The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Why the Authoritarian Right Is Rising
🔊 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

A fortnight ago, Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party won enough seats in the Hungarian parliament to rewrite his country’s constitution.

To progressives across the West, this was disturbing news.

For the bete noire of Orban’s campaign was uber-globalist George Soros. And Orban’s commitments were to halt any further surrenders of Hungarian sovereignty and independence to the European Union, and to fight any immigrant invasion of Hungary from Africa or the Islamic world.

Why are autocrats like Orban rising and liberal democrats failing in Europe? The autocrats are addressing the primary and existential fear of peoples across the West — the death of the separate and unique tribes into which they were born and to which they belong.

Modern liberals and progressives see nations as transitory — here today, gone tomorrow. The autocrats, however, have plugged into the most powerful currents running in this new century: tribalism and nationalism.

The democracy worshippers of the West cannot compete with the authoritarians in meeting the crisis of our time because they do not see what is happening to the West as a crisis.

They see us as on a steady march into a brave new world, where democracy, diversity and equality will be everywhere celebrated.

To understand the rise of Orban, we need to start seeing Europe and ourselves as so many of these people see us.

Hungary is a thousand years old. Its people have a DNA all their own. They belong to a unique and storied nation of 10 million with its own language, religion, history, heroes, culture and identity.

Though a small nation, two-thirds of whose lands were torn away after World War I, Hungarians wish to remain and endure as who they are.

They don’t want open borders. They don’t want mass migrations to change Hungary into something new. They don’t want to become a minority in their own country. And they have used democratic means to elect autocratic men who will put the Hungarian nation first.

U.S. elites may babble on about “diversity,” about how much better a country we will be in 2042 when white European Christians are just another minority and we have become a “gorgeous mosaic” of every race, tribe, creed and culture on earth.

To Hungarians, such a future entails the death of the nation. To Hungarians, millions of African, Arab and Islamic peoples settling in their lands means the annihilation of the historic nation they love, the nation that came into being to preserve the Hungarian people.

President Emmanuel Macron of France says the Hungarian and other European elections where autocrats are advancing are manifestations of “national selfishness.”

Well, yes, national survival can be considered national selfishness.

ORDER IT NOW

But let Monsieur Macron bring in another 5 million former subject peoples of the French Empire and he will discover that the magnanimity and altruism of the French has its limits, and a Le Pen will soon replace him in the Elysee Palace.
Consider what else the “world’s oldest democracy” has lately had on offer to the indigenous peoples of Europe resisting an invasion of Third World settlers coming to occupy and repopulate their lands.

Our democracy boasts of a First Amendment freedom of speech and press that protects blasphemy, pornography, filthy language and the burning of the American flag. We stand for a guaranteed right of women to abort their children and of homosexuals to marry.

We offer the world a freedom of religion that prohibits the teaching of our cradle faith and its moral code in our public schools.

Our elites view this as social progress upward from a dark past.

To much of the world, however, America has become the most secularized and decadent society on earth, and the title the ayatollah bestowed upon us, “The Great Satan,” is not altogether undeserved.

And if what “our democracy” has delivered here has caused tens of millions of Americans to be repulsed and to secede into social isolation, why would other nations embrace a system that produced so poisoned a politics and so polluted a culture?

“Nationalism and authoritarianism are on the march,” writes The Washington Post: “Democracy as an ideal and in practice seems under siege.” Yes, and there are reasons for this.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” said John Adams. And as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people, the poet T. S. Eliot warned us what would happen:

“The term ‘democracy’ … does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike — it can be easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.” Recall: Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.

Democracy lacks content. As a political system, it does not engage the heart. And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
Hide 107 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Is it authoritarian? Or just autonomous?

    Is it more authoritarian to be ruled by an imperialist like Soros? Or by EU that goes after thought criminals and forces nations to be mass-invaded by Africans and Muslims?

    It’s national authoritarianism vs globalist authoritarianism. Globalists disparage democratic will in Eastern European nations. They way the people must obey the globo elites.

    Who are the real tyrants?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Buchanan is normally a pretty smart guy, but in this case he appears to be confused about the meaning of the words autocrat and authoritarian versus liberal democrat. Orban is a democratically elected leader not an autocrat. Pat seems to conflate authoritarianism with taking action, and liberal democracy with passivity.
    “Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”
    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what? Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?
    This is one of Buchanan’s silliest articles in a long time.
    , @Wally
    said:
    " Or by EU that goes after thought criminals and forces nations "

    Below is where free speech on the impossible 'holocaust' storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn't stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

    http://theday.co.uk/images/stories/2016/2016-12/2016-12-15_holocaust.png

    With no proof of 'Nazi homicidal gas chambers', no massive human remains that would necessarily exist, and no physical evidence by the thousands of tons that would be readily found IF the impossible 'holocaust' storyline was factual, we are then left with desperate, unhinged Zionists.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    No people can survive without race-ism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. gsjackson says:

    (((“Modern liberals and progressives”))), (((“Our elites”))). Has the list of euphemisms reached triple digits yet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    (((“Modern liberals and progressives”))), (((“Our elites”))). Has the list of euphemisms reached triple digits yet?
     
    this is Buchanan's most anti-Semitic screed yet.

    because they do not see what is happening to the West as a crisis.
     
    "they" huh? Why not just go ahead and use the echoes Pat? Don't you mean (((they))) ?

    And why shouldn't Soros and the rest demand that Hungary too open its borders to diversity? When we all know that Hungarians too, just as all white people are all dormant Nazis- just waiting like sleepers to be activated, and then right on cue, we all know what happens next...

    http://siliconangle.com/files/2016/08/hitler.jpg

    there is one and only one solution to Nazis, whether they're in Hungary, the ZUSA or France

    https://images-production.global.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/posts/image/104985/heidi-klum-seal.jpg

    and they'll either accept it willingly, or otherwise

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5TFukDB1D8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. But let Monsieur Macron bring in another 5 million former subject peoples of the French Empire and he will discover that the magnanimity and altruism of the French has its limits, and a Le Pen will soon replace him in the Elysee Palace.

    Not likely. With additional immigration and 40% of “French” children born in 2016 having at least one parent of African or Middle East origin, the prospect of a nationalist along the lines of Marine Le Pen being elected are approximately zero. One can only hope that the nations of Eastern Europe will see the unnfolding demographic, political and cultural catastrophe of the U.K., Germany, France and Sweden and decide national suicide is not a good option.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Erol Pedersen
    You’re right but you left out the USA; over the next twenty five years whites will become a minority and the USA will become a “ majority-minority country.” What’s even worse is that this fact is actually celebrated by the cultural, political and academic “elite” in America as a positive development. Only an idiocracy would think that way.
    , @Speak Truth To Power
    I do not know where you get your figures from. Less than 25% of French births are to non Europeans or mixed couples. France is still over 80% European Caucasian. Furthermore there is little doubt that one of three things will happen in France within less than a decade: Marine Le Pen will be elcted President, a Marxist will be elected President or there will be a revolution and civil war in la Belle France that will make 1789 and afterwards look like a tea party. The French are increasingly fed up with being a dumping ground for the surplus population of their former colonies and a huge backlash is building against the race and nation traitors and their globalist backers in charge. Stay tuned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Why does Mr. Buchanan repeatedly call Mr. Orban and his ilk “autocrats” and “authoritarians” that have rejected “democracy”? The first and last things he tells us are:

    “A fortnight ago, Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party won enough seats in the Hungarian parliament to rewrite his country’s constitution.
    ….
    Democracy lacks content. As a political system, it does not engage the heart. And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action.”

    Is there something deplorable about the Hungarians who voted Fidesz? Mr. Buchanan hasn’t explained why he sees Mr. Orban as an “autocrat,” and warned that, “Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.” (I checked just now to confirm that the constitution of Hungary has not been rewritten. That alarmist rhetoric appears to have come from an April 8 New York Times article, “Hungary Election Gives Orban Big Majority, and Control of Constitution.”) Is that how he sees the 2016 US presidential election?

    Someone else recently noted in commenting about another Buchanan column that he writes to and for an Establishment audience. I’m afraid that “Mr. Paleoconservative” has succumbed to the Beltway arrogance that “we” are the people best fit to rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action.
     
    Missed something?
    , @Zogby

    Why does Mr. Buchanan repeatedly call Mr. Orban and his ilk “autocrats” and “authoritarians”
     
    Hungary prohibits the sale of prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones so it can attain totalitarian control of communication. How is that as a start for you?

    I checked just now to confirm that the constitution of Hungary has not been rewritten.
     
    The election was just 2 weeks ago. Give them time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Renoman says:

    Divershity is just that! Birds of a feather is a true realism, we really don’t like other cultures, it’s the way we are. You can’t legislate respect, sooner or later there will be war and since war is good business perhaps that’s the plan. I run a small renovation business in Canada, 40 years now, doing just fine good reputation, never been to court but I have yet to be hired by any minority group for anything. Racism is universal my friends that’s why we live in different neighborhoods, that’s why the white’s are arming themselves, we know it’s coming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    It's hard enough for homogeneous groups to get along...impossible for heterogeneous groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. So, cutting through all the bullshit, Pat applauds the Magyars for invading from Asia, seizing “Hungary”, expelling and repelling Ottomans, subduing Slovaks, outwitting Romanians and Austrians and finally overcoming Soros.

