The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Germany's Blood Guilt
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:

– Either the German people are tainted by hereditary blood guilt for their ancestors’ crimes for which they must pay reparations to random Muslims; *

– Or Germans are so genetically fearsome that the threat they pose to the rest of the world must be diluted by mass migration;

– Or the innate destiny of we Germans is to rule Europe (and perhaps the world), so letting in the million Muslim mob is our brilliant PR feint to cover up the emerging New Order.

If you don’t actually believe that today’s Germans possess either hereditary guilt or hereditary superiority, then it’s hard to logically justify the Merkel government’s whim.

* One possible way to make sense out of the seeming randomness of this is that Germans believe that the civil war in Syria is the fault of Israel, while the existence of Israel is the fault of Germans, so therefore the civil war in Syria today is the fault of Germans in 1933-1945, so thus contemporary Germans inherited blood guilt. (Or something.)

I’ve never actually heard anybody say this, but you could imagine why this notion wouldn’t come up much in casual conversation.

 
Hide 214 CommentsLeave a Comment
214 Comments to "Germany's Blood Guilt"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Germany is scared of being seen for what it is: the European hegemon too big and strong for the joke “great” powers of France and the UK. Germany fears being feared. It’s a soft power Verdun for them. They take down their defences and in doing so gain an advantage in relative terms.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    If the French had only had the sense to leave them alone, Germany would still be a collection of cute, harmless little duchies.
    , @random observer
    Germany today is more populous, richer, and more productive than Britain or France and has been for a good while, so depending on the nature of any hypothetical conflict they would have some advantages. On the other hand they are demographically cratering just as hard and faster, have at least as big an alien settler population, and their immediate military capacity is probably inferior to that of Britain and France. They're also less accustomed to use it.

    It would depend on a lot of variables, but I can't see Germany ever again being the kind of hegemon it once could have been. More like the old man at the retirement villa who has a bigger cash pile, donates for nice things from time to time, gets cranky at the spendthrifts, but can't get out of his room much. Britain and France need some of his money, but they're the ones who go outside the villa and report back on what's happening in the world.
  2. Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    It is clear by now to anyone who examines the attitudes and tacit beliefs of Westerners that Arabs and Muslims have no moral agency. (Arabs and Muslims seem to have either internalized this belief or are at least taking advantage of the implicit weakness of Westerners; see: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-child-of-the-french-banlieues-where-so-many-isis-converts-come-from-i-have-a-message-for-a6969301.html )

    Israel is ruled by its Ashkenazi elite, whom Westerners consider white. Therefore if they're involved in any way in the affairs of Arabs and Muslims - even collaterally - they're to blame as the latter have no agency.

    Of course, there doesn't seem to be any discussion as to why allowing large numbers of actors without moral agency who are prone to violence to immigrate to Western countries is a good thing for the West.
    , @reiner Tor
    Obviously Israel is not the main culprit, but also obviously Israel did contribute to the civil war. Many countries contributed even more, chief among them are the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It must be noted though that as Michael Oren said, Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy, which in turn contributed quite a bit to the Syrian civil war.
    , @tris
    I'd say your statement is somewhat true only for the period after the Russian intervention in Syria. Israel's strategic, logistical and operational support for both Qaeda and IS is well documented. Often Israeli weapons were found in rebel positions, and many rebels were treated in Israeli hospitals. Neither Qaeda nor IS ever attacked Israel.
    It's more like Israel, being the smarter of the belligerent triumphirate (Turkey, Saudi and Israel), decided to jump the sinking ship before the other two.
    Obviously they can expect little love from Syria after the war is over, now that their crew will most likely not be taking over the place anymore.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
    , @AndrewR
    You think Israel didn't want Assad out?

    Assad is allied with Iran which means Israel wants him dead. And since Israel controls the US, well it's no surprise that ObamaRodhamKerry wanted Assad out.
    , @Anonymous
    Israel definitely benefits from the civil war in Syria.That's some prime real estate.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/middleeast/syria-civil-war-israel-golan-heights.html?_r=0
    , @WJ
    Israel has conducted periodic military attacks on Assad forces during the war and they have treated and returned anti-Assad rebels back to the battlefield after combat injuries. But even though their involvement goes much deeper than this they are not the main instigators of this conflict.

    Prominent Americans of the Jewish faith have been almost universally in favor of American intervention against Assad.

    Israel sees a post Assad Syria as less of a threat and therefore his downfall is in their interest. It is quite reasonable to assume that they would be low key participants in the war.

    , @utu
    "Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. " Really?

    The Yinon Plan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"
  3. You’re right of course, and the bottom line for most is your first suggestion – that Germany (i.e. all Germans) must die because of National Socialism. Here is the leader of the third largest political party in Germany articulating this idea with obvious delight:

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Pay no attention to his ethnicity or Sailer will memory hole you....
    , @neon2
    If the Germans continue to vote for this swine, then they deserve to disappear.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    The politician in that clip, Gregor Gysi, is the son of Klaus Gysi, the East German Minister of Culture from 1966-73. His father was also married to the Rhodesian novelist, Doris Lessing.

    Gregor Gysi himself had also been a functionary of the East German ruling party, before he decided to bless the Federal Republic's democratic politics with his civic contributions.
  4. Former German vice Chancellor and foreign affairs minister Josef “Joschka” Fischer:

    “Germans are just too smart and industrious and will therefore always provoke their neighbour’s jealousy. To keep the peace in Europe Germany has to be fenced from the outside and diluted from the inside.”

    The man also taught as a guest professor at an elite USA university – Albright got him the job – despite never having finished high school.

  5. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    It is clear by now to anyone who examines the attitudes and tacit beliefs of Westerners that Arabs and Muslims have no moral agency. (Arabs and Muslims seem to have either internalized this belief or are at least taking advantage of the implicit weakness of Westerners; see: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-child-of-the-french-banlieues-where-so-many-isis-converts-come-from-i-have-a-message-for-a6969301.html )

    Israel is ruled by its Ashkenazi elite, whom Westerners consider white. Therefore if they’re involved in any way in the affairs of Arabs and Muslims – even collaterally – they’re to blame as the latter have no agency.

    Of course, there doesn’t seem to be any discussion as to why allowing large numbers of actors without moral agency who are prone to violence to immigrate to Western countries is a good thing for the West.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's also clear from the number and vehemence of responses to my original posting that the exact opposite is true for Jews in the fevered minds of some - no only do they have agency, but they have superagency - they control the foreign policy of the US, they have been planning Assad's downfall (indeed a takeover of the entire Middle East) since the '80s (or maybe the year 80?), they are the power behind every throne, the man behind every curtain.
  6. Merkel isn’t really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well – all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of “colonialism” and “imperialism” gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left’s oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don’t she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn’t realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn’t exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    • Replies: @Perspective
    "Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well – all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of “colonialism” and “imperialism” gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt."

    Collective media rage should be focused on Turkey and their history of colonialism and the genocide of other cultures. Instead the EU gives them billions and a promise to (maybe) lift visa requirements for travel. Media indignation is focused on Russia and reinforcing the belief that Europeans have a moral obligation to help invading migrants.
    , @anon
    1) The EU wants to destroy national homogeneity
    2) The EU needed an immigration crisis to allow them to grab power over immigration and borders

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BJq5rKCe2DI/maxresdefault.jpg
    , @Anonymous
    u nailed it. Merkel is totally overrated and a traitor. Probs was stasi informant. payback is coming.
    , @jimmyriddle
    "she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants"

    Indeed. Most of the Somalis granted asylum in Holland have moved to England.

    This is another reason why we need Brexit before the Merkel Jugend get their papieren.
    , @AmericanaCON
    I agree with you. Merkels morality is twisted. She believes the rest of Europe which suffer from massive unemployment/underunemployment and has deep financial problems should open their doors for millions of migrants from third world countries. Don’t misunderstand me – I think the Western world ought to help governments in third world countries to improve the lives of their citizens but allowing millions of young men into Europe and within a very short term and in the current financial and social climate is not feasible. German guilt is deeply problematic as they drive the entire content into despair. The European Union and the EMU projects have been driven by Germany – creating massive debt in Southern Europe. The expansion of the European Union is insanity – allowing unstable Eastern and Southern European countries to join.

    Merkels liberal policy on refugees and crony-capitalist policy is ripping EU apart and is feeding the far-right and far-left. I agree with UKIP and half of the Tories that UK (and the rest of Northern Europe) need to get out of the Union. German leadership is utterly dangerous. Merkel is a political radical from Eastern Germany and what I understand the rest of the Northern and Western Europe look at Merkel with horror. Eastern Europe (not Romania which is heavily depended on German aid) has gone against her and will not let Germany dictate policy on economics and migration.

    Merkel is dropping on the polls. CDU received 41.5 percent in the 2013 Federal Election but is now hovering around 32-37 percent. The reason why Merkel has been fairly stable is because the migration flow was halted because of the winter. However, the flow is now increasing again. The deal with Turkey will heavily reduce the influx but there are other routes through Lebanon and Syria to Cyprus. The route from Egypt, Libya and Tunisia to Italy and Mata has been used for years. It is also very possible to reach Portugal, Spain and Italy from Algeria, Morocco and even Western Sahara. You are also able to reach Europe through Russia.

    The reason why poor migrants come to Europe is the liberal asylum legalization, jobs and expansive welfare state. It is the same incentives which have created the massive influx of Latinos (and others) into United States. If Europe (and United States) would get rid of their welfare state – the immigration from third world countries would halt and then reverse within a year.
    , @thisisaknife
    Well, Merkel is a monstrous fool. You need not think "in detail" about the consequences to immediately see the insanity of inviting countless millions of Muslims to Germany and Europe. For short term political gain? Treasonous.
  7. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    Obviously Israel is not the main culprit, but also obviously Israel did contribute to the civil war. Many countries contributed even more, chief among them are the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It must be noted though that as Michael Oren said, Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy, which in turn contributed quite a bit to the Syrian civil war.

    • Replies: @Altai
    "Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy"

    It was the only factor in US policy. Nothing about US foreign policy in the Middle East makes sense except that it has been captured by the Israel-lobby. How exactly does American benefit from a stable secular regime in Syria being overrun by salafists augmented by international brigades with passports that have automatic no 30-day no visa entry requirements for the US? How does prolonging an ethnic civil war work unless you don't care about the outcome except to destroy the country it's happening in.

    Syria only makes sense from the perspective of Israel wishing to see the last functioning state in the levant being broken. Is it a serious strategic threat? No, but they've run out of better targets and they're not paying the bills or shouldering the burden either. They're continuously pushing against an open door. It's like the quote from the IRA, reasonable people in the US government have to stop them every time to win, the Israel lobby only has to win once and the USAF or CIA proxies turn their target to dust. And since there is never a consequence for their failure. Ie, there was no punishment meted out to the people in the media, defence and state department for pushing for an insane confrontation with Iran, they're free to try again and again. Eventually a president insufficiently appalled at a war with Iran will be weak and need some favours and boom, Western Persia turns into a sheet of glass and god knows what the consequences for the rest of the world will be.
    , @tris
    AIPAC, who were continually pushing for US intervention in Syria, went apeshit when Obama decided not to bomb Assad after the fake false-flag chemical attack in 2012, which the neocons tried to pin on Assad. Hirsch later also illuminated that shady operation. That was the first time I was impressed with Obama and Kerry. They managed to see through all the BS, and had the guts to grab the lifeline which Lavrov/Putin threw them. Very statesmanlike. The other good move was the Iran deal, which put the pet AIPAC Iran-bomb hoax to rest.
    , @Jack D
    This sounds like pretty weak sauce upon which to base a whole blood guilt scenario. On a scale of 10, I'd say Germany's quantum of blood guilt for Syria based on these facts is like a 1 or a 2, not even enough for bleeding hearts to buy into.

    I'm not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad, even in a "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" sense. Assad was a thorn in their side in that he cooperated with Iran in supplying Hezbollah and in building a nuclear reactor but as far as the actual Syrian-Israeli border was concerned, Assad was pretty scrupulous (because it was in his interest not to provoke a stronger enemy, not because he is a scrupulous guy) about maintaining peace with Israel. Israel knows that in a place like the Middle East, the next Pharaoh may be even worse than the bad Pharaoh you just got rid of - they were under no "Arab Spring" delusions. Whatever you say about Assad, he seems to be a pretty sane and rational guy by ruthless dictator standards. Saddam Hussein and Qwadafii had a tendency to take things too far and believe their own BS, but Assad does not try to overplay his hand.
  8. @Peter Akuleyev
    Merkel isn't really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well - all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of "colonialism" and "imperialism" gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left's oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don't she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn't realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn't exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    “Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well – all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of “colonialism” and “imperialism” gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt.”

    Collective media rage should be focused on Turkey and their history of colonialism and the genocide of other cultures. Instead the EU gives them billions and a promise to (maybe) lift visa requirements for travel. Media indignation is focused on Russia and reinforcing the belief that Europeans have a moral obligation to help invading migrants.

  9. I’m not sure if it’s guilt as much as it is the combination of

    1. The belief that all people and cultures are the same and therefore assimilable
    2. That it’s racist to not think 1. Is true (which is why the opposition to her insane scheme is so muted) and
    3. That Europe’s leaders don’t want to end up where East Asian countries are headed demographically so they’ll bring in millions of foreigners to avoid dealing spiritually and economically with the fact that they are on a path to extinction

    As James Burnham pointed out, liberalism is not necessarily the cause of Western decline but it is the ideology that a great civilization has adopted to rationalize and cope with its suicide and portray each step towards death as a victory instead.

  10. Steve: You might try the Allies just after WW2 if you want to hear someone say quite a lot of that stuff you describe. They were quite vehement then on the point that blood guilt for Hitler falls on all Germans as a collective responsibility for which collective blame and punishment shall be assigned. Early occupation and pacification orders included instructions to make sure living conditions in Germany were the worst, to be explicit about how the Germans were being occupied not liberated, to break every institution that might ever make Germany fearsome again, and – oh, just read it:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/JCS_1067

    No German parades, military or political, civilian or sports, shall be permitted

    Directive JCS 1067 would eventually be replaced by Directive JCS 1779 and later the Marshall Plan once people figured out that keeping Germany just barely starved enough that the starvation didn’t disrupt the occupation was Not Good For The Economy, but by then a lot of damage had been done.

    • Replies: @Ace
    I've not read much about the immediate aftermath of WWII, other than about Eisenhower's mistreatment of German POWs and his role in Operation Keelhaul. It does seem like something petty, dishonest and vindictive was central to U.S. conduct toward the Germans, deliberate slow starvation being one clear policy.

    That all changed quickly enough when it was clear German help in the Cold War was vital.
  11. @reiner Tor
    Obviously Israel is not the main culprit, but also obviously Israel did contribute to the civil war. Many countries contributed even more, chief among them are the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It must be noted though that as Michael Oren said, Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy, which in turn contributed quite a bit to the Syrian civil war.

    “Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy”

    It was the only factor in US policy. Nothing about US foreign policy in the Middle East makes sense except that it has been captured by the Israel-lobby. How exactly does American benefit from a stable secular regime in Syria being overrun by salafists augmented by international brigades with passports that have automatic no 30-day no visa entry requirements for the US? How does prolonging an ethnic civil war work unless you don’t care about the outcome except to destroy the country it’s happening in.

    Syria only makes sense from the perspective of Israel wishing to see the last functioning state in the levant being broken. Is it a serious strategic threat? No, but they’ve run out of better targets and they’re not paying the bills or shouldering the burden either. They’re continuously pushing against an open door. It’s like the quote from the IRA, reasonable people in the US government have to stop them every time to win, the Israel lobby only has to win once and the USAF or CIA proxies turn their target to dust. And since there is never a consequence for their failure. Ie, there was no punishment meted out to the people in the media, defence and state department for pushing for an insane confrontation with Iran, they’re free to try again and again. Eventually a president insufficiently appalled at a war with Iran will be weak and need some favours and boom, Western Persia turns into a sheet of glass and god knows what the consequences for the rest of the world will be.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    Persian Gulf oil exists.
    , @Gabriel M
    I'll take the time to respond to this post in detail because it details the main flaws in alternative-right thought.

    1) American provincialism: America's Middle East policy is insane; Jews are influential in the U.S. , therefore Jews are behind the U.S.'s insane policy. The problem is that European countries where Jews are far less influential have policies just as insane and, most importantly, there is no correlation between the degree of support for overthrowing Assad and support for Israel. For example, Sweden and Norway are the most consistently pro-Palestinian countries in Europe and both have been gung-ho for getting rid of Assad. The same goes for immigration. If you only know about America it perhaps seems plausible that the only reason Americans are willing to allow themselves to be colonised by third world derelicts is because the Jews - undoubtedly influential in America- are manipulating them into it. But then you look at European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel. This leads us to.

    2) The refusal to believe your enemies have sincere beliefs: Again, you postulate that no-one could possibly want to overthrow Assad unless they were in thrawl to the Israeli lobby. Well, let me explain. Imagine you believed that human evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and there are no significant differences between human populations with regard to cognition and behavioral traits. Imagine, further that you believed that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islamic culture. Sure, it's got a chequered past and it's fair share of bad apples, but so does everyone. Now you - and I - may find both views absurd, but they are held by, conservatively, 95% of educated people. There may once have been a large amount of respectable people who knew perfectly well that race is real, but chose to keep quiet about it, but they retired decades ago.
    Now, let's imagine you hold these beliefs and you look at the Middle East. What do you see? Country after country being run by corrupt dictators with living standards, liberty, etc. etc. far below those of the West. Of course there is nothing wrong with the people in these countries; there is even nothing all that wrong with their culture. The obvious conclusion is that if you could just get rid of these dictators who are inexplicably running all these countries, everything would be awesome. How do I know people believe this? Because I once believed it myself. What cured me was a combination of the manifest failure of the Iraq war, plus the discovery of HBD. Whilst I was at university, I knew, literally, hundreds of people who believed in liberal creationism. The ones who opposed nation-building in the Middle East only did so because they believe that Whitey has some inherently evil reverse Midas Touch that means they can never do any good in the world. They all believed that if Saddam/Assad/Gaddafi could be brought down by their own people without western help then everything would be dandy. Ironically, their batty beliefs cancelled each other out and resulted in a relatively saner policy. Some of those people are now working in think-tanks pushing for interventionism and/or mass immigration. Since I know that they sincerely believed in these daft ideas before they got these jobs, the most reasonable assumption is that they still sincerely believe in these daft ideas, not that know their ideas are false, but serve as a proxy for Israeli interests (especially, since this is Britain we are talking about, most of them don't even like Israel.)

    3 The refusal to recognise other people's scale of priorities: Apparently the Israel lobby is running American foreign policy. Well, it's quite easy to test whether this is true. There is a broad cross-party consensus in Israel that has been espoused by every government since 1967 that Jerusalem is irrevocably united and is the capital of Israel. And yet not a single U.S. President has recognized united Jerusalem as Israel's capital because, quite simply, the Saudis won't have it. I'm telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews if I could run the U.S. for a day that's the first thing I'd do. Maybe I'd have some grand scheme for re-organising the Middle East, maybe not, but I'd do the capital thing before anything else. Then I'd do Iran. Then I'd recognise the annexation of the Golan Heights. Then maybe I'd do some stuff that doesn't command cross-party support in Israel, like telling the Palestinians to take a hike. Only after all that stuff, would I move on to whatever my plans are for Syria.

    4) The insistence of searching for the most implausibly malevolent interpretations of your enemy's actions Apparently Israel wants "to destroy" Syria. Why they would want to do so is not really clear, so we fall back on weird stuff like "they've run out of better targets" (uhh, hello, Iran) or they want to "see the last functioning state in the Levant broken" (uhh, hello, Jordan). This is especially odd given that there is perfectly plausible explanation for Israeli actions with regard to the Syrian Civil War: Israel's northern border is controlled by Hizb'Allah; Hizb'Allah is fighting in Syria on behalf of Assad; Israeli would like to see as many Hizb'Allah fighters die as possible.

    5) The desire to explain everything in terms of malevolence Just as the Iraq war proves that no amount of interventionism is ever enough for interventionists; the Syria war proves that no amount of non-intervention is ever enough for non-interventionists. The Assad regime was based demographically on a shrinking minority of the population; it was loathed with ever increasing ferocity by the growing majority. Like all governments, it faces the unsolvable problem that you can only buy support by pissing someone else off and so, because inefficiency is baked into the cake, you end up ever more unpopular over time, unless some economic windfall saves your bacon. (This parenthetically is the only valid argument for democracy: since regime change is inevitable, it is good to have a mechanism whereby it can occur with bloodshed and wild swings of policy). Now, it's possible that Syrian Ba'athism had solved the unsolvable and become the only permanent regime in human history, until America came along and ruined it, but it's more reasonable to suppose that sooner or later, the Assad family's time was up and the result would be a massive spike in ethnic violence until the country run out of low IQ 17-25 year old with nothing to lose.
    , @Ivan
    Most certainly the case. What indeed does it benefit anyone except Israel in the long run to see a secular government overrun by Sunni fanatics? The only reason that is sufficiently compelling is to get the Sunnis and Shiites to fight to the death. The Israeli cucks in the US ran with it once they saw the possibilities.
  12. When is Turkey going to be forced to repay the massive debt they owe to Christians beginning in the 11th century when the Seljuk Turks started attacking Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem? This sparked the First Crusade. Prior to the arrival of the Turks to the Holy Land, Arabs and Christians conducted business together and lived in relative amity. Since then Turks have sought to conquer Europe and nearly succeeded on many occasions. The corrupt Ottoman Empire is an ugly saga of genocidal massacres, invasions and sexual slavery.

    • Replies: @athEIst
    Going from memory here, the Fatamids (Egypt) took Jerusalem from the Abbasids in 1087 disrupting the lucrative pilgrimage trade. The Abbasids recaptured it but not until the Crusade spirit took hold in Europe. This is all before the Ottoman Empire.
    , @conatus
    Great point!
    Why are we in the US flooded with an endless barrage whose main theme is the inculpation of Germany(and by extension ...YT) for all that is wrong with the modern world?
    What about the Turks? and by the way didn't a greater percentage of Armenians die in their small 'h' holocaust than a percentage of Jewish victims in the big 'H' Holocaust?
    Whats with the lower case?
  13. Ironically, very few, if any, Jews framed it in such terms. In fact, the vast majority of die-hard Zionists that I’ve read immediately said that Merkel’s idea was horrible and that it would destroy Germany.

  14. What possessed Merkel to do what she did, and why western Europe, the United States, and Canada seem helpless to say no to people whose large-scale migration is becoming self-evidently more disastrous every day, will be the debate of Russian and Chinese historians for the next 300 years. It may be as complex a case of mass psychosis as has ever existed in our species.

  15. Leftist conservative [AKA "Make Unz.com Great Again"] says:

    and this surge of migration just happens to also increase the number of workers and consumers. Which increases corporate profits. But that is just a coincidence of course. Because money is not the primary motive force in western nations.

  16. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    I’d say your statement is somewhat true only for the period after the Russian intervention in Syria. Israel’s strategic, logistical and operational support for both Qaeda and IS is well documented. Often Israeli weapons were found in rebel positions, and many rebels were treated in Israeli hospitals. Neither Qaeda nor IS ever attacked Israel.
    It’s more like Israel, being the smarter of the belligerent triumphirate (Turkey, Saudi and Israel), decided to jump the sinking ship before the other two.
    Obviously they can expect little love from Syria after the war is over, now that their crew will most likely not be taking over the place anymore.

  17. Another explanation for Merkels madness is the she is a STASI sleeper agent still trying to subvert the class enemy. After all, she comes out of the east german protestant church milieu which was heavily monitored by the political police – as does current german President Gauck -another open border fanatic- who right after reunification became chief of the bureaucracy in control of
    the STASI files….

    Just sayin….

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    i concur. In germany we call it Honeckers revenge
  18. Nah, it’s much simpler.

    Germany is wealthy. (Doesn’t matter why. Probably luck.)

    The wealthy should help the poor and helpless. (Doesn’t matter why they’re poor and helpless. Probably bad luck.)

    Ergo, Germany should help the Syrians. No blood guilt. Just luck.

  19. There is no logic to any of this, a lot of Germans are pretty irrational, and political discourse in this country has become highly suffused with moralism (often of an explicitly religious bent). There’s also a lot of typical German hybris (Merkel claimed it is Germany’s nature to do exceptional things – like Operation Barbarossa? – so of course “integration” of millions of Muslims won’t be a problem…we’re not like those heartless French and Belgian racists who have marginalized their Muslims!). And of course, once again Germans can feel superior to Eastern Europeans.
    Germans on the whole really are fairly stupid.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    People of any group are "on the whole" pretty stupid. A distribution curve of IQs for any group, of any race or nationality in the world, contains vast numbers of mediocre minds. Germans included.

    The real hubris happens when a group teaches its young that they all are exceptional. I won't bother to identify which groups do this.
  20. Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society."

    College campuses are very racially diverse and they don't feel very free when it comes to respecting the 1st amendment. Also if diversity leads to less racism, why are there more KKK sightings in 2016 than there were in 1976? lol.
    , @The Albino Sasquatch
    Sick Duck - we here at the ABE Collective issue the following statement: You are one sick F**k.
    You probably give up your ducklings for the rats to devour.
    , @AnotherDad

    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.
     
    Too complicated, tedious and uncertain.

    Much simpler solution Mr. Duck: simply segregate white people on off into their own communities and countries. Fence them off and don't let any non-whites in so they won't have to suffer white people's discrimination and bad juju. Yeah, tough on white people forced to live without diversity ... but it's what needs to be done to protect other folks.
    , @No_0ne
    Gr8 b8 m8
    , @Antonymous
    So the logic goes, proportionately fewer whites = “less racism and bigotry” and a “more free and equitable society”?

    Fortunately we have a 90% non-white planet to test this hypothesis upon. Let’s examine the free and equitable caste system of India, set up since the time of Vedas and only partially dismantled with the arrival of the British. Score 1 for colonialism, actually, and none for indigenous equity.

    Let’s look to Japan, the famously closed immigration-averse society for “less racism and bigotry”. No whites as the speculation goes, but also no ability for non-Japanese to become fully accepted, regardless their attempts at assimilation.

    This is tedious, but should we look at the Gulf States where clan heritage cements your position in the hierarchy? Slave labor and so on? I understand this is a bait-post, but the reality is so diametrically opposed to fewer whites = “less racism and bigotry” that it needs addressing. Even Brazil, the utopian melting pot of our ignoramus’ dreams, self-segregates along phenotypic lines. Light eyes, straight hair, and non-African phenotypes signal social position far more than Sick Duck would hope.
  21. And it was Merkel who just last year declared that multiculturalism was a flawed idea. But then her inner-Christian, that still, small voice buried deep in her soul, rose up and got the better of her.

    • Replies: @tris
    Yeah, Merkel and the "inner-Christian". Another MSM fairytale.
    , @Big Bill
    Multiculturalism is flawed, but perfectable ... if we just try hard enough.
    , @anon
    I think you're misreading what those leaders (Sarkozy, Cameron, Merkel etc) meant when they denounced *multi* culturalism.

    It meant they were going to impose a mono-culture but not a white, Christian one.
  22. @reiner Tor
    Obviously Israel is not the main culprit, but also obviously Israel did contribute to the civil war. Many countries contributed even more, chief among them are the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It must be noted though that as Michael Oren said, Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy, which in turn contributed quite a bit to the Syrian civil war.

    AIPAC, who were continually pushing for US intervention in Syria, went apeshit when Obama decided not to bomb Assad after the fake false-flag chemical attack in 2012, which the neocons tried to pin on Assad. Hirsch later also illuminated that shady operation. That was the first time I was impressed with Obama and Kerry. They managed to see through all the BS, and had the guts to grab the lifeline which Lavrov/Putin threw them. Very statesmanlike. The other good move was the Iran deal, which put the pet AIPAC Iran-bomb hoax to rest.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  23. @Luke Lea
    And it was Merkel who just last year declared that multiculturalism was a flawed idea. But then her inner-Christian, that still, small voice buried deep in her soul, rose up and got the better of her.

    Yeah, Merkel and the “inner-Christian”. Another MSM fairytale.

  24. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    Steve

    Report from the Donald Trump Gruman Corp rally last night in Bethpage-South Hicksville.

    I drove all the way in from bucolic Sag Harbor North Shore Country Side. The audience was overwhelmingly Native Born White American Male. The surrounding are is demographically overwhelmingly Northern India Punjabi Region….followed by Korean. I did not see one Asian “American” face at the Trump rally. As other people have pointed out:Ranger Hockey fan types.

    Despite this, The Constitution Tards still believe that the majority of Hindu-Sihk Korean “Americans” are going to vote for Donald Trump because they are Conservative and love the Constitution like Republican White Guys.

    The Trump Crowd White Bros in the audience knew the “Eddy and Brenda” types in High School…The composer of “Eddy and Brenda” grew up less than a mile north of where the Trump Rally took place last night.

    The building where the Trump Rally took place is the same building where the LEM was designed and built by Native Born White American Male Engineers…all of whom went to engineering school on the GI Bill.

    Recent History of the building:1)The Who did tour warm-up there recently…2)Alex Baldwin produced and directed “The Devil and Daniel Webster” there staring Anthony Hopkins….the rest of the movie was shot in John Derbyshire’s hometown on a very snowy day.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    White American males? No Koreans? Trump is set to lose 5% of the crucial Korean American vote. Just think, maybe 35% was possible if he pandered hard enough. And of course, you just know that the NY rumpus room in which Cruz held his rally was packed with Koreans.
    , @Ivan
    Indians - the Punjabis are a subset - are the most die hard of immigration advocates. Since their orientation is only towards their families and extended circles of families back in India. The articulate among them are the first to scream discrimination, but try to get a visa to work in India say in Bangalore. Breathtaking hypocrisy is a distinguishing feature of Indians. My theory is that God allowed Pakistan, so that we (I am an Indian) have someone else to point to in this matter.
  25. @Luke Lea
    And it was Merkel who just last year declared that multiculturalism was a flawed idea. But then her inner-Christian, that still, small voice buried deep in her soul, rose up and got the better of her.

    Multiculturalism is flawed, but perfectable … if we just try hard enough.

  26. It’s mostly the resultante of various wrong beliefs.

    Germany can’t be a nation state, it must dissolve in europe.

    Germans who oppose immigration are racist.

    Many Germans descend from eastern european Germans who fled after WWII, and that worked out well, so all refugees will work out well.

    German industry needs workers bc of smaller age cohorts, syrians are young & male thus will fill the gap.

    Germany’s press & political press censor negative news, so opposition doesn’t get through. Why? Bc all former wrong beliefs result in tunnel vision in which migration is always good, so bad press is hate & must be resisted bc of Germany’s history.

  27. OT: I was looking for more sites to feed my election addiction. Google makes it hard to find anything pro Trump… but this is good… I have been in stitches.

    https://m.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/

    re:Cruz: Why does it look like his face is slowly melting?

  28. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.
    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @Anonymousa
    MEL GIBSON WAS RIGHT!!
    , @This Is Our Home
    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means. It basically means in the public sphere. Like a newspaper article. It barely counts as a leak and therefore does not show any secret workings of intentions, just someone's opinion.
  29. In my experience, Germans need to be a part of a cause bigger than themselves. They don’t do well with just regular life; their morbid nature starts to get the upper hand so they latch on to a movement that will pull them up from their depression.

    When I lived in Germany, they were all very intense (much more so than your average American) about some cause or the other, environmentalism, saving the third world, world peace, etc. The causes had the commonality that they were somewhat vague and could never really be achieved. Again, it wasn’t the results that they were after but an escape.

    This whole refugee episode seems to be just another example of Germans being Germans.

    • Agree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @anon
    Ah yes, that pathologizing narrative again. Because mass immigration only happened in Germany.
    , @StAugustine
    I completely agree. It reminds me of the blurb from the Xenophobe's Guide to Germany (which I haven't read - I read the Swiss one, and found it hilariously accurate) - which is of course not meant to be accurate, instead to amuse via the stereotypes; we all know how inaccurate stereotypes are.

    "Teutonic torment
    In every German there is a touch of the wild-haired Beethoven striding through forests and weeping over a mountain sunset, grappling against impossible odds to express the inexpressible. This is the Great German Soul, prominent display of which is essential whenever Art, Feeling, and Truth are under discussion.

    Angst breeds angst
    For a German, doubt and anxiety expand and ramify the more you ponder them. They are astonished that things haven't gone to pot already, and are pretty certain that they soon will.

    Longer must be better
    Most Germans apply the rule that more equals better. If a passing quip makes you smile, then surely by making it longer the pleasure will be drawn out and increased. As a rule, if you are cornered by someone keen to give you a laugh, you must expect to miss lunch and most of that afternoon's appointments.

    Angst breeds angst
    Because life is ernsthaft, the Germans go by the rules. Schiller wrote, “obedience is the first duty,” and no German has ever doubted it. This fits with their sense of order and duty. Germans hate breaking rules, which can make life difficult because, as a rule, everything not expressly permitted is prohibited."

     

    And the blurb from the Xenophobe's Guide to Americans

    Friends without friendship
    Americans are friendly because they just can't help it; they like to be neighbourly and want to be liked. However, a wise traveller realises that a few happy moments with an American do not translate into a permanent commitment of any kind. Indeed, permanent commitments are what Americans fear the most. This is a nation whose fundamental social relationship is the casual acquaintance.

    It's not a 'good day' unless it's a 'good hair day'
    When asked in a survey what they notice first in a potential mate, the answer from both men and women was hair. Having good hair is more important than having a college education or a happy family.

    Americans shoot from the lip
    American speech is remarkably straightforward. They tell it as it is, even when it's not a particularly good idea to do so. Linguistic subtlety, innuendo, and irony that other nations find delightful puzzle the Americans, who take all statements at face value, weigh them for accuracy, and reject anything they don't understand.

    Always aim to win
    Winning is central to the American psyche. As American football coach Vince Lombardi put it, 'Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing'. Virtually every event in American life, from school graduation to marriage to buying an automobile, is structured so that one party wins, or at least comes out looking better than any of the other participants.
     
    That last one should include that part from the Patton speech of how Americans love a winner and detest a loser.

    There is a section detailing how every American wants to distance themselves from every other American by saying that they are unlike the "average American." Sounds like Lake Wobegon.
  30. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    You think Israel didn’t want Assad out?

    Assad is allied with Iran which means Israel wants him dead. And since Israel controls the US, well it’s no surprise that ObamaRodhamKerry wanted Assad out.

  31. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    Israel definitely benefits from the civil war in Syria.That’s some prime real estate.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/middleeast/syria-civil-war-israel-golan-heights.html?_r=0

  32. @reiner Tor
    Obviously Israel is not the main culprit, but also obviously Israel did contribute to the civil war. Many countries contributed even more, chief among them are the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It must be noted though that as Michael Oren said, Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy, which in turn contributed quite a bit to the Syrian civil war.

    This sounds like pretty weak sauce upon which to base a whole blood guilt scenario. On a scale of 10, I’d say Germany’s quantum of blood guilt for Syria based on these facts is like a 1 or a 2, not even enough for bleeding hearts to buy into.

    I’m not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad, even in a “who will rid me of this troublesome priest” sense. Assad was a thorn in their side in that he cooperated with Iran in supplying Hezbollah and in building a nuclear reactor but as far as the actual Syrian-Israeli border was concerned, Assad was pretty scrupulous (because it was in his interest not to provoke a stronger enemy, not because he is a scrupulous guy) about maintaining peace with Israel. Israel knows that in a place like the Middle East, the next Pharaoh may be even worse than the bad Pharaoh you just got rid of – they were under no “Arab Spring” delusions. Whatever you say about Assad, he seems to be a pretty sane and rational guy by ruthless dictator standards. Saddam Hussein and Qwadafii had a tendency to take things too far and believe their own BS, but Assad does not try to overplay his hand.

    • Replies: @anon
    Israel are pretty openly anti Assad now he's winning whereas they mostly kept quiet when it was in the balance.

    Israel's problem is really with Hezbollah but Assad needs them as an ally so...conflict of interests.

    On the other hand focusing solely on Israel (on this issue) is misplaced imo as Syria has become part of a much bigger regional conflict with a lot of actors sparked by the Iraq invasion.
    , @iSteveFan

    I’m not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad,...
     
    You sound like Whiskey after the Iraq War went south when he began writing similar things about the Israelis having not really wanted to see Saddam go.
  33. If you don’t actually believe that today’s Germans possess either hereditary guilt or hereditary superiority, then it’s hard to logically justify the Merkel government’s whim.

    The logical justification is that racial exclusion equals bad, and racial inclusion equals good.

    As for Merkel’s immediate motivations for precipitating the current migrant crisis, I think Peter Akuleyev’s comment is pretty much spot on.

  34. Related.

    Syrians in Germany ‘want upper limit on refugees’.

    Additionally, 46% of Syrians in Germany are concerned that there might be terrorists among the new arrivals.

  35. @Buzz Mohawk
    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    MEL GIBSON WAS RIGHT!!

  36. Most people don’t realize that the cultural support for mass immigration in America includes the stick as well as the carrot.

    The carrot: it feels good to help other people who are less fortunate, doesn’t it? America has infinite goodness and infinite money, we can invite all of these people in, especially the ones who can’t help themselves. A generous heart never counts the cost. Even if you can’t have children yourself (lots of feminists never finish their punchlist), you can be like childless Mother Merkel and welcome the refugee children of the world (even if a lot of them are working age men). Be open, forgiving, generous, helpful. Doesn’t it feel good?

    The stick: America’s Original Sin is slavery, says the President of the United States, and everybody knows who he means. All of the white men in America are guilty, guilty, guilty regardless of what their actual ancestors were doing. There is no redemption for this Original Sin; no American Jesus who died for you. Reparations are only fair, but as Ta-Nehisi tells us, they will never be enough. Sin with no possibility of redemption – is there any way out for white men? Unlike most religious traditions, suicide is actually the recommended way out.

    National suicide. Expunge the northern European heritage that also includes the blood guilt of the history of the Americas, the genocide of the native people and the economic slavery of the hispanic people. Welcome the black / brown nation, assuage your guilt, tear down the barriers, destroy the white men and all their works. Wash yourself clean with a flood of black and brown, America.

    Whenever you see the carrot, look around for the stick. There’s always a stick.

  37. The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn’t help, either.

    White people (goys) are practically born feeling guilty.

    • Replies: @anon
    Genetic imo - winter guilt - aka low population density shame substitute.

    for a man if you're not out getting more food / logs for the winter -> guilt

    for a woman if you're not out checking the neighbors haven't run out of food / logs -> guilt

    white privilege is winter guilt
    , @David
    A year or so ago I read Confessions of St Augustine and was surprised to see that his concept of original sin is much closer to W.O. Wilson's ideas presented in Social Conquest of Earth, of human instincts having evolved in both group and individualistic levels.

    St Augustine explores at length what motivated him and some friends to steal some fruit and concludes that he had an inner desire simply to violate social rules. Wilson would say that not having a desire to violate rules would be mal-adaptive since violating rules in necessary for social evolution.

    Augustine describes seeing jealousy and anger in the expression of a very young baby, nursing, when a foster sibling took position at the adjacent breast. In this context, it's clear that he's discussing instinct to be anti-social, not a culpable stain.

    The name may be unfortunate but the trait is fundamental. The tension we feel internally between favoring ourselves and our group (and defining our group) is the guilty feeling that we should be thankful for, not regret.

    , @Immigrant from former USSR
    Жизнь проходит под знаком
    Неудач и обид
    С жаждой смерти во всяком,
    Чтобы смыть этот стыд...

    Но что значат потери,
    И беда, и позор,
    Когда давка в партере
    И опять полный сбор?
    ...
    Пастернак, ранняя редакция стихотворения “Вакханалия”.

    Life proceeds under the sign
    Of failures and offenses
    With the thirst of death in each
    To wash away this shame ...

    But the loss and gore,
    And the shame –aren’t important,
    When the crush on the ground,
    And again the theater is full.
    ...
    Boris Pasternak, from early variant of “Bacchanalia”,
    This short poem was devoted to great lady-artist (Yudina ?)
    playing in the "Maria Stuart" play by Schiller.

    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn’t help, either.

     

    Believing in original sin is very helpful indeed if you also believe in a Savior. If you believe in original sin, but think you can handle redeeming yourself from it, then you end up with post-Christian western culture.
  38. It does not really matter what they do. The fertility points in one direction for most of Western Europe. It really is too bad.

    • Replies: @Dave
    Why does everyone keep acting like the population MUST ABSOLUTELY increase OR ELSE.
    The welfare state policies that Europe implemented after WWII worked well for a couple generations but were feasible only as long as the U.S. provided defense.
    The population of most Western countries could contract and still maintain a high level of productivity.
    None of this has to end badly... but of course it will anyway.
  39. That’s a lot of mental yoga there when in fact this has very little to do with blood guilt. What blood guilt does Sweden have, or the Netherlands, Belgium, France, UK, US, Canada, etc?

    What joins all these countries isn’t blood guilt — it’s that they descend from a common Northwestern European stock and are in the end stages of a successful capitalist strategy that’s brought material wealth and easy living to their citizens. National, religious, and ethnic identities have broken as people now identify more with their careers / class and generally see themselves as actors on a global stage. Meanwhile there is zero thinking around HBD type issues and Blank Slate-ism prevails. So now barring 3rd world citizens from your country seems wrong, while letting them in seems like the moral, Christian thing to do. ‘They’re just like us and deserve a shot at a good life too, no?’

    Germany is leading the most recent rally because Germany: they lead everything in the EU, and generally Germans have extreme dispositions which steer them to the logical endpoints of whatever path or policy they are currently taking.

    • Replies: @anon
    Until recently the UK was the clear leader in the multi-culturalism game. But it's only a sign of "extreme disposition" when the Germans are doing it.
  40. I’m sure I’m not the first to think that the current enthusiasm for the idea of white guilt is similar to the idea of the wandering Jew, forced by guilt for killing Christ to wander the Earth in penance for ever.

    Historically naïve SJWs would jump at the chance to make white people wear a badge as a sign of their eternal guilt.

  41. anon • Disclaimer says:

    One possible way to make sense out of the seeming randomness of this

    Merkel created a crisis that allowed the EU to make a power grab over immigration and frontiers from the member nations.

    Not random.

    The history of the EU is the history of a slow motion coup d’etat where a pack of sociopath politicians slowly got rid of any checks and balances restraining their exercise of power.

    On top of that both the EU and UN talk openly (but quietly) among themselves about population replacement in a target list of countries.

    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7653846.stm

    The reason people have such a hard time believing what is happening even though it is plain as day and some of the actors say exactly what the plan is, is most people aren’t sociopaths or psychopaths so they can’t comprehend evil on this scale.

    • Replies: @Discard
    Exactly, normal people just can't believe how evil the multi-cults are. As a tradesman, I fell way behind economically, because I could not accept that affirmative action and de-industrialization were real. It makes no sense, if you're normal.
  42. Certainly ironic. There were Bosnian Muslim units in the SS (SS-Handschar). The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, was made an SS-Gruppenführer by Heinrich Himmler in 1943. He detested the British, French and Russians for their oppression and colonization of Muslim lands. The anti-Semitism was just a bonus, I guess. Both Hitler and Himmler expressed their admiration for Islam.

  43. If the Germans and Swedes are going to be such loyal foot soldiers for their faceless EU corporate hegemons, then maybe it’s a good thing that they’re being conquered.
    They seem overly vulnerable to propaganda-like messages. They seem to really want to believe in bullshit.

  44. iSteve,

    Angela is appealing to reason. As she has already expressed (in so many words), “Germany is such a superior culture that I can’t imagine that the new Muslim immigrants, once exposed to it, would not want to integrate and become Germans. Who wouldn’t want to become one of US …?”

    That isn’t “blood guilt”; it is not any kind of guilt. It resembles the “Ideologies of Election” — the assumption of Ubermenschen — that were the basis for Calvinism and Nazism and still permeates German culture. It is the “New World Order” argument, at least for Europe, which has already been stealthily reincorporated into a new Empire of the German People.

    But Germany faces a different kind of threat with massive immigration from the Middle East and Africa than Angela anticipates. The paradigm of the ordered, rule-following society (that the Germans have apparently patented) is, for the first time, being diluted by people from more primitive clan-based societies organized around a balance-of-terror to keep people in check.

    Good luck, Angela! I don’t think the new immigrants are going to buy your argument.

    • Replies: @anon
    Whenever has Merkel referred to Germany as "superior culture"? If anything she usually intends to imply the opposite with everything she says and does.
    , @Anonymous
    It's more than adopting German culture. What she has in mind is the non-whites will intermarry with the whites and become totally integrated that way. This is likely true. At some point in the future many of the descendants of the non-whites who will arrive will likely have intermarried.
  45. @Peter Akuleyev
    Merkel isn't really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well - all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of "colonialism" and "imperialism" gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left's oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don't she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn't realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn't exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    1) The EU wants to destroy national homogeneity
    2) The EU needed an immigration crisis to allow them to grab power over immigration and borders

  46. @Luke Lea
    And it was Merkel who just last year declared that multiculturalism was a flawed idea. But then her inner-Christian, that still, small voice buried deep in her soul, rose up and got the better of her.

    I think you’re misreading what those leaders (Sarkozy, Cameron, Merkel etc) meant when they denounced *multi* culturalism.

    It meant they were going to impose a mono-culture but not a white, Christian one.

  47. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    This sounds like pretty weak sauce upon which to base a whole blood guilt scenario. On a scale of 10, I'd say Germany's quantum of blood guilt for Syria based on these facts is like a 1 or a 2, not even enough for bleeding hearts to buy into.

    I'm not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad, even in a "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" sense. Assad was a thorn in their side in that he cooperated with Iran in supplying Hezbollah and in building a nuclear reactor but as far as the actual Syrian-Israeli border was concerned, Assad was pretty scrupulous (because it was in his interest not to provoke a stronger enemy, not because he is a scrupulous guy) about maintaining peace with Israel. Israel knows that in a place like the Middle East, the next Pharaoh may be even worse than the bad Pharaoh you just got rid of - they were under no "Arab Spring" delusions. Whatever you say about Assad, he seems to be a pretty sane and rational guy by ruthless dictator standards. Saddam Hussein and Qwadafii had a tendency to take things too far and believe their own BS, but Assad does not try to overplay his hand.

    Israel are pretty openly anti Assad now he’s winning whereas they mostly kept quiet when it was in the balance.

    Israel’s problem is really with Hezbollah but Assad needs them as an ally so…conflict of interests.

    On the other hand focusing solely on Israel (on this issue) is misplaced imo as Syria has become part of a much bigger regional conflict with a lot of actors sparked by the Iraq invasion.

  48. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn't help, either.

    White people (goys) are practically born feeling guilty.

    Genetic imo – winter guilt – aka low population density shame substitute.

    for a man if you’re not out getting more food / logs for the winter -> guilt

    for a woman if you’re not out checking the neighbors haven’t run out of food / logs -> guilt

    white privilege is winter guilt

  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    i live in germany. Here’s the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
    Ordnary krauts are indoctrinated by allied reeducation and generally conformist. Merkel games her party and socialists and greens to maintain power. German media is tightly controlled and used to shame germans into submission. New AfD are tough coz the establishment resistance is strong. But they are changing the political landscape.

    • Replies: @Davidski

    i live in germany. Here’s the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
     
    Hilarious shit.

    You need to get in tune with the reality that Germans are doing this to themselves.
    , @Anonymous
    Angela Merkel does have Polish ancestry on her father's side, but there is no strong evidence that she has any Jewish ancestry.
    , @No_0ne
    Looks like you're really triggering some people here...

    Kind of odd that Merkel's father moved from West Germany to East Germany in the 1950s, too. He must have been pretty confident that he would be treated well by the Communists. It's interesting that Merkel was an agitprop official under the Communists, too.

    People seem to be reacting rather strongly to your post. "It's all the Germans' fault! What do the Jews and the Americans have to do with it?" Just who do they think has controlled education and the media in Germany for the past 70 years?
  50. @Buzz Mohawk
    The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn't help, either.

    White people (goys) are practically born feeling guilty.

    A year or so ago I read Confessions of St Augustine and was surprised to see that his concept of original sin is much closer to W.O. Wilson’s ideas presented in Social Conquest of Earth, of human instincts having evolved in both group and individualistic levels.

    St Augustine explores at length what motivated him and some friends to steal some fruit and concludes that he had an inner desire simply to violate social rules. Wilson would say that not having a desire to violate rules would be mal-adaptive since violating rules in necessary for social evolution.

    Augustine describes seeing jealousy and anger in the expression of a very young baby, nursing, when a foster sibling took position at the adjacent breast. In this context, it’s clear that he’s discussing instinct to be anti-social, not a culpable stain.

    The name may be unfortunate but the trait is fundamental. The tension we feel internally between favoring ourselves and our group (and defining our group) is the guilty feeling that we should be thankful for, not regret.

  51. @Peter Akuleyev
    Merkel isn't really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well - all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of "colonialism" and "imperialism" gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left's oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don't she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn't realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn't exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    u nailed it. Merkel is totally overrated and a traitor. Probs was stasi informant. payback is coming.

  52. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    #1 and #2 come up often (subconsciously). But #3 (Muslim migration is a ruse to cover up eventual German world domination is nonsense.)

    The bourgeois of the civilized world tend to even subconsciously obscure blood connections so the frame of reference is not so much heredity but historical/cosmic processes. So #1 and #2 from a bourgeois white pov is seen through those filters in this way:

    1. Atonement — Trains in Germany once transported Jews to death camps; now the trains bring refugees from war zones to Germany for refugee. That’s cosmic justice and taking in a million refugees is restoration of the moral universe.
    2. It can never happen again — The historical roots of the disasters that befell Europe in the aftermath of WWI and WWII are the dual evils of nationalism and racism. Therefore to prevent the causes of those disasters is a counter reaction against root causes. If WWII happened because racist ideology held the superior Nordic race deserved to rule the world, conquer Eastern Europe, and multiple, then the appropriate counter reaction is extinguishing Nordicism: non-whites must be brought into Nordic lands and race mixing should be encouraged so that the Nordic race disappears and the conquering impulse relinquished.

    So there is still heredity at play in this way of thinking but it’s not the main structure of elite ideological thinking.

  53. Actually, indirectly, the Nazis are responsible for the world-wide white shame epidemic. If the Nazis never happened, then there would not be the reflex adverse reaction to anything that is not an extreme rejection of all things Nazi. So today it would be ok for European countries to want to keep their own individual ethnicities. It would be ok to not want a flood of third world refugees whose culture is incompatible with Europe. It would be considered crazy to allow masses of lowly educated people with a backward culture to immigrate.

    But not all the blame should be placed on the Nazis. Part of the blame goes on the victorious allies for being overly sanctimonious and actually believing themselves when they declared that they “saved” western civilization. Ever since then they have been actively destroying western civilization in a much more permanent way and in a way that the Nazis could have never imagined.

    • Replies: @anon
    Would that be true if the culture hadn't suppressed what happened in Russia / Ukraine immediately preceding the rise of Fascist parties in Europe i.e. the mass murder of millions in Bolshevik concentration camps?

    I'd suggest in that case the Nazis would be seen now as an extreme reaction to a real and extreme Bolshevik threat - still a bad thing but not entirely irrational or out of the blue.

    In which the white guilt currently being manipulated to destroy western civilization would be largely the fault of covering up what the Bolsheviks did.

    , @Anonymous
    Nazis are seen as the inheritors of many ideas that were robust in Western countries leading up to WWII. Racial science and nationalism. So the reaction now is against Nazism but also a repudiation of many of the dominant ideas of the early 20th century.
  54. ‘ * One possible way to make sense out of the seeming randomness of this is that Germans believe that the civil war in Syria is the fault of Israel, while the existence of Israel is the fault of Germans, so therefore the civil war in Syria today is the fault of Germans in 1933-1945, so thus contemporary Germans inherited blood guilt. (Or something.)…’

    Not likely

    1/ Refugees from elsewhere as well as provable fakes aren’t exactly being expelled either.

    2/ Thanks to Wikileaks and others we now have more high level private communications than ever and this theory doesn’t show up.

    3/ Many countries occupied by Germany/neutrals are doing the same.

    Too much blame here is being attached to Merkel herself. She seems to be doing what the Germans (and many others) in non-Eastern Europe want to do. Whether this is right or whether Unz.com commenters like what she is doing is more or less unimportant. Realist!

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    Eh?

    Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on - in their bones - a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?

    Do not forget that the initial welcome for immigration in Germany was hardly contested by the highly conformist lickspittle German media. It was also whipped on by energetic but highly unrepresentative Soros-style One World groups.

    The Germans were repeatedly asked if they supported apple pie and motherhood and of course gave the required answers.

    Merkel is a wicked woman. Rochefoucauld pointed out that some bad people are even more dangerous for having some goodness in them.
  55. @Peter Akuleyev
    Merkel isn't really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well - all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of "colonialism" and "imperialism" gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left's oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don't she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn't realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn't exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    “she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants”

    Indeed. Most of the Somalis granted asylum in Holland have moved to England.

    This is another reason why we need Brexit before the Merkel Jugend get their papieren.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  56. @Buzz Mohawk
    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means. It basically means in the public sphere. Like a newspaper article. It barely counts as a leak and therefore does not show any secret workings of intentions, just someone’s opinion.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, and these are the opinions documented to have been under consideration in our State Department.

    I could care less if it is a leak or not. If you were anything but literal in your thinking, you would understand that I am showing State Department discourse that influences our foreign policy, not exposing a leak.

    Nice try, hasbara.
    , @BigFatJew
    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means,

    From Andrew Napolitano, (jurist, ex judge and Senior Judicial Analyst) post here at unz.com

    The word “classified” is not a legal term; rather, it is derived from the verb “to classify,” and it means that the classification process has been completed.

    Since nothing is marked “classified” — the legal markings are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret”
     
    www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/

    Do read before giving lectures, because obviously you have no fucking idea what you are taking about

    On top of that the legal classification of the document is besides the point-the point here is the content of the email

    Try again shill
  57. Maybe humanity is being infected with a parasite that changes human behavior to facilitate it’s spread through “invade the world, invite the world”. You know, just like toxoplasmosis infection subverts mice’s natural fear of cat urine into an unnatural attraction to facilitate the spread of the parasite. At the very least this hypothesis could be the basis for some science fiction-y storytelling (à la “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”) to broach the taboo topic of the perverseness of the cult of multiculturalism. Sneak in some HBD along with the sci-fi popcorn thrills.

  58. @Jack D
    This sounds like pretty weak sauce upon which to base a whole blood guilt scenario. On a scale of 10, I'd say Germany's quantum of blood guilt for Syria based on these facts is like a 1 or a 2, not even enough for bleeding hearts to buy into.

    I'm not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad, even in a "who will rid me of this troublesome priest" sense. Assad was a thorn in their side in that he cooperated with Iran in supplying Hezbollah and in building a nuclear reactor but as far as the actual Syrian-Israeli border was concerned, Assad was pretty scrupulous (because it was in his interest not to provoke a stronger enemy, not because he is a scrupulous guy) about maintaining peace with Israel. Israel knows that in a place like the Middle East, the next Pharaoh may be even worse than the bad Pharaoh you just got rid of - they were under no "Arab Spring" delusions. Whatever you say about Assad, he seems to be a pretty sane and rational guy by ruthless dictator standards. Saddam Hussein and Qwadafii had a tendency to take things too far and believe their own BS, but Assad does not try to overplay his hand.

    I’m not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad,…

    You sound like Whiskey after the Iraq War went south when he began writing similar things about the Israelis having not really wanted to see Saddam go.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Ariel Sharon counseled Bush NOT to invade. Of course, AIPAC wanted Saddam gone but then Jews in the US who are neoconservative are pretty much opposite the Likud people in Israel. Likud wanted Saddam as a counterbalance to Threat #1, Iran. These are the choices of small nations threatened by neighbors -- not much room for moral absolutism.

    Merkel is flooding Europe with Muslims because she is a Christian. That is what Christianity is all about -- and as the daughter of a pastor she's as Christian as the Pope. Who also wants this. Christianity has the doctrine of universal brotherhood, preference for the refugee (as Christ was), a moral elect and eternally damned who are both predestined (in the Calvinist sense) and universal utopianism. Christianity was the garden from which both Marxism and Multiculturalism as religions arose, as Peter Frost noted.

    Merkel is just another aging, post menopausal White women overcome with religious feeling and HATE HATE HATE of her beta male White peers. That the rapefugees are mostly young Muslim men swaggering around is just a lady part thrill to mix in with the moral superiority.
  59. I’ve never actually heard anybody say this, but you could imagine why this notion wouldn’t come up much in casual conversation.

    I’ve absolutely heard regular people say that the mass refugee movement was due to blood guilt over WWII. That’s a common belief. In my world, btw, people follow politics a lot in private but it’s generally a big taboo to discuss it at all.

  60. Merkel did not invite the migrants into Germany. Casimir the Great did give Jews living in Poland equal rights (in a medievil sort of way) and invited more Jews into Poland as codifying a long standing policy. That is what inviting people into your country looks like. Germany did not invite the migrants, they just came.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_III_the_Great#Relationship_with_Polish_Jews

    Merkel basically came to the conclusion that if you cannot stop someone, act like what they are doing was your idea. She may have thrown around some BS about Germany’s special obligations but in reality that has little to do with anything. And Germany provoked the crisis by invading Muslim countries as part of NATO, and destroying Greece which made entry into Europe easier. Germany has been trying for sometime to fill empty real estate, and when they could not figure out a way to get Germans to do it they found another way. It might be interesting to speculate as to what would have happened if Germany gave the same subsidies migrants get to Germans. Would the the Germans have moved into the empty real estate?

  61. Gee….If your country has a well won national reputation for vigor and especially martial vigor, organizational excellence, economic dynamism, and you’re making your neighbors nervous by effortlessly outperforming them, seems bringing in a couple million dysfunctional coward Arabs should set everyone at ease….(except the rainbow flag boys!)

  62. No, actually the logic is:
    (1) We (The Germans, I am speaking in their name here) are rich
    (2) They are poor
    (3) Therefore, we have to help them, they will come here and will become rich
    (4) We (Germany) are dying country, so we will import millions of muslims and they will be perfect replacement for old Germans.

    Of course (3) can’t possibly be used to all poor people in the world – more poor people is born every year than is admitted to wealthy western countries.

  63. @Buzz Mohawk
    The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn't help, either.

    White people (goys) are practically born feeling guilty.

    Жизнь проходит под знаком
    Неудач и обид
    С жаждой смерти во всяком,
    Чтобы смыть этот стыд…

    Но что значат потери,
    И беда, и позор,
    Когда давка в партере
    И опять полный сбор?

    Пастернак, ранняя редакция стихотворения “Вакханалия”.

    Life proceeds under the sign
    Of failures and offenses
    With the thirst of death in each
    To wash away this shame …

    But the loss and gore,
    And the shame –aren’t important,
    When the crush on the ground,
    And again the theater is full.

    Boris Pasternak, from early variant of “Bacchanalia”,
    This short poem was devoted to great lady-artist (Yudina ?)
    playing in the “Maria Stuart” play by Schiller.

  64. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It is indeed about “blood guilt,” but I don’t think it’s about uniquely German blood guilt. They want ALL developed, Western countries to absorb enough Third World immigration to help expiate the West’s original sin. So it is not about what Germany did in the 30s and 40s. It is about what the West has done for the last several centuries (i.e., succeeding while others failed).

  65. WJ says:
    @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    Israel has conducted periodic military attacks on Assad forces during the war and they have treated and returned anti-Assad rebels back to the battlefield after combat injuries. But even though their involvement goes much deeper than this they are not the main instigators of this conflict.

    Prominent Americans of the Jewish faith have been almost universally in favor of American intervention against Assad.

    Israel sees a post Assad Syria as less of a threat and therefore his downfall is in their interest. It is quite reasonable to assume that they would be low key participants in the war.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Israel has made clear that if ANY party to the Syrian civil war violates its sovereignty, it will be punished. The rules of the game are that the Syrians, pro and anti Assad, can kill each other as much as they please all day every day on their side of the border and Israel doesn't care (they figure they win either way), but if you set foot or fly over the border line even for a second you are going to get shot at by Israel. Israel does give humanitarian medical aid, even to its Hamas enemies in Gaza.

    I'm not sure that Assad is really more of a threat to Israel than ISIS. The border with Syria has been calm for decades. ISIS are the kind of guys who might launch suicide raids across the border, etc.
  66. @Jack D
    Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. There are some people who think the Joos did everything (bad) but no one who is sane blames this war on Israel.

    “Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. ” Really?

    The Yinon Plan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Yinon's 30 year old article is the new "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" and about as persuasive. Mentioning it instantly outs you as a fruitcake - you couldn't be more credible if you posted a photo of yourself wearing your tinfoil hat.
    , @Judah Benjamin Hur

    “Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. ” Really?

    The Yinon Plan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”
     
    1980s? We've been plotting this thing since the time of King Jeroboam! Read your 2 Kings.
  67. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @gdpbull
    Actually, indirectly, the Nazis are responsible for the world-wide white shame epidemic. If the Nazis never happened, then there would not be the reflex adverse reaction to anything that is not an extreme rejection of all things Nazi. So today it would be ok for European countries to want to keep their own individual ethnicities. It would be ok to not want a flood of third world refugees whose culture is incompatible with Europe. It would be considered crazy to allow masses of lowly educated people with a backward culture to immigrate.

    But not all the blame should be placed on the Nazis. Part of the blame goes on the victorious allies for being overly sanctimonious and actually believing themselves when they declared that they "saved" western civilization. Ever since then they have been actively destroying western civilization in a much more permanent way and in a way that the Nazis could have never imagined.

    Would that be true if the culture hadn’t suppressed what happened in Russia / Ukraine immediately preceding the rise of Fascist parties in Europe i.e. the mass murder of millions in Bolshevik concentration camps?

    I’d suggest in that case the Nazis would be seen now as an extreme reaction to a real and extreme Bolshevik threat – still a bad thing but not entirely irrational or out of the blue.

    In which the white guilt currently being manipulated to destroy western civilization would be largely the fault of covering up what the Bolsheviks did.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    It would be questionable to associate the Nazis as the direct blowback of the Bolshevik revolution. The Spartacist coup led to the formation of the Freikorps, which eventually led to the Beer Hall Putsch, but that was more than a decade away from their rise to power.

    Until the absolute collapse of the German economy, the NSDAP had little support. Once the economy went under, there were three likely options of authoritarian rule: a military coup by Kurt Schleicher, the Nazis, and the least likely the Communist Party in Germany. Any USSR military support for a Communist coup in Germany would have had to roll over non-Communist Poland.
    , @No_0ne
    Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize is still hanging on the wall at the NYT, isn't it?
  68. AmericanaCON [AKA "Ouagadougou"] says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    Merkel isn't really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well - all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of "colonialism" and "imperialism" gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left's oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don't she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn't realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn't exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    I agree with you. Merkels morality is twisted. She believes the rest of Europe which suffer from massive unemployment/underunemployment and has deep financial problems should open their doors for millions of migrants from third world countries. Don’t misunderstand me – I think the Western world ought to help governments in third world countries to improve the lives of their citizens but allowing millions of young men into Europe and within a very short term and in the current financial and social climate is not feasible. German guilt is deeply problematic as they drive the entire content into despair. The European Union and the EMU projects have been driven by Germany – creating massive debt in Southern Europe. The expansion of the European Union is insanity – allowing unstable Eastern and Southern European countries to join.

    Merkels liberal policy on refugees and crony-capitalist policy is ripping EU apart and is feeding the far-right and far-left. I agree with UKIP and half of the Tories that UK (and the rest of Northern Europe) need to get out of the Union. German leadership is utterly dangerous. Merkel is a political radical from Eastern Germany and what I understand the rest of the Northern and Western Europe look at Merkel with horror. Eastern Europe (not Romania which is heavily depended on German aid) has gone against her and will not let Germany dictate policy on economics and migration.

    Merkel is dropping on the polls. CDU received 41.5 percent in the 2013 Federal Election but is now hovering around 32-37 percent. The reason why Merkel has been fairly stable is because the migration flow was halted because of the winter. However, the flow is now increasing again. The deal with Turkey will heavily reduce the influx but there are other routes through Lebanon and Syria to Cyprus. The route from Egypt, Libya and Tunisia to Italy and Mata has been used for years. It is also very possible to reach Portugal, Spain and Italy from Algeria, Morocco and even Western Sahara. You are also able to reach Europe through Russia.

    The reason why poor migrants come to Europe is the liberal asylum legalization, jobs and expansive welfare state. It is the same incentives which have created the massive influx of Latinos (and others) into United States. If Europe (and United States) would get rid of their welfare state – the immigration from third world countries would halt and then reverse within a year.

  69. @JoetheHun
    Another explanation for Merkels madness is the she is a STASI sleeper agent still trying to subvert the class enemy. After all, she comes out of the east german protestant church milieu which was heavily monitored by the political police - as does current german President Gauck -another open border fanatic- who right after reunification became chief of the bureaucracy in control of
    the STASI files....

    Just sayin....

    i concur. In germany we call it Honeckers revenge

  70. Steve,

    I think if you were to press an open borders type on this matter (and they didn’t equivocate/motte-and-bailey to deny the Germans had any special responsibility), they would make an argument regarding economic exploitation and the benefits of compound interest.

    If southern American whites are still benefiting economically from slavery after the ruin of Civil War and 150 years of history, there’s no reason Germany can’t still be benefiting from German Southwest Africa 100 years after ending their 30-year control of it.

    Though in practice, most American SJWs would probably try to tie German prosperity to American slavery, and ideally, some sort of hazy financial dealings involving Prescott Bush.

    I suspect this argument wouldn’t resonate in Europe. The phenomenon of attributing every significant event in every country to some American action or inaction would probably be called conspiracy theory in most countries, but here it seems to be the starting point for most mainstream foreign policy discussion (e.g. Bush created ISIS vs. Obama created ISIS).

  71. @Peter Akuleyev
    Merkel isn't really saying Germany has to take millions of Muslim immigrants, implicitly she is saying that Europe has to take millions of Muslim immigrants. Inside Schengen all those immigrants will eventually be free to go anywhere they want. Merkel just wanted Germany to lead the way in order to frame Germany as the moral and economic leader of Europe. Most pro-immigration leftists frame it that way as well - all white people owe a debt to our poor Muslim brethren. The guilt of "colonialism" and "imperialism" gets brandished a lot more than Nazi guilt. And there is a certain logic to why the idea of general white guilt would appeal to Germans in particular, since it allows them to stop feeling singled out.

    The more I watch Merkel the more I agree with a lot of Germans who feel that she is a brilliant short-term tactician and horrible strategist. I think Steve is giving her way too much credit. Last summer Merkel saw a political opportunity to steal a major issue from her left-wing political rivals and present herself as a moral leader. Running as a conservative while stealing the left's oxygen has been the key to her political success most of her career. I don't she think she really thought through the long term consequences of immigration in any detail. She also didn't realize she was inadvertently creating a real opposition on her right, which until last year simply didn't exist in Germany. Now she will be forced to backtrack.

    Well, Merkel is a monstrous fool. You need not think “in detail” about the consequences to immediately see the insanity of inviting countless millions of Muslims to Germany and Europe. For short term political gain? Treasonous.

  72. Too much blame here is being attached to Merkel herself. She seems to be doing what the Germans (and many others) in non-Eastern Europe want to do. Whether this is right or whether Unz.com commenters like what she is doing is more or less unimportant. Realist!

    The Germans here can speak directly on it, but i’m not buying this. Merkel’s blame is entirely justified.

    I think what you’re seeing is not that this invasion is what Germans “want(ed) to do”, though it certain has (or at least had) appeal to large segments of leftists who get their religious jollies by preening over their non-racism. (With the decline of Christianity and 70 years of propaganda, that type is ubiquitous across the West.)

    Rather, i think what you are seeing is Germans acquiescence in what their leaders keep telling them is “the right thing to do” and demand that they submit to, where standing up against it–pointing out that it’s insanely damaging–inherently requires a *racial* argument, and generates furious denunciation and name calling (“racist!”, “Nazi!”). Is it some sort of surprise that most Germans don’t stand up and resist, but go with the flow and “follow orders”?

  73. @iSteveFan

    I’m not even sure that Israel was really all that eager to get rid of Assad,...
     
    You sound like Whiskey after the Iraq War went south when he began writing similar things about the Israelis having not really wanted to see Saddam go.

    Ariel Sharon counseled Bush NOT to invade. Of course, AIPAC wanted Saddam gone but then Jews in the US who are neoconservative are pretty much opposite the Likud people in Israel. Likud wanted Saddam as a counterbalance to Threat #1, Iran. These are the choices of small nations threatened by neighbors — not much room for moral absolutism.

    Merkel is flooding Europe with Muslims because she is a Christian. That is what Christianity is all about — and as the daughter of a pastor she’s as Christian as the Pope. Who also wants this. Christianity has the doctrine of universal brotherhood, preference for the refugee (as Christ was), a moral elect and eternally damned who are both predestined (in the Calvinist sense) and universal utopianism. Christianity was the garden from which both Marxism and Multiculturalism as religions arose, as Peter Frost noted.

    Merkel is just another aging, post menopausal White women overcome with religious feeling and HATE HATE HATE of her beta male White peers. That the rapefugees are mostly young Muslim men swaggering around is just a lady part thrill to mix in with the moral superiority.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    as the daughter of a pastor she’s as Christian as the Pope
     
    Is this inference based on genes or environment?
  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    No, Steve, it’s more of a cluster-f*ck crapola.

    The existence of that monstrosity known as the EU must bear a large portion of the blame.
    Basically, the EU forbids member states to deter or remove anyone from anywhere who can utter the word ‘asylum’. And all the world and his brother have wised up to that fact.
    Not only has the EU forbidden its vassal states from even attempting to stop ‘migrants’ it has dissolved borders between EU states. Thus Greece’s problem – which doubtless the colonels of 1968 could have solved in a weekend – becomes Germany’s problem.
    Add in lavish social security and welfare bennies – includind a free house for life – available in demand to ‘refugees’ who haven’t done a damned thing to earn. Again, all the world and his brother knows this.
    Drizzle with a dollop of Swedish feminists addled brain nuttiness – theirs was the initial ‘idea’ that any warm body that wished to could live the good life in jolly good cold and dark old Sweden.
    Add one menopausal, broody, mushy brained old bag. An old bag with Gorbachev type vanity and stupidity eagerly eyeing a Nobel prize and a bundle of lucrative directorships upon ejection.

    And lastly dump in a great big pile of Economist steaming, stinky faecal waste, to add ‘gravitas’ and pungency.

    And there you have it – destroying a nation through committee.

    • Replies: @tris
    yeah, go one step further: who wants the EU to be in place?
  75. I do not see any essential differences between antiracism in different european countries. It might have some superficial different forms at specific times at specific locations, but in the end it always end with support of either muslims or subsaharan expansion, or both.
    Even after 2015 France and the Benelux countries still have much more Arabs (at least proportional) than Germany.

  76. @Tim Howells
    You're right of course, and the bottom line for most is your first suggestion - that Germany (i.e. all Germans) must die because of National Socialism. Here is the leader of the third largest political party in Germany articulating this idea with obvious delight:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riQh4Qpvxm4

    Pay no attention to his ethnicity or Sailer will memory hole you….

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Gregor Gysi is only three eighths Jewish by ancestry (via his paternal grandmother and one of his maternal great-grandfathers).
  77. @Altai
    "Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy"

    It was the only factor in US policy. Nothing about US foreign policy in the Middle East makes sense except that it has been captured by the Israel-lobby. How exactly does American benefit from a stable secular regime in Syria being overrun by salafists augmented by international brigades with passports that have automatic no 30-day no visa entry requirements for the US? How does prolonging an ethnic civil war work unless you don't care about the outcome except to destroy the country it's happening in.

    Syria only makes sense from the perspective of Israel wishing to see the last functioning state in the levant being broken. Is it a serious strategic threat? No, but they've run out of better targets and they're not paying the bills or shouldering the burden either. They're continuously pushing against an open door. It's like the quote from the IRA, reasonable people in the US government have to stop them every time to win, the Israel lobby only has to win once and the USAF or CIA proxies turn their target to dust. And since there is never a consequence for their failure. Ie, there was no punishment meted out to the people in the media, defence and state department for pushing for an insane confrontation with Iran, they're free to try again and again. Eventually a president insufficiently appalled at a war with Iran will be weak and need some favours and boom, Western Persia turns into a sheet of glass and god knows what the consequences for the rest of the world will be.

    Persian Gulf oil exists.

  78. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    In my experience, Germans need to be a part of a cause bigger than themselves. They don't do well with just regular life; their morbid nature starts to get the upper hand so they latch on to a movement that will pull them up from their depression.

    When I lived in Germany, they were all very intense (much more so than your average American) about some cause or the other, environmentalism, saving the third world, world peace, etc. The causes had the commonality that they were somewhat vague and could never really be achieved. Again, it wasn't the results that they were after but an escape.

    This whole refugee episode seems to be just another example of Germans being Germans.

    Ah yes, that pathologizing narrative again. Because mass immigration only happened in Germany.

  79. I don’t know if this has been posted here before.

    It is an ad pushing the idea that real Germans are not real Germans, or something.

    http://youtu.be/HMQkV5cTuoY

    • Replies: @George
    It's satire. In an unrelated video Bohmermann makes fun of the President of Turkey, which may be a crime in Germany for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_B%C3%B6hmermann
  80. @TheJester
    iSteve,

    Angela is appealing to reason. As she has already expressed (in so many words), "Germany is such a superior culture that I can't imagine that the new Muslim immigrants, once exposed to it, would not want to integrate and become Germans. Who wouldn't want to become one of US ...?"

    That isn't "blood guilt"; it is not any kind of guilt. It resembles the "Ideologies of Election" -- the assumption of Ubermenschen -- that were the basis for Calvinism and Nazism and still permeates German culture. It is the "New World Order" argument, at least for Europe, which has already been stealthily reincorporated into a new Empire of the German People.

    But Germany faces a different kind of threat with massive immigration from the Middle East and Africa than Angela anticipates. The paradigm of the ordered, rule-following society (that the Germans have apparently patented) is, for the first time, being diluted by people from more primitive clan-based societies organized around a balance-of-terror to keep people in check.

    Good luck, Angela! I don't think the new immigrants are going to buy your argument.

    Whenever has Merkel referred to Germany as “superior culture”? If anything she usually intends to imply the opposite with everything she says and does.

  81. @sprfls
    That's a lot of mental yoga there when in fact this has very little to do with blood guilt. What blood guilt does Sweden have, or the Netherlands, Belgium, France, UK, US, Canada, etc?

    What joins all these countries isn't blood guilt -- it's that they descend from a common Northwestern European stock and are in the end stages of a successful capitalist strategy that's brought material wealth and easy living to their citizens. National, religious, and ethnic identities have broken as people now identify more with their careers / class and generally see themselves as actors on a global stage. Meanwhile there is zero thinking around HBD type issues and Blank Slate-ism prevails. So now barring 3rd world citizens from your country seems wrong, while letting them in seems like the moral, Christian thing to do. 'They're just like us and deserve a shot at a good life too, no?'

    Germany is leading the most recent rally because Germany: they lead everything in the EU, and generally Germans have extreme dispositions which steer them to the logical endpoints of whatever path or policy they are currently taking.

    Until recently the UK was the clear leader in the multi-culturalism game. But it’s only a sign of “extreme disposition” when the Germans are doing it.

  82. OT:

    Matthew Yglesias’ ordeal followed by massive guilt can be topped–Norwegian politician Karsten Nordal Hauken was raped by a Somali immigrant and felt awfully guilty in the aftermath so he subsequently questioned whether authorities should even deport him.

    Hauken has finally come out to tell the public his story of his rape and forgiveness, Norway’s public broadcasting channel NRK reports:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fytring%2Fjeg-ble-voldtatt-av-en-mann-1.12852714 (the last paragraphs of the google translation are understandable)

    I do not feel anger toward my husband abuse, and it is incomprehensible to many. But I have to some extent chosen to accept that he is responsible for his actions. This was difficult. For I see him most as a product of an unjust world. A product of an upbringing marked by war and deprivation.
    We must help

    I stand rock solid in my opinion that the people he needs our help. I want us to continue to help refugees with such a background.

    I have been a victim of an injustice and a dark part of the world that we are largely shielded from here at home. But I have yet reconciled myself that it happened to me, here in Norway. For I am a human being first, and not a Norwegian. No, I’m part of the world, and the world is unfortunately unfair.

    ===============================================

    Ecce homo.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/leftist-norwegian-politician-gets-raped-by-somalian-begs-for-him-not-to-be-deported

  83. @anony-mouse
    ' * One possible way to make sense out of the seeming randomness of this is that Germans believe that the civil war in Syria is the fault of Israel, while the existence of Israel is the fault of Germans, so therefore the civil war in Syria today is the fault of Germans in 1933-1945, so thus contemporary Germans inherited blood guilt. (Or something.)...'

    Not likely

    1/ Refugees from elsewhere as well as provable fakes aren't exactly being expelled either.

    2/ Thanks to Wikileaks and others we now have more high level private communications than ever and this theory doesn't show up.

    3/ Many countries occupied by Germany/neutrals are doing the same.

    Too much blame here is being attached to Merkel herself. She seems to be doing what the Germans (and many others) in non-Eastern Europe want to do. Whether this is right or whether Unz.com commenters like what she is doing is more or less unimportant. Realist!

    Eh?

    Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on – in their bones – a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?

    Do not forget that the initial welcome for immigration in Germany was hardly contested by the highly conformist lickspittle German media. It was also whipped on by energetic but highly unrepresentative Soros-style One World groups.

    The Germans were repeatedly asked if they supported apple pie and motherhood and of course gave the required answers.

    Merkel is a wicked woman. Rochefoucauld pointed out that some bad people are even more dangerous for having some goodness in them.

    • Replies: @anon

    Do not forget that the initial welcome for immigration in Germany was hardly contested by the highly conformist lickspittle German media.
     
    Editor of major newspaper says he planted stories for CIA
    By Ralph Lopez Jan 26, 2015 in World
    Becoming the first credentialed, well-known media insider to step forward and state publicly that he was secretly a "propagandist," an editor of a major German daily has claimed that he personally planted stories for the CIA. http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/editor-of-major-german-newspaper-says-he-planted-stories-for-cia/article/424470#ixzz455dxHBre

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp-Wh77wt1o

    , @anony-mouse
    "Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on – in their bones – a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?"

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'in their bones', but when offered a choice of an anti-migrant party to vote for, the majority in each country you mentioned voted otherwise.

    I can add all the Scandinavian nations.

    They vote by secret ballot BTW

  84. @Kat Grey
    When is Turkey going to be forced to repay the massive debt they owe to Christians beginning in the 11th century when the Seljuk Turks started attacking Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem? This sparked the First Crusade. Prior to the arrival of the Turks to the Holy Land, Arabs and Christians conducted business together and lived in relative amity. Since then Turks have sought to conquer Europe and nearly succeeded on many occasions. The corrupt Ottoman Empire is an ugly saga of genocidal massacres, invasions and sexual slavery.

    Going from memory here, the Fatamids (Egypt) took Jerusalem from the Abbasids in 1087 disrupting the lucrative pilgrimage trade. The Abbasids recaptured it but not until the Crusade spirit took hold in Europe. This is all before the Ottoman Empire.

    • Replies: @random observer
    Kat Grey would have been better to be more inclusive in assigning blame, by saying Muslims, or "Arabs, Turks, etc." or something like that, but worth noting that s/he originally said "Turks" and Seljuk Turks, not mentioning the Ottomans until much later.

    The power structure of the Muslim Levant the day before the first Crusade showed up was in flux- the Fatimid [Ismaili Shiite] caliphate set up by Arabized Moors from North Africa and based in Egypt was more or less on its military last legs but managed to retake Jerusalem in 1098 from the string of Seljuk princes who had ruled the previous 25 years, having taken it from the Fatimids. The Seljuks were a dynasty of [Sunni] Turks who set up an empire spanning most of the Middle East, Iran and Central Asia. Their empire had a Turkish military caste, Persian administrators and Arab scholars and clerics, to simplify, much like many Muslim states had had in the region for a couple of centuries. The Seljuk empire broke up into sub-units fast, run by competing Turkish warlords with some role for the more dynamic Persians and Arabs to get in on it- and in one notable case, a Sunni Kurd [Saladin].

    So it's not exactly wrong to focus on Turks- they were the military and ruling class muscle of the region in the years before the crusades first showed up, but they weren't alone.

    The Abbasid caliphate at this time was like the medieval papacy- a religious front organization for the most part.

    IIRC, the first crusade took Jerusalem from a Fatimid governor who had just expelled all its Christians.

    A century later, the Fatimids were gone and their holdings in Egypt and the Levant were being reassembled into a new empire by Saladin, a Kurd leading a Turco-Arabic army, from a collection of little states run by mainly post-Seljuk Turkish princes and their ministers and guardians and powers behind the thrones. [It was a period of political, ethnic, and institutional complexity to surpass even the most baroque era of European history].

    You'll find some sources suggesting Saladin reincorporated Jerusalem into the Abbasid caliphate. But it's an odd phrasing unless it merely means, 'brought it back into Muslim hands, and not the Shiite Fatimid caliphate because it was long gone, and not the Umayyad poseur caliphate because it was way off in Spain, but into the religious sphere of the orthodox Sunni and only caliphate in the Muslim heartlands". It came under the political rule of Saladin's empire. The caliph did not exercise secular jurisdiction there.

    All of which to say the proper language to assign blame would be to Muslims [Arabs, Persians and Turks (Oh, My!)] and later in particular to the Ottoman Turks from the 15c.

    All of whom are the very last people on earth who have any business complaining about European imperialism. A paltry 132 years of European colonialism [taking the longest possible timeframe from France's occupation of Algeria in 1830 to its departure in 1962; MUCH less time for most of the rest of the region] to repay a thousand years of predation on Europe. I figure Europe is owed another 500 years of rule in the Middle East yet.
  85. @Kat Grey
    When is Turkey going to be forced to repay the massive debt they owe to Christians beginning in the 11th century when the Seljuk Turks started attacking Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem? This sparked the First Crusade. Prior to the arrival of the Turks to the Holy Land, Arabs and Christians conducted business together and lived in relative amity. Since then Turks have sought to conquer Europe and nearly succeeded on many occasions. The corrupt Ottoman Empire is an ugly saga of genocidal massacres, invasions and sexual slavery.

    Great point!
    Why are we in the US flooded with an endless barrage whose main theme is the inculpation of Germany(and by extension …YT) for all that is wrong with the modern world?
    What about the Turks? and by the way didn’t a greater percentage of Armenians die in their small ‘h’ holocaust than a percentage of Jewish victims in the big ‘H’ Holocaust?
    Whats with the lower case?

  86. @Tim Howells
    You're right of course, and the bottom line for most is your first suggestion - that Germany (i.e. all Germans) must die because of National Socialism. Here is the leader of the third largest political party in Germany articulating this idea with obvious delight:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riQh4Qpvxm4

    If the Germans continue to vote for this swine, then they deserve to disappear.

  87. The thing with the Germans that nobody seems to mention is they live in the ghetto of Europe, Mitteleuropa. At least compared to the snooty Brits and the oh-so-noble Americans with their English channel and 3000 mile Atlantic ocean, the Germans have enemies right across the river.
    The Germans were forced into militarism by their neighborhood.
    First Charlemagne came along in 782 and beheaded 4,500 Saxons(180,000 in today’s population) because they were not sufficiently Christian and loving like Charlemagne. Then in the Thirty years War, 1618-1648, the Great powers, like fearsome Sweden ran all over the many ununited little principalities forcing the Germans to drink Schwedentrunk and reveal where their daughters and their cows were hidden. The Germans lost a third of their male population.
    They had to unite and be bad asses merely to be left alone.Thank Gott for the Prussians.The Germans finally get it together in the middle of the 1800s and then the Brits pitch a fit because they can’t have a strong continental power. WTF?
    So we win WWI for the Brits, the Germans are pissed they got robbed of their time in the sun on the continent and they go with Adolf Ragnarok, they get carpet bombed back into Morganthau wilderness by Bomber Harris and now they end up as the depository of all the Guilt in the world. Its been going on for 72 years and we still have 36,000 troops there to keep the frothing Hun from bayoneting more babies.
    All because they live in a lousy neighborhood.

    • Replies: @Emblematic
    Best comment in the thread.
    , @AnotherDad

    All because they live in a lousy neighborhood.
     
    Ok, some trouble with the neighbors now and again ... but what a nice piece of property. Germany is nice--very nice.

    German men just need to throw off this "bad history" bullshit, take pride in being German, chase off this mooing mad cow bossing them around, chase out the invaders, enjoy their lovely frauleins and refill the joint with kinder.
    , @random observer
    I'm sympathetic to the argument from geography, but take it back farther.

    The Germans also faced horrible predation from the east early on and later [Huns, Mongols, eventually Turks (taking Austro-Germans into account)] and west [Rome, France later on].

    On the other hand, the Germans also seized their chances in settling new lands- those eastern steppes where the Huns found them, much of the once Celtic core of the German lands [assuming the peoples of those lands didn't just adopt German culture in situ] and marching westward into the Romanized Celtic lands of Rome's fading empire.

    All of which was a massive net gain for our civilization's future, but it does remind us that when Charlemagne ascended the throne, he was a German king ruling German lords over a realm that was mixed Gallo-Roman and German [it did after all still include the German lands of the Rhine valley and Franconia], the result of Frankish German westward conquest. And when he set out to conquer the Saxons, Bavarians et al. he was not an outsider. He was a German king at home seeking to rule all Germans.
  88. Km says:

    Few will care until everyone does. People are creatures of fashion and they are cowards. It’s very fashionable to be PC right now and that’s it. One day another fashion will take its place. Why is it so hard to believe that huge change is produced by the utmost shallowness? That’s most of human history!

  89. @Tim Howells
    You're right of course, and the bottom line for most is your first suggestion - that Germany (i.e. all Germans) must die because of National Socialism. Here is the leader of the third largest political party in Germany articulating this idea with obvious delight:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riQh4Qpvxm4

    The politician in that clip, Gregor Gysi, is the son of Klaus Gysi, the East German Minister of Culture from 1966-73. His father was also married to the Rhodesian novelist, Doris Lessing.

    Gregor Gysi himself had also been a functionary of the East German ruling party, before he decided to bless the Federal Republic’s democratic politics with his civic contributions.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I think it was actually his uncle, not his father, who was married to Doris Lessing, but still it is an interesting detail. He (uncle) was a ravening Commie who sat out the war in the relative ease of Rhodesia (perhaps partly thanks to his green card-ish marriage to Lessing) setting up Communist organizations wherever he went (he appears never to have had a real job). After the war he divorced Lessing and returned to der Vaterland where he promptly was rewarded with a series of prestigious international postings by the DDR. He finally managed to get himself and his latest wife killed in a Ugandan riot.

    Gysi's dad was also a DDR big shot (Minister of Culture), which I suppose would make him akin to the bloated apparatchiks memorably portrayed in the 2006 film The Lives of Others.
  90. @Tiny Duck
    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    “Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.”

    College campuses are very racially diverse and they don’t feel very free when it comes to respecting the 1st amendment. Also if diversity leads to less racism, why are there more KKK sightings in 2016 than there were in 1976? lol.

  91. @Altai
    "Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy"

    It was the only factor in US policy. Nothing about US foreign policy in the Middle East makes sense except that it has been captured by the Israel-lobby. How exactly does American benefit from a stable secular regime in Syria being overrun by salafists augmented by international brigades with passports that have automatic no 30-day no visa entry requirements for the US? How does prolonging an ethnic civil war work unless you don't care about the outcome except to destroy the country it's happening in.

    Syria only makes sense from the perspective of Israel wishing to see the last functioning state in the levant being broken. Is it a serious strategic threat? No, but they've run out of better targets and they're not paying the bills or shouldering the burden either. They're continuously pushing against an open door. It's like the quote from the IRA, reasonable people in the US government have to stop them every time to win, the Israel lobby only has to win once and the USAF or CIA proxies turn their target to dust. And since there is never a consequence for their failure. Ie, there was no punishment meted out to the people in the media, defence and state department for pushing for an insane confrontation with Iran, they're free to try again and again. Eventually a president insufficiently appalled at a war with Iran will be weak and need some favours and boom, Western Persia turns into a sheet of glass and god knows what the consequences for the rest of the world will be.

    I’ll take the time to respond to this post in detail because it details the main flaws in alternative-right thought.

    1) American provincialism: America’s Middle East policy is insane; Jews are influential in the U.S. , therefore Jews are behind the U.S.’s insane policy. The problem is that European countries where Jews are far less influential have policies just as insane and, most importantly, there is no correlation between the degree of support for overthrowing Assad and support for Israel. For example, Sweden and Norway are the most consistently pro-Palestinian countries in Europe and both have been gung-ho for getting rid of Assad. The same goes for immigration. If you only know about America it perhaps seems plausible that the only reason Americans are willing to allow themselves to be colonised by third world derelicts is because the Jews – undoubtedly influential in America- are manipulating them into it. But then you look at European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel. This leads us to.

    2) The refusal to believe your enemies have sincere beliefs: Again, you postulate that no-one could possibly want to overthrow Assad unless they were in thrawl to the Israeli lobby. Well, let me explain. Imagine you believed that human evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and there are no significant differences between human populations with regard to cognition and behavioral traits. Imagine, further that you believed that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islamic culture. Sure, it’s got a chequered past and it’s fair share of bad apples, but so does everyone. Now you – and I – may find both views absurd, but they are held by, conservatively, 95% of educated people. There may once have been a large amount of respectable people who knew perfectly well that race is real, but chose to keep quiet about it, but they retired decades ago.
    Now, let’s imagine you hold these beliefs and you look at the Middle East. What do you see? Country after country being run by corrupt dictators with living standards, liberty, etc. etc. far below those of the West. Of course there is nothing wrong with the people in these countries; there is even nothing all that wrong with their culture. The obvious conclusion is that if you could just get rid of these dictators who are inexplicably running all these countries, everything would be awesome. How do I know people believe this? Because I once believed it myself. What cured me was a combination of the manifest failure of the Iraq war, plus the discovery of HBD. Whilst I was at university, I knew, literally, hundreds of people who believed in liberal creationism. The ones who opposed nation-building in the Middle East only did so because they believe that Whitey has some inherently evil reverse Midas Touch that means they can never do any good in the world. They all believed that if Saddam/Assad/Gaddafi could be brought down by their own people without western help then everything would be dandy. Ironically, their batty beliefs cancelled each other out and resulted in a relatively saner policy. Some of those people are now working in think-tanks pushing for interventionism and/or mass immigration. Since I know that they sincerely believed in these daft ideas before they got these jobs, the most reasonable assumption is that they still sincerely believe in these daft ideas, not that know their ideas are false, but serve as a proxy for Israeli interests (especially, since this is Britain we are talking about, most of them don’t even like Israel.)

    3 The refusal to recognise other people’s scale of priorities: Apparently the Israel lobby is running American foreign policy. Well, it’s quite easy to test whether this is true. There is a broad cross-party consensus in Israel that has been espoused by every government since 1967 that Jerusalem is irrevocably united and is the capital of Israel. And yet not a single U.S. President has recognized united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital because, quite simply, the Saudis won’t have it. I’m telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews if I could run the U.S. for a day that’s the first thing I’d do. Maybe I’d have some grand scheme for re-organising the Middle East, maybe not, but I’d do the capital thing before anything else. Then I’d do Iran. Then I’d recognise the annexation of the Golan Heights. Then maybe I’d do some stuff that doesn’t command cross-party support in Israel, like telling the Palestinians to take a hike. Only after all that stuff, would I move on to whatever my plans are for Syria.

    4) The insistence of searching for the most implausibly malevolent interpretations of your enemy’s actions Apparently Israel wants “to destroy” Syria. Why they would want to do so is not really clear, so we fall back on weird stuff like “they’ve run out of better targets” (uhh, hello, Iran) or they want to “see the last functioning state in the Levant broken” (uhh, hello, Jordan). This is especially odd given that there is perfectly plausible explanation for Israeli actions with regard to the Syrian Civil War: Israel’s northern border is controlled by Hizb’Allah; Hizb’Allah is fighting in Syria on behalf of Assad; Israeli would like to see as many Hizb’Allah fighters die as possible.

    5) The desire to explain everything in terms of malevolence Just as the Iraq war proves that no amount of interventionism is ever enough for interventionists; the Syria war proves that no amount of non-intervention is ever enough for non-interventionists. The Assad regime was based demographically on a shrinking minority of the population; it was loathed with ever increasing ferocity by the growing majority. Like all governments, it faces the unsolvable problem that you can only buy support by pissing someone else off and so, because inefficiency is baked into the cake, you end up ever more unpopular over time, unless some economic windfall saves your bacon. (This parenthetically is the only valid argument for democracy: since regime change is inevitable, it is good to have a mechanism whereby it can occur with bloodshed and wild swings of policy). Now, it’s possible that Syrian Ba’athism had solved the unsolvable and become the only permanent regime in human history, until America came along and ruined it, but it’s more reasonable to suppose that sooner or later, the Assad family’s time was up and the result would be a massive spike in ethnic violence until the country run out of low IQ 17-25 year old with nothing to lose.

    • Replies: @Altai
    I think a problem is people see how angry and vulgar people can be about this issue, partly because respectable people can't talk about these things. We all want to be nice and respectable but what we know about the world makes that hard, try as we might we can't go along with our new religion. So some cope by finding ways to separate themselves from 'those people', talking about 'culture' and assimilation and others cope by adopting this weird anti-Islam = pro-Israel stance. But just because unpleasant people hate Jews doesn't mean that there isn't a serious cohort of Jews in America who are zionists who do affect US policy in the Middle East. Thus we get 'lol you guys always blame the joos'. The last 15 to 20 years has seen the Neo-cons very effectively co-opt the US State Department, Victoria Nuland being an almost parody of a neo-con.

    1. Yes, Norway, Ireland and Sweden's immigration policy and multiculturalism was entirely developed indigenously has been in no way influenced by the US. I think Americans underestimate how influential it is, American media and elite opinion matters in Sweden, at least to the Swedish elite. The United States was the most powerful country in the world and decided that anti-racism was the great You do not need an alienated ethnic elite in your country to feed you 'anti-racism' in TV, film and other media. The internet has driven this up to 11, being dominated by American. You think these ideas spontaneously took root? Modern Academic Sociology, the priesthood of this new religion is an almost entirely American field.

    2. I can't speak to why anyone was ever foolish or naive enough to think this is what thought helping Iraq looks like.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kcaziP-0o&nohtml5
    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who were pro war were all fully onboard with killing arabs, for different motivations perhaps, but invading a country after a heavy bombing campaign is rarely done out of concern for it's inhabitants.

    Once again, the people who start and propose these wars don't believe any of that. They might convince others to believe it, but those people don't start the wars, they're just useful idiots.

    3. Declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would do nothing. The Israeli government was ethnically cleansing it at apparently just the right rate not to ever bring serious pressure to bare and would do so afterward. It is a bizzarre decision because East Jerusalem was always supposed to be the capital of the Palestinian state. Recognising the entire city as the capital of Israel would end the ability of the US to even broker the (Admittedly farcical) two state solution talks. One of my favourite clips is the clear rigging of the vote at the DNC convention on changing the policy of the Democratic party on this issue. Whom was Villaraigosa afraid of? There were about equal numbers for and against...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sWTwbzAcw&t=0m51s

    The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology. Hell, even Wolf Blitzer was once the head PR man for the Israel military in DC. Why did Clinton, Saunders and Trump (Even missing a debate) all go to the AIPAC conference, you know that annual event that average Americans care so much about?

    If there is no powerful Israel lobby why are American politicians so terrified of it?

    "I’m telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews" Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith.
    , @helena
    "European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel."

    Except that we know Blair followed Bush into war with Iraq, against the wishes of the people. There is quite a large groundswell of opinion that Blair should stand trial for war crimes. And the ME massacre started with Iraq.

    Except also that the voices in the media who advocate immigration are very often Jewish and so are those that support Israel. Maureen Lipman for instance overstepped the mark with her pro-Israel stance. Nowadays we even have an infiltration of Americans telling Brits what to think and how to vote.

    Except also that the media never mentions Israel - a country that borders the region of civil war, does that not strike you as strange? And the public mention Israel very rarely but when they do, the big AS label is immediately brought out by a plethora of Jewish people complaining. And don't forget Europeans can get a criminal record for being deemed AS. That's a huge disincentive to open debate.

    ****

    Time will tell; where Israel's borders are when all this is over.

  92. http://m.dw.com/en/berlin-police-raid-homes-in-crackdown-on-right-wing-hate-speech/a-18845429

    Merkel has found some borders worth patrolling. Those around acceptable opinion.

  93. @Alec Leamas
    It is clear by now to anyone who examines the attitudes and tacit beliefs of Westerners that Arabs and Muslims have no moral agency. (Arabs and Muslims seem to have either internalized this belief or are at least taking advantage of the implicit weakness of Westerners; see: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-child-of-the-french-banlieues-where-so-many-isis-converts-come-from-i-have-a-message-for-a6969301.html )

    Israel is ruled by its Ashkenazi elite, whom Westerners consider white. Therefore if they're involved in any way in the affairs of Arabs and Muslims - even collaterally - they're to blame as the latter have no agency.

    Of course, there doesn't seem to be any discussion as to why allowing large numbers of actors without moral agency who are prone to violence to immigrate to Western countries is a good thing for the West.

    It’s also clear from the number and vehemence of responses to my original posting that the exact opposite is true for Jews in the fevered minds of some – no only do they have agency, but they have superagency – they control the foreign policy of the US, they have been planning Assad’s downfall (indeed a takeover of the entire Middle East) since the ’80s (or maybe the year 80?), they are the power behind every throne, the man behind every curtain.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "they are the power behind every throne, the man behind every curtain."

    If it is true that Jews rule the world, than they are the true Master Race and not Nordics who don't run shit. Nordics are as powerless as Papua New Guineans.

  94. @WJ
    Israel has conducted periodic military attacks on Assad forces during the war and they have treated and returned anti-Assad rebels back to the battlefield after combat injuries. But even though their involvement goes much deeper than this they are not the main instigators of this conflict.

    Prominent Americans of the Jewish faith have been almost universally in favor of American intervention against Assad.

    Israel sees a post Assad Syria as less of a threat and therefore his downfall is in their interest. It is quite reasonable to assume that they would be low key participants in the war.

    Israel has made clear that if ANY party to the Syrian civil war violates its sovereignty, it will be punished. The rules of the game are that the Syrians, pro and anti Assad, can kill each other as much as they please all day every day on their side of the border and Israel doesn’t care (they figure they win either way), but if you set foot or fly over the border line even for a second you are going to get shot at by Israel. Israel does give humanitarian medical aid, even to its Hamas enemies in Gaza.

    I’m not sure that Assad is really more of a threat to Israel than ISIS. The border with Syria has been calm for decades. ISIS are the kind of guys who might launch suicide raids across the border, etc.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    A partitioned Syria would serve Israeli interests better from my point of view. An Alwai, Druze, Kurd and rump Sunni state. The Druze state and an Alawi state with no Assads would likely have diplomatic relations with Israel. The Kurd state might as well. I doubt that the DC foreign policy establishment favors this idea, as it undermines the "moral" case against Russian Crimea.

    ISIS is too much of a bandit economy, and it rejects any pretense of the post-Westphalian international system. Without the tacit non-interference by Erdogan, they would have already burnt out.

    From the original neocon perspective, the goal is to make every Middle Eastern state a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel. By now I doubt that even Kagan & Kagan really think another "humanitarian intervention" will create a New Switzerland on the Tigris.

    Their main "fear" is that Iran will ship a nuke through Iraq/Syria, give it to Hezbollah, and then nuke Tel Aviv.
    , @No_0ne
    "ISIS are the kind of guys who might launch suicide raids across the border, etc."

    Interesting viewpoint, especially since ISIS has never attacked Israel to date, have they? Kind of like al-Qaeda that way...

    I don't even think that they've chopped any heads of individual Israelis, have they? Remarkable that they managed to find Japanese and Italians to decapitate, but no Israelis or Jews, isn't it?
  95. OT:

    Possibly you already know about EU politico Frans Timmermans–the Central Comitee of the European People’s Republic declares the abolition of its people.

    Short speech (1:31) and transcript:

    • Replies: @anon
    timmerman is an antisemite

    he just said israel must not exist as a jewish state
    , @Ace
    Barbara Spectre is not this evil.
  96. @utu
    "Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. " Really?

    The Yinon Plan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"

    Yinon’s 30 year old article is the new “Protocol of the Elders of Zion” and about as persuasive. Mentioning it instantly outs you as a fruitcake – you couldn’t be more credible if you posted a photo of yourself wearing your tinfoil hat.

  97. @Jack D
    It's also clear from the number and vehemence of responses to my original posting that the exact opposite is true for Jews in the fevered minds of some - no only do they have agency, but they have superagency - they control the foreign policy of the US, they have been planning Assad's downfall (indeed a takeover of the entire Middle East) since the '80s (or maybe the year 80?), they are the power behind every throne, the man behind every curtain.

    “they are the power behind every throne, the man behind every curtain.”

    If it is true that Jews rule the world, than they are the true Master Race and not Nordics who don’t run shit. Nordics are as powerless as Papua New Guineans.

  98. If Germany is feeling really guilty, I have a suggestion for them. Forget the Syrians, take in a million or more Palestinians.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Which Palestinians? The Arab Palestinians? The Jewish Palestinians? The Muslim Palestinians? The Christian Palestinians? The Druze Palestinians?
  99. @utu
    "Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. " Really?

    The Yinon Plan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"

    “Israel had very little to do with the Syrian civil war. ” Really?

    The Yinon Plan

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

    1980s? We’ve been plotting this thing since the time of King Jeroboam! Read your 2 Kings.

  100. @War for Blair Mountain
    Steve

    Report from the Donald Trump Gruman Corp rally last night in Bethpage-South Hicksville.

    I drove all the way in from bucolic Sag Harbor North Shore Country Side. The audience was overwhelmingly Native Born White American Male. The surrounding are is demographically overwhelmingly Northern India Punjabi Region....followed by Korean. I did not see one Asian "American" face at the Trump rally. As other people have pointed out:Ranger Hockey fan types.

    Despite this, The Constitution Tards still believe that the majority of Hindu-Sihk Korean "Americans" are going to vote for Donald Trump because they are Conservative and love the Constitution like Republican White Guys.

    The Trump Crowd White Bros in the audience knew the "Eddy and Brenda" types in High School...The composer of "Eddy and Brenda" grew up less than a mile north of where the Trump Rally took place last night.


    The building where the Trump Rally took place is the same building where the LEM was designed and built by Native Born White American Male Engineers...all of whom went to engineering school on the GI Bill.

    Recent History of the building:1)The Who did tour warm-up there recently...2)Alex Baldwin produced and directed "The Devil and Daniel Webster" there staring Anthony Hopkins....the rest of the movie was shot in John Derbyshire's hometown on a very snowy day.

    White American males? No Koreans? Trump is set to lose 5% of the crucial Korean American vote. Just think, maybe 35% was possible if he pandered hard enough. And of course, you just know that the NY rumpus room in which Cruz held his rally was packed with Koreans.

  101. @Yak-15
    It does not really matter what they do. The fertility points in one direction for most of Western Europe. It really is too bad.

    Why does everyone keep acting like the population MUST ABSOLUTELY increase OR ELSE.
    The welfare state policies that Europe implemented after WWII worked well for a couple generations but were feasible only as long as the U.S. provided defense.
    The population of most Western countries could contract and still maintain a high level of productivity.
    None of this has to end badly… but of course it will anyway.

  102. OT – SJW journalist claims it’s “worrying” that NBA mvp Steph Curry didn’t come out strongly against new NC transphobic bathroom law:

    http://theclassical.org/articles/steph-curry-needs-to-shoot-his-shot

  103. Tainted by hereditary blood guilt … so genetically fearsome that the threat they pose … brilliant PR feint to cover up the emerging New Order …

    Weiss is just the wurst, hab ich recht?

  104. – Or Germans are so genetically fearsome that the threat they pose to the rest of the world must be diluted by mass migration;

    Why not “Germans are so genetically evil that they pose a threat to the rest of the world.”

    [Remember: All behavior is heritable.]

    • Replies: @Bad memories
    Of course, "evil" is usually defined as behavior that makes those people better [of] than my people.
    , @Anonymous

    [Remember: All behavior is heritable.]
     
    Yes, according to the HBD viewpoint subscribed to by many here, shouldn't Germans be genetically genocidal anti-Semites? HBD types will explain everything from a pimple on someone's ass to a guy slipping on a banana peel to genetics.
  105. @German_reader
    There is no logic to any of this, a lot of Germans are pretty irrational, and political discourse in this country has become highly suffused with moralism (often of an explicitly religious bent). There's also a lot of typical German hybris (Merkel claimed it is Germany's nature to do exceptional things - like Operation Barbarossa? - so of course "integration" of millions of Muslims won't be a problem...we're not like those heartless French and Belgian racists who have marginalized their Muslims!). And of course, once again Germans can feel superior to Eastern Europeans.
    Germans on the whole really are fairly stupid.

    People of any group are “on the whole” pretty stupid. A distribution curve of IQs for any group, of any race or nationality in the world, contains vast numbers of mediocre minds. Germans included.

    The real hubris happens when a group teaches its young that they all are exceptional. I won’t bother to identify which groups do this.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, this has not too much to do with IQs. There are smart Germans -- scientists, intellectuals -- who believe that Germans have a "duty" to let in millions of very foreign people that are nothing like Germans (hot-headed and violent especially, Germans are, on the whole, meek); they might not be too educated though, because the more educated you are, the more you want to preserve the culture you grew up with and with which you spent hours upon hours in your youth -- reading classics, listening to classical music and learning European languages.

    But talking of IQ, we should also note the standard deviation: it's high for Europeans, leading to very dumb people, but also extreme geniuses (of which Germany had plenty). I think it's mostly decades of brainwashing, "Re-education".
  106. @theo the kraut
    OT:

    Possibly you already know about EU politico Frans Timmermans--the Central Comitee of the European People’s Republic declares the abolition of its people.

    Short speech (1:31) and transcript:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIE9Ztn56Ig

    timmerman is an antisemite

    he just said israel must not exist as a jewish state

  107. @Whiskey
    Ariel Sharon counseled Bush NOT to invade. Of course, AIPAC wanted Saddam gone but then Jews in the US who are neoconservative are pretty much opposite the Likud people in Israel. Likud wanted Saddam as a counterbalance to Threat #1, Iran. These are the choices of small nations threatened by neighbors -- not much room for moral absolutism.

    Merkel is flooding Europe with Muslims because she is a Christian. That is what Christianity is all about -- and as the daughter of a pastor she's as Christian as the Pope. Who also wants this. Christianity has the doctrine of universal brotherhood, preference for the refugee (as Christ was), a moral elect and eternally damned who are both predestined (in the Calvinist sense) and universal utopianism. Christianity was the garden from which both Marxism and Multiculturalism as religions arose, as Peter Frost noted.

    Merkel is just another aging, post menopausal White women overcome with religious feeling and HATE HATE HATE of her beta male White peers. That the rapefugees are mostly young Muslim men swaggering around is just a lady part thrill to mix in with the moral superiority.

    as the daughter of a pastor she’s as Christian as the Pope

    Is this inference based on genes or environment?

  108. @Stephen R. Diamond

    - Or Germans are so genetically fearsome that the threat they pose to the rest of the world must be diluted by mass migration;
     
    Why not "Germans are so genetically evil that they pose a threat to the rest of the world."

    [Remember: All behavior is heritable.]

    Of course, “evil” is usually defined as behavior that makes those people better [of] than my people.

  109. @This Is Our Home
    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means. It basically means in the public sphere. Like a newspaper article. It barely counts as a leak and therefore does not show any secret workings of intentions, just someone's opinion.

    Yes, and these are the opinions documented to have been under consideration in our State Department.

    I could care less if it is a leak or not. If you were anything but literal in your thinking, you would understand that I am showing State Department discourse that influences our foreign policy, not exposing a leak.

    Nice try, hasbara.

  110. @Stephen R. Diamond

    - Or Germans are so genetically fearsome that the threat they pose to the rest of the world must be diluted by mass migration;
     
    Why not "Germans are so genetically evil that they pose a threat to the rest of the world."

    [Remember: All behavior is heritable.]

    [Remember: All behavior is heritable.]

    Yes, according to the HBD viewpoint subscribed to by many here, shouldn’t Germans be genetically genocidal anti-Semites? HBD types will explain everything from a pimple on someone’s ass to a guy slipping on a banana peel to genetics.

  111. If Germany must be punished, then Mongolia should be incinerated. And then Sub-Saharan Africa, for slavery. Then all the Muslims, for their barbaric practice of castrating their slaves.

    Etc.

    Israel is ruled by its Ashkenazi elite, whom Westerners consider white. Therefore if they’re involved in any way in the affairs of Arabs and Muslims – even collaterally – they’re to blame as the latter have no agency.

    Please. Jews have no agency (when the subject is anything bad). They’re the original Dindunuffins. Just ask them. Any Jew or leftist or conservative will tell you. Though a few leftists do revoke this Jewish Privilege when it comes to Palestine.

  112. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill B.
    Eh?

    Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on - in their bones - a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?

    Do not forget that the initial welcome for immigration in Germany was hardly contested by the highly conformist lickspittle German media. It was also whipped on by energetic but highly unrepresentative Soros-style One World groups.

    The Germans were repeatedly asked if they supported apple pie and motherhood and of course gave the required answers.

    Merkel is a wicked woman. Rochefoucauld pointed out that some bad people are even more dangerous for having some goodness in them.

    Do not forget that the initial welcome for immigration in Germany was hardly contested by the highly conformist lickspittle German media.

    Editor of major newspaper says he planted stories for CIA
    By Ralph Lopez Jan 26, 2015 in World
    Becoming the first credentialed, well-known media insider to step forward and state publicly that he was secretly a “propagandist,” an editor of a major German daily has claimed that he personally planted stories for the CIA. http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/editor-of-major-german-newspaper-says-he-planted-stories-for-cia/article/424470#ixzz455dxHBre

  113. Yes, according to the HBD viewpoint subscribed to by many here, shouldn’t Germans be genetically genocidal anti-Semites? HBD types will explain everything from a pimple on someone’s ass to a guy slipping on a banana peel to genetics.

    Projection. You think nothing has anything to do with HBD, so you assume HBDers all think everything is all about HBD.

    You missed the whole “nature + nurture” thing because you’re used to ignoring and denying one side of the equation yourself.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's not projection, it's consistency. According to HBD types, a Mexican guy who picks his nose in public is due to genetics. Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.
    , @tris
    nah, i think Anonymous is just one of the IDF online bots going against anything critical of the chosen. they infest every forum nowadays
  114. Put another way; to an Inquisitor, everything looks like heresy.

  115. @conatus
    The thing with the Germans that nobody seems to mention is they live in the ghetto of Europe, Mitteleuropa. At least compared to the snooty Brits and the oh-so-noble Americans with their English channel and 3000 mile Atlantic ocean, the Germans have enemies right across the river.
    The Germans were forced into militarism by their neighborhood.
    First Charlemagne came along in 782 and beheaded 4,500 Saxons(180,000 in today's population) because they were not sufficiently Christian and loving like Charlemagne. Then in the Thirty years War, 1618-1648, the Great powers, like fearsome Sweden ran all over the many ununited little principalities forcing the Germans to drink Schwedentrunk and reveal where their daughters and their cows were hidden. The Germans lost a third of their male population.
    They had to unite and be bad asses merely to be left alone.Thank Gott for the Prussians.The Germans finally get it together in the middle of the 1800s and then the Brits pitch a fit because they can't have a strong continental power. WTF?
    So we win WWI for the Brits, the Germans are pissed they got robbed of their time in the sun on the continent and they go with Adolf Ragnarok, they get carpet bombed back into Morganthau wilderness by Bomber Harris and now they end up as the depository of all the Guilt in the world. Its been going on for 72 years and we still have 36,000 troops there to keep the frothing Hun from bayoneting more babies.
    All because they live in a lousy neighborhood.

    Best comment in the thread.

    • Agree: SolontoCroesus, Ace
  116. @anon
    Would that be true if the culture hadn't suppressed what happened in Russia / Ukraine immediately preceding the rise of Fascist parties in Europe i.e. the mass murder of millions in Bolshevik concentration camps?

    I'd suggest in that case the Nazis would be seen now as an extreme reaction to a real and extreme Bolshevik threat - still a bad thing but not entirely irrational or out of the blue.

    In which the white guilt currently being manipulated to destroy western civilization would be largely the fault of covering up what the Bolsheviks did.

    It would be questionable to associate the Nazis as the direct blowback of the Bolshevik revolution. The Spartacist coup led to the formation of the Freikorps, which eventually led to the Beer Hall Putsch, but that was more than a decade away from their rise to power.

    Until the absolute collapse of the German economy, the NSDAP had little support. Once the economy went under, there were three likely options of authoritarian rule: a military coup by Kurt Schleicher, the Nazis, and the least likely the Communist Party in Germany. Any USSR military support for a Communist coup in Germany would have had to roll over non-Communist Poland.

    • Replies: @Pseudonymous

    It would be questionable to associate the Nazis as the direct blowback of the Bolshevik revolution. The Spartacist coup led to the formation of the Freikorps, which eventually led to the Beer Hall Putsch, but that was more than a decade away from their rise to power.
     
    The Nazi Party was founded on the same day as the Spartacist coup. (5 January 1919)
  117. @Anonymous
    i live in germany. Here's the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
    Ordnary krauts are indoctrinated by allied reeducation and generally conformist. Merkel games her party and socialists and greens to maintain power. German media is tightly controlled and used to shame germans into submission. New AfD are tough coz the establishment resistance is strong. But they are changing the political landscape.

    i live in germany. Here’s the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.

    Hilarious shit.

    You need to get in tune with the reality that Germans are doing this to themselves.

    • Replies: @tris
    i guess u didn't like to hear about her background.
    so what qualifies you from knowing it better? did germans get a chance to vote on this? oh yes I forgot, they recently did during local elections, and guess what, Merkel got an indirect downvote.
    , @anon
    In which case why is Zuckerberg censoring Facebook to help the German state?

    The destruction of the Western nations is only happening (and could only happen) because the mass media is owned by and actively supporting the globalists against the people.
  118. @Jack D
    Israel has made clear that if ANY party to the Syrian civil war violates its sovereignty, it will be punished. The rules of the game are that the Syrians, pro and anti Assad, can kill each other as much as they please all day every day on their side of the border and Israel doesn't care (they figure they win either way), but if you set foot or fly over the border line even for a second you are going to get shot at by Israel. Israel does give humanitarian medical aid, even to its Hamas enemies in Gaza.

    I'm not sure that Assad is really more of a threat to Israel than ISIS. The border with Syria has been calm for decades. ISIS are the kind of guys who might launch suicide raids across the border, etc.

    A partitioned Syria would serve Israeli interests better from my point of view. An Alwai, Druze, Kurd and rump Sunni state. The Druze state and an Alawi state with no Assads would likely have diplomatic relations with Israel. The Kurd state might as well. I doubt that the DC foreign policy establishment favors this idea, as it undermines the “moral” case against Russian Crimea.

    ISIS is too much of a bandit economy, and it rejects any pretense of the post-Westphalian international system. Without the tacit non-interference by Erdogan, they would have already burnt out.

    From the original neocon perspective, the goal is to make every Middle Eastern state a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel. By now I doubt that even Kagan & Kagan really think another “humanitarian intervention” will create a New Switzerland on the Tigris.

    Their main “fear” is that Iran will ship a nuke through Iraq/Syria, give it to Hezbollah, and then nuke Tel Aviv.

    • Replies: @No_0ne
    "From the original neocon perspective, the goal is to make every Middle Eastern state a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel."

    Hilarious. What makes this statment even more comical is that it's immediately preceded by your elaborate plan for the vivisection of Syria into the maximum possible number of fragments, all for the benefit of Greater Israel.

    Perhaps if you replaced "...a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel" with "a failed state that is no longer able to oppose Israel," your allegation would be closer to the truth...
  119. @Bill B.
    Eh?

    Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on - in their bones - a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?

    Do not forget that the initial welcome for immigration in Germany was hardly contested by the highly conformist lickspittle German media. It was also whipped on by energetic but highly unrepresentative Soros-style One World groups.

    The Germans were repeatedly asked if they supported apple pie and motherhood and of course gave the required answers.

    Merkel is a wicked woman. Rochefoucauld pointed out that some bad people are even more dangerous for having some goodness in them.

    “Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on – in their bones – a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?”

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘in their bones’, but when offered a choice of an anti-migrant party to vote for, the majority in each country you mentioned voted otherwise.

    I can add all the Scandinavian nations.

    They vote by secret ballot BTW

    • Replies: @anon
    People vote for mainstream politicians who say they will control immigration but don't when in power.

    The media help the mainstream parties in this by lying and covering up what is happening and by attacking the livelihoods of anyone who resist.

    The majority are clearly in no way doing this to themselves; it is being done to them and saying otherwise is part of the demoralization process.
  120. @Svigor

    Yes, according to the HBD viewpoint subscribed to by many here, shouldn’t Germans be genetically genocidal anti-Semites? HBD types will explain everything from a pimple on someone’s ass to a guy slipping on a banana peel to genetics.
     
    Projection. You think nothing has anything to do with HBD, so you assume HBDers all think everything is all about HBD.

    You missed the whole "nature + nurture" thing because you're used to ignoring and denying one side of the equation yourself.

    It’s not projection, it’s consistency. According to HBD types, a Mexican guy who picks his nose in public is due to genetics. Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.

    • Replies: @Discard
    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?

    Straw man argument, troll. Badly done.
    , @tris
    hey Anonymous, you seem to be picking on anything related to the chosen. how about stepping out of the shadows with a moniker?
    , @anon

    Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.
     
    Who ran the Bolshevik concentration camps?
  121. @Tiny Duck
    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    Sick Duck – we here at the ABE Collective issue the following statement: You are one sick F**k.
    You probably give up your ducklings for the rats to devour.

  122. @Gabriel M
    I'll take the time to respond to this post in detail because it details the main flaws in alternative-right thought.

    1) American provincialism: America's Middle East policy is insane; Jews are influential in the U.S. , therefore Jews are behind the U.S.'s insane policy. The problem is that European countries where Jews are far less influential have policies just as insane and, most importantly, there is no correlation between the degree of support for overthrowing Assad and support for Israel. For example, Sweden and Norway are the most consistently pro-Palestinian countries in Europe and both have been gung-ho for getting rid of Assad. The same goes for immigration. If you only know about America it perhaps seems plausible that the only reason Americans are willing to allow themselves to be colonised by third world derelicts is because the Jews - undoubtedly influential in America- are manipulating them into it. But then you look at European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel. This leads us to.

    2) The refusal to believe your enemies have sincere beliefs: Again, you postulate that no-one could possibly want to overthrow Assad unless they were in thrawl to the Israeli lobby. Well, let me explain. Imagine you believed that human evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and there are no significant differences between human populations with regard to cognition and behavioral traits. Imagine, further that you believed that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islamic culture. Sure, it's got a chequered past and it's fair share of bad apples, but so does everyone. Now you - and I - may find both views absurd, but they are held by, conservatively, 95% of educated people. There may once have been a large amount of respectable people who knew perfectly well that race is real, but chose to keep quiet about it, but they retired decades ago.
    Now, let's imagine you hold these beliefs and you look at the Middle East. What do you see? Country after country being run by corrupt dictators with living standards, liberty, etc. etc. far below those of the West. Of course there is nothing wrong with the people in these countries; there is even nothing all that wrong with their culture. The obvious conclusion is that if you could just get rid of these dictators who are inexplicably running all these countries, everything would be awesome. How do I know people believe this? Because I once believed it myself. What cured me was a combination of the manifest failure of the Iraq war, plus the discovery of HBD. Whilst I was at university, I knew, literally, hundreds of people who believed in liberal creationism. The ones who opposed nation-building in the Middle East only did so because they believe that Whitey has some inherently evil reverse Midas Touch that means they can never do any good in the world. They all believed that if Saddam/Assad/Gaddafi could be brought down by their own people without western help then everything would be dandy. Ironically, their batty beliefs cancelled each other out and resulted in a relatively saner policy. Some of those people are now working in think-tanks pushing for interventionism and/or mass immigration. Since I know that they sincerely believed in these daft ideas before they got these jobs, the most reasonable assumption is that they still sincerely believe in these daft ideas, not that know their ideas are false, but serve as a proxy for Israeli interests (especially, since this is Britain we are talking about, most of them don't even like Israel.)

    3 The refusal to recognise other people's scale of priorities: Apparently the Israel lobby is running American foreign policy. Well, it's quite easy to test whether this is true. There is a broad cross-party consensus in Israel that has been espoused by every government since 1967 that Jerusalem is irrevocably united and is the capital of Israel. And yet not a single U.S. President has recognized united Jerusalem as Israel's capital because, quite simply, the Saudis won't have it. I'm telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews if I could run the U.S. for a day that's the first thing I'd do. Maybe I'd have some grand scheme for re-organising the Middle East, maybe not, but I'd do the capital thing before anything else. Then I'd do Iran. Then I'd recognise the annexation of the Golan Heights. Then maybe I'd do some stuff that doesn't command cross-party support in Israel, like telling the Palestinians to take a hike. Only after all that stuff, would I move on to whatever my plans are for Syria.

    4) The insistence of searching for the most implausibly malevolent interpretations of your enemy's actions Apparently Israel wants "to destroy" Syria. Why they would want to do so is not really clear, so we fall back on weird stuff like "they've run out of better targets" (uhh, hello, Iran) or they want to "see the last functioning state in the Levant broken" (uhh, hello, Jordan). This is especially odd given that there is perfectly plausible explanation for Israeli actions with regard to the Syrian Civil War: Israel's northern border is controlled by Hizb'Allah; Hizb'Allah is fighting in Syria on behalf of Assad; Israeli would like to see as many Hizb'Allah fighters die as possible.

    5) The desire to explain everything in terms of malevolence Just as the Iraq war proves that no amount of interventionism is ever enough for interventionists; the Syria war proves that no amount of non-intervention is ever enough for non-interventionists. The Assad regime was based demographically on a shrinking minority of the population; it was loathed with ever increasing ferocity by the growing majority. Like all governments, it faces the unsolvable problem that you can only buy support by pissing someone else off and so, because inefficiency is baked into the cake, you end up ever more unpopular over time, unless some economic windfall saves your bacon. (This parenthetically is the only valid argument for democracy: since regime change is inevitable, it is good to have a mechanism whereby it can occur with bloodshed and wild swings of policy). Now, it's possible that Syrian Ba'athism had solved the unsolvable and become the only permanent regime in human history, until America came along and ruined it, but it's more reasonable to suppose that sooner or later, the Assad family's time was up and the result would be a massive spike in ethnic violence until the country run out of low IQ 17-25 year old with nothing to lose.

    I think a problem is people see how angry and vulgar people can be about this issue, partly because respectable people can’t talk about these things. We all want to be nice and respectable but what we know about the world makes that hard, try as we might we can’t go along with our new religion. So some cope by finding ways to separate themselves from ‘those people’, talking about ‘culture’ and assimilation and others cope by adopting this weird anti-Islam = pro-Israel stance. But just because unpleasant people hate Jews doesn’t mean that there isn’t a serious cohort of Jews in America who are zionists who do affect US policy in the Middle East. Thus we get ‘lol you guys always blame the joos’. The last 15 to 20 years has seen the Neo-cons very effectively co-opt the US State Department, Victoria Nuland being an almost parody of a neo-con.

    1. Yes, Norway, Ireland and Sweden’s immigration policy and multiculturalism was entirely developed indigenously has been in no way influenced by the US. I think Americans underestimate how influential it is, American media and elite opinion matters in Sweden, at least to the Swedish elite. The United States was the most powerful country in the world and decided that anti-racism was the great You do not need an alienated ethnic elite in your country to feed you ‘anti-racism’ in TV, film and other media. The internet has driven this up to 11, being dominated by American. You think these ideas spontaneously took root? Modern Academic Sociology, the priesthood of this new religion is an almost entirely American field.

    2. I can’t speak to why anyone was ever foolish or naive enough to think this is what thought helping Iraq looks like.

    I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people who were pro war were all fully onboard with killing arabs, for different motivations perhaps, but invading a country after a heavy bombing campaign is rarely done out of concern for it’s inhabitants.

    Once again, the people who start and propose these wars don’t believe any of that. They might convince others to believe it, but those people don’t start the wars, they’re just useful idiots.

    3. Declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would do nothing. The Israeli government was ethnically cleansing it at apparently just the right rate not to ever bring serious pressure to bare and would do so afterward. It is a bizzarre decision because East Jerusalem was always supposed to be the capital of the Palestinian state. Recognising the entire city as the capital of Israel would end the ability of the US to even broker the (Admittedly farcical) two state solution talks. One of my favourite clips is the clear rigging of the vote at the DNC convention on changing the policy of the Democratic party on this issue. Whom was Villaraigosa afraid of? There were about equal numbers for and against…

    The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology. Hell, even Wolf Blitzer was once the head PR man for the Israel military in DC. Why did Clinton, Saunders and Trump (Even missing a debate) all go to the AIPAC conference, you know that annual event that average Americans care so much about?

    If there is no powerful Israel lobby why are American politicians so terrified of it?

    “I’m telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews” Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    On number 1, it was Christopher Caldwell in his book "Reflections on the Revolutions in Europe" who remarked that the whole multikulti thing was a cultural import run amok from the US and that European elites would be horrified to have to recognize this. We truly are the septic tank of American culture. The whole world really, but they might still have some cultural defenses against this.
    , @Gabriel M
    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it's possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn't make any difference. There's no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for "F**k You!" most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to "Bet on Iraqi democracy" by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That's what Israelis wants America to do and that's what they'd make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran's nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    "The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology."
     
    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I've described. Since there's no such thing as race and everyone's the same, and since there's nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written "You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it's all cool because all I care about is Israel's security". That's what you claim they really think, but you certainly can't prove it based on their "explicit"ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was "racist". According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it's reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.


    "Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith."

    That's cheap and you know it.
    , @No_0ne
    1. You might want to look into the ownership of the "Swedish" media as well, starting with the Bonnier (Hirschel) family...

    3. It's the old "ethnocentricism for me, but not for thee" argument. Seems to work for them, though.
  123. While Germany continues it’s dance of death, some American hipsters seem to think it’s all jumped the shark:

  124. A general rule of thumb is that in a given collection of people, the ones most sensitive to the outcome of the decision, sensitive interpreted in an imagined or expected sense, tend to be the ones most desirous of leadership regarding the decision. Thus the most exposed have the greatest likelihood of leadership. This system is stable in general, but unstable under conditions where the most sensitive are no longer able to signal their peril, and the obsessive controllers “decision makers” are insulated from the threat for a variety of reasons.

  125. @wren
    I don't know if this has been posted here before.

    It is an ad pushing the idea that real Germans are not real Germans, or something.

    http://youtu.be/HMQkV5cTuoY

    It’s satire. In an unrelated video Bohmermann makes fun of the President of Turkey, which may be a crime in Germany for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_B%C3%B6hmermann

    • Replies: @wren
    I was hoping it was satire, but I don't think it is.

    The point seems to be that the new coalition of the fringes Germany now belongs to everyone but traditional Germans.

    I hope I am wrong about that.
  126. @George
    It's satire. In an unrelated video Bohmermann makes fun of the President of Turkey, which may be a crime in Germany for some reason.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_B%C3%B6hmermann

    I was hoping it was satire, but I don’t think it is.

    The point seems to be that the new coalition of the fringes Germany now belongs to everyone but traditional Germans.

    I hope I am wrong about that.

  127. @AndrewR
    Pay no attention to his ethnicity or Sailer will memory hole you....

    Gregor Gysi is only three eighths Jewish by ancestry (via his paternal grandmother and one of his maternal great-grandfathers).

    • Replies: @tris
    the on-drop rule seems to be the effective ancestry rule in israel
  128. @anon

    One possible way to make sense out of the seeming randomness of this
     
    Merkel created a crisis that allowed the EU to make a power grab over immigration and frontiers from the member nations.

    Not random.

    The history of the EU is the history of a slow motion coup d'etat where a pack of sociopath politicians slowly got rid of any checks and balances restraining their exercise of power.

    On top of that both the EU and UN talk openly (but quietly) among themselves about population replacement in a target list of countries.

    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7653846.stm

    The reason people have such a hard time believing what is happening even though it is plain as day and some of the actors say exactly what the plan is, is most people aren't sociopaths or psychopaths so they can't comprehend evil on this scale.

    Exactly, normal people just can’t believe how evil the multi-cults are. As a tradesman, I fell way behind economically, because I could not accept that affirmative action and de-industrialization were real. It makes no sense, if you’re normal.

  129. @Anonymous
    i live in germany. Here's the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
    Ordnary krauts are indoctrinated by allied reeducation and generally conformist. Merkel games her party and socialists and greens to maintain power. German media is tightly controlled and used to shame germans into submission. New AfD are tough coz the establishment resistance is strong. But they are changing the political landscape.

    Angela Merkel does have Polish ancestry on her father’s side, but there is no strong evidence that she has any Jewish ancestry.

  130. @Anonymous
    It's not projection, it's consistency. According to HBD types, a Mexican guy who picks his nose in public is due to genetics. Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.

    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?

    Straw man argument, troll. Badly done.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    HBD for thee, but not for me.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?
     
    All behavior is heritable. (Jayman.)

    That, of course, doesn't mean it's entirely genetic. But one would think a consistent HBDer would at least consider the possibility that German Nazism had (direct) genetic roots (leading to the further speculation that if Germany is self-destructing, it might be because many Germans understand something about themselves missed by their nationalist critics).

    , @Romanian
    Maybe Mexicans produce more mucus that hardens more quickly, necessitating further cleaning in the area which, for the lower orders, is done through nose picking. The differences in ear wax among groups have been studied.
  131. @Altai
    "Israel wanted Assad to go, and so AIPAC wanted the same thing, and that did have an enormous effect on American policy"

    It was the only factor in US policy. Nothing about US foreign policy in the Middle East makes sense except that it has been captured by the Israel-lobby. How exactly does American benefit from a stable secular regime in Syria being overrun by salafists augmented by international brigades with passports that have automatic no 30-day no visa entry requirements for the US? How does prolonging an ethnic civil war work unless you don't care about the outcome except to destroy the country it's happening in.

    Syria only makes sense from the perspective of Israel wishing to see the last functioning state in the levant being broken. Is it a serious strategic threat? No, but they've run out of better targets and they're not paying the bills or shouldering the burden either. They're continuously pushing against an open door. It's like the quote from the IRA, reasonable people in the US government have to stop them every time to win, the Israel lobby only has to win once and the USAF or CIA proxies turn their target to dust. And since there is never a consequence for their failure. Ie, there was no punishment meted out to the people in the media, defence and state department for pushing for an insane confrontation with Iran, they're free to try again and again. Eventually a president insufficiently appalled at a war with Iran will be weak and need some favours and boom, Western Persia turns into a sheet of glass and god knows what the consequences for the rest of the world will be.

    Most certainly the case. What indeed does it benefit anyone except Israel in the long run to see a secular government overrun by Sunni fanatics? The only reason that is sufficiently compelling is to get the Sunnis and Shiites to fight to the death. The Israeli cucks in the US ran with it once they saw the possibilities.

  132. @Discard
    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?

    Straw man argument, troll. Badly done.

    HBD for thee, but not for me.

  133. @War for Blair Mountain
    Steve

    Report from the Donald Trump Gruman Corp rally last night in Bethpage-South Hicksville.

    I drove all the way in from bucolic Sag Harbor North Shore Country Side. The audience was overwhelmingly Native Born White American Male. The surrounding are is demographically overwhelmingly Northern India Punjabi Region....followed by Korean. I did not see one Asian "American" face at the Trump rally. As other people have pointed out:Ranger Hockey fan types.

    Despite this, The Constitution Tards still believe that the majority of Hindu-Sihk Korean "Americans" are going to vote for Donald Trump because they are Conservative and love the Constitution like Republican White Guys.

    The Trump Crowd White Bros in the audience knew the "Eddy and Brenda" types in High School...The composer of "Eddy and Brenda" grew up less than a mile north of where the Trump Rally took place last night.


    The building where the Trump Rally took place is the same building where the LEM was designed and built by Native Born White American Male Engineers...all of whom went to engineering school on the GI Bill.

    Recent History of the building:1)The Who did tour warm-up there recently...2)Alex Baldwin produced and directed "The Devil and Daniel Webster" there staring Anthony Hopkins....the rest of the movie was shot in John Derbyshire's hometown on a very snowy day.

    Indians – the Punjabis are a subset – are the most die hard of immigration advocates. Since their orientation is only towards their families and extended circles of families back in India. The articulate among them are the first to scream discrimination, but try to get a visa to work in India say in Bangalore. Breathtaking hypocrisy is a distinguishing feature of Indians. My theory is that God allowed Pakistan, so that we (I am an Indian) have someone else to point to in this matter.

  134. @Buzz Mohawk
    The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn't help, either.

    White people (goys) are practically born feeling guilty.

    The unfortunate doctrine of original sin doesn’t help, either.

    Believing in original sin is very helpful indeed if you also believe in a Savior. If you believe in original sin, but think you can handle redeeming yourself from it, then you end up with post-Christian western culture.

  135. Meanwhile in France Alain Soral was in court yet again yesterday for “denying crimes against humanity”. He got a suspended sentence of 3 months and a fine to be determined.

    The political Establishment of France has been trying hard to get that country into the level of crippling self-doubt and simmering hysteria that Germany has now achieved but their country seems to be far less up for it. Soral, for one, has put out several videos showing clips from the nearly endless stream of Nazi related stuff put out on TV over there. The opening and closing animations for these videos are something to see. One is at YouTube as: “La minute de la Mémoire – Décembre 2015”. The opening text is a play on words that means “because we don’t have a Shoah” and sounds like “because we don’t have a choice”. The song from “Mary Poppins” in German at the end is the cherry on top.

  136. @gdpbull
    Actually, indirectly, the Nazis are responsible for the world-wide white shame epidemic. If the Nazis never happened, then there would not be the reflex adverse reaction to anything that is not an extreme rejection of all things Nazi. So today it would be ok for European countries to want to keep their own individual ethnicities. It would be ok to not want a flood of third world refugees whose culture is incompatible with Europe. It would be considered crazy to allow masses of lowly educated people with a backward culture to immigrate.

    But not all the blame should be placed on the Nazis. Part of the blame goes on the victorious allies for being overly sanctimonious and actually believing themselves when they declared that they "saved" western civilization. Ever since then they have been actively destroying western civilization in a much more permanent way and in a way that the Nazis could have never imagined.

    Nazis are seen as the inheritors of many ideas that were robust in Western countries leading up to WWII. Racial science and nationalism. So the reaction now is against Nazism but also a repudiation of many of the dominant ideas of the early 20th century.

  137. @TheJester
    iSteve,

    Angela is appealing to reason. As she has already expressed (in so many words), "Germany is such a superior culture that I can't imagine that the new Muslim immigrants, once exposed to it, would not want to integrate and become Germans. Who wouldn't want to become one of US ...?"

    That isn't "blood guilt"; it is not any kind of guilt. It resembles the "Ideologies of Election" -- the assumption of Ubermenschen -- that were the basis for Calvinism and Nazism and still permeates German culture. It is the "New World Order" argument, at least for Europe, which has already been stealthily reincorporated into a new Empire of the German People.

    But Germany faces a different kind of threat with massive immigration from the Middle East and Africa than Angela anticipates. The paradigm of the ordered, rule-following society (that the Germans have apparently patented) is, for the first time, being diluted by people from more primitive clan-based societies organized around a balance-of-terror to keep people in check.

    Good luck, Angela! I don't think the new immigrants are going to buy your argument.

    It’s more than adopting German culture. What she has in mind is the non-whites will intermarry with the whites and become totally integrated that way. This is likely true. At some point in the future many of the descendants of the non-whites who will arrive will likely have intermarried.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Like they did in other European countries where they bring wives and husbands from the home country, segregate themselves into ethnic ghettos and visit the home country once every few years for a few months to immerse themselves (even if they were not born there) in their culture?

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    Not happening, man, except for a small subset of people. And, oddly enough, if you assimilate completely then you stop being a group that one can point to and say "look, they're assimilated". Not everybody can do the Jewish tightrope balancing act of being mainstream and maintaining a separate identity.

    It happened with the Gypsies. They are a separate group, including racially, who maintain endogamy, in-group morality and separation from conventional society. The Gypsies that did inter-marry and wanted to fit in ceased to exist as a group and their descendants consider themselves part of the dominant culture and are likely not even aware of their partial roots. Same thing with the immivasion. Boiling off the weakest and most assimilable members of the group will always leave the rest stronger and more ethnocentric.

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.ro/2014/11/gypsy-intelligence.html
  138. Ace says:
    @Bacon Eater
    Steve: You might try the Allies just after WW2 if you want to hear someone say quite a lot of that stuff you describe. They were quite vehement then on the point that blood guilt for Hitler falls on all Germans as a collective responsibility for which collective blame and punishment shall be assigned. Early occupation and pacification orders included instructions to make sure living conditions in Germany were the worst, to be explicit about how the Germans were being occupied not liberated, to break every institution that might ever make Germany fearsome again, and - oh, just read it:

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/JCS_1067


    No German parades, military or political, civilian or sports, shall be permitted
     
    Directive JCS 1067 would eventually be replaced by Directive JCS 1779 and later the Marshall Plan once people figured out that keeping Germany just barely starved enough that the starvation didn't disrupt the occupation was Not Good For The Economy, but by then a lot of damage had been done.

    I’ve not read much about the immediate aftermath of WWII, other than about Eisenhower’s mistreatment of German POWs and his role in Operation Keelhaul. It does seem like something petty, dishonest and vindictive was central to U.S. conduct toward the Germans, deliberate slow starvation being one clear policy.

    That all changed quickly enough when it was clear German help in the Cold War was vital.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Ike was a mulatto. Also started the process that would eventually become forced busing.
  139. @Ace
    I've not read much about the immediate aftermath of WWII, other than about Eisenhower's mistreatment of German POWs and his role in Operation Keelhaul. It does seem like something petty, dishonest and vindictive was central to U.S. conduct toward the Germans, deliberate slow starvation being one clear policy.

    That all changed quickly enough when it was clear German help in the Cold War was vital.

    Ike was a mulatto. Also started the process that would eventually become forced busing.

  140. @Discard
    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?

    Straw man argument, troll. Badly done.

    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?

    All behavior is heritable. (Jayman.)

    That, of course, doesn’t mean it’s entirely genetic. But one would think a consistent HBDer would at least consider the possibility that German Nazism had (direct) genetic roots (leading to the further speculation that if Germany is self-destructing, it might be because many Germans understand something about themselves missed by their nationalist critics).

    • Replies: @Discard
    Are Germans the only people who have committed mass murder? If not, why would there be a distinctly German sets of genes that causes genocide? Or do the Turks have their own set of genocidal genes, distant from the German? What about the Chinese, the Russians, and the Cambodians? The Belgians? The English? The Comanche? And didn't the Argentinians kill 2/3 of the people of Paraguay back in the 19th century?

    I would agree that the Germans may have a genetic predisposition to do a thorough job, whether building cars or killing people, as do the Japanese.

    Does Jayman argue that Mexicans account for a disproportionate amount of the nose-picking in America? Or only that the son of a nose-picker is more likely to be a nose-picker, whatever the race?
    , @random observer
    Well I haven't read every article or comment touching on HBD around here, but I'm not sure how it is to be applied to examples so absurdly broad or equally absurdly specific.

    All nations, ever, are capable of genocide as members of the human species, and many have committed it. In that, the genetic component of Germany's brief period of exterminationist anti-Semitism is shared by all peoples. The specific period in which this capability was manifested and the target people chosen are more likely the result of environmental conditions [geography, history, proximity, specific cultural and social experiences].

    All human beings are capable of picking their noses and, let's be frank, I doubt anyone has never done so. If so, I will be happy to be enlightened- maybe it's not a human universal, or maybe some culture have such strong taboos they have executed all nose pickers for a hundred generations and bred it out. Dunno. I suspect those willing to do it excessively in public, where it can be noticed, will represent the lower end of the IQ spectrum of any race. to the extent this describes the Mexican subset that comes to America, it is more visible. Do Mexican elites pick their noses where they can be seen? Anyone got a booger shot of Vicente Fox?

    Or in all, all behaviour is heritable, but not all [or perhaps any] 100%. Which seems like the HBD position most widely advanced on this site, by JayMan or anyone else.
  141. @theo the kraut
    OT:

    Possibly you already know about EU politico Frans Timmermans--the Central Comitee of the European People’s Republic declares the abolition of its people.

    Short speech (1:31) and transcript:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIE9Ztn56Ig

    Barbara Spectre is not this evil.

  142. @Stephen R. Diamond

    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?
     
    All behavior is heritable. (Jayman.)

    That, of course, doesn't mean it's entirely genetic. But one would think a consistent HBDer would at least consider the possibility that German Nazism had (direct) genetic roots (leading to the further speculation that if Germany is self-destructing, it might be because many Germans understand something about themselves missed by their nationalist critics).

    Are Germans the only people who have committed mass murder? If not, why would there be a distinctly German sets of genes that causes genocide? Or do the Turks have their own set of genocidal genes, distant from the German? What about the Chinese, the Russians, and the Cambodians? The Belgians? The English? The Comanche? And didn’t the Argentinians kill 2/3 of the people of Paraguay back in the 19th century?

    I would agree that the Germans may have a genetic predisposition to do a thorough job, whether building cars or killing people, as do the Japanese.

    Does Jayman argue that Mexicans account for a disproportionate amount of the nose-picking in America? Or only that the son of a nose-picker is more likely to be a nose-picker, whatever the race?

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    I would agree that the Germans may have a genetic predisposition to do a thorough job, whether building cars or killing people, as do the Japanese.
     
    Well, there you go. You can't commit genocide in the modern world without being thorough.

    As to Turks: some commenters haven't failed to draw the appropriate HBD conclusion.


    Does Jayman argue that Mexicans account for a disproportionate amount of the nose-picking in America? Or only that the son of a nose-picker is more likely to be a nose-picker, whatever the race?
     
    I doubt that nose-picking has been specifically studied. However, according to HBD tenets, it's more likely than not that, if Mexicans are especially avid nose pickers (a claim I can't verify), it is partly due to Mexican genes.
  143. @Gabriel M
    I'll take the time to respond to this post in detail because it details the main flaws in alternative-right thought.

    1) American provincialism: America's Middle East policy is insane; Jews are influential in the U.S. , therefore Jews are behind the U.S.'s insane policy. The problem is that European countries where Jews are far less influential have policies just as insane and, most importantly, there is no correlation between the degree of support for overthrowing Assad and support for Israel. For example, Sweden and Norway are the most consistently pro-Palestinian countries in Europe and both have been gung-ho for getting rid of Assad. The same goes for immigration. If you only know about America it perhaps seems plausible that the only reason Americans are willing to allow themselves to be colonised by third world derelicts is because the Jews - undoubtedly influential in America- are manipulating them into it. But then you look at European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel. This leads us to.

    2) The refusal to believe your enemies have sincere beliefs: Again, you postulate that no-one could possibly want to overthrow Assad unless they were in thrawl to the Israeli lobby. Well, let me explain. Imagine you believed that human evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and there are no significant differences between human populations with regard to cognition and behavioral traits. Imagine, further that you believed that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Islamic culture. Sure, it's got a chequered past and it's fair share of bad apples, but so does everyone. Now you - and I - may find both views absurd, but they are held by, conservatively, 95% of educated people. There may once have been a large amount of respectable people who knew perfectly well that race is real, but chose to keep quiet about it, but they retired decades ago.
    Now, let's imagine you hold these beliefs and you look at the Middle East. What do you see? Country after country being run by corrupt dictators with living standards, liberty, etc. etc. far below those of the West. Of course there is nothing wrong with the people in these countries; there is even nothing all that wrong with their culture. The obvious conclusion is that if you could just get rid of these dictators who are inexplicably running all these countries, everything would be awesome. How do I know people believe this? Because I once believed it myself. What cured me was a combination of the manifest failure of the Iraq war, plus the discovery of HBD. Whilst I was at university, I knew, literally, hundreds of people who believed in liberal creationism. The ones who opposed nation-building in the Middle East only did so because they believe that Whitey has some inherently evil reverse Midas Touch that means they can never do any good in the world. They all believed that if Saddam/Assad/Gaddafi could be brought down by their own people without western help then everything would be dandy. Ironically, their batty beliefs cancelled each other out and resulted in a relatively saner policy. Some of those people are now working in think-tanks pushing for interventionism and/or mass immigration. Since I know that they sincerely believed in these daft ideas before they got these jobs, the most reasonable assumption is that they still sincerely believe in these daft ideas, not that know their ideas are false, but serve as a proxy for Israeli interests (especially, since this is Britain we are talking about, most of them don't even like Israel.)

    3 The refusal to recognise other people's scale of priorities: Apparently the Israel lobby is running American foreign policy. Well, it's quite easy to test whether this is true. There is a broad cross-party consensus in Israel that has been espoused by every government since 1967 that Jerusalem is irrevocably united and is the capital of Israel. And yet not a single U.S. President has recognized united Jerusalem as Israel's capital because, quite simply, the Saudis won't have it. I'm telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews if I could run the U.S. for a day that's the first thing I'd do. Maybe I'd have some grand scheme for re-organising the Middle East, maybe not, but I'd do the capital thing before anything else. Then I'd do Iran. Then I'd recognise the annexation of the Golan Heights. Then maybe I'd do some stuff that doesn't command cross-party support in Israel, like telling the Palestinians to take a hike. Only after all that stuff, would I move on to whatever my plans are for Syria.

    4) The insistence of searching for the most implausibly malevolent interpretations of your enemy's actions Apparently Israel wants "to destroy" Syria. Why they would want to do so is not really clear, so we fall back on weird stuff like "they've run out of better targets" (uhh, hello, Iran) or they want to "see the last functioning state in the Levant broken" (uhh, hello, Jordan). This is especially odd given that there is perfectly plausible explanation for Israeli actions with regard to the Syrian Civil War: Israel's northern border is controlled by Hizb'Allah; Hizb'Allah is fighting in Syria on behalf of Assad; Israeli would like to see as many Hizb'Allah fighters die as possible.

    5) The desire to explain everything in terms of malevolence Just as the Iraq war proves that no amount of interventionism is ever enough for interventionists; the Syria war proves that no amount of non-intervention is ever enough for non-interventionists. The Assad regime was based demographically on a shrinking minority of the population; it was loathed with ever increasing ferocity by the growing majority. Like all governments, it faces the unsolvable problem that you can only buy support by pissing someone else off and so, because inefficiency is baked into the cake, you end up ever more unpopular over time, unless some economic windfall saves your bacon. (This parenthetically is the only valid argument for democracy: since regime change is inevitable, it is good to have a mechanism whereby it can occur with bloodshed and wild swings of policy). Now, it's possible that Syrian Ba'athism had solved the unsolvable and become the only permanent regime in human history, until America came along and ruined it, but it's more reasonable to suppose that sooner or later, the Assad family's time was up and the result would be a massive spike in ethnic violence until the country run out of low IQ 17-25 year old with nothing to lose.

    “European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel.”

    Except that we know Blair followed Bush into war with Iraq, against the wishes of the people. There is quite a large groundswell of opinion that Blair should stand trial for war crimes. And the ME massacre started with Iraq.

    Except also that the voices in the media who advocate immigration are very often Jewish and so are those that support Israel. Maureen Lipman for instance overstepped the mark with her pro-Israel stance. Nowadays we even have an infiltration of Americans telling Brits what to think and how to vote.

    Except also that the media never mentions Israel – a country that borders the region of civil war, does that not strike you as strange? And the public mention Israel very rarely but when they do, the big AS label is immediately brought out by a plethora of Jewish people complaining. And don’t forget Europeans can get a criminal record for being deemed AS. That’s a huge disincentive to open debate.

    ****

    Time will tell; where Israel’s borders are when all this is over.

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    I lived in Britain for 27 years, the idea that the media "never mentions Israel" strikes me as bizarre indeed. Sometimes it felt like they never mentioned anything else.

    Again, I return to my point about American provincialism.
    , @random observer
    Blair is a Catholic, not a Jew. His universalism and progressivism appear sui generis, but most heavily driven by his Christianity and his liberalism.

    Even presuming Israel is at fault, asking where its borders will be when this is all over is a pretty odd question coming from anyone living in North America, which north of the Rio Grande comprises two countries established by conquest and steady westward expansion.

    It's one thing to condemn any perceived manipulation of the US to Israel's advantage, another to take a high horse and judge the expansionist dreams of another nation when sitting on a continent-spanning prize won by relentless land grabs.
  144. @Altai
    I think a problem is people see how angry and vulgar people can be about this issue, partly because respectable people can't talk about these things. We all want to be nice and respectable but what we know about the world makes that hard, try as we might we can't go along with our new religion. So some cope by finding ways to separate themselves from 'those people', talking about 'culture' and assimilation and others cope by adopting this weird anti-Islam = pro-Israel stance. But just because unpleasant people hate Jews doesn't mean that there isn't a serious cohort of Jews in America who are zionists who do affect US policy in the Middle East. Thus we get 'lol you guys always blame the joos'. The last 15 to 20 years has seen the Neo-cons very effectively co-opt the US State Department, Victoria Nuland being an almost parody of a neo-con.

    1. Yes, Norway, Ireland and Sweden's immigration policy and multiculturalism was entirely developed indigenously has been in no way influenced by the US. I think Americans underestimate how influential it is, American media and elite opinion matters in Sweden, at least to the Swedish elite. The United States was the most powerful country in the world and decided that anti-racism was the great You do not need an alienated ethnic elite in your country to feed you 'anti-racism' in TV, film and other media. The internet has driven this up to 11, being dominated by American. You think these ideas spontaneously took root? Modern Academic Sociology, the priesthood of this new religion is an almost entirely American field.

    2. I can't speak to why anyone was ever foolish or naive enough to think this is what thought helping Iraq looks like.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kcaziP-0o&nohtml5
    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who were pro war were all fully onboard with killing arabs, for different motivations perhaps, but invading a country after a heavy bombing campaign is rarely done out of concern for it's inhabitants.

    Once again, the people who start and propose these wars don't believe any of that. They might convince others to believe it, but those people don't start the wars, they're just useful idiots.

    3. Declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would do nothing. The Israeli government was ethnically cleansing it at apparently just the right rate not to ever bring serious pressure to bare and would do so afterward. It is a bizzarre decision because East Jerusalem was always supposed to be the capital of the Palestinian state. Recognising the entire city as the capital of Israel would end the ability of the US to even broker the (Admittedly farcical) two state solution talks. One of my favourite clips is the clear rigging of the vote at the DNC convention on changing the policy of the Democratic party on this issue. Whom was Villaraigosa afraid of? There were about equal numbers for and against...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sWTwbzAcw&t=0m51s

    The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology. Hell, even Wolf Blitzer was once the head PR man for the Israel military in DC. Why did Clinton, Saunders and Trump (Even missing a debate) all go to the AIPAC conference, you know that annual event that average Americans care so much about?

    If there is no powerful Israel lobby why are American politicians so terrified of it?

    "I’m telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews" Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith.

    On number 1, it was Christopher Caldwell in his book “Reflections on the Revolutions in Europe” who remarked that the whole multikulti thing was a cultural import run amok from the US and that European elites would be horrified to have to recognize this. We truly are the septic tank of American culture. The whole world really, but they might still have some cultural defenses against this.

    • Replies: @fnn
    Flashman creator George MacDonald Fraser pointed out that PC was imported to Britain from the US:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506219/The-testament-Flashmans-creator-How-Britain-destroyed-itself.html
  145. @helena
    "European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel."

    Except that we know Blair followed Bush into war with Iraq, against the wishes of the people. There is quite a large groundswell of opinion that Blair should stand trial for war crimes. And the ME massacre started with Iraq.

    Except also that the voices in the media who advocate immigration are very often Jewish and so are those that support Israel. Maureen Lipman for instance overstepped the mark with her pro-Israel stance. Nowadays we even have an infiltration of Americans telling Brits what to think and how to vote.

    Except also that the media never mentions Israel - a country that borders the region of civil war, does that not strike you as strange? And the public mention Israel very rarely but when they do, the big AS label is immediately brought out by a plethora of Jewish people complaining. And don't forget Europeans can get a criminal record for being deemed AS. That's a huge disincentive to open debate.

    ****

    Time will tell; where Israel's borders are when all this is over.

    I lived in Britain for 27 years, the idea that the media “never mentions Israel” strikes me as bizarre indeed. Sometimes it felt like they never mentioned anything else.

    Again, I return to my point about American provincialism.

    • Replies: @helena
    "I lived in Britain for 27 years, the idea that the media “never mentions Israel” strikes me as bizarre indeed. Sometimes it felt like they never mentioned anything else."

    Bizarre indeed. Not only is Israel never mentioned but the forthcoming memorial has to my knowledge only been mentioned once - when Cameron announced it would be erected. The exchange in parliament was quite amusing, so many MPs reminded the honorable gentleman of the anniversary that eventually he said 'can i please remind the house that since I have been in government xmillions have been given to Jewish Education Charities'. I forget the x but it wasn't small and could certainly, imo, have been used for wider benefit in mainstream education.

    How provincial is America when it can get a UK prime minister to invade a country that didn't even invade America let alone invade the UK?
  146. @Anonymous
    It's more than adopting German culture. What she has in mind is the non-whites will intermarry with the whites and become totally integrated that way. This is likely true. At some point in the future many of the descendants of the non-whites who will arrive will likely have intermarried.

    Like they did in other European countries where they bring wives and husbands from the home country, segregate themselves into ethnic ghettos and visit the home country once every few years for a few months to immerse themselves (even if they were not born there) in their culture?

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    Not happening, man, except for a small subset of people. And, oddly enough, if you assimilate completely then you stop being a group that one can point to and say “look, they’re assimilated”. Not everybody can do the Jewish tightrope balancing act of being mainstream and maintaining a separate identity.

    It happened with the Gypsies. They are a separate group, including racially, who maintain endogamy, in-group morality and separation from conventional society. The Gypsies that did inter-marry and wanted to fit in ceased to exist as a group and their descendants consider themselves part of the dominant culture and are likely not even aware of their partial roots. Same thing with the immivasion. Boiling off the weakest and most assimilable members of the group will always leave the rest stronger and more ethnocentric.

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.ro/2014/11/gypsy-intelligence.html

  147. @Discard
    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?

    Straw man argument, troll. Badly done.

    Maybe Mexicans produce more mucus that hardens more quickly, necessitating further cleaning in the area which, for the lower orders, is done through nose picking. The differences in ear wax among groups have been studied.

    • Replies: @Discard
    Maybe Jews and Armenians evolved with bigger noses to allow them to pick their noses more efficiently, the time saved thereby being put to educating themselves?

    Maybe the dryer ear wax of Orientals is less effective at keeping out water, thereby dissuading them from sailing to the New World?

    Maybe?
  148. @Altai
    I think a problem is people see how angry and vulgar people can be about this issue, partly because respectable people can't talk about these things. We all want to be nice and respectable but what we know about the world makes that hard, try as we might we can't go along with our new religion. So some cope by finding ways to separate themselves from 'those people', talking about 'culture' and assimilation and others cope by adopting this weird anti-Islam = pro-Israel stance. But just because unpleasant people hate Jews doesn't mean that there isn't a serious cohort of Jews in America who are zionists who do affect US policy in the Middle East. Thus we get 'lol you guys always blame the joos'. The last 15 to 20 years has seen the Neo-cons very effectively co-opt the US State Department, Victoria Nuland being an almost parody of a neo-con.

    1. Yes, Norway, Ireland and Sweden's immigration policy and multiculturalism was entirely developed indigenously has been in no way influenced by the US. I think Americans underestimate how influential it is, American media and elite opinion matters in Sweden, at least to the Swedish elite. The United States was the most powerful country in the world and decided that anti-racism was the great You do not need an alienated ethnic elite in your country to feed you 'anti-racism' in TV, film and other media. The internet has driven this up to 11, being dominated by American. You think these ideas spontaneously took root? Modern Academic Sociology, the priesthood of this new religion is an almost entirely American field.

    2. I can't speak to why anyone was ever foolish or naive enough to think this is what thought helping Iraq looks like.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kcaziP-0o&nohtml5
    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who were pro war were all fully onboard with killing arabs, for different motivations perhaps, but invading a country after a heavy bombing campaign is rarely done out of concern for it's inhabitants.

    Once again, the people who start and propose these wars don't believe any of that. They might convince others to believe it, but those people don't start the wars, they're just useful idiots.

    3. Declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would do nothing. The Israeli government was ethnically cleansing it at apparently just the right rate not to ever bring serious pressure to bare and would do so afterward. It is a bizzarre decision because East Jerusalem was always supposed to be the capital of the Palestinian state. Recognising the entire city as the capital of Israel would end the ability of the US to even broker the (Admittedly farcical) two state solution talks. One of my favourite clips is the clear rigging of the vote at the DNC convention on changing the policy of the Democratic party on this issue. Whom was Villaraigosa afraid of? There were about equal numbers for and against...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sWTwbzAcw&t=0m51s

    The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology. Hell, even Wolf Blitzer was once the head PR man for the Israel military in DC. Why did Clinton, Saunders and Trump (Even missing a debate) all go to the AIPAC conference, you know that annual event that average Americans care so much about?

    If there is no powerful Israel lobby why are American politicians so terrified of it?

    "I’m telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews" Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith.

    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it’s possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn’t make any difference. There’s no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for “F**k You!” most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to “Bet on Iraqi democracy” by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That’s what Israelis wants America to do and that’s what they’d make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran’s nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    “The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology.”

    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I’ve described. Since there’s no such thing as race and everyone’s the same, and since there’s nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written “You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it’s all cool because all I care about is Israel’s security”. That’s what you claim they really think, but you certainly can’t prove it based on their “explicit”ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was “racist”. According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it’s reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.

    “Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith.”

    That’s cheap and you know it.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The most sophisticated analysis of the neocons' foreign policy relative to Israel was offered by Francis Fukuyama in 2005:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/francis-fukuyama-and-charles/

    , @fnn

    The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.
     
    Moldbug is good on this:
    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/secret-of-anti-americanism.html

    Also Conservative Swede:
    http://conswede.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-paradigms-shift-eg-our-view-on.html
    , @random observer
    Sensible stuff, especially about American provincialism as it applies to the range of actual beliefs held by real people out there in the world.

    Or about the neocons actually seeming to believe their ideological vision. Which makes sense, since it was not wholly different from what Kennedy liberals believed about making the world more like America.

    I know it is not the only American tradition, nor the oldest, nor the smartest, nor even necessarily the most inherently "American", but it is as American as all the rest, and apple pie as well.

    Funny thing is, a lot of alt right discourse claims to recognize, and sometimes does recognize, that most of the world doesn't want to be America and really, really is not like America right now. But there is always the tendency to fall back on how everything is happening because of America, and in imitation of America, or to kiss America's presumptive backside in some sort of Americo-centric virtue signalling, and that Israel is behind that.

    It's actually sort of mirror-neocon insofar as everything is always America's fault and needs to be rectified by America, in this case by doing the opposite of what America has been doing to make things right, and thereby actually making it right.

    I don't claim to understand Israeli policy, but even if it some there have grand, destructive ambitions for the Arabs I don't have the impression that Israeli statecraft is as prone to actually running with grand, region-remaking schemes as American statecraft is.

    If Israel is content to let Syria burn, for whatever reason, fair enough. I recognize the pursuit of interests as valid, and I don't really care about Syrians either. I see no gain or loss either way. But then that's just me. I'm pretty willing to let the geopolitics of the region go their way, regardless.

    For what it's worth, I though your self-description actually did constitute arguing in good faith. I genuinely fail to understand how it could be taken otherwise.

    What do I know- I'm a Canadian. But around here where I live and work I seem to be the only one who thinks Canada ought to look at its own interests in realist terms. We swing from Liberals advocating Responsibility to Protect and a global "Pluralism Agenda" to Conservatives advocating intervention in pursuit of freedom and nation-building and "Religious Freedom" and back again without supporters of either side being willing to understand that these are all the same thing under different names. My inability to care about enemy of them flummoxes more than a couple of my co workers and friends. I am only interested than in another hundred years there is still a Canada, sovereign, united, free, and rich, and with someone still living here who would be recognized as Canadian by our founders. Fat chance.
    , @Pericles
    Regarding point 1, sorry, but the American (academic left) influence is rather clear in Sweden. Recall that those Americans hate rednecks too. Yet what latte sipping Green voter on Söder (campus commie, basically) doesn't brag about staying in Brooklyn if they can? And how is it we are getting flooded with weird guilt trips about blacks and arabs when we have hardly had any contact with them? Why are we nowadays using the American word 'gay' rather than the Swedish? Why are Swedish media so reverent about JFK, Obama and the rest? Why do we have to love muslims? (Ask Gen. Wesley Clark.) And so on. It's pretty obvious if you look around.

    (OK, the news are controlled by various Middle Eastern factions. But it's pretty strange that we care so much about the Middle East too, isn't it?)
    , @anon
    Usual bad faith nonsense.

    but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes
     
    They think of *right-wing* Americans like that because the media use that image as part of their pro liberal propaganda. The fact you can rely in your argument on everyone in the world having the same mental image of "redneck" proves the opposite of your point. Where did that image come from - Hollywood.

    Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I’ve described.
     
    Their private ideology is explicit in little known documents like the ones produced by PNAC.

    Their public ideology - spreading democracy - was a total lie.

    Everyone who's read up on this knows that what your saying is a blatant lie but you can get away with it because the truth is suppressed by the media.
  149. @Gabriel M
    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it's possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn't make any difference. There's no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for "F**k You!" most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to "Bet on Iraqi democracy" by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That's what Israelis wants America to do and that's what they'd make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran's nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    "The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology."
     
    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I've described. Since there's no such thing as race and everyone's the same, and since there's nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written "You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it's all cool because all I care about is Israel's security". That's what you claim they really think, but you certainly can't prove it based on their "explicit"ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was "racist". According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it's reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.


    "Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith."

    That's cheap and you know it.

    The most sophisticated analysis of the neocons’ foreign policy relative to Israel was offered by Francis Fukuyama in 2005:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/francis-fukuyama-and-charles/

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    I agree that the neoconservatives Jewishness and their pre-occupation with Israel is important in understanding why they thought what they thought and think what they think. What I disagree with is the claim is the claim that they always knew that their ostensible plan (democratise the Middle East) would fail and were using it as a ruse for their real plan (destroy the Middle East cue maniacal laughter).

    It's a measure of how detached from sobriety the alt-right has become that saying this is regarded as controversial.
  150. @Anonymous
    Gregor Gysi is only three eighths Jewish by ancestry (via his paternal grandmother and one of his maternal great-grandfathers).

    the on-drop rule seems to be the effective ancestry rule in israel

  151. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    In my experience, Germans need to be a part of a cause bigger than themselves. They don't do well with just regular life; their morbid nature starts to get the upper hand so they latch on to a movement that will pull them up from their depression.

    When I lived in Germany, they were all very intense (much more so than your average American) about some cause or the other, environmentalism, saving the third world, world peace, etc. The causes had the commonality that they were somewhat vague and could never really be achieved. Again, it wasn't the results that they were after but an escape.

    This whole refugee episode seems to be just another example of Germans being Germans.

    I completely agree. It reminds me of the blurb from the Xenophobe’s Guide to Germany (which I haven’t read – I read the Swiss one, and found it hilariously accurate) – which is of course not meant to be accurate, instead to amuse via the stereotypes; we all know how inaccurate stereotypes are.

    Teutonic torment
    In every German there is a touch of the wild-haired Beethoven striding through forests and weeping over a mountain sunset, grappling against impossible odds to express the inexpressible. This is the Great German Soul, prominent display of which is essential whenever Art, Feeling, and Truth are under discussion.

    Angst breeds angst
    For a German, doubt and anxiety expand and ramify the more you ponder them. They are astonished that things haven’t gone to pot already, and are pretty certain that they soon will.

    Longer must be better
    Most Germans apply the rule that more equals better. If a passing quip makes you smile, then surely by making it longer the pleasure will be drawn out and increased. As a rule, if you are cornered by someone keen to give you a laugh, you must expect to miss lunch and most of that afternoon’s appointments.

    Angst breeds angst
    Because life is ernsthaft, the Germans go by the rules. Schiller wrote, “obedience is the first duty,” and no German has ever doubted it. This fits with their sense of order and duty. Germans hate breaking rules, which can make life difficult because, as a rule, everything not expressly permitted is prohibited.”

    And the blurb from the Xenophobe’s Guide to Americans

    Friends without friendship
    Americans are friendly because they just can’t help it; they like to be neighbourly and want to be liked. However, a wise traveller realises that a few happy moments with an American do not translate into a permanent commitment of any kind. Indeed, permanent commitments are what Americans fear the most. This is a nation whose fundamental social relationship is the casual acquaintance.

    It’s not a ‘good day’ unless it’s a ‘good hair day’
    When asked in a survey what they notice first in a potential mate, the answer from both men and women was hair. Having good hair is more important than having a college education or a happy family.

    Americans shoot from the lip
    American speech is remarkably straightforward. They tell it as it is, even when it’s not a particularly good idea to do so. Linguistic subtlety, innuendo, and irony that other nations find delightful puzzle the Americans, who take all statements at face value, weigh them for accuracy, and reject anything they don’t understand.

    Always aim to win
    Winning is central to the American psyche. As American football coach Vince Lombardi put it, ‘Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing’. Virtually every event in American life, from school graduation to marriage to buying an automobile, is structured so that one party wins, or at least comes out looking better than any of the other participants.

    That last one should include that part from the Patton speech of how Americans love a winner and detest a loser.

    There is a section detailing how every American wants to distance themselves from every other American by saying that they are unlike the “average American.” Sounds like Lake Wobegon.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I read one or two Xenophobes' Guides a long time ago. They were good.
  152. @Anonymous
    It's not projection, it's consistency. According to HBD types, a Mexican guy who picks his nose in public is due to genetics. Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.

    hey Anonymous, you seem to be picking on anything related to the chosen. how about stepping out of the shadows with a moniker?

  153. @Svigor

    Yes, according to the HBD viewpoint subscribed to by many here, shouldn’t Germans be genetically genocidal anti-Semites? HBD types will explain everything from a pimple on someone’s ass to a guy slipping on a banana peel to genetics.
     
    Projection. You think nothing has anything to do with HBD, so you assume HBDers all think everything is all about HBD.

    You missed the whole "nature + nurture" thing because you're used to ignoring and denying one side of the equation yourself.

    nah, i think Anonymous is just one of the IDF online bots going against anything critical of the chosen. they infest every forum nowadays

  154. @StAugustine
    I completely agree. It reminds me of the blurb from the Xenophobe's Guide to Germany (which I haven't read - I read the Swiss one, and found it hilariously accurate) - which is of course not meant to be accurate, instead to amuse via the stereotypes; we all know how inaccurate stereotypes are.

    "Teutonic torment
    In every German there is a touch of the wild-haired Beethoven striding through forests and weeping over a mountain sunset, grappling against impossible odds to express the inexpressible. This is the Great German Soul, prominent display of which is essential whenever Art, Feeling, and Truth are under discussion.

    Angst breeds angst
    For a German, doubt and anxiety expand and ramify the more you ponder them. They are astonished that things haven't gone to pot already, and are pretty certain that they soon will.

    Longer must be better
    Most Germans apply the rule that more equals better. If a passing quip makes you smile, then surely by making it longer the pleasure will be drawn out and increased. As a rule, if you are cornered by someone keen to give you a laugh, you must expect to miss lunch and most of that afternoon's appointments.

    Angst breeds angst
    Because life is ernsthaft, the Germans go by the rules. Schiller wrote, “obedience is the first duty,” and no German has ever doubted it. This fits with their sense of order and duty. Germans hate breaking rules, which can make life difficult because, as a rule, everything not expressly permitted is prohibited."

     

    And the blurb from the Xenophobe's Guide to Americans

    Friends without friendship
    Americans are friendly because they just can't help it; they like to be neighbourly and want to be liked. However, a wise traveller realises that a few happy moments with an American do not translate into a permanent commitment of any kind. Indeed, permanent commitments are what Americans fear the most. This is a nation whose fundamental social relationship is the casual acquaintance.

    It's not a 'good day' unless it's a 'good hair day'
    When asked in a survey what they notice first in a potential mate, the answer from both men and women was hair. Having good hair is more important than having a college education or a happy family.

    Americans shoot from the lip
    American speech is remarkably straightforward. They tell it as it is, even when it's not a particularly good idea to do so. Linguistic subtlety, innuendo, and irony that other nations find delightful puzzle the Americans, who take all statements at face value, weigh them for accuracy, and reject anything they don't understand.

    Always aim to win
    Winning is central to the American psyche. As American football coach Vince Lombardi put it, 'Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing'. Virtually every event in American life, from school graduation to marriage to buying an automobile, is structured so that one party wins, or at least comes out looking better than any of the other participants.
     
    That last one should include that part from the Patton speech of how Americans love a winner and detest a loser.

    There is a section detailing how every American wants to distance themselves from every other American by saying that they are unlike the "average American." Sounds like Lake Wobegon.

    I read one or two Xenophobes’ Guides a long time ago. They were good.

  155. @Davidski

    i live in germany. Here’s the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
     
    Hilarious shit.

    You need to get in tune with the reality that Germans are doing this to themselves.

    i guess u didn’t like to hear about her background.
    so what qualifies you from knowing it better? did germans get a chance to vote on this? oh yes I forgot, they recently did during local elections, and guess what, Merkel got an indirect downvote.

    • Replies: @Davidski
    I knew that her grandfather was Polish. So what?

    Do you really believe that the fact that Merkel is 3/4 German and 1/4 Polish makes her a Polish Jew? How does that work exactly? Magic?

    And how does it excuse all the other Germans who were screaming "welcome refugees"?

    Why can't you take responsibility for your own stupidity?
  156. @Anonymous
    No, Steve, it's more of a cluster-f*ck crapola.

    The existence of that monstrosity known as the EU must bear a large portion of the blame.
    Basically, the EU forbids member states to deter or remove anyone from anywhere who can utter the word 'asylum'. And all the world and his brother have wised up to that fact.
    Not only has the EU forbidden its vassal states from even attempting to stop 'migrants' it has dissolved borders between EU states. Thus Greece's problem - which doubtless the colonels of 1968 could have solved in a weekend - becomes Germany's problem.
    Add in lavish social security and welfare bennies - includind a free house for life - available in demand to 'refugees' who haven't done a damned thing to earn. Again, all the world and his brother knows this.
    Drizzle with a dollop of Swedish feminists addled brain nuttiness - theirs was the initial 'idea' that any warm body that wished to could live the good life in jolly good cold and dark old Sweden.
    Add one menopausal, broody, mushy brained old bag. An old bag with Gorbachev type vanity and stupidity eagerly eyeing a Nobel prize and a bundle of lucrative directorships upon ejection.

    And lastly dump in a great big pile of Economist steaming, stinky faecal waste, to add 'gravitas' and pungency.

    And there you have it - destroying a nation through committee.

    yeah, go one step further: who wants the EU to be in place?

  157. @Gabriel M
    I lived in Britain for 27 years, the idea that the media "never mentions Israel" strikes me as bizarre indeed. Sometimes it felt like they never mentioned anything else.

    Again, I return to my point about American provincialism.

    “I lived in Britain for 27 years, the idea that the media “never mentions Israel” strikes me as bizarre indeed. Sometimes it felt like they never mentioned anything else.”

    Bizarre indeed. Not only is Israel never mentioned but the forthcoming memorial has to my knowledge only been mentioned once – when Cameron announced it would be erected. The exchange in parliament was quite amusing, so many MPs reminded the honorable gentleman of the anniversary that eventually he said ‘can i please remind the house that since I have been in government xmillions have been given to Jewish Education Charities’. I forget the x but it wasn’t small and could certainly, imo, have been used for wider benefit in mainstream education.

    How provincial is America when it can get a UK prime minister to invade a country that didn’t even invade America let alone invade the UK?

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    1) I never said America was provincial, I said American alt-rightists are provincial in as much as they advance explanations for phenomena that are common to America and Europe, but only fit the data in America.

    2) Try doing the following thing. Open up google and type "Guardian Israel". Then type "BBC Israel". Then, to prove it's not some Lefty thing type "Telegraph Israel". Then for comparison do the same thing with, say, Algeria. Easy.
  158. @tris
    i guess u didn't like to hear about her background.
    so what qualifies you from knowing it better? did germans get a chance to vote on this? oh yes I forgot, they recently did during local elections, and guess what, Merkel got an indirect downvote.

    I knew that her grandfather was Polish. So what?

    Do you really believe that the fact that Merkel is 3/4 German and 1/4 Polish makes her a Polish Jew? How does that work exactly? Magic?

    And how does it excuse all the other Germans who were screaming “welcome refugees”?

    Why can’t you take responsibility for your own stupidity?

  159. @Maj. Kong
    It would be questionable to associate the Nazis as the direct blowback of the Bolshevik revolution. The Spartacist coup led to the formation of the Freikorps, which eventually led to the Beer Hall Putsch, but that was more than a decade away from their rise to power.

    Until the absolute collapse of the German economy, the NSDAP had little support. Once the economy went under, there were three likely options of authoritarian rule: a military coup by Kurt Schleicher, the Nazis, and the least likely the Communist Party in Germany. Any USSR military support for a Communist coup in Germany would have had to roll over non-Communist Poland.

    It would be questionable to associate the Nazis as the direct blowback of the Bolshevik revolution. The Spartacist coup led to the formation of the Freikorps, which eventually led to the Beer Hall Putsch, but that was more than a decade away from their rise to power.

    The Nazi Party was founded on the same day as the Spartacist coup. (5 January 1919)

  160. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    If Germany is feeling really guilty, I have a suggestion for them. Forget the Syrians, take in a million or more Palestinians.

    Which Palestinians? The Arab Palestinians? The Jewish Palestinians? The Muslim Palestinians? The Christian Palestinians? The Druze Palestinians?

  161. @Gabriel M
    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it's possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn't make any difference. There's no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for "F**k You!" most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to "Bet on Iraqi democracy" by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That's what Israelis wants America to do and that's what they'd make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran's nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    "The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology."
     
    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I've described. Since there's no such thing as race and everyone's the same, and since there's nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written "You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it's all cool because all I care about is Israel's security". That's what you claim they really think, but you certainly can't prove it based on their "explicit"ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was "racist". According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it's reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.


    "Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith."

    That's cheap and you know it.

    The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    Moldbug is good on this:
    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/secret-of-anti-americanism.html

    Also Conservative Swede:
    http://conswede.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-paradigms-shift-eg-our-view-on.html

  162. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    The politician in that clip, Gregor Gysi, is the son of Klaus Gysi, the East German Minister of Culture from 1966-73. His father was also married to the Rhodesian novelist, Doris Lessing.

    Gregor Gysi himself had also been a functionary of the East German ruling party, before he decided to bless the Federal Republic's democratic politics with his civic contributions.

    I think it was actually his uncle, not his father, who was married to Doris Lessing, but still it is an interesting detail. He (uncle) was a ravening Commie who sat out the war in the relative ease of Rhodesia (perhaps partly thanks to his green card-ish marriage to Lessing) setting up Communist organizations wherever he went (he appears never to have had a real job). After the war he divorced Lessing and returned to der Vaterland where he promptly was rewarded with a series of prestigious international postings by the DDR. He finally managed to get himself and his latest wife killed in a Ugandan riot.

    Gysi’s dad was also a DDR big shot (Minister of Culture), which I suppose would make him akin to the bloated apparatchiks memorably portrayed in the 2006 film The Lives of Others.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "I think it was actually his uncle, not his father, who was married to Doris Lessing...

    Yeah, it was his uncle, Gottfried, who'd married Lessing (I skimmed that Wikipedia article a bit too quickly, it seems). Gottfried was killed in Uganda at the end of Idi Amin's rule (he was the East German Ambassador to Uganda).
  163. @Romanian
    On number 1, it was Christopher Caldwell in his book "Reflections on the Revolutions in Europe" who remarked that the whole multikulti thing was a cultural import run amok from the US and that European elites would be horrified to have to recognize this. We truly are the septic tank of American culture. The whole world really, but they might still have some cultural defenses against this.

    Flashman creator George MacDonald Fraser pointed out that PC was imported to Britain from the US:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506219/The-testament-Flashmans-creator-How-Britain-destroyed-itself.html

  164. @This Is Our Home
    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means. It basically means in the public sphere. Like a newspaper article. It barely counts as a leak and therefore does not show any secret workings of intentions, just someone's opinion.

    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means,

    From Andrew Napolitano, (jurist, ex judge and Senior Judicial Analyst) post here at unz.com

    The word “classified” is not a legal term; rather, it is derived from the verb “to classify,” and it means that the classification process has been completed.

    Since nothing is marked “classified” — the legal markings are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret”

    http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/

    Do read before giving lectures, because obviously you have no fucking idea what you are taking about

    On top of that the legal classification of the document is besides the point-the point here is the content of the email

    Try again shill

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Bad luck mate. It was deemed unclassified. As in not sensitive. I am qualified to know what I am talking about. You are some half wit on the Internet. And the content is just an argument made by an individual at a time. If you ever left your parents basement you would know that every argument is made by somebody at some time and therefore this email is meaningless.
  165. Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:

    Actually no it doesn’t. It’s basic Darwinism and capitalism.

    GERMANS WONT BREED.

    Simple as that.

    Cultural Capitalism needs workers (until the robots take over), consumers, debt carriers and tax payers.

    Decrepit old Germans aren’t going to cut it.

    It wasn’t Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary “cultural marxists” who forcibly prevented German reproduction.

    If Germans had a higher birth rate and bigger families over the past 60+ years they wouldn’t be overwhelmed by immigration or the earlier Turkish immigration either.

    • Replies: @helena
    I'm in two minds about the fallen birthrate: OTOH, there is a site called nobabies.net in which a scientist has developed an hypothesis about civilisational population decline, tldr; the end point is a sigma curve. Meaning that, somewhat like a cell, civilisations/cultures/breeding groups/gene pools have a natural tendency to 'die'. OTOH, my own decision to have only two children was a moral decision based on propaganda regarding enviornmental burden and the 'good green life'. The question is, who was pushing the green agenda in the 1980s? I don't know but I do know that most of the feminist writers, who gave me the idea to pursue career not family, were Jewish. More fool me for being persuaded by such authors.

    But..if European governments were aware in the 1980s of the pending collapse of population, why were they not advertising family development policies and offering incentives for families? Why were governments so ready to bring in labour from abroad?
    , @Romanian
    I think so, too, but not because they would have no fictitious labor shortage like the one being supposedly addressed by current and past immigration of low productivity, welfare addled helots. I think that a Germany with a higher birthrate would simply have had a different outlook on things, on life, on posterity etc.
    , @Anonymous
    Not true.

    The EU is a border less zone, in other words 500+ million Europeans can freely move to Germany.
    The EU is also a zone of massive unemployment. Ergo, the notion that Germany 'needed' 'workers' from Syria is pure bullshit.
    , @anon

    It wasn’t Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary “cultural marxists” who forcibly prevented German reproduction.
     
    Even if that were true - which it isn't - if low native birth rates were/are see as a problem - which they have for a long time now - why has there *never* been a call for pro-natal policies except in Israel and Russia?

    Not once - by any mainstream party in the entire West over 30+ years.

    By now it is absolutely 100% clear that whoever is driving this specifically don't want White babies.
  166. @BigFatJew
    I take it you have no idea what unclassified means,

    From Andrew Napolitano, (jurist, ex judge and Senior Judicial Analyst) post here at unz.com

    The word “classified” is not a legal term; rather, it is derived from the verb “to classify,” and it means that the classification process has been completed.

    Since nothing is marked “classified” — the legal markings are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret”
     
    www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/

    Do read before giving lectures, because obviously you have no fucking idea what you are taking about

    On top of that the legal classification of the document is besides the point-the point here is the content of the email

    Try again shill

    Bad luck mate. It was deemed unclassified. As in not sensitive. I am qualified to know what I am talking about. You are some half wit on the Internet. And the content is just an argument made by an individual at a time. If you ever left your parents basement you would know that every argument is made by somebody at some time and therefore this email is meaningless.

    • Replies: @BigFatJew
    Firstly, I am not your mate

    Secondly, you showcase again your ignorance with more unproved claims and ad hominems

    Thirdly, qualified or not, we will never know, judging by your writings you are not even qualified to properly troll The Guardian's comment section

    Lastly, if you want to shill, shill like a pro. Improve your reading comprehension skills enough to understand what rhetoric is and for what is useful, and once that is clear, read and practise a lot.

    But wait, I guess you should get out of that (intellectual) basement you live in order to do all that? (rhetoric question, your first lesson)

    Try again shill
  167. @Sean
    Germany is scared of being seen for what it is: the European hegemon too big and strong for the joke "great" powers of France and the UK. Germany fears being feared. It's a soft power Verdun for them. They take down their defences and in doing so gain an advantage in relative terms.

    If the French had only had the sense to leave them alone, Germany would still be a collection of cute, harmless little duchies.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Some were harmless. Some bred vicious warriors, like the famous Hessians.
    , @Sean
    Yes.
    ----

    Accurate scholarship can
    Unearth the whole offence
    From Luther until now
    That has driven a culture mad
    Find what occurred at Linz
    What huge imago made
    A psychopathic God:
    I and the public know
    What all schoolchildren learn,
    Those to whom evil is done
    Do evil in return.

    September 1, 1939 by W. H. Auden
    ---

    We could conceivably end up with an Arab superstate in the Middle East, if they can manage to reconcile the divisions in the way Germany did with Protestants and Catholics.
  168. @Rifleman
    Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:

    Actually no it doesn't. It's basic Darwinism and capitalism.

    GERMANS WONT BREED.

    Simple as that.

    Cultural Capitalism needs workers (until the robots take over), consumers, debt carriers and tax payers.

    Decrepit old Germans aren't going to cut it.

    It wasn't Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary "cultural marxists" who forcibly prevented German reproduction.

    If Germans had a higher birth rate and bigger families over the past 60+ years they wouldn't be overwhelmed by immigration or the earlier Turkish immigration either.

    I’m in two minds about the fallen birthrate: OTOH, there is a site called nobabies.net in which a scientist has developed an hypothesis about civilisational population decline, tldr; the end point is a sigma curve. Meaning that, somewhat like a cell, civilisations/cultures/breeding groups/gene pools have a natural tendency to ‘die’. OTOH, my own decision to have only two children was a moral decision based on propaganda regarding enviornmental burden and the ‘good green life’. The question is, who was pushing the green agenda in the 1980s? I don’t know but I do know that most of the feminist writers, who gave me the idea to pursue career not family, were Jewish. More fool me for being persuaded by such authors.

    But..if European governments were aware in the 1980s of the pending collapse of population, why were they not advertising family development policies and offering incentives for families? Why were governments so ready to bring in labour from abroad?

    • Replies: @Ace
    *** why were they not advertising family development policies and offering incentives for families. ***

    Precisely. The obvious solution was "ignored" and the ludicrous one (import unassimilable Muslims!) was pursued with vigor.

    It's the same today. The obvious solution (seal the borders, repatriate, and provide aid in place) is ignored and the ludicrous one (import savages and parasites) is embraced!!
  169. @Romanian
    Maybe Mexicans produce more mucus that hardens more quickly, necessitating further cleaning in the area which, for the lower orders, is done through nose picking. The differences in ear wax among groups have been studied.

    Maybe Jews and Armenians evolved with bigger noses to allow them to pick their noses more efficiently, the time saved thereby being put to educating themselves?

    Maybe the dryer ear wax of Orientals is less effective at keeping out water, thereby dissuading them from sailing to the New World?

    Maybe?

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Are Armenians known for their schnozes? The ones I've known do not stand out.
  170. @conatus
    The thing with the Germans that nobody seems to mention is they live in the ghetto of Europe, Mitteleuropa. At least compared to the snooty Brits and the oh-so-noble Americans with their English channel and 3000 mile Atlantic ocean, the Germans have enemies right across the river.
    The Germans were forced into militarism by their neighborhood.
    First Charlemagne came along in 782 and beheaded 4,500 Saxons(180,000 in today's population) because they were not sufficiently Christian and loving like Charlemagne. Then in the Thirty years War, 1618-1648, the Great powers, like fearsome Sweden ran all over the many ununited little principalities forcing the Germans to drink Schwedentrunk and reveal where their daughters and their cows were hidden. The Germans lost a third of their male population.
    They had to unite and be bad asses merely to be left alone.Thank Gott for the Prussians.The Germans finally get it together in the middle of the 1800s and then the Brits pitch a fit because they can't have a strong continental power. WTF?
    So we win WWI for the Brits, the Germans are pissed they got robbed of their time in the sun on the continent and they go with Adolf Ragnarok, they get carpet bombed back into Morganthau wilderness by Bomber Harris and now they end up as the depository of all the Guilt in the world. Its been going on for 72 years and we still have 36,000 troops there to keep the frothing Hun from bayoneting more babies.
    All because they live in a lousy neighborhood.

    All because they live in a lousy neighborhood.

    Ok, some trouble with the neighbors now and again … but what a nice piece of property. Germany is nice–very nice.

    German men just need to throw off this “bad history” bullshit, take pride in being German, chase off this mooing mad cow bossing them around, chase out the invaders, enjoy their lovely frauleins and refill the joint with kinder.

  171. @Rifleman
    Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:

    Actually no it doesn't. It's basic Darwinism and capitalism.

    GERMANS WONT BREED.

    Simple as that.

    Cultural Capitalism needs workers (until the robots take over), consumers, debt carriers and tax payers.

    Decrepit old Germans aren't going to cut it.

    It wasn't Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary "cultural marxists" who forcibly prevented German reproduction.

    If Germans had a higher birth rate and bigger families over the past 60+ years they wouldn't be overwhelmed by immigration or the earlier Turkish immigration either.

    I think so, too, but not because they would have no fictitious labor shortage like the one being supposedly addressed by current and past immigration of low productivity, welfare addled helots. I think that a Germany with a higher birthrate would simply have had a different outlook on things, on life, on posterity etc.

  172. @Reg Cæsar
    If the French had only had the sense to leave them alone, Germany would still be a collection of cute, harmless little duchies.

    Some were harmless. Some bred vicious warriors, like the famous Hessians.

    • Replies: @random observer
    Sadly, now they're all Hessians without no aggression.
  173. @Tiny Duck
    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    Too complicated, tedious and uncertain.

    Much simpler solution Mr. Duck: simply segregate white people on off into their own communities and countries. Fence them off and don’t let any non-whites in so they won’t have to suffer white people’s discrimination and bad juju. Yeah, tough on white people forced to live without diversity … but it’s what needs to be done to protect other folks.

  174. @Discard
    Are Germans the only people who have committed mass murder? If not, why would there be a distinctly German sets of genes that causes genocide? Or do the Turks have their own set of genocidal genes, distant from the German? What about the Chinese, the Russians, and the Cambodians? The Belgians? The English? The Comanche? And didn't the Argentinians kill 2/3 of the people of Paraguay back in the 19th century?

    I would agree that the Germans may have a genetic predisposition to do a thorough job, whether building cars or killing people, as do the Japanese.

    Does Jayman argue that Mexicans account for a disproportionate amount of the nose-picking in America? Or only that the son of a nose-picker is more likely to be a nose-picker, whatever the race?

    I would agree that the Germans may have a genetic predisposition to do a thorough job, whether building cars or killing people, as do the Japanese.

    Well, there you go. You can’t commit genocide in the modern world without being thorough.

    As to Turks: some commenters haven’t failed to draw the appropriate HBD conclusion.

    Does Jayman argue that Mexicans account for a disproportionate amount of the nose-picking in America? Or only that the son of a nose-picker is more likely to be a nose-picker, whatever the race?

    I doubt that nose-picking has been specifically studied. However, according to HBD tenets, it’s more likely than not that, if Mexicans are especially avid nose pickers (a claim I can’t verify), it is partly due to Mexican genes.

  175. @Sean
    Germany is scared of being seen for what it is: the European hegemon too big and strong for the joke "great" powers of France and the UK. Germany fears being feared. It's a soft power Verdun for them. They take down their defences and in doing so gain an advantage in relative terms.

    Germany today is more populous, richer, and more productive than Britain or France and has been for a good while, so depending on the nature of any hypothetical conflict they would have some advantages. On the other hand they are demographically cratering just as hard and faster, have at least as big an alien settler population, and their immediate military capacity is probably inferior to that of Britain and France. They’re also less accustomed to use it.

    It would depend on a lot of variables, but I can’t see Germany ever again being the kind of hegemon it once could have been. More like the old man at the retirement villa who has a bigger cash pile, donates for nice things from time to time, gets cranky at the spendthrifts, but can’t get out of his room much. Britain and France need some of his money, but they’re the ones who go outside the villa and report back on what’s happening in the world.

    • Replies: @Sean
    The US taxpayer pays to keep Europe trouble free. Eisenhower began to make moves toward Germany having full defence capability including a say in nuclear weapons and the Russians were terrified. They actually thought Germany would be ready willing and able to go again. Hence Cuba.

    For the first time in history Germany has only friendly states all around it. Germany has decided to close down all nuclear power (associated with weapons). The Pegida marches caused Merkel to bring in immigrants. The single currency EU has kept Europe from war "Merkel never tires of repeating this mantra https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-euro-would-europe-have-turned-to-war/2011/09/21/gIQAxGpZrK_story.html

    Mearsheimer said if the Ukraine did not have nuclear weapons it would be attacked by Russia, because no one would give it a meaningful security guarantee, and that's exactly what happened.

    Mearshiemer says without the US overseeing everything, Germany will be compelled to arm itself, not with soft power environmentalism and lessons for refugee Muslims in on how to have sex with Kraut blondes, but a real armed forces and nukes.
  176. @Discard
    Maybe Jews and Armenians evolved with bigger noses to allow them to pick their noses more efficiently, the time saved thereby being put to educating themselves?

    Maybe the dryer ear wax of Orientals is less effective at keeping out water, thereby dissuading them from sailing to the New World?

    Maybe?

    Are Armenians known for their schnozes? The ones I’ve known do not stand out.

  177. @athEIst
    Going from memory here, the Fatamids (Egypt) took Jerusalem from the Abbasids in 1087 disrupting the lucrative pilgrimage trade. The Abbasids recaptured it but not until the Crusade spirit took hold in Europe. This is all before the Ottoman Empire.

    Kat Grey would have been better to be more inclusive in assigning blame, by saying Muslims, or “Arabs, Turks, etc.” or something like that, but worth noting that s/he originally said “Turks” and Seljuk Turks, not mentioning the Ottomans until much later.

    The power structure of the Muslim Levant the day before the first Crusade showed up was in flux- the Fatimid [Ismaili Shiite] caliphate set up by Arabized Moors from North Africa and based in Egypt was more or less on its military last legs but managed to retake Jerusalem in 1098 from the string of Seljuk princes who had ruled the previous 25 years, having taken it from the Fatimids. The Seljuks were a dynasty of [Sunni] Turks who set up an empire spanning most of the Middle East, Iran and Central Asia. Their empire had a Turkish military caste, Persian administrators and Arab scholars and clerics, to simplify, much like many Muslim states had had in the region for a couple of centuries. The Seljuk empire broke up into sub-units fast, run by competing Turkish warlords with some role for the more dynamic Persians and Arabs to get in on it- and in one notable case, a Sunni Kurd [Saladin].

    So it’s not exactly wrong to focus on Turks- they were the military and ruling class muscle of the region in the years before the crusades first showed up, but they weren’t alone.

    The Abbasid caliphate at this time was like the medieval papacy- a religious front organization for the most part.

    IIRC, the first crusade took Jerusalem from a Fatimid governor who had just expelled all its Christians.

    A century later, the Fatimids were gone and their holdings in Egypt and the Levant were being reassembled into a new empire by Saladin, a Kurd leading a Turco-Arabic army, from a collection of little states run by mainly post-Seljuk Turkish princes and their ministers and guardians and powers behind the thrones. [It was a period of political, ethnic, and institutional complexity to surpass even the most baroque era of European history].

    You’ll find some sources suggesting Saladin reincorporated Jerusalem into the Abbasid caliphate. But it’s an odd phrasing unless it merely means, ‘brought it back into Muslim hands, and not the Shiite Fatimid caliphate because it was long gone, and not the Umayyad poseur caliphate because it was way off in Spain, but into the religious sphere of the orthodox Sunni and only caliphate in the Muslim heartlands”. It came under the political rule of Saladin’s empire. The caliph did not exercise secular jurisdiction there.

    All of which to say the proper language to assign blame would be to Muslims [Arabs, Persians and Turks (Oh, My!)] and later in particular to the Ottoman Turks from the 15c.

    All of whom are the very last people on earth who have any business complaining about European imperialism. A paltry 132 years of European colonialism [taking the longest possible timeframe from France’s occupation of Algeria in 1830 to its departure in 1962; MUCH less time for most of the rest of the region] to repay a thousand years of predation on Europe. I figure Europe is owed another 500 years of rule in the Middle East yet.

  178. @conatus
    The thing with the Germans that nobody seems to mention is they live in the ghetto of Europe, Mitteleuropa. At least compared to the snooty Brits and the oh-so-noble Americans with their English channel and 3000 mile Atlantic ocean, the Germans have enemies right across the river.
    The Germans were forced into militarism by their neighborhood.
    First Charlemagne came along in 782 and beheaded 4,500 Saxons(180,000 in today's population) because they were not sufficiently Christian and loving like Charlemagne. Then in the Thirty years War, 1618-1648, the Great powers, like fearsome Sweden ran all over the many ununited little principalities forcing the Germans to drink Schwedentrunk and reveal where their daughters and their cows were hidden. The Germans lost a third of their male population.
    They had to unite and be bad asses merely to be left alone.Thank Gott for the Prussians.The Germans finally get it together in the middle of the 1800s and then the Brits pitch a fit because they can't have a strong continental power. WTF?
    So we win WWI for the Brits, the Germans are pissed they got robbed of their time in the sun on the continent and they go with Adolf Ragnarok, they get carpet bombed back into Morganthau wilderness by Bomber Harris and now they end up as the depository of all the Guilt in the world. Its been going on for 72 years and we still have 36,000 troops there to keep the frothing Hun from bayoneting more babies.
    All because they live in a lousy neighborhood.

    I’m sympathetic to the argument from geography, but take it back farther.

    The Germans also faced horrible predation from the east early on and later [Huns, Mongols, eventually Turks (taking Austro-Germans into account)] and west [Rome, France later on].

    On the other hand, the Germans also seized their chances in settling new lands- those eastern steppes where the Huns found them, much of the once Celtic core of the German lands [assuming the peoples of those lands didn’t just adopt German culture in situ] and marching westward into the Romanized Celtic lands of Rome’s fading empire.

    All of which was a massive net gain for our civilization’s future, but it does remind us that when Charlemagne ascended the throne, he was a German king ruling German lords over a realm that was mixed Gallo-Roman and German [it did after all still include the German lands of the Rhine valley and Franconia], the result of Frankish German westward conquest. And when he set out to conquer the Saxons, Bavarians et al. he was not an outsider. He was a German king at home seeking to rule all Germans.

  179. @Stephen R. Diamond

    According to exactly which HBD types is Mexican nose picking genetic?
     
    All behavior is heritable. (Jayman.)

    That, of course, doesn't mean it's entirely genetic. But one would think a consistent HBDer would at least consider the possibility that German Nazism had (direct) genetic roots (leading to the further speculation that if Germany is self-destructing, it might be because many Germans understand something about themselves missed by their nationalist critics).

    Well I haven’t read every article or comment touching on HBD around here, but I’m not sure how it is to be applied to examples so absurdly broad or equally absurdly specific.

    All nations, ever, are capable of genocide as members of the human species, and many have committed it. In that, the genetic component of Germany’s brief period of exterminationist anti-Semitism is shared by all peoples. The specific period in which this capability was manifested and the target people chosen are more likely the result of environmental conditions [geography, history, proximity, specific cultural and social experiences].

    All human beings are capable of picking their noses and, let’s be frank, I doubt anyone has never done so. If so, I will be happy to be enlightened- maybe it’s not a human universal, or maybe some culture have such strong taboos they have executed all nose pickers for a hundred generations and bred it out. Dunno. I suspect those willing to do it excessively in public, where it can be noticed, will represent the lower end of the IQ spectrum of any race. to the extent this describes the Mexican subset that comes to America, it is more visible. Do Mexican elites pick their noses where they can be seen? Anyone got a booger shot of Vicente Fox?

    Or in all, all behaviour is heritable, but not all [or perhaps any] 100%. Which seems like the HBD position most widely advanced on this site, by JayMan or anyone else.

  180. @helena
    "European countries who are doing the same, or worse, and you find no correlation whatsoever between pro-immigration policies and Jewish power/support for Israel."

    Except that we know Blair followed Bush into war with Iraq, against the wishes of the people. There is quite a large groundswell of opinion that Blair should stand trial for war crimes. And the ME massacre started with Iraq.

    Except also that the voices in the media who advocate immigration are very often Jewish and so are those that support Israel. Maureen Lipman for instance overstepped the mark with her pro-Israel stance. Nowadays we even have an infiltration of Americans telling Brits what to think and how to vote.

    Except also that the media never mentions Israel - a country that borders the region of civil war, does that not strike you as strange? And the public mention Israel very rarely but when they do, the big AS label is immediately brought out by a plethora of Jewish people complaining. And don't forget Europeans can get a criminal record for being deemed AS. That's a huge disincentive to open debate.

    ****

    Time will tell; where Israel's borders are when all this is over.

    Blair is a Catholic, not a Jew. His universalism and progressivism appear sui generis, but most heavily driven by his Christianity and his liberalism.

    Even presuming Israel is at fault, asking where its borders will be when this is all over is a pretty odd question coming from anyone living in North America, which north of the Rio Grande comprises two countries established by conquest and steady westward expansion.

    It’s one thing to condemn any perceived manipulation of the US to Israel’s advantage, another to take a high horse and judge the expansionist dreams of another nation when sitting on a continent-spanning prize won by relentless land grabs.

    • Replies: @helena
    Yes, well, one of my pet theories, based on obs in the public and personal spheres, is that in the UK, the Irish have been the lever. Blair converted to Catholicism via his wife who prob has Irish ancestry.

    All countries invade and have been invaded. What were Europeans in the 16/17th C supposed to do, say, 'well we've discovered all these nautical technologies, but hey, it wouldn't be fair to use them'?

    What's different now is that we have a shy empire. Noone was ever in any doubt when the Brit empire was aboad, were they?

    , @Ace
    As Helena correctly observes all countries have invaded or were invaded.

    Israel is free to entertain expansion and assess the risks and benefits thereof. However, even nations with a rich, past history of conquest are entitled to ask themselves whether it's a good idea to be involved now in any way in the expansionist (or security) activities of other nations.

    That is not to say Israel does wish to create a Greater Israel. It may simply be pursuing a divide and conquer strategy as well as one that harms Hezbollah and frustrates Iran. Israel is a sovereign nation and anyone who wants Israel for themselves is free to come and get it. It also operates in a very dangerous environment and it's security needs ought not to be dismissed.

    Given the power of Jewish money in America, it's likely that America will find itself 100% behind whatever strategy Israel decides upon. That is just beyond odd in my view, especially given the large amount of Jewish money that supports the greatest threat to the United States -- open borders.
  181. @Gabriel M
    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it's possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn't make any difference. There's no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for "F**k You!" most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to "Bet on Iraqi democracy" by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That's what Israelis wants America to do and that's what they'd make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran's nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    "The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology."
     
    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I've described. Since there's no such thing as race and everyone's the same, and since there's nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written "You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it's all cool because all I care about is Israel's security". That's what you claim they really think, but you certainly can't prove it based on their "explicit"ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was "racist". According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it's reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.


    "Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith."

    That's cheap and you know it.

    Sensible stuff, especially about American provincialism as it applies to the range of actual beliefs held by real people out there in the world.

    Or about the neocons actually seeming to believe their ideological vision. Which makes sense, since it was not wholly different from what Kennedy liberals believed about making the world more like America.

    I know it is not the only American tradition, nor the oldest, nor the smartest, nor even necessarily the most inherently “American”, but it is as American as all the rest, and apple pie as well.

    Funny thing is, a lot of alt right discourse claims to recognize, and sometimes does recognize, that most of the world doesn’t want to be America and really, really is not like America right now. But there is always the tendency to fall back on how everything is happening because of America, and in imitation of America, or to kiss America’s presumptive backside in some sort of Americo-centric virtue signalling, and that Israel is behind that.

    It’s actually sort of mirror-neocon insofar as everything is always America’s fault and needs to be rectified by America, in this case by doing the opposite of what America has been doing to make things right, and thereby actually making it right.

    I don’t claim to understand Israeli policy, but even if it some there have grand, destructive ambitions for the Arabs I don’t have the impression that Israeli statecraft is as prone to actually running with grand, region-remaking schemes as American statecraft is.

    If Israel is content to let Syria burn, for whatever reason, fair enough. I recognize the pursuit of interests as valid, and I don’t really care about Syrians either. I see no gain or loss either way. But then that’s just me. I’m pretty willing to let the geopolitics of the region go their way, regardless.

    For what it’s worth, I though your self-description actually did constitute arguing in good faith. I genuinely fail to understand how it could be taken otherwise.

    What do I know- I’m a Canadian. But around here where I live and work I seem to be the only one who thinks Canada ought to look at its own interests in realist terms. We swing from Liberals advocating Responsibility to Protect and a global “Pluralism Agenda” to Conservatives advocating intervention in pursuit of freedom and nation-building and “Religious Freedom” and back again without supporters of either side being willing to understand that these are all the same thing under different names. My inability to care about enemy of them flummoxes more than a couple of my co workers and friends. I am only interested than in another hundred years there is still a Canada, sovereign, united, free, and rich, and with someone still living here who would be recognized as Canadian by our founders. Fat chance.

  182. @Romanian
    Some were harmless. Some bred vicious warriors, like the famous Hessians.

    Sadly, now they’re all Hessians without no aggression.

  183. It isn’t only Germans who have a masochistic guilt complex. This Norwegian man was raped by a Somali migrant, and feels guilty that his rapist was deported.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3528236/Male-Norwegian-politician-raped-asylum-seeker-says-feels-GUILTY-attacker-deported-man-suffer-Somalia.html

    Most sane people would want these colonists to be deported before they commit any more crimes – but if you say this out loud in public, a white leftoid will step forward to angrily remonstrate. It is possible that Europe has simply lost the will to live.

  184. @random observer
    Blair is a Catholic, not a Jew. His universalism and progressivism appear sui generis, but most heavily driven by his Christianity and his liberalism.

    Even presuming Israel is at fault, asking where its borders will be when this is all over is a pretty odd question coming from anyone living in North America, which north of the Rio Grande comprises two countries established by conquest and steady westward expansion.

    It's one thing to condemn any perceived manipulation of the US to Israel's advantage, another to take a high horse and judge the expansionist dreams of another nation when sitting on a continent-spanning prize won by relentless land grabs.

    Yes, well, one of my pet theories, based on obs in the public and personal spheres, is that in the UK, the Irish have been the lever. Blair converted to Catholicism via his wife who prob has Irish ancestry.

    All countries invade and have been invaded. What were Europeans in the 16/17th C supposed to do, say, ‘well we’ve discovered all these nautical technologies, but hey, it wouldn’t be fair to use them’?

    What’s different now is that we have a shy empire. Noone was ever in any doubt when the Brit empire was aboad, were they?

  185. @Rifleman
    Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:

    Actually no it doesn't. It's basic Darwinism and capitalism.

    GERMANS WONT BREED.

    Simple as that.

    Cultural Capitalism needs workers (until the robots take over), consumers, debt carriers and tax payers.

    Decrepit old Germans aren't going to cut it.

    It wasn't Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary "cultural marxists" who forcibly prevented German reproduction.

    If Germans had a higher birth rate and bigger families over the past 60+ years they wouldn't be overwhelmed by immigration or the earlier Turkish immigration either.

    Not true.

    The EU is a border less zone, in other words 500+ million Europeans can freely move to Germany.
    The EU is also a zone of massive unemployment. Ergo, the notion that Germany ‘needed’ ‘workers’ from Syria is pure bullshit.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It seems like there are a few underemployed Greeks ...
    , @Ace
    The immigration zealots forever talk about what a contribution illegals make and increasing H1B visas is pretty much Job Number One in the US.

    I think Sweden has been vociferous about this "contribution" hogwash while their new pals go straight onto welfare. Forever.

    There's a 40-ft layer of lies over every aspect of the immigration issue. Because there's no rational basis for it.

    The true goal is destruction.
  186. @Anonymous
    Not true.

    The EU is a border less zone, in other words 500+ million Europeans can freely move to Germany.
    The EU is also a zone of massive unemployment. Ergo, the notion that Germany 'needed' 'workers' from Syria is pure bullshit.

    It seems like there are a few underemployed Greeks …

  187. @random observer
    Germany today is more populous, richer, and more productive than Britain or France and has been for a good while, so depending on the nature of any hypothetical conflict they would have some advantages. On the other hand they are demographically cratering just as hard and faster, have at least as big an alien settler population, and their immediate military capacity is probably inferior to that of Britain and France. They're also less accustomed to use it.

    It would depend on a lot of variables, but I can't see Germany ever again being the kind of hegemon it once could have been. More like the old man at the retirement villa who has a bigger cash pile, donates for nice things from time to time, gets cranky at the spendthrifts, but can't get out of his room much. Britain and France need some of his money, but they're the ones who go outside the villa and report back on what's happening in the world.

    The US taxpayer pays to keep Europe trouble free. Eisenhower began to make moves toward Germany having full defence capability including a say in nuclear weapons and the Russians were terrified. They actually thought Germany would be ready willing and able to go again. Hence Cuba.

    For the first time in history Germany has only friendly states all around it. Germany has decided to close down all nuclear power (associated with weapons). The Pegida marches caused Merkel to bring in immigrants. The single currency EU has kept Europe from war “Merkel never tires of repeating this mantra https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/without-the-euro-would-europe-have-turned-to-war/2011/09/21/gIQAxGpZrK_story.html

    Mearsheimer said if the Ukraine did not have nuclear weapons it would be attacked by Russia, because no one would give it a meaningful security guarantee, and that’s exactly what happened.

    Mearshiemer says without the US overseeing everything, Germany will be compelled to arm itself, not with soft power environmentalism and lessons for refugee Muslims in on how to have sex with Kraut blondes, but a real armed forces and nukes.

  188. @Reg Cæsar
    If the French had only had the sense to leave them alone, Germany would still be a collection of cute, harmless little duchies.

    Yes.
    —-

    Accurate scholarship can
    Unearth the whole offence
    From Luther until now
    That has driven a culture mad
    Find what occurred at Linz
    What huge imago made
    A psychopathic God:
    I and the public know
    What all schoolchildren learn,
    Those to whom evil is done
    Do evil in return.

    September 1, 1939 by W. H. Auden

    We could conceivably end up with an Arab superstate in the Middle East, if they can manage to reconcile the divisions in the way Germany did with Protestants and Catholics.

  189. @Altai
    I think a problem is people see how angry and vulgar people can be about this issue, partly because respectable people can't talk about these things. We all want to be nice and respectable but what we know about the world makes that hard, try as we might we can't go along with our new religion. So some cope by finding ways to separate themselves from 'those people', talking about 'culture' and assimilation and others cope by adopting this weird anti-Islam = pro-Israel stance. But just because unpleasant people hate Jews doesn't mean that there isn't a serious cohort of Jews in America who are zionists who do affect US policy in the Middle East. Thus we get 'lol you guys always blame the joos'. The last 15 to 20 years has seen the Neo-cons very effectively co-opt the US State Department, Victoria Nuland being an almost parody of a neo-con.

    1. Yes, Norway, Ireland and Sweden's immigration policy and multiculturalism was entirely developed indigenously has been in no way influenced by the US. I think Americans underestimate how influential it is, American media and elite opinion matters in Sweden, at least to the Swedish elite. The United States was the most powerful country in the world and decided that anti-racism was the great You do not need an alienated ethnic elite in your country to feed you 'anti-racism' in TV, film and other media. The internet has driven this up to 11, being dominated by American. You think these ideas spontaneously took root? Modern Academic Sociology, the priesthood of this new religion is an almost entirely American field.

    2. I can't speak to why anyone was ever foolish or naive enough to think this is what thought helping Iraq looks like.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0kcaziP-0o&nohtml5
    I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who were pro war were all fully onboard with killing arabs, for different motivations perhaps, but invading a country after a heavy bombing campaign is rarely done out of concern for it's inhabitants.

    Once again, the people who start and propose these wars don't believe any of that. They might convince others to believe it, but those people don't start the wars, they're just useful idiots.

    3. Declaring Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would do nothing. The Israeli government was ethnically cleansing it at apparently just the right rate not to ever bring serious pressure to bare and would do so afterward. It is a bizzarre decision because East Jerusalem was always supposed to be the capital of the Palestinian state. Recognising the entire city as the capital of Israel would end the ability of the US to even broker the (Admittedly farcical) two state solution talks. One of my favourite clips is the clear rigging of the vote at the DNC convention on changing the policy of the Democratic party on this issue. Whom was Villaraigosa afraid of? There were about equal numbers for and against...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2sWTwbzAcw&t=0m51s

    The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology. Hell, even Wolf Blitzer was once the head PR man for the Israel military in DC. Why did Clinton, Saunders and Trump (Even missing a debate) all go to the AIPAC conference, you know that annual event that average Americans care so much about?

    If there is no powerful Israel lobby why are American politicians so terrified of it?

    "I’m telling you right now as an ethnocentric Jew who moved to Israel to be around other ethnocentric Jews" Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith.

    1. You might want to look into the ownership of the “Swedish” media as well, starting with the Bonnier (Hirschel) family…

    3. It’s the old “ethnocentricism for me, but not for thee” argument. Seems to work for them, though.

  190. @Jack D
    Israel has made clear that if ANY party to the Syrian civil war violates its sovereignty, it will be punished. The rules of the game are that the Syrians, pro and anti Assad, can kill each other as much as they please all day every day on their side of the border and Israel doesn't care (they figure they win either way), but if you set foot or fly over the border line even for a second you are going to get shot at by Israel. Israel does give humanitarian medical aid, even to its Hamas enemies in Gaza.

    I'm not sure that Assad is really more of a threat to Israel than ISIS. The border with Syria has been calm for decades. ISIS are the kind of guys who might launch suicide raids across the border, etc.

    “ISIS are the kind of guys who might launch suicide raids across the border, etc.”

    Interesting viewpoint, especially since ISIS has never attacked Israel to date, have they? Kind of like al-Qaeda that way…

    I don’t even think that they’ve chopped any heads of individual Israelis, have they? Remarkable that they managed to find Japanese and Italians to decapitate, but no Israelis or Jews, isn’t it?

  191. @Almost Missouri
    I think it was actually his uncle, not his father, who was married to Doris Lessing, but still it is an interesting detail. He (uncle) was a ravening Commie who sat out the war in the relative ease of Rhodesia (perhaps partly thanks to his green card-ish marriage to Lessing) setting up Communist organizations wherever he went (he appears never to have had a real job). After the war he divorced Lessing and returned to der Vaterland where he promptly was rewarded with a series of prestigious international postings by the DDR. He finally managed to get himself and his latest wife killed in a Ugandan riot.

    Gysi's dad was also a DDR big shot (Minister of Culture), which I suppose would make him akin to the bloated apparatchiks memorably portrayed in the 2006 film The Lives of Others.

    I think it was actually his uncle, not his father, who was married to Doris Lessing…

    Yeah, it was his uncle, Gottfried, who’d married Lessing (I skimmed that Wikipedia article a bit too quickly, it seems). Gottfried was killed in Uganda at the end of Idi Amin’s rule (he was the East German Ambassador to Uganda).

  192. @Tiny Duck
    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    Gr8 b8 m8

  193. @Anonymous
    i live in germany. Here's the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
    Ordnary krauts are indoctrinated by allied reeducation and generally conformist. Merkel games her party and socialists and greens to maintain power. German media is tightly controlled and used to shame germans into submission. New AfD are tough coz the establishment resistance is strong. But they are changing the political landscape.

    Looks like you’re really triggering some people here…

    Kind of odd that Merkel’s father moved from West Germany to East Germany in the 1950s, too. He must have been pretty confident that he would be treated well by the Communists. It’s interesting that Merkel was an agitprop official under the Communists, too.

    People seem to be reacting rather strongly to your post. “It’s all the Germans’ fault! What do the Jews and the Americans have to do with it?” Just who do they think has controlled education and the media in Germany for the past 70 years?

  194. @anon
    Would that be true if the culture hadn't suppressed what happened in Russia / Ukraine immediately preceding the rise of Fascist parties in Europe i.e. the mass murder of millions in Bolshevik concentration camps?

    I'd suggest in that case the Nazis would be seen now as an extreme reaction to a real and extreme Bolshevik threat - still a bad thing but not entirely irrational or out of the blue.

    In which the white guilt currently being manipulated to destroy western civilization would be largely the fault of covering up what the Bolsheviks did.

    Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize is still hanging on the wall at the NYT, isn’t it?

  195. @Maj. Kong
    A partitioned Syria would serve Israeli interests better from my point of view. An Alwai, Druze, Kurd and rump Sunni state. The Druze state and an Alawi state with no Assads would likely have diplomatic relations with Israel. The Kurd state might as well. I doubt that the DC foreign policy establishment favors this idea, as it undermines the "moral" case against Russian Crimea.

    ISIS is too much of a bandit economy, and it rejects any pretense of the post-Westphalian international system. Without the tacit non-interference by Erdogan, they would have already burnt out.

    From the original neocon perspective, the goal is to make every Middle Eastern state a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel. By now I doubt that even Kagan & Kagan really think another "humanitarian intervention" will create a New Switzerland on the Tigris.

    Their main "fear" is that Iran will ship a nuke through Iraq/Syria, give it to Hezbollah, and then nuke Tel Aviv.

    “From the original neocon perspective, the goal is to make every Middle Eastern state a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel.”

    Hilarious. What makes this statment even more comical is that it’s immediately preceded by your elaborate plan for the vivisection of Syria into the maximum possible number of fragments, all for the benefit of Greater Israel.

    Perhaps if you replaced “…a liberal democracy that will cease hostility to Israel” with “a failed state that is no longer able to oppose Israel,” your allegation would be closer to the truth…

  196. @random observer
    Blair is a Catholic, not a Jew. His universalism and progressivism appear sui generis, but most heavily driven by his Christianity and his liberalism.

    Even presuming Israel is at fault, asking where its borders will be when this is all over is a pretty odd question coming from anyone living in North America, which north of the Rio Grande comprises two countries established by conquest and steady westward expansion.

    It's one thing to condemn any perceived manipulation of the US to Israel's advantage, another to take a high horse and judge the expansionist dreams of another nation when sitting on a continent-spanning prize won by relentless land grabs.

    As Helena correctly observes all countries have invaded or were invaded.

    Israel is free to entertain expansion and assess the risks and benefits thereof. However, even nations with a rich, past history of conquest are entitled to ask themselves whether it’s a good idea to be involved now in any way in the expansionist (or security) activities of other nations.

    That is not to say Israel does wish to create a Greater Israel. It may simply be pursuing a divide and conquer strategy as well as one that harms Hezbollah and frustrates Iran. Israel is a sovereign nation and anyone who wants Israel for themselves is free to come and get it. It also operates in a very dangerous environment and it’s security needs ought not to be dismissed.

    Given the power of Jewish money in America, it’s likely that America will find itself 100% behind whatever strategy Israel decides upon. That is just beyond odd in my view, especially given the large amount of Jewish money that supports the greatest threat to the United States — open borders.

  197. @helena
    I'm in two minds about the fallen birthrate: OTOH, there is a site called nobabies.net in which a scientist has developed an hypothesis about civilisational population decline, tldr; the end point is a sigma curve. Meaning that, somewhat like a cell, civilisations/cultures/breeding groups/gene pools have a natural tendency to 'die'. OTOH, my own decision to have only two children was a moral decision based on propaganda regarding enviornmental burden and the 'good green life'. The question is, who was pushing the green agenda in the 1980s? I don't know but I do know that most of the feminist writers, who gave me the idea to pursue career not family, were Jewish. More fool me for being persuaded by such authors.

    But..if European governments were aware in the 1980s of the pending collapse of population, why were they not advertising family development policies and offering incentives for families? Why were governments so ready to bring in labour from abroad?

    *** why were they not advertising family development policies and offering incentives for families. ***

    Precisely. The obvious solution was “ignored” and the ludicrous one (import unassimilable Muslims!) was pursued with vigor.

    It’s the same today. The obvious solution (seal the borders, repatriate, and provide aid in place) is ignored and the ludicrous one (import savages and parasites) is embraced!!

  198. @Anonymous
    Not true.

    The EU is a border less zone, in other words 500+ million Europeans can freely move to Germany.
    The EU is also a zone of massive unemployment. Ergo, the notion that Germany 'needed' 'workers' from Syria is pure bullshit.

    The immigration zealots forever talk about what a contribution illegals make and increasing H1B visas is pretty much Job Number One in the US.

    I think Sweden has been vociferous about this “contribution” hogwash while their new pals go straight onto welfare. Forever.

    There’s a 40-ft layer of lies over every aspect of the immigration issue. Because there’s no rational basis for it.

    The true goal is destruction.

  199. @helena
    "I lived in Britain for 27 years, the idea that the media “never mentions Israel” strikes me as bizarre indeed. Sometimes it felt like they never mentioned anything else."

    Bizarre indeed. Not only is Israel never mentioned but the forthcoming memorial has to my knowledge only been mentioned once - when Cameron announced it would be erected. The exchange in parliament was quite amusing, so many MPs reminded the honorable gentleman of the anniversary that eventually he said 'can i please remind the house that since I have been in government xmillions have been given to Jewish Education Charities'. I forget the x but it wasn't small and could certainly, imo, have been used for wider benefit in mainstream education.

    How provincial is America when it can get a UK prime minister to invade a country that didn't even invade America let alone invade the UK?

    1) I never said America was provincial, I said American alt-rightists are provincial in as much as they advance explanations for phenomena that are common to America and Europe, but only fit the data in America.

    2) Try doing the following thing. Open up google and type “Guardian Israel”. Then type “BBC Israel”. Then, to prove it’s not some Lefty thing type “Telegraph Israel”. Then for comparison do the same thing with, say, Algeria. Easy.

  200. @Steve Sailer
    The most sophisticated analysis of the neocons' foreign policy relative to Israel was offered by Francis Fukuyama in 2005:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/francis-fukuyama-and-charles/

    I agree that the neoconservatives Jewishness and their pre-occupation with Israel is important in understanding why they thought what they thought and think what they think. What I disagree with is the claim is the claim that they always knew that their ostensible plan (democratise the Middle East) would fail and were using it as a ruse for their real plan (destroy the Middle East cue maniacal laughter).

    It’s a measure of how detached from sobriety the alt-right has become that saying this is regarded as controversial.

  201. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    People of any group are "on the whole" pretty stupid. A distribution curve of IQs for any group, of any race or nationality in the world, contains vast numbers of mediocre minds. Germans included.

    The real hubris happens when a group teaches its young that they all are exceptional. I won't bother to identify which groups do this.

    No, this has not too much to do with IQs. There are smart Germans — scientists, intellectuals — who believe that Germans have a “duty” to let in millions of very foreign people that are nothing like Germans (hot-headed and violent especially, Germans are, on the whole, meek); they might not be too educated though, because the more educated you are, the more you want to preserve the culture you grew up with and with which you spent hours upon hours in your youth — reading classics, listening to classical music and learning European languages.

    But talking of IQ, we should also note the standard deviation: it’s high for Europeans, leading to very dumb people, but also extreme geniuses (of which Germany had plenty). I think it’s mostly decades of brainwashing, “Re-education”.

  202. @Tiny Duck
    Diluting the proportion of the white population in any country is desirable as is it promotes diversity and ensures that whites will have less institutional power. This in turn leads to less racism and bigotry. This in turns leads to a more free and equitable society.

    So the logic goes, proportionately fewer whites = “less racism and bigotry” and a “more free and equitable society”?

    Fortunately we have a 90% non-white planet to test this hypothesis upon. Let’s examine the free and equitable caste system of India, set up since the time of Vedas and only partially dismantled with the arrival of the British. Score 1 for colonialism, actually, and none for indigenous equity.

    Let’s look to Japan, the famously closed immigration-averse society for “less racism and bigotry”. No whites as the speculation goes, but also no ability for non-Japanese to become fully accepted, regardless their attempts at assimilation.

    This is tedious, but should we look at the Gulf States where clan heritage cements your position in the hierarchy? Slave labor and so on? I understand this is a bait-post, but the reality is so diametrically opposed to fewer whites = “less racism and bigotry” that it needs addressing. Even Brazil, the utopian melting pot of our ignoramus’ dreams, self-segregates along phenotypic lines. Light eyes, straight hair, and non-African phenotypes signal social position far more than Sick Duck would hope.

  203. @Gabriel M
    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it's possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn't make any difference. There's no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for "F**k You!" most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to "Bet on Iraqi democracy" by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That's what Israelis wants America to do and that's what they'd make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran's nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    "The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology."
     
    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I've described. Since there's no such thing as race and everyone's the same, and since there's nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written "You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it's all cool because all I care about is Israel's security". That's what you claim they really think, but you certainly can't prove it based on their "explicit"ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was "racist". According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it's reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.


    "Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith."

    That's cheap and you know it.

    Regarding point 1, sorry, but the American (academic left) influence is rather clear in Sweden. Recall that those Americans hate rednecks too. Yet what latte sipping Green voter on Söder (campus commie, basically) doesn’t brag about staying in Brooklyn if they can? And how is it we are getting flooded with weird guilt trips about blacks and arabs when we have hardly had any contact with them? Why are we nowadays using the American word ‘gay’ rather than the Swedish? Why are Swedish media so reverent about JFK, Obama and the rest? Why do we have to love muslims? (Ask Gen. Wesley Clark.) And so on. It’s pretty obvious if you look around.

    (OK, the news are controlled by various Middle Eastern factions. But it’s pretty strange that we care so much about the Middle East too, isn’t it?)

  204. “Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:
    – Either the German people are tainted by hereditary blood guilt for their ancestors’ crimes for which they must pay reparations to random Muslims; *
    – Or Germans are so genetically fearsome that the threat they pose to the rest of the world must be diluted by mass migration;”

    Right, these both seem to underlie the mass-immigration enthusiasms of press and progressives alike. How many times have I seen Kipling’s “When the Saxon Begins to Hate” quoted unironically in the last half-year..? In fact much of modern paranoia stems from just that, the sense that the Nazi era wasn’t a totalitarian take-over of Germany, with forced conscription and secret police, but an embodiment of the everyday German’s aspirations. A tragic and cruel synopsis, considering only some 10-15% of the population voted for Hitler when voting was still an option, and the rest forcibly ‘converted’ once the dictatorship was cemented. Not unlike group conversions during take-overs by Communists, Muslims, and other believe-or-behead groups.

    As for how Germans could believe such slander, schooling can mold a generation more effectively than any (other) propaganda. And Merkel, late to the mea-culpa game as a 40-something East German, more than made up for it as Chancellor. I do wonder psychologically what occurs when one’s homeland and culture (GDR) disappear and the replacement culture has “blood guilt” saturating every consideration of nationalism and group identity. A newly-minted 15-year-old SJW has little power, apart from time as volunteer auxiliary thought police, to effect social change, but a 40-year-old convert who attains the chancellorship has all the fire and none of the weakness.

  205. @Davidski

    i live in germany. Here’s the deal:
    merkel is not an ethnic german. Probs mix of polish and jewish. She probs was stasi informant. She works for jewish and us elite.
     
    Hilarious shit.

    You need to get in tune with the reality that Germans are doing this to themselves.

    In which case why is Zuckerberg censoring Facebook to help the German state?

    The destruction of the Western nations is only happening (and could only happen) because the mass media is owned by and actively supporting the globalists against the people.

  206. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anony-mouse
    "Where is the evidence that, say, the French, British, Italians or Spanish willed on – in their bones – a tremendous surge in undocumented immigration?"

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'in their bones', but when offered a choice of an anti-migrant party to vote for, the majority in each country you mentioned voted otherwise.

    I can add all the Scandinavian nations.

    They vote by secret ballot BTW

    People vote for mainstream politicians who say they will control immigration but don’t when in power.

    The media help the mainstream parties in this by lying and covering up what is happening and by attacking the livelihoods of anyone who resist.

    The majority are clearly in no way doing this to themselves; it is being done to them and saying otherwise is part of the demoralization process.

  207. @Anonymous
    It's not projection, it's consistency. According to HBD types, a Mexican guy who picks his nose in public is due to genetics. Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.

    Something far more consequential, like, say, genocidal anti-Semitism, is even more genetic according to HBD.

    Who ran the Bolshevik concentration camps?

  208. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Gabriel M
    1) I hate to break to break it to you, but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes. Most Europeans think Clinton is right wing, they think Mitt Romney is beyond right wing, they are basically incapable of thinking about Donald Trump at all. The idea that Swedes and Norwegians are destroying their countries through suicidal liberalism, because they want to be cool like Americans is the inverse of reality. If anything they do so partly to not be like those awful Americans.

    So again, you are confirming my point: American Provincialism to an almost psychotic degree.

    2) The people who come up with the ideas for invading Middle Eastern dustbuckets are people who ten years before were at University supporting other people who came up with the ideas of other people invading Middle Eastern dustbuskets. I guess it's possible that the first person in the chain knew it was all lies, but it wouldn't make any difference. There's no neocon initiation ceremony where neocons learn that all their beliefs are bullshit and its really just a plan to make Israel more safe.

    80% of Americans supported the Iraq war and while some perhaps did so for "F**k You!" most did so because they believed that they could bring about democracy. I remember very well advertisements on conservative websites to "Bet on Iraqi democracy" by investing in the Iraqi stock market. Poor guys.

    So again, you are confirming my point: the refusal to believe that ideological opponents really believe what they profess to believe.

    3) You are flailing around. Good idea or bad idea, if Israel controlled American foreign policy, then tomorrow the U.S. recognize undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. That's what Israelis wants America to do and that's what they'd make them do if they had the power. After that, they would make them take out Iran's nuclear programme and after that a whole bunch of other stuff. But apparently, according to you, they try to instigate wars against Gaddafi for no reason whatsoever. The more plausible explanation, namely that Susan Powers actually believes what she has been saying and writing for two decades now, is apparently too implausible to contemplate.

    "The Neo-Cons exist and make explicit their ideology."
     
    Are you thick? Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I've described. Since there's no such thing as race and everyone's the same, and since there's nothing fundamentally bad about Islam, it follows that if despotic regimes are removed you can install democracy. Nowhere has even one written "You know what, invading these countries is just going to lead to disaster, but it's all cool because all I care about is Israel's security". That's what you claim they really think, but you certainly can't prove it based on their "explicit"ideology.

    Edward Luttwak relates one experience he had with some big policy honchos where he told them that post-war Iraq would degenerate into sectarian warfare. and was told by the shocked figures he was "racist". According to you they were winking at each other and all broke out in maniacally laughter after he left the room. Or perhaps Luttwak invented the story to cover up for his Jew friends. Or perhaps it's reasonable to assume that people believe what the say they believe unless you have some evidence to contrary.


    "Ah, I thought you were somebody arguing in good faith."

    That's cheap and you know it.

    Usual bad faith nonsense.

    but most Europeans regard Americans as right wing nutcases. In Britain the spectre of gun toting, black lynching rednecks is ritually brought out as a buttress to the liberal consensus about every five minutes

    They think of *right-wing* Americans like that because the media use that image as part of their pro liberal propaganda. The fact you can rely in your argument on everyone in the world having the same mental image of “redneck” proves the opposite of your point. Where did that image come from – Hollywood.

    Neocons make explicit their ideology in exactly the way I’ve described.

    Their private ideology is explicit in little known documents like the ones produced by PNAC.

    Their public ideology – spreading democracy – was a total lie.

    Everyone who’s read up on this knows that what your saying is a blatant lie but you can get away with it because the truth is suppressed by the media.

  209. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rifleman
    Ironically, the anti-German argument for why Germany must take in millions of Muslims only makes sense using racialist logic:

    Actually no it doesn't. It's basic Darwinism and capitalism.

    GERMANS WONT BREED.

    Simple as that.

    Cultural Capitalism needs workers (until the robots take over), consumers, debt carriers and tax payers.

    Decrepit old Germans aren't going to cut it.

    It wasn't Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary "cultural marxists" who forcibly prevented German reproduction.

    If Germans had a higher birth rate and bigger families over the past 60+ years they wouldn't be overwhelmed by immigration or the earlier Turkish immigration either.

    It wasn’t Jews, Muslims, Germanophobes or the imaginary “cultural marxists” who forcibly prevented German reproduction.

    Even if that were true – which it isn’t – if low native birth rates were/are see as a problem – which they have for a long time now – why has there *never* been a call for pro-natal policies except in Israel and Russia?

    Not once – by any mainstream party in the entire West over 30+ years.

    By now it is absolutely 100% clear that whoever is driving this specifically don’t want White babies.

  210. @This Is Our Home
    Bad luck mate. It was deemed unclassified. As in not sensitive. I am qualified to know what I am talking about. You are some half wit on the Internet. And the content is just an argument made by an individual at a time. If you ever left your parents basement you would know that every argument is made by somebody at some time and therefore this email is meaningless.

    Firstly, I am not your mate

    Secondly, you showcase again your ignorance with more unproved claims and ad hominems

    Thirdly, qualified or not, we will never know, judging by your writings you are not even qualified to properly troll The Guardian’s comment section

    Lastly, if you want to shill, shill like a pro. Improve your reading comprehension skills enough to understand what rhetoric is and for what is useful, and once that is clear, read and practise a lot.

    But wait, I guess you should get out of that (intellectual) basement you live in order to do all that? (rhetoric question, your first lesson)

    Try again shill

    • Replies: @This Is Our Home
    Someone is not hyper-sensitive as well as being hopelessly ignorant. Good luck painting walls or whatever somebody very charitably pays you to do.
  211. @BigFatJew
    Firstly, I am not your mate

    Secondly, you showcase again your ignorance with more unproved claims and ad hominems

    Thirdly, qualified or not, we will never know, judging by your writings you are not even qualified to properly troll The Guardian's comment section

    Lastly, if you want to shill, shill like a pro. Improve your reading comprehension skills enough to understand what rhetoric is and for what is useful, and once that is clear, read and practise a lot.

    But wait, I guess you should get out of that (intellectual) basement you live in order to do all that? (rhetoric question, your first lesson)

    Try again shill

    Someone is not hyper-sensitive as well as being hopelessly ignorant. Good luck painting walls or whatever somebody very charitably pays you to do.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS