaining what the [Federalist Papers and] the American Constitution was about, comparing them to the writings of Plato; and demonstrating why the idea of states’ rights was so important. . . .

    Acton argued that states’ rights served as a balance to America and resulted in a check on a centralized radical democracy. He believed that a radical democracy is imperialist abroad and despotic at home. In the Athenian democracy the conscience of the individual was subordinated to the will of the majority, which Acton considered immoral and amoral. . . .

    . . . In 1861 the British government strongly favored the Confederacy; it did not approve of slavery and hoped that the defeat of the UNION would lead to further dissolution of the United States. . . .

    Acton wrote papers for Gladstone and the British government [on] the issues of the Civil War. His research showed that the finest Confederates, including Robert E. Lee, were morally opposed to slavery and that Southern states would eventually end slavery. Acton saw a risk in the intervention of the federal government, which might destroy states’ rights on the pretext of ending slavery.

    . . .
    Acton believed the Unites States had had a chance to become a beacon to the world but would become a despotic democracy without any regard for the rights of individuals, that it would control all aspects of the lives of its citizens, and that it would become fiscally irresponsible in the expansion.

    Acton admired Robert E Lee. He wrote to Lee . . .asking about the war . . . Lee replied that he had seen in states’ rights the only hope for avoiding the course of every democracy, including that of Athens. He believed that these democracies had destroyed the rights of the individual in the name of the majority.

    The defeat of the Confederacy was also the defeat of the federal idea. Acton believed that federalism, not centralization, was the hope for a guardian of liberty.

    Acton saw that the U S was no longer a federal republic but a unified country.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    And yet.

    http://civilwarcauses.org/stephans.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Jake says:
    @Corvinus
    "I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists..."

    Psst, Jake, the narrative here is that the vibrants are the primary source of our problems, NOT white people. Are you purposely trying to lose your white card?

    No doubt many dislike pointing out the obvious when it flies in the face of their deeply held prejuduces.

    Jews are what they are in the Anglosphere because WASP Elites are what they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. nickels says:
    @Corvinus
    "I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists..."

    Psst, Jake, the narrative here is that the vibrants are the primary source of our problems, NOT white people. Are you purposely trying to lose your white card?

    WASPs are judaizing ‘Christians’. Jews helped smuggled mistranslated bibles in the reformation, introducing theological errors. The judaizing heresy is the chiliastic one (same as Bolshevism, Annabaptists, pretty much every bloody revolt), that of creating a ‘heaven in earth’ which is a heresy the church condemned in its 4th council.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "WASPs are judaizing ‘Christians’."

    Sources? If you are making this bold claim you better have the goods.

    "Jews helped smuggled mistranslated bibles in the reformation, introducing theological errors."

    Sources? If you are making this bold claim you better have the goods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @David Smith
    A more homogeneous society - an actual nation (Which is really an extended family) - can be governed, being similar enough, and, as in the case of traditional America, high trust.

    Now, there's no unity, no trust, nothing that makes me distinctly American, simply because everybody can be an American. I have little to nothing in common with Chuck Schumer, Gerry Brown, or Hillary Clinton. Heck, as decent as Pablo or Mr. Singh might be, I have little in common with them either! I want my home to look and feel like home, familiar, not full of aliens, however decent they might be!

    If everybody's an American, then no one is!

    It's gonna blow, but how violent it'll be is anybody's guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies.

    Of course if you're involved, what exactly does "low-intensity" mean?

    "Interesting" times ahead!

    “Everybody can be an American. If everybody’s an American , then no one is.” How true. Yes, there are forces at work who would dilute the word American until it is meaningless, for instance the open borders crowd, Can you imagine the state of the world where indeed all nations would have open borders? A cultural anthropologist would have a field day conjuring up the changes in demographics that would take place. My best guess is that poverty as bad as it is now in many countries would soon become worldwide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David Smith
    Agreed!

    When you reduce this all down, what you find at the bottom of it all, is simply theft.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. IA says:
    @Che Guava
    I don't have it any more, but The Coming Self-Destruction of the USA is an interesting variation on the theme, from the PoV of a hippy person. Strong recommendation if you appreciate retro-futures.

    The Turner Diaries is also fun, although I'd likely be on the death list, it is so OTT that, despite the clunky writing, I read it all in one session.

    I suppose admitting to having read it is a thoughtcrime in many places.

    Thanks, I’ll check it out. The Capital of Corridor in Beary’s book is called Turnertown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    That is funny.

    I will also try to check the Beary one, but doubt that it is in the inter-library loan system here. Guess that, to read it, will have to overcome my extreme dislike of Amazon.

    The Coming Self-Destruction of the USA may be there, there. From your description of the Beardy book, it sounds like an antecedent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @TG
    While there are some good points here, and certainly a large centralized government is ripe for corruption, I don't think the the southern Confederacy was a panacea. I mean, even a 'small' state like Virginia or Texas was still pretty big, and plenty capable of centralized corruption and war-making mischief. And when the Confederacy decided to fight a bloody war in defense of human slavery, well, sure sounds like a centralized government fighting on behalf of a few powerful interests, yes? The people of West Virginia and parts of Northern Alabama begged to differ, and had mountains to help shield them, but as for the rest, the Confederacy was as centralized a despotism as the Union...

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let's get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation. Yes, the United States was a nation even back then and he was in the army of the United States of America, NOT the Army of Virginia. He betrayed his nation in defense of human slavery. I see little nobility in that.

    But there is one thing that Lee did that was, in my opinion, truly great. That is that he surrendered. As General "Mad Dog" Mattis has said, we may say that a war is over, we may think that a war is over, but the enemy gets a vote. If the Southern generals had decided to go underground and fight a guerrilla war it would have been ugly beyond description. Even though the post-civil war South was not a barrel of laughs, it could have been so much worse. The only thing that Lee deserves credit for is, IMHO, his decision to truly surrender and set an example for all the other Southern troops.

    As far as Robert E. Lee, I think he is over-rated but for one thing. Let’s get this straight: Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his nation.

    I’d like to hear your opinion of G. Washington and the crew. He and they were, after all, British subjects.

    And what evidence do you have that the War Against the South was all about slavery? Other issues took priority and slavery was but a pretext.

    You are correct that the government of the South was probably just as bad as the Union one, but then the revolution of ’76 amounted to merely exchanging one yoke for another.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Chris Mallory
    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here. This is a white nation and it will be defended.

    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here.

    First of all, how do you know they were savages? Plenty of ‘em accommodated the white trash savages that wound up terrorizing and annihilating them.

    Second, why did they need to be conquered? Ever hear of the Cherokee?

    George Washington was a terrorist. Known to the Iroquois as Conotocarious or Village Destroyer.

    Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779

    But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

    https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/washingtons-instructions-to-sullivan/

    This has been pretty consistent policy by bloodthirsty Amerikan presidents, btw. Similar concept to “unconditional surrender” demanded by the savage “leadership” we’ve been historically cursed with.

    Ya wanna talk savages do ya?? There’s more…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “George Washington was a terrorist. Known to the Iroquois as Conotocarious or Village Destroyer....This has been pretty consistent policy by bloodthirsty Amerikan presidents, btw. Similar concept to “unconditional surrender” demanded by the savage “leadership” we’ve been historically cursed with...”

    Really! Pretty damning words Jacues/Jacques.

    The Iroquois were reliable Dutch and Anglo proxies from 1624-1775. The go-to native thugs for Anglo colonists. Without them, King Philip (Metacomet) might have succeeded in 1675-76, the Delawares might have not honored the ‘Walking Purchase’ in 1737, and Pontiac may have triumphed 1763-64. Iroquois certainly did their best trying to kill the French in Québec (Trois-Rivières 1650s, Lachine 5 Aug 1689).

    Of course, you know better Jacues/Jacques. No problem judging 17-18C figures by 21C standards. But you don’t even rise to that nadir, do you?

    You scourge Washington with his 1779 instructions out of context. As if the Iroquois were innocent angels. No mention of the Eries, the Andastes, the Tobaccos, the Neutrals, the Illinois - all native nations previously exterminated by the Iroquois. No mention of the Hurons, of whom a few survived.

    The Iroquois dilemma in 1775? Choosing the right side. Loyalist or Rebel? They chose poorly. Especially the Senecas. They fought against rebellion from the English crown. And you call Washington a “terrorist” for fighting them?

    BTW Jacues/Jacques, Hitler loved Karl May. Romantic tales of ethnic cleansing and extermination in the American West - what’s not to love? Many believe it helped enable his lethal plans for Poland and Eastern Europe (“Lebensraum”).

    Whoops. You’re on the side of ‘savages’ at the moment. Surely Dolf (in whatever circle of Hell he enjoys) will overlook your comments if you post an apology or reversal quickly.

    Make haste!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Corvinus
    "It’s gonna blow, but how violent it’ll be is anybody’s guess. My bet is for low-intensity conflict across this onetime republic, on the order of numerous counter-insurgencies."

    A sawbuck says you're dead wrong.

    And I could be right, albeit dead right!

    Frankly, I hope you’re around to win that bet, and I’m around to pay you!

    But reality doesn’t give a rat’s hind quarters what you and I think (and even less for what we feel)!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Simply Simon
    "Everybody can be an American. If everybody's an American , then no one is." How true. Yes, there are forces at work who would dilute the word American until it is meaningless, for instance the open borders crowd, Can you imagine the state of the world where indeed all nations would have open borders? A cultural anthropologist would have a field day conjuring up the changes in demographics that would take place. My best guess is that poverty as bad as it is now in many countries would soon become worldwide.

    Agreed!

    When you reduce this all down, what you find at the bottom of it all, is simply theft.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. I believe in southern identity and southern culture. I just wish these people could figure out something other than the confederacy and its symbols and heros to rally around. The confederacy was totally about slavery and expanding slavery westward. The rest of the country was saying: No, you can’t do slave plantations farther west, and in fact we have to figure out what to do about the slaves you have now. The rest of the stuff about confederate secession is really just noise and nonsense. Lee may have been a great guy, but at the end of the day he was involved in starting and perpetuating a very bloody and totally unnecessary war for a stupid cause. I like sane people and winners better than kamikazes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Hmm you haven't read much history have you? for the War of Aggression was over a number of things and trade, states rights were at the center,never trusted those that like winners regardless of the cause for those are not to be trusted they remind me to much of our present government...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly the effects foreseen by General Lee.

    John Lansing and Robert Yates, who stormed out of the Constitutional Convention, could have said the same thing had they lived to 1860. The fugitive slave business may have been constitutional, but it was a direct attack on state sovereignty. The three-fifths clause was our first vote scam. Since when are the livestock represented?

    In 1964 in rural Virginia, the boys brought shotguns to school during deer season.

    Antonin Scalia carried his rifle to high school. His county? Queens. His mode of transport? The subway.

    Such shotgun freedom would not have worked in New York City with its variegated and often mutually hostile ethnicities.

    On the other hand, the city never had a gun law as severe as Fred’s House of Burgesses passed in 1832:

    No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind

    Talk about mutually hostile ethnicities.

    Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor.

    I don’t know about that. The Northeast looks a lot better than Dixie on that score, in the 1930s and 1940s.

    Note, too, that New England was the locus of opposition to the Sixteenth Amendment, though I will give Fred’s beloved Commonwealth and Florida credit for not joining the rest of the Confederacy in rushing to impose this.

    Interstates did not exist…

    The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 got yeas from 89 of the 96 Senators, and only one nay. (From our only non-common-law state.) That looks like bipartisanism and interregional cooperation to me. In other words, lots of blame to go around.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Sherman talked about his purposes as he went around burning land in the south. He said, in effect, these are a very prideful and stubborn people and we must shove their faces in the folly of this whole thing. Militarily what he was doing was of questionable worth. That we’re still dealing with Southern yahoos who can’t understand what a stupid tragedy they started has me convinced Sherman didn’t burn enough and needed to continue his tour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    I assume that you are not so stupid as to fail to realize that this post invalidates your opening to post #94.

    The secessions began when Lincoln was elected. The one thing that Lincoln as candidate and President-elect was perfectly clear on was that he would at least double the tariffs. Southern states already paid through the nose on tariffs, and any increase would have hit them hardest, perhaps a devastating blow.

    In contrast, Lincoln had repeated during his campaign that he had no interest in trying to outlaw slavery where it existed, and that he felt no President could do that even if he desired.

    And yet the states seceded. After Lincoln's Inaugural featured his proclamation that he would not move against legal slavery, more states seceded because he had called up troops tp kill other Americans who wanted no part of a gunpoint union.

    And that is the crux of the matter with that 'late unpleasantness.' The Union side was all about gumpoint diplomacy to secure all the taxes it wants, no matter how many died.

    There is a reason that Bismarck saw Lincoln as a role model, as did Garibaldi and Mazzini. There is a reason Karl Marx., writing in London, sand praises for Lincoln and the Union war machine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Corvinus
    "I say the problem is at root an ethno-cultural one: WASP elites are natural imperialists..."

    Psst, Jake, the narrative here is that the vibrants are the primary source of our problems, NOT white people. Are you purposely trying to lose your white card?

    We need a “baizuo” button on this forum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Jake says:
    @bobbybobbob
    Sherman talked about his purposes as he went around burning land in the south. He said, in effect, these are a very prideful and stubborn people and we must shove their faces in the folly of this whole thing. Militarily what he was doing was of questionable worth. That we're still dealing with Southern yahoos who can't understand what a stupid tragedy they started has me convinced Sherman didn't burn enough and needed to continue his tour.

    I assume that you are not so stupid as to fail to realize that this post invalidates your opening to post #94.

    The secessions began when Lincoln was elected. The one thing that Lincoln as candidate and President-elect was perfectly clear on was that he would at least double the tariffs. Southern states already paid through the nose on tariffs, and any increase would have hit them hardest, perhaps a devastating blow.

    In contrast, Lincoln had repeated during his campaign that he had no interest in trying to outlaw slavery where it existed, and that he felt no President could do that even if he desired.

    And yet the states seceded. After Lincoln’s Inaugural featured his proclamation that he would not move against legal slavery, more states seceded because he had called up troops tp kill other Americans who wanted no part of a gunpoint union.

    And that is the crux of the matter with that ‘late unpleasantness.’ The Union side was all about gumpoint diplomacy to secure all the taxes it wants, no matter how many died.