    Why doesn’t he state the obvious: conquest and subsequent defense of territory is an ancient and time-honored practice? Why does it have to be cloaked in nationalism to gain respectability? The present-day African invasion differs only in subtlety and method from good old Genghis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "The present-day African invasion differs only in subtlety and method from good old Genghis"

    That might be true if earlier invasions were accomplished by the rulers of the invaded countries importing the invaders themselves. Soros is supposedly descended from one of the 10 tribes (the Ashkenazi) that made up early Hungary, so that makes him particularly repugnant to modern Hungarians.
    , @El Dato
    Ghengis came a few hundred later than Attila (who ventured all the way into todays' France). Ghengis never ventured into Europe.
    , @Corvinus
    "Why doesn’t he state the obvious: conquest and subsequent defense of territory is an ancient and time-honored practice?"

    Because that would require Saileresque noticing on his part. Besides, so long as it was the "good guys" who won, who cares about the aftermath?

    Take into account when Patricks says "Consider what else the “world’s oldest democracy” has lately had on offer to the indigenous peoples of Europe resisting an invasion of Third World settlers coming to occupy and repopulate their lands."

    Were not the tribal groups of North and South America the "indigenous peoples" there, only to be ruthlessly displaced by foreigners? The irony and hypocrisy on his part is thick here.

    And then he has the audacity to say "...in 2042 when white European Christians are just another minority". Indeed, that is how human history works. Dominant groups come and go by the wayside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Stick says:

    No safe spaces for whitey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Why does Mr. Buchanan repeatedly call Mr. Orban and his ilk "autocrats" and "authoritarians" that have rejected "democracy"? The first and last things he tells us are:

    "A fortnight ago, Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party won enough seats in the Hungarian parliament to rewrite his country’s constitution.
    ....
    Democracy lacks content. As a political system, it does not engage the heart. And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action."

    Is there something deplorable about the Hungarians who voted Fidesz? Mr. Buchanan hasn't explained why he sees Mr. Orban as an "autocrat," and warned that, "Hitler rose to power through a democratic election." (I checked just now to confirm that the constitution of Hungary has not been rewritten. That alarmist rhetoric appears to have come from an April 8 New York Times article, "Hungary Election Gives Orban Big Majority, and Control of Constitution.") Is that how he sees the 2016 US presidential election?

    Someone else recently noted in commenting about another Buchanan column that he writes to and for an Establishment audience. I'm afraid that "Mr. Paleoconservative" has succumbed to the Beltway arrogance that "we" are the people best fit to rule.

    And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action.

    Missed something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Alfa158 says:
    @Anon
    Is it authoritarian? Or just autonomous?

    Is it more authoritarian to be ruled by an imperialist like Soros? Or by EU that goes after thought criminals and forces nations to be mass-invaded by Africans and Muslims?

    It's national authoritarianism vs globalist authoritarianism. Globalists disparage democratic will in Eastern European nations. They way the people must obey the globo elites.

    Who are the real tyrants?

    Buchanan is normally a pretty smart guy, but in this case he appears to be confused about the meaning of the words autocrat and authoritarian versus liberal democrat. Orban is a democratically elected leader not an autocrat. Pat seems to conflate authoritarianism with taking action, and liberal democracy with passivity.
    “Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”
    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what? Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?
    This is one of Buchanan’s silliest articles in a long time.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @the raven
    I think it's that Buchanan imagines himself addressing the managerial elite with these articles, and feels he needs to speak their language. In the Orwellian language of the globalists, "democracy" doesn't have its root and historical meaning of government elected by and responsive to the people. Rather, they mean something closer to the exact opposite: government by apparatchiks whose job is to subordinate its people's wishes to globalist policies (austerity, mass immigration, whatever the case may be).
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what?
     
    Now there's an autocrat.

    Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?

     

    Orbán is the odd man out. He's the only one who has never embraced Joe Stalin at any time in his adult life.
    , @Wally
    "Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”

    So what?

    There is Hitler with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Johnnyreb says:

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe has said that democracy is incompatible with private property. I agree with that. I would only add that democracy is also incompatible with freedom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe has said that democracy is incompatible with private property. I agree with that. I would only add that democracy is also incompatible with freedom.
     
    Yes and it always fails.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Zogby says:
    @anonymous
    Why does Mr. Buchanan repeatedly call Mr. Orban and his ilk "autocrats" and "authoritarians" that have rejected "democracy"? The first and last things he tells us are:

    "A fortnight ago, Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party won enough seats in the Hungarian parliament to rewrite his country’s constitution.
    ....
    Democracy lacks content. As a political system, it does not engage the heart. And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action."

    Is there something deplorable about the Hungarians who voted Fidesz? Mr. Buchanan hasn't explained why he sees Mr. Orban as an "autocrat," and warned that, "Hitler rose to power through a democratic election." (I checked just now to confirm that the constitution of Hungary has not been rewritten. That alarmist rhetoric appears to have come from an April 8 New York Times article, "Hungary Election Gives Orban Big Majority, and Control of Constitution.") Is that how he sees the 2016 US presidential election?

    Someone else recently noted in commenting about another Buchanan column that he writes to and for an Establishment audience. I'm afraid that "Mr. Paleoconservative" has succumbed to the Beltway arrogance that "we" are the people best fit to rule.

    Why does Mr. Buchanan repeatedly call Mr. Orban and his ilk “autocrats” and “authoritarians”

    Hungary prohibits the sale of prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones so it can attain totalitarian control of communication. How is that as a start for you?

    I checked just now to confirm that the constitution of Hungary has not been rewritten.

    The election was just 2 weeks ago. Give them time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Per/Norway
    "Hungary prohibits the sale of prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones so it can attain totalitarian control of communication. How is that as a start for you?"
    Norway do to,, would you call the Norwegian government autocratic rightwing dangers for democrazy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Captain Willard
    So, cutting through all the bullshit, Pat applauds the Magyars for invading from Asia, seizing "Hungary", expelling and repelling Ottomans, subduing Slovaks, outwitting Romanians and Austrians and finally overcoming Soros.

    Why doesn't he state the obvious: conquest and subsequent defense of territory is an ancient and time-honored practice? Why does it have to be cloaked in nationalism to gain respectability? The present-day African invasion differs only in subtlety and method from good old Genghis.

    “The present-day African invasion differs only in subtlety and method from good old Genghis”

    That might be true if earlier invasions were accomplished by the rulers of the invaded countries importing the invaders themselves. Soros is supposedly descended from one of the 10 tribes (the Ashkenazi) that made up early Hungary, so that makes him particularly repugnant to modern Hungarians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. the raven says:
    @Alfa158
    Buchanan is normally a pretty smart guy, but in this case he appears to be confused about the meaning of the words autocrat and authoritarian versus liberal democrat. Orban is a democratically elected leader not an autocrat. Pat seems to conflate authoritarianism with taking action, and liberal democracy with passivity.
    “Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”
    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what? Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?
    This is one of Buchanan’s silliest articles in a long time.

    I think it’s that Buchanan imagines himself addressing the managerial elite with these articles, and feels he needs to speak their language. In the Orwellian language of the globalists, “democracy” doesn’t have its root and historical meaning of government elected by and responsive to the people. Rather, they mean something closer to the exact opposite: government by apparatchiks whose job is to subordinate its people’s wishes to globalist policies (austerity, mass immigration, whatever the case may be).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Rurik says:
    @gsjackson
    ((("Modern liberals and progressives"))), ((("Our elites"))). Has the list of euphemisms reached triple digits yet?

    (((“Modern liberals and progressives”))), (((“Our elites”))). Has the list of euphemisms reached triple digits yet?

    this is Buchanan’s most anti-Semitic screed yet.

    because they do not see what is happening to the West as a crisis.

    “they” huh? Why not just go ahead and use the echoes Pat? Don’t you mean (((they))) ?

    And why shouldn’t Soros and the rest demand that Hungary too open its borders to diversity? When we all know that Hungarians too, just as all white people are all dormant Nazis- just waiting like sleepers to be activated, and then right on cue, we all know what happens next…

    there is one and only one solution to Nazis, whether they’re in Hungary, the ZUSA or France

    and they’ll either accept it willingly, or otherwise

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The use of the word 'Nazis' is classic GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

    Considering the fact that they did not do what is absurdly claimed (the impossible 6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers), any discussion of the 'dangers of Nazism' is a strawman.

    Get off your knees, shabbos goys.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

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

    What people don’t get, especially all those braindead lapdogs of ‘global democracy’, is the fact that this ideology is simply a tool, not an end.
    If the ‘global democracy’ ever reaches a certain tipping point, where it’s success is assured, then the mask will come off and we will see the face of the true demons that push this Trotskyite fantasy.
    At that point they will abandon all the lies of ‘freedom’ and slam down the hammer of tyranny, the likes of which this world has never known. First to be squashed will be exactly those privileged groups that multiculturalism and identity politics placed on their little power pedestals.
    Troubling ethnic groups and deviants will either be axed outright or shipped off to the remotest parts of oblivion.
    The ensuing system will be an ethnic tyranny of death, exploitation and techno facism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    So true! We will truly all be Gazans then.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Wally says:
    @Rurik

    (((“Modern liberals and progressives”))), (((“Our elites”))). Has the list of euphemisms reached triple digits yet?
     
    this is Buchanan's most anti-Semitic screed yet.

    because they do not see what is happening to the West as a crisis.
     
