The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Russophobia: If There Is Hope, It Lies in the Young Apolitical Proles
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Audacious Epigone conjures up a graph of a 2017 Reuters poll on Russia: Threat or Menace?

The Jewish sample size is only 63, so take this with a grain of statistical salt. But, yeah, hysteria over Russia is, more than anything else, an old Jewish Democrat thing: Bubbe told me about the Czar and his Cossacks and now they’re back!

The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?

 
Hide 195 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The battles of Kursk and Stalingrad will stand as monuments to valor. Both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The battles of Kursk and Stalingrad will stand as monuments to valor. Both sides.
     
    Valor? That's an interesting synonym for "butchery".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Russia only got a large number of Jews with the destruction of Poland. Those Jews entered the Russia Empire hating it because of the role played by the Cossacks in the Ukranian rebellion against the Polish Empire that set up the eventual collapse of Poland. Jews had it very good in old Poland, being allowed a great deal of leeway to gouge non-Poles, especially those who were Orthodox. So naturally the Cossacks made a point to attack Jews as a group that specifically targeted them.

    ‘The striking lack of self-skepticism,’ of self-awareness, of an ability to recognize one’s family and group/tribe as getting filthy rich by cheating others, is far from new to Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Jews also grabbed kids and sold them as rape toys to the Muslims, who were the empire next door. It doesn't matter who killed Christ or who can sustainably grow your economy when you pull back a curtain and see your neighbors' children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. How did you get the data?

    I get zero respondents when I try this filter.

    http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TM512Y15_6/filters/Z19:9

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. I really love Audacious Epigone’s bar chart color schemes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Ha! Well, he is saving us a bit of work so that's a plus.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, it saves all the trouble for the eye and mind to keep going back and forth to the legend. I wonder why nobody has used this effective color scheme before ... no, I don't.

    BTW, it'd probably been more confusing, I guess, but I'd have like to see the R's being blue and D's being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.

    , @Silva
    You might call them quite audacious. But why do older people go blue? By reference to leaves and fruits, yellow/orange/brown would make more sense; if it's just calling old people "sad", I think we could do without that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Yeah not letting Baby Boomers off the hook that easily just to blame it on Jews, who are low single digit % of the population. Cold War propaganda really messed people up.

    It will be funny in 2020 if the nomination is remotely contested, to see a lot of establishment/neoliberal Democrats fiercely criticize the left wing candidate(s) for not being pro-war enough while at the same time having to pretend they’re upset with Trump, still in office, for whatever foreign affairs stuff he is actually doing. (If someone like Bernie/Biden is running and is going to cruise to the nomination in a few weeks we won’t see as much of that, but even so)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years - seriously that's like the salient feature of jews always and everywhere zero self awareness zero ability to put themselves in another shoes its like they dont even have two consciousnesses only the is it good for the jews consciousness
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Maybe those young people are just placing other concerns higher in the stack, like proper use of transgender pronouns and the inalienable right of blacks to loiter at Starbucks. There’s only so much room in their little cloud minds to process all the programming being fed to them.

    Then again, there is hope that the tendency of young people to rebel will manifest itself as a reversal of current goodthink. There do seem to be a growing number of right-thinking young people rejecting their parents’ politically correct clusterfuck. Maybe, just maybe, this new hipness will grow enough to reject globalism and tabula rasa relativism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?

    I don’t think this is really about the past. It’s about the future, and Jews are right to fear ‘Russia’ as a metaphor.

    In the past, Jews really worried about well-being and security, if not necessarily survival(which really did become a pressing issue in WWII). Pogroms were periodic and didn’t threaten Jewish existence, but they were brutal and nasty. So, in the past, Jewish animus against Russia was one of security and ‘survival’. Basic stuff. And many Russian/Polish Jews who came to the US were just looking for a better life.

    Today… Jews are the ruling elites of the US and much of the West. They are now addicted to supremacist control. So, the real anxiety about Russia isn’t about traumatic memories of pogroms-of-the-past but the idea among gentiles deciding not to submit to Jewish supremacism.

    From a survival POV, this shouldn’t matter. Russia does its own thing, but it doesn’t target Jews. Jews are protected, and Jews are vastly over-represented in wealth in Russia. So, the Russian example shows Jews can get along just fine in a modern gentile society.
    So, why are Jews so upset with Russia? Because it is ruled by Russian Power. For Jews in supremacist mode, that just isn’t tolerable. THEY must have the power and control, just like the British imperialists thought they had the right to rule over non-Brits.

    Higher one goes, so do one’s expectations.
    It’s like sports. If a team is just trying to have a winning season, it is happy to win 9 games and lose 7. Not very good but still, it won more than games than lost.
    But if the team makes it to the playoffs, none of that matters. It wants to win more games. If it loses, it will be very upset. Never mind it had a winning season. The ambitions have risen to winning the playoffs.
    Now, suppose the guys won the playoffs and made it to the championship game. Shouldn’t they be happy even if they lose the championship because they had a winning season and won the playoffs? Pretty impressive stuff. But once a team makes it to the final game, winning the trophy is all that matters. If the team loses, it’s like the end of the world. It’s human psychology. This is why in game-shows, people will risk the 50,000 they’ve won so far to make 500,000. The stakes keep rising.

    Jews won so spectacularly since WWII that the idea of Russia saying NO to Jewish hegemony and its influence infecting European nations and even white Americans is deeply threatening to Jewish elites who are addicted to supremacism.

    ‘Russia’ as a metaphor is the will of white gentiles to say NO. Jews are used to making ‘an offer gentiles can’t refuse’.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mishra, utu
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is a good point, there's different communities with different worldviews.
    , @Anonymous
    Putin is a Russian 'Trump'. Neither man is by any means anti-Semitic, but nor are they dependent on Jewish good will to hold power, which makes them scary and unpredictable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let’s not forget – they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I’ve ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    How is Russian organized crime no longer relevant?
    , @Thirdeye

    ...natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals...
     
    How do you figure? They have two natural spheres of influence half a world apart. Not a situation with a drive for conflict unless someone decides to muck about on somebody else's doorstep, which we've been doing a lot of since 1945. And before that the Brits and the Germans took turns over close to a hundred years. But there is nothing in our core interests that compels us to do what the Brits and the Germans did. The role we assumed was driven first by Truman's abdication of leadership to Churchill at Potsdam and we never recovered.
    , @inertial

    The Cold War. Let’s not forget – they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
     
    No they didn't. That part of the Cold War propaganda was an outright lie.

    The natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals
     
    How exactly are America and Russia competitors, let alone natural ones? What are they competing over? The only reason these countries are close to war today is because America is poking around Russia's backyard (and the front yard, and the living room, and the bedroom.)
    , @Mitleser

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future).
     
    American policy ensures that Russia is going to be asset, not a competitor or rival, of China.
    You are basically the Nazi Germany to Russia's Britain.
    , @anonymous
    "And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States."

    A fact which is too often forgotten in the debate. Here's Tocqueville on Rooshia: “There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans."

    Bingo!!
    , @John Gruskos
    1. The "Russian" Revolution wasn't particularly Russian. Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev were Jews, Stalin was Georgian, Lenin was 1/4 Jewish, 1/4 Tatar, and 0% ethnic Russian. Of the major Bolsheviks, only Bukharin was ethnic Russian, and he was the most moderate, while Trotsky was the most radical.

    2. The "Russian" mafia isn't particularly Russian. Most of the corrupt 1990s oligarchs were Jews, and so is the current leader of the "Russian" mafia, Semion Mogilevich.

    3. Unlike the predominantly Jewish Bolsheviks or the predominantly Jewish organized crime, the Russian national state is not, never has been, and never will be an offensive threat to America. They are geographically too isolated from us to be a threat to us - unlike China, which will soon be contesting the US Navy's control of the Pacific Ocean, or Mexico, which contests control of our border regions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    Read More
    • Disagree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The astroturf clankening in Maidan was the most obvious and transparent thing, it would have disgusted Kermit Roosevelt to see. But I'm sure that if China used a fake popular movement to cut off half our ports we would just sit still and let it happen. Does Peterson ever mention the Ukrainian government totally destroying its national employment rate and getting abandoned by its IMF masters the last time they tried this schtick? Does he mention the former leader of the country talking about wanting to genocide Russophile Ukrainians with nuclear weapons?
    , @Lot

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility. Unfortunately not much profit to stopping it compared to building sitting duck navies (USA) and submarines so crappy they are docked for repairs far more often than in service (Russia).
    , @Yak-15
    Russia has a declining population, an economy dependent upon fast-becoming obsolete resources, a feeble ability to project power, a surging superpower on its eastern borders and extreme levels of domestic poverty. The only thing the Russians threaten are our bizarre and newly erected US interests in the Baltic and far Eastern Europe.

    It’s unfortunate that those populations must fear the Russian army but pissing off a nuclear power to defend former Russian empire states is arguably impossible and absolutely not in our strategic interests.
    , @Tom Nicholson
    I corrected Peter Akuleyev's comment for him

    Went to a great talk by Shabbos goy last night. Shabbos goy is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian defense of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read Shabbos goy reports on the Daily Signal. Shabbos goy makes a powerful case for Putin being Israel threat number one.
    , @Captain Tripps

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    Some specific bullet points from the talk might help some of us skeptics of your observation think on the subject a bit more. Not familiar with Peterson or his niche.

    Captain Tripps, [email protected]
    , @AnotherDad

    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    If he does, he's a bozo. Maybe sharp, but obsessive about his patch and missing the big picture.

    The #1 threat to the US is mass immigration.
    #2 is our deindustrialization in preference to China.

    Both of these products of having an "elite" with a globalist/trading-marketplace mentality, rather than a nationalist/production mentality.

    In terms of threats from other nations, that's so obviously China--the only credible competitor, and one with a somewhat different more classically imperialist view of how the world should be organized. And a competitor who will continue its dramatic rise for the obvious HBD reasons--IQ, personality and the math\verbal split (as Yan Shen describes).
    , @istevefan
    The trouble is guys like this Nolan Peterson are still playing the board game Risk like it was 100 years ago. Those days are gone. It's not about nations and armies and whose in control. It's about demographics. And the Global South is swamping us. The goal should be to control our borders. And we can be much more effective if we pool our resources and efforts to help each other in doing this. We even have natural allies in the NE Asians as surely they do not want to be swamped either, and would like to have a functioning market in Europe and North America.

    Even Seinfeld made fun of Risk and The Ukraine back in1995. This is hilarious, but it is the way the people in charge of us are actually thinking.
    , @Twodees Partain
    The " Russian invasion of Ukraine" is an event that I missed. When did it happen, and did it even take place outside the fevered, diseased brain of John McCain? Your boy Peterson sounds a little unhinged. Try to stay out of arm's reach of him if you attend another of his talks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Reginald Maplethorp
    I really love Audacious Epigone's bar chart color schemes.

    Ha! Well, he is saving us a bit of work so that’s a plus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Twinkie
    I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let's not forget - they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I've ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries - both continental hegemons - to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    How is Russian organized crime no longer relevant?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. OT:

    California is VERY serious about these illegal infiltrators from South America:

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/04/18/california-officials-declare-emergency-over-huge-invasive-nutria/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Organic nutria, barbecued. That is good eatin', right there. Put a little door in the wall to let'em through.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. I just ran the same item, and it showed 101 Jewish responses, not 68, and 57% saying imminent or serious threat, compared to 55% for the entire poll sample and 58% for whites.

    Then I saw you could expand the sample size by expanding the date scope. The 57% result was with the default date setting.

    But let’s not let that stop us from ruminating about the Eternal Jew’s fear of the Cossack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    You're becoming a Johnny One-Note on the JQ lately.

    We already have Jack D for that, you know..

    Not to mention the entire MSM & Internet

    , @Captain Tripps
    Maybe Steve ran the data before Hasbara got there, and you ran the data after Hasbara got there?
    , @AnotherDad
    Lot, could you specifically make your argument as to what's wrong?

    Audacious is usually pretty good. Seems to highlight data that seems relevant, makes a good point and does reasonable fair analysis. If he's dropped the ball here, let's air it out.

    What data is he leaving out? If its a question of time of data collection, then while the long range stuff is interesting, i'd say the survey's from right now--during the current Russia hysteria--are the most interesting.

    But i'm not clear on what exactly you're doing differently than Audacious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Substitute “diversity” for “Russia” and repeat the question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Read More
    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Putin is a threat to America because of debunked incidents in Great Britain concerning Russians? What's he going to do, besmirch the good name of Brighton Beach?
    , @Thirdeye
    Sure, and the targets of said "military grade nerve agents" somehow miraculously recover.
    , @Lot
    That was a false flag! The polonium poisoning, that too.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

    Also, while it totally wasn't Russia, they had it coming.

    These other 14 Russians.... Mossad, CIA, suicide, etc

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil
    , @Mr. Anon
    China is a bigger threat to America than is Russia.

    The greatest threat to America is it's own ruling/governing class.
    , @Captain Tripps
    Right, because American presidents have never assassinated or attempted to assassinate their political enemies. Just ask Fidel Castro. Oh yeah, that was a "rogue agent". That's where the buck stops.
    , @Bugg
    Gets back to the whole globalist/neocon busybody mindset. No American with a teaspoon of common sense cares if Russia rules over Georgia or Ukraine. There are lots of governments doing bad things. Why does the US care about Putin besides some Cold War residue? Are we nearly as concerned about what South Africa is doing to his white Afrikaners or what the Saudis are doing to Yemenis? And on the occasions we have taken steps to remove the Bad Guy-Ho Chi Minh, Noriega, Khaddafi, Saddam Hussein-it made things worse. we continue to waste time, resources and blood on things thousands of miles physically and from out core concerns while doing nothing about the issues we could address right here.
    , @AnotherDad

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
     
    Jack--how does this compute?

    Let's say Putin is poisoning his defectors. Maybe bad manners vis-à-vis how spycraft is supposed to be played? But threat to America?

    I'm not a big fan of Putin. He basically seems to be a "Greater Russia" imperialist, while i'm a nationalist. (To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that's a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is ... Chechens! Oh, joy.)

    But let's say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that's a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It's a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US? Huh? Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for over 250 years, until post-91, during which time the US was born, grew, became a great continental nation and world power. It didn't seem to affect us ... at all!

    And that "swallowing" scenario--itself no threat to the US--is a wild and crazy Putin that doesn't even have the basic claim to importance of having actually happened.
    , @Boethiuss

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
     
    Truth be told, I could live with that even. But nuclear saber-rattling is not acceptable.

    The point of being a legitimate nuclear power is that you have nukes, not that you use them.
    , @surly
    Dumbass comment of the day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Twinkie
    I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let's not forget - they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I've ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries - both continental hegemons - to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    …natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals…

    How do you figure? They have two natural spheres of influence half a world apart. Not a situation with a drive for conflict unless someone decides to muck about on somebody else’s doorstep, which we’ve been doing a lot of since 1945. And before that the Brits and the Germans took turns over close to a hundred years. But there is nothing in our core interests that compels us to do what the Brits and the Germans did. The role we assumed was driven first by Truman’s abdication of leadership to Churchill at Potsdam and we never recovered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Jake
    Russia only got a large number of Jews with the destruction of Poland. Those Jews entered the Russia Empire hating it because of the role played by the Cossacks in the Ukranian rebellion against the Polish Empire that set up the eventual collapse of Poland. Jews had it very good in old Poland, being allowed a great deal of leeway to gouge non-Poles, especially those who were Orthodox. So naturally the Cossacks made a point to attack Jews as a group that specifically targeted them.

    'The striking lack of self-skepticism,' of self-awareness, of an ability to recognize one's family and group/tribe as getting filthy rich by cheating others, is far from new to Jews.

    Jews also grabbed kids and sold them as rape toys to the Muslims, who were the empire next door. It doesn’t matter who killed Christ or who can sustainably grow your economy when you pull back a curtain and see your neighbors’ children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Bubbe told me about the Czar and his Cossacks and now they’re back!

    It’s a plausible theory but I don’t think it’s right. Half of Israeli Jews had, generally speaking, the same Bubbe, and yet they are relaxed about Russia. Or take French Jews of Russian origin (such as Serge Gainsbourg.) As far as I know, they are not especially Russophobic, either.

    So, American Jewish hostility to Russia must be more of an American thing. Perhaps it’s related to decades of Cold War propaganda. I suspect that if you’d poll Gentiles with the same socioeconomic profile as Jews, especially in regards to education, you’d get similar results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniil Adamov
    Israeli Jews have real threats to their existence to worry about. So do French Jews, come to think of it. American Jews have much more time on their hands and much less care in their lives, comparatively speaking.
    , @Anon
    Don’t forget that American Jews just lived Russia as well as communist China and Cuba.

    Soviet Russia was the supreme pride of American Jews because their cousins had made the revolution and ran the Soviet Union.

    So American jews, especially the college profs and idiot intellectuals just loved Russia. It was run by Jews and they killed 50 million goyim.
    , @Neil Templeton
    "So, American Jewish hostility to Russia must be more of an American thing. Perhaps it’s related to decades of Cold War propaganda."

    More likely related to anti-Trump, anti-nationalist, anti-Putin propaganda in the last five years. The fantasy is that Cold War histrionics had real effect on most Americans, who are essentially indifferent to Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Putin is a threat to America because of debunked incidents in Great Britain concerning Russians? What’s he going to do, besmirch the good name of Brighton Beach?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Sure, and the targets of said “military grade nerve agents” somehow miraculously recover.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Honest question, what would be the negative consequence to the U.S. if Putin had a free hand in the Ukraine or Syria, etc.? My default is to be slightly favorable to Putin (albeit cautiously). But I am curious as to what the nightmare scenario for the other side is. To me, caring about a Russian military presence in these far-flung places seems as quixotic as caring about a border squabble between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Almost nothing (unless the pipeline idea is true, in which case "nothing, plus a pipeline"). Those are all examples of highly aggressive and invasive Western attacks on Russia, where Russia is struggling to claw back its status quo, and not take new territory or encroach on ours. The fact that they are discussed as though they were Putin projects originating from whole cloth in the Kremlin is itself propagandistic delusion. There was a Soros color revolution in every single formerly Soviet republic. In every case it was identified as such. Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the 'Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    The astroturf clankening in Maidan was the most obvious and transparent thing, it would have disgusted Kermit Roosevelt to see. But I’m sure that if China used a fake popular movement to cut off half our ports we would just sit still and let it happen. Does Peterson ever mention the Ukrainian government totally destroying its national employment rate and getting abandoned by its IMF masters the last time they tried this schtick? Does he mention the former leader of the country talking about wanting to genocide Russophile Ukrainians with nuclear weapons?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    That was a false flag! The polonium poisoning, that too.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

    Also, while it totally wasn’t Russia, they had it coming.

    These other 14 Russians…. Mossad, CIA, suicide, etc

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    The Scot Young case is fascinating, but the body count seems to be gangster-related rather than State-related. Lotta lotta bad boys involved, like Berezovsky.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Klebnikov#Reporting_on_Russia

    You do have to wonder if Young's wife, determined to "find where he'd hidden the money" didn't inadvertantly bring about his death. On the other hand, if he HAD hidden it with no legal links to him, someone could have killed for it - and if he hadn't hidden it and really was (relatively) poor, he may have been killed for not paying debts.

    Personally I think it would be better if London wasn't a cosy home and money-laundering centre for thieves and gangsters from across the globe, and if the UK wasn't so easy to get in and out of, but the UK authorities seem happy with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Twinkie
    I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let's not forget - they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I've ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries - both continental hegemons - to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    The Cold War. Let’s not forget – they tried to destroy us for 40 years.

    No they didn’t. That part of the Cold War propaganda was an outright lie.

    The natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals

    How exactly are America and Russia competitors, let alone natural ones? What are they competing over? The only reason these countries are close to war today is because America is poking around Russia’s backyard (and the front yard, and the living room, and the bedroom.)

    Read More
    • Agree: Mishra, Hunsdon, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    How exactly are America and Russia competitors, let alone natural ones? What are they competing over? The only reason these countries are close to war today is because America is poking around Russia’s backyard (and the front yard, and the living room, and the bedroom.)
     
    They are competing over Russia's inability to see itself as anything other than a Tier 1 superpower when it manifestly isn't one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Anon
    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?

    I don't think this is really about the past. It's about the future, and Jews are right to fear 'Russia' as a metaphor.

    In the past, Jews really worried about well-being and security, if not necessarily survival(which really did become a pressing issue in WWII). Pogroms were periodic and didn't threaten Jewish existence, but they were brutal and nasty. So, in the past, Jewish animus against Russia was one of security and 'survival'. Basic stuff. And many Russian/Polish Jews who came to the US were just looking for a better life.

    Today... Jews are the ruling elites of the US and much of the West. They are now addicted to supremacist control. So, the real anxiety about Russia isn't about traumatic memories of pogroms-of-the-past but the idea among gentiles deciding not to submit to Jewish supremacism.

    From a survival POV, this shouldn't matter. Russia does its own thing, but it doesn't target Jews. Jews are protected, and Jews are vastly over-represented in wealth in Russia. So, the Russian example shows Jews can get along just fine in a modern gentile society.
    So, why are Jews so upset with Russia? Because it is ruled by Russian Power. For Jews in supremacist mode, that just isn't tolerable. THEY must have the power and control, just like the British imperialists thought they had the right to rule over non-Brits.

    Higher one goes, so do one's expectations.
    It's like sports. If a team is just trying to have a winning season, it is happy to win 9 games and lose 7. Not very good but still, it won more than games than lost.
    But if the team makes it to the playoffs, none of that matters. It wants to win more games. If it loses, it will be very upset. Never mind it had a winning season. The ambitions have risen to winning the playoffs.
    Now, suppose the guys won the playoffs and made it to the championship game. Shouldn't they be happy even if they lose the championship because they had a winning season and won the playoffs? Pretty impressive stuff. But once a team makes it to the final game, winning the trophy is all that matters. If the team loses, it's like the end of the world. It's human psychology. This is why in game-shows, people will risk the 50,000 they've won so far to make 500,000. The stakes keep rising.

    Jews won so spectacularly since WWII that the idea of Russia saying NO to Jewish hegemony and its influence infecting European nations and even white Americans is deeply threatening to Jewish elites who are addicted to supremacism.

    'Russia' as a metaphor is the will of white gentiles to say NO. Jews are used to making 'an offer gentiles can't refuse'.

    This is a good point, there’s different communities with different worldviews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:

    Putin is a hard and ruthless man, but he is also a rational one, and he correctly and prudently fears the US military (which is very much more powerful than his), even as he resolves to protect and defend his nation and its interests.

    I suspect that Putin did not do the recent chemical attack in the UK for the simple reason that it failed: had he wanted to he would have had the guy killed, without screwups. But I don’t think he wanted to. He traded the agent for a Russian and if you kill the people you trade for the deal is off permanently in the future.

    Leaving the bear alone in his backyard so long as he agrees to leave the US alone in its is a workable arrangement for both sides.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility. Unfortunately not much profit to stopping it compared to building sitting duck navies (USA) and submarines so crappy they are docked for repairs far more often than in service (Russia).

    Read More
    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @neutral
    As usual you leave out the crucial final step, who is funding/propagandizing/punishing all dissenters of this third world immigration?
    , @istevefan

    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility.
     
    That ought to be the litmus test of anyone seeking a position in the governments of the US, Canada, Australia and the EU.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    Long term this is true.
    , @Neil Templeton
    No. The number one threat to the USA is immigration from Asia and the Silk Road peoples. Immigrants from these areas have the requisite skill and moral condescension to have real and immediate impact on the cultural and political paths of the nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Lot
    I just ran the same item, and it showed 101 Jewish responses, not 68, and 57% saying imminent or serious threat, compared to 55% for the entire poll sample and 58% for whites.

    Then I saw you could expand the sample size by expanding the date scope. The 57% result was with the default date setting.

    But let's not let that stop us from ruminating about the Eternal Jew's fear of the Cossack.

    You’re becoming a Johnny One-Note on the JQ lately.

    We already have Jack D for that, you know..

    Not to mention the entire MSM & Internet

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. There’s a ((guy)) at Instapundit who has Russians on the bean. He also posts articles about Mohammed bin Saud, the Wonderful Reformer of Islam. Why? Because MBS lets Saudi women wear burkas in colors other than black and (I kid you not) built a new movie theater in Saudi Arabia.

    The guy is so eager it’s pathetic. I don’t have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.

    Now that Israel has kissed and made up with Saudi Arabia, I guess we have to expect more pro-Saudi PR.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    I finally stopped going to Instapundit. That blog has descended into an echo chamber of blank slating, right punching, world invading Jew worship.

    Ed Driscoll links to articles by John Podhoretz, for chrissake.
    , @Boethiuss

    The guy is so eager it’s pathetic. I don’t have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.
     
    Why am I supposed to care about that. Apparently Israel doesn't. I supposed you can say that Russia's culture is less gratuitously cruel than Saudi Arabia's, but Saudi Arabia isn't threatening to nuke us. So that changes things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:

    The guy is so eager it’s pathetic. I don’t have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.

    And then there are adultresses that are stoned:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. @MIkey Darmody
    Honest question, what would be the negative consequence to the U.S. if Putin had a free hand in the Ukraine or Syria, etc.? My default is to be slightly favorable to Putin (albeit cautiously). But I am curious as to what the nightmare scenario for the other side is. To me, caring about a Russian military presence in these far-flung places seems as quixotic as caring about a border squabble between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia.

    Almost nothing (unless the pipeline idea is true, in which case “nothing, plus a pipeline”). Those are all examples of highly aggressive and invasive Western attacks on Russia, where Russia is struggling to claw back its status quo, and not take new territory or encroach on ours. The fact that they are discussed as though they were Putin projects originating from whole cloth in the Kremlin is itself propagandistic delusion. There was a Soros color revolution in every single formerly Soviet republic. In every case it was identified as such. Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the ‘Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans
     
    Now, now, there was a lot for Duce to complain about. Italians were bringing new toys, stucco houses, espresso drinks, and above all VALUES. The damn Abyssinian savages were lacking values and Duce cared enough to teach them. (I think he called it 'civilisation', same thing.) Unfortunately the ungrateful goat-herders just learned which way is Italy and eventually decided to go to the source. I mean, literally just go there.

    Russia today is attempting to normalise non-values, what used to be called savagery. For example they believe in space delimitation and cultural continuity, very archaic. Borders are an 'aggression' on anyone outside those borders (ask dogs for details). And culture is a priviledged white concept. So Russia has to be stopped, even if it is physically not trying to go anywhere. To allow an alternative way of life would eventually be fatal for the masters of the universe - they are not so sure it is all going to work out that well in the West. Thus any alternative could be subversive, see how much Hungary drives them crazy for no really good reason, just for being 'too Hungarian'.

    In one way your analogy holds true, Italians couldn't fight a damn. They were too civilised, scared of getting hurt, questioning the meaning of it all. So Ethiopians kicked their butt. That's what often happens when values meet reality. Maybe sticking to spreading values remotely to unarmed aborigines of all kinds would be a safer strategy. I heard that Papua-New Guinea could use some values...

    , @Boethiuss

    Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the ‘Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.
     
    It's not us. Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn't forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews. At a minimum, for all the exterior Warsaw pact nations outside the USSR, all the Baltic republics and Ukraine, the primary intention of their foreign policy as independent nations is to repel Russian domination. (That is, of course, except for the parts of those countries that have been demographically colonized by Russia in a way that's not too much different from Boyle Heights being colonized by Mexicans.)

    Therefore, we cannot acquiesce to that part of the world as being "Russia's backyard," the people who live there won't allow it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. My Jewish friends and all the many Jewish commentators here in London are obsessed about Russia. We have the historical element, the downfall of the oligarhs, Russia’s resergence in the Levant and finally Russians as a metaphor for white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I'm a Jewish Londoner and the Jews I know like Russia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Reginald Maplethorp
    I really love Audacious Epigone's bar chart color schemes.

    Yeah, it saves all the trouble for the eye and mind to keep going back and forth to the legend. I wonder why nobody has used this effective color scheme before … no, I don’t.

    BTW, it’d probably been more confusing, I guess, but I’d have like to see the R’s being blue and D’s being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    BTW, it’d probably been more confusing, I guess, but I’d have like to see the R’s being blue and D’s being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.
     
    Same thought.

    Blue--calm normals--is the traditional Republican color and red--tearing everything up--is the traditional Democrat/"progressive" color. Generally the various maps and charts were coded that way prior to 2000. Then the media decided--in typical prog fashion--that that was unfair and to tear everything up. Essentially propaganda--fake news. And they've stuck us with this backasswards nonsense every sense. (Which btw, makes no sense to people in the rest of the world.)
    , @Silva
    Republicans as the people who believe in blood and fire* and Democrats as people in the coasts who like looking at the sky more than anywhere that might have Republicans fits a lot better IMO than painting Democrats as either Marxist or Leninist (real resemblance to the latter only exists among a minority of voters, and some too outside the box to even vote Democrat).

    *: both as per the Bible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. The Rep and Dem numbers would be swapped and then had even more difference back in say, 1985. Lots of the D’s wanted us to unilaterally disarm, as I recall. Everyone (at least one guy) was real concerned about whether the Russians love their children too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. As far as the young “proles” go, I think it’ll all get better once a significant number of boy-proles realize that being alt-right/real-conservative/libertarian makes one the REAL REBEL compared to the kid that made another poster urging us to recycle more cans, and that the chicks love a rebel.

    For right now, the Lyin’ Press still have people convinced that the 40-50 year old establishment cntrl-left that want us to save the trees and integrate the schools are still the rebels of society somehow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    My thought too, Dave. The ancestral memory stuff about Cossacks is a sweetener to bring out the deliciousness of self-pity. But the main brew is hatred of Trump, and what he represents (I.e., the idea that America can still say No). We’d probably see a rise in Albania-phobia if it turned out Trump had more than few Albanian associates.

    (Although to be clear, the continuing silence over Albania is deafening, and ominous.)

    Thanks for that movie poster, illustrated by the great Jack Davis, I believe.
    , @Cagey Beast
    Remember though how that was a Soviet submarine, not a Czarist one or one from the Russian Federation. Allan Arkin was the lovable Bolshevik cynic in his leather jacket and cap who represented the average Soviet in that film, rather than someone more boreal in appearance and Christian in outlook. The movie was mocking middle American anti-communists first and foremost. It's still funny though.
    , @Escher
    The difference is those Russians were Soviets...
    , @Flip
    Of course it was the communist Soviet Union at the time and not a nationalist Russia.
    , @Tom Nicholson
    Given that Carl and Rob Reiner are Jews it make perfect sense that Carl Reiner was against Russia-phobia when Russia was communist and controlled by Jews and his son (and likely Carl Reiner himself) is Russia-phobic when it's no longer communist and controlled by the Jews. This is literally what you would expect from members of the Tribe.
    , @TheBoom
    Jews have never forgiven the Russians for disbanding the USSR. That is worse than the breakup of the Beatles
    , @TheBoom
    Jews have never forgiven the Russians for disbanding the USSR. That is worse than the breakup of the Beatles
    , @CJ
    Saw that movie in 1966! Yes, it had cuddly unthreatening Russians, just a couple of years after the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin wall. Now that all that is gone, Putin is foreign devil #1.

    BTW, that movie was directed by Norman Jewison, who in spite of the name and being a Hollywood pinko film director, is not Jewish.
    , @Anonnymous
    Russia was not quite Russian 50 Years ago.

    Much like America isn't quite American today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. As long as the USA takes an aggressive stance towards Russia, Russia will be a threat to the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fictitious gui xing
    Enjoying the Novichok in the streets? I'm sure in time you'll get used to them, spice of life and all that. It's just their culture right? Diversity is good.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. The US tried to replace the British Empire with Wilsonian ideals, found themselves competing with Soviets, whose sudden 1990 collapse left a vacuum filled by Islamist freelancers. Now the Chinese are building a Pacific empire to rival the old British one, filling the vacuum. Time stands still for no man, use it or lose it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Twinkie
    I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let's not forget - they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I've ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries - both continental hegemons - to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future).

    American policy ensures that Russia is going to be asset, not a competitor or rival, of China.
    You are basically the Nazi Germany to Russia’s Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Russia is predominantly white, Christian and nationalist. That would seem to be quite a threat to Jewish globalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Simon in London
    As long as the USA takes an aggressive stance towards Russia, Russia will be a threat to the USA.

    Enjoying the Novichok in the streets? I’m sure in time you’ll get used to them, spice of life and all that. It’s just their culture right? Diversity is good.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. The US tried to replace the British Empire with Wilsonian ideals, found themselves competing with Soviets, whose sudden 1990 collapse left a vacuum filled by Islamist freelancers. Now the Chinese are building a Pacific empire to rival the old British one, filling the vacuum. Time stands still for no man, use it or lose it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Enjoying the Novichok in the streets?
     
    I believe there is as yet no proof it was Novichok.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Lot
    That was a false flag! The polonium poisoning, that too.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko

    Also, while it totally wasn't Russia, they had it coming.

    These other 14 Russians.... Mossad, CIA, suicide, etc

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

    The Scot Young case is fascinating, but the body count seems to be gangster-related rather than State-related. Lotta lotta bad boys involved, like Berezovsky.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Klebnikov#Reporting_on_Russia

    You do have to wonder if Young’s wife, determined to “find where he’d hidden the money” didn’t inadvertantly bring about his death. On the other hand, if he HAD hidden it with no legal links to him, someone could have killed for it – and if he hadn’t hidden it and really was (relatively) poor, he may have been killed for not paying debts.

    Personally I think it would be better if London wasn’t a cosy home and money-laundering centre for thieves and gangsters from across the globe, and if the UK wasn’t so easy to get in and out of, but the UK authorities seem happy with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. FWIW, a sample of 63 will get you a 90% confidence level with 10.4% margin of error on a population of 8m, but that assumes a normal distribution. I would think a log-normal distribution skewed right would be a better fit, so 63 works just fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    My thought too, Dave. The ancestral memory stuff about Cossacks is a sweetener to bring out the deliciousness of self-pity. But the main brew is hatred of Trump, and what he represents (I.e., the idea that America can still say No). We’d probably see a rise in Albania-phobia if it turned out Trump had more than few Albanian associates.

    (Although to be clear, the continuing silence over Albania is deafening, and ominous.)

    Thanks for that movie poster, illustrated by the great Jack Davis, I believe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Remember though how that was a Soviet submarine, not a Czarist one or one from the Russian Federation. Allan Arkin was the lovable Bolshevik cynic in his leather jacket and cap who represented the average Soviet in that film, rather than someone more boreal in appearance and Christian in outlook. The movie was mocking middle American anti-communists first and foremost. It’s still funny though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Big Bill
    There's a ((guy)) at Instapundit who has Russians on the bean. He also posts articles about Mohammed bin Saud, the Wonderful Reformer of Islam. Why? Because MBS lets Saudi women wear burkas in colors other than black and (I kid you not) built a new movie theater in Saudi Arabia.

    The guy is so eager it's pathetic. I don't have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.

    Now that Israel has kissed and made up with Saudi Arabia, I guess we have to expect more pro-Saudi PR.

    I finally stopped going to Instapundit. That blog has descended into an echo chamber of blank slating, right punching, world invading Jew worship.

    Ed Driscoll links to articles by John Podhoretz, for chrissake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Russian is Christian. America is Christian. Peace would come to the mideast should the two great Christian nations unite…..and the greater Israel project would be doomed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    Russia has a declining population, an economy dependent upon fast-becoming obsolete resources, a feeble ability to project power, a surging superpower on its eastern borders and extreme levels of domestic poverty. The only thing the Russians threaten are our bizarre and newly erected US interests in the Baltic and far Eastern Europe.

    It’s unfortunate that those populations must fear the Russian army but pissing off a nuclear power to defend former Russian empire states is arguably impossible and absolutely not in our strategic interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I read an article that the entire Russia fixation is basically the US seeking a war, so it can control the region and counter Chinese high speed rail systems which will eventually push straight into Europe.

    They need to deal with this quickly before the US implodes and/or China just gets too powerful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anon[122] • Disclaimer says:

    “Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.”

    Jack D: America should go to war against Russia in Syria on behalf of Israel because two Brits were poisoned and then later recovered. What a menace that guy Putin is. And definitely not an overreaction to a relatively minor incident. When in world history has such a thing ever happened:

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @Neil Templeton
    The battles of Kursk and Stalingrad will stand as monuments to valor. Both sides.

    The battles of Kursk and Stalingrad will stand as monuments to valor. Both sides.

    Valor? That’s an interesting synonym for “butchery”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    No it is an antonym.

    As in, it is valorous to face the butcher.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @fictitious gui xing
    Enjoying the Novichok in the streets? I'm sure in time you'll get used to them, spice of life and all that. It's just their culture right? Diversity is good.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. The US tried to replace the British Empire with Wilsonian ideals, found themselves competing with Soviets, whose sudden 1990 collapse left a vacuum filled by Islamist freelancers. Now the Chinese are building a Pacific empire to rival the old British one, filling the vacuum. Time stands still for no man, use it or lose it.

    Enjoying the Novichok in the streets?

    I believe there is as yet no proof it was Novichok.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    China is a bigger threat to America than is Russia.

    The greatest threat to America is it’s own ruling/governing class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Being an independent doesn’t make you apolitical. Both sides are insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Russia is a white majority country that has no interest in diversity and muliticulturalsism

    The very fact that you people don’t see the problem with that is exactly why you guys need to shames and deplatformed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. @Lot

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility. Unfortunately not much profit to stopping it compared to building sitting duck navies (USA) and submarines so crappy they are docked for repairs far more often than in service (Russia).

    As usual you leave out the crucial final step, who is funding/propagandizing/punishing all dissenters of this third world immigration?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Lot

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility. Unfortunately not much profit to stopping it compared to building sitting duck navies (USA) and submarines so crappy they are docked for repairs far more often than in service (Russia).

    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility.

    That ought to be the litmus test of anyone seeking a position in the governments of the US, Canada, Australia and the EU.

    Read More
    • Agree: Peter Akuleyev
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    The difference is those Russians were Soviets…

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    But Russians and Soviets were conflated at the time; Solzhenitsyn used to complained about it back in the day. And that was a deliberate Cold War policy. It's much easier to get common people to hate a different tribe than an abstract ideology (which many may even find attractive.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Lot

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility. Unfortunately not much profit to stopping it compared to building sitting duck navies (USA) and submarines so crappy they are docked for repairs far more often than in service (Russia).

    Long term this is true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    I corrected Peter Akuleyev’s comment for him

    Went to a great talk by Shabbos goy last night. Shabbos goy is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian defense of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read Shabbos goy reports on the Daily Signal. Shabbos goy makes a powerful case for Putin being Israel threat number one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Concerning Jewish opinions on Russia, Russians, and all Slavs for that matter. If the Slavs cannot be forgiven what chance do the rest of us have?

    It has been pointed out on this blog about the Cossack Rebellion of 1648. Also mentioned are the various pogroms identified by the dates and locales. Whether the victims of these pogroms ranged from less than 10 to a 1000, they are all documented and logged in the history books.

    But I never see a recognition about the millions of Slavs who were killed and brutalized by the communists who came to power with the enthusiastic support of many Jews who wanted to overthrow the Czar and the old order. It seems like one could consider that a giant pogrom against the Slavs that definitely made up for the pogroms of the past.

    Additionally, millions of Russians and other Slavs did the lion’s share of the fighting to defeat the Nazis which liberated the death camps in Poland.

    Even if Jews hated the Russians and other Slavs before, wouldn’t the fact that they were so instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and thus preventing the total annihilation of European Jewry, sort of make things right? Wouldn’t it be time to reevaluate the relationship and let bygones be bygones?

    If Jews cannot forgive Russians after that, what chance do the rest of us have? Do they still harbor ill feelings because the English kicked them out years ago? Well one might say that the English helped carve out Israel. So what, the Russians died in their millions and that did not wipe the slate clean.

    Ditto for any other nation that ever crossed them.

    BTW, I am not suggesting Jews are unique in not forgiving former enemies. As an American I am keenly aware that blacks seem to dislike whites no matter what whites do to make amends. One might think that the deaths of all those Union Army soldiers who freed the slaves would have wiped the slate clean. One would think that a place like Gettysburg would become some sort of shrine. Well it is, except it isn’t for blacks. Surprisingly blacks show very little interest in attending that site or other battle sites.

    I am sure some history buff can help me out, but are there other examples of a people who wronged another, and then ultimately paid some sort of price that benefited the formerly oppressed? For example, whites have paid plenty in battle and government set-asides to make it right for blacks. I already discussed the Russians and the Jews.

    But have Turks paid a price for what they did to the Greeks, Serbs, etc? Did Turks die in numbers to benefit those formerly oppressed? Have the Japanese done anything similar for the Koreans and Chinese, etc.? Are there any examples out there?

    Read More
    • Agree: Malcolm X-Lax
    • Replies: @DFH
    You didn't even mention the role of Jews in helping Polish landlords exploit and brutalise their peasants, or their earlier role as slave traders selling Slavs to Arabs and Turks
    , @JollyOldSoul
    When someone wants what you have gratitude isn't worth much. Great Britain allowed in Ed and David Miliband's father, saving him from the Holocaust, but the elder Miliband (and probably his sons) utterly despised the English. That truth goes for any group. If they despise you then they despise you. It's silly to think that doing them any kind of favor will change that.
    , @Anon
    A lot of Jews and more importantly, Jewish publications refer to the European holocaust.

    Their theme is that all of Europe was responsible for the holocaust. Some of the camps were in Poland, therefore it was all the fault of the Poles.

    The allies did not destroy Hitler’s Germany in 1939. Therefore it is all of Europe’s fault.

    Germany must have bought them off.

    Of course by Europe they mean Christianity and European culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Of course it was the communist Soviet Union at the time and not a nationalist Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Jewish and Shabbos goy animosity against Russia isn’t just their general animosity again goys in general but is related to their loss of control of Russia. From the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 through the Yeltsin years the Jews controlled the northern Eurasian continent from East Germany to the Pacific ocean. Now, particularly in Russia and with Putin, they have influence but no longer complete control. When so many of the Bolsheviks thought they had stolen everything there was to steal and started migrating to greener pastures and richer sheep to fleece, communism fell. What the Jews only realized belatedly was that there was in fact still vast natural resources and people who were not in fact beaten down into uselessness.

    This Jewish moving on to greener pastures can be seen here in a couple of US examples. First, the Southern slave trade. Before the end of the civil war, every southern town of any size had a synagogue supported by the slave traders and other merchants. With the loss of the civil war, most of the merchants and all of the slave trade merchants came north where the money was and most of these old synagogue fell into disuse. Similarly, the Iron Range of Minnesota had a large Jewish population with Hibbing’s Bob Dylan (((Robert Zimmerman))) being the most famous. These Jewish families ran the company stores for the mining companies and exploited the hell out of the miners. When the iron ore started running out in the 1970s and their wasn’t much left to steal, the Iron Range Jews came down to the Twin Cities to join their co-ethnics in robbing the naive, gullible Scandinavians across the state of MN blind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. I find myself far more sympathetic to Russia and the various nationalists of Eastern Europe than the “Americans” making themselves rich while destroying America through mass immigration and endless foreign wars. When these people are done with America, there will be no foundation on which America as a unified, coherent nation can rise again. My hatred for them is complete.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Given that Carl and Rob Reiner are Jews it make perfect sense that Carl Reiner was against Russia-phobia when Russia was communist and controlled by Jews and his son (and likely Carl Reiner himself) is Russia-phobic when it’s no longer communist and controlled by the Jews. This is literally what you would expect from members of the Tribe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, it saves all the trouble for the eye and mind to keep going back and forth to the legend. I wonder why nobody has used this effective color scheme before ... no, I don't.

    BTW, it'd probably been more confusing, I guess, but I'd have like to see the R's being blue and D's being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.

    BTW, it’d probably been more confusing, I guess, but I’d have like to see the R’s being blue and D’s being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.

    Same thought.

    Blue–calm normals–is the traditional Republican color and red–tearing everything up–is the traditional Democrat/”progressive” color. Generally the various maps and charts were coded that way prior to 2000. Then the media decided–in typical prog fashion–that that was unfair and to tear everything up. Essentially propaganda–fake news. And they’ve stuck us with this backasswards nonsense every sense. (Which btw, makes no sense to people in the rest of the world.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Light blue tie among politicians sometimes signifies their support of Israel.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, A.D., we've discussed the history of the red/blue media-determined scheme some months back in other threads. I won't start it again, but I think the history is that it would flip each election but it got solidified as Red=R and Blue=D back in 2000. Yes, backasswards is right, or maybe both parties should just be different shades of red at this point ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    Some specific bullet points from the talk might help some of us skeptics of your observation think on the subject a bit more. Not familiar with Peterson or his niche.

    Captain Tripps, [email protected]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    If he does, he’s a bozo. Maybe sharp, but obsessive about his patch and missing the big picture.

    The #1 threat to the US is mass immigration.
    #2 is our deindustrialization in preference to China.

    Both of these products of having an “elite” with a globalist/trading-marketplace mentality, rather than a nationalist/production mentality.

    In terms of threats from other nations, that’s so obviously China–the only credible competitor, and one with a somewhat different more classically imperialist view of how the world should be organized. And a competitor who will continue its dramatic rise for the obvious HBD reasons–IQ, personality and the math\verbal split (as Yan Shen describes).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    #2 is our deindustrialization in preference to China.
     
    I'd put dysgenic fertility as #2, and don't even think problem 1 and 2 have any close competitors.

    As long as China continues its various hostile policies toward the US and our Asian allies, seems obvious to me that we need to require our multinationals to move their low-wage factories to SE Asia rather than China. We should also aim for a 4 to 5% inflation target to weaken the dollar, which helps our exports, and undermines the value of China's big stash of fixed-rate dollar assets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @J.Ross
    Almost nothing (unless the pipeline idea is true, in which case "nothing, plus a pipeline"). Those are all examples of highly aggressive and invasive Western attacks on Russia, where Russia is struggling to claw back its status quo, and not take new territory or encroach on ours. The fact that they are discussed as though they were Putin projects originating from whole cloth in the Kremlin is itself propagandistic delusion. There was a Soros color revolution in every single formerly Soviet republic. In every case it was identified as such. Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the 'Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.

    US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans

    Now, now, there was a lot for Duce to complain about. Italians were bringing new toys, stucco houses, espresso drinks, and above all VALUES. The damn Abyssinian savages were lacking values and Duce cared enough to teach them. (I think he called it ‘civilisation’, same thing.) Unfortunately the ungrateful goat-herders just learned which way is Italy and eventually decided to go to the source. I mean, literally just go there.

    Russia today is attempting to normalise non-values, what used to be called savagery. For example they believe in space delimitation and cultural continuity, very archaic. Borders are an ‘aggression’ on anyone outside those borders (ask dogs for details). And culture is a priviledged white concept. So Russia has to be stopped, even if it is physically not trying to go anywhere. To allow an alternative way of life would eventually be fatal for the masters of the universe – they are not so sure it is all going to work out that well in the West. Thus any alternative could be subversive, see how much Hungary drives them crazy for no really good reason, just for being ‘too Hungarian’.

    In one way your analogy holds true, Italians couldn’t fight a damn. They were too civilised, scared of getting hurt, questioning the meaning of it all. So Ethiopians kicked their butt. That’s what often happens when values meet reality. Maybe sticking to spreading values remotely to unarmed aborigines of all kinds would be a safer strategy. I heard that Papua-New Guinea could use some values…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Winners:

    Independents
    Republicans
    18-28 year olds

    Losers:

    Jews
    Democrats
    Elderly

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @Lot
    I just ran the same item, and it showed 101 Jewish responses, not 68, and 57% saying imminent or serious threat, compared to 55% for the entire poll sample and 58% for whites.

    Then I saw you could expand the sample size by expanding the date scope. The 57% result was with the default date setting.

    But let's not let that stop us from ruminating about the Eternal Jew's fear of the Cossack.

    Maybe Steve ran the data before Hasbara got there, and you ran the data after Hasbara got there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. ‘The striking lack of self-skepticism,’ of self-awareness, of an ability to recognize one’s family and group/tribe as getting filthy rich by cheating others, is far from new to Jews.

    Yeah, Steve, you’ve mentioned this a few times. I can buy that Jews are getting less introspective, but is there any evidence that they were ever introspective (relative to anyone this side of Blacks, I mean)?

    Yeah not letting Baby Boomers off the hook that easily just to blame it on Jews, who are low single digit % of the population. Cold War propaganda really messed people up.</blockquote.

    What's funny is how much worse the anti-Russian rhetoric is now, compared to the anti-Soviet rhetoric of the Cold War. Getting on the Jews' bad side is the easiest way to a bad rep. Murdering millions of your own people and turning eastern Europe into a jail? Not so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    IME, crazy Jews who go into psychology/psychiatry do so because they understand themselves as crazy, and (at least at the point when they choose to enter) want more to fix/cope with themselves than to control others (or even get money). Seems more introspective to me than what lower-class crazy whites do, unsure about comparison to average whites. Are East Asians often introspective? Are Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese actually similar on that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Oops.

    Yeah not letting Baby Boomers off the hook that easily just to blame it on Jews, who are low single digit % of the population. Cold War propaganda really messed people up.

    What’s funny is how much worse the anti-Russian rhetoric is now, compared to the anti-Soviet rhetoric of the Cold War. Getting on the Jews’ bad side is the easiest way to a bad rep. Murdering millions of your own people and turning eastern Europe into a jail? Not so much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Right, because American presidents have never assassinated or attempted to assassinate their political enemies. Just ask Fidel Castro. Oh yeah, that was a “rogue agent”. That’s where the buck stops.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?

    This is very true. Post holocaust there is essentially no mainstream criticism of the Jews.

    And this is very bad, because the Jews are quite intellectual and articulate but tend to produce really terrible “intellectual product”.

    Jews’ intellect makes them prominent theorizers, but their basic evolution has been toward marketplace advantage not toward empirical reality, and this results intellectual flights of fancy that are usually at best half-assed and quite often just completely destructive. In the hard sciences–well constrained by experiment–Jews have made valuable contributions. But anywhere else–a trainwreck.

    I haggled and bested you in the marketplace seems to have evolved a different kind of mentality than “did the crops grow”, “does the cow have milk”, “is my steel hard”, “does the machine work”. The Jews have produced a lot of intellectualizing, but the more empiracal Anglo-Saxons have done much better intellectual work.

    The greatest accomplish of white gentiles, the West–and actually of anyone–is modern science. And the core principle therein, is that all theories are subject empirical test and rejection when they fail. But this greatest achievement of man–holding theories to empirical test–is precisely the one that Jewish theorizers constantly ignore and reject.

    “I win” and “does it work?” are just very different gods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheBoom
    "But this greatest achievement of man–holding theories to empirical test–is precisely the one that Jewish theorizers constantly ignore and reject."

    The replication crisis, especially in the social sciences, does seem to coincide with the rise in prominence of Jews in the field and Jewish funders.
    , @res

    “I win” and “does it work?” are just very different gods.
     
    This is a great observation. Thanks!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Gets back to the whole globalist/neocon busybody mindset. No American with a teaspoon of common sense cares if Russia rules over Georgia or Ukraine. There are lots of governments doing bad things. Why does the US care about Putin besides some Cold War residue? Are we nearly as concerned about what South Africa is doing to his white Afrikaners or what the Saudis are doing to Yemenis? And on the occasions we have taken steps to remove the Bad Guy-Ho Chi Minh, Noriega, Khaddafi, Saddam Hussein-it made things worse. we continue to waste time, resources and blood on things thousands of miles physically and from out core concerns while doing nothing about the issues we could address right here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Jews have never forgiven the Russians for disbanding the USSR. That is worse than the breakup of the Beatles

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @LondonBob
    My Jewish friends and all the many Jewish commentators here in London are obsessed about Russia. We have the historical element, the downfall of the oligarhs, Russia's resergence in the Levant and finally Russians as a metaphor for white people.

    I’m a Jewish Londoner and the Jews I know like Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    Though most American Jews seem to be anti-Russian today, perhaps the one guy in the US who knows more about Russia than any other, and is a big defender of Russia, is professor Stephen Cohen.
    , @J.Ross
    Oh, so they defend Putin? They "like Russia" in exactly the same way Russophobic American Jews who are trying to start a war "like Russia:" they love the food, like some of the music, might have memories of getting wasted at a dasha. They "like Russia" itself, that's why they want it back. They "like Russia" the same way that Palestinians "like Israel."
    , @George
    "old Jewish Democrat"

    Jewish democrats start out being very pro Soviet.

    Rep Samuel Dickstein actually started the House Committee on UnAmerican activities to investigate Nazi/Fascists. He was found to be a Soviet spy.

    Ted Hall was the key man in the Soviet Union getting the A bomb secrets.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Dickstein_(congressman)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Hall
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Jews have never forgiven the Russians for disbanding the USSR. That is worse than the breakup of the Beatles

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Lot
    I just ran the same item, and it showed 101 Jewish responses, not 68, and 57% saying imminent or serious threat, compared to 55% for the entire poll sample and 58% for whites.

    Then I saw you could expand the sample size by expanding the date scope. The 57% result was with the default date setting.

    But let's not let that stop us from ruminating about the Eternal Jew's fear of the Cossack.

    Lot, could you specifically make your argument as to what’s wrong?

    Audacious is usually pretty good. Seems to highlight data that seems relevant, makes a good point and does reasonable fair analysis. If he’s dropped the ball here, let’s air it out.

    What data is he leaving out? If its a question of time of data collection, then while the long range stuff is interesting, i’d say the survey’s from right now–during the current Russia hysteria–are the most interesting.

    But i’m not clear on what exactly you’re doing differently than Audacious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I could not reproduce his results at all. Why don't you see if you can and post a screen shot? The specific claim is N=3246, adding the Jew filter reduces N to 63, and that 81.0% of Jews gave either the imminent or serious threat responses when asked about Russia.

    It often gave me the "not enough data" error when I tried to add the Jew filter, but eventually it gave me 101 results with the "Jew" filter on, a different number than AE stated, and a very different poll result than AE reported, one that wasn't any different than the entire poll sample.