    There is a reason that Bismarck saw Lincoln as a role model, as did Garibaldi and Mazzini. There is a reason Karl Marx., writing in London, sand praises for Lincoln and the Union war machine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bobbybobbob
    Let's skip over the missouri compromise and bleeding kansas. All the strife of the preceding decades. Let's be silly and pretend it was about lincoln and some tarrifs.

    Sorry, it's a crock of lies. It was totally about a class of billionaire oligarchs who wanted to keep their slaver rackets going for many more decades, and they wanted to expand westward.

    The southern oligarchs knew they'd be out of business pretty soon as "free" states were added to the union. This was the crux of the matter. Deal with it. Stop swallowing their lies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Jake
    I assume that you are not so stupid as to fail to realize that this post invalidates your opening to post #94.

    The secessions began when Lincoln was elected. The one thing that Lincoln as candidate and President-elect was perfectly clear on was that he would at least double the tariffs. Southern states already paid through the nose on tariffs, and any increase would have hit them hardest, perhaps a devastating blow.

    In contrast, Lincoln had repeated during his campaign that he had no interest in trying to outlaw slavery where it existed, and that he felt no President could do that even if he desired.

    And yet the states seceded. After Lincoln's Inaugural featured his proclamation that he would not move against legal slavery, more states seceded because he had called up troops tp kill other Americans who wanted no part of a gunpoint union.

    And that is the crux of the matter with that 'late unpleasantness.' The Union side was all about gumpoint diplomacy to secure all the taxes it wants, no matter how many died.

    There is a reason that Bismarck saw Lincoln as a role model, as did Garibaldi and Mazzini. There is a reason Karl Marx., writing in London, sand praises for Lincoln and the Union war machine.

    Let’s skip over the missouri compromise and bleeding kansas. All the strife of the preceding decades. Let’s be silly and pretend it was about lincoln and some tarrifs.

    Sorry, it’s a crock of lies. It was totally about a class of billionaire oligarchs who wanted to keep their slaver rackets going for many more decades, and they wanted to expand westward.

    The southern oligarchs knew they’d be out of business pretty soon as “free” states were added to the union. This was the crux of the matter. Deal with it. Stop swallowing their lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    You're pretty emphatic and committed to "a" version of a complex subject. Your upthread statement of affection for Southern identity and culture, in light of your disparagement of "yahoos," seems force fit. Perhaps you're a young man clinging to his Yankee upbringing and schooling while newly sympathyzing with the anti-Establishment views prevalent on this website. Mind sharing a bit of your background (age, residence) and qualifications (education, info sources)? Thank you.
    , @Jake
    Nice way to try to avoid being on the same side as Karl Marx. Karl Marx saw Lincoln and the Union war effort as on his side, as, however unwittingly, doing work for the Communist cause. That's why American Communists and Socialists ready to slaughter in Spain for worldwide Socialism (under primary Soviet direction) named their group The Lincoln Brigade.

    That is the reason the German 1848ers, vets of the Communistic revolution in the Germanies for which Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, who fled to America were nearly 100% for Lincoln in the 1860 election and supported both the Union war effort and Reconstruction.

    What the Left always does is foment violence and then use the violence ignited and stoked as an excuse to act more violently to secure the changes they want at that moment. Because the Left sees itself as morally superior, it cannot and does not care about the body count. The Left will slaughter as many as needed in order to force others to accept Leftist hegemony.

    That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was about: self-righteous freaks of the Left happy to murder and burn in order to try to prevent slave owners from moving to KS. The difference between then and now is that then non-Leftists always shot back.

    My guess is that you are not so ignorant as to believe that crap about Southern oligarchs. The only super fortunes that came from slavery in America were those of the cross-Atlantic slave traders. And they were virtually 100% northern. n fact, many of them became Abolitionists. None used their fortunes from slave trading to buy slaves to free. But some did donate money to terrorists to murder whites living in slave states.

    I suggest we all agree to a new secession of all. We agree to break up this globally brutal empire of democratic Liberalism. You can have a Union that erects monuments to Nat Turner, and I can have a Confederacy that erects monuments to Robert E. Lee. We can trade across the border.

    But the Left always prefers mass slaughter to peaceful divorce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Hard to hit a deer with a shotgun. Shotguns are good for turkeys and birds. Deer hunting is easier with a rifle.
     
    Nonsense. 12-gauge slug barrel, 1 oz. slug, whatever it hits dies. Just remember the 9-inch drop at 100 yards. In the woods -- the eastern woodlands -- can't beat it.

    What do you think buckshot is for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Guru Ramzer on Robert E. Lee, the latest victim of globalism.

    Demographic Imperialism and Replacism are the most ruinous phenoms that can befall a nation, people, and culture.
    Ideological disasters are nothing by contrast in the long run.
    Ideas exist in the mind and may eventually pass away. Even an idea as disastrous as communism was no big deal in the wider scope of history.

    While communism can wreak havoc on a nation’s economy, once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
    Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.

    In the end, ideologies are come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.

    But demographic imperialism and replacism do just that. Once masses of foreigners take over a nation, they mean to stay and, absent a serious war and revolution, they will take over and grow in numbers until the native population has been eclipsed and replaced.

    Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
    Nations under communism could eventually be rid of the ideology, and once freed of the illusion, could carry on with the same people and culture.
    But after globalism is finished with Western Europe, the result will be an entirely new world populated by Muslims and Africans.
    It’s a daunting challenge to rid society of bad ideas and institutions, but it’s a gargantuan(and even impossible) task to be rid of demographic imperialists once they’ve taken over your own nation. Serbs will never take back Kosovo. Palestinians lost Palestine(now Israel) forever.

    Communism was about proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. As economically disastrous as it was, the nation still belonged to its people at the end of the day since the proles and bourgeoisie were of the same ethnicity and class. So, Romania run by dictatorship of the proletariat was still Romania dominated by Romanians.

    If communism is about one class replacing another in power, globalism is about foreign ethnics replacing the native ethnic. This isn’t merely an ideological struggle but a biological and cultural one. Upon its victory, all nations(except for Israel, which is ‘passovered’ with special exemption) are transformed by globalism to the extent that native folks no longer even own and control what had been their homelands. Globalism is about making every people(except Jews in Israel) strangers in their own homeland. It turns a nation of kinfolk into a nation of strangers and foreign usurpers. The native folks are duped into welcoming this dire fate by having their minds infected with delirious mantras such as ‘Diversity is our Strength’ when only an idiot could believe such.
    Globalism is appealing to the elites of advanced nations since it means more opportunities to make a buck. And it is appealing to masses in poor nations since it means an opportunity to demographically migrate to rich nations and leech off them.
    It is also appealing to holier-than-thou me-huggers who see globalism as a utopian project of making the whole world sing in perfect harmony.
    But for patriotic natives who care about preservation of ethnicity, culture, and history, it is an absolute tragedy.

    In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.

    In contrast, globalism says Europe MUST welcome endless invasions by tons of foreigners, and its native populations must be REPLACED. And if Europeans say NO to Replacism, they are defamed as ‘Nazis’ by globalist forces controlled by Jews.

    Anyway, the ill-effects of bad ideas can be reversed and repaired. But the impact of bad demographic policies is often irreversible. If you adopt a stupid idea, the stupidity is eradicated once you come to your senses. But if you swallow poison, its fatal consequences can’t be reversed even if your mind realizes you did something dumb. The poison will take over your body and will destroy you.

    Communism was a bad idea that infected Europeans in the 20th century. Once European minds rejected the idea, it was gone for good.
    In contrast, globalism force-feeds mega-doses of poison(in the form of massive foreign invasion) as ‘medicine’ to Europeans, and the poison spreads all over Europe.

    Bad ideas, as illusions, are real only to the extent that certain people believe in them. Once the faith is gone, the ideas are also gone.
    People are different. They are real, and once a foreign people take over your nation, they are there to stay regardless of what you think.

    Imagine if your people adopt Islam as an idea. It may be a bad idea, but it’s just an idea. Therefore, there is the chance that your people may one day reject Islam and be rid of it.

    Now, imagine if your people adopt Islam and accept 10 million Muslims. The dire reality is that those invaders are now part of your nation no matter what you think. Even if your people reject Islam, those 10 million Muslims and their offsprings are in your land and taking over. That is what globalism does and not to just one nation but all nations(except Israel). It is the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    [re: Communism] ... once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
     
    That's easy for you to say, but not so easy for a guy born in the Soviet Union in 1915 or Red China in 1945. This stuff killed and imprisoned 100's of millions and ruined lives for 3 generations.

    In the end, ideologies come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.
     
    It's very likely the Communism in Russia could have gone on a lot longer were it not for the US, and China's would not have shifted to "Communism-lite" without the US around. Who will help US out of it, if it comes down to it.

    Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.
     
    These countries were on the periphery of it, and it's good for them NOW, that their culture remained frozen in time. Again how about a Pole or Hungarian born just before the Iron Curtain descended, say born in 1945 - not much room for a good productive life in the time up through 1989.

    Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
     
    Probably true and the outcome remains to be seen (as they say in fake pro wrastling), BUT that's because nobody has been fighting Globalism/PC since they are scared of being called names. Communism was fought all over the world, and only won by Ronald Reagan, Konrad Adenauer, Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa of Poland, Maggie Thatcher, and millions of American and W. European soldiers, sailors and airman, and millions of mechanical and electrical engineers. I don't see anyone lifting many fingers in the fight against Globalism - maybe people are tweeting a lot if that helps!

    In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.
     
    Excuse me, you brought in Hungary earlier to the discussion; why not here? It'd make you wrong unless these "bad ideas" include tanks and troops.

    You make some good points in the contrast between Globalism and Communism as a nice thesis for a paper or something. However,

    1) You don't seem to know much history on Communism. You are making it up as you go along.
    2) You treat Globalism as a much bigger threat than Communism, but it's been rising because not many people are making efforts to fight it.
    3) The people behind these two evils are pretty much the same personality types. The Globalists may indeed not care about Karl Marx, or "the people" etc. but people that send anyone with glasses to be shot and pushed into the ditch because they may be intelligent (the Khmer Rouge Commies of Cambodia) don't really care that much about "the people". It's just about power - same as for the Globalists.
    4) The useful idiot followers that are necessary for these evils to come to fruition are the same crowd each time. The slogans may have changed but the stupidity remains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Priss Factor
    Guru Ramzer on Robert E. Lee, the latest victim of globalism.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71lAVeMKsZ8

    Demographic Imperialism and Replacism are the most ruinous phenoms that can befall a nation, people, and culture.
    Ideological disasters are nothing by contrast in the long run.
    Ideas exist in the mind and may eventually pass away. Even an idea as disastrous as communism was no big deal in the wider scope of history.

    While communism can wreak havoc on a nation's economy, once it's relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
    Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.

    In the end, ideologies are come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation's people and culture.

    But demographic imperialism and replacism do just that. Once masses of foreigners take over a nation, they mean to stay and, absent a serious war and revolution, they will take over and grow in numbers until the native population has been eclipsed and replaced.

    Communism's ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism's fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
    Nations under communism could eventually be rid of the ideology, and once freed of the illusion, could carry on with the same people and culture.
    But after globalism is finished with Western Europe, the result will be an entirely new world populated by Muslims and Africans.
    It's a daunting challenge to rid society of bad ideas and institutions, but it's a gargantuan(and even impossible) task to be rid of demographic imperialists once they've taken over your own nation. Serbs will never take back Kosovo. Palestinians lost Palestine(now Israel) forever.

    Communism was about proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. As economically disastrous as it was, the nation still belonged to its people at the end of the day since the proles and bourgeoisie were of the same ethnicity and class. So, Romania run by dictatorship of the proletariat was still Romania dominated by Romanians.

    If communism is about one class replacing another in power, globalism is about foreign ethnics replacing the native ethnic. This isn't merely an ideological struggle but a biological and cultural one. Upon its victory, all nations(except for Israel, which is 'passovered' with special exemption) are transformed by globalism to the extent that native folks no longer even own and control what had been their homelands. Globalism is about making every people(except Jews in Israel) strangers in their own homeland. It turns a nation of kinfolk into a nation of strangers and foreign usurpers. The native folks are duped into welcoming this dire fate by having their minds infected with delirious mantras such as 'Diversity is our Strength' when only an idiot could believe such.
    Globalism is appealing to the elites of advanced nations since it means more opportunities to make a buck. And it is appealing to masses in poor nations since it means an opportunity to demographically migrate to rich nations and leech off them.
    It is also appealing to holier-than-thou me-huggers who see globalism as a utopian project of making the whole world sing in perfect harmony.
    But for patriotic natives who care about preservation of ethnicity, culture, and history, it is an absolute tragedy.

    In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn't force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.

    In contrast, globalism says Europe MUST welcome endless invasions by tons of foreigners, and its native populations must be REPLACED. And if Europeans say NO to Replacism, they are defamed as 'Nazis' by globalist forces controlled by Jews.

    Anyway, the ill-effects of bad ideas can be reversed and repaired. But the impact of bad demographic policies is often irreversible. If you adopt a stupid idea, the stupidity is eradicated once you come to your senses. But if you swallow poison, its fatal consequences can't be reversed even if your mind realizes you did something dumb. The poison will take over your body and will destroy you.

    Communism was a bad idea that infected Europeans in the 20th century. Once European minds rejected the idea, it was gone for good.
    In contrast, globalism force-feeds mega-doses of poison(in the form of massive foreign invasion) as 'medicine' to Europeans, and the poison spreads all over Europe.

    Bad ideas, as illusions, are real only to the extent that certain people believe in them. Once the faith is gone, the ideas are also gone.
    People are different. They are real, and once a foreign people take over your nation, they are there to stay regardless of what you think.

    Imagine if your people adopt Islam as an idea. It may be a bad idea, but it's just an idea. Therefore, there is the chance that your people may one day reject Islam and be rid of it.

    Now, imagine if your people adopt Islam and accept 10 million Muslims. The dire reality is that those invaders are now part of your nation no matter what you think. Even if your people reject Islam, those 10 million Muslims and their offsprings are in your land and taking over. That is what globalism does and not to just one nation but all nations(except Israel). It is the greatest evil the world has ever seen.

    [re: Communism] … once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.

    That’s easy for you to say, but not so easy for a guy born in the Soviet Union in 1915 or Red China in 1945. This stuff killed and imprisoned 100′s of millions and ruined lives for 3 generations.

    In the end, ideologies come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.

    It’s very likely the Communism in Russia could have gone on a lot longer were it not for the US, and China’s would not have shifted to “Communism-lite” without the US around. Who will help US out of it, if it comes down to it.

    Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.

    These countries were on the periphery of it, and it’s good for them NOW, that their culture remained frozen in time. Again how about a Pole or Hungarian born just before the Iron Curtain descended, say born in 1945 – not much room for a good productive life in the time up through 1989.

    Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.

    Probably true and the outcome remains to be seen (as they say in fake pro wrastling), BUT that’s because nobody has been fighting Globalism/PC since they are scared of being called names. Communism was fought all over the world, and only won by Ronald Reagan, Konrad Adenauer, Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa of Poland, Maggie Thatcher, and millions of American and W. European soldiers, sailors and airman, and millions of mechanical and electrical engineers. I don’t see anyone lifting many fingers in the fight against Globalism – maybe people are tweeting a lot if that helps!

    In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.

    Excuse me, you brought in Hungary earlier to the discussion; why not here? It’d make you wrong unless these “bad ideas” include tanks and troops.

    You make some good points in the contrast between Globalism and Communism as a nice thesis for a paper or something. However,

    1) You don’t seem to know much history on Communism. You are making it up as you go along.
    2) You treat Globalism as a much bigger threat than Communism, but it’s been rising because not many people are making efforts to fight it.
    3) The people behind these two evils are pretty much the same personality types. The Globalists may indeed not care about Karl Marx, or “the people” etc. but people that send anyone with glasses to be shot and pushed into the ditch because they may be intelligent (the Khmer Rouge Commies of Cambodia) don’t really care that much about “the people”. It’s just about power – same as for the Globalists.
    4) The useful idiot followers that are necessary for these evils to come to fruition are the same crowd each time. The slogans may have changed but the stupidity remains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    That’s easy for you to say, but not so easy for a guy born in the Soviet Union in 1915 or Red China in 1945. This stuff killed and imprisoned 100′s of millions and ruined lives for 3 generations.

    I said communism was disastrous. It led to Gulag, mass killings, and totalitarian tyranny. It was horrible stuff.
    BUT, it mostly worked on the national level. Now, Stalin did transport entire populations all across the USSR, and that led to demographic tensions that last to this day.
    But most Eastern European nations were left alone when it came to demography.

    Now, imagine if communist nations had adopted a globalist than nationalist version of communism. Not only would people have been killed and tyrannized but they would have been replaced and destroyed as people/culture, like Serbians in Kosovo(under Ottomans) and Palestinians in Palestine(that became Israel with massive Jewish influx).

    Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary to quell the uprising, not to replace Hungarians with masses of foreigners(not even with Russians). But globalism attempts to do just that.
    So, communism was bad and even horrible in places. But it was tyranny of an idea/ideology. Once those ideas passed into dustbin of history, the nation was still there.

    But suppose Soviets pushed globalist-communism on Hungary. Suppose it not only sent tanks to quell the rebellion but let in 10 million Muslims and Africans to become 'New Hungarians'(meaning that Real Hungarians are 'old Hungarians' who must die out). In that case, even if Hungary gets rid of communism, there is no Hungary left. It is Afro-Islamo-New-Hungaria.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @bobbybobbob
    Let's skip over the missouri compromise and bleeding kansas. All the strife of the preceding decades. Let's be silly and pretend it was about lincoln and some tarrifs.

    Sorry, it's a crock of lies. It was totally about a class of billionaire oligarchs who wanted to keep their slaver rackets going for many more decades, and they wanted to expand westward.

    The southern oligarchs knew they'd be out of business pretty soon as "free" states were added to the union. This was the crux of the matter. Deal with it. Stop swallowing their lies.

    You’re pretty emphatic and committed to “a” version of a complex subject. Your upthread statement of affection for Southern identity and culture, in light of your disparagement of “yahoos,” seems force fit. Perhaps you’re a young man clinging to his Yankee upbringing and schooling while newly sympathyzing with the anti-Establishment views prevalent on this website. Mind sharing a bit of your background (age, residence) and qualifications (education, info sources)? Thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bobbybobbob
    I never said I had an affection for Southern culture or identity. I said I believe it's a real thing and they have a right to themselves. I said their decision to rally around confederate heros and symbols is foolish.

    The war is a complex subject but by far and away the single greatest factor was slavery. Southerners who have foolish chosen to rally around confederate symbols are stuck forever tap-dancing and hand-waving around the fact that they fought for a bad cause.

    They are also stuck in denial that they initiated the war and the bloodshed. It was totally avoidable and also doomed to failure from the start, which makes them evil fools in my book. Yet the southern mentality finds something heroic in this folly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Dan Hayes
    Diversity Heretic:

    Keenan was obviously a truly great man.

    When I was young I had thought that Keenan's containment policy was wrong. Well history proved me wrong!

    Keenan was absolutely right in condemning our policy towards Russia after the collapse of the Soviet regime.

    I hope that his advocacy of America breaking up into eight autonomous subdivisions comes true. Unfortunately, I have my doubts.

    The Cold War was as phony as the War on Terror, and for the same reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Che Guava says:
    @IA
    Thanks, I'll check it out. The Capital of Corridor in Beary's book is called Turnertown.

    That is funny.

    I will also try to check the Beary one, but doubt that it is in the inter-library loan system here. Guess that, to read it, will have to overcome my extreme dislike of Amazon.

    The Coming Self-Destruction of the USA may be there, there. From your description of the Beardy book, it sounds like an antecedent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @anonymous
    You're pretty emphatic and committed to "a" version of a complex subject. Your upthread statement of affection for Southern identity and culture, in light of your disparagement of "yahoos," seems force fit. Perhaps you're a young man clinging to his Yankee upbringing and schooling while newly sympathyzing with the anti-Establishment views prevalent on this website. Mind sharing a bit of your background (age, residence) and qualifications (education, info sources)? Thank you.

    I never said I had an affection for Southern culture or identity. I said I believe it’s a real thing and they have a right to themselves. I said their decision to rally around confederate heros and symbols is foolish.

    The war is a complex subject but by far and away the single greatest factor was slavery. Southerners who have foolish chosen to rally around confederate symbols are stuck forever tap-dancing and hand-waving around the fact that they fought for a bad cause.

    They are also stuck in denial that they initiated the war and the bloodshed. It was totally avoidable and also doomed to failure from the start, which makes them evil fools in my book. Yet the southern mentality finds something heroic in this folly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks for clarifying your belief about Southern identity and culture. Still curious about where you're coming from, and what informs your opinions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Che Guava says:
    @Timur The Lame
    In this sad state of affairs only a natural EMP would eradicate all the human political diseases that we have brought among ourselves. By natural, I mean solar flares that would blast the planet as it rotates hence afflict all continents.

    Now think about this. When I say that we will all go down I am obviously not talking about the solar flare killing people directly but by destroying the electrical infrastructure as we now know to be temporary blackouts but also frying circuits in every cellphone, I-pad, vehicle, tractor and most importantly nuclear facilities including their backup systems.

    Then all of us great humanitarians of the left, right or non-aligned will go full feral and end up eating each other. The simple loss of electricity will make it all real and personal as the brothers say.

    My point is that all these endless discussions of what was good and how things should be are great for mental masturbation and all, but has anyone looked into Fukushima lately? I don't link, but will text the coordinates of enenews.com as the best site by concerned consensus on people who keep a vigil on that unresolved catastrophe. They are young and edgy but no one else is doing the job.

    Do you want to be that elderly French farmer who died of lung cancer in 1989 because, as his friends said, he liked to enjoy a cigar after dinner only to have his friends find out many years later that the fallout from Chernobyl had encompassed all of Europe up to the English Channel and that this had a higher probability in the cause of his demise than puffing on a natural cigar?

    Living on the West coast? Feeling weak? Got a bit of a hack even though you don't smoke? Maybe it is the revenge of Nagasaki! ( Read about the USS Ronald Reagan).

    My exasperated point is that politics and personalities come and go but is it not more important to spend energy on important things like all the crap that is making us and out children sick?

    When I bring up Fukushima among my neighbours they always give me a blank stare. They do however have an opinion about Trump.

    No one among my casual associates had ever heard of a Robert E Lee save for a fan of the Band and even then it was (without him knowing it) about a blockade running boat originally called the Monarch of the Mississippi.

    To point out that he was a General in the Confederacy? Slave owner. End of conversation. Oww my balls!

    { rant off}

    Cheers-

    I like your comment.

    Occasionally wondering what my stopping in towns close to there may have done.

    One of the strangest effects is that the large homeless population of Tokyo has almost totally vanished. I only see two in recent years, one a scholar, the other a mad man.

    All of the others, many score in say, a 2 km radius from my flat, work on the Fukushima clean-up (which goes nowhere in general). Recruitment is run by the Mob.

    Homeless people in other places in Tokyo, where the homeless populations are larger, also vanished, for the same reason.

    This is also incovenient for garbage collection, they would also collect cans for cash under Mob control, local govts even whined about it, but they aren’t here now, so many complaints from operators of vending machines that have an overflowing bin beside.

    It is very convenient for the government to have removed the very large homeless population in this way, as the stupid ‘Olympics’ approach.

    Of course, the Fukushima Number 1 disaster was combining an act of nature with technical failures, I am not to saying that anything is intended, except the removal of homeless people to work for Mob shell companies, and perhaps to get them out before the stupid ‘Olympics’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. bluedog says:
    @bobbybobbob
    I believe in southern identity and southern culture. I just wish these people could figure out something other than the confederacy and its symbols and heros to rally around. The confederacy was totally about slavery and expanding slavery westward. The rest of the country was saying: No, you can't do slave plantations farther west, and in fact we have to figure out what to do about the slaves you have now. The rest of the stuff about confederate secession is really just noise and nonsense. Lee may have been a great guy, but at the end of the day he was involved in starting and perpetuating a very bloody and totally unnecessary war for a stupid cause. I like sane people and winners better than kamikazes.

    Hmm you haven’t read much history have you? for the War of Aggression was over a number of things and trade, states rights were at the center,never trusted those that like winners regardless of the cause for those are not to be trusted they remind me to much of our present government…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @bobbybobbob
    I never said I had an affection for Southern culture or identity. I said I believe it's a real thing and they have a right to themselves. I said their decision to rally around confederate heros and symbols is foolish.

    The war is a complex subject but by far and away the single greatest factor was slavery. Southerners who have foolish chosen to rally around confederate symbols are stuck forever tap-dancing and hand-waving around the fact that they fought for a bad cause.

    They are also stuck in denial that they initiated the war and the bloodshed. It was totally avoidable and also doomed to failure from the start, which makes them evil fools in my book. Yet the southern mentality finds something heroic in this folly.

    Thanks for clarifying your belief about Southern identity and culture. Still curious about where you’re coming from, and what informs your opinions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Jake says:
    @bobbybobbob
    Let's skip over the missouri compromise and bleeding kansas. All the strife of the preceding decades. Let's be silly and pretend it was about lincoln and some tarrifs.

    Sorry, it's a crock of lies. It was totally about a class of billionaire oligarchs who wanted to keep their slaver rackets going for many more decades, and they wanted to expand westward.

    The southern oligarchs knew they'd be out of business pretty soon as "free" states were added to the union. This was the crux of the matter. Deal with it. Stop swallowing their lies.

    Nice way to try to avoid being on the same side as Karl Marx. Karl Marx saw Lincoln and the Union war effort as on his side, as, however unwittingly, doing work for the Communist cause. That’s why American Communists and Socialists ready to slaughter in Spain for worldwide Socialism (under primary Soviet direction) named their group The Lincoln Brigade.

    That is the reason the German 1848ers, vets of the Communistic revolution in the Germanies for which Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, who fled to America were nearly 100% for Lincoln in the 1860 election and supported both the Union war effort and Reconstruction.

    What the Left always does is foment violence and then use the violence ignited and stoked as an excuse to act more violently to secure the changes they want at that moment. Because the Left sees itself as morally superior, it cannot and does not care about the body count. The Left will slaughter as many as needed in order to force others to accept Leftist hegemony.

    That’s what ‘bleeding Kansas’ was about: self-righteous freaks of the Left happy to murder and burn in order to try to prevent slave owners from moving to KS. The difference between then and now is that then non-Leftists always shot back.

    My guess is that you are not so ignorant as to believe that crap about Southern oligarchs. The only super fortunes that came from slavery in America were those of the cross-Atlantic slave traders. And they were virtually 100% northern. n fact, many of them became Abolitionists. None used their fortunes from slave trading to buy slaves to free. But some did donate money to terrorists to murder whites living in slave states.

    I suggest we all agree to a new secession of all. We agree to break up this globally brutal empire of democratic Liberalism. You can have a Union that erects monuments to Nat Turner, and I can have a Confederacy that erects monuments to Robert E. Lee. We can trade across the border.

    But the Left always prefers mass slaughter to peaceful divorce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bobbybobbob
    > happy to murder and burn in order to try to prevent slave owners from moving to KS

    It was entirely right that slave owners be forbidden from spreading slavery farther west. You reveal yourself with these comments. You don't think the spread of slavery should have been stopped? This was the crux of the matter that lead to the civil war, and the confederacy was in the wrong.

    You also don't seem to know what you're talking about with regard to the business of slave plantations. The wealthiest men in the country were southern plantation owners with vast holdings worked by slaves.

    Your ramblings about liberalism and marx and communism are the tap dancing and hand waving I talked about earlier. Southerners need to stare the facts in the face. The confederate rebellion was fundamentally about slavery and it was folly. Southerners need new symbols and heros.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Jake
    Nice way to try to avoid being on the same side as Karl Marx. Karl Marx saw Lincoln and the Union war effort as on his side, as, however unwittingly, doing work for the Communist cause. That's why American Communists and Socialists ready to slaughter in Spain for worldwide Socialism (under primary Soviet direction) named their group The Lincoln Brigade.

    That is the reason the German 1848ers, vets of the Communistic revolution in the Germanies for which Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, who fled to America were nearly 100% for Lincoln in the 1860 election and supported both the Union war effort and Reconstruction.

    What the Left always does is foment violence and then use the violence ignited and stoked as an excuse to act more violently to secure the changes they want at that moment. Because the Left sees itself as morally superior, it cannot and does not care about the body count. The Left will slaughter as many as needed in order to force others to accept Leftist hegemony.

    That's what 'bleeding Kansas' was about: self-righteous freaks of the Left happy to murder and burn in order to try to prevent slave owners from moving to KS. The difference between then and now is that then non-Leftists always shot back.

    My guess is that you are not so ignorant as to believe that crap about Southern oligarchs. The only super fortunes that came from slavery in America were those of the cross-Atlantic slave traders. And they were virtually 100% northern. n fact, many of them became Abolitionists. None used their fortunes from slave trading to buy slaves to free. But some did donate money to terrorists to murder whites living in slave states.

    I suggest we all agree to a new secession of all. We agree to break up this globally brutal empire of democratic Liberalism. You can have a Union that erects monuments to Nat Turner, and I can have a Confederacy that erects monuments to Robert E. Lee. We can trade across the border.

    But the Left always prefers mass slaughter to peaceful divorce.

    > happy to murder and burn in order to try to prevent slave owners from moving to KS

    It was entirely right that slave owners be forbidden from spreading slavery farther west. You reveal yourself with these comments. You don’t think the spread of slavery should have been stopped? This was the crux of the matter that lead to the civil war, and the confederacy was in the wrong.

    You also don’t seem to know what you’re talking about with regard to the business of slave plantations. The wealthiest men in the country were southern plantation owners with vast holdings worked by slaves.

    Your ramblings about liberalism and marx and communism are the tap dancing and hand waving I talked about earlier. Southerners need to stare the facts in the face. The confederate rebellion was fundamentally about slavery and it was folly. Southerners need new symbols and heros.

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

    The confederate rebellion was fundamentally about slavery and it was folly. Southerners need new symbols and heros.

    simply not true

    and if you read General Lee’s thoughtful letters on the subject, you’ll see that he (nor the overwhelming majority of men who fought for the confederacy) did so to preserve the institution of slavery. They fought because the north was telling them they had no right to secede,( that they were no longer free men, and were from now on subjects and subject to the will and whims of the northern states and fecal government) not because of slavery.

    If it were a war over slavery, then I’d personally be on the side of the North, hands down. I consider the institution of slavery as evil as I consider the men in the GOP and their donors who demand unlimited Mexican immigrants- as today’s slaves and cheap labor, with no consideration for the destroyed American lives along the way or the ultimate consequences to the fabric of the nation. Snakes in the grass like John McCain, who demand unlimited cheap labor are just like yesterdays slavers. Anything for a buck, and damn the consequences to others.

    But the reason the men of the South fought, was not for slavery, at least not the majority of them for whom slavery was a bane to their lives. Only the rich men owned slaves, and sure, they may have agitated to protect the institution, just as John McCain wants the borders open, but the men who fought the war fought it to be free from the tyranny of the north and the fecal government, in exactly the same way that today so many of us would love nothing more than for states to begin to secede and create free states for free men to be free again.

    Sign me up!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bobbybobbob
    > They fought because the north was telling them they had no right to secede

    Sophistry. More tap dancing and hand waving. They wanted to secede because of slavery. The continued existence of slavery on the continent would have lead to intolerable problems for the north down the line, even with an independent confederacy, and war would have been justified and probably inevitable anyway. Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country. It would have been necessary in any case to invade and put a stop to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Achmed E. Newman

    [re: Communism] ... once it’s relegated to the dustbin of history, the nation and its people & culture remain intact and can thrive once more.
     
    That's easy for you to say, but not so easy for a guy born in the Soviet Union in 1915 or Red China in 1945. This stuff killed and imprisoned 100's of millions and ruined lives for 3 generations.

    In the end, ideologies come-and-go. Bad ideas lead to bad socio-economic results, but ideas do not alter or erase the essential character of a nation’s people and culture.
     
    It's very likely the Communism in Russia could have gone on a lot longer were it not for the US, and China's would not have shifted to "Communism-lite" without the US around. Who will help US out of it, if it comes down to it.

    Communism oppressed Poles in Poland and Hungarians in Hungary, but Poland remained the nation of Poles and Hungary remained the nation of Hungarians. A nation under communism is tyrannized by a bad idea, not by a foreign people.
     
    These countries were on the periphery of it, and it's good for them NOW, that their culture remained frozen in time. Again how about a Pole or Hungarian born just before the Iron Curtain descended, say born in 1945 - not much room for a good productive life in the time up through 1989.

    Communism’s ill effects on Eastern Europe were NOTHING compared to globalism’s fatal impact on France, UK, Germany, and Sweden.
     
    Probably true and the outcome remains to be seen (as they say in fake pro wrastling), BUT that's because nobody has been fighting Globalism/PC since they are scared of being called names. Communism was fought all over the world, and only won by Ronald Reagan, Konrad Adenauer, Pope John Paul and Lech Walesa of Poland, Maggie Thatcher, and millions of American and W. European soldiers, sailors and airman, and millions of mechanical and electrical engineers. I don't see anyone lifting many fingers in the fight against Globalism - maybe people are tweeting a lot if that helps!

    In this sense, globalism is a far greater evil than communism. Communism forced bad ideas on a nation like Poland. It didn’t force Poland to be invaded and transformed by non-Europeans.
     
    Excuse me, you brought in Hungary earlier to the discussion; why not here? It'd make you wrong unless these "bad ideas" include tanks and troops.

    You make some good points in the contrast between Globalism and Communism as a nice thesis for a paper or something. However,

    1) You don't seem to know much history on Communism. You are making it up as you go along.
    2) You treat Globalism as a much bigger threat than Communism, but it's been rising because not many people are making efforts to fight it.
    3) The people behind these two evils are pretty much the same personality types. The Globalists may indeed not care about Karl Marx, or "the people" etc. but people that send anyone with glasses to be shot and pushed into the ditch because they may be intelligent (the Khmer Rouge Commies of Cambodia) don't really care that much about "the people". It's just about power - same as for the Globalists.
    4) The useful idiot followers that are necessary for these evils to come to fruition are the same crowd each time. The slogans may have changed but the stupidity remains.

    That’s easy for you to say, but not so easy for a guy born in the Soviet Union in 1915 or Red China in 1945. This stuff killed and imprisoned 100′s of millions and ruined lives for 3 generations.

    I said communism was disastrous. It led to Gulag, mass killings, and totalitarian tyranny. It was horrible stuff.
    BUT, it mostly worked on the national level. Now, Stalin did transport entire populations all across the USSR, and that led to demographic tensions that last to this day.
    But most Eastern European nations were left alone when it came to demography.

    Now, imagine if communist nations had adopted a globalist than nationalist version of communism. Not only would people have been killed and tyrannized but they would have been replaced and destroyed as people/culture, like Serbians in Kosovo(under Ottomans) and Palestinians in Palestine(that became Israel with massive Jewish influx).

    Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary to quell the uprising, not to replace Hungarians with masses of foreigners(not even with Russians). But globalism attempts to do just that.
    So, communism was bad and even horrible in places. But it was tyranny of an idea/ideology. Once those ideas passed into dustbin of history, the nation was still there.

    But suppose Soviets pushed globalist-communism on Hungary. Suppose it not only sent tanks to quell the rebellion but let in 10 million Muslims and Africans to become ‘New Hungarians’(meaning that Real Hungarians are ‘old Hungarians’ who must die out). In that case, even if Hungary gets rid of communism, there is no Hungary left. It is Afro-Islamo-New-Hungaria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    So, communism was bad and even horrible in places. But it was tyranny of an idea/ideology. Once those ideas passed into dustbin of history, the nation was still there.
     
    the nation was there but in diminished form

    think of what the Soviets did in Ukraine, when they genocided millions of the best and most intelligent and capable. They did permanent damage to the gene pool. Same thing they did in Poland when the marched the ruling classes and intelligentsia, poets and professors to the edge of ditches, and liquidated them by the tens of thousands, at a time. Removing their genes from the gene pool for all time. What happened to anyone with brains enough to resist the mindless drooling fiend that was slathering all over the region, slaughtering and genociding and crushing the human spirit? They were gulaged and never heard from again. So yea, at least they didn't import Africans, but they did a lot of damage to the local fauna.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Rurik

    The confederate rebellion was fundamentally about slavery and it was folly. Southerners need new symbols and heros.
     
    simply not true

    and if you read General Lee's thoughtful letters on the subject, you'll see that he (nor the overwhelming majority of men who fought for the confederacy) did so to preserve the institution of slavery. They fought because the north was telling them they had no right to secede,( that they were no longer free men, and were from now on subjects and subject to the will and whims of the northern states and fecal government) not because of slavery.

    If it were a war over slavery, then I'd personally be on the side of the North, hands down. I consider the institution of slavery as evil as I consider the men in the GOP and their donors who demand unlimited Mexican immigrants- as today's slaves and cheap labor, with no consideration for the destroyed American lives along the way or the ultimate consequences to the fabric of the nation. Snakes in the grass like John McCain, who demand unlimited cheap labor are just like yesterdays slavers. Anything for a buck, and damn the consequences to others.

    But the reason the men of the South fought, was not for slavery, at least not the majority of them for whom slavery was a bane to their lives. Only the rich men owned slaves, and sure, they may have agitated to protect the institution, just as John McCain wants the borders open, but the men who fought the war fought it to be free from the tyranny of the north and the fecal government, in exactly the same way that today so many of us would love nothing more than for states to begin to secede and create free states for free men to be free again.

    Sign me up!

    > They fought because the north was telling them they had no right to secede

    Sophistry. More tap dancing and hand waving. They wanted to secede because of slavery. The continued existence of slavery on the continent would have lead to intolerable problems for the north down the line, even with an independent confederacy, and war would have been justified and probably inevitable anyway. Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country. It would have been necessary in any case to invade and put a stop to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    They wanted to secede because of slavery.
     
    the plantation owners, sure. But they cynically used the honor of the working classes of Southerners to bolster their war agenda.

    Slavery was dying and would eventually atrophy. It was an anarchism, and all over the Western world it was being repudiated.

    The PTB in the north resented the south. They forced the issue, when it would have died off eventually of its own lack of merit.

    Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country
     
    exactly!

    if the war was being waged between the Northern, nascent industrialists and their political whores, vs. the Southern plantation owners, then I'd agree with your characterization. But it wasn't. It was being waged against the South in an aggressive campaign of a repudiation of the Southern culture and antebellum way of life.

    They didn't just burn the South to teach it a lesson, they burned it and crushed it to destroy utterly a culture and lifestyle that they resented for being more sublime than the crass materialism of the North.

    there were a lot of different subtle motivations for the war, but at the end of the day it was about Northern aggression demanding fealty from the South, and they used slavery as an excuse. a pretext.

    Indeed, even after the war was "won", slavery still persisted in the North. So if the war was fought on the principles of ending slavery, then for all of the hundreds of thousands of men slaughtered, it was all for naught.

    if it was fought for the human rights of all men to live in dignity, then why were the Northern generals sent out West to genocide the Amerindians?
    , @Astuteobservor II

    Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country. It would have been necessary in any case to invade and put a stop to it.
     
    this is a superb point. very well made.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor
    That’s easy for you to say, but not so easy for a guy born in the Soviet Union in 1915 or Red China in 1945. This stuff killed and imprisoned 100′s of millions and ruined lives for 3 generations.

    I said communism was disastrous. It led to Gulag, mass killings, and totalitarian tyranny. It was horrible stuff.
    BUT, it mostly worked on the national level. Now, Stalin did transport entire populations all across the USSR, and that led to demographic tensions that last to this day.
    But most Eastern European nations were left alone when it came to demography.

    Now, imagine if communist nations had adopted a globalist than nationalist version of communism. Not only would people have been killed and tyrannized but they would have been replaced and destroyed as people/culture, like Serbians in Kosovo(under Ottomans) and Palestinians in Palestine(that became Israel with massive Jewish influx).

    Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary to quell the uprising, not to replace Hungarians with masses of foreigners(not even with Russians). But globalism attempts to do just that.
    So, communism was bad and even horrible in places. But it was tyranny of an idea/ideology. Once those ideas passed into dustbin of history, the nation was still there.

    But suppose Soviets pushed globalist-communism on Hungary. Suppose it not only sent tanks to quell the rebellion but let in 10 million Muslims and Africans to become 'New Hungarians'(meaning that Real Hungarians are 'old Hungarians' who must die out). In that case, even if Hungary gets rid of communism, there is no Hungary left. It is Afro-Islamo-New-Hungaria.

    So, communism was bad and even horrible in places. But it was tyranny of an idea/ideology. Once those ideas passed into dustbin of history, the nation was still there.

    the nation was there but in diminished form

    think of what the Soviets did in Ukraine, when they genocided millions of the best and most intelligent and capable. They did permanent damage to the gene pool. Same thing they did in Poland when the marched the ruling classes and intelligentsia, poets and professors to the edge of ditches, and liquidated them by the tens of thousands, at a time. Removing their genes from the gene pool for all time. What happened to anyone with brains enough to resist the mindless drooling fiend that was slathering all over the region, slaughtering and genociding and crushing the human spirit? They were gulaged and never heard from again. So yea, at least they didn’t import Africans, but they did a lot of damage to the local fauna.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    the nation was there but in diminished form

    think of what the Soviets did in Ukraine, when they genocided millions of the best... Same thing they did in Poland when the marched the ruling classes and intelligentsia, poets and professors to the edge of ditches, and liquidated them by the tens of thousands, at a time. Removing their genes from the gene pool for all time.

    But Sweden was spared WWI and WWII, and it has the stupidest morons in Europe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhER6o2jGsg

    UK lost lot fewer people in WWI and WWII than Poland did, but it's acting a lot dumber.

    Also, Jews lost so many in the Holocaust, but they gained tremendous power after the war.

    In contrast, American Wasps were spared much of disaster of WWI, WWII, and etc -- relative to other whites -- , but they are among the most tarded morons in the world. Wasps put forth people like Dubya and Jeb. And they say Clinton is really smart, but what good did that do? He called for whites being turned into minority in the US.

    Globalism is like quasi-spiritual cult of rapture. It's the Promise of Deliverance where people are offered the chance to depart from their 'sinful' nationalist flesh and become one with the 'saved' globalist spirit. Since histories are associated with nations and since all nations are 'sinful', globalism offers deliverance from national sins by collective surrender to Glob in Heaven. This rapture is experienced through PC kumbayah and Pop Culture orgies. Take leave of roots, senses, and obligations. Just scream, feel orgasmic, and feel one's soul lift from national earth to globo-heaven.