    "they" huh? Why not just go ahead and use the echoes Pat? Don't you mean (((they))) ?

    And why shouldn't Soros and the rest demand that Hungary too open its borders to diversity? When we all know that Hungarians too, just as all white people are all dormant Nazis- just waiting like sleepers to be activated, and then right on cue, we all know what happens next...

    http://siliconangle.com/files/2016/08/hitler.jpg

    there is one and only one solution to Nazis, whether they're in Hungary, the ZUSA or France

    https://images-production.global.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/posts/image/104985/heidi-klum-seal.jpg

    and they'll either accept it willingly, or otherwise

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5TFukDB1D8

    The use of the word ‘Nazis’ is classic GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

    Considering the fact that they did not do what is absurdly claimed (the impossible 6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers), any discussion of the ‘dangers of Nazism’ is a strawman.

    Get off your knees, shabbos goys.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    holocaust’ scam
     
    everyone who denies the Holy Holocaust - when the most evil people that ever lived tried to murder God Himself (the Jewish people) are as bad as the Nazis in Hungary who demand to remain Nazis, who refuse to do what they must - blend their Nazi genes away in a sea of homogenizing humanity.

    We are all humans, but some humans, (Nazis like the Hungarians) want to preserve their unique Nazi ethnic identity. This is where George Soros comes in, and flings open the gates to the Nazi kingdom, to a purifying wave of African migrants and gypsies and Muslims and everyone else they can get, who in time, will blend away the vile identity of Hungary's (and Germany's and Norway's and France's) Nazis, and save God's people from the next time Hitler wants to make soap and lampshades.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Zogby

    Why does Mr. Buchanan repeatedly call Mr. Orban and his ilk “autocrats” and “authoritarians”
     
    Hungary prohibits the sale of prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones so it can attain totalitarian control of communication. How is that as a start for you?

    I checked just now to confirm that the constitution of Hungary has not been rewritten.
     
    The election was just 2 weeks ago. Give them time.

    “Hungary prohibits the sale of prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones so it can attain totalitarian control of communication. How is that as a start for you?”
    Norway do to,, would you call the Norwegian government autocratic rightwing dangers for democrazy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Norwegian government autocratic rightwing dangers for democrazy?
     
    no, I would call them Nazis

    unless they start acting like the Swedes and invite in unlimited numbers of gene-pool-purifying racial migrants and "refugees"

    who will purify the Nazi blood of the Norwegians for all time.

    did you know that there were Norwegian SS members?!

    do you realize that Norwegians often have blonde hair and blue eyes?!

    nuff said
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Realist says:

    Democracy: The God that failed as they always do . This country is no longer a democracy or a republic and as most often, will probably shift to Autocracy.through rebellion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Realist says:
    @Johnnyreb
    Hans-Hermann Hoppe has said that democracy is incompatible with private property. I agree with that. I would only add that democracy is also incompatible with freedom.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe has said that democracy is incompatible with private property. I agree with that. I would only add that democracy is also incompatible with freedom.

    Yes and it always fails.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Realist says:
    @Renoman
    Divershity is just that! Birds of a feather is a true realism, we really don't like other cultures, it's the way we are. You can't legislate respect, sooner or later there will be war and since war is good business perhaps that's the plan. I run a small renovation business in Canada, 40 years now, doing just fine good reputation, never been to court but I have yet to be hired by any minority group for anything. Racism is universal my friends that's why we live in different neighborhoods, that's why the white's are arming themselves, we know it's coming.

    It’s hard enough for homogeneous groups to get along…impossible for heterogeneous groups.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Rurik says:
    @Wally
    The use of the word 'Nazis' is classic GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

    Considering the fact that they did not do what is absurdly claimed (the impossible 6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers), any discussion of the 'dangers of Nazism' is a strawman.

    Get off your knees, shabbos goys.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    holocaust’ scam

    everyone who denies the Holy Holocaust – when the most evil people that ever lived tried to murder God Himself (the Jewish people) are as bad as the Nazis in Hungary who demand to remain Nazis, who refuse to do what they must – blend their Nazi genes away in a sea of homogenizing humanity.

    We are all humans, but some humans, (Nazis like the Hungarians) want to preserve their unique Nazi ethnic identity. This is where George Soros comes in, and flings open the gates to the Nazi kingdom, to a purifying wave of African migrants and gypsies and Muslims and everyone else they can get, who in time, will blend away the vile identity of Hungary’s (and Germany’s and Norway’s and France’s) Nazis, and save God’s people from the next time Hitler wants to make soap and lampshades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    Soap/Lampshades? You're being sarcastic right?
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... to a purifying wave of African migrants ... "

    should be

    " ... to a putrefying wave of African migrants ... "

    that's more accurate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Rurik says:
    @Per/Norway
    "Hungary prohibits the sale of prepaid SIM cards for mobile phones so it can attain totalitarian control of communication. How is that as a start for you?"
    Norway do to,, would you call the Norwegian government autocratic rightwing dangers for democrazy?

    Norwegian government autocratic rightwing dangers for democrazy?

    no, I would call them Nazis

    unless they start acting like the Swedes and invite in unlimited numbers of gene-pool-purifying racial migrants and “refugees”

    who will purify the Nazi blood of the Norwegians for all time.

    did you know that there were Norwegian SS members?!

    do you realize that Norwegians often have blonde hair and blue eyes?!

    nuff said

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

    Pretty much.

    Good piece, pat. Might give this one to a few normies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Svigor says:

    Is it authoritarian? Or just autonomous?

    You know you’re hard-core alt-right when you stop giving (much of) a shit about these questions. “They” can call it whatever they want; it’s not going to move me.

    Not to shut you down, or anything. You make good points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    first button on the left

    says "REPLY"

    hover over the comment you are replying to
    click REPLY

    the name of your interlocutor will appear in YOUR comment.

    then other readers can know who you are responding to

    unless, of course, you are one of those nut jobs who walks down the street talking to yourself
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    Is it authoritarian? Or just autonomous?
     
    You know you're hard-core alt-right when you stop giving (much of) a shit about these questions. "They" can call it whatever they want; it's not going to move me.

    Not to shut you down, or anything. You make good points.

    first button on the left

    says “REPLY”

    hover over the comment you are replying to
    click REPLY

    the name of your interlocutor will appear in YOUR comment.

    then other readers can know who you are responding to

    unless, of course, you are one of those nut jobs who walks down the street talking to yourself

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Great story, bro.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Miro23 says:

    IMO Pat Buchanan writes consistently good articles.

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people,” said John Adams. And as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people, the poet T. S. Eliot warned us what would happen:

    “The term ‘democracy’ … does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces you dislike — it can be easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.” Recall: Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.

    Democracy lacks content. As a political system, it does not engage the heart. And if Europe’s peoples see their leaders as accommodating a transnational EU, while failing to secure national borders, they will use democracy to replace them with men of action.

    Democracy does reflect the national mood. It produced Trump – and regardless of his travails – the vote represented the desire for a man of action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. They don’t give a hoot about “diversity” or minorities, if they did they would stop bombing, plundering, these peoples homelands.
    They want “diversity” because it makes it easier to rule over/enslave, makes it easier to divide the people and turn them against each other, using their control over the media, 24/7/365 spewing nonstop hate speech and division.
    People are sick of the minority rule, the ignorant/brainwashed minority at that. Americans are very welcoming and loving people, but when they start using your kindness against you,, be careful, you’re gonna awaken a very very agitated sleeping giant sooner or later.
    Its coming, the signs are everywhere. People realize who/what the problem is now, many are afraid to admit it or talk about it in public for fear of being called names, or losing their jobs, but they know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    They don’t give a hoot about “diversity” or minorities, if they did they would stop bombing, plundering, these peoples homelands.
     
    That's a point that needs to be emphasised. The people who push antiracist rhetoric are the same people who pursue horrifyingly racist foreign policies. We need to keep hammering the point that US foreign policy isn't just stupid and evil, it's racist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Rurik

    holocaust’ scam
     
    everyone who denies the Holy Holocaust - when the most evil people that ever lived tried to murder God Himself (the Jewish people) are as bad as the Nazis in Hungary who demand to remain Nazis, who refuse to do what they must - blend their Nazi genes away in a sea of homogenizing humanity.

    We are all humans, but some humans, (Nazis like the Hungarians) want to preserve their unique Nazi ethnic identity. This is where George Soros comes in, and flings open the gates to the Nazi kingdom, to a purifying wave of African migrants and gypsies and Muslims and everyone else they can get, who in time, will blend away the vile identity of Hungary's (and Germany's and Norway's and France's) Nazis, and save God's people from the next time Hitler wants to make soap and lampshades.

    Soap/Lampshades? You’re being sarcastic right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    asked:
    "Soap/Lampshades? You’re being sarcastic right?"

    Red,
    Rurik doesn't know what he's talking about. I have him eating out of my hand.

    "I owe my permission to submit the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question."

    - 'Father of political Zionism' Theodor Herzl, letter to the Czar, November 22, 1899.

     

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. George says:

    How is PM Orban ‘authoritarian’? Did he dissolve parliament or something? Maybe in Poland there were some constitutional changes, but Hungary is not Poland.

    ‘their own … religion’ I do not believe Hungary has a state religion,

    Wikipedia: Orbán is a member of the Calvinist Hungarian Reformed Church, while his wife and five children are Roman Catholic.

    Religion in Hungary (2011 census)[1]

    Catholic Church (37.1%)
    Greek Catholicism (1.8%)
    Calvinism (11.6%)
    Lutheranism (2.2%)
    Other religions (1.9%)
    Non-religious (16.7%)
    Atheists (1.5%)
    Undeclared (27.2%)

    Religion in Hungary has been dominated by forms of Christianity for centuries. At the 2011 census[1] 38.9% of Hungarians were Catholics (both Greek and Roman), 13.8% were Protestants (11.6% were Calvinists, 2.2% were Lutherans), around 2% followed other religions, 16.7% were non-religious and 1.5% were atheists. Other religions practiced in Hungary include Sunni Islam and Judaism. A high number of people (27.2%) decided to not answer the question, since it was optional.[2]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Tiny Duck says:

    No its not

    It is imploding

    To mass murder to starbucks white men are constantly proving themselves to be unworthy

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/nyregion/syracuse-fraternity-suspended.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Svigor says:
    @anon
    first button on the left

    says "REPLY"

    hover over the comment you are replying to
    click REPLY

    the name of your interlocutor will appear in YOUR comment.

    then other readers can know who you are responding to

    unless, of course, you are one of those nut jobs who walks down the street talking to yourself

    Great story, bro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Wally says:
    @redmudhooch
    Soap/Lampshades? You're being sarcastic right?

    asked:
    “Soap/Lampshades? You’re being sarcastic right?”

    Red,
    Rurik doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I have him eating out of my hand.

    “I owe my permission to submit the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question.”

    - ‘Father of political Zionism’ Theodor Herzl, letter to the Czar, November 22, 1899.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Alfa158
    Buchanan is normally a pretty smart guy, but in this case he appears to be confused about the meaning of the words autocrat and authoritarian versus liberal democrat. Orban is a democratically elected leader not an autocrat. Pat seems to conflate authoritarianism with taking action, and liberal democracy with passivity.
    “Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”
    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what? Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?
    This is one of Buchanan’s silliest articles in a long time.

    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what?

    Now there’s an autocrat.

    Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?

    Orbán is the odd man out. He’s the only one who has never embraced Joe Stalin at any time in his adult life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Diversity Heretic

    But let Monsieur Macron bring in another 5 million former subject peoples of the French Empire and he will discover that the magnanimity and altruism of the French has its limits, and a Le Pen will soon replace him in the Elysee Palace.
     
    Not likely. With additional immigration and 40% of "French" children born in 2016 having at least one parent of African or Middle East origin, the prospect of a nationalist along the lines of Marine Le Pen being elected are approximately zero. One can only hope that the nations of Eastern Europe will see the unnfolding demographic, political and cultural catastrophe of the U.K., Germany, France and Sweden and decide national suicide is not a good option.

    You’re right but you left out the USA; over the next twenty five years whites will become a minority and the USA will become a “ majority-minority country.” What’s even worse is that this fact is actually celebrated by the cultural, political and academic “elite” in America as a positive development. Only an idiocracy would think that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheBoom
    "Only an idiocracy would think that way."

    True, especially given that they are already calling for white genocide, claiming whites are responsible for everyone else's problems, tearing down monuments, rewriting history so it doesn't highlight all the advances created by white men, silencing anything pro white (even if it is as meek as "it is ok to be white"), and discriminating against whites in jobs and education. That's while we are still a majority. South Africa here we come!

    It doesn't take too much analysis to see that whites are leaving their descendants in a very bad situation. Only idiots would see this as a virtue. It is bragging that you think it is great you were invaded and conquered.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. El Dato says:
    @Captain Willard
    So, cutting through all the bullshit, Pat applauds the Magyars for invading from Asia, seizing "Hungary", expelling and repelling Ottomans, subduing Slovaks, outwitting Romanians and Austrians and finally overcoming Soros.

    Why doesn't he state the obvious: conquest and subsequent defense of territory is an ancient and time-honored practice? Why does it have to be cloaked in nationalism to gain respectability? The present-day African invasion differs only in subtlety and method from good old Genghis.

    Ghengis came a few hundred later than Attila (who ventured all the way into todays’ France). Ghengis never ventured into Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    This is correct. If I recall, it was actually his death that stopped the Horde from moving into Europe proper. They had to all halt and send delegations back to Mongolia to figure out succession and the next strategy.

    Of course the fractures soon started forming...

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Jason Liu says:

    The authoritarian right, as defined by western liberals, describes every society from 3000 BC to like the 1960s. It still does for most non-western countries. Maybe it’s not so bad.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. KenH says:

    Democracy won’t save the white, Western world. Ezra Pound said that democracy is a government run by Jews and nowhere is that more true than here in the U.S. It’s suicidal for whites who aren’t racial masochists to place their trust in a system that features the likes of Bernie Sanders, Mad Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Chuck U Schumer and too many others to mention.

    The Jewish strategy is to deny whites in their traditional homelands any safe havens from the scratching and clawing hordes of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. The other element is de facto disenfranchisement of politically incorrect whites which we saw at Charlottesville and in the aftermath which saw doxxing, deplatforming, arrest without bail, and widespread viewpoint discrimination on major social media platforms. “Our” (((government))) has outsourced tyranny of pro-white political dissidents to the private sector and local governments.

    Every white nation needs to be governed by a pro-white Caesar whose highest priority is the welfare of his own people above all things if it is to survive. Orban is the closest thing to that thus far and I wonder when the Jewish occupied government in Tel Aviv, D.C. will scream for regime change and Orban will find himself on the receiving end of a color revolution or worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Why? They seems to be pretty good friends...
    “Netanyahu congratulates Orban on reelection, invites him to Israel
    After landslide poll victory for Hungarian leader, PM thanks him for supporting Israel in international forums”
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-congratulates-orban-on-reelection-invites-him-to-israel/

    Two peas in a pod...

    Peace.
    , @Corvinus
    "Every white nation needs to be governed by a pro-white Caesar whose highest priority is the welfare of his own people above all things if it is to survive."

    And what happens when the majority of whites in those nations directly oppose the Alt Right's jackboots of nationalism for only white people? Do not these whites have the freedom to association to include non-whites as being "their own people" and "one of them"?

    Some would argue that we are heading to a civil war. Assuming it occurs by 2033, are you prepared to join the front lines, or remain in the back as an armchair warrior if and when the shooting starts? Are you prepared to curb stomp little boys and girls, many of them white, merely because you pay homage to this "pro-white Caesar"?

    I would venture you fortunately lack the guile and gumption to engage in such action. St. Breivik, you are not.

    Indeed, in this context, Patrick is right when he says "as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Dan C says:

    Something I think Americans can’t relate to is the deep sense of history the average Central European has. I’ve been impressed by how regular people there are aware of the horrible time of Hungary’s wars with the Ottoman Turks, extending from the time of John Hunyadi (15th century) until their final expulsion in 1699.

    Texans have their expression “Remember the Alamo.”

    Hungarians remember Eger Castle. Where in 1552 less than 2,300 people, only 1,500 of them soldiers, defeated an Ottoman army of 35,000, surviving 5 separate assaults. Gunner Gergely Bornemissza is still remembered much like Davy Crockett is in America. He figured out how to make homemade grenades and launch them into the Turkish troop ranks with devastating effect, and his exploit with an exploding waterwheel rolled downhill into the Turkish troop formations is still legendary.

    C’mon Eurocrats … Do you think you’re ever going to force the Hungarians to accept another Islamic invasion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Bram Stoker's Dracula and other novels also set in the Carpathians, like The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova, can ease the non-East European reader into an awareness of that history.

    A remade of Dracula is in process. It's reasonable to suspect that the new version, or return to Dracula, will not be authentic to Hungarian cultural and historical awareness but will, instead, produce a politically correct work of propaganda-fiction.

    , @Thirdeye
    Good point. Opposition to the Muslim Mass Migration into Europe seems centered in the countries that have in their historical memories either subjugation by or defense against the Turks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Why use the terminology of one’s opponents? If a leader favors the citizens of his own country over those of Somalia and Morocco, that does not make him an “authoritarian”.

    Mainstream politicians seem to think that a country is merely the territory of a global money-making machine (if they come from the right) or a global welfare machine (if they come from the left). The country’s citizens are likely to disagree with both propositions.

    Ask not what Hungary can do for the illiterate Afghan goat-herder; ask what the illiterate Afghan goat-herder can do for Hungary. Most Hungarians know that the answer is “not much”. Come to that, most French, British, or Americans know the same thing. What is really remarkable is how far “mainstream” politicians have drifted away from the real mainstream of their own countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan C
    Something I think Americans can't relate to is the deep sense of history the average Central European has. I've been impressed by how regular people there are aware of the horrible time of Hungary's wars with the Ottoman Turks, extending from the time of John Hunyadi (15th century) until their final expulsion in 1699.

    Texans have their expression "Remember the Alamo."

    Hungarians remember Eger Castle. Where in 1552 less than 2,300 people, only 1,500 of them soldiers, defeated an Ottoman army of 35,000, surviving 5 separate assaults. Gunner Gergely Bornemissza is still remembered much like Davy Crockett is in America. He figured out how to make homemade grenades and launch them into the Turkish troop ranks with devastating effect, and his exploit with an exploding waterwheel rolled downhill into the Turkish troop formations is still legendary.

    C'mon Eurocrats ... Do you think you're ever going to force the Hungarians to accept another Islamic invasion?

    Bram Stoker’s Dracula and other novels also set in the Carpathians, like The Historian, by Elizabeth Kostova, can ease the non-East European reader into an awareness of that history.

    A remade of Dracula is in process. It’s reasonable to suspect that the new version, or return to Dracula, will not be authentic to Hungarian cultural and historical awareness but will, instead, produce a politically correct work of propaganda-fiction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. While I am not a frequent reader of his columns, I appreciate Mr. Buchanan and his input. That said, I find it ironic that he creates a dichotomy between nationalism and democracy. He associates the former with authoritarianism. However, if my understanding is correct, nationalism and democracy used to go hand-in-hand. Whatever you think of it, the French Revolution is an example of this. The revolution counterpoised the aristocracy to the people of France who were to be Citizens of the nation on the basis of their French nationality. The French revolution was both democratic and nationalist. It actualized the concept of popular sovereignty, and finalized the cobbling together of a French nation from a bunch of feudalistic regions.

    If we move forward a couple generations, we come to the revolutions of 1848. These revolutions were not only democratic but also nationalistic, and gave birth to the famous tri-colors that are now the flags of modern European nations.

    By Unknown – im Original Kreidelithographie, aus Buch? gescannt von User:APPER, Public Domain, Link

    By A. Klaus (Transfered by LeastCommonAncestor/Original uploaded by Unify) – Scan einer alten Litographie., Jabetza Publikoa, Lotura

    By Vittorio Emanuele Bressanin (1860-1941) – Own work, Public Domain, Link

    By Baldassare Verazzi (1819-1886) – https://www.flickr.com/photos/archiviovco/7999524777/, Public Domain, Link

    The increasing level of wealth inequality over the past 40 years has created a new global aristocracy. The rising nationalism of today is, at least in part, a reaction to rule of this aristocracy. I suspect that when the representatives of the aristocracy state that “diversity is our strength,” they are right. Indeed, diversity is THEIR strength. By undermining the common culture, common language, traditions and identity of a people, they have undermined the social capital of the populace. We are now divided and conquered in all of our nations. The corresponding lack of togetherness poses a strong barrier to a democratic uprising against that aristocracy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twodees Partain, Miro23
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    However, if my understanding is correct, nationalism and democracy used to go hand-in-hand. Whatever you think of it, the French Revolution is an example of this. The revolution counterpoised the aristocracy to the people of France who were to be Citizens of the nation on the basis of their French nationality. The French revolution was both democratic and nationalist.
     
    The French Revolution was internationalist and imperialist. It was the first step in the globalist program. It was also the first step in the destruction of France as a nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anonymous[242] • Disclaimer says:

    Pat always brings his religious views into every analysis. He tiptoes up to the truth, then implies prayer in school is the answer to everything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    Pat always brings his religious views into every analysis. He tiptoes up to the truth, then implies prayer in school is the answer to everything.
     
    ....while denouncing the prospect of Sharia Law! Definitely a lack of self-awareness at work.

    Buchanan illustrates the bigoted tendencies within certain branches of Catholicism spectacularly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. TheBoom says:
    @Erol Pedersen
    You’re right but you left out the USA; over the next twenty five years whites will become a minority and the USA will become a “ majority-minority country.” What’s even worse is that this fact is actually celebrated by the cultural, political and academic “elite” in America as a positive development. Only an idiocracy would think that way.

    “Only an idiocracy would think that way.”

    True, especially given that they are already calling for white genocide, claiming whites are responsible for everyone else’s problems, tearing down monuments, rewriting history so it doesn’t highlight all the advances created by white men, silencing anything pro white (even if it is as meek as “it is ok to be white”), and discriminating against whites in jobs and education. That’s while we are still a majority. South Africa here we come!

    It doesn’t take too much analysis to see that whites are leaving their descendants in a very bad situation. Only idiots would see this as a virtue. It is bragging that you think it is great you were invaded and conquered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. dfordoom says: • Website
    @redmudhooch
    They don't give a hoot about "diversity" or minorities, if they did they would stop bombing, plundering, these peoples homelands.
    They want "diversity" because it makes it easier to rule over/enslave, makes it easier to divide the people and turn them against each other, using their control over the media, 24/7/365 spewing nonstop hate speech and division.
    People are sick of the minority rule, the ignorant/brainwashed minority at that. Americans are very welcoming and loving people, but when they start using your kindness against you,, be careful, you're gonna awaken a very very agitated sleeping giant sooner or later.
    Its coming, the signs are everywhere. People realize who/what the problem is now, many are afraid to admit it or talk about it in public for fear of being called names, or losing their jobs, but they know.

    They don’t give a hoot about “diversity” or minorities, if they did they would stop bombing, plundering, these peoples homelands.

    That’s a point that needs to be emphasised. The people who push antiracist rhetoric are the same people who pursue horrifyingly racist foreign policies. We need to keep hammering the point that US foreign policy isn’t just stupid and evil, it’s racist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mario Partisan
    While I am not a frequent reader of his columns, I appreciate Mr. Buchanan and his input. That said, I find it ironic that he creates a dichotomy between nationalism and democracy. He associates the former with authoritarianism. However, if my understanding is correct, nationalism and democracy used to go hand-in-hand. Whatever you think of it, the French Revolution is an example of this. The revolution counterpoised the aristocracy to the people of France who were to be Citizens of the nation on the basis of their French nationality. The French revolution was both democratic and nationalist. It actualized the concept of popular sovereignty, and finalized the cobbling together of a French nation from a bunch of feudalistic regions.

    If we move forward a couple generations, we come to the revolutions of 1848. These revolutions were not only democratic but also nationalistic, and gave birth to the famous tri-colors that are now the flags of modern European nations.

    By Unknown - im Original Kreidelithographie, aus Buch? gescannt von User:APPER, Public Domain, Link

    By A. Klaus (Transfered by LeastCommonAncestor/Original uploaded by Unify) - Scan einer alten Litographie., Jabetza Publikoa, Lotura

    By Vittorio Emanuele Bressanin (1860-1941) - Own work, Public Domain, Link

    By Baldassare Verazzi (1819-1886) - https://www.flickr.com/photos/archiviovco/7999524777/, Public Domain, Link

    The increasing level of wealth inequality over the past 40 years has created a new global aristocracy. The rising nationalism of today is, at least in part, a reaction to rule of this aristocracy. I suspect that when the representatives of the aristocracy state that “diversity is our strength,” they are right. Indeed, diversity is THEIR strength. By undermining the common culture, common language, traditions and identity of a people, they have undermined the social capital of the populace. We are now divided and conquered in all of our nations. The corresponding lack of togetherness poses a strong barrier to a democratic uprising against that aristocracy.

    However, if my understanding is correct, nationalism and democracy used to go hand-in-hand. Whatever you think of it, the French Revolution is an example of this. The revolution counterpoised the aristocracy to the people of France who were to be Citizens of the nation on the basis of their French nationality. The French revolution was both democratic and nationalist.

    The French Revolution was internationalist and imperialist. It was the first step in the globalist program. It was also the first step in the destruction of France as a nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    First, like you, I have described myself as a recovering leftist. Second, I’m not responding for the purpose of fighting, but rather to discuss and maybe to learn.

    You disagree with me that the French revolution was nationalistic. I will admit: I’m not an authority on the French revolution and could stand to read more about it. However, from what I understand, “Citizen” was a common way for people to address each other during the revolution. It seems to me that there is a connection between the concept of citizenship and the concept of a nation.

    Was it not the revolution that transformed the French people from subjects of the king into citizens of the nation? It seems to me that a country under a hereditary absolutist monarchy is more akin to a gigantic feudal manor than to a nation. It is when the people go from being subjects to citizens (a democratic change) that a nation is born.

    You say that the revolution was the first step in the globalist agenda. In hindsight, the revolution may have been a step towards a global order, but I don’t think that was a planned outcome.

    If you go back in history, you find man living in small clans consisting of a handful of people who are closely related to each other. At some point, man progressed towards a higher level of social interaction. Was that progression part of the globalist agenda? No, of course it wasn’t. It seems to me that much of human social evolution consists of a natural widening of the sphere of human interaction, from clan, to tribe, to city-state, to nation-state…

    The creation of nations is the result of expanded means of transportation, and of communication, which bring people of different regions into increased contact with one another, and thus create the basis for common language, traditions, and identity on a greater geographical scale than was previously possible. Revolutions like the French revolution formalized into law what had already been made possible by changes in the material base of society, and were the last step in creating nations of citizens. In that sense, they were nationalistic.

    Once a nation has come together, you have a united entity that is capable of interacting with other united entities, can trade, form alliances, sign treaties, etc. Meanwhile, the means of transportation and communication continue to advance, bringing nations into increased contact with one another. The birth of nations was a step towards the birth of a global order. What you characterize as the globalist program of the French revolutionaries is likely natural human social evolution. Yes, nationalism and internationalism are distinct ideologically; but historically, they are just links in an evolutionary chain, with the latter standing on the shoulders of the former.

    Finally, you say the revolution was imperialist. In a way, you are correct. It was after the revolution that Napoleon came to power, declared himself emperor, and began the conquest of other countries. But I don’t know that this was the original agenda of the revolutionaries. It may be that empire was forced on the French. The French revolution was a radical departure from the political forms that Europe had inherited from medieval times. It is likely that “all the powers of old Europe had entered into a holy alliance” to suppress the revolution. The French revolution did not have the benefit of two huge oceans separating itself from its enemies; the enemies were at the border. Maybe it was a case of export or die.

    While it may appear that I am endorsing globalism here, there is a difference between organic internationalism on the one hand, and forced globalism, with its manufactured identity politics, on the other. One is ground up and natural, the other top down and artificial. I think what I said in my previous post above still stands. The world is not a simple place. Our minds reflect reality, and if my thoughts appear somewhat contradictory, it is because the world we live in is contradictory.

    Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Thirdeye says:

    Recall: Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.

    Wrong.

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

    And Hitler’s base of support was in Catholic Germany. So much for religion’s role in keeping government on a moral path.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Uebersetzer
    His initial HQ was in largely Catholic Munich but overall Protestants were slightly more attracted to Nazism than Catholics. Nuremberg, where Nazis were particularly strong, is a Protestant area in mainly Catholic Bavaria. Many Nazis were vitriolically anti-Catholic. Austrian pan-Germans before WW1 influenced the young Hitler and they loathed the Catholic Church - one of their rhymes was "Los von Juda, Habsburg, Rom, bauen wir den deutschen Dom" ("Away from Judah, Hapsburg, Rome, let us build the German cathedral") and some Nazis said the despised Weimar flag represented black for Catholicism, red for socialism and gold for the Jews.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    So much for religion’s role in keeping government on a moral path.
     
    Define moral.

    In 1933 prostitution, pedophilia, mob rule, high unemployment, political chaos, financial chaos, starvation, disabled veterans on the street -- all were rampant.
    Jews in Berlin's financial district were frequently attacked by destitute mobs.

    NSDAP under Hitler's leadership changed each and every element of that widespread dysfunction.

    Violence against Jews in Germany was quelled by NS.

    But zionist Jews in USA, in coordination with influential Jews in other parts of the world, organized and undertook economic war against Germany, with one stated goal of motivating German Jews to leave Germany and take their wealth to the zionist project in Palestine.

    The Germans who voted for Hitler voted for a re-moralized, orderly and prosperous society.

    Zionist Jews made the determination, and enacted directives and international movements, to disrupt and destroy that process that the German people voted for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Thirdeye says:
    @Dan C
    Something I think Americans can't relate to is the deep sense of history the average Central European has. I've been impressed by how regular people there are aware of the horrible time of Hungary's wars with the Ottoman Turks, extending from the time of John Hunyadi (15th century) until their final expulsion in 1699.

    Texans have their expression "Remember the Alamo."

    Hungarians remember Eger Castle. Where in 1552 less than 2,300 people, only 1,500 of them soldiers, defeated an Ottoman army of 35,000, surviving 5 separate assaults. Gunner Gergely Bornemissza is still remembered much like Davy Crockett is in America. He figured out how to make homemade grenades and launch them into the Turkish troop ranks with devastating effect, and his exploit with an exploding waterwheel rolled downhill into the Turkish troop formations is still legendary.

    C'mon Eurocrats ... Do you think you're ever going to force the Hungarians to accept another Islamic invasion?

    Good point. Opposition to the Muslim Mass Migration into Europe seems centered in the countries that have in their historical memories either subjugation by or defense against the Turks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Thirdeye says:
    @Anonymous
    Pat always brings his religious views into every analysis. He tiptoes up to the truth, then implies prayer in school is the answer to everything.

    Pat always brings his religious views into every analysis. He tiptoes up to the truth, then implies prayer in school is the answer to everything.

    ….while denouncing the prospect of Sharia Law! Definitely a lack of self-awareness at work.

    Buchanan illustrates the bigoted tendencies within certain branches of Catholicism spectacularly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Talha says:
    @KenH
    Democracy won't save the white, Western world. Ezra Pound said that democracy is a government run by Jews and nowhere is that more true than here in the U.S. It's suicidal for whites who aren't racial masochists to place their trust in a system that features the likes of Bernie Sanders, Mad Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Chuck U Schumer and too many others to mention.

    The Jewish strategy is to deny whites in their traditional homelands any safe havens from the scratching and clawing hordes of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. The other element is de facto disenfranchisement of politically incorrect whites which we saw at Charlottesville and in the aftermath which saw doxxing, deplatforming, arrest without bail, and widespread viewpoint discrimination on major social media platforms. "Our" (((government))) has outsourced tyranny of pro-white political dissidents to the private sector and local governments.

    Every white nation needs to be governed by a pro-white Caesar whose highest priority is the welfare of his own people above all things if it is to survive. Orban is the closest thing to that thus far and I wonder when the Jewish occupied government in Tel Aviv, D.C. will scream for regime change and Orban will find himself on the receiving end of a color revolution or worse.

    Why? They seems to be pretty good friends…
    “Netanyahu congratulates Orban on reelection, invites him to Israel
    After landslide poll victory for Hungarian leader, PM thanks him for supporting Israel in international forums”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-congratulates-orban-on-reelection-invites-him-to-israel/

    Two peas in a pod…

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    World leaders congratulate each other over election victories all the time and it doesn't make them "good friends". Netanyahoo just likes to play the good cop Jew and I question his sincerity. Soros and other diaspora Jews will perform the dirty work of trying to undermine and marginalize Orban. I think Orban is shrewd enough to know where the red lines are when it comes to his own Jews and Israel and plays the game accordingly.

    Apparently most of Hungary's Jews don't even like or support Orban despite his philo-semitism:
    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/hungary-chief-rabbi-resigns-as-jews-consider-reaction-to-orb%C3%A1n-victory-1.462761
    "The vast majority of Hungarian Jewish opinion is against Fidesz, with those who supported Mr Orbán statistically insignificant."

    No matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Israel one is, Jews generally have a visceral reaction to a strong goy leader and tend to hear anti-semitic dog whistles with every utterance. Case in point is the candidacy and now presidency of Donald Trump.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Talha says:
    @El Dato
    Ghengis came a few hundred later than Attila (who ventured all the way into todays' France). Ghengis never ventured into Europe.

    This is correct. If I recall, it was actually his death that stopped the Horde from moving into Europe proper. They had to all halt and send delegations back to Mongolia to figure out succession and the next strategy.

    Of course the fractures soon started forming…

    Peace.

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

    Globalism’s public face, the part that dangles in the face of the deplorables must be re-tuned, re-tweaked, abetted. Why is it that even concerning the mass pathological psychologies, and primal drifts are not better understood, or are they, then not better implemented “public intellectual” speak is applied to it.

    If the term “democracy” is to be preserved and stay use-full to the public, it must be recycled and retooled urgently.

    The middle class of bread-writers on the internet bare responsibility, shared by their editors. Instead of sailing into the short-term wind as much as the attention span of their consumers allows, tack to a more rational course, one that expresses itself and can be felt.

    Globalism must be, to implement it, it should be highly covertly approached. This is another issue.The public face of globalism sucks, that is probably the main issue now. The whole narrative of greed, hard work, markets, and on sucks, and leads into confusion.

    Immigration, another concept never explained to the core, in a way that might be acceptable to the crowds.

    Even Islam does better, they have a covert AND overt approach both as bridges to the public. An example, the silence on how consumerism is incompatible with Islam(no overt explanation here but silence). The concept of covertly breeding as a nuclear tool for proportionate take-over of the West. Do Westerners think that the Muslim world does not comprehend what it is doing, or that the hordes of Islam are not whispered into baby booming? No-one ever told them, the incompatibility of consuming and Islam, but the “decadence” of Western society and women especially to be exploited yes. Not terror is the issue, the nuclear strategy of breeding is.

    What is the overt dousing of the Westerner into steering this? Why is it “well” to open all gates, is there any advantage, is that so hard to explain to the public of generational genetic Germans, or Americans?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @nickels
    What people don't get, especially all those braindead lapdogs of 'global democracy', is the fact that this ideology is simply a tool, not an end.
    If the 'global democracy' ever reaches a certain tipping point, where it's success is assured, then the mask will come off and we will see the face of the true demons that push this Trotskyite fantasy.
    At that point they will abandon all the lies of 'freedom' and slam down the hammer of tyranny, the likes of which this world has never known. First to be squashed will be exactly those privileged groups that multiculturalism and identity politics placed on their little power pedestals.
    Troubling ethnic groups and deviants will either be axed outright or shipped off to the remotest parts of oblivion.
    The ensuing system will be an ethnic tyranny of death, exploitation and techno facism.

    So true! We will truly all be Gazans then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Thirdeye

    Recall: Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.
     
    Wrong.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen

    And Hitler's base of support was in Catholic Germany. So much for religion's role in keeping government on a moral path.

    His initial HQ was in largely Catholic Munich but overall Protestants were slightly more attracted to Nazism than Catholics. Nuremberg, where Nazis were particularly strong, is a Protestant area in mainly Catholic Bavaria. Many Nazis were vitriolically anti-Catholic. Austrian pan-Germans before WW1 influenced the young Hitler and they loathed the Catholic Church – one of their rhymes was “Los von Juda, Habsburg, Rom, bauen wir den deutschen Dom” (“Away from Judah, Hapsburg, Rome, let us build the German cathedral”) and some Nazis said the despised Weimar flag represented black for Catholicism, red for socialism and gold for the Jews.

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

    Recall: Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.
     
    Wrong.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_von_Papen

    And Hitler's base of support was in Catholic Germany. So much for religion's role in keeping government on a moral path.

    So much for religion’s role in keeping government on a moral path.

    Define moral.

    In 1933 prostitution, pedophilia, mob rule, high unemployment, political chaos, financial chaos, starvation, disabled veterans on the street — all were rampant.
    Jews in Berlin’s financial district were frequently attacked by destitute mobs.

    NSDAP under Hitler’s leadership changed each and every element of that widespread dysfunction.

    Violence against Jews in Germany was quelled by NS.

    But zionist Jews in USA, in coordination with influential Jews in other parts of the world, organized and undertook economic war against Germany, with one stated goal of motivating German Jews to leave Germany and take their wealth to the zionist project in Palestine.

    The Germans who voted for Hitler voted for a re-moralized, orderly and prosperous society.

    Zionist Jews made the determination, and enacted directives and international movements, to disrupt and destroy that process that the German people voted for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. KenH says:
    @Talha
    Why? They seems to be pretty good friends...
    “Netanyahu congratulates Orban on reelection, invites him to Israel
    After landslide poll victory for Hungarian leader, PM thanks him for supporting Israel in international forums”
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-congratulates-orban-on-reelection-invites-him-to-israel/

    Two peas in a pod...

    Peace.

    World leaders congratulate each other over election victories all the time and it doesn’t make them “good friends”. Netanyahoo just likes to play the good cop Jew and I question his sincerity. Soros and other diaspora Jews will perform the dirty work of trying to undermine and marginalize Orban. I think Orban is shrewd enough to know where the red lines are when it comes to his own Jews and Israel and plays the game accordingly.

    Apparently most of Hungary’s Jews don’t even like or support Orban despite his philo-semitism:

    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/hungary-chief-rabbi-resigns-as-jews-consider-reaction-to-orb%C3%A1n-victory-1.462761

    “The vast majority of Hungarian Jewish opinion is against Fidesz, with those who supported Mr Orbán statistically insignificant.”

    No matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Israel one is, Jews generally have a visceral reaction to a strong goy leader and tend to hear anti-semitic dog whistles with every utterance. Case in point is the candidacy and now presidency of Donald Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Ah OK - both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Payne says:

    Wow. So Pat hates America and everything that it stands for.

    Where once America was the nation where “all men are created equal”, now “equality” is something to be sneered at and despised. And then he throws in some cheap shots at the Bill of Rights as well.

    And of course, like anyone who hates freedom, he puts himself on the top. His race is superior. His beliefs are the right beliefs and everyone else is wrong.

    I disagree and argue with the Identity Politics types because they also hate freedom and liberty and want to overturn it and put themselves on top and their boot on everyone else’s neck. Now Pat puts himself in that club as well. His only disagreement with the modern left is that they disagree on who’s boot will be firmly on my neck.

    Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck. And yes, you do have to give up your own fantasies about having your boot on the necks of others, but the price is worth it. America, the land of the free, where all people are created equal. That’s what I support.

    If Pat doesn’t like America and all its stands for, he’s free to leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck.
     
    Give it up, already.

    The data are in... and the results are overwhelming. The ADL's Diversity Is Our Strength meme has been completely debunked. Don't believe me? Just look at what is transpiring in the Rainbow Nation, where the black majority leaders are inciting their people to "shoot to kill" the remaining white farmers. Or, better yet, see how warmly Diversity is being embraced by the ADL's pet project, the Jewish state, where virtually no one can become a citizen, unless they are Jewish.

    While the nationalism of the past admittedly may have had its ugly side, it is making a comeback for a reason. With each passing day, more and more of The Dumb Goyim are snapping out of the cultural Marxist spell that Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck and are starting to realize that the future is looking very dim for themselves and their offspring. And, truth to told, all the diversity training in the world cannot remedy this situation.

    No, as As Orwell predicted, there will always be someone's boot on our neck. That said, if I were Hungarian, I'd rather have Orban's boot on my neck than Soros'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Talha says:
    @KenH
    World leaders congratulate each other over election victories all the time and it doesn't make them "good friends". Netanyahoo just likes to play the good cop Jew and I question his sincerity. Soros and other diaspora Jews will perform the dirty work of trying to undermine and marginalize Orban. I think Orban is shrewd enough to know where the red lines are when it comes to his own Jews and Israel and plays the game accordingly.

    Apparently most of Hungary's Jews don't even like or support Orban despite his philo-semitism:
    https://www.thejc.com/news/world/hungary-chief-rabbi-resigns-as-jews-consider-reaction-to-orb%C3%A1n-victory-1.462761
    "The vast majority of Hungarian Jewish opinion is against Fidesz, with those who supported Mr Orbán statistically insignificant."

    No matter how pro-Jewish or pro-Israel one is, Jews generally have a visceral reaction to a strong goy leader and tend to hear anti-semitic dog whistles with every utterance. Case in point is the candidacy and now presidency of Donald Trump.

    Ah OK – both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Ah OK – both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.
     
    Do you know something about Orban and Hungary the rest of us don't in regards to Israel? I do know that Israel was an ally of white S. Africa but did nothing to protect it from machinations by S. African and American Jewry which resulted in the imposition of black rule on the white minority.

    So if Jewry decides that Hungary must be diversified via the Afro-Islamic invasion don't expect Bibi or any other Israeli prime minister to object.

    , @Miro23
    OT but I was wondering about the Sunni - Shia divide. It's the Shias who are facing off against the US/Israel and defending Lebanon, while the Sunni leadership of Saudi Arabia ally with Israel/US/ ISIS + support the "regime change" projects.

    How do regular Sunnis see this? A success, a failure or what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Corvinus says:
    @Captain Willard
    So, cutting through all the bullshit, Pat applauds the Magyars for invading from Asia, seizing "Hungary", expelling and repelling Ottomans, subduing Slovaks, outwitting Romanians and Austrians and finally overcoming Soros.

    Why doesn't he state the obvious: conquest and subsequent defense of territory is an ancient and time-honored practice? Why does it have to be cloaked in nationalism to gain respectability? The present-day African invasion differs only in subtlety and method from good old Genghis.

    “Why doesn’t he state the obvious: conquest and subsequent defense of territory is an ancient and time-honored practice?”

    Because that would require Saileresque noticing on his part. Besides, so long as it was the “good guys” who won, who cares about the aftermath?

    Take into account when Patricks says “Consider what else the “world’s oldest democracy” has lately had on offer to the indigenous peoples of Europe resisting an invasion of Third World settlers coming to occupy and repopulate their lands.”

    Were not the tribal groups of North and South America the “indigenous peoples” there, only to be ruthlessly displaced by foreigners? The irony and hypocrisy on his part is thick here.

    And then he has the audacity to say “…in 2042 when white European Christians are just another minority”. Indeed, that is how human history works. Dominant groups come and go by the wayside.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Corvinus says:
    @KenH
    Democracy won't save the white, Western world. Ezra Pound said that democracy is a government run by Jews and nowhere is that more true than here in the U.S. It's suicidal for whites who aren't racial masochists to place their trust in a system that features the likes of Bernie Sanders, Mad Maxine Waters, Corey Booker, Chuck U Schumer and too many others to mention.

    The Jewish strategy is to deny whites in their traditional homelands any safe havens from the scratching and clawing hordes of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. The other element is de facto disenfranchisement of politically incorrect whites which we saw at Charlottesville and in the aftermath which saw doxxing, deplatforming, arrest without bail, and widespread viewpoint discrimination on major social media platforms. "Our" (((government))) has outsourced tyranny of pro-white political dissidents to the private sector and local governments.

    Every white nation needs to be governed by a pro-white Caesar whose highest priority is the welfare of his own people above all things if it is to survive. Orban is the closest thing to that thus far and I wonder when the Jewish occupied government in Tel Aviv, D.C. will scream for regime change and Orban will find himself on the receiving end of a color revolution or worse.

    “Every white nation needs to be governed by a pro-white Caesar whose highest priority is the welfare of his own people above all things if it is to survive.”

    And what happens when the majority of whites in those nations directly oppose the Alt Right’s jackboots of nationalism for only white people? Do not these whites have the freedom to association to include non-whites as being “their own people” and “one of them”?

    Some would argue that we are heading to a civil war. Assuming it occurs by 2033, are you prepared to join the front lines, or remain in the back as an armchair warrior if and when the shooting starts? Are you prepared to curb stomp little boys and girls, many of them white, merely because you pay homage to this “pro-white Caesar”?

    I would venture you fortunately lack the guile and gumption to engage in such action. St. Breivik, you are not.

    Indeed, in this context, Patrick is right when he says “as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    And what happens when the majority of whites in those nations directly oppose the Alt Right’s jackboots of nationalism for only white people?
     
    And how about the left's jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites and especially whites who don't hate themselves? How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that's a righteous and noble hate and bigotry.

    Do not these whites have the freedom to association to include non-whites as being “their own people” and “one of them”?
     
    If you put your thinking cap on you'd see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites. Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that's what you all wish then more power to you and them if you're really true believers in the cult of "muh diversity".

    I would venture you fortunately lack the guile and gumption to engage in such action. St. Breivik, you are not.
     
    According to what your crystal ball? I'll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people. I don't need to beat my chest and act tough or tell you what my plans are. I'd venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history.

    Indeed, in this context, Patrick is right when he says “as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people”.
     
    Are you auditioning for the late Rev. Billy Graham's job?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. geokat62 says:
    @Payne
    Wow. So Pat hates America and everything that it stands for.

    Where once America was the nation where "all men are created equal", now "equality" is something to be sneered at and despised. And then he throws in some cheap shots at the Bill of Rights as well.

    And of course, like anyone who hates freedom, he puts himself on the top. His race is superior. His beliefs are the right beliefs and everyone else is wrong.

    I disagree and argue with the Identity Politics types because they also hate freedom and liberty and want to overturn it and put themselves on top and their boot on everyone else's neck. Now Pat puts himself in that club as well. His only disagreement with the modern left is that they disagree on who's boot will be firmly on my neck.

    Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody's boot is on your neck. And yes, you do have to give up your own fantasies about having your boot on the necks of others, but the price is worth it. America, the land of the free, where all people are created equal. That's what I support.

    If Pat doesn't like America and all its stands for, he's free to leave.

    Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck.

    Give it up, already.

    The data are in… and the results are overwhelming. The ADL’s Diversity Is Our Strength meme has been completely debunked. Don’t believe me? Just look at what is transpiring in the Rainbow Nation, where the black majority leaders are inciting their people to “shoot to kill” the remaining white farmers. Or, better yet, see how warmly Diversity is being embraced by the ADL’s pet project, the Jewish state, where virtually no one can become a citizen, unless they are Jewish.

    While the nationalism of the past admittedly may have had its ugly side, it is making a comeback for a reason. With each passing day, more and more of The Dumb Goyim are snapping out of the cultural Marxist spell that Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck and are starting to realize that the future is looking very dim for themselves and their offspring. And, truth to told, all the diversity training in the world cannot remedy this situation.

    No, as As Orwell predicted, there will always be someone’s boot on our neck. That said, if I were Hungarian, I’d rather have Orban’s boot on my neck than Soros’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @martin2
    More than 600,000 white English people have left London in the last 20 or so years, and now we have an epidemic of acid attacks and stabbings taking place in that city. According to the leftits and liberal establishment, things would only get better when white people left, especially the white working and lower middle classes. (I guess they are still figuring out a way to blame white people.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @dfordoom

    However, if my understanding is correct, nationalism and democracy used to go hand-in-hand. Whatever you think of it, the French Revolution is an example of this. The revolution counterpoised the aristocracy to the people of France who were to be Citizens of the nation on the basis of their French nationality. The French revolution was both democratic and nationalist.
     
    The French Revolution was internationalist and imperialist. It was the first step in the globalist program. It was also the first step in the destruction of France as a nation.

    First, like you, I have described myself as a recovering leftist. Second, I’m not responding for the purpose of fighting, but rather to discuss and maybe to learn.

    You disagree with me that the French revolution was nationalistic. I will admit: I’m not an authority on the French revolution and could stand to read more about it. However, from what I understand, “Citizen” was a common way for people to address each other during the revolution. It seems to me that there is a connection between the concept of citizenship and the concept of a nation.

    Was it not the revolution that transformed the French people from subjects of the king into citizens of the nation? It seems to me that a country under a hereditary absolutist monarchy is more akin to a gigantic feudal manor than to a nation. It is when the people go from being subjects to citizens (a democratic change) that a nation is born.

    You say that the revolution was the first step in the globalist agenda. In hindsight, the revolution may have been a step towards a global order, but I don’t think that was a planned outcome.

    If you go back in history, you find man living in small clans consisting of a handful of people who are closely related to each other. At some point, man progressed towards a higher level of social interaction. Was that progression part of the globalist agenda? No, of course it wasn’t. It seems to me that much of human social evolution consists of a natural widening of the sphere of human interaction, from clan, to tribe, to city-state, to nation-state…

    The creation of nations is the result of expanded means of transportation, and of communication, which bring people of different regions into increased contact with one another, and thus create the basis for common language, traditions, and identity on a greater geographical scale than was previously possible. Revolutions like the French revolution formalized into law what had already been made possible by changes in the material base of society, and were the last step in creating nations of citizens. In that sense, they were nationalistic.

    Once a nation has come together, you have a united entity that is capable of interacting with other united entities, can trade, form alliances, sign treaties, etc. Meanwhile, the means of transportation and communication continue to advance, bringing nations into increased contact with one another. The birth of nations was a step towards the birth of a global order. What you characterize as the globalist program of the French revolutionaries is likely natural human social evolution. Yes, nationalism and internationalism are distinct ideologically; but historically, they are just links in an evolutionary chain, with the latter standing on the shoulders of the former.

    Finally, you say the revolution was imperialist. In a way, you are correct. It was after the revolution that Napoleon came to power, declared himself emperor, and began the conquest of other countries. But I don’t know that this was the original agenda of the revolutionaries. It may be that empire was forced on the French. The French revolution was a radical departure from the political forms that Europe had inherited from medieval times. It is likely that “all the powers of old Europe had entered into a holy alliance” to suppress the revolution. The French revolution did not have the benefit of two huge oceans separating itself from its enemies; the enemies were at the border. Maybe it was a case of export or die.

    While it may appear that I am endorsing globalism here, there is a difference between organic internationalism on the one hand, and forced globalism, with its manufactured identity politics, on the other. One is ground up and natural, the other top down and artificial. I think what I said in my previous post above still stands. The world is not a simple place. Our minds reflect reality, and if my thoughts appear somewhat contradictory, it is because the world we live in is contradictory.

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    A good analysis. Unfortunately there's a natural tendency for formation of elites who use state power to protect their elite status. Democracy has to guard very carefully against this.

    Also, over time, elites tend to become decadent end exploitative. For example, European aristocracies grew out of out of legitimate military leadership, but morphed into a decadent crowd concerned with the good life, hunting and ballrooms - with the Russian aristocracy prior to the Revolution being a classic example (check out Pushkin's world).

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.

    The US is no different. It has a protected elite that have their own rules, and economic inequality that exceeds the British or Russian aristocracies at their peak. They even use the same phrase as the French Ancien Régime when referring to the great unwashed (Les Déplorables).

    , @dfordoom

    It seems to me that there is a connection between the concept of citizenship and the concept of a nation.

     

    Ah, that's where we differ. I see the concept of citizenship as being fundamentally hostile to nationalism. But then I'm instinctively a blood-and-soil kind of nationalist.

    To my way of thinking both the French and American Revolutions were anti-nationalist. Both were infected, fatally, by universalist ideas.

    It seems to me that a country under a hereditary absolutist monarchy is more akin to a gigantic feudal manor than to a nation. It is when the people go from being subjects to citizens (a democratic change) that a nation is born.
     
    There again our perspectives differ. To me a nation is a gigantic feudal manor - a web of mutual duties and responsibilities. I can't see how democratic nationalism can exist in the long term.

    Maybe it was a case of export or die.
     
    I think that's the nature of revolution.

    I can see where you're coming from and I appreciate your courteous reply. It's just a matter of totally different perspectives. I see stability and order as being more important than progress and growth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. KenH says:
    @Talha
    Ah OK - both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.

    Peace.

    Ah OK – both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.

    Do you know something about Orban and Hungary the rest of us don’t in regards to Israel? I do know that Israel was an ally of white S. Africa but did nothing to protect it from machinations by S. African and American Jewry which resulted in the imposition of black rule on the white minority.

    So if Jewry decides that Hungary must be diversified via the Afro-Islamic invasion don’t expect Bibi or any other Israeli prime minister to object.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Do you know something about Orban and Hungary the rest of us don’t in regards to Israel?
     
    Nope - which is why what you stated makes sense. Both sides are trying to play each other for whatever benefits that construes on the global stage.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Miro23 says:
    @Mario Partisan
    First, like you, I have described myself as a recovering leftist. Second, I’m not responding for the purpose of fighting, but rather to discuss and maybe to learn.

    You disagree with me that the French revolution was nationalistic. I will admit: I’m not an authority on the French revolution and could stand to read more about it. However, from what I understand, “Citizen” was a common way for people to address each other during the revolution. It seems to me that there is a connection between the concept of citizenship and the concept of a nation.

    Was it not the revolution that transformed the French people from subjects of the king into citizens of the nation? It seems to me that a country under a hereditary absolutist monarchy is more akin to a gigantic feudal manor than to a nation. It is when the people go from being subjects to citizens (a democratic change) that a nation is born.

    You say that the revolution was the first step in the globalist agenda. In hindsight, the revolution may have been a step towards a global order, but I don’t think that was a planned outcome.

    If you go back in history, you find man living in small clans consisting of a handful of people who are closely related to each other. At some point, man progressed towards a higher level of social interaction. Was that progression part of the globalist agenda? No