    I don't think AE faked the data, I think he wasn't careful to expand the date field as far back as possible. The poll questions was asked several times over several months of 2016 and ending Jan 19, 2017. The aggregated data will be far more accurate, especially for small subgroups. Alternatively, he accidentally added a second filter to the "Jew" filter that reduces the sample size of 101 to 63.

    I think both AE and SS cherry pick data and anecdotes that conform to their own biases about Jews as well. It is a human weakness we are less able to catch errors we make when the error seems to support our beliefs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @AnotherDad

    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?
     
    This is very true. Post holocaust there is essentially no mainstream criticism of the Jews.

    And this is very bad, because the Jews are quite intellectual and articulate but tend to produce really terrible "intellectual product".

    Jews' intellect makes them prominent theorizers, but their basic evolution has been toward marketplace advantage not toward empirical reality, and this results intellectual flights of fancy that are usually at best half-assed and quite often just completely destructive. In the hard sciences--well constrained by experiment--Jews have made valuable contributions. But anywhere else--a trainwreck.

    I haggled and bested you in the marketplace seems to have evolved a different kind of mentality than "did the crops grow", "does the cow have milk", "is my steel hard", "does the machine work". The Jews have produced a lot of intellectualizing, but the more empiracal Anglo-Saxons have done much better intellectual work.

    The greatest accomplish of white gentiles, the West--and actually of anyone--is modern science. And the core principle therein, is that all theories are subject empirical test and rejection when they fail. But this greatest achievement of man--holding theories to empirical test--is precisely the one that Jewish theorizers constantly ignore and reject.

    "I win" and "does it work?" are just very different gods.

    “But this greatest achievement of man–holding theories to empirical test–is precisely the one that Jewish theorizers constantly ignore and reject.”

    The replication crisis, especially in the social sciences, does seem to coincide with the rise in prominence of Jews in the field and Jewish funders.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Jack–how does this compute?

    Let’s say Putin is poisoning his defectors. Maybe bad manners vis-à-vis how spycraft is supposed to be played? But threat to America?

    I’m not a big fan of Putin. He basically seems to be a “Greater Russia” imperialist, while i’m a nationalist. (To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that’s a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is … Chechens! Oh, joy.)

    But let’s say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that’s a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It’s a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US? Huh? Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for over 250 years, until post-91, during which time the US was born, grew, became a great continental nation and world power. It didn’t seem to affect us … at all!

    And that “swallowing” scenario–itself no threat to the US–is a wild and crazy Putin that doesn’t even have the basic claim to importance of having actually happened.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniil Adamov
    "(To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that’s a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is … Chechens! Oh, joy.)"

    The problem is that Chechens aren't nomads who could just all migrate somewhere else. They live in a specific territory inhabited by different people, not all of whom want to secede. Even if the local majority does - should a government just stab the local loyal minority in the back out of respect for the local majority's right to self-determination? Granted, sometimes that can be the lesser evil, or at least the more expedient option that is then taken. But I don't think letting everyone who wants to secede do so (and, in practice, either kidnap or uproot everyone who doesn't but happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) should ever be the default approach for any government that claims to work in the people's interests.
    , @Lot

    But let’s say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that’s a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It’s a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US?
     
    Russia invading Ukraine would be a good chance and excuse for the US to import a couple million Europeans.
    , @Moses

    But a big threat to the US? Huh?
     
    Yes. I've had the same thought.

    Ukraine and all of Eastern Europe were in the Soviet sphere for most of the 20th century. It didn't affect the price of milk in Des Moines. Who cares if the Russkies run over Ukraine again? It just doesn't matter to the USA, or affect our security one bit.

    By the same logic it was INSANE to admit the Baltics into NATO. Their thimblefull of military ability adds nothing to American security. Yet America guaranteeing their territorial integrity against a fully-fledged nuclear Russia puts all Americans at risk of death. Baltics in NATO is all liability, zero asset. An insanely stupid trade-off.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. anonymous[188] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let's not forget - they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I've ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries - both continental hegemons - to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    “And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.”

    A fact which is too often forgotten in the debate. Here’s Tocqueville on Rooshia: “There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans.”

    Bingo!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. CJ says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Saw that movie in 1966! Yes, it had cuddly unthreatening Russians, just a couple of years after the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin wall. Now that all that is gone, Putin is foreign devil #1.

    BTW, that movie was directed by Norman Jewison, who in spite of the name and being a Hollywood pinko film director, is not Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    who in spite of the name and being a Hollywood pinko film director, is not Jewish
     
    But the name did not hurt. People who asked him to direct Fiddler on the Roof actually thought he was Jewish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @AnotherDad

    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?
     
    This is very true. Post holocaust there is essentially no mainstream criticism of the Jews.

    And this is very bad, because the Jews are quite intellectual and articulate but tend to produce really terrible "intellectual product".

    Jews' intellect makes them prominent theorizers, but their basic evolution has been toward marketplace advantage not toward empirical reality, and this results intellectual flights of fancy that are usually at best half-assed and quite often just completely destructive. In the hard sciences--well constrained by experiment--Jews have made valuable contributions. But anywhere else--a trainwreck.

    I haggled and bested you in the marketplace seems to have evolved a different kind of mentality than "did the crops grow", "does the cow have milk", "is my steel hard", "does the machine work". The Jews have produced a lot of intellectualizing, but the more empiracal Anglo-Saxons have done much better intellectual work.

    The greatest accomplish of white gentiles, the West--and actually of anyone--is modern science. And the core principle therein, is that all theories are subject empirical test and rejection when they fail. But this greatest achievement of man--holding theories to empirical test--is precisely the one that Jewish theorizers constantly ignore and reject.

    "I win" and "does it work?" are just very different gods.

    “I win” and “does it work?” are just very different gods.

    This is a great observation. Thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @inertial

    Bubbe told me about the Czar and his Cossacks and now they’re back!
     
    It's a plausible theory but I don't think it's right. Half of Israeli Jews had, generally speaking, the same Bubbe, and yet they are relaxed about Russia. Or take French Jews of Russian origin (such as Serge Gainsbourg.) As far as I know, they are not especially Russophobic, either.

    So, American Jewish hostility to Russia must be more of an American thing. Perhaps it's related to decades of Cold War propaganda. I suspect that if you'd poll Gentiles with the same socioeconomic profile as Jews, especially in regards to education, you'd get similar results.

    Israeli Jews have real threats to their existence to worry about. So do French Jews, come to think of it. American Jews have much more time on their hands and much less care in their lives, comparatively speaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @AnotherDad

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
     
    Jack--how does this compute?

    Let's say Putin is poisoning his defectors. Maybe bad manners vis-à-vis how spycraft is supposed to be played? But threat to America?

    I'm not a big fan of Putin. He basically seems to be a "Greater Russia" imperialist, while i'm a nationalist. (To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that's a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is ... Chechens! Oh, joy.)

    But let's say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that's a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It's a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US? Huh? Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for over 250 years, until post-91, during which time the US was born, grew, became a great continental nation and world power. It didn't seem to affect us ... at all!

    And that "swallowing" scenario--itself no threat to the US--is a wild and crazy Putin that doesn't even have the basic claim to importance of having actually happened.

    “(To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that’s a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is … Chechens! Oh, joy.)”

    The problem is that Chechens aren’t nomads who could just all migrate somewhere else. They live in a specific territory inhabited by different people, not all of whom want to secede. Even if the local majority does – should a government just stab the local loyal minority in the back out of respect for the local majority’s right to self-determination? Granted, sometimes that can be the lesser evil, or at least the more expedient option that is then taken. But I don’t think letting everyone who wants to secede do so (and, in practice, either kidnap or uproot everyone who doesn’t but happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) should ever be the default approach for any government that claims to work in the people’s interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Twinkie
    I used to be much more suspicious of Russia (and Russians) than I am today. My past feelings were probably a function of:

    1. The Cold War. Let's not forget - they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
    2. Dealing with Russian organized crime (some of the most vicious criminals I've ever known).
    3. The actual capacity of Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces to annihilate the United States, a capacity not shared by any other power on earth.

    I am considerably more sympathetic to Russia (and Putin, for that matter) today, because factors and 1 and 2 are no longer relevant, and because it (and he) seems to have the right enemies.

    However, I could never think of Russia has full-fledged ally, because the natural geo-political conditions align the two countries - both continental hegemons - to be competitors and rivals, something that can only be mitigated by the rise of a third (Germany in the past, perhaps China in the future). And because Russia is still the only country with sufficient nuclear arsenal to devastate the entirely of the United States.

    1. The “Russian” Revolution wasn’t particularly Russian. Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev were Jews, Stalin was Georgian, Lenin was 1/4 Jewish, 1/4 Tatar, and 0% ethnic Russian. Of the major Bolsheviks, only Bukharin was ethnic Russian, and he was the most moderate, while Trotsky was the most radical.

    2. The “Russian” mafia isn’t particularly Russian. Most of the corrupt 1990s oligarchs were Jews, and so is the current leader of the “Russian” mafia, Semion Mogilevich.

    3. Unlike the predominantly Jewish Bolsheviks or the predominantly Jewish organized crime, the Russian national state is not, never has been, and never will be an offensive threat to America. They are geographically too isolated from us to be a threat to us – unlike China, which will soon be contesting the US Navy’s control of the Pacific Ocean, or Mexico, which contests control of our border regions.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @CJ
    Saw that movie in 1966! Yes, it had cuddly unthreatening Russians, just a couple of years after the Cuban missile crisis and the Berlin wall. Now that all that is gone, Putin is foreign devil #1.

    BTW, that movie was directed by Norman Jewison, who in spite of the name and being a Hollywood pinko film director, is not Jewish.

    who in spite of the name and being a Hollywood pinko film director, is not Jewish

    But the name did not hurt. People who asked him to direct Fiddler on the Roof actually thought he was Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    He's "not Jewish" in exactly the same way that I would "be" Jewish if I bought and habitually wore a kippa. You think we care if they're attending Shul? What are we, their mother?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @AnotherDad

    BTW, it’d probably been more confusing, I guess, but I’d have like to see the R’s being blue and D’s being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.
     
    Same thought.

    Blue--calm normals--is the traditional Republican color and red--tearing everything up--is the traditional Democrat/"progressive" color. Generally the various maps and charts were coded that way prior to 2000. Then the media decided--in typical prog fashion--that that was unfair and to tear everything up. Essentially propaganda--fake news. And they've stuck us with this backasswards nonsense every sense. (Which btw, makes no sense to people in the rest of the world.)

    Light blue tie among politicians sometimes signifies their support of Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anon[673] • Disclaimer says:

    Anti-Semitism is a hoot. The IDF will shoot a Palestinian for having the audacity to complain about being kicked out of the only home he has without compensation. Palestinians actually are Semitic. So are Sephardic Jews. The Sephardic Jews actually follow the Book of Moses and aren’t the Babylonian Imperialists the Khazars are.
    Its not about religion you know. Its about POWER and who has it and who doesn’t.

    Follow the Money. Power and Money go together like sycophants and tyrants.

    Never get between a social climbing woman and a rich man. It could lead to indictments.

    Russia and the Ashkenazim have what is called a BLOOD FEUD, BTW.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    The trouble is guys like this Nolan Peterson are still playing the board game Risk like it was 100 years ago. Those days are gone. It’s not about nations and armies and whose in control. It’s about demographics. And the Global South is swamping us. The goal should be to control our borders. And we can be much more effective if we pool our resources and efforts to help each other in doing this. We even have natural allies in the NE Asians as surely they do not want to be swamped either, and would like to have a functioning market in Europe and North America.

    Even Seinfeld made fun of Risk and The Ukraine back in1995. This is hilarious, but it is the way the people in charge of us are actually thinking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Another bit of trouble with people like Nolan Peterson is that he was "special ops" which means he either flew helicopters or C-130's, which means in the USAF pilot hierarchy he was almost at, if not actually at, the bottom of the barrel.

    It seems he's no better at identifying US threats than he is at flying airplanes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Mr. Anon

    The battles of Kursk and Stalingrad will stand as monuments to valor. Both sides.
     
    Valor? That's an interesting synonym for "butchery".

    No it is an antonym.

    As in, it is valorous to face the butcher.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Well said.
    , @Mr. Anon

    As in, it is valorous to face the butcher.
     
    Maybe it's just stupid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Tyrion 2
    I'm a Jewish Londoner and the Jews I know like Russia.

    Though most American Jews seem to be anti-Russian today, perhaps the one guy in the US who knows more about Russia than any other, and is a big defender of Russia, is professor Stephen Cohen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Mark Ames had his newspaper shut down by Putin but still defended him regarding the Georgian war. This is a result of the mass media being so hysterical. Almost everything that is said about Putin is so laughably false that no educated person can go along with it (unless their education is in going along to get along), and someone can be a Putin critic and still find themselves defending him most of the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @utu

    who in spite of the name and being a Hollywood pinko film director, is not Jewish
     
    But the name did not hurt. People who asked him to direct Fiddler on the Roof actually thought he was Jewish.

    He’s “not Jewish” in exactly the same way that I would “be” Jewish if I bought and habitually wore a kippa. You think we care if they’re attending Shul? What are we, their mother?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Tyrion 2
    I'm a Jewish Londoner and the Jews I know like Russia.

    Oh, so they defend Putin? They “like Russia” in exactly the same way Russophobic American Jews who are trying to start a war “like Russia:” they love the food, like some of the music, might have memories of getting wasted at a dasha. They “like Russia” itself, that’s why they want it back. They “like Russia” the same way that Palestinians “like Israel.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    No, as in they, bar one, think Putin is doing a decent job in difficult circumstances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @istevefan
    Though most American Jews seem to be anti-Russian today, perhaps the one guy in the US who knows more about Russia than any other, and is a big defender of Russia, is professor Stephen Cohen.

    Mark Ames had his newspaper shut down by Putin but still defended him regarding the Georgian war. This is a result of the mass media being so hysterical. Almost everything that is said about Putin is so laughably false that no educated person can go along with it (unless their education is in going along to get along), and someone can be a Putin critic and still find themselves defending him most of the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    and someone can be a Putin critic and still find themselves defending him most of the time.
     
    And you don't even need to defend Putin to think that our various anti-Russia policies are really stupid. He's a corrupt tyrant, though grading him on a Russian rule curve, I'd give him an A-.

    Russia should have a free hand over the entire former USSR except the Baltic states. They can have Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Mongolia and all of Africa too if they want. There are no important US interests in any of those places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @istevefan
    Concerning Jewish opinions on Russia, Russians, and all Slavs for that matter. If the Slavs cannot be forgiven what chance do the rest of us have?

    It has been pointed out on this blog about the Cossack Rebellion of 1648. Also mentioned are the various pogroms identified by the dates and locales. Whether the victims of these pogroms ranged from less than 10 to a 1000, they are all documented and logged in the history books.

    But I never see a recognition about the millions of Slavs who were killed and brutalized by the communists who came to power with the enthusiastic support of many Jews who wanted to overthrow the Czar and the old order. It seems like one could consider that a giant pogrom against the Slavs that definitely made up for the pogroms of the past.

    Additionally, millions of Russians and other Slavs did the lion's share of the fighting to defeat the Nazis which liberated the death camps in Poland.

    Even if Jews hated the Russians and other Slavs before, wouldn't the fact that they were so instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and thus preventing the total annihilation of European Jewry, sort of make things right? Wouldn't it be time to reevaluate the relationship and let bygones be bygones?

    If Jews cannot forgive Russians after that, what chance do the rest of us have? Do they still harbor ill feelings because the English kicked them out years ago? Well one might say that the English helped carve out Israel. So what, the Russians died in their millions and that did not wipe the slate clean.

    Ditto for any other nation that ever crossed them.

    BTW, I am not suggesting Jews are unique in not forgiving former enemies. As an American I am keenly aware that blacks seem to dislike whites no matter what whites do to make amends. One might think that the deaths of all those Union Army soldiers who freed the slaves would have wiped the slate clean. One would think that a place like Gettysburg would become some sort of shrine. Well it is, except it isn't for blacks. Surprisingly blacks show very little interest in attending that site or other battle sites.

    I am sure some history buff can help me out, but are there other examples of a people who wronged another, and then ultimately paid some sort of price that benefited the formerly oppressed? For example, whites have paid plenty in battle and government set-asides to make it right for blacks. I already discussed the Russians and the Jews.

    But have Turks paid a price for what they did to the Greeks, Serbs, etc? Did Turks die in numbers to benefit those formerly oppressed? Have the Japanese done anything similar for the Koreans and Chinese, etc.? Are there any examples out there?

    You didn’t even mention the role of Jews in helping Polish landlords exploit and brutalise their peasants, or their earlier role as slave traders selling Slavs to Arabs and Turks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @istevefan
    Concerning Jewish opinions on Russia, Russians, and all Slavs for that matter. If the Slavs cannot be forgiven what chance do the rest of us have?

    It has been pointed out on this blog about the Cossack Rebellion of 1648. Also mentioned are the various pogroms identified by the dates and locales. Whether the victims of these pogroms ranged from less than 10 to a 1000, they are all documented and logged in the history books.

    But I never see a recognition about the millions of Slavs who were killed and brutalized by the communists who came to power with the enthusiastic support of many Jews who wanted to overthrow the Czar and the old order. It seems like one could consider that a giant pogrom against the Slavs that definitely made up for the pogroms of the past.

    Additionally, millions of Russians and other Slavs did the lion's share of the fighting to defeat the Nazis which liberated the death camps in Poland.

    Even if Jews hated the Russians and other Slavs before, wouldn't the fact that they were so instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and thus preventing the total annihilation of European Jewry, sort of make things right? Wouldn't it be time to reevaluate the relationship and let bygones be bygones?

    If Jews cannot forgive Russians after that, what chance do the rest of us have? Do they still harbor ill feelings because the English kicked them out years ago? Well one might say that the English helped carve out Israel. So what, the Russians died in their millions and that did not wipe the slate clean.

    Ditto for any other nation that ever crossed them.

    BTW, I am not suggesting Jews are unique in not forgiving former enemies. As an American I am keenly aware that blacks seem to dislike whites no matter what whites do to make amends. One might think that the deaths of all those Union Army soldiers who freed the slaves would have wiped the slate clean. One would think that a place like Gettysburg would become some sort of shrine. Well it is, except it isn't for blacks. Surprisingly blacks show very little interest in attending that site or other battle sites.

    I am sure some history buff can help me out, but are there other examples of a people who wronged another, and then ultimately paid some sort of price that benefited the formerly oppressed? For example, whites have paid plenty in battle and government set-asides to make it right for blacks. I already discussed the Russians and the Jews.

    But have Turks paid a price for what they did to the Greeks, Serbs, etc? Did Turks die in numbers to benefit those formerly oppressed? Have the Japanese done anything similar for the Koreans and Chinese, etc.? Are there any examples out there?

    When someone wants what you have gratitude isn’t worth much. Great Britain allowed in Ed and David Miliband’s father, saving him from the Holocaust, but the elder Miliband (and probably his sons) utterly despised the English. That truth goes for any group. If they despise you then they despise you. It’s silly to think that doing them any kind of favor will change that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Tyrion 2
    I'm a Jewish Londoner and the Jews I know like Russia.

    “old Jewish Democrat”

    Jewish democrats start out being very pro Soviet.

    Rep Samuel Dickstein actually started the House Committee on UnAmerican activities to investigate Nazi/Fascists. He was found to be a Soviet spy.

    Ted Hall was the key man in the Soviet Union getting the A bomb secrets.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Dickstein_(congressman)

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @istevefan
    The trouble is guys like this Nolan Peterson are still playing the board game Risk like it was 100 years ago. Those days are gone. It's not about nations and armies and whose in control. It's about demographics. And the Global South is swamping us. The goal should be to control our borders. And we can be much more effective if we pool our resources and efforts to help each other in doing this. We even have natural allies in the NE Asians as surely they do not want to be swamped either, and would like to have a functioning market in Europe and North America.

    Even Seinfeld made fun of Risk and The Ukraine back in1995. This is hilarious, but it is the way the people in charge of us are actually thinking.

    Another bit of trouble with people like Nolan Peterson is that he was “special ops” which means he either flew helicopters or C-130′s, which means in the USAF pilot hierarchy he was almost at, if not actually at, the bottom of the barrel.

    It seems he’s no better at identifying US threats than he is at flying airplanes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In the opinion of fighter pilots, yes, but there are many cases of upper-ranked UPT students who chose bomber-tanker-transport (not so much helos: if you really wanted that you went Army or Marines usually) path assignments because they wanted to get on the airlines, and given two candidates with similar logged hours and safety records, one having fighter time and one in KCs or other transports/tankers the airlines figured the multiengine guys were the better bet. Also, you wound up getting a lot more hours logged in transports or tankers as opposed to fighters, and less likely to have incidents with damaged airplanes that airlines would look at. (It doesn't show on a 214, but you had to sign a release and give airlines access to your flying records to be considered on the basis of military time, and if you had crashes, written off airplanes or ejections, that'd be documented.)

    That was more true when airline flying was much tougher to get hired on for and entry level jobs at least paid a living wage. Fewer airline pilots today are ex-military: they come up the regional jet pipeline. Military guys stay in or they get corporate jet jobs, which have gained considerably as the country becomes haves and have-nots.

    Careerwise, the saying was "TAC (fighters) for thrills, MAC (transports) for travel and SAC (nuclear carrying bombers, and tankers) for a stable home life."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @AnotherDad
    Lot, could you specifically make your argument as to what's wrong?

    Audacious is usually pretty good. Seems to highlight data that seems relevant, makes a good point and does reasonable fair analysis. If he's dropped the ball here, let's air it out.

    What data is he leaving out? If its a question of time of data collection, then while the long range stuff is interesting, i'd say the survey's from right now--during the current Russia hysteria--are the most interesting.

    But i'm not clear on what exactly you're doing differently than Audacious.

    I could not reproduce his results at all. Why don’t you see if you can and post a screen shot? The specific claim is N=3246, adding the Jew filter reduces N to 63, and that 81.0% of Jews gave either the imminent or serious threat responses when asked about Russia.

    It often gave me the “not enough data” error when I tried to add the Jew filter, but eventually it gave me 101 results with the “Jew” filter on, a different number than AE stated, and a very different poll result than AE reported, one that wasn’t any different than the entire poll sample.

    I don’t think AE faked the data, I think he wasn’t careful to expand the date field as far back as possible. The poll questions was asked several times over several months of 2016 and ending Jan 19, 2017. The aggregated data will be far more accurate, especially for small subgroups. Alternatively, he accidentally added a second filter to the “Jew” filter that reduces the sample size of 101 to 63.

    I think both AE and SS cherry pick data and anecdotes that conform to their own biases about Jews as well. It is a human weakness we are less able to catch errors we make when the error seems to support our beliefs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    It often gave me the “not enough data” error when I tried to add the Jew filter,
     
    This is all i was able to every get. I could get action from "Other" and "Catholics", but "Jews" didn't give me anything.

    I think both AE and SS cherry pick data and anecdotes that conform to their own biases about Jews as well. It is a human weakness we are less able to catch errors we make when the error seems to support our beliefs.
     
    True. We all have our biases. For instance, i'm not inclined to be extra special charitable toward Jews, because it's pretty clear--starkly clear the last few years--that a lot of Jews have it in for my people and wish the destruction of our nations.

    That said, unless the media's Jews are wildly non-representative in something beyond the obvious ways (elite, Ivy league, well-to-do), there is some sort of "Jew thing" going on with Russia. This isn't "oh that's just left wing and Jews are more left wing" nor "those neocon warmongers", it's a very weird across the board thing of the media's Jews acting like complete crazed nitwits about Russia. Ancient grievances and "Putin is the new czar" may not be it. But something is going on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @AnotherDad

    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    If he does, he's a bozo. Maybe sharp, but obsessive about his patch and missing the big picture.

    The #1 threat to the US is mass immigration.
    #2 is our deindustrialization in preference to China.

    Both of these products of having an "elite" with a globalist/trading-marketplace mentality, rather than a nationalist/production mentality.

    In terms of threats from other nations, that's so obviously China--the only credible competitor, and one with a somewhat different more classically imperialist view of how the world should be organized. And a competitor who will continue its dramatic rise for the obvious HBD reasons--IQ, personality and the math\verbal split (as Yan Shen describes).

    #2 is our deindustrialization in preference to China.

    I’d put dysgenic fertility as #2, and don’t even think problem 1 and 2 have any close competitors.

    As long as China continues its various hostile policies toward the US and our Asian allies, seems obvious to me that we need to require our multinationals to move their low-wage factories to SE Asia rather than China. We should also aim for a 4 to 5% inflation target to weaken the dollar, which helps our exports, and undermines the value of China’s big stash of fixed-rate dollar assets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    lack of fertility for whites is a large cause of our dysgenic fertility...this is easily observed when we compare the 1970 US census to the 2010 US census.

    and now we have less white women of childbearing age today than in 1970...and a significant number of the whites are mating with non-whites today.

    Census-White pop - Black population
    1970 – 180 million – 22 Million
    2010 – 195 million – 43 million

    but adjusted for under 55 population
    1970 - 164 million whites verse 20 million Blacks
    2010 - 160 million whites verse 39 million Blacks

    the ethnic cleansing is just getting started. We imported 30 million Mexicans since 1970 and the Black population doubled as the white population actually shrank. More whites have died since 2012 than have been born.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @J.Ross
    Mark Ames had his newspaper shut down by Putin but still defended him regarding the Georgian war. This is a result of the mass media being so hysterical. Almost everything that is said about Putin is so laughably false that no educated person can go along with it (unless their education is in going along to get along), and someone can be a Putin critic and still find themselves defending him most of the time.

    and someone can be a Putin critic and still find themselves defending him most of the time.

    And you don’t even need to defend Putin to think that our various anti-Russia policies are really stupid. He’s a corrupt tyrant, though grading him on a Russian rule curve, I’d give him an A-.

    Russia should have a free hand over the entire former USSR except the Baltic states. They can have Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Mongolia and all of Africa too if they want. There are no important US interests in any of those places.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. I gotta say, I pretty much changed my own opinion on this one practically overnight.

    I’m not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk ‘em.

    And if the antagonism from Russia, and against Russia, doesn’t dissipate soon (and it might not), this could have fairly substantial effects on US domestic politics that we weren’t anticipating. It’s one thing to jerk the reins in on the Deep State and its orientation against Russia when the primary issue appears to be salvaging Hillary’s sore loser ego. It’s quite another when the Russians are threatening to nuke us, in a fairly imminent time frame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    I’m not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk ‘em.
     
    If that has turned you into a neocon, you might have already been one without even knowing it.
    , @inertial

    The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria?
     
    Huh? Where did you get that from?
    , @Anon
    The Russians are bluffing. They know they're bluffing. They've paid close attention to Trump's style and have noticed that Trump bluffs a lot, so they've adjusted accordingly and are trying to use his own tactics against him to pressure him.

    There does however, appear to be some serious nonsense going on between Theresa May and Putin, and May appears to be a really scheming and underhanded individual. The poisoning episode is beginning to look more and more like the work of the UK. The British have lied about the events of the poisoning so many times that their behavior is becoming much too suspicious. There is an old rule of law that goes, you don't lie in a murder case. It's too important unless you're the murderer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Boethiuss
    I gotta say, I pretty much changed my own opinion on this one practically overnight.

    I'm not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk 'em.

    And if the antagonism from Russia, and against Russia, doesn't dissipate soon (and it might not), this could have fairly substantial effects on US domestic politics that we weren't anticipating. It's one thing to jerk the reins in on the Deep State and its orientation against Russia when the primary issue appears to be salvaging Hillary's sore loser ego. It's quite another when the Russians are threatening to nuke us, in a fairly imminent time frame.

    I’m not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk ‘em.

    If that has turned you into a neocon, you might have already been one without even knowing it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    If that has turned you into a neocon, you might have already been one without even knowing it.
     
    Not really. I thought the Russia thing was a red herring at worst. At best, I thought there was a window for, not necessarily an alliance, but a strategic partnership based on several possible occasions of shared interest.

    Unfortunately, it seems apparent that Russia is a prisoner of its own country-stature-ego/amour propre/whatever, and it's trying to take the rest of us along for its ride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @AnotherDad

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
     
    Jack--how does this compute?

    Let's say Putin is poisoning his defectors. Maybe bad manners vis-à-vis how spycraft is supposed to be played? But threat to America?

    I'm not a big fan of Putin. He basically seems to be a "Greater Russia" imperialist, while i'm a nationalist. (To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that's a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is ... Chechens! Oh, joy.)

    But let's say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that's a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It's a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US? Huh? Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for over 250 years, until post-91, during which time the US was born, grew, became a great continental nation and world power. It didn't seem to affect us ... at all!

    And that "swallowing" scenario--itself no threat to the US--is a wild and crazy Putin that doesn't even have the basic claim to importance of having actually happened.

    But let’s say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that’s a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It’s a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US?

    Russia invading Ukraine would be a good chance and excuse for the US to import a couple million Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @istevefan

    I’m not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk ‘em.
     
    If that has turned you into a neocon, you might have already been one without even knowing it.

    If that has turned you into a neocon, you might have already been one without even knowing it.

    Not really. I thought the Russia thing was a red herring at worst. At best, I thought there was a window for, not necessarily an alliance, but a strategic partnership based on several possible occasions of shared interest.

    Unfortunately, it seems apparent that Russia is a prisoner of its own country-stature-ego/amour propre/whatever, and it’s trying to take the rest of us along for its ride.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Unfortunately, it seems apparent that Russia is a prisoner of its own country-stature-ego/amour propre/whatever, and it’s trying to take the rest of us along for its ride.
     
    It's unfortunate because our neocon foreign policy engenders bellicosity because the Russians, and anyone else in our crosshairs, must either become docile or react. Their reaction then causes others such as yourself to get caught up and possibly support the policies and people who created the situation in the first place.

    As for the threat from Russia, I haven't seen any threat other than they announcing new weaponry among their atomic arsenal. Which they would be expected to further develop given that's what we are doing with ours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Boethiuss

    If that has turned you into a neocon, you might have already been one without even knowing it.
     
    Not really. I thought the Russia thing was a red herring at worst. At best, I thought there was a window for, not necessarily an alliance, but a strategic partnership based on several possible occasions of shared interest.

    Unfortunately, it seems apparent that Russia is a prisoner of its own country-stature-ego/amour propre/whatever, and it's trying to take the rest of us along for its ride.

    Unfortunately, it seems apparent that Russia is a prisoner of its own country-stature-ego/amour propre/whatever, and it’s trying to take the rest of us along for its ride.

    It’s unfortunate because our neocon foreign policy engenders bellicosity because the Russians, and anyone else in our crosshairs, must either become docile or react. Their reaction then causes others such as yourself to get caught up and possibly support the policies and people who created the situation in the first place.

    As for the threat from Russia, I haven’t seen any threat other than they announcing new weaponry among their atomic arsenal. Which they would be expected to further develop given that’s what we are doing with ours.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Boethiuss
    I gotta say, I pretty much changed my own opinion on this one practically overnight.

    I'm not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk 'em.

    And if the antagonism from Russia, and against Russia, doesn't dissipate soon (and it might not), this could have fairly substantial effects on US domestic politics that we weren't anticipating. It's one thing to jerk the reins in on the Deep State and its orientation against Russia when the primary issue appears to be salvaging Hillary's sore loser ego. It's quite another when the Russians are threatening to nuke us, in a fairly imminent time frame.

    The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria?

    Huh? Where did you get that from?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Escher
    The difference is those Russians were Soviets...

    But Russians and Soviets were conflated at the time; Solzhenitsyn used to complained about it back in the day. And that was a deliberate Cold War policy. It’s much easier to get common people to hate a different tribe than an abstract ideology (which many may even find attractive.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. It’s unfortunate because our neocon foreign policy engenders bellicosity because the Russians, and anyone else in our crosshairs, must either become docile or react. Their reaction then causes others such as yourself to get caught up and possibly support the policies and people who created the situation in the first place.

    Yeah yeah yeah, bullshit.

    Syrias come and go, but in current instance we have Russian media, Russian government sources on background, even Russian government spokesmen, talking about their escalation plans toward nuking us over Syria (not least of which the Russia-friendly contributors to this site).

    The idea seems to be that yeah, neocons are nasty is a sufficient rationalization for anything. Well, no, there are lines and the Russians just crossed a big one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Moscow to Damascus is 1,538 miles.

    DC to Mexico City is 1,883 miles.

    If the Russians and their allies decided that Nieto was a monster and had to go, what threat level do you think the American president, no matter the party, would escalate to?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Truth be told, I could live with that even. But nuclear saber-rattling is not acceptable.

    The point of being a legitimate nuclear power is that you have nukes, not that you use them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @inertial

    The Cold War. Let’s not forget – they tried to destroy us for 40 years.
     
    No they didn't. That part of the Cold War propaganda was an outright lie.

    The natural geo-political conditions align the two countries – both continental hegemons – to be competitors and rivals
     
    How exactly are America and Russia competitors, let alone natural ones? What are they competing over? The only reason these countries are close to war today is because America is poking around Russia's backyard (and the front yard, and the living room, and the bedroom.)

    How exactly are America and Russia competitors, let alone natural ones? What are they competing over? The only reason these countries are close to war today is because America is poking around Russia’s backyard (and the front yard, and the living room, and the bedroom.)

    They are competing over Russia’s inability to see itself as anything other than a Tier 1 superpower when it manifestly isn’t one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Big Bill
    There's a ((guy)) at Instapundit who has Russians on the bean. He also posts articles about Mohammed bin Saud, the Wonderful Reformer of Islam. Why? Because MBS lets Saudi women wear burkas in colors other than black and (I kid you not) built a new movie theater in Saudi Arabia.

    The guy is so eager it's pathetic. I don't have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.

    Now that Israel has kissed and made up with Saudi Arabia, I guess we have to expect more pro-Saudi PR.

    The guy is so eager it’s pathetic. I don’t have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.

    Why am I supposed to care about that. Apparently Israel doesn’t. I supposed you can say that Russia’s culture is less gratuitously cruel than Saudi Arabia’s, but Saudi Arabia isn’t threatening to nuke us. So that changes things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    Apparently Israel doesn’t. I supposed you can say that Russia’s culture is less gratuitously cruel than Saudi Arabia’s, but Saudi Arabia isn’t threatening to nuke us. So that changes things.
     
    First, where the heck are you getting the notion that Russia is threatening to nuke us?

    Second, Saudi Arabia already attacked us on 9-11.

    Third, since 9-11 Saudi Arabia has been funding the sunni colonization of Europe and to a lesser extent the US.

    Fourth, Israel not caring about Europe or the US becoming more islamic is telling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @J.Ross
    Almost nothing (unless the pipeline idea is true, in which case "nothing, plus a pipeline"). Those are all examples of highly aggressive and invasive Western attacks on Russia, where Russia is struggling to claw back its status quo, and not take new territory or encroach on ours. The fact that they are discussed as though they were Putin projects originating from whole cloth in the Kremlin is itself propagandistic delusion. There was a Soros color revolution in every single formerly Soviet republic. In every case it was identified as such. Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the 'Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.

    Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the ‘Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.

    It’s not us. Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn’t forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews. At a minimum, for all the exterior Warsaw pact nations outside the USSR, all the Baltic republics and Ukraine, the primary intention of their foreign policy as independent nations is to repel Russian domination. (That is, of course, except for the parts of those countries that have been demographically colonized by Russia in a way that’s not too much different from Boyle Heights being colonized by Mexicans.)

    Therefore, we cannot acquiesce to that part of the world as being “Russia’s backyard,” the people who live there won’t allow it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Oh, it's you, helping me to know what a physicist feels when someone talks about free energy.
    , @istevefan

    Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn’t forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews.
     
    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.

    Third, Ukraine has not forgotten about the Holodmor. In fact they ran afoul of some groups in 2009, when they tried to bring charges against the dead perpetrators:


    KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) — A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the "Great Famine" committed in the 1930s.

    The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was "a farce" to press the case.

    “All organizers of the Great Famine are dead," he said.

    Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”

    Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.

    In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”

    Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Boethiuss

    Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the ‘Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.
     
    It's not us. Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn't forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews. At a minimum, for all the exterior Warsaw pact nations outside the USSR, all the Baltic republics and Ukraine, the primary intention of their foreign policy as independent nations is to repel Russian domination. (That is, of course, except for the parts of those countries that have been demographically colonized by Russia in a way that's not too much different from Boyle Heights being colonized by Mexicans.)

    Therefore, we cannot acquiesce to that part of the world as being "Russia's backyard," the people who live there won't allow it.

    Oh, it’s you, helping me to know what a physicist feels when someone talks about free energy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Oh, it’s you, helping me to know what a physicist feels when someone talks about free energy.
     
    LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. The Russians are a ready made punching bag.

    Cold War cartoon bad guys – check. Perceived strong enough to beat up a panic over (but weak enough not to be overly concerned about) – check. Traditionalist / conservative views (i.e. un-woke) – check. Inoculated against Western propaganda by hard lessons of 90s and protected by low rates of English – check. Predominantly white (positively Lundgren-esque Aryan if you watch Hollywood movies) – check. Resource-rich – check. Threat of alignment with major partners (e.g. peeling off Europeans, China) and linking up the world island – check. Opponents of unipolar world – check. Bastion of hard-headed realism and ability to see through the charade – check.

    What’s not to love to hate?

    Most of all, Russia has the potential to be an example of another way. Not the best way, but at least an embarrassment. A living nostalgia for the rest of us to behold and envy on some level. It remains majority native (‘stan migration notwithstanding), and preserves an assimilative culture and a Russianness other than the globo-branded, multi-cult slop we have forced on us. And it is big enough, confident enough, jaded enough, and self-sufficient enough (if it really needs to be, to grow its own food, fuel its own economy, make its own stuff etc., albeit crudely), that it can go on doing so unless we do something drastic about it to get it plugged back into the system so we can carry on pillaging it. While we degrade ourselves fighting ourselves, AA’ing ourselves, re-privileging ourselves, hating ourselves, fearing ourselves, and enstupidaating ourselves, they can stand still and watch us slide.

    Would I want to live there? You couldn’t pay me enough. Do I envy the robust, pride-filled outlook and lack of self-loathing? You bet. The vision of the future for Russians still includes grandchildren who can relate to their ancestors and recognise a bond with the place they live in, and will inherit. Can we say the same for our grandchildren?

    Funny thing is the way some of us idealise it. As though our Slavic cousins are standing by to rescue us. They’ll hold out against the forces of evil and maybe one day we can all decamp there. It’s pathetic. We refuse to save ourselves and hope someone else might. We reject the weak-willed, feebleminded absconders from the failed states they have failed to thrive in, while plan-B’ing for the time when we might do the same. Let them bridge the Bering Strait with sunken ships.

    Then again, Russia is and makes itself so perfect a punching bag that you do have to wonder if it isn’t all just a big game of two-way good cop, bad cop on a global scale. Putin gets to harden the nation against neo-imperialist foes and convince his people why they must sacrifice and submit to strong rule and oligarchic dominion. The West gets to demonise the Bear and give us all something else to fear and lend our trust in opposition to. Win-win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Most of all, Russia has the potential to be an example of another way.
     
    That's what it comes down to. There must be no alternatives. The American Way is the only way. Resistance is futile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Lot
    I could not reproduce his results at all. Why don't you see if you can and post a screen shot? The specific claim is N=3246, adding the Jew filter reduces N to 63, and that 81.0% of Jews gave either the imminent or serious threat responses when asked about Russia.

    It often gave me the "not enough data" error when I tried to add the Jew filter, but eventually it gave me 101 results with the "Jew" filter on, a different number than AE stated, and a very different poll result than AE reported, one that wasn't any different than the entire poll sample.

    I don't think AE faked the data, I think he wasn't careful to expand the date field as far back as possible. The poll questions was asked several times over several months of 2016 and ending Jan 19, 2017. The aggregated data will be far more accurate, especially for small subgroups. Alternatively, he accidentally added a second filter to the "Jew" filter that reduces the sample size of 101 to 63.

    I think both AE and SS cherry pick data and anecdotes that conform to their own biases about Jews as well. It is a human weakness we are less able to catch errors we make when the error seems to support our beliefs.

    It often gave me the “not enough data” error when I tried to add the Jew filter,

    This is all i was able to every get. I could get action from “Other” and “Catholics”, but “Jews” didn’t give me anything.

    I think both AE and SS cherry pick data and anecdotes that conform to their own biases about Jews as well. It is a human weakness we are less able to catch errors we make when the error seems to support our beliefs.

    True. We all have our biases. For instance, i’m not inclined to be extra special charitable toward Jews, because it’s pretty clear–starkly clear the last few years–that a lot of Jews have it in for my people and wish the destruction of our nations.

    That said, unless the media’s Jews are wildly non-representative in something beyond the obvious ways (elite, Ivy league, well-to-do), there is some sort of “Jew thing” going on with Russia. This isn’t “oh that’s just left wing and Jews are more left wing” nor “those neocon warmongers”, it’s a very weird across the board thing of the media’s Jews acting like complete crazed nitwits about Russia. Ancient grievances and “Putin is the new czar” may not be it. But something is going on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Maybe Russia is inoculated to resist the virus that allows a small minority of promoters to control the legal framework of your society, with detriment to the cultural fabric that sustains it. Perhaps the fear is that resistance may spread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Lars Porsena
    No it is an antonym.

    As in, it is valorous to face the butcher.

    Well said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Boethiuss

    The guy is so eager it’s pathetic. I don’t have the heart to tell him the Saudis still stone adultresses.
     
    Why am I supposed to care about that. Apparently Israel doesn't. I supposed you can say that Russia's culture is less gratuitously cruel than Saudi Arabia's, but Saudi Arabia isn't threatening to nuke us. So that changes things.

    Apparently Israel doesn’t. I supposed you can say that Russia’s culture is less gratuitously cruel than Saudi Arabia’s, but Saudi Arabia isn’t threatening to nuke us. So that changes things.

    First, where the heck are you getting the notion that Russia is threatening to nuke us?

    Second, Saudi Arabia already attacked us on 9-11.

    Third, since 9-11 Saudi Arabia has been funding the sunni colonization of Europe and to a lesser extent the US.

    Fourth, Israel not caring about Europe or the US becoming more islamic is telling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    First, where the heck are you getting the notion that Russia is threatening to nuke us?
     
    Like right here, at unz, among other places:
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/listening-to-russian-experts-short-report-about-the-mood-on-russian-prime-time-tv/

    Note this lovely little paragraph near the end:

    6) To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.
     
    To be honest, I don't know who The Saker his, I don't really care or blame him for that matter. It's simply important to mention that this is what the Russians are thinking, and moreover want us to know they are thinking.

    It should be clear that a minimum this represents a more direct, more immediate threat against us no matter what Saudi Arabia might do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Boethiuss

    Only in Ukraine and I believe Kyrgyzstan did they have any success. In the ‘Stan, intertribal relations that had been peaceful for generations were violently ripped open for no apparent reason. In the Ukraine the nation passed into the ownership of a Western bank, lost its Russophile Eastern third, and Crimea. The US talking about Putin on the march is like Mussolini complaining about Ethiopeans.
     
    It's not us. Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn't forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews. At a minimum, for all the exterior Warsaw pact nations outside the USSR, all the Baltic republics and Ukraine, the primary intention of their foreign policy as independent nations is to repel Russian domination. (That is, of course, except for the parts of those countries that have been demographically colonized by Russia in a way that's not too much different from Boyle Heights being colonized by Mexicans.)

    Therefore, we cannot acquiesce to that part of the world as being "Russia's backyard," the people who live there won't allow it.

    Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn’t forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews.

    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.

    Third, Ukraine has not forgotten about the Holodmor. In fact they ran afoul of some groups in 2009, when they tried to bring charges against the dead perpetrators:

    KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) — A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the “Great Famine” committed in the 1930s.

    The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was “a farce” to press the case.

    “All organizers of the Great Famine are dead,” he said.

    Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”

    Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.

    In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”

    Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.
     
    LOL. I'm sure I should have heard that one before, but I haven't. Stalin, Kaganovich et al, were the political leadership of the USSR, ie, Russia at that time and were only notable in that capacity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @istevefan

    Apparently Israel doesn’t. I supposed you can say that Russia’s culture is less gratuitously cruel than Saudi Arabia’s, but Saudi Arabia isn’t threatening to nuke us. So that changes things.
     
    First, where the heck are you getting the notion that Russia is threatening to nuke us?

    Second, Saudi Arabia already attacked us on 9-11.

    Third, since 9-11 Saudi Arabia has been funding the sunni colonization of Europe and to a lesser extent the US.

    Fourth, Israel not caring about Europe or the US becoming more islamic is telling.

    First, where the heck are you getting the notion that Russia is threatening to nuke us?

    Like right here, at unz, among other places:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/listening-to-russian-experts-short-report-about-the-mood-on-russian-prime-time-tv/

    Note this lovely little paragraph near the end:

    6) To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.

    To be honest, I don’t know who The Saker his, I don’t really care or blame him for that matter. It’s simply important to mention that this is what the Russians are thinking, and moreover want us to know they are thinking.

    It should be clear that a minimum this represents a more direct, more immediate threat against us no matter what Saudi Arabia might do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan

    It should be clear that a minimum this represents a more direct, more immediate threat against us no matter what Saudi Arabia might do.
     
    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria. Our interference in the middle east over the past decade and a half has helped contribute to the islamic conquest of Europe. Our policies are boomeranging onto our historic mother continent to the delight of the Saudis.

    Each day the islamic conquest of Europe, which Saudi Arabia is supporting, continues virtually unabated. And to a lesser extent it continues int he US as well. America now has more muslims than we did prior to 9-11. Our mother country's capital is rapidly becoming islamic.

    We are messing around playing the Great Game like it is 1914 while our nation and our mother continent are being overrun. The stupidity of that is unreal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @inertial

    Bubbe told me about the Czar and his Cossacks and now they’re back!
     
    It's a plausible theory but I don't think it's right. Half of Israeli Jews had, generally speaking, the same Bubbe, and yet they are relaxed about Russia. Or take French Jews of Russian origin (such as Serge Gainsbourg.) As far as I know, they are not especially Russophobic, either.

    So, American Jewish hostility to Russia must be more of an American thing. Perhaps it's related to decades of Cold War propaganda. I suspect that if you'd poll Gentiles with the same socioeconomic profile as Jews, especially in regards to education, you'd get similar results.

    Don’t forget that American Jews just lived Russia as well as communist China and Cuba.

    Soviet Russia was the supreme pride of American Jews because their cousins had made the revolution and ran the Soviet Union.

    So American jews, especially the college profs and idiot intellectuals just loved Russia. It was run by Jews and they killed 50 million goyim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Boethiuss

    First, where the heck are you getting the notion that Russia is threatening to nuke us?
     
    Like right here, at unz, among other places:
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/listening-to-russian-experts-short-report-about-the-mood-on-russian-prime-time-tv/

    Note this lovely little paragraph near the end:

    6) To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.
     
    To be honest, I don't know who The Saker his, I don't really care or blame him for that matter. It's simply important to mention that this is what the Russians are thinking, and moreover want us to know they are thinking.

    It should be clear that a minimum this represents a more direct, more immediate threat against us no matter what Saudi Arabia might do.

    It should be clear that a minimum this represents a more direct, more immediate threat against us no matter what Saudi Arabia might do.

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria. Our interference in the middle east over the past decade and a half has helped contribute to the islamic conquest of Europe. Our policies are boomeranging onto our historic mother continent to the delight of the Saudis.

    Each day the islamic conquest of Europe, which Saudi Arabia is supporting, continues virtually unabated. And to a lesser extent it continues int he US as well. America now has more muslims than we did prior to 9-11. Our mother country’s capital is rapidly becoming islamic.

    We are messing around playing the Great Game like it is 1914 while our nation and our mother continent are being overrun. The stupidity of that is unreal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria.
     
    I thought so too until last week, but now that doesn't fly any more.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them. Not only is that the rule, more importantly is has to be the rule. There's too many interactions and points of conflict to where we would have all been incinerated a long time ago if it were acceptable to use nukes like they were bigger versions of tanks and mortars.

    Therefore, this latest episode represents a profound reorientation of world affairs that really doesn't have anything to do with the particulars of Syria. By demonstrating its willingness to use nukes or at least threaten them, Russia is telling us profoundly important things about how it sees itself in the world and how it wants to relate to other nations.

    Basically, it wants to treat us as a bigger version of Estonia. Obviously we're too far away to actually invade but Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power. It should be pretty clear that's not going to fly. It's not going to fly for us obviously, but it's just as much a nonstarter for the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia (which I actually suspect is a lot the problem bugging Russia). In any event, the role of Syria here is ancillary. We can't avoid the problem simply by changing policy in Syria. If it wasn't there it'd be somewhere else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan
    Concerning Jewish opinions on Russia, Russians, and all Slavs for that matter. If the Slavs cannot be forgiven what chance do the rest of us have?

    It has been pointed out on this blog about the Cossack Rebellion of 1648. Also mentioned are the various pogroms identified by the dates and locales. Whether the victims of these pogroms ranged from less than 10 to a 1000, they are all documented and logged in the history books.

    But I never see a recognition about the millions of Slavs who were killed and brutalized by the communists who came to power with the enthusiastic support of many Jews who wanted to overthrow the Czar and the old order. It seems like one could consider that a giant pogrom against the Slavs that definitely made up for the pogroms of the past.

    Additionally, millions of Russians and other Slavs did the lion's share of the fighting to defeat the Nazis which liberated the death camps in Poland.

    Even if Jews hated the Russians and other Slavs before, wouldn't the fact that they were so instrumental in defeating the Nazis, and thus preventing the total annihilation of European Jewry, sort of make things right? Wouldn't it be time to reevaluate the relationship and let bygones be bygones?

    If Jews cannot forgive Russians after that, what chance do the rest of us have? Do they still harbor ill feelings because the English kicked them out years ago? Well one might say that the English helped carve out Israel. So what, the Russians died in their millions and that did not wipe the slate clean.

    Ditto for any other nation that ever crossed them.

    BTW, I am not suggesting Jews are unique in not forgiving former enemies. As an American I am keenly aware that blacks seem to dislike whites no matter what whites do to make amends. One might think that the deaths of all those Union Army soldiers who freed the slaves would have wiped the slate clean. One would think that a place like Gettysburg would become some sort of shrine. Well it is, except it isn't for blacks. Surprisingly blacks show very little interest in attending that site or other battle sites.

    I am sure some history buff can help me out, but are there other examples of a people who wronged another, and then ultimately paid some sort of price that benefited the formerly oppressed? For example, whites have paid plenty in battle and government set-asides to make it right for blacks. I already discussed the Russians and the Jews.

    But have Turks paid a price for what they did to the Greeks, Serbs, etc? Did Turks die in numbers to benefit those formerly oppressed? Have the Japanese done anything similar for the Koreans and Chinese, etc.? Are there any examples out there?

    A lot of Jews and more importantly, Jewish publications refer to the European holocaust.

    Their theme is that all of Europe was responsible for the holocaust. Some of the camps were in Poland, therefore it was all the fault of the Poles.

    The allies did not destroy Hitler’s Germany in 1939. Therefore it is all of Europe’s fault.

    Germany must have bought them off.

    Of course by Europe they mean Christianity and European culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @istevefan

    Russian cruelty against its near neighbors is well know. Certainly Ukraine hasn’t forgot about the Great Famine, long after the Cossack pogroms against the Jews.
     
    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.

    Third, Ukraine has not forgotten about the Holodmor. In fact they ran afoul of some groups in 2009, when they tried to bring charges against the dead perpetrators:


    KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) — A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the "Great Famine" committed in the 1930s.

    The nation’s security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was "a farce" to press the case.

    “All organizers of the Great Famine are dead," he said.

    Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.

    The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”

    Feldman believes there is a danger that the “Holodomor Affair” materials are being used for political purposes.

    In late May, security service head Valentin Nalivaychenko claimed at a meeting with representatives of the World Congress of Ukrainians that “Ukraine has collected enough evidence to bring a criminal case regarding the famine, which was artificially created by the Bolshevik regime and caused mass death of citizens.”

    Through the World Congress of Ukrainians, Nalivaychenko turned to leading foreign lawyers with a request to help find out the circumstances connected with preparing and committing the genocide.

     

    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.

    LOL. I’m sure I should have heard that one before, but I haven’t. Stalin, Kaganovich et al, were the political leadership of the USSR, ie, Russia at that time and were only notable in that capacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    Well I noticed you did not comment on the article I included in that comment. Apparently the Ukrainians were able to differentiate where you cannot.
    , @Anon
    I notice that the Soviet Union became a lot less murderous towards its own native Russians when the native Russians took over the leadership of the country again. In fact, the totalitarian government fell apart completely when the Russians took over. This was not an accident. Tribal thinking tells you, don't screw your own people and destroy your kin. Yes, most of the original leadership of the Soviet communist movement were Jewish. You can look it up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Boethiuss

    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.
     
    LOL. I'm sure I should have heard that one before, but I haven't. Stalin, Kaganovich et al, were the political leadership of the USSR, ie, Russia at that time and were only notable in that capacity.

    Well I noticed you did not comment on the article I included in that comment. Apparently the Ukrainians were able to differentiate where you cannot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Well I noticed you did not comment on the article I included in that comment. Apparently the Ukrainians were able to differentiate where you cannot.
     
    Why would I? This sort of thing sucks up way too much time as it is, why would you be expecting me to be commenting at other venues?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @istevefan

    It should be clear that a minimum this represents a more direct, more immediate threat against us no matter what Saudi Arabia might do.
     
    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria. Our interference in the middle east over the past decade and a half has helped contribute to the islamic conquest of Europe. Our policies are boomeranging onto our historic mother continent to the delight of the Saudis.

    Each day the islamic conquest of Europe, which Saudi Arabia is supporting, continues virtually unabated. And to a lesser extent it continues int he US as well. America now has more muslims than we did prior to 9-11. Our mother country's capital is rapidly becoming islamic.

    We are messing around playing the Great Game like it is 1914 while our nation and our mother continent are being overrun. The stupidity of that is unreal.

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria.

    I thought so too until last week, but now that doesn’t fly any more.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them. Not only is that the rule, more importantly is has to be the rule. There’s too many interactions and points of conflict to where we would have all been incinerated a long time ago if it were acceptable to use nukes like they were bigger versions of tanks and mortars.

    Therefore, this latest episode represents a profound reorientation of world affairs that really doesn’t have anything to do with the particulars of Syria. By demonstrating its willingness to use nukes or at least threaten them, Russia is telling us profoundly important things about how it sees itself in the world and how it wants to relate to other nations.

    Basically, it wants to treat us as a bigger version of Estonia. Obviously we’re too far away to actually invade but Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power. It should be pretty clear that’s not going to fly. It’s not going to fly for us obviously, but it’s just as much a nonstarter for the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia (which I actually suspect is a lot the problem bugging Russia). In any event, the role of Syria here is ancillary. We can’t avoid the problem simply by changing policy in Syria. If it wasn’t there it’d be somewhere else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power
     
    That is incoherent. Nukes are weapons - all weapons are used to threaten and intimidate. The easiest way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to not provoke to destroy Russia and its allies. They don't have to fight the way you want them to, they can simply decide to go for the jugular. Why not? Russia has made it clear that it will not fight another bloody, defensive war on its own territory - as they did in WWII and against Napoleon. And they don't want to capitulate. That really just leaves the nukes.

    If you don't think that at least some in the West have been pursuing a policy to encircle and eventually dismember Russia, it is pointless to have this discussion because you are either a lier or living a lie. If we have a nuclear war it will because too many in the West refuse to see reality.

    , @Silva
    I don't associate "all options on the table" with Russia - do you understand what that means?

    https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/

    (Accepting the understandable-if-technically-wrong bias of picking whoever is the biggest threat to oneself, the Anglophones are all crazy, because Australia's the one that could quite understandably pick someone *other* than the US.)
    , @Mr. Anon

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them.
     
    The point of having them is to (implicitly) threaten to use them. Otherwise, they mean nothing. Russia implicity threatens us. We implicitly threaten them. This has been the situation since 1949. There is nothing new in any of this.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Check the most recent Nuclear Posture Review of the United States, which contemplates use of nuclear weapons in a far wider range of scenarios, including use against Russia, than had previously been the case.

    Russia is well within its rights to warn aggressive nations such as the United States, France and the U.K., that it reserves the right to attack the floating or fixed locations from which their aggression against Russia's Syrian ally is being launched. It's the fault of the aggressor if that carries the possibiity of escalation to nuclear exchange, not the nation responding to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @istevefan
    Well I noticed you did not comment on the article I included in that comment. Apparently the Ukrainians were able to differentiate where you cannot.

    Well I noticed you did not comment on the article I included in that comment. Apparently the Ukrainians were able to differentiate where you cannot.

    Why would I? This sort of thing sucks up way too much time as it is, why would you be expecting me to be commenting at other venues?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Reginald Maplethorp
    I really love Audacious Epigone's bar chart color schemes.

    You might call them quite audacious. But why do older people go blue? By reference to leaves and fruits, yellow/orange/brown would make more sense; if it’s just calling old people “sad”, I think we could do without that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Forgive the ridiculous lateness of my reply, slipped my mind a couple weeks ago. The grayish blue is trying to allude to the "blue hairs" while youthful green is for being, well, green. Age is the hardest one to pull off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:
    @Boethiuss
    I gotta say, I pretty much changed my own opinion on this one practically overnight.

    I'm not Jewish, but I practically turned into a neocon within a week. The Russians are really threatening to nuke us over Syria? Fcuk 'em.

    And if the antagonism from Russia, and against Russia, doesn't dissipate soon (and it might not), this could have fairly substantial effects on US domestic politics that we weren't anticipating. It's one thing to jerk the reins in on the Deep State and its orientation against Russia when the primary issue appears to be salvaging Hillary's sore loser ego. It's quite another when the Russians are threatening to nuke us, in a fairly imminent time frame.

    The Russians are bluffing. They know they’re bluffing. They’ve paid close attention to Trump’s style and have noticed that Trump bluffs a lot, so they’ve adjusted accordingly and are trying to use his own tactics against him to pressure him.

    There does however, appear to be some serious nonsense going on between Theresa May and Putin, and May appears to be a really scheming and underhanded individual. The poisoning episode is beginning to look more and more like the work of the UK. The British have lied about the events of the poisoning so many times that their behavior is becoming much too suspicious. There is an old rule of law that goes, you don’t lie in a murder case. It’s too important unless you’re the murderer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    The Russians are bluffing. They know they’re bluffing. They’ve paid close attention to Trump’s style and have noticed that Trump bluffs a lot, so they’ve adjusted accordingly and are trying to use his own tactics against him to pressure him.
     
    God I hope so. But even as a bluff this still sucks, for exactly the reason you mentioned at the end of your comment.

    I suspect the embarrassing thing for Russia is, whatever its problems with the UK are, they have to be sorted out with the UK. Somewhere in the recesses of Putin's brain, and certainly in the imagination of a lot of Russians, there's the idea that Trump orders Theresa May around about the same as he does Hope Hicks when she was working at the White House.

    The unfortunately reality for Russia is that in most important ways Russia compares unfavorably to the UK, which itself is a second tier version of the US. For a prideful nation like Russia and a prideful person like Putin, that's gotta hurt.

    I kinda want to feel sorry for him, but not really. I wouldn't really care about the various nasties that Putin tends to do, as long as he's willing to respect the big-picture balance of power. But the point of this latest episode is that we cannot take that for granted like we might have beforehand. So now I care quite a bit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @AnotherDad

    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn’t? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
     
    Jack--how does this compute?

    Let's say Putin is poisoning his defectors. Maybe bad manners vis-à-vis how spycraft is supposed to be played? But threat to America?

    I'm not a big fan of Putin. He basically seems to be a "Greater Russia" imperialist, while i'm a nationalist. (To me if some group of people does not want to be part of your nation that's a big ass hint that they are not, should not be, part of your nation. Ignore that and your prize is ... Chechens! Oh, joy.)

    But let's say evil Putin went all the heck out and flat out swallows up Ukraine. Yeah, that's a negative for Ukrainians just wanting to get on with being Ukrainians. It's a modest negative for European stability and an even more modest one for world stability and peace. But a big threat to the US? Huh? Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for over 250 years, until post-91, during which time the US was born, grew, became a great continental nation and world power. It didn't seem to affect us ... at all!

    And that "swallowing" scenario--itself no threat to the US--is a wild and crazy Putin that doesn't even have the basic claim to importance of having actually happened.

    But a big threat to the US? Huh?

    Yes. I’ve had the same thought.

    Ukraine and all of Eastern Europe were in the Soviet sphere for most of the 20th century. It didn’t affect the price of milk in Des Moines. Who cares if the Russkies run over Ukraine again? It just doesn’t matter to the USA, or affect our security one bit.

    By the same logic it was INSANE to admit the Baltics into NATO. Their thimblefull of military ability adds nothing to American security. Yet America guaranteeing their territorial integrity against a fully-fledged nuclear Russia puts all Americans at risk of death. Baltics in NATO is all liability, zero asset. An insanely stupid trade-off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, it saves all the trouble for the eye and mind to keep going back and forth to the legend. I wonder why nobody has used this effective color scheme before ... no, I don't.

    BTW, it'd probably been more confusing, I guess, but I'd have like to see the R's being blue and D's being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.

    Republicans as the people who believe in blood and fire* and Democrats as people in the coasts who like looking at the sky more than anywhere that might have Republicans fits a lot better IMO than painting Democrats as either Marxist or Leninist (real resemblance to the latter only exists among a minority of voters, and some too outside the box to even vote Democrat).

    *: both as per the Bible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Boethiuss

    First, the Holodomor was conducted when Stalin, a Georgian, was the ruler of the USSR.

    Second, it was carried out to a large extent by Lazar Kaganovich, who was most certainly not a Russian.
     
    LOL. I'm sure I should have heard that one before, but I haven't. Stalin, Kaganovich et al, were the political leadership of the USSR, ie, Russia at that time and were only notable in that capacity.

    I notice that the Soviet Union became a lot less murderous towards its own native Russians when the native Russians took over the leadership of the country again. In fact, the totalitarian government fell apart completely when the Russians took over. This was not an accident. Tribal thinking tells you, don’t screw your own people and destroy your kin. Yes, most of the original leadership of the Soviet communist movement were Jewish. You can look it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    I notice that the Soviet Union became a lot less murderous towards its own native Russians when the native Russians took over the leadership of the country again. In fact, the totalitarian government fell apart completely when the Russians took over. This was not an accident.
     
    Really? All the names I can think of since Krushchev are ethnically Russian (except Chernenko I guess if you want to be technical) and I can't think of any offhand who were Jewish. In any event, even if we stipulate that your line of argument is true, it doesn't necessarily imply very much, considering that it would be very difficult to beat the Great Famine in terms of numbers for mass murder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Svigor

    ‘The striking lack of self-skepticism,’ of self-awareness, of an ability to recognize one’s family and group/tribe as getting filthy rich by cheating others, is far from new to Jews.
     
    Yeah, Steve, you've mentioned this a few times. I can buy that Jews are getting less introspective, but is there any evidence that they were ever introspective (relative to anyone this side of Blacks, I mean)?

    Yeah not letting Baby Boomers off the hook that easily just to blame it on Jews, who are low single digit % of the population. Cold War propaganda really messed people up.</blockquote.

    What's funny is how much worse the anti-Russian rhetoric is now, compared to the anti-Soviet rhetoric of the Cold War. Getting on the Jews' bad side is the easiest way to a bad rep. Murdering millions of your own people and turning eastern Europe into a jail? Not so much.
     

     

    IME, crazy Jews who go into psychology/psychiatry do so because they understand themselves as crazy, and (at least at the point when they choose to enter) want more to fix/cope with themselves than to control others (or even get money). Seems more introspective to me than what lower-class crazy whites do, unsure about comparison to average whites. Are East Asians often introspective? Are Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese actually similar on that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Boethiuss

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria.
     
    I thought so too until last week, but now that doesn't fly any more.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them. Not only is that the rule, more importantly is has to be the rule. There's too many interactions and points of conflict to where we would have all been incinerated a long time ago if it were acceptable to use nukes like they were bigger versions of tanks and mortars.

    Therefore, this latest episode represents a profound reorientation of world affairs that really doesn't have anything to do with the particulars of Syria. By demonstrating its willingness to use nukes or at least threaten them, Russia is telling us profoundly important things about how it sees itself in the world and how it wants to relate to other nations.

    Basically, it wants to treat us as a bigger version of Estonia. Obviously we're too far away to actually invade but Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power. It should be pretty clear that's not going to fly. It's not going to fly for us obviously, but it's just as much a nonstarter for the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia (which I actually suspect is a lot the problem bugging Russia). In any event, the role of Syria here is ancillary. We can't avoid the problem simply by changing policy in Syria. If it wasn't there it'd be somewhere else.

    Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power

    That is incoherent. Nukes are weapons – all weapons are used to threaten and intimidate. The easiest way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to not provoke to destroy Russia and its allies. They don’t have to fight the way you want them to, they can simply decide to go for the jugular. Why not? Russia has made it clear that it will not fight another bloody, defensive war on its own territory – as they did in WWII and against Napoleon. And they don’t want to capitulate. That really just leaves the nukes.

    If you don’t think that at least some in the West have been pursuing a policy to encircle and eventually dismember Russia, it is pointless to have this discussion because you are either a lier or living a lie. If we have a nuclear war it will because too many in the West refuse to see reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    The easiest way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to not provoke to destroy Russia and its allies. They don’t have to fight the way you want them to, they can simply decide to go for the jugular. Why not? Russia has made it clear that it will not fight another bloody, defensive war on its own territory – as they did in WWII and against Napoleon. And they don’t want to capitulate. That really just leaves the nukes.
     
    Yeah, that's just stupid. Nobody wants to invade Russia.

    It is possible for Russia to say (or actually believe for that matter) that it's perfectly acceptable to use its nukes to escalate conflicts with other major nations, including other nuclear powers. It just means they are ontologically a different country (and a worse one) for having done that.

    Just like per capita IQ, GDP, level of education, social development, etc., makes Haiti an ontologically different country than Norway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @wren
    OT:

    California is VERY serious about these illegal infiltrators from South America:

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/04/18/california-officials-declare-emergency-over-huge-invasive-nutria/

    Organic nutria, barbecued. That is good eatin’, right there. Put a little door in the wall to let’em through.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    'Possum is better. Baked with sweet potatoes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Boethiuss

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria.
     
    I thought so too until last week, but now that doesn't fly any more.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them. Not only is that the rule, more importantly is has to be the rule. There's too many interactions and points of conflict to where we would have all been incinerated a long time ago if it were acceptable to use nukes like they were bigger versions of tanks and mortars.

    Therefore, this latest episode represents a profound reorientation of world affairs that really doesn't have anything to do with the particulars of Syria. By demonstrating its willingness to use nukes or at least threaten them, Russia is telling us profoundly important things about how it sees itself in the world and how it wants to relate to other nations.

    Basically, it wants to treat us as a bigger version of Estonia. Obviously we're too far away to actually invade but Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power. It should be pretty clear that's not going to fly. It's not going to fly for us obviously, but it's just as much a nonstarter for the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia (which I actually suspect is a lot the problem bugging Russia). In any event, the role of Syria here is ancillary. We can't avoid the problem simply by changing policy in Syria. If it wasn't there it'd be somewhere else.

    I don’t associate “all options on the table” with Russia – do you understand what that means?

    https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/

    (Accepting the understandable-if-technically-wrong bias of picking whoever is the biggest threat to oneself, the Anglophones are all crazy, because Australia’s the one that could quite understandably pick someone *other* than the US.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    I don’t associate “all options on the table” with Russia – do you understand what that means?
     
    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Please, dear Steve-or-not moderator, delete my first reply to Boethiuss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. @Anon
    I notice that the Soviet Union became a lot less murderous towards its own native Russians when the native Russians took over the leadership of the country again. In fact, the totalitarian government fell apart completely when the Russians took over. This was not an accident. Tribal thinking tells you, don't screw your own people and destroy your kin. Yes, most of the original leadership of the Soviet communist movement were Jewish. You can look it up.

    I notice that the Soviet Union became a lot less murderous towards its own native Russians when the native Russians took over the leadership of the country again. In fact, the totalitarian government fell apart completely when the Russians took over. This was not an accident.

    Really? All the names I can think of since Krushchev are ethnically Russian (except Chernenko I guess if you want to be technical) and I can’t think of any offhand who were Jewish. In any event, even if we stipulate that your line of argument is true, it doesn’t necessarily imply very much, considering that it would be very difficult to beat the Great Famine in terms of numbers for mass murder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Really? All the names I can think of since Krushchev are ethnically Russian....
     
    Which tends to support Anon's first point. From Krushchev on, the Soviet leadership was quite a bit less profligate with the lives of their own citizens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @inertial

    Bubbe told me about the Czar and his Cossacks and now they’re back!
     
    It's a plausible theory but I don't think it's right. Half of Israeli Jews had, generally speaking, the same Bubbe, and yet they are relaxed about Russia. Or take French Jews of Russian origin (such as Serge Gainsbourg.) As far as I know, they are not especially Russophobic, either.

    So, American Jewish hostility to Russia must be more of an American thing. Perhaps it's related to decades of Cold War propaganda. I suspect that if you'd poll Gentiles with the same socioeconomic profile as Jews, especially in regards to education, you'd get similar results.

    “So, American Jewish hostility to Russia must be more of an American thing. Perhaps it’s related to decades of Cold War propaganda.”

    More likely related to anti-Trump, anti-nationalist, anti-Putin propaganda in the last five years. The fantasy is that Cold War histrionics had real effect on most Americans, who are essentially indifferent to Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Lot

    He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.
     
    Threat number one to both Russia and the USA are mass third world migration and high fertility. Unfortunately not much profit to stopping it compared to building sitting duck navies (USA) and submarines so crappy they are docked for repairs far more often than in service (Russia).

    No. The number one threat to the USA is immigration from Asia and the Silk Road peoples. Immigrants from these areas have the requisite skill and moral condescension to have real and immediate impact on the cultural and political paths of the nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Ivy
    Organic nutria, barbecued. That is good eatin', right there. Put a little door in the wall to let'em through.

    ‘Possum is better. Baked with sweet potatoes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Lars Porsena
    No it is an antonym.

    As in, it is valorous to face the butcher.

    As in, it is valorous to face the butcher.

    Maybe it’s just stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Boethiuss

    I notice that the Soviet Union became a lot less murderous towards its own native Russians when the native Russians took over the leadership of the country again. In fact, the totalitarian government fell apart completely when the Russians took over. This was not an accident.
     
    Really? All the names I can think of since Krushchev are ethnically Russian (except Chernenko I guess if you want to be technical) and I can't think of any offhand who were Jewish. In any event, even if we stipulate that your line of argument is true, it doesn't necessarily imply very much, considering that it would be very difficult to beat the Great Famine in terms of numbers for mass murder.

    Really? All the names I can think of since Krushchev are ethnically Russian….

    Which tends to support Anon’s first point. From Krushchev on, the Soviet leadership was quite a bit less profligate with the lives of their own citizens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Which tends to support Anon’s first point. From Krushchev on, the Soviet leadership was quite a bit less profligate with the lives of their own citizens.
     
    Well yeah, but look at where the bar was set.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Boethiuss

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria.
     
    I thought so too until last week, but now that doesn't fly any more.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them. Not only is that the rule, more importantly is has to be the rule. There's too many interactions and points of conflict to where we would have all been incinerated a long time ago if it were acceptable to use nukes like they were bigger versions of tanks and mortars.

    Therefore, this latest episode represents a profound reorientation of world affairs that really doesn't have anything to do with the particulars of Syria. By demonstrating its willingness to use nukes or at least threaten them, Russia is telling us profoundly important things about how it sees itself in the world and how it wants to relate to other nations.

    Basically, it wants to treat us as a bigger version of Estonia. Obviously we're too far away to actually invade but Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power. It should be pretty clear that's not going to fly. It's not going to fly for us obviously, but it's just as much a nonstarter for the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia (which I actually suspect is a lot the problem bugging Russia). In any event, the role of Syria here is ancillary. We can't avoid the problem simply by changing policy in Syria. If it wasn't there it'd be somewhere else.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them.

    The point of having them is to (implicitly) threaten to use them. Otherwise, they mean nothing. Russia implicity threatens us. We implicitly threaten them. This has been the situation since 1949. There is nothing new in any of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    The point of having them is to (implicitly) threaten to use them. Otherwise, they mean nothing. Russia implicity threatens us. We implicitly threaten them. This has been the situation since 1949. There is nothing new in any of this.
     
    In terms of practical military use, nukes really don't mean very much. They really can't even be used to threaten anything meaningful, since it's embarrassing to issue threats that you can't fulfill.

    They are excellent as weapons of last resort for major nation-states, particularly in terms of the signaling value as a major nation-state. They are surprisingly ineffective for everything else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @J.Ross
    Oh, so they defend Putin? They "like Russia" in exactly the same way Russophobic American Jews who are trying to start a war "like Russia:" they love the food, like some of the music, might have memories of getting wasted at a dasha. They "like Russia" itself, that's why they want it back. They "like Russia" the same way that Palestinians "like Israel."

    No, as in they, bar one, think Putin is doing a decent job in difficult circumstances.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @AnotherDad

    It often gave me the “not enough data” error when I tried to add the Jew filter,
     
    This is all i was able to every get. I could get action from "Other" and "Catholics", but "Jews" didn't give me anything.

    I think both AE and SS cherry pick data and anecdotes that conform to their own biases about Jews as well. It is a human weakness we are less able to catch errors we make when the error seems to support our beliefs.
     
    True. We all have our biases. For instance, i'm not inclined to be extra special charitable toward Jews, because it's pretty clear--starkly clear the last few years--that a lot of Jews have it in for my people and wish the destruction of our nations.

    That said, unless the media's Jews are wildly non-representative in something beyond the obvious ways (elite, Ivy league, well-to-do), there is some sort of "Jew thing" going on with Russia. This isn't "oh that's just left wing and Jews are more left wing" nor "those neocon warmongers", it's a very weird across the board thing of the media's Jews acting like complete crazed nitwits about Russia. Ancient grievances and "Putin is the new czar" may not be it. But something is going on.

    Maybe Russia is inoculated to resist the virus that allows a small minority of promoters to control the legal framework of your society, with detriment to the cultural fabric that sustains it. Perhaps the fear is that resistance may spread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. I’m astounded by the levels across the board. The Jews are insane, but their anti-Russian media schtick seems to be working a bit too well on the rest of the population.

    I though most people realized this Russia thing was bullshit, but apparently not. It’s really a sad thing to witness. They could have people ready to invade Lichtenstein next week if they really wanted to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    They could have people ready to invade Lichtenstein next week if they really wanted to.
     
    If the media told them that the Ruritanians were bad people who hate freedom and democracy then most Americans would be in favour of bombing Ruritania.

    You're dealing with a population whose knowledge of geography and history comes from Hollywood movies and video games.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Dave Pinsen
    But old Jews including Carl Reiner mocked Russophobia 50 years ago. I think this is more about Trump Derangement Syndrome then the czar.

    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/910326204326141952?s=21

    Russia was not quite Russian 50 Years ago.

    Much like America isn’t quite American today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Anonymous[333] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yak-15
    Russia has a declining population, an economy dependent upon fast-becoming obsolete resources, a feeble ability to project power, a surging superpower on its eastern borders and extreme levels of domestic poverty. The only thing the Russians threaten are our bizarre and newly erected US interests in the Baltic and far Eastern Europe.

    It’s unfortunate that those populations must fear the Russian army but pissing off a nuclear power to defend former Russian empire states is arguably impossible and absolutely not in our strategic interests.

    I read an article that the entire Russia fixation is basically the US seeking a war, so it can control the region and counter Chinese high speed rail systems which will eventually push straight into Europe.

    They need to deal with this quickly before the US implodes and/or China just gets too powerful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Really.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lexw4DhWXaA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Mr. Anon

    Really? All the names I can think of since Krushchev are ethnically Russian....
     
    Which tends to support Anon's first point. From Krushchev on, the Soviet leadership was quite a bit less profligate with the lives of their own citizens.

    Which tends to support Anon’s first point. From Krushchev on, the Soviet leadership was quite a bit less profligate with the lives of their own citizens.

    Well yeah, but look at where the bar was set.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Mr. Anon

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them.
     
    The point of having them is to (implicitly) threaten to use them. Otherwise, they mean nothing. Russia implicity threatens us. We implicitly threaten them. This has been the situation since 1949. There is nothing new in any of this.

    The point of having them is to (implicitly) threaten to use them. Otherwise, they mean nothing. Russia implicity threatens us. We implicitly threaten them. This has been the situation since 1949. There is nothing new in any of this.

    In terms of practical military use, nukes really don’t mean very much. They really can’t even be used to threaten anything meaningful, since it’s embarrassing to issue threats that you can’t fulfill.

    They are excellent as weapons of last resort for major nation-states, particularly in terms of the signaling value as a major nation-state. They are surprisingly ineffective for everything else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Beckow

    Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power
     
    That is incoherent. Nukes are weapons - all weapons are used to threaten and intimidate. The easiest way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to not provoke to destroy Russia and its allies. They don't have to fight the way you want them to, they can simply decide to go for the jugular. Why not? Russia has made it clear that it will not fight another bloody, defensive war on its own territory - as they did in WWII and against Napoleon. And they don't want to capitulate. That really just leaves the nukes.

    If you don't think that at least some in the West have been pursuing a policy to encircle and eventually dismember Russia, it is pointless to have this discussion because you are either a lier or living a lie. If we have a nuclear war it will because too many in the West refuse to see reality.

    The easiest way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to not provoke to destroy Russia and its allies. They don’t have to fight the way you want them to, they can simply decide to go for the jugular. Why not? Russia has made it clear that it will not fight another bloody, defensive war on its own territory – as they did in WWII and against Napoleon. And they don’t want to capitulate. That really just leaves the nukes.

    Yeah, that’s just stupid. Nobody wants to invade Russia.

    It is possible for Russia to say (or actually believe for that matter) that it’s perfectly acceptable to use its nukes to escalate conflicts with other major nations, including other nuclear powers. It just means they are ontologically a different country (and a worse one) for having done that.

    Just like per capita IQ, GDP, level of education, social development, etc., makes Haiti an ontologically different country than Norway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Nobody wants to invade Russia
     
    And there lies a lie at the heart of this issue. Of course there are people in the West who would like to take over and dismember Russia. And many are close to power and very influential. They said so in their books (Brzezinski, Allbright,...), but most important they act as if they were preparing an attack, surrounding Russia with bases, 'defensive' missiles, demonising Russia, trying to block it economically. The regular people in the West don't want to invade Russia or anyone else, yet it happens with regularity that is almost predictable. Let me remind you that the West has invaded Russia about half a dozen times in the last 300 hundred years. It is just too tempting, some would like to try again.

    they are ontologically a different country (and a worse one) for having done that
     
    The only country that have used nuclear weapons is ? Can you tell us? Russia says that they will use nukes to prevent being overrun, as Putin said that 'world without Russia is not worth it'. I suspect that is the doctrine of all other nuclear states. Do you think that US would not use nukes to prevent being defeated on its own territory? They are all the same, and what they say makes sense. Nukes are a tool of last resort, but they are in that sense like any other tool. Your moralising is silly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Anon
    The Russians are bluffing. They know they're bluffing. They've paid close attention to Trump's style and have noticed that Trump bluffs a lot, so they've adjusted accordingly and are trying to use his own tactics against him to pressure him.

    There does however, appear to be some serious nonsense going on between Theresa May and Putin, and May appears to be a really scheming and underhanded individual. The poisoning episode is beginning to look more and more like the work of the UK. The British have lied about the events of the poisoning so many times that their behavior is becoming much too suspicious. There is an old rule of law that goes, you don't lie in a murder case. It's too important unless you're the murderer.

    The Russians are bluffing. They know they’re bluffing. They’ve paid close attention to Trump’s style and have noticed that Trump bluffs a lot, so they’ve adjusted accordingly and are trying to use his own tactics against him to pressure him.

    God I hope so. But even as a bluff this still sucks, for exactly the reason you mentioned at the end of your comment.

    I suspect the embarrassing thing for Russia is, whatever its problems with the UK are, they have to be sorted out with the UK. Somewhere in the recesses of Putin’s brain, and certainly in the imagination of a lot of Russians, there’s the idea that Trump orders Theresa May around about the same as he does Hope Hicks when she was working at the White House.

    The unfortunately reality for Russia is that in most important ways Russia compares unfavorably to the UK, which itself is a second tier version of the US. For a prideful nation like Russia and a prideful person like Putin, that’s gotta hurt.

    I kinda want to feel sorry for him, but not really. I wouldn’t really care about the various nasties that Putin tends to do, as long as he’s willing to respect the big-picture balance of power. But the point of this latest episode is that we cannot take that for granted like we might have beforehand. So now I care quite a bit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @J.Ross
    Oh, it's you, helping me to know what a physicist feels when someone talks about free energy.

    Oh, it’s you, helping me to know what a physicist feels when someone talks about free energy.

    LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Silva
    I don't associate "all options on the table" with Russia - do you understand what that means?

    https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/

    (Accepting the understandable-if-technically-wrong bias of picking whoever is the biggest threat to oneself, the Anglophones are all crazy, because Australia's the one that could quite understandably pick someone *other* than the US.)

    I don’t associate “all options on the table” with Russia – do you understand what that means?

    You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Anonymous[326] • Disclaimer says:
    @William Badwhite
    Another bit of trouble with people like Nolan Peterson is that he was "special ops" which means he either flew helicopters or C-130's, which means in the USAF pilot hierarchy he was almost at, if not actually at, the bottom of the barrel.

    It seems he's no better at identifying US threats than he is at flying airplanes.

    In the opinion of fighter pilots, yes, but there are many cases of upper-ranked UPT students who chose bomber-tanker-transport (not so much helos: if you really wanted that you went Army or Marines usually) path assignments because they wanted to get on the airlines, and given two candidates with similar logged hours and safety records, one having fighter time and one in KCs or other transports/tankers the airlines figured the multiengine guys were the better bet. Also, you wound up getting a lot more hours logged in transports or tankers as opposed to fighters, and less likely to have incidents with damaged airplanes that airlines would look at. (It doesn’t show on a 214, but you had to sign a release and give airlines access to your flying records to be considered on the basis of military time, and if you had crashes, written off airplanes or ejections, that’d be documented.)

    That was more true when airline flying was much tougher to get hired on for and entry level jobs at least paid a living wage. Fewer airline pilots today are ex-military: they come up the regional jet pipeline. Military guys stay in or they get corporate jet jobs, which have gained considerably as the country becomes haves and have-nots.

    Careerwise, the saying was “TAC (fighters) for thrills, MAC (transports) for travel and SAC (nuclear carrying bombers, and tankers) for a stable home life.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Anon
    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years contributes to Jews getting in mental ruts over old obsessions with nobody daring to laugh at them. After awhile, who is left to even notice how funny this mania is?

    I don't think this is really about the past. It's about the future, and Jews are right to fear 'Russia' as a metaphor.

    In the past, Jews really worried about well-being and security, if not necessarily survival(which really did become a pressing issue in WWII). Pogroms were periodic and didn't threaten Jewish existence, but they were brutal and nasty. So, in the past, Jewish animus against Russia was one of security and 'survival'. Basic stuff. And many Russian/Polish Jews who came to the US were just looking for a better life.

    Today... Jews are the ruling elites of the US and much of the West. They are now addicted to supremacist control. So, the real anxiety about Russia isn't about traumatic memories of pogroms-of-the-past but the idea among gentiles deciding not to submit to Jewish supremacism.

    From a survival POV, this shouldn't matter. Russia does its own thing, but it doesn't target Jews. Jews are protected, and Jews are vastly over-represented in wealth in Russia. So, the Russian example shows Jews can get along just fine in a modern gentile society.
    So, why are Jews so upset with Russia? Because it is ruled by Russian Power. For Jews in supremacist mode, that just isn't tolerable. THEY must have the power and control, just like the British imperialists thought they had the right to rule over non-Brits.

    Higher one goes, so do one's expectations.
    It's like sports. If a team is just trying to have a winning season, it is happy to win 9 games and lose 7. Not very good but still, it won more than games than lost.
    But if the team makes it to the playoffs, none of that matters. It wants to win more games. If it loses, it will be very upset. Never mind it had a winning season. The ambitions have risen to winning the playoffs.
    Now, suppose the guys won the playoffs and made it to the championship game. Shouldn't they be happy even if they lose the championship because they had a winning season and won the playoffs? Pretty impressive stuff. But once a team makes it to the final game, winning the trophy is all that matters. If the team loses, it's like the end of the world. It's human psychology. This is why in game-shows, people will risk the 50,000 they've won so far to make 500,000. The stakes keep rising.

    Jews won so spectacularly since WWII that the idea of Russia saying NO to Jewish hegemony and its influence infecting European nations and even white Americans is deeply threatening to Jewish elites who are addicted to supremacism.

    'Russia' as a metaphor is the will of white gentiles to say NO. Jews are used to making 'an offer gentiles can't refuse'.

    Putin is a Russian ‘Trump’. Neither man is by any means anti-Semitic, but nor are they dependent on Jewish good will to hold power, which makes them scary and unpredictable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Lot

    #2 is our deindustrialization in preference to China.
     
    I'd put dysgenic fertility as #2, and don't even think problem 1 and 2 have any close competitors.

    As long as China continues its various hostile policies toward the US and our Asian allies, seems obvious to me that we need to require our multinationals to move their low-wage factories to SE Asia rather than China. We should also aim for a 4 to 5% inflation target to weaken the dollar, which helps our exports, and undermines the value of China's big stash of fixed-rate dollar assets.

    lack of fertility for whites is a large cause of our dysgenic fertility…this is easily observed when we compare the 1970 US census to the 2010 US census.

    and now we have less white women of childbearing age today than in 1970…and a significant number of the whites are mating with non-whites today.

    Census-White pop – Black population
    1970 – 180 million – 22 Million
    2010 – 195 million – 43 million

    but adjusted for under 55 population
    1970 – 164 million whites verse 20 million Blacks
    2010 – 160 million whites verse 39 million Blacks

    the ethnic cleansing is just getting started. We imported 30 million Mexicans since 1970 and the Black population doubled as the white population actually shrank. More whites have died since 2012 than have been born.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AnotherDad

    BTW, it’d probably been more confusing, I guess, but I’d have like to see the R’s being blue and D’s being Red. Speaking of (Soviet) Russia, that red hit too close to home when the Lyin Press decided to stick with the R=red, D=blue scheme.
     
    Same thought.

    Blue--calm normals--is the traditional Republican color and red--tearing everything up--is the traditional Democrat/"progressive" color. Generally the various maps and charts were coded that way prior to 2000. Then the media decided--in typical prog fashion--that that was unfair and to tear everything up. Essentially propaganda--fake news. And they've stuck us with this backasswards nonsense every sense. (Which btw, makes no sense to people in the rest of the world.)

    Yeah, A.D., we’ve discussed the history of the red/blue media-determined scheme some months back in other threads. I won’t start it again, but I think the history is that it would flip each election but it got solidified as Red=R and Blue=D back in 2000. Yes, backasswards is right, or maybe both parties should just be different shades of red at this point …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Boethiuss

    The easiest way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to not provoke to destroy Russia and its allies. They don’t have to fight the way you want them to, they can simply decide to go for the jugular. Why not? Russia has made it clear that it will not fight another bloody, defensive war on its own territory – as they did in WWII and against Napoleon. And they don’t want to capitulate. That really just leaves the nukes.
     
    Yeah, that's just stupid. Nobody wants to invade Russia.

    It is possible for Russia to say (or actually believe for that matter) that it's perfectly acceptable to use its nukes to escalate conflicts with other major nations, including other nuclear powers. It just means they are ontologically a different country (and a worse one) for having done that.

    Just like per capita IQ, GDP, level of education, social development, etc., makes Haiti an ontologically different country than Norway.

    Nobody wants to invade Russia

    And there lies a lie at the heart of this issue. Of course there are people in the West who would like to take over and dismember Russia. And many are close to power and very influential. They said so in their books (Brzezinski, Allbright,…), but most important they act as if they were preparing an attack, surrounding Russia with bases, ‘defensive’ missiles, demonising Russia, trying to block it economically. The regular people in the West don’t want to invade Russia or anyone else, yet it happens with regularity that is almost predictable. Let me remind you that the West has invaded Russia about half a dozen times in the last 300 hundred years. It is just too tempting, some would like to try again.

    they are ontologically a different country (and a worse one) for having done that

    The only country that have used nuclear weapons is ? Can you tell us? Russia says that they will use nukes to prevent being overrun, as Putin said that ‘world without Russia is not worth it’. I suspect that is the doctrine of all other nuclear states. Do you think that US would not use nukes to prevent being defeated on its own territory? They are all the same, and what they say makes sense. Nukes are a tool of last resort, but they are in that sense like any other tool. Your moralising is silly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    And there lies a lie at the heart of this issue. Of course there are people in the West who would like to take over and dismember Russia. And many are close to power and very influential. They said so in their books (Brzezinski, Allbright,…), but most important they act as if they were preparing an attack, surrounding Russia with bases, ‘defensive’ missiles, demonising Russia, trying to block it economically. The regular people in the West don’t want to invade Russia or anyone else, yet it happens with regularity that is almost predictable. Let me remind you that the West has invaded Russia about half a dozen times in the last 300 hundred years. It is just too tempting, some would like to try again.
     
    That sounds like a good story, but to be honest I suspect the Russians don't even believe it themselves (though they like to tell whoever will listen).

    The reality is, Russia likes to think of itself as the hegemonic power for all white people in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and North Asia. That could work except for the fact that the prime motivation for white people in Central Europe and Eastern Europe who aren't Russian is to avoid control by Russia.

    The Napoleonic Wars are irrelevant in modern European geopolitics. But, the Famines, the Purges, Katyn Forest, the Cold War satellite states, Chechnya, all those things are very relevant.

    The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the Central European Warsaw Pact states and the Baltic states are significant more economically advanced than Russia and just generally nicer places.

    Of course, all of this is fairly well known. And the inevitable problems that occur as a consequence can be handled well enough, for Russia, for Central Europe, for us, as long as Russia respects the basic dynamics of military conflict between Tier 1 armies in the Nuclear Era. If they don't, the world is fundamentally a much different place and we have to adapt to that.

    We can go on and on about neocons, Israel, the predatory movement of capital, blah, blah, blah. But for whatever problems those things cause, they are really not at fault here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Anonymous
    I read an article that the entire Russia fixation is basically the US seeking a war, so it can control the region and counter Chinese high speed rail systems which will eventually push straight into Europe.

    They need to deal with this quickly before the US implodes and/or China just gets too powerful.

    Really.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. given two candidates with similar logged hours and safety records, one having fighter time and one in KCs or other transports/tankers the airlines figured the multiengine guys were the better bet.

    This is not true. The airlines have no problem hiring ex-fighter pilots, despite the often lower total time. Someone with 2,000 hours in fighters has always been preferable to someone with 4,000 hours in transports or other slow movers. Time in transports or bombers is rightly viewed as not necessarily lots of hours, but the same hour over and over. I don’t know a single ex-fighter pilot that wanted to fly for the airlines that wasn’t eventually hired, and I know dozens of ex-fighter guys and airline pilots. Those making pilot hiring decisions at airlines are usually pilots themselves, and pilots know where they fit on the totem pole. Guys flying fighters and guys flying bombers/transports have one thing in common: they all wanted to fly fighters. And the transport types often weed themselves out – USAF guys that ended up in C-130’s usually have little aptitude for flying and that sometimes comes down to a lack of true interest. Upon getting out, the last thing they want to do is fly for a career. It is different in the Navy and USMC, but that’s a different topic for a different time.

    one in KCs or other transports/tankers

    Tankers are all flown by reservists now. The reserves/air guard is one place where the fighters -> bombers -> transports totem pole breaks down, because in the guard you join a unit rather than the overall force, so you fly what the unit flies. This leads to some really top notch pilots flying tankers, and in the guard units that have fighters, some incompetents flying fighters. For an example of the latter, the Syracuse New York ANG unit flying F-16′s in the first gulf war. Any Viper pilot that was around at the time would tell you “Syracuse disgraced the jet”. That said, many guard units end up performing extremely well in combat or in war games such as Red Flag because they fly the same airplane and with the same squadron mates for years on end, whereas active duty squadrons rotate pilots much more frequently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Guys flying fighters and guys flying bombers/transports have one thing in common: they all wanted to fly fighters.
     
    Some guys never wanted to fly fighters. That was true in the WWII era, in the fifties and through today. Although more do want to than get to, certainly. I've talked with career heavy pilots who said they were very happy to leave the Tweet and Talon behind and never have to fly anything without a two or three man flight deck again. They are probably in the minority now that airline flying is no longer a prestiege carer and that the route to the airline flight deck isn't necessarily or primarily military.

    Tankers are all flown by reservists now. The reserves/air guard is one place where the fighters -> bombers -> transports totem pole breaks down, because in the guard you join a unit rather than the overall force, so you fly what the unit flies. This leads to some really top notch pilots flying tankers, and in the guard units that have fighters, some incompetents flying fighters.
     
    That was the case with GW Bush being assigned to the Deuce (schoolmarm of the Century Series she may have been, but still, a fighter: and one that would make a great warbird for someone with the right budget) and in fact Richard Bach writes of this in the pre-Vietnam USAF/ANG he flew with in his excellent, pre-Seagull-bullshit books.

    USAF guys that ended up in C-130’s usually have little aptitude for flying and that sometimes comes down to a lack of true interest. Upon getting out, the last thing they want to do is fly for a career.
     
    People with "little aptitude for flying" did not make it through UPT, damn sure not in the days when everyone flew the Talon. Aptitude and interest are two different things. A lot of people are "interested in" airplanes but turn out to be able to not be able to be 'kicked out of the nest' in a J-3, the best primary trainer of all time. We are starting people out in a five million dollar turboprop now, which is insane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Peter Akuleyev
    Went to a great talk by Nolan Peterson last night. Peterson is a former USAF pilot who has been reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the past 4 years. You can read his reports on the Daily Signal. He makes a powerful case for Putin being US threat number one.

    The ” Russian invasion of Ukraine” is an event that I missed. When did it happen, and did it even take place outside the fevered, diseased brain of John McCain? Your boy Peterson sounds a little unhinged. Try to stay out of arm’s reach of him if you attend another of his talks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Beckow

    Nobody wants to invade Russia
     
    And there lies a lie at the heart of this issue. Of course there are people in the West who would like to take over and dismember Russia. And many are close to power and very influential. They said so in their books (Brzezinski, Allbright,...), but most important they act as if they were preparing an attack, surrounding Russia with bases, 'defensive' missiles, demonising Russia, trying to block it economically. The regular people in the West don't want to invade Russia or anyone else, yet it happens with regularity that is almost predictable. Let me remind you that the West has invaded Russia about half a dozen times in the last 300 hundred years. It is just too tempting, some would like to try again.

    they are ontologically a different country (and a worse one) for having done that
     
    The only country that have used nuclear weapons is ? Can you tell us? Russia says that they will use nukes to prevent being overrun, as Putin said that 'world without Russia is not worth it'. I suspect that is the doctrine of all other nuclear states. Do you think that US would not use nukes to prevent being defeated on its own territory? They are all the same, and what they say makes sense. Nukes are a tool of last resort, but they are in that sense like any other tool. Your moralising is silly.

    And there lies a lie at the heart of this issue. Of course there are people in the West who would like to take over and dismember Russia. And many are close to power and very influential. They said so in their books (Brzezinski, Allbright,…), but most important they act as if they were preparing an attack, surrounding Russia with bases, ‘defensive’ missiles, demonising Russia, trying to block it economically. The regular people in the West don’t want to invade Russia or anyone else, yet it happens with regularity that is almost predictable. Let me remind you that the West has invaded Russia about half a dozen times in the last 300 hundred years. It is just too tempting, some would like to try again.

    That sounds like a good story, but to be honest I suspect the Russians don’t even believe it themselves (though they like to tell whoever will listen).

    The reality is, Russia likes to think of itself as the hegemonic power for all white people in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and North Asia. That could work except for the fact that the prime motivation for white people in Central Europe and Eastern Europe who aren’t Russian is to avoid control by Russia.

    The Napoleonic Wars are irrelevant in modern European geopolitics. But, the Famines, the Purges, Katyn Forest, the Cold War satellite states, Chechnya, all those things are very relevant.

    The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the Central European Warsaw Pact states and the Baltic states are significant more economically advanced than Russia and just generally nicer places.

    Of course, all of this is fairly well known. And the inevitable problems that occur as a consequence can be handled well enough, for Russia, for Central Europe, for us, as long as Russia respects the basic dynamics of military conflict between Tier 1 armies in the Nuclear Era. If they don’t, the world is fundamentally a much different place and we have to adapt to that.

    We can go on and on about neocons, Israel, the predatory movement of capital, blah, blah, blah. But for whatever problems those things cause, they are really not at fault here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. How, pray tell, would you chracterize Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Or Antietam, for that matter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Also testaments to courage and fidelity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Yeah not letting Baby Boomers off the hook that easily just to blame it on Jews, who are low single digit % of the population. Cold War propaganda really messed people up.

    It will be funny in 2020 if the nomination is remotely contested, to see a lot of establishment/neoliberal Democrats fiercely criticize the left wing candidate(s) for not being pro-war enough while at the same time having to pretend they're upset with Trump, still in office, for whatever foreign affairs stuff he is actually doing. (If someone like Bernie/Biden is running and is going to cruise to the nomination in a few weeks we won't see as much of that, but even so)

    The striking lack of self-skepticism among American Jews in recent years – seriously that’s like the salient feature of jews always and everywhere zero self awareness zero ability to put themselves in another shoes its like they dont even have two consciousnesses only the is it good for the jews consciousness

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Boethiuss

    No it is not. The US can easily avoid such a confrontation. We have no vital national interests in Syria.
     
    I thought so too until last week, but now that doesn't fly any more.

    Like I wrote upthread, the point of having nuclear weapons is have them, not to use them. Not only is that the rule, more importantly is has to be the rule. There's too many interactions and points of conflict to where we would have all been incinerated a long time ago if it were acceptable to use nukes like they were bigger versions of tanks and mortars.

    Therefore, this latest episode represents a profound reorientation of world affairs that really doesn't have anything to do with the particulars of Syria. By demonstrating its willingness to use nukes or at least threaten them, Russia is telling us profoundly important things about how it sees itself in the world and how it wants to relate to other nations.

    Basically, it wants to treat us as a bigger version of Estonia. Obviously we're too far away to actually invade but Russia seems to think its nukes constitute a license to threaten and intimidate major powers, going against some pretty basic principles of the projection of military power. It should be pretty clear that's not going to fly. It's not going to fly for us obviously, but it's just as much a nonstarter for the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Australia (which I actually suspect is a lot the problem bugging Russia). In any event, the role of Syria here is ancillary. We can't avoid the problem simply by changing policy in Syria. If it wasn't there it'd be somewhere else.

    Check the most recent Nuclear Posture Review of the United States, which contemplates use of nuclear weapons in a far wider range of scenarios, including use against Russia, than had previously been the case.

    Russia is well within its rights to warn aggressive nations such as the United States, France and the U.K., that it reserves the right to attack the floating or fixed locations from which their aggression against Russia’s Syrian ally is being launched. It’s the fault of the aggressor if that carries the possibiity of escalation to nuclear exchange, not the nation responding to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Check the most recent Nuclear Posture Review of the United States, which contemplates use of nuclear weapons in a far wider range of scenarios, including use against Russia, than had previously been the case.

    Russia is well within its rights to warn aggressive nations such as the United States, France and the U.K., that it reserves the right to attack the floating or fixed locations from which their aggression against Russia’s Syrian ally is being launched. It’s the fault of the aggressor if that carries the possibiity of escalation to nuclear exchange, not the nation responding to it.

    No no no. The Review can “contemplate” whatever. That’s a much different animal that saying we’re going to use them next week against an adversary we’re not at war with. And this is about something, let’s recall, where on the matter itself we’re right and Russia is wrong. Assad did use chemical weapons, and that is a bad thing that needs some kind of international response, as weak as it was.

    Yeah I mean, I get that we’re not neocons and all, but just in terms of sheer bullshit excuse-making, this is less credible than anything the Israeli apologists come up with.

    The status quo ante was already favorable enough toward the Russians. There was no meaningful accountability for the crimes of the communists. And since the fall of communism, the international community holds its nose regarding things like Chechnya, extraterritorial murder, journalist murder, selling nukes to Iran, and a lotta lotta crap that Russia pulls just because its too big throw out of the G7 or whatever for small change.

    Well we can’t give in on this. If push comes to shove we can give in on Syria, but we can’t give in regarding the taboo against direct Tier 1 warfare in the Nuclear Era. There’s just too many important things tied into that.

    The plain reality is that the Russia is much weaker nation economically, culturally, and demographically, than her national ego demands for herself. Unfortunately, that’s just part of reality and it has nothing to do with Syria or aggressive US foreign policy. And somehow Russia has to find a way to come to terms with that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    I don't get your point. When people point out to you that Russia's position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like 'different animal', 'not the point', instead of rationally addressing it. You give us:

    Assad did use chemical weapons
     
    Did he? Did the jihadists use them? You simply don't know. And don't sneakily add 'Assad used again' like a desperate car salesman following a sales pitch. Then you decide for us what matters and what doesn't (Hitler is not relevant, but Bolsheviks' misdeeds are very relevant; right). I am a 'Central European' and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about 'control by Russia', we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it. It is not a day-to-day concern for normal people. 100 million angry Africans trying to break into Europe is.

    Nobody can take this meandering nonsense seriously. What happened to education in the West? Rules of logic, attention to detail, rationality? It often seems West is mostly represented by lawyerly types who are advocates and not interested in truth. This will not end well.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @William Badwhite

    given two candidates with similar logged hours and safety records, one having fighter time and one in KCs or other transports/tankers the airlines figured the multiengine guys were the better bet.
     
    This is not true. The airlines have no problem hiring ex-fighter pilots, despite the often lower total time. Someone with 2,000 hours in fighters has always been preferable to someone with 4,000 hours in transports or other slow movers. Time in transports or bombers is rightly viewed as not necessarily lots of hours, but the same hour over and over. I don't know a single ex-fighter pilot that wanted to fly for the airlines that wasn't eventually hired, and I know dozens of ex-fighter guys and airline pilots. Those making pilot hiring decisions at airlines are usually pilots themselves, and pilots know where they fit on the totem pole. Guys flying fighters and guys flying bombers/transports have one thing in common: they all wanted to fly fighters. And the transport types often weed themselves out – USAF guys that ended up in C-130’s usually have little aptitude for flying and that sometimes comes down to a lack of true interest. Upon getting out, the last thing they want to do is fly for a career. It is different in the Navy and USMC, but that’s a different topic for a different time.

    one in KCs or other transports/tankers
     
    Tankers are all flown by reservists now. The reserves/air guard is one place where the fighters -> bombers -> transports totem pole breaks down, because in the guard you join a unit rather than the overall force, so you fly what the unit flies. This leads to some really top notch pilots flying tankers, and in the guard units that have fighters, some incompetents flying fighters. For an example of the latter, the Syracuse New York ANG unit flying F-16's in the first gulf war. Any Viper pilot that was around at the time would tell you "Syracuse disgraced the jet". That said, many guard units end up performing extremely well in combat or in war games such as Red Flag because they fly the same airplane and with the same squadron mates for years on end, whereas active duty squadrons rotate pilots much more frequently.

    Guys flying fighters and guys flying bombers/transports have one thing in common: they all wanted to fly fighters.

    Some guys never wanted to fly fighters. That was true in the WWII era, in the fifties and through today. Although more do want to than get to, certainly. I’ve talked with career heavy pilots who said they were very happy to leave the Tweet and Talon behind and never have to fly anything without a two or three man flight deck again. They are probably in the minority now that airline flying is no longer a prestiege carer and that the route to the airline flight deck isn’t necessarily or primarily military.

    Tankers are all flown by reservists now. The reserves/air guard is one place where the fighters -> bombers -> transports totem pole breaks down, because in the guard you join a unit rather than the overall force, so you fly what the unit flies. This leads to some really top notch pilots flying tankers, and in the guard units that have fighters, some incompetents flying fighters.

    That was the case with GW Bush being assigned to the Deuce (schoolmarm of the Century Series she may have been, but still, a fighter: and one that would make a great warbird for someone with the right budget) and in fact Richard Bach writes of this in the pre-Vietnam USAF/ANG he flew with in his excellent, pre-Seagull-bullshit books.

    USAF guys that ended up in C-130’s usually have little aptitude for flying and that sometimes comes down to a lack of true interest. Upon getting out, the last thing they want to do is fly for a career.

    People with “little aptitude for flying” did not make it through UPT, damn sure not in the days when everyone flew the Talon. Aptitude and interest are two different things. A lot of people are “interested in” airplanes but turn out to be able to not be able to be ‘kicked out of the nest’ in a J-3, the best primary trainer of all time. We are starting people out in a five million dollar turboprop now, which is insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Boethiuss

    Check the most recent Nuclear Posture Review of the United States, which contemplates use of nuclear weapons in a far wider range of scenarios, including use against Russia, than had previously been the case.

    Russia is well within its rights to warn aggressive nations such as the United States, France and the U.K., that it reserves the right to attack the floating or fixed locations from which their aggression against Russia’s Syrian ally is being launched. It’s the fault of the aggressor if that carries the possibiity of escalation to nuclear exchange, not the nation responding to it.
     
    No no no. The Review can "contemplate" whatever. That's a much different animal that saying we're going to use them next week against an adversary we're not at war with. And this is about something, let's recall, where on the matter itself we're right and Russia is wrong. Assad did use chemical weapons, and that is a bad thing that needs some kind of international response, as weak as it was.

    Yeah I mean, I get that we're not neocons and all, but just in terms of sheer bullshit excuse-making, this is less credible than anything the Israeli apologists come up with.

    The status quo ante was already favorable enough toward the Russians. There was no meaningful accountability for the crimes of the communists. And since the fall of communism, the international community holds its nose regarding things like Chechnya, extraterritorial murder, journalist murder, selling nukes to Iran, and a lotta lotta crap that Russia pulls just because its too big throw out of the G7 or whatever for small change.

    Well we can't give in on this. If push comes to shove we can give in on Syria, but we can't give in regarding the taboo against direct Tier 1 warfare in the Nuclear Era. There's just too many important things tied into that.

    The plain reality is that the Russia is much weaker nation economically, culturally, and demographically, than her national ego demands for herself. Unfortunately, that's just part of reality and it has nothing to do with Syria or aggressive US foreign policy. And somehow Russia has to find a way to come to terms with that.

    I don’t get your point. When people point out to you that Russia’s position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like ‘different animal’, ‘not the point’, instead of rationally addressing it. You give us:

    Assad did use chemical weapons

    Did he? Did the jihadists use them? You simply don’t know. And don’t sneakily add ‘Assad used again‘ like a desperate car salesman following a sales pitch. Then you decide for us what matters and what doesn’t (Hitler is not relevant, but Bolsheviks’ misdeeds are very relevant; right). I am a ‘Central European’ and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about ‘control by Russia’, we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it. It is not a day-to-day concern for normal people. 100 million angry Africans trying to break into Europe is.

    Nobody can take this meandering nonsense seriously. What happened to education in the West? Rules of logic, attention to detail, rationality? It often seems West is mostly represented by lawyerly types who are advocates and not interested in truth. This will not end well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    When people point out to you that Russia’s position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like ‘different animal’, ‘not the point’, instead of rationally addressing it.
     
    What are you talking about, I did address it. I haven't read the Review and I don't know what's in it, but it doesn't matter. I can promise you that nobody is anticipating nuclear escalation from the United States, either because of the Review or any other reason. The world would look a lot different if it did.

    I am a ‘Central European’ and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about ‘control by Russia’, we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it.
     
    What's your home country then? I can tell you that if it's Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, or maybe a couple others, their politics are firmly determined to assert operational independence from Russia. They are among the most US-friendly countries on earth, and it's not because we're paying anybody.

    It is true that, culturally speaking, regarding the public presence of Christianity, immigration, and sexuality, Russian and Putin are closer than the major EU powers. But that's not really helping anything. In fact, that's one of the big takeaways of this last episode. In the abstract, it's nice that Russia is opposing the immigration of Middle Eastern/North African refugees/migrants/whatever. But it's not doing anything meaningful to stop Merkel from doing her thing. Maybe that's not his problem. But what is clear, is that it's business as usual for plain old Russian aggressive land-grab politics/military invasion/subversion/whatever.

    For the things we're supposed to like about Putin and Russia, he's not doing anything meaningful to help.
    , @William Badwhite

    What happened to education in the West? Rules of logic, attention to detail, rationality? It often seems West is mostly represented by lawyerly types who are advocates and not interested in truth. This will not end well.
     
    Well said. Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Diversity Heretic
    How, pray tell, would you chracterize Iwo Jima and Okinawa? Or Antietam, for that matter?

    Also testaments to courage and fidelity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Laggard
    The Russians are a ready made punching bag.

    Cold War cartoon bad guys – check. Perceived strong enough to beat up a panic over (but weak enough not to be overly concerned about) – check. Traditionalist / conservative views (i.e. un-woke) – check. Inoculated against Western propaganda by hard lessons of 90s and protected by low rates of English – check. Predominantly white (positively Lundgren-esque Aryan if you watch Hollywood movies) – check. Resource-rich – check. Threat of alignment with major partners (e.g. peeling off Europeans, China) and linking up the world island – check. Opponents of unipolar world – check. Bastion of hard-headed realism and ability to see through the charade – check.

    What’s not to love to hate?

    Most of all, Russia has the potential to be an example of another way. Not the best way, but at least an embarrassment. A living nostalgia for the rest of us to behold and envy on some level. It remains majority native (‘stan migration notwithstanding), and preserves an assimilative culture and a Russianness other than the globo-branded, multi-cult slop we have forced on us. And it is big enough, confident enough, jaded enough, and self-sufficient enough (if it really needs to be, to grow its own food, fuel its own economy, make its own stuff etc., albeit crudely), that it can go on doing so unless we do something drastic about it to get it plugged back into the system so we can carry on pillaging it. While we degrade ourselves fighting ourselves, AA’ing ourselves, re-privileging ourselves, hating ourselves, fearing ourselves, and enstupidaating ourselves, they can stand still and watch us slide.

    Would I want to live there? You couldn’t pay me enough. Do I envy the robust, pride-filled outlook and lack of self-loathing? You bet. The vision of the future for Russians still includes grandchildren who can relate to their ancestors and recognise a bond with the place they live in, and will inherit. Can we say the same for our grandchildren?

    Funny thing is the way some of us idealise it. As though our Slavic cousins are standing by to rescue us. They’ll hold out against the forces of evil and maybe one day we can all decamp there. It’s pathetic. We refuse to save ourselves and hope someone else might. We reject the weak-willed, feebleminded absconders from the failed states they have failed to thrive in, while plan-B’ing for the time when we might do the same. Let them bridge the Bering Strait with sunken ships.

    Then again, Russia is and makes itself so perfect a punching bag that you do have to wonder if it isn’t all just a big game of two-way good cop, bad cop on a global scale. Putin gets to harden the nation against neo-imperialist foes and convince his people why they must sacrifice and submit to strong rule and oligarchic dominion. The West gets to demonise the Bear and give us all something else to fear and lend our trust in opposition to. Win-win.

    Most of all, Russia has the potential to be an example of another way.

    That’s what it comes down to. There must be no alternatives. The American Way is the only way. Resistance is futile.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Annonymous
    I'm astounded by the levels across the board. The Jews are insane, but their anti-Russian media schtick seems to be working a bit too well on the rest of the population.

    I though most people realized this Russia thing was bullshit, but apparently not. It's really a sad thing to witness. They could have people ready to invade Lichtenstein next week if they really wanted to.

    They could have people ready to invade Lichtenstein next week if they really wanted to.

    If the media told them that the Ruritanians were bad people who hate freedom and democracy then most Americans would be in favour of bombing Ruritania.

    You’re dealing with a population whose knowledge of geography and history comes from Hollywood movies and video games.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Beckow
    I don't get your point. When people point out to you that Russia's position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like 'different animal', 'not the point', instead of rationally addressing it. You give us:

    Assad did use chemical weapons
     
    Did he? Did the jihadists use them? You simply don't know. And don't sneakily add 'Assad used again' like a desperate car salesman following a sales pitch. Then you decide for us what matters and what doesn't (Hitler is not relevant, but Bolsheviks' misdeeds are very relevant; right). I am a 'Central European' and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about 'control by Russia', we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it. It is not a day-to-day concern for normal people. 100 million angry Africans trying to break into Europe is.

    Nobody can take this meandering nonsense seriously. What happened to education in the West? Rules of logic, attention to detail, rationality? It often seems West is mostly represented by lawyerly types who are advocates and not interested in truth. This will not end well.

    When people point out to you that Russia’s position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like ‘different animal’, ‘not the point’, instead of rationally addressing it.

    What are you talking about, I did address it. I haven’t read the Review and I don’t know what’s in it, but it doesn’t matter. I can promise you that nobody is anticipating nuclear escalation from the United States, either because of the Review or any other reason. The world would look a lot different if it did.

    I am a ‘Central European’ and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about ‘control by Russia’, we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it.

    What’s your home country then? I can tell you that if it’s Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, or maybe a couple others, their politics are firmly determined to assert operational independence from Russia. They are among the most US-friendly countries on earth, and it’s not because we’re paying anybody.

    It is true that, culturally speaking, regarding the public presence of Christianity, immigration, and sexuality, Russian and Putin are closer than the major EU powers. But that’s not really helping anything. In fact, that’s one of the big takeaways of this last episode. In the abstract, it’s nice that Russia is opposing the immigration of Middle Eastern/North African refugees/migrants/whatever. But it’s not doing anything meaningful to stop Merkel from doing her thing. Maybe that’s not his problem. But what is clear, is that it’s business as usual for plain old Russian aggressive land-grab politics/military invasion/subversion/whatever.

    For the things we’re supposed to like about Putin and Russia, he’s not doing anything meaningful to help.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    For the things we’re supposed to like about Putin and Russia, he’s not doing anything meaningful to help.
     
    It is none of their business, why should they do anything? Although, if one listens to Western politicians and media, Putin is behind all nationalist-populist groups and has been 'meddling' until he is blue in the face to promote the likes of Trump, La Pen, Orban, Brexit. So who knows, maybe he is 'doing something', you can't have it both ways.

    My country is Czech Rep and Slovakia - the real Central Europe (I am sorry but Estonia-Latvia are Eastern Europe). Nobody here gives a sh.t about the 'Russian menace', you are being fed very shallow propaganda that has no relation to how majority of people think. They are not coming, they are not invading - but a bunch of Merkel migrants often pop across the border and do their thing, mayhem, stealing, etc... And EU is suing us to force refugees to be relocated here. I think Hungarians feel the same way as we do, I am not sure about Poland they are too emotional to read.

    'US-friendly' doesn't mean that we hate those who you hate. We are just friendly in general, but don't abuse the privilege. And you seem to have an obvious double standard about the nukes - read what you said before, when A does it, it is beyond pale. But when B does it, it doesn't matter because, as you say 'nobody is anticipating a nuclear escalation from US'. Right. Nobody is, you know that. Check out the Hiroshima thing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. “Some guys never wanted to fly fighters. That was true in the WWII era, in the fifties and through today. Although more do want to than get to, certainly. I’ve talked with career heavy pilots who said they were very happy to leave the Tweet and Talon behind and never have to fly anything without a two or three man flight deck again.”

    There may be a couple of them out there, but most “career heavy pilots” who tell you they were happy to be in bombers are retconning. “Me? I chose to finish middle of the pack in flight school and spend my whole career sub-sonic and rarely exceeding 30 degrees of bank and stationed in places like Minot, ND…and being looked down upon in O-club bars”. Yeah right.

    Btw, my in-depth knowledge of this topic is only up-to-date as of early 90′s but nobody flew the T-38 back then that was bound for B-52s or tankers.

    That was the case with GW Bush being assigned to the Deuce (schoolmarm of the Century Series she may have been, but still, a fighter:

    It pains me to write it, because he was such an abject failure as POTUS, but apparently W was fairly competent in the jet. Not great, but not a buffoon.

    People with “little aptitude for flying” did not make it through UPT, damn sure not in the days when everyone flew the Talon.

    “Little aptitude”, relatively speaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  177. @Beckow
    I don't get your point. When people point out to you that Russia's position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like 'different animal', 'not the point', instead of rationally addressing it. You give us:

    Assad did use chemical weapons
     
    Did he? Did the jihadists use them? You simply don't know. And don't sneakily add 'Assad used again' like a desperate car salesman following a sales pitch. Then you decide for us what matters and what doesn't (Hitler is not relevant, but Bolsheviks' misdeeds are very relevant; right). I am a 'Central European' and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about 'control by Russia', we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it. It is not a day-to-day concern for normal people. 100 million angry Africans trying to break into Europe is.

    Nobody can take this meandering nonsense seriously. What happened to education in the West? Rules of logic, attention to detail, rationality? It often seems West is mostly represented by lawyerly types who are advocates and not interested in truth. This will not end well.

    What happened to education in the West? Rules of logic, attention to detail, rationality? It often seems West is mostly represented by lawyerly types who are advocates and not interested in truth. This will not end well.

    Well said. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Boethiuss

    When people point out to you that Russia’s position on nuclear weapons is comparable to US or UK, you chaotically try to avoid it by using silly words like ‘different animal’, ‘not the point’, instead of rationally addressing it.
     
    What are you talking about, I did address it. I haven't read the Review and I don't know what's in it, but it doesn't matter. I can promise you that nobody is anticipating nuclear escalation from the United States, either because of the Review or any other reason. The world would look a lot different if it did.

    I am a ‘Central European’ and nobody with a triple digit IQ here worries about ‘control by Russia’, we worry about keeping what we have, staying white and European unlike our Western neighbours. Your Russian bugaboo plays only for those who are getting paid to say it.
     
    What's your home country then? I can tell you that if it's Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, or maybe a couple others, their politics are firmly determined to assert operational independence from Russia. They are among the most US-friendly countries on earth, and it's not because we're paying anybody.

    It is true that, culturally speaking, regarding the public presence of Christianity, immigration, and sexuality, Russian and Putin are closer than the major EU powers. But that's not really helping anything. In fact, that's one of the big takeaways of this last episode. In the abstract, it's nice that Russia is opposing the immigration of Middle Eastern/North African refugees/migrants/whatever. But it's not doing anything meaningful to stop Merkel from doing her thing. Maybe that's not his problem. But what is clear, is that it's business as usual for plain old Russian aggressive land-grab politics/military invasion/subversion/whatever.

    For the things we're supposed to like about Putin and Russia, he's not doing anything meaningful to help.

    For the things we’re supposed to like about Putin and Russia, he’s not doing anything meaningful to help.

    It is none of their business, why should they do anything? Although, if one listens to Western politicians and media, Putin is behind all nationalist-populist groups and has been ‘meddling‘ until he is blue in the face to promote the likes of Trump, La Pen, Orban, Brexit. So who knows, maybe he is ‘doing something’, you can’t have it both ways.

    My country is Czech Rep and Slovakia – the real Central Europe (I am sorry but Estonia-Latvia are Eastern Europe). Nobody here gives a sh.t about the ‘Russian menace‘, you are being fed very shallow propaganda that has no relation to how majority of people think. They are not coming, they are not invading – but a bunch of Merkel migrants often pop across the border and do their thing, mayhem, stealing, etc… And EU is suing us to force refugees to be relocated here. I think Hungarians feel the same way as we do, I am not sure about Poland they are too emotional to read.

    US-friendly‘ doesn’t mean that we hate those who you hate. We are just friendly in general, but don’t abuse the privilege. And you seem to have an obvious double standard about the nukes – read what you said before, when A does it, it is beyond pale. But when B does it, it doesn’t matter because, as you say ‘nobody is anticipating a nuclear escalation from US‘. Right. Nobody is, you know that. Check out the Hiroshima thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss


    My country is Czech Rep and Slovakia – the real Central Europe (I am sorry but Estonia-Latvia are Eastern Europe). Nobody here gives a sh.t about the ‘Russian menace‘, you are being fed very shallow propaganda that has no relation to how majority of people think. They are not coming, they are not invading – but a bunch of Merkel migrants often pop across the border and do their thing, mayhem, stealing, etc… And EU is suing us to force refugees to be relocated here. I think Hungarians feel the same way as we do, I am not sure about Poland they are too emotional to read.
     
    I wasn't intending to say that the Baltic nations are in Central Europe, just that part of the world tends to be US friendly.

    In any event, maybe you should elaborate on how Czech politics fits in here (or other nearby nations as well to the extent you feel knowledgeable enough to comment on them).

    As far as I know, the Czech Republic and similarly situated countries are looking toward their NATO membership to provide for their security, and EU membership for economic development. If these things aren't true, then I am substantially mistaken. Certainly the expansion of NATO membership does nothing for American security except through its intention to further the peace in that region. Lots of Presidents have criticized our allies for lack of funding toward their security commitments, most notably Donald Trump a couple of months ago.

    These are the defining features of orientation for the Czech Republic and similar countries since the end of the Cold War. If you have a different perspective on this, I'd be very interested in hearing it. For me at least, this was pretty clear, and if anything more clear with respect to the EU even than with NATO.

    Because in spite of all the antagonism from Merkel, Germany, and the migrant-friendly elements of the EU, the Czech Republic is still firmly oriented toward the EU anyway. It knows, or at least it perceives, that its economic development depends on closer association with the wealthier nations of the EU instead of the economically backward economy of Russia. Even though the current migration threatens Czech sovereignty and cultural integrity, the Czechs are strongly motivated to resist those things within the context of the EU.

    Maybe this just has to do with the fact that for Americans, Vaclav Havel was by far the most prominent Czech perspective for at least a decade, but I suspect it goes beyond that as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Beckow

    For the things we’re supposed to like about Putin and Russia, he’s not doing anything meaningful to help.
     
    It is none of their business, why should they do anything? Although, if one listens to Western politicians and media, Putin is behind all nationalist-populist groups and has been 'meddling' until he is blue in the face to promote the likes of Trump, La Pen, Orban, Brexit. So who knows, maybe he is 'doing something', you can't have it both ways.

    My country is Czech Rep and Slovakia - the real Central Europe (I am sorry but Estonia-Latvia are Eastern Europe). Nobody here gives a sh.t about the 'Russian menace', you are being fed very shallow propaganda that has no relation to how majority of people think. They are not coming, they are not invading - but a bunch of Merkel migrants often pop across the border and do their thing, mayhem, stealing, etc... And EU is suing us to force refugees to be relocated here. I think Hungarians feel the same way as we do, I am not sure about Poland they are too emotional to read.

    'US-friendly' doesn't mean that we hate those who you hate. We are just friendly in general, but don't abuse the privilege. And you seem to have an obvious double standard about the nukes - read what you said before, when A does it, it is beyond pale. But when B does it, it doesn't matter because, as you say 'nobody is anticipating a nuclear escalation from US'. Right. Nobody is, you know that. Check out the Hiroshima thing.

    My country is Czech Rep and Slovakia – the real Central Europe (I am sorry but Estonia-Latvia are Eastern Europe). Nobody here gives a sh.t about the ‘Russian menace‘, you are being fed very shallow propaganda that has no relation to how majority of people think. They are not coming, they are not invading – but a bunch of Merkel migrants often pop across the border and do their thing, mayhem, stealing, etc… And EU is suing us to force refugees to be relocated here. I think Hungarians feel the same way as we do, I am not sure about Poland they are too emotional to read.

    I wasn’t intending to say that the Baltic nations are in Central Europe, just that part of the world tends to be US friendly.

    In any event, maybe you should elaborate on how Czech politics fits in here (or other nearby nations as well to the extent you feel knowledgeable enough to comment on them).

    As far as I know, the Czech Republic and similarly situated countries are looking toward their NATO membership to provide for their security, and EU membership for economic development. If these things aren’t true, then I am substantially mistaken. Certainly the expansion of NATO membership does nothing for American security except through its intention to further the peace in that region. Lots of Presidents have criticized our allies for lack of funding toward their security commitments, most notably Donald Trump a couple of months ago.

    These are the defining features of orientation for the Czech Republic and similar countries since the end of the Cold War. If you have a different perspective on this, I’d be very interested in hearing it. For me at least, this was pretty clear, and if anything more clear with respect to the EU even than with NATO.

    Because in spite of all the antagonism from Merkel, Germany, and the migrant-friendly elements of the EU, the Czech Republic is still firmly oriented toward the EU anyway. It knows, or at least it perceives, that its economic development depends on closer association with the wealthier nations of the EU instead of the economically backward economy of Russia. Even though the current migration threatens Czech sovereignty and cultural integrity, the Czechs are strongly motivated to resist those things within the context of the EU.

    Maybe this just has to do with the fact that for Americans, Vaclav Havel was by far the most prominent Czech perspective for at least a decade, but I suspect it goes beyond that as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow
    You are too binary without any real understanding. Most people here (almost all) like EU, see Nato as a necessary evil (joining Nato was a prerequisite to be accepted to EU, not a choice), would like friendly relations with both West and Russia, would like trade with both. Our Russian trade is very profitable and we get 90% of our energy from Russia, LNG is about 2-3 times more expensive and we don't have ports to handle it. Most people could care less about Washington's obsessive global domination, who rules East Ghouta or what sh..head steals in Iraq.

    The real danger - an imminent danger - has been the insane German-EU-Merkel policy of inviting millions of Third World migrants and then insisting that they must be distributed all over EU. That is real, it is tangible, and it has turned a lot of people against EU and West in general.

    Finally, I hate to disappoint you but Havel was a fake. He was a poor writer and even worse ceremonial president. His popularity was in low double digits and his frequent idiotic pronouncements were mostly ignored. He ended his career at some think tank outside of Washington. His plays are literally retarded, try to watch one. He had no education and was just a rich kid from a well connected family that collaborated with Nazis during WWII. He was a fake as so many people that West has built up to serve their goals.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Boethiuss


    My country is Czech Rep and Slovakia – the real Central Europe (I am sorry but Estonia-Latvia are Eastern Europe). Nobody here gives a sh.t about the ‘Russian menace‘, you are being fed very shallow propaganda that has no relation to how majority of people think. They are not coming, they are not invading – but a bunch of Merkel migrants often pop across the border and do their thing, mayhem, stealing, etc… And EU is suing us to force refugees to be relocated here. I think Hungarians feel the same way as we do, I am not sure about Poland they are too emotional to read.
     
    I wasn't intending to say that the Baltic nations are in Central Europe, just that part of the world tends to be US friendly.

    In any event, maybe you should elaborate on how Czech politics fits in here (or other nearby nations as well to the extent you feel knowledgeable enough to comment on them).

    As far as I know, the Czech Republic and similarly situated countries are looking toward their NATO membership to provide for their security, and EU membership for economic development. If these things aren't true, then I am substantially mistaken. Certainly the expansion of NATO membership does nothing for American security except through its intention to further the peace in that region. Lots of Presidents have criticized our allies for lack of funding toward their security commitments, most notably Donald Trump a couple of months ago.

    These are the defining features of orientation for the Czech Republic and similar countries since the end of the Cold War. If you have a different perspective on this, I'd be very interested in hearing it. For me at least, this was pretty clear, and if anything more clear with respect to the EU even than with NATO.

    Because in spite of all the antagonism from Merkel, Germany, and the migrant-friendly elements of the EU, the Czech Republic is still firmly oriented toward the EU anyway. It knows, or at least it perceives, that its economic development depends on closer association with the wealthier nations of the EU instead of the economically backward economy of Russia. Even though the current migration threatens Czech sovereignty and cultural integrity, the Czechs are strongly motivated to resist those things within the context of the EU.

    Maybe this just has to do with the fact that for Americans, Vaclav Havel was by far the most prominent Czech perspective for at least a decade, but I suspect it goes beyond that as well.

    You are too binary without any real understanding. Most people here (almost all) like EU, see Nato as a necessary evil (joining Nato was a prerequisite to be accepted to EU, not a choice), would like friendly relations with both West and Russia, would like trade with both. Our Russian trade is very profitable and we get 90% of our energy from Russia, LNG is about 2-3 times more expensive and we don’t have ports to handle it. Most people could care less about Washington’s obsessive global domination, who rules East Ghouta or what sh..head steals in Iraq.

    The real danger – an imminent danger – has been the insane German-EU-Merkel policy of inviting millions of Third World migrants and then insisting that they must be distributed all over EU. That is real, it is tangible, and it has turned a lot of people against EU and West in general.

    Finally, I hate to disappoint you but Havel was a fake. He was a poor writer and even worse ceremonial president. His popularity was in low double digits and his frequent idiotic pronouncements were mostly ignored. He ended his career at some think tank outside of Washington. His plays are literally retarded, try to watch one. He had no education and was just a rich kid from a well connected family that collaborated with Nazis during WWII. He was a fake as so many people that West has built up to serve their goals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    The real danger – an imminent danger – has been the insane German-EU-Merkel policy of inviting millions of Third World migrants and then insisting that they must be distributed all over EU. That is real, it is tangible, and it has turned a lot of people against EU and West in general.
     
    I would have been inclined to agree with you not very long ago, but the events of this last week are a cause for recalculation. The propensity for Tier 1 military confrontation is a bigger problem than that, even for the Czechs I'd venture. Obviously we can hope for the immediate threat to dissipate, at which point the migrations would return to the fore.

    But for us, though, it's still a problem because it shows, in a very bad way, where Putin's head is at, and by extension Russia's belief in its own prospects, or lack of it.

    It's not so much that a world without Russia isn't worth having, as much as the perception that Russia has no hope at all of succeeding on conventional terms, and therefore will flail about desperately in hope of reshuffling the deck in some otherwise unforseen radical way, or to least to assert some kind of national honor if it can't succeed at anything else.

    As it stands, Russia is pissing off some very important people whose goodwill it will want at some later date. And I'm not talking about the United States Deep State. Basically Russia has pissed off the diplomatic corps of the entire Western world, including and especially your EU buddies. And the idea that that is acceptable tradeoff in order to control a port in Syria, betrays the thought process of somebody who has some very profound misunderstandings of how the world works nowadays.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Beckow
    You are too binary without any real understanding. Most people here (almost all) like EU, see Nato as a necessary evil (joining Nato was a prerequisite to be accepted to EU, not a choice), would like friendly relations with both West and Russia, would like trade with both. Our Russian trade is very profitable and we get 90% of our energy from Russia, LNG is about 2-3 times more expensive and we don't have ports to handle it. Most people could care less about Washington's obsessive global domination, who rules East Ghouta or what sh..head steals in Iraq.

    The real danger - an imminent danger - has been the insane German-EU-Merkel policy of inviting millions of Third World migrants and then insisting that they must be distributed all over EU. That is real, it is tangible, and it has turned a lot of people against EU and West in general.

    Finally, I hate to disappoint you but Havel was a fake. He was a poor writer and even worse ceremonial president. His popularity was in low double digits and his frequent idiotic pronouncements were mostly ignored. He ended his career at some think tank outside of Washington. His plays are literally retarded, try to watch one. He had no education and was just a rich kid from a well connected family that collaborated with Nazis during WWII. He was a fake as so many people that West has built up to serve their goals.

    The real danger – an imminent danger – has been the insane German-EU-Merkel policy of inviting millions of Third World migrants and then insisting that they must be distributed all over EU. That is real, it is tangible, and it has turned a lot of people against EU and West in general.

    I would have been inclined to agree with you not very long ago, but the events of this last week are a cause for recalculation. The propensity for Tier 1 military confrontation is a bigger problem than that, even for the Czechs I’d venture. Obviously we can hope for the immediate threat to dissipate, at which point the migrations would return to the fore.

    But for us, though, it’s still a problem because it shows, in a very bad way, where Putin’s head is at, and by extension Russia’s belief in its own prospects, or lack of it.

    It’s not so much that a world without Russia isn’t worth having, as much as the perception that Russia has no hope at all of succeeding on conventional terms, and therefore will flail about desperately in hope of reshuffling the deck in some otherwise unforseen radical way, or to least to assert some kind of national honor if it can’t succeed at anything else.

    As it stands, Russia is pissing off some very important people whose goodwill it will want at some later date. And I’m not talking about the United States Deep State. Basically Russia has pissed off the diplomatic corps of the entire Western world, including and especially your EU buddies. And the idea that that is acceptable tradeoff in order to control a port in Syria, betrays the thought process of somebody who has some very profound misunderstandings of how the world works nowadays.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. It is obviously impossible for us to come to an agreement, I don’t worry much about ‘pissed off’ diplomats or Tier 1 confrontations. In general a country that goes on is ‘succeeding’ on its own terms, Russia is there, will be there, they seem to live just fine.

    The preachy, self-centered, narcissistic condescension that you display here, with a touch of lazy thinking, is hurting West. It is a sign of weakness, you don’t seem to be ale to argue actual points so you escape into high-falluting slogans and dismissive patronising. It is not working.

    Regarding the Tier 1 confrontation (yes, ugly and yet in a remote, non-real way that didn’t touch that many people): why are we having it? Who has shown the endless initiatives to ‘fix’ Syria, ‘liberate’ Ukraine, put a base here or there, who has run a media demonisation campaign of almost Jesuit ferocity? Who are the real meddlers here? If you ask a normal guy on the street in Central Europe, it is not even close – he sees the frantic activity, the media manipulation, over-flying planes, the hectoring on TV – and guess what, almost all of it is from Brussels, Washington, London. Russia is invisible here, nobody cares, nobody sees them, they seem to be minding their own business.

    Then a bunch of Merkel migrant goons attack people on the street and people know what the real danger is. You are dreaming if you think that is not a #1 issue, you must not get out much. I guess you are too busy putting the world in ‘Tiers’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Regarding the Tier 1 confrontation (yes, ugly and yet in a remote, non-real way that didn’t touch that many people): why are we having it?
     
    For this latest business, this is Russia's fault. Nobody forced them to poison the Skripals, and nobody forced them to greenlight Assad using chemical agents in Syria, and yes, Russia did both here. The evidence and basic inference indicates that, and Russia's online army of sycophants and propagandists (and I'm not saying that you're one of them) who can't do anything but say "False flag, false flag!" aren't convincing either.

    But even if by some miracle Russia didn't do these things, this would still be Russia's problem anyway. This is what the diplomatic process is for. The representatives of various nations talk to each other, threaten, negotiate, persuade, educate, etc., etc. Russia seems to believe the whole process is an elaborate swindle against Russia's interests, but that's garbage. What is true, is that in the case of the Skripals, is that in addition to the evidence against Russia that the UK has much more credibility for square dealing so that as a consequence other countries believe them. There can't be anybody else to blame but Russia for this.

    Who has shown the endless initiatives to ‘fix’ Syria, ‘liberate’ Ukraine, put a base here or there, who has run a media demonisation campaign of almost Jesuit ferocity?
     
    Those things happen, at least to a substantial extent, because the American presence is needed to guarantee peace in situations that wouldn't have it otherwise. Why are the Czechs in NATO? It does nothing for American security, if it doesn't do anything for the Czechs either they should leave. Why are there 30 thousand American troops in South Korea? Same there. The Filipinos didn't get enough money to have an American naval base in the Philippines. Guess what, now we don't have one.

    We are in these various places because people who are living in those regions understand perfectly well enough that things will be very very bad for them if the Kims and the Assads get to do what they want. If it were up to me, I'd just as soon a bunch of them could return home.

    Then a bunch of Merkel migrant goons attack people on the street and people know what the real danger is. You are dreaming if you think that is not a #1 issue, you must not get out much. I guess you are too busy putting the world in ‘Tiers’.
     
    I was trying to be precise with that. I should have just wrote WWIII my one of the earlier comments, that might have avoided some confusion. Ie, I'm not saying that Central Europe is supposed to think that the migrations are less important than Syria. I completely don't believe that. I do hope the migrations and the political maneuvering surrounding the migrations are resolved in your favor. But it is fair to think that the migrations are less important than WWIII, if it comes to that. I'd even venture that holds for the Czechs as well. If we do have a US/Russia based WWIII, the fallout would affect so many people in so many negative ways, so as to be more important than the migrations, as crucial as they are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Beckow
    It is obviously impossible for us to come to an agreement, I don't worry much about 'pissed off' diplomats or Tier 1 confrontations. In general a country that goes on is 'succeeding' on its own terms, Russia is there, will be there, they seem to live just fine.

    The preachy, self-centered, narcissistic condescension that you display here, with a touch of lazy thinking, is hurting West. It is a sign of weakness, you don't seem to be ale to argue actual points so you escape into high-falluting slogans and dismissive patronising. It is not working.

    Regarding the Tier 1 confrontation (yes, ugly and yet in a remote, non-real way that didn't touch that many people): why are we having it? Who has shown the endless initiatives to 'fix' Syria, 'liberate' Ukraine, put a base here or there, who has run a media demonisation campaign of almost Jesuit ferocity? Who are the real meddlers here? If you ask a normal guy on the street in Central Europe, it is not even close - he sees the frantic activity, the media manipulation, over-flying planes, the hectoring on TV - and guess what, almost all of it is from Brussels, Washington, London. Russia is invisible here, nobody cares, nobody sees them, they seem to be minding their own business.

    Then a bunch of Merkel migrant goons attack people on the street and people know what the real danger is. You are dreaming if you think that is not a #1 issue, you must not get out much. I guess you are too busy putting the world in 'Tiers'.

    Regarding the Tier 1 confrontation (yes, ugly and yet in a remote, non-real way that didn’t touch that many people): why are we having it?

    For this latest business, this is Russia’s fault. Nobody forced them to poison the Skripals, and nobody forced them to greenlight Assad using chemical agents in Syria, and yes, Russia did both here. The evidence and basic inference indicates that, and Russia’s online army of sycophants and propagandists (and I’m not saying that you’re one of them) who can’t do anything but say “False flag, false flag!” aren’t convincing either.

    But even if by some miracle Russia didn’t do these things, this would still be Russia’s problem anyway. This is what the diplomatic process is for. The representatives of various nations talk to each other, threaten, negotiate, persuade, educate, etc., etc. Russia seems to believe the whole process is an elaborate swindle against Russia’s interests, but that’s garbage. What is true, is that in the case of the Skripals, is that in addition to the evidence against Russia that the UK has much more credibility for square dealing so that as a consequence other countries believe them. There can’t be anybody else to blame but Russia for this.

    Who has shown the endless initiatives to ‘fix’ Syria, ‘liberate’ Ukraine, put a base here or there, who has run a media demonisation campaign of almost Jesuit ferocity?

    Those things happen, at least to a substantial extent, because the American presence is needed to guarantee peace in situations that wouldn’t have it otherwise. Why are the Czechs in NATO? It does nothing for American security, if it doesn’t do anything for the Czechs either they should leave. Why are there 30 thousand American troops in South Korea? Same there. The Filipinos didn’t get enough money to have an American naval base in the Philippines. Guess what, now we don’t have one.

    We are in these various places because people who are living in those regions understand perfectly well enough that things will be very very bad for them if the Kims and the Assads get to do what they want. If it were up to me, I’d just as soon a bunch of them could return home.

    Then a bunch of Merkel migrant goons attack people on the street and people know what the real danger is. You are dreaming if you think that is not a #1 issue, you must not get out much. I guess you are too busy putting the world in ‘Tiers’.

    I was trying to be precise with that. I should have just wrote WWIII my one of the earlier comments, that might have avoided some confusion. Ie, I’m not saying that Central Europe is supposed to think that the migrations are less important than Syria. I completely don’t believe that. I do hope the migrations and the political maneuvering surrounding the migrations are resolved in your favor. But it is fair to think that the migrations are less important than WWIII, if it comes to that. I’d even venture that holds for the Czechs as well. If we do have a US/Russia based WWIII, the fallout would affect so many people in so many negative ways, so as to be more important than the migrations, as crucial as they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. And one last thing for today. Just for emphasis in case it wasn’t clear before, given the new Administration in Washington, I personally would like to have an informal coalition of Russia/US/Central Europe/Eastern Europe regarding immigration/cultural issues/sexual issues against basically Germany/Soros/whoever.

    But, given Russia’s actions of last week, it’s clear that in the short term at least that’s not in the cards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    informal coalition of Russia/US/Central Europe/Eastern Europe regarding immigration/cultural issues/sexual issues against basically Germany/Soros/whoever
     
    Well, it is hard to have a coalition, informal or of any kind, when on side obsessively demonises its potential allies. It just doesn't work. Way before last week's excitement, it was obvious that the 'Soros/whoever' forces in the West are effectively in charge. When Trump get s his own house in order, then you can think about coalitions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Well, you present your case well. I give you credit. And yet, I have seen no evidence that Russia ‘poisoned Skripals‘ or that they ‘green-lighted Assad’s chemical weapons‘. With Skripals I suspect that Skripals themselves were somehow involved (lessons from British detective stories). With Assad, I simply don’t care – they are fighting each other to death, all sides in Syria. Assad at least puts on a suit and has a decent (uncovered) wife, I will take that over the alternatives.

    if by some miracle Russia didn’t do these things, this would still be Russia’s problem anyway

    Not really, it would be a huge problem for UK and the West. Lying is not ok. UK doesn’t have ‘credibility’, we all remember Blair and one more of the ’45-minute WMD’s’ stories and Uk might as well pack it up, they would be laughed out of any rational society. You simply cannot lie this blatantly and this assertively. I am not an ‘Anglo’ and I don’t think that Anglos are so special that they get to lie at will – most people feel that way. It would be a disaster. And I suspect at least with Skripals UK government lied – or over-stated its case.

    Czechs were flat out told that a road to EU requires joining NATO. Period. No love, no desire, just pragmatism. But fighting Russians goes beyond that. Why should we fight them? What exactly have they done or can do? Crimea is a disputed ‘Russian speaking’ territory (just as Kosovo was in Serbia), Russians have as much right to speak their language as anyone else (the Baltic quasi-apartheid states that West ignores), and ‘civil war’ in Syria is a mess with no good players. Why is that so important?

    On the other hand, how we live, who lives around us, who we have to take care off is hugely important. West is obsessed with ‘multi-ing’ us in some way, bring in hordes of unassimilable young men from Africa, Pakistan, Middle East for us to take care of and suffer from their menacing and often criminal frustrations. Why? Who the f..ck told you that we want change to something else, that just because UK has become Western Pakistan, we want the same thing? Fix you cr..p at home and then come to talk to us. And Russians are not ‘invading’, they simply are not, and more you repeat it more like a bunch of crazy obsessives you sound. WWIII can easily be avoided if West just calms down and stops making up things, or making mountains out of mole-hills. Get back to rationality, stop over-dramatising Russia and start taking the demographic catastrophe that you are experiencing in the West seriously. Then we might take you seriously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Not really, it would be a huge problem for UK and the West. Lying is not ok. UK doesn’t have ‘credibility’, we all remember Blair and one more of the ’45-minute WMD’s’ stories and Uk might as well pack it up, they would be laughed out of any rational society. You simply cannot lie this blatantly and this assertively. I am not an ‘Anglo’ and I don’t think that Anglos are so special that they get to lie at will – most people feel that way. It would be a disaster. And I suspect at least with Skripals UK government lied – or over-stated its case.
     
    I don't believe this at all, and I don't think it's remotely credible.

    Among other things, think about this from a UK point of view. If in some way they framed Russia for poisoning the Skripals they are taking an outrageously reckless risk, especially for a country like the UK. Because, not only do they intend to falsely blame Russia, there is no way they can control all variables so that Russia would be prevented from demonstrating their innocence, if in fact she was innocent. That would be a huge diplomatic embarrassment to be caught with that sort of scheme. And given that they have "successfully" "blamed" Russia, we should have seen the payoff (for which this plot was the pretext) by now. But of course there was no payoff. All the UK has done is throw out some diplomats/spies, which they could have done for a hundred other reasons without any pretext.

    And on top of that, there is the OJ problem. Ie, the Skripals really were poisoned. Who really did it, if not the Russians?

    None of this holds any water at all. Unless we hear very convincing evidence otherwise, this was done directly by Russia's intelligence apparatus, or by criminal elements very closely associated with it. Just like they are responsible for numerous similar incidents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Boethiuss
    And one last thing for today. Just for emphasis in case it wasn't clear before, given the new Administration in Washington, I personally would like to have an informal coalition of Russia/US/Central Europe/Eastern Europe regarding immigration/cultural issues/sexual issues against basically Germany/Soros/whoever.

    But, given Russia's actions of last week, it's clear that in the short term at least that's not in the cards.

    informal coalition of Russia/US/Central Europe/Eastern Europe regarding immigration/cultural issues/sexual issues against basically Germany/Soros/whoever

    Well, it is hard to have a coalition, informal or of any kind, when on side obsessively demonises its potential allies. It just doesn’t work. Way before last week’s excitement, it was obvious that the ‘Soros/whoever’ forces in the West are effectively in charge. When Trump get s his own house in order, then you can think about coalitions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Boethiuss

    It’s unfortunate because our neocon foreign policy engenders bellicosity because the Russians, and anyone else in our crosshairs, must either become docile or react. Their reaction then causes others such as yourself to get caught up and possibly support the policies and people who created the situation in the first place.
     
    Yeah yeah yeah, bullshit.

    Syrias come and go, but in current instance we have Russian media, Russian government sources on background, even Russian government spokesmen, talking about their escalation plans toward nuking us over Syria (not least of which the Russia-friendly contributors to this site).

    The idea seems to be that yeah, neocons are nasty is a sufficient rationalization for anything. Well, no, there are lines and the Russians just crossed a big one.

    Moscow to Damascus is 1,538 miles.

    DC to Mexico City is 1,883 miles.

    If the Russians and their allies decided that Nieto was a monster and had to go, what threat level do you think the American president, no matter the party, would escalate to?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Jack D
    Right, Putin is no threat at all to America. He is just a misunderstood guy. Yes, he poisons his enemies with nerve agents but who among us doesn't? Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    Dumbass comment of the day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Beckow
    Well, you present your case well. I give you credit. And yet, I have seen no evidence that Russia 'poisoned Skripals' or that they 'green-lighted Assad's chemical weapons'. With Skripals I suspect that Skripals themselves were somehow involved (lessons from British detective stories). With Assad, I simply don't care - they are fighting each other to death, all sides in Syria. Assad at least puts on a suit and has a decent (uncovered) wife, I will take that over the alternatives.

    if by some miracle Russia didn’t do these things, this would still be Russia’s problem anyway
     
    Not really, it would be a huge problem for UK and the West. Lying is not ok. UK doesn't have 'credibility', we all remember Blair and one more of the '45-minute WMD's' stories and Uk might as well pack it up, they would be laughed out of any rational society. You simply cannot lie this blatantly and this assertively. I am not an 'Anglo' and I don't think that Anglos are so special that they get to lie at will - most people feel that way. It would be a disaster. And I suspect at least with Skripals UK government lied - or over-stated its case.

    Czechs were flat out told that a road to EU requires joining NATO. Period. No love, no desire, just pragmatism. But fighting Russians goes beyond that. Why should we fight them? What exactly have they done or can do? Crimea is a disputed 'Russian speaking' territory (just as Kosovo was in Serbia), Russians have as much right to speak their language as anyone else (the Baltic quasi-apartheid states that West ignores), and 'civil war' in Syria is a mess with no good players. Why is that so important?

    On the other hand, how we live, who lives around us, who we have to take care off is hugely important. West is obsessed with 'multi-ing' us in some way, bring in hordes of unassimilable young men from Africa, Pakistan, Middle East for us to take care of and suffer from their menacing and often criminal frustrations. Why? Who the f..ck told you that we want change to something else, that just because UK has become Western Pakistan, we want the same thing? Fix you cr..p at home and then come to talk to us. And Russians are not 'invading', they simply are not, and more you repeat it more like a bunch of crazy obsessives you sound. WWIII can easily be avoided if West just calms down and stops making up things, or making mountains out of mole-hills. Get back to rationality, stop over-dramatising Russia and start taking the demographic catastrophe that you are experiencing in the West seriously. Then we might take you seriously.

    Not really, it would be a huge problem for UK and the West. Lying is not ok. UK doesn’t have ‘credibility’, we all remember Blair and one more of the ’45-minute WMD’s’ stories and Uk might as well pack it up, they would be laughed out of any rational society. You simply cannot lie this blatantly and this assertively. I am not an ‘Anglo’ and I don’t think that Anglos are so special that they get to lie at will – most people feel that way. It would be a disaster. And I suspect at least with Skripals UK government lied – or over-stated its case.

    I don’t believe this at all, and I don’t think it’s remotely credible.

    Among other things, think about this from a UK point of view. If in some way they framed Russia for poisoning the Skripals they are taking an outrageously reckless risk, especially for a country like the UK. Because, not only do they intend to falsely blame Russia, there is no way they can control all variables so that Russia would be prevented from demonstrating their innocence, if in fact she was innocent. That would be a huge diplomatic embarrassment to be caught with that sort of scheme. And given that they have “successfully” “blamed” Russia, we should have seen the payoff (for which this plot was the pretext) by now. But of course there was no payoff. All the UK has done is throw out some diplomats/spies, which they could have done for a hundred other reasons without any pretext.

    And on top of that, there is the OJ problem. Ie, the Skripals really were poisoned. Who really did it, if not the Russians?

    None of this holds any water at all. Unless we hear very convincing evidence otherwise, this was done directly by Russia’s intelligence apparatus, or by criminal elements very closely associated with it. Just like they are responsible for numerous similar incidents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    they are taking an outrageously reckless risk, especially for a country like the UK
     
    And so would Russia. One cannot prove a negative, so Russia can never 'demonstrate its own innocence'. Any more than UK can. You consistently apply double standards and are basing it on your own biased views: UK good, Russia bad. That is tribal and primitive. UK has produces no evidence other than old tales, narratives from the past that are equally dubious, there has not been a single legal case brought, so maybe those old stories were also just stories.

    Who really did it, if not the Russians?
     
    I don't know if you realize how stupid that sounds to any outside observer. So anytime an Englishman gets killed around the world, it must by the UK government who did it? Are you really on that low level of reasoning? In 5 minutes anyone can come up with literally dozens of other possible explanations: Skripal was smuggling it, he mishandled it, he betrayed his new sponsors, a third country (Ukraine, France, ...) did it to get some geo-political mileage against Russia, criminal attack... Without evidence how can anyone just assert that 'Russians did it'? Don't you see how insane and infantile that is?

    And UK government and media lie often. A lot, there are endless examples, look it up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. West is obsessed with ‘multi-ing’ us in some way, bring in hordes of unassimilable young men from Africa, Pakistan, Middle East for us to take care of and suffer from their menacing and often criminal frustrations. Why?

    Mostly because of the cultural corruptions of the Merkel regime in Germany.

    This could be a situation where Russia’s threats are horribly counterproductive. If the US and Russia were motivated and de facto allied on the matter, the situation could be different. Russia is geographically and culturally close to Central European nations getting the squeeze from the EU. The US is diplomatically close to the nations putting on the squeeze. Working together they might accomplish something.

    That is not going to happen with Russia’s current mentality.

    Russians are not ‘invading’, they simply are not, and more you repeat it more like a bunch of crazy obsessives you sound. WWIII can easily be avoided if West just calms down and stops making up things, or making mountains out of mole-hills.

    No. Russia may not be “invading” but they clearly are threatening, and I am going to take those threats seriously not least because I believe the Russians intend us to. Russia doesn’t believe its grievances are molehills, so they are taking me along for its ride.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    Working together they might accomplish something...That is not going to happen with Russia’s current mentality.
     
    Or with Western demonisation of Russia. So not much will be accomplished. The issue goes beyond 'cultural corruption of German government'. The open-border, multicultural policies have existed in almost all Western countries for close to a generation, if not longer. From UK to Sweden, from Canada to Netherlands.

    Regarding 'threats', can you be specific? What exactly is Russia threatening to do? Give us an actual example, who are they going to 'invade' and how. And for what purpose. You are hiding behind childish slogans, give us an example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Boethiuss

    Not really, it would be a huge problem for UK and the West. Lying is not ok. UK doesn’t have ‘credibility’, we all remember Blair and one more of the ’45-minute WMD’s’ stories and Uk might as well pack it up, they would be laughed out of any rational society. You simply cannot lie this blatantly and this assertively. I am not an ‘Anglo’ and I don’t think that Anglos are so special that they get to lie at will – most people feel that way. It would be a disaster. And I suspect at least with Skripals UK government lied – or over-stated its case.
     
    I don't believe this at all, and I don't think it's remotely credible.

    Among other things, think about this from a UK point of view. If in some way they framed Russia for poisoning the Skripals they are taking an outrageously reckless risk, especially for a country like the UK. Because, not only do they intend to falsely blame Russia, there is no way they can control all variables so that Russia would be prevented from demonstrating their innocence, if in fact she was innocent. That would be a huge diplomatic embarrassment to be caught with that sort of scheme. And given that they have "successfully" "blamed" Russia, we should have seen the payoff (for which this plot was the pretext) by now. But of course there was no payoff. All the UK has done is throw out some diplomats/spies, which they could have done for a hundred other reasons without any pretext.

    And on top of that, there is the OJ problem. Ie, the Skripals really were poisoned. Who really did it, if not the Russians?

    None of this holds any water at all. Unless we hear very convincing evidence otherwise, this was done directly by Russia's intelligence apparatus, or by criminal elements very closely associated with it. Just like they are responsible for numerous similar incidents.

    they are taking an outrageously reckless risk, especially for a country like the UK

    And so would Russia. One cannot prove a negative, so Russia can never ‘demonstrate its own innocence’. Any more than UK can. You consistently apply double standards and are basing it on your own biased views: UK good, Russia bad. That is tribal and primitive. UK has produces no evidence other than old tales, narratives from the past that are equally dubious, there has not been a single legal case brought, so maybe those old stories were also just stories.

    Who really did it, if not the Russians?

    I don’t know if you realize how stupid that sounds to any outside observer. So anytime an Englishman gets killed around the world, it must by the UK government who did it? Are you really on that low level of reasoning? In 5 minutes anyone can come up with literally dozens of other possible explanations: Skripal was smuggling it, he mishandled it, he betrayed his new sponsors, a third country (Ukraine, France, …) did it to get some geo-political mileage against Russia, criminal attack… Without evidence how can anyone just assert that ‘Russians did it’? Don’t you see how insane and infantile that is?

    And UK government and media lie often. A lot, there are endless examples, look it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    And so would Russia. One cannot prove a negative, so Russia can never ‘demonstrate its own innocence’. Any more than UK can. You consistently apply double standards and are basing it on your own biased views: UK good, Russia bad. That is tribal and primitive.
     
    This is really stupid. "Russia can't prove a negative" is a stupid cliche. It can argue that it didn't have the opportunity or the means to do what it's being accused of, if in fact the circumstances would support that. Here, of course, the circumstances support the diametric opposite. The Skripals were poisoned with a Russian nerve agent. That's not something you can simply walk into a Wal-Mart and get. Of course Russia did it.

    Forgive me for asking, but are you being dense on purpose or just taking a devil's advocate approach regarding a presumption of innocence (or ignorance pertaining to what happened) like a defense attorney would do?

    I'm asking because you seem to want to ignore the obvious facts and patterns of this situation and talk about irrelevant side issues, eg, "there has not been a single legal case brought...." The case against Russia is circumstantial, but circumstantially, it is very strong.

    So anytime an Englishman gets killed around the world, it must by the UK government who did it?
     
    When a Russian, given diplomatic protection by England, gets killed in England by a Russian nerve agent whose access is very restricted, it stands to reason that the perpetrators are those who had access to the murder weapon, in this case the Russian intelligence services. Like other Russians also poisoned by Russian intelligence authorities in foreign countries.

    It seems that you are determined to remain ignorant of obvious facts in the public record that give us a very good understanding of what happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Boethiuss

    West is obsessed with ‘multi-ing’ us in some way, bring in hordes of unassimilable young men from Africa, Pakistan, Middle East for us to take care of and suffer from their menacing and often criminal frustrations. Why?
     
    Mostly because of the cultural corruptions of the Merkel regime in Germany.

    This could be a situation where Russia's threats are horribly counterproductive. If the US and Russia were motivated and de facto allied on the matter, the situation could be different. Russia is geographically and culturally close to Central European nations getting the squeeze from the EU. The US is diplomatically close to the nations putting on the squeeze. Working together they might accomplish something.

    That is not going to happen with Russia's current mentality.

    Russians are not ‘invading’, they simply are not, and more you repeat it more like a bunch of crazy obsessives you sound. WWIII can easily be avoided if West just calms down and stops making up things, or making mountains out of mole-hills.
     
    No. Russia may not be "invading" but they clearly are threatening, and I am going to take those threats seriously not least because I believe the Russians intend us to. Russia doesn't believe its grievances are molehills, so they are taking me along for its ride.

    Working together they might accomplish something…That is not going to happen with Russia’s current mentality.

    Or with Western demonisation of Russia. So not much will be accomplished. The issue goes beyond ‘cultural corruption of German government’. The open-border, multicultural policies have existed in almost all Western countries for close to a generation, if not longer. From UK to Sweden, from Canada to Netherlands.

    Regarding ‘threats’, can you be specific? What exactly is Russia threatening to do? Give us an actual example, who are they going to ‘invade’ and how. And for what purpose. You are hiding behind childish slogans, give us an example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    Regarding ‘threats’, can you be specific? What exactly is Russia threatening to do? Give us an actual example, who are they going to ‘invade’ and how. And for what purpose. You are hiding behind childish slogans, give us an example.
     
    Like right here, from a few comments upthread:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/listening-to-russian-experts-short-report-about-the-mood-on-russian-prime-time-tv/

    Including this:

    6) To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Beckow

    they are taking an outrageously reckless risk, especially for a country like the UK
     
    And so would Russia. One cannot prove a negative, so Russia can never 'demonstrate its own innocence'. Any more than UK can. You consistently apply double standards and are basing it on your own biased views: UK good, Russia bad. That is tribal and primitive. UK has produces no evidence other than old tales, narratives from the past that are equally dubious, there has not been a single legal case brought, so maybe those old stories were also just stories.

    Who really did it, if not the Russians?
     
    I don't know if you realize how stupid that sounds to any outside observer. So anytime an Englishman gets killed around the world, it must by the UK government who did it? Are you really on that low level of reasoning? In 5 minutes anyone can come up with literally dozens of other possible explanations: Skripal was smuggling it, he mishandled it, he betrayed his new sponsors, a third country (Ukraine, France, ...) did it to get some geo-political mileage against Russia, criminal attack... Without evidence how can anyone just assert that 'Russians did it'? Don't you see how insane and infantile that is?

    And UK government and media lie often. A lot, there are endless examples, look it up.

    And so would Russia. One cannot prove a negative, so Russia can never ‘demonstrate its own innocence’. Any more than UK can. You consistently apply double standards and are basing it on your own biased views: UK good, Russia bad. That is tribal and primitive.

    This is really stupid. “Russia can’t prove a negative” is a stupid cliche. It can argue that it didn’t have the opportunity or the means to do what it’s being accused of, if in fact the circumstances would support that. Here, of course, the circumstances support the diametric opposite. The Skripals were poisoned with a Russian nerve agent. That’s not something you can simply walk into a Wal-Mart and get. Of course Russia did it.

    Forgive me for asking, but are you being dense on purpose or just taking a devil’s advocate approach regarding a presumption of innocence (or ignorance pertaining to what happened) like a defense attorney would do?

    I’m asking because you seem to want to ignore the obvious facts and patterns of this situation and talk about irrelevant side issues, eg, “there has not been a single legal case brought….” The case against Russia is circumstantial, but circumstantially, it is very strong.

    So anytime an Englishman gets killed around the world, it must by the UK government who did it?

    When a Russian, given diplomatic protection by England, gets killed in England by a Russian nerve agent whose access is very restricted, it stands to reason that the perpetrators are those who had access to the murder weapon, in this case the Russian intelligence services. Like other Russians also poisoned by Russian intelligence authorities in foreign countries.

    It seems that you are determined to remain ignorant of obvious facts in the public record that give us a very good understanding of what happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Beckow

    Working together they might accomplish something...That is not going to happen with Russia’s current mentality.
     
    Or with Western demonisation of Russia. So not much will be accomplished. The issue goes beyond 'cultural corruption of German government'. The open-border, multicultural policies have existed in almost all Western countries for close to a generation, if not longer. From UK to Sweden, from Canada to Netherlands.

    Regarding 'threats', can you be specific? What exactly is Russia threatening to do? Give us an actual example, who are they going to 'invade' and how. And for what purpose. You are hiding behind childish slogans, give us an example.

    Regarding ‘threats’, can you be specific? What exactly is Russia threatening to do? Give us an actual example, who are they going to ‘invade’ and how. And for what purpose. You are hiding behind childish slogans, give us an example.

    Like right here, from a few comments upthread:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/listening-to-russian-experts-short-report-about-the-mood-on-russian-prime-time-tv/

    Including this:

    6) To my amazement, the notion that Russia might have to sink a few USN ships or use Kalibers on US forces in the Middle-East was viewed as a real, maybe inevitable, option. Really – nobody objected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Silva
    You might call them quite audacious. But why do older people go blue? By reference to leaves and fruits, yellow/orange/brown would make more sense; if it's just calling old people "sad", I think we could do without that.

    Forgive the ridiculous lateness of my reply, slipped my mind a couple weeks ago. The grayish blue is trying to allude to the “blue hairs” while youthful green is for being, well, green. Age is the hardest one to pull off.

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

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?