    Poles lost 20,000 in Katyn, but most of the deaths were due to German violence.
    Even so, I don't think that explains why certain nations are declining. Japan lost so many in WWII. Koreans lost so many in Korean War. Vietnam lost so many. So, West and East saw a lot of hell.
    But the postwar yrs for Europe was great. Japan rebuilt fast, and nations like Korea and Taiwan soon followed. They rebuilt fast and they never had it so good. And even though Eastern Europe lagged the West economically, they too rebuilt pretty fast.
    Vietnam was slower to catch up, but it has more confidence today than Japan or Korea. Why?
    Since Japan and Korea are richer and have experienced peace for longer, they should be doing better. But they've become decadent, whereas Viets are still hungry and driven.

    So, the current decline cannot be blamed on communism or WWII. There is something sick in PC and GLOB faith. And the role of Pop Culture as new core culture. Such trashiness led to rise of Celebristianity and Homomania.

    The current mess is due to sick souls, not dead bodies due to wars and communism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Rurik says:
    @bobbybobbob
    > They fought because the north was telling them they had no right to secede

    Sophistry. More tap dancing and hand waving. They wanted to secede because of slavery. The continued existence of slavery on the continent would have lead to intolerable problems for the north down the line, even with an independent confederacy, and war would have been justified and probably inevitable anyway. Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country. It would have been necessary in any case to invade and put a stop to it.

    They wanted to secede because of slavery.

    the plantation owners, sure. But they cynically used the honor of the working classes of Southerners to bolster their war agenda.

    Slavery was dying and would eventually atrophy. It was an anarchism, and all over the Western world it was being repudiated.

    The PTB in the north resented the south. They forced the issue, when it would have died off eventually of its own lack of merit.

    Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country

    exactly!

    if the war was being waged between the Northern, nascent industrialists and their political whores, vs. the Southern plantation owners, then I’d agree with your characterization. But it wasn’t. It was being waged against the South in an aggressive campaign of a repudiation of the Southern culture and antebellum way of life.

    They didn’t just burn the South to teach it a lesson, they burned it and crushed it to destroy utterly a culture and lifestyle that they resented for being more sublime than the crass materialism of the North.

    there were a lot of different subtle motivations for the war, but at the end of the day it was about Northern aggression demanding fealty from the South, and they used slavery as an excuse. a pretext.

    Indeed, even after the war was “won”, slavery still persisted in the North. So if the war was fought on the principles of ending slavery, then for all of the hundreds of thousands of men slaughtered, it was all for naught.

    if it was fought for the human rights of all men to live in dignity, then why were the Northern generals sent out West to genocide the Amerindians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bobbybobbob
    Slavery was not dying. It was growing and increasing in profitability.

    The primary motivations for the war were about slavery. All the others are ancillary and can practically be ignored. This is clear enough if you read accounts from the time. Heck, look at the confederate constitution.

    The south was burned because it was clear confederates often failed to rationally recognize the futility and folly of the cause. They were fighting on pointlessly. It was necessary to shove their faces in defeat and break their spirits so as to prevent a guerrilla campaign or a renewed rebellion in ensuing years. It was a humane measure. Sherman explains himself very well in his autobiography. It was not about some sort of cultural hate. It was a pragmatic measure to bring about a permanent conclusion to the war.

    Slavery did not persist in the north after the war. What the heck are you talking about. The 13th amendment passed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Rurik

    They wanted to secede because of slavery.
     
    the plantation owners, sure. But they cynically used the honor of the working classes of Southerners to bolster their war agenda.

    Slavery was dying and would eventually atrophy. It was an anarchism, and all over the Western world it was being repudiated.

    The PTB in the north resented the south. They forced the issue, when it would have died off eventually of its own lack of merit.

    Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country
     
    exactly!

    if the war was being waged between the Northern, nascent industrialists and their political whores, vs. the Southern plantation owners, then I'd agree with your characterization. But it wasn't. It was being waged against the South in an aggressive campaign of a repudiation of the Southern culture and antebellum way of life.

    They didn't just burn the South to teach it a lesson, they burned it and crushed it to destroy utterly a culture and lifestyle that they resented for being more sublime than the crass materialism of the North.

    there were a lot of different subtle motivations for the war, but at the end of the day it was about Northern aggression demanding fealty from the South, and they used slavery as an excuse. a pretext.

    Indeed, even after the war was "won", slavery still persisted in the North. So if the war was fought on the principles of ending slavery, then for all of the hundreds of thousands of men slaughtered, it was all for naught.

    if it was fought for the human rights of all men to live in dignity, then why were the Northern generals sent out West to genocide the Amerindians?

    Slavery was not dying. It was growing and increasing in profitability.

    The primary motivations for the war were about slavery. All the others are ancillary and can practically be ignored. This is clear enough if you read accounts from the time. Heck, look at the confederate constitution.

    The south was burned because it was clear confederates often failed to rationally recognize the futility and folly of the cause. They were fighting on pointlessly. It was necessary to shove their faces in defeat and break their spirits so as to prevent a guerrilla campaign or a renewed rebellion in ensuing years. It was a humane measure. Sherman explains himself very well in his autobiography. It was not about some sort of cultural hate. It was a pragmatic measure to bring about a permanent conclusion to the war.

    Slavery did not persist in the north after the war. What the heck are you talking about. The 13th amendment passed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The primary motivations for the war were about slavery. All the others are ancillary and can practically be ignored.
     
    how can you say that when the vast majority of the men who fought were not slave owners, and were materially disadvantaged due to the institution. That's like saying that working class white men would fight to protect Mexican immigration. Can you see that happening?

    Sure, the donors and the Chamber of Commerce and their whores in DC are all for it, just as the plantation owners and their whores in government were for slavery, but that's hardly a reason for the typical Southern man to fight to the death - to protect an institution that puts him out of work.

    It was about Northern aggression and putting their boot upon the Southern man. That there were greedy slaveholders who wanted to protect the institution of slavery is for certain, but that's not why the overwhelming majority of men fought for the Confederacy. Hardly.


    This is clear enough if you read accounts from the time.
     
    this is from the Washington Post, of all right wing outfits:

    It is erroneous to declare Confederate general Robert E. Lee a proponent of the institution of slavery in the United States. In his own words: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.”

    Lee was a God-fearing man who fought for his home, family, friends and neighbors. He lamented that his nation was unable to reach a more enlightened mind-set. He said on the matter: “How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
     

    and there were Union officers who were slave owners; Gen. George Thomas and Col. Oden Guitar Mo State Militia.

    so it gets murky


    It was necessary to shove their faces in defeat and break their spirits so as to prevent a guerrilla campaign or a renewed rebellion in ensuing years. It was a humane measure.
     
    you betray certain biases I fear

    the burning and cruel 'reconstruction' of the South were sadistic in their brutality, and it was obvious that the North was taking pleasure in humiliating the South and putting their boot on their necks to simply make them suffer, for the sake of it. Human nature and all that.


    Slavery did not persist in the north after the war.
     
    there were slaves in New Jersey that were freed by the 13th amendment, months after the end of the war.

    but the main point is, as Fred has pointed out with the brilliant quote from Lee, is that the union wasn't worth fighting for at the time, and has become so corrupt, that there isn't one reason on earth for it to persevere, and over three hundred million reasons for it to dissolve.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Rurik says:
    @bobbybobbob
    Slavery was not dying. It was growing and increasing in profitability.

    The primary motivations for the war were about slavery. All the others are ancillary and can practically be ignored. This is clear enough if you read accounts from the time. Heck, look at the confederate constitution.

    The south was burned because it was clear confederates often failed to rationally recognize the futility and folly of the cause. They were fighting on pointlessly. It was necessary to shove their faces in defeat and break their spirits so as to prevent a guerrilla campaign or a renewed rebellion in ensuing years. It was a humane measure. Sherman explains himself very well in his autobiography. It was not about some sort of cultural hate. It was a pragmatic measure to bring about a permanent conclusion to the war.

    Slavery did not persist in the north after the war. What the heck are you talking about. The 13th amendment passed.

    The primary motivations for the war were about slavery. All the others are ancillary and can practically be ignored.

    how can you say that when the vast majority of the men who fought were not slave owners, and were materially disadvantaged due to the institution. That’s like saying that working class white men would fight to protect Mexican immigration. Can you see that happening?

    Sure, the donors and the Chamber of Commerce and their whores in DC are all for it, just as the plantation owners and their whores in government were for slavery, but that’s hardly a reason for the typical Southern man to fight to the death – to protect an institution that puts him out of work.

    It was about Northern aggression and putting their boot upon the Southern man. That there were greedy slaveholders who wanted to protect the institution of slavery is for certain, but that’s not why the overwhelming majority of men fought for the Confederacy. Hardly.

    This is clear enough if you read accounts from the time.

    this is from the Washington Post, of all right wing outfits:

    It is erroneous to declare Confederate general Robert E. Lee a proponent of the institution of slavery in the United States. In his own words: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.”

    Lee was a God-fearing man who fought for his home, family, friends and neighbors. He lamented that his nation was unable to reach a more enlightened mind-set. He said on the matter: “How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”

    and there were Union officers who were slave owners; Gen. George Thomas and Col. Oden Guitar Mo State Militia.

    so it gets murky

    It was necessary to shove their faces in defeat and break their spirits so as to prevent a guerrilla campaign or a renewed rebellion in ensuing years. It was a humane measure.

    you betray certain biases I fear

    the burning and cruel ‘reconstruction’ of the South were sadistic in their brutality, and it was obvious that the North was taking pleasure in humiliating the South and putting their boot on their necks to simply make them suffer, for the sake of it. Human nature and all that.

    Slavery did not persist in the north after the war.

    there were slaves in New Jersey that were freed by the 13th amendment, months after the end of the war.

    but the main point is, as Fred has pointed out with the brilliant quote from Lee, is that the union wasn’t worth fighting for at the time, and has become so corrupt, that there isn’t one reason on earth for it to persevere, and over three hundred million reasons for it to dissolve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Incitatus says:
    @jacques sheete
    Thanks for that!

    I'd like to call attention to the fact that the gentleman was giving credit to those who preceded him. They and he were and are correct.

    I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism.
     
    Such "anti-federalist" arguments were and are as correct and prescient as they are compelling. One of my favorite pieces is is the following brief "letter" since it covers most of the points made in Fred's excellent article.:

    -Brutus (aka Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York. 18 October 1787
    http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus01.htm

     

    I'd like to add further that I'm sure Adolph Hitler would have agreed with most, if not all, and that's evidence that he wasn't the evil that Allied propaganda would have us all believing to this day.

    “…anti-federalist” arguments were and are as correct and prescient as they are compelling. One of my favorite pieces is is the following brief “letter”...”

    Extracts from JS’s “favorite” letter [advising rejecting adoption of the Constitution]:

    “But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government…

    These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.

    Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it, that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental, that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind, not to adopt it…”
    -Brutus [Yates] 18 Oct 1787

    “I’d like to add further that I’m sure Adolph Hitler would have agreed with most, if not all, and that’s evidence that he wasn’t the evil that Allied propaganda would have us all believing to this day.”

    Jacues/Jacques admires antifederalists and thinks “Adolph Hitler would have agreed” and “that’s evidence that he wasn’t the evil…”

    Yates feared individual sovereignty abused by a centralized republic. Hitler’s first acts 1933-34 were to destroy the Weimar Republic and introduce the Third Reich, a centralized dictatorship that completely deprived individual Germans of their sovereignty. He installed NSDAP stooges in civil and police control in each German state. Imagine Jefferson installing his flunkies (by force) in every American state government, civilian police, and militia.

    Hitler is clearly Yates’ worst nightmare and vice-versa.

    Jacues/Jacques seems unable to comprehend the sources he hawks. Ample evidence that more vital intelligence can be found in a block of granite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Incitatus says:
    @jacques sheete

    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here.
     
    First of all, how do you know they were savages? Plenty of 'em accommodated the white trash savages that wound up terrorizing and annihilating them.

    Second, why did they need to be conquered? Ever hear of the Cherokee?

    George Washington was a terrorist. Known to the Iroquois as Conotocarious or Village Destroyer.


    Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779

    But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

    https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/washingtons-instructions-to-sullivan/

     

    This has been pretty consistent policy by bloodthirsty Amerikan presidents, btw. Similar concept to "unconditional surrender" demanded by the savage "leadership" we've been historically cursed with.

    Ya wanna talk savages do ya?? There's more...

    “George Washington was a terrorist. Known to the Iroquois as Conotocarious or Village Destroyer….This has been pretty consistent policy by bloodthirsty Amerikan presidents, btw. Similar concept to “unconditional surrender” demanded by the savage “leadership” we’ve been historically cursed with...”

    Really! Pretty damning words Jacues/Jacques.

    The Iroquois were reliable Dutch and Anglo proxies from 1624-1775. The go-to native thugs for Anglo colonists. Without them, King Philip (Metacomet) might have succeeded in 1675-76, the Delawares might have not honored the ‘Walking Purchase’ in 1737, and Pontiac may have triumphed 1763-64. Iroquois certainly did their best trying to kill the French in Québec (Trois-Rivières 1650s, Lachine 5 Aug 1689).

    Of course, you know better Jacues/Jacques. No problem judging 17-18C figures by 21C standards. But you don’t even rise to that nadir, do you?

    You scourge Washington with his 1779 instructions out of context. As if the Iroquois were innocent angels. No mention of the Eries, the Andastes, the Tobaccos, the Neutrals, the Illinois – all native nations previously exterminated by the Iroquois. No mention of the Hurons, of whom a few survived.

    The Iroquois dilemma in 1775? Choosing the right side. Loyalist or Rebel? They chose poorly. Especially the Senecas. They fought against rebellion from the English crown. And you call Washington a “terrorist” for fighting them?

    BTW Jacues/Jacques, Hitler loved Karl May. Romantic tales of ethnic cleansing and extermination in the American West – what’s not to love? Many believe it helped enable his lethal plans for Poland and Eastern Europe (“Lebensraum”).

    Whoops. You’re on the side of ‘savages’ at the moment. Surely Dolf (in whatever circle of Hell he enjoys) will overlook your comments if you post an apology or reversal quickly.

    Make haste!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    And of course it was the Seneca's who did the job on the Neutrals and the Erie's not the Iroquois and of course the Huron's were a splinter group of the Iroquois, and some of the Seneca's chose to remain neutral..'Life of Brant' including the Border Wars and the Revolution by William Stone 1838.... Lol you swing a very large brush my friend...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Rurik

    So, communism was bad and even horrible in places. But it was tyranny of an idea/ideology. Once those ideas passed into dustbin of history, the nation was still there.
     
    the nation was there but in diminished form

    think of what the Soviets did in Ukraine, when they genocided millions of the best and most intelligent and capable. They did permanent damage to the gene pool. Same thing they did in Poland when the marched the ruling classes and intelligentsia, poets and professors to the edge of ditches, and liquidated them by the tens of thousands, at a time. Removing their genes from the gene pool for all time. What happened to anyone with brains enough to resist the mindless drooling fiend that was slathering all over the region, slaughtering and genociding and crushing the human spirit? They were gulaged and never heard from again. So yea, at least they didn't import Africans, but they did a lot of damage to the local fauna.

    the nation was there but in diminished form

    think of what the Soviets did in Ukraine, when they genocided millions of the best… Same thing they did in Poland when the marched the ruling classes and intelligentsia, poets and professors to the edge of ditches, and liquidated them by the tens of thousands, at a time. Removing their genes from the gene pool for all time.

    But Sweden was spared WWI and WWII, and it has the stupidest morons in Europe.

    UK lost lot fewer people in WWI and WWII than Poland did, but it’s acting a lot dumber.

    Also, Jews lost so many in the Holocaust, but they gained tremendous power after the war.

    In contrast, American Wasps were spared much of disaster of WWI, WWII, and etc — relative to other whites — , but they are among the most tarded morons in the world. Wasps put forth people like Dubya and Jeb. And they say Clinton is really smart, but what good did that do? He called for whites being turned into minority in the US.

    Globalism is like quasi-spiritual cult of rapture. It’s the Promise of Deliverance where people are offered the chance to depart from their ‘sinful’ nationalist flesh and become one with the ‘saved’ globalist spirit. Since histories are associated with nations and since all nations are ‘sinful’, globalism offers deliverance from national sins by collective surrender to Glob in Heaven. This rapture is experienced through PC kumbayah and Pop Culture orgies. Take leave of roots, senses, and obligations. Just scream, feel orgasmic, and feel one’s soul lift from national earth to globo-heaven.

    Poles lost 20,000 in Katyn, but most of the deaths were due to German violence.
    Even so, I don’t think that explains why certain nations are declining. Japan lost so many in WWII. Koreans lost so many in Korean War. Vietnam lost so many. So, West and East saw a lot of hell.
    But the postwar yrs for Europe was great. Japan rebuilt fast, and nations like Korea and Taiwan soon followed. They rebuilt fast and they never had it so good. And even though Eastern Europe lagged the West economically, they too rebuilt pretty fast.
    Vietnam was slower to catch up, but it has more confidence today than Japan or Korea. Why?
    Since Japan and Korea are richer and have experienced peace for longer, they should be doing better. But they’ve become decadent, whereas Viets are still hungry and driven.

    So, the current decline cannot be blamed on communism or WWII. There is something sick in PC and GLOB faith. And the role of Pop Culture as new core culture. Such trashiness led to rise of Celebristianity and Homomania.

    The current mess is due to sick souls, not dead bodies due to wars and communism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But Sweden was spared WWI and WWII, and it has the stupidest morons in Europe.
     
    zero familiarity with diversity. All they've known their entire lives are the lies that have emanated out of the cathode death ray straight into their brains. Blacks and browns are exactly like whites only far smarter and more humane, and of course lacking that vile singular characteristic of whites; racism.

    So as these physicists and philosophers and future neural surgeons are welcomed into Swedish society, they're expected to assimilate perfectly, and save the Swedes from their own backward and hopelessly racist ways. (or so the mantra goes)

    All people of the West have marinated in a matrix of genocidal Zio-lies our entire lives. When Germany lost that war, it wasn't the Russians or British who won, it was the world's International Bolshevik banksters who won. And with that victory they have set about poisoning the minds and souls of the people of the West with programming intended to drive them all to suicidal self-loathing. The places least able to cope with that programming are the ones with the least familiarity with the diversity that the Jews are using to destroy their nations and cultures and especially, their DNA. Any person in the West who says white people have a right to self-determination just as much as anyone else = Hitler.

    That is the paradigm that we all wallow in daily, only for many of us, we've seen diversity up close and personal, and so the lies from the cathode death ray no longer work on us, but for people like the Swedes and people in Maine or Minnesota, they're getting ready to find out.

    Also, Jews lost so many in the Holocaust, but they gained tremendous power after the war.
     
    absolute power in some cases. The UK and Germany for instance, where they don't fart unless they're given permission from the tribe.

    globalism offers deliverance from national sins by collective surrender to Glob in Heaven
     
    LOL

    Poles lost 20,000 in Katyn, but most of the deaths were due to German violence.
     
    WTF?!

    That is a vicious lie. It was the Soviets who murdered those people and it was the Germans who uncovered the unspeakable atrocity, and proved to the world just how evil and Satanic the enemies of Germany (in particular and the West in general) actually were.

    The current mess is due to sick souls, not dead bodies due to wars and communism.
     
    no argument here

    yes, Eastern Europe suffered greatly under the genocidal hatred of the tribe, Russia too. But at least they have their DNA intact, even if somewhat ravaged by the 'kill the best of them' mentality. So you're right that people can suffer cultural atrocities and put the pieces back together if they have their blood. But if they lose their blood, as they are in Sweden and the UK, France and Germany and N. America, they will lose it all. And then once NATO is run by the enemies of the West absolutely, then every last bastion of our DNA will be systematically wiped out for all time. If Iceland and New Zealand think they're safe, they could not more wrong.

    The hatred of the tribe for our type is beyond anything that is even comprehensible for us. We don't know how to hate, and that is all they do. They wake up hating, and the go to bed hating. They breath it, and it comes out of the pores in their skin. I simply have no method or means from my time on this earth to even begin to comprehend such otherworldly hatred. I'm left pitying them at the same time I'm aghast at the evils that they perpetrate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @bobbybobbob
    > They fought because the north was telling them they had no right to secede

    Sophistry. More tap dancing and hand waving. They wanted to secede because of slavery. The continued existence of slavery on the continent would have lead to intolerable problems for the north down the line, even with an independent confederacy, and war would have been justified and probably inevitable anyway. Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country. It would have been necessary in any case to invade and put a stop to it.

    Free white men did not want to compete with a rapidly growing slave labor population, even in a neighboring independent country. It would have been necessary in any case to invade and put a stop to it.

    this is a superb point. very well made.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. bluedog says:
    @Incitatus
    “George Washington was a terrorist. Known to the Iroquois as Conotocarious or Village Destroyer....This has been pretty consistent policy by bloodthirsty Amerikan presidents, btw. Similar concept to “unconditional surrender” demanded by the savage “leadership” we’ve been historically cursed with...”

    Really! Pretty damning words Jacues/Jacques.

    The Iroquois were reliable Dutch and Anglo proxies from 1624-1775. The go-to native thugs for Anglo colonists. Without them, King Philip (Metacomet) might have succeeded in 1675-76, the Delawares might have not honored the ‘Walking Purchase’ in 1737, and Pontiac may have triumphed 1763-64. Iroquois certainly did their best trying to kill the French in Québec (Trois-Rivières 1650s, Lachine 5 Aug 1689).

    Of course, you know better Jacues/Jacques. No problem judging 17-18C figures by 21C standards. But you don’t even rise to that nadir, do you?

    You scourge Washington with his 1779 instructions out of context. As if the Iroquois were innocent angels. No mention of the Eries, the Andastes, the Tobaccos, the Neutrals, the Illinois - all native nations previously exterminated by the Iroquois. No mention of the Hurons, of whom a few survived.

    The Iroquois dilemma in 1775? Choosing the right side. Loyalist or Rebel? They chose poorly. Especially the Senecas. They fought against rebellion from the English crown. And you call Washington a “terrorist” for fighting them?

    BTW Jacues/Jacques, Hitler loved Karl May. Romantic tales of ethnic cleansing and extermination in the American West - what’s not to love? Many believe it helped enable his lethal plans for Poland and Eastern Europe (“Lebensraum”).

    Whoops. You’re on the side of ‘savages’ at the moment. Surely Dolf (in whatever circle of Hell he enjoys) will overlook your comments if you post an apology or reversal quickly.

    Make haste!

    And of course it was the Seneca’s who did the job on the Neutrals and the Erie’s not the Iroquois and of course the Huron’s were a splinter group of the Iroquois, and some of the Seneca’s chose to remain neutral..’Life of Brant’ including the Border Wars and the Revolution by William Stone 1838…. Lol you swing a very large brush my friend…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Corvinus says:
    @nickels
    WASPs are judaizing 'Christians'. Jews helped smuggled mistranslated bibles in the reformation, introducing theological errors. The judaizing heresy is the chiliastic one (same as Bolshevism, Annabaptists, pretty much every bloody revolt), that of creating a 'heaven in earth' which is a heresy the church condemned in its 4th council.

    “WASPs are judaizing ‘Christians’.”

    Sources? If you are making this bold claim you better have the goods.

    “Jews helped smuggled mistranslated bibles in the reformation, introducing theological errors.”

    Sources? If you are making this bold claim you better have the goods.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor
    the nation was there but in diminished form

    think of what the Soviets did in Ukraine, when they genocided millions of the best... Same thing they did in Poland when the marched the ruling classes and intelligentsia, poets and professors to the edge of ditches, and liquidated them by the tens of thousands, at a time. Removing their genes from the gene pool for all time.

    But Sweden was spared WWI and WWII, and it has the stupidest morons in Europe.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhER6o2jGsg

    UK lost lot fewer people in WWI and WWII than Poland did, but it's acting a lot dumber.

    Also, Jews lost so many in the Holocaust, but they gained tremendous power after the war.

    In contrast, American Wasps were spared much of disaster of WWI, WWII, and etc -- relative to other whites -- , but they are among the most tarded morons in the world. Wasps put forth people like Dubya and Jeb. And they say Clinton is really smart, but what good did that do? He called for whites being turned into minority in the US.

    Globalism is like quasi-spiritual cult of rapture. It's the Promise of Deliverance where people are offered the chance to depart from their 'sinful' nationalist flesh and become one with the 'saved' globalist spirit. Since histories are associated with nations and since all nations are 'sinful', globalism offers deliverance from national sins by collective surrender to Glob in Heaven. This rapture is experienced through PC kumbayah and Pop Culture orgies. Take leave of roots, senses, and obligations. Just scream, feel orgasmic, and feel one's soul lift from national earth to globo-heaven.

    Poles lost 20,000 in Katyn, but most of the deaths were due to German violence.
    Even so, I don't think that explains why certain nations are declining. Japan lost so many in WWII. Koreans lost so many in Korean War. Vietnam lost so many. So, West and East saw a lot of hell.
    But the postwar yrs for Europe was great. Japan rebuilt fast, and nations like Korea and Taiwan soon followed. They rebuilt fast and they never had it so good. And even though Eastern Europe lagged the West economically, they too rebuilt pretty fast.
    Vietnam was slower to catch up, but it has more confidence today than Japan or Korea. Why?
    Since Japan and Korea are richer and have experienced peace for longer, they should be doing better. But they've become decadent, whereas Viets are still hungry and driven.

    So, the current decline cannot be blamed on communism or WWII. There is something sick in PC and GLOB faith. And the role of Pop Culture as new core culture. Such trashiness led to rise of Celebristianity and Homomania.

    The current mess is due to sick souls, not dead bodies due to wars and communism.

    But Sweden was spared WWI and WWII, and it has the stupidest morons in Europe.

    zero familiarity with diversity. All they’ve known their entire lives are the lies that have emanated out of the cathode death ray straight into their brains. Blacks and browns are exactly like whites only far smarter and more humane, and of course lacking that vile singular characteristic of whites; racism.

    So as these physicists and philosophers and future neural surgeons are welcomed into Swedish society, they’re expected to assimilate perfectly, and save the Swedes from their own backward and hopelessly racist ways. (or so the mantra goes)

    All people of the West have marinated in a matrix of genocidal Zio-lies our entire lives. When Germany lost that war, it wasn’t the Russians or British who won, it was the world’s International Bolshevik banksters who won. And with that victory they have set about poisoning the minds and souls of the people of the West with programming intended to drive them all to suicidal self-loathing. The places least able to cope with that programming are the ones with the least familiarity with the diversity that the Jews are using to destroy their nations and cultures and especially, their DNA. Any person in the West who says white people have a right to self-determination just as much as anyone else = Hitler.

    That is the paradigm that we all wallow in daily, only for many of us, we’ve seen diversity up close and personal, and so the lies from the cathode death ray no longer work on us, but for people like the Swedes and people in Maine or Minnesota, they’re getting ready to find out.

    Also, Jews lost so many in the Holocaust, but they gained tremendous power after the war.

    absolute power in some cases. The UK and Germany for instance, where they don’t fart unless they’re given permission from the tribe.

    globalism offers deliverance from national sins by collective surrender to Glob in Heaven

    LOL

    Poles lost 20,000 in Katyn, but most of the deaths were due to German violence.

    WTF?!

    That is a vicious lie. It was the Soviets who murdered those people and it was the Germans who uncovered the unspeakable atrocity, and proved to the world just how evil and Satanic the enemies of Germany (in particular and the West in general) actually were.

    The current mess is due to sick souls, not dead bodies due to wars and communism.

    no argument here

    yes, Eastern Europe suffered greatly under the genocidal hatred of the tribe, Russia too. But at least they have their DNA intact, even if somewhat ravaged by the ‘kill the best of them’ mentality. So you’re right that people can suffer cultural atrocities and put the pieces back together if they have their blood. But if they lose their blood, as they are in Sweden and the UK, France and Germany and N. America, they will lose it all. And then once NATO is run by the enemies of the West absolutely, then every last bastion of our DNA will be systematically wiped out for all time. If Iceland and New Zealand think they’re safe, they could not more wrong.

    The hatred of the tribe for our type is beyond anything that is even comprehensible for us. We don’t know how to hate, and that is all they do. They wake up hating, and the go to bed hating. They breath it, and it comes out of the pores in their skin. I simply have no method or means from my time on this earth to even begin to comprehend such otherworldly hatred. I’m left pitying them at the same time I’m aghast at the evils that they perpetrate.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    WTF?!

    That is a vicious lie. It was the Soviets who murdered those people and it was the Germans who uncovered the unspeakable atrocity, and proved to the world just how evil and Satanic the enemies of Germany (in particular and the West in general) actually were.


    You misunderstand me. Katyn was done by Soviets.

    But by some estimates, Poles lost 3 million in WWII, and most of those deaths were due to German aggression. In 39, Poland was divided by Germany and USSR. In 41, Germans invaded Russia and all of Poland was under German control until 1945, and most of the killing in that period were done by Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @dearieme
    Why would supermarkets spontaneously close? To what end?

    How about widespread riots?

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

    “…Seneca’s…did the job on the Neutrals and the Erie’s not the Iroquois...”

    Senecas were western members of the Five Nation Iroquois Confederacy. Thus referred to as Iroquois. Same as Mohawks, Oneidas , Onondagas, and Cayugas (later Tuscaroras). Did I miss something (possible)?

    “…Huron’s were a splinter group of the Iroquois...”

    Ah, Wikipedia strikes!

    Hurons may share remote linguistic origins with the Five Nations, but were long distinct when first visited by Champlain 1615 on the south Lake Huron shore (above Lake Simcoe). Hurons – French allies – were never part of the Five Nation Confederacy (commonly known as ‘the Iroquois’). Attacked by the latter 1649, ten thousand Hurons were dead by 1650. Huron fur trade ceased by 1653, and their status as a nation never recovered. ‘Splinter group’ better describes Five Nation Iroquois that defected to the French and Catholicism. Another subject.

    “…’Life of Brant’ including the Border Wars and the Revolution by William Stone 1838”

    Thanks for the suggestion. Of course you know Joseph Brant was born 1743. 139 years after Champlain first encountered Mohawks (Iroquois) on the lake that bears his name. A critical interval if you’re truly interested in the Five Nations. Especially their heritage as consummate warriors, terrorists, and torturers. History at odds with the innocent, noble victims Jacues/Jacques Sheete mindlessly portrays when writing “George Washington was a terrorist” in 1779.

    If Jacues/Jacques had the brains of a pigeon he’d indict Washington for peacetime ambush of Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville and his murder (after surrender) 28 May 1754 at the hands of his unrestrained Mingo allies. Alas, Jacues/Jacques (who thinks Hitler would have agreed with early US states rights arguments and thus was a nice guy) has enough trouble with spelling.

    Iroquois? Francis Parkman, Samuel Morrison, David Hackett Fischer, Barbara Graymont, and José António Brandão are useful sources if not already read.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Well to start with there were six tribes which made up the Iroquois Confederacy(you named them all but simply left out the Seneca's) and of course the Seneca's were the Keepers of the Western Door, and even tho they did belong to the Confederacy each tribe were separate in their actions, if the Seneca decided to go to war with the Erie's they did so without the consent of the other Five tribes so why would one call them Iroquois, and no I get my information from the Clan Mothers for I find they are much closer to the truth,,..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Chris Mallory
    Nope, my ancestors came here and conquered the stone age savages who were living here. This is a white nation and it will be defended.

    Actually, up until the rebellion against the Crown, most of it was bought and paid for. The fact that both sides cheated outrageously led to the British Proclamation Act (later used throughout the Empire in places with no native land law). Yankee property swindlers like Washington and Jefferson didn’t like it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @SolontoCroesus
    If you can get hold of this Rufus Fears lecture on Lord Acton, it will fill in the background for the Robert E Lee correspondence w/ Acton --

    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/books-that-have-made-history-books-that-can-change-your-life.html (#32)

    The lodestar of Acton's thinking was that leaders -- and all persons -- must make moral decisions; a leader who, for example, engages in war illegitimately [or by lying http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/liars-lying-about-nearly-everything/ ] is guilty of murder, no ifs, ands, buts; there is no exemption from moral judgment when making leadership decisions.

    Each man is his own moral agent.
    It followed, therefore, that centralized decision-making ineluctably led to authoritarianism and was an abnegation of the moral agency of each individual person.

    The two great causes for which Acton put his ideas to the test (and whose outcomes broke his heart), were the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the US Civil War.

    Acton was an Englishman and a Catholic at a time when Catholics were not permitted to enroll at universities in England. His parents sent him to the Continent to be educated, where he observed progressive ideas among Protestants and made it his mission to draw Catholicism into those more liberal ways; that included opposing papal infallibility.

    Regarding the US Civil War, Fears says of Acton:


    "The British believed the American democracy had the same flaws as the Athenian democracy and that is was a radical democracy with no check on the will of the people.

    . . . Acton wrote learned articles for the British government [and was a close and personal friend and consultant to Gladstone] explaining what the [Federalist Papers and] the American Constitution was about, comparing them to the writings of Plato; and demonstrating why the idea of states' rights was so important. . . .

    Acton argued that states' rights served as a balance to America and resulted in a check on a centralized radical democracy. He believed that a radical democracy is imperialist abroad and despotic at home. In the Athenian democracy the conscience of the individual was subordinated to the will of the majority, which Acton considered immoral and amoral. . . .

    . . . In 1861 the British government strongly favored the Confederacy; it did not approve of slavery and hoped that the defeat of the UNION would lead to further dissolution of the United States. . . .

    Acton wrote papers for Gladstone and the British government [on] the issues of the Civil War. His research showed that the finest Confederates, including Robert E. Lee, were morally opposed to slavery and that Southern states would eventually end slavery. Acton saw a risk in the intervention of the federal government, which might destroy states' rights on the pretext of ending slavery.

    . . .
    Acton believed the Unites States had had a chance to become a beacon to the world but would become a despotic democracy without any regard for the rights of individuals, that it would control all aspects of the lives of its citizens, and that it would become fiscally irresponsible in the expansion.

    Acton admired Robert E Lee. He wrote to Lee . . .asking about the war . . . Lee replied that he had seen in states' rights the only hope for avoiding the course of every democracy, including that of Athens. He believed that these democracies had destroyed the rights of the individual in the name of the majority.

    The defeat of the Confederacy was also the defeat of the federal idea. Acton believed that federalism, not centralization, was the hope for a guardian of liberty.

    Acton saw that the U S was no longer a federal republic but a unified country."
     

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    he has made one race to differ from another
     
    it was and is a conundrum

    right or wrong, the blacks had been brought to the shores and were there/here

    now what?

    if you gave them freedom and equality, they were bound to have trouble with it, as they didn't have the sophistication of the whites and the thousands of years of civilization with which to become accustomed to it. Freedom comes with responsibility and accountability. How much of that do we see today in Detroit?

    we are still living with the problems and questions of race in our societies

    many blacks are far better at civilization than most whites, but then a significant and debilitating percentage of them are hopelessly too childlike to make self-reliance a way of life.

    One solution is for blacks to stop blaming whites for being black. Yes, it was white men who bought and profited from slavery, but I doubt there's one black person living in the US that doesn't quietly thank their lucky stars that their ancestors were brought here. And if they don't, they should.

    reconciliation of the races is perfectly possible, but the PTB have much more to gain by maintaining the strife and hostility.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Rurik says:
    @Philip Owen
    And yet.

    http://civilwarcauses.org/stephans.htm

    he has made one race to differ from another

    it was and is a conundrum

    right or wrong, the blacks had been brought to the shores and were there/here

    now what?

    if you gave them freedom and equality, they were bound to have trouble with it, as they didn’t have the sophistication of the whites and the thousands of years of civilization with which to become accustomed to it. Freedom comes with responsibility and accountability. How much of that do we see today in Detroit?

    we are still living with the problems and questions of race in our societies

    many blacks are far better at civilization than most whites, but then a significant and debilitating percentage of them are hopelessly too childlike to make self-reliance a way of life.

    One solution is for blacks to stop blaming whites for being black. Yes, it was white men who bought and profited from slavery, but I doubt there’s one black person living in the US that doesn’t quietly thank their lucky stars that their ancestors were brought here. And if they don’t, they should.

    reconciliation of the races is perfectly possible, but the PTB have much more to gain by maintaining the strife and hostility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. bluedog says:
    @Incitatus
    “...Seneca’s...did the job on the Neutrals and the Erie’s not the Iroquois...”

    Senecas were western members of the Five Nation Iroquois Confederacy. Thus referred to as Iroquois. Same as Mohawks, Oneidas , Onondagas, and Cayugas (later Tuscaroras). Did I miss something (possible)?

    “...Huron’s were a splinter group of the Iroquois...”

    Ah, Wikipedia strikes!

    Hurons may share remote linguistic origins with the Five Nations, but were long distinct when first visited by Champlain 1615 on the south Lake Huron shore (above Lake Simcoe). Hurons - French allies - were never part of the Five Nation Confederacy (commonly known as ‘the Iroquois’). Attacked by the latter 1649, ten thousand Hurons were dead by 1650. Huron fur trade ceased by 1653, and their status as a nation never recovered. ‘Splinter group’ better describes Five Nation Iroquois that defected to the French and Catholicism. Another subject.

    “...’Life of Brant’ including the Border Wars and the Revolution by William Stone 1838”

    Thanks for the suggestion. Of course you know Joseph Brant was born 1743. 139 years after Champlain first encountered Mohawks (Iroquois) on the lake that bears his name. A critical interval if you’re truly interested in the Five Nations. Especially their heritage as consummate warriors, terrorists, and torturers. History at odds with the innocent, noble victims Jacues/Jacques Sheete mindlessly portrays when writing “George Washington was a terrorist” in 1779.

    If Jacues/Jacques had the brains of a pigeon he’d indict Washington for peacetime ambush of Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville and his murder (after surrender) 28 May 1754 at the hands of his unrestrained Mingo allies. Alas, Jacues/Jacques (who thinks Hitler would have agreed with early US states rights arguments and thus was a nice guy) has enough trouble with spelling.

    Iroquois? Francis Parkman, Samuel Morrison, David Hackett Fischer, Barbara Graymont, and José António Brandão are useful sources if not already read.

    Well to start with there were six tribes which made up the Iroquois Confederacy(you named them all but simply left out the Seneca’s) and of course the Seneca’s were the Keepers of the Western Door, and even tho they did belong to the Confederacy each tribe were separate in their actions, if the Seneca decided to go to war with the Erie’s they did so without the consent of the other Five tribes so why would one call them Iroquois, and no I get my information from the Clan Mothers for I find they are much closer to the truth,,..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus
    “Well to start with there were six tribes which made up the Iroquois Confederacy (you named them all but simply left out the Seneca’s)”

    Miss my “Senecas were western members of the Five Nation Iroquois Confederacy. Thus referred to as Iroquois. Same as Mohawks...”? Comprehension problems?

    Tuscaroras joined the original Five Nations in 1722, making it a Six Nation Confederacy. Wars with Eries, Andastes, Tobaccos, Neutrals, Illinois, Hurons, and French were waged by the Five Nations in 17th Century.

    “...if the Seneca decided to go to war with the Erie’s they did so without the consent of the other Five tribes so why would one call them Iroquois...”

    Senecas remained part of the Five Nation Confederacy. Thus, still Iroquois.

    “...I get my information from the Clan Mothers for I find they are much closer to the truth...”

    Good for you. The more sources, the better. Hopefully they’re able to objectively describe detailed tribal conditions from the early 1600s as a counterpoint to the Jésuit Relations or other firsthand contemporary sources.

    Skä•noñh Great Law of Peace Center (in replica Ste-Marie de Gannentaha) on Lake Onondaga promotes a wholly pacific, benign image. Remarkably at odds with Confederacy behavior leading to mission abandonment (1658). Deceptive?

    Colonial history shouldn’t omit the shameful role of disease, rum, brandy, technology, broken covenant after broken covenant, and genocidal malice of men like Amherst. Native history shouldn’t overlook conduct consistent with the brutality of the times.

    Iroquois deserve great respect for wise strategy, fierce competition and persistence. Many Nations didn’t survive. They were exemplary by standards of their time. Standards that were fairly brutal on all sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Rurik

    But Sweden was spared WWI and WWII, and it has the stupidest morons in Europe.
     
    zero familiarity with diversity. All they've known their entire lives are the lies that have emanated out of the cathode death ray straight into their brains. Blacks and browns are exactly like whites only far smarter and more humane, and of course lacking that vile singular characteristic of whites; racism.

    So as these physicists and philosophers and future neural surgeons are welcomed into Swedish society, they're expected to assimilate perfectly, and save the Swedes from their own backward and hopelessly racist ways. (or so the mantra goes)

    All people of the West have marinated in a matrix of genocidal Zio-lies our entire lives. When Germany lost that war, it wasn't the Russians or British who won, it was the world's International Bolshevik banksters who won. And with that victory they have set about poisoning the minds and souls of the people of the West with programming intended to drive them all to suicidal self-loathing. The places least able to cope with that programming are the ones with the least familiarity with the diversity that the Jews are using to destroy their nations and cultures and especially, their DNA. Any person in the West who says white people have a right to self-determination just as much as anyone else = Hitler.

    That is the paradigm that we all wallow in daily, only for many of us, we've seen diversity up close and personal, and so the lies from the cathode death ray no longer work on us, but for people like the Swedes and people in Maine or Minnesota, they're getting ready to find out.

    Also, Jews lost so many in the Holocaust, but they gained tremendous power after the war.
     
    absolute power in some cases. The UK and Germany for instance, where they don't fart unless they're given permission from the tribe.

    globalism offers deliverance from national sins by collective surrender to Glob in Heaven
     
    LOL

    Poles lost 20,000 in Katyn, but most of the deaths were due to German violence.
     
    WTF?!

    That is a vicious lie. It was the Soviets who murdered those people and it was the Germans who uncovered the unspeakable atrocity, and proved to the world just how evil and Satanic the enemies of Germany (in particular and the West in general) actually were.

    The current mess is due to sick souls, not dead bodies due to wars and communism.
     
    no argument here

    yes, Eastern Europe suffered greatly under the genocidal hatred of the tribe, Russia too. But at least they have their DNA intact, even if somewhat ravaged by the 'kill the best of them' mentality. So you're right that people can suffer cultural atrocities and put the pieces back together if they have their blood. But if they lose their blood, as they are in Sweden and the UK, France and Germany and N. America, they will lose it all. And then once NATO is run by the enemies of the West absolutely, then every last bastion of our DNA will be systematically wiped out for all time. If Iceland and New Zealand think they're safe, they could not more wrong.

    The hatred of the tribe for our type is beyond anything that is even comprehensible for us. We don't know how to hate, and that is all they do. They wake up hating, and the go to bed hating. They breath it, and it comes out of the pores in their skin. I simply have no method or means from my time on this earth to even begin to comprehend such otherworldly hatred. I'm left pitying them at the same time I'm aghast at the evils that they perpetrate.

    WTF?!

    That is a vicious lie. It was the Soviets who murdered those people and it was the Germans who uncovered the unspeakable atrocity, and proved to the world just how evil and Satanic the enemies of Germany (in particular and the West in general) actually were.

    You misunderstand me. Katyn was done by Soviets.

    But by some estimates, Poles lost 3 million in WWII, and most of those deaths were due to German aggression. In 39, Poland was divided by Germany and USSR. In 41, Germans invaded Russia and all of Poland was under German control until 1945, and most of the killing in that period were done by Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But by some estimates, Poles lost 3 million in WWII, and most of those deaths were due to German aggression.
     
    to call it all "German aggression" is to ignore the nuances involved.

    Poland was lording it over ethnic German people it had absorbed as part of the Treaty of Versailles abomination. It was poking a stick in Germany's eye by telling them 'no' to a corridor.

    Then there was the very real threat of the Satanic Bolsheviks in Russia who had every intention of doing to the Germans what it had done to Ukrainian peasant farmers.

    Poland stood in the way, and was intransigent towards any kind of German rapprochement. They (the arrogant Polish colonels) brought it on themselves, and caused great misery and death to many, many Poles. A tragedy all around. But to blame Germany as the only villain is sophomoric and cartoonish, IMHO. Much hubris and folly to go around. Pole and German and many, many others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Incitatus says:
    @bluedog
    Well to start with there were six tribes which made up the Iroquois Confederacy(you named them all but simply left out the Seneca's) and of course the Seneca's were the Keepers of the Western Door, and even tho they did belong to the Confederacy each tribe were separate in their actions, if the Seneca decided to go to war with the Erie's they did so without the consent of the other Five tribes so why would one call them Iroquois, and no I get my information from the Clan Mothers for I find they are much closer to the truth,,..

    “Well to start with there were six tribes which made up the Iroquois Confederacy (you named them all but simply left out the Seneca’s)”

    Miss my “Senecas were western members of the Five Nation Iroquois Confederacy. Thus referred to as Iroquois. Same as Mohawks…”? Comprehension problems?

    Tuscaroras joined the original Five Nations in 1722, making it a Six Nation Confederacy. Wars with Eries, Andastes, Tobaccos, Neutrals, Illinois, Hurons, and French were waged by the Five Nations in 17th Century.

    “…if the Seneca decided to go to war with the Erie’s they did so without the consent of the other Five tribes so why would one call them Iroquois...”

    Senecas remained part of the Five Nation Confederacy. Thus, still Iroquois.

    “…I get my information from the Clan Mothers for I find they are much closer to the truth...”

    Good for you. The more sources, the better. Hopefully they’re able to objectively describe detailed tribal conditions from the early 1600s as a counterpoint to the Jésuit Relations or other firsthand contemporary sources.

    Skä•noñh Great Law of Peace Center (in replica Ste-Marie de Gannentaha) on Lake Onondaga promotes a wholly pacific, benign image. Remarkably at odds with Confederacy behavior leading to mission abandonment (1658). Deceptive?

    Colonial history shouldn’t omit the shameful role of disease, rum, brandy, technology, broken covenant after broken covenant, and genocidal malice of men like Amherst. Native history shouldn’t overlook conduct consistent with the brutality of the times.

    Iroquois deserve great respect for wise strategy, fierce competition and persistence. Many Nations didn’t survive. They were exemplary by standards of their time. Standards that were fairly brutal on all sides.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Rurik says:
    @Priss Factor
    WTF?!

    That is a vicious lie. It was the Soviets who murdered those people and it was the Germans who uncovered the unspeakable atrocity, and proved to the world just how evil and Satanic the enemies of Germany (in particular and the West in general) actually were.


    You misunderstand me. Katyn was done by Soviets.

    But by some estimates, Poles lost 3 million in WWII, and most of those deaths were due to German aggression. In 39, Poland was divided by Germany and USSR. In 41, Germans invaded Russia and all of Poland was under German control until 1945, and most of the killing in that period were done by Germans.

    But by some estimates, Poles lost 3 million in WWII, and most of those deaths were due to German aggression.

    to call it all “German aggression” is to ignore the nuances involved.

    Poland was lording it over ethnic German people it had absorbed as part of the Treaty of Versailles abomination. It was poking a stick in Germany’s eye by telling them ‘no’ to a corridor.

    Then there was the very real threat of the Satanic Bolsheviks in Russia who had every intention of doing to the Germans what it had done to Ukrainian peasant farmers.

    Poland stood in the way, and was intransigent towards any kind of German rapprochement. They (the arrogant Polish colonels) brought it on themselves, and caused great misery and death to many, many Poles. A tragedy all around. But to blame Germany as the only villain is sophomoric and cartoonish, IMHO. Much hubris and folly to go around. Pole and German and many, many others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Incitatus

    “to call it all “German aggression” is to ignore the nuances involved.”
    “Poland was lording it over ethnic German people it had absorbed as part of...Versailles”
    “Poland stood in the way, and was intransigent towards any kind of German rapprochement. They (the arrogant Polish colonels) brought it on themselves, and caused great misery and death to many, many Poles.”

     
    Grevious charges Rurik.

    Why did Hitler agree to the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact 26 Jan 1934? Doubtless he knew the injustice you refer to. He pledged to resolve problems by negotiation only for ten years. I’m not good at math but 1934+10 = 1944?

    What happened 1 Sep ‘39 Rurik? “Intransigent” and “arrogant Polish colonels” order Germans to invade their country? Give us a hint.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Incitatus says:
    @Rurik

    But by some estimates, Poles lost 3 million in WWII, and most of those deaths were due to German aggression.
     
    to call it all "German aggression" is to ignore the nuances involved.

    Poland was lording it over ethnic German people it had absorbed as part of the Treaty of Versailles abomination. It was poking a stick in Germany's eye by telling them 'no' to a corridor.

    Then there was the very real threat of the Satanic Bolsheviks in Russia who had every intention of doing to the Germans what it had done to Ukrainian peasant farmers.

    Poland stood in the way, and was intransigent towards any kind of German rapprochement. They (the arrogant Polish colonels) brought it on themselves, and caused great misery and death to many, many Poles. A tragedy all around. But to blame Germany as the only villain is sophomoric and cartoonish, IMHO. Much hubris and folly to go around. Pole and German and many, many others.

    “to call it all “German aggression” is to ignore the nuances involved.”
    “Poland was lording it over ethnic German people it had absorbed as part of…Versailles”
    “Poland stood in the way, and was intransigent towards any kind of German rapprochement. They (the arrogant Polish colonels) brought it on themselves, and caused great misery and death to many, many Poles.”

    Grevious charges Rurik.

    Why did Hitler agree to the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact 26 Jan 1934? Doubtless he knew the injustice you refer to. He pledged to resolve problems by negotiation only for ten years. I’m not good at math but 1934+10 = 1944?

    What happened 1 Sep ‘39 Rurik? “Intransigent” and “arrogant Polish colonels” order Germans to invade their country? Give us a hint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    What happened 1 Sep ‘39 Rurik? “Intransigent” and “arrogant Polish colonels” order Germans to invade their country? Give us a hint.
     
    they didn't "order Germans to invade their country". That's silly.

    But ethic Germans were being persecuted and even murdered for being German in the formerly German lands that were turned over to Poland after WWI and prior to the invasion

    atrocities were committed

    Hitler demanded a corridor to these people to protect them, and was rebuffed

    the rest is history
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Rurik says:
    @Incitatus

    “to call it all “German aggression” is to ignore the nuances involved.”
    “Poland was lording it over ethnic German people it had absorbed as part of...Versailles”
    “Poland stood in the way, and was intransigent towards any kind of German rapprochement. They (the arrogant Polish colonels) brought it on themselves, and caused great misery and death to many, many Poles.”

     
    Grevious charges Rurik.

    Why did Hitler agree to the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact 26 Jan 1934? Doubtless he knew the injustice you refer to. He pledged to resolve problems by negotiation only for ten years. I’m not good at math but 1934+10 = 1944?

    What happened 1 Sep ‘39 Rurik? “Intransigent” and “arrogant Polish colonels” order Germans to invade their country? Give us a hint.

    What happened 1 Sep ‘39 Rurik? “Intransigent” and “arrogant Polish colonels” order Germans to invade their country? Give us a hint.

    they didn’t “order Germans to invade their country”. That’s silly.

    But ethic Germans were being persecuted and even murdered for being German in the formerly German lands that were turned over to Poland after WWI and prior to the invasion

    atrocities were committed

    Hitler demanded a corridor to these people to protect them, and was rebuffed

    the rest is history

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    Perhaps they remembered his "protection" of Germans in Czechoslovakia, which turned into the "Protectorate" of Bohemia and Moravia, and Slovakia becoming a nominally independent but pro-German puppet state.
    Ultimately the Third Reich put German minorities in Central and Eastern Europe on top for a few years, lording it over Slavic helots, then it collapsed and took them with it. At the end of his life Hitler decided the Germans, wherever they lived, were unworthy of his "genius".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Liza
    Here is some stuff about Gen. Lee I did not know (if it's the truth in the first place). An article in theatlantic.com. "The Myth of the Kindly General Lee".

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

    During the Gettysburg campaign, in which Confederate troops marched quite far into Pennsylvania, a number of Blacks were seized on the assumption that they were escaped slaves (some had in fact always been free). They were taken south to be sold. This incident suggests that Lee’s forces and perhaps Lee himself had an ideological commitment to the “peculiar institution” of slavery.
    Besides slavery, there were other indications that Lee was not the near-saintly figure rolled into a military genius he has been presented as being. General Pickett, famous for the disastrous charge at Gettysburg, visited Lee after the war, and a bitter argument broke out over responsibility for the failure of Pickett’s Charge. Pickett emerged, muttering, “That man destroyed my division.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Rurik

    What happened 1 Sep ‘39 Rurik? “Intransigent” and “arrogant Polish colonels” order Germans to invade their country? Give us a hint.
     
    they didn't "order Germans to invade their country". That's silly.

    But ethic Germans were being persecuted and even murdered for being German in the formerly German lands that were turned over to Poland after WWI and prior to the invasion

    atrocities were committed

    Hitler demanded a corridor to these people to protect them, and was rebuffed

    the rest is history

    Perhaps they remembered his “protection” of Germans in Czechoslovakia, which turned into the “Protectorate” of Bohemia and Moravia, and Slovakia becoming a nominally independent but pro-German puppet state.
    Ultimately the Third Reich put German minorities in Central and Eastern Europe on top for a few years, lording it over Slavic helots, then it collapsed and took them with it. At the end of his life Hitler decided the Germans, wherever they lived, were unworthy of his “genius”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Ultimately the Third Reich put German minorities in Central and Eastern Europe on top for a few years
     
    Conscripted into the war fighting on the Eastern front against the slathering Bolshevik fiend.

    But as someone just said, if you're trying to find an Hitler apologist in me, you're tilting at windmills. I'm no fan of A. Hitler, but then I do recognize the level of sheer evil he was confronted with vis-a-vis the genocidal Bolsheviks and the Zionists banksters in the West who funded them.

    it was all an orgy of hubris and a fratricidal genocide-fest for the amusement of that lurking reptilian brain that lingers in our ids. We see the exact same thing unfolding today in Ukraine and the Middle East. Hubris and provincial hatreds and resentments tweaked for maximum bloodlust by the International Bankster Fiend.

    nothing new under the sun
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Rurik says: • Website
    @Uebersetzer
    Perhaps they remembered his "protection" of Germans in Czechoslovakia, which turned into the "Protectorate" of Bohemia and Moravia, and Slovakia becoming a nominally independent but pro-German puppet state.
    Ultimately the Third Reich put German minorities in Central and Eastern Europe on top for a few years, lording it over Slavic helots, then it collapsed and took them with it. At the end of his life Hitler decided the Germans, wherever they lived, were unworthy of his "genius".

    Ultimately the Third Reich put German minorities in Central and Eastern Europe on top for a few years

    Conscripted into the war fighting on the Eastern front against the slathering Bolshevik fiend.

    But as someone just said, if you’re trying to find an Hitler apologist in me, you’re tilting at windmills. I’m no fan of A. Hitler, but then I do recognize the level of sheer evil he was confronted with vis-a-vis the genocidal Bolsheviks and the Zionists banksters in the West who funded them.

    it was all an orgy of hubris and a fratricidal genocide-fest for the amusement of that lurking reptilian brain that lingers in our ids. We see the exact same thing unfolding today in Ukraine and the Middle East. Hubris and provincial hatreds and resentments tweaked for maximum bloodlust by the International Bankster Fiend.

    nothing new under the sun

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Your claimed goals are Hitler’s. Because he and his followers claimed to be in a duel to the death with satanic evil constituted by the USSR and Jews.
    The Einsatzgruppen couldn’t get to “Zionist banksters” especially if they lived in New York, well beyond his reach. They could get to Jews living in the western Soviet Union, and they did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Rurik says: • Website

    Because he and his followers claimed to be in a duel to the death with satanic evil constituted by the USSR and Jews.

    he wasn’t far off

    ever heard of the Morgenthau Plan?

    They could get to Jews living in the western Soviet Union, and they did.

    and for that, I condemn them. But it would be worse than folly for anyone to pretend that the Soviets or the Allies have any moral standing to point their sanctimonious finger at the Nazis.

    The Soviets genocided the best farmers in the region by starving them to death by the millions.

    The allies burned hundreds of thousands of German civilians and others alive in a genuine holocaust of pure, genocidal hatred unleashed. Not to mention Eisenhower’s death camps to starve German teenage boys to death after the war was over, at least the ones who didn’t die from exposure. Or the millions of German civilians who were put out of their homes to die in the frozen wastelands after the war was over.

    there was evil to go around Uebersetzer

    I tend to get impatient with the pathetically idiotic cartoon-like version of the war as between the forces of good and evil. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. @dearieme
    Why would supermarkets spontaneously close? To what end?

    Walmart has shut down a significant number of small town supermarkets and retail stores by building a new Walmart. And it has abandoned quite a few of the stores it built in rural America leaving the small towns with no food market at all.

    And evidently, the towns didn’t have enough capital to replace the Walmart store.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Kyle a says:
    @Rurik
    there's a reason they're taking down these monuments

    http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/new-orleans-taking-down-general-lee-statue/news-story/fc831b80c4c7f9c8fcfe131cea5ec8c6

    and everything Fred says about federalism in the US leading to tyranny is even more true when you look at globali$m

    they want that boot stamping on a human face forever that Orwell warned us all about. And they're (and we're) getting it.

    Feds had nothing to do with NOLA statue removal. That was all voted on by the city council pushed by the Mayor. Localized government can be as deadly as centralized.

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

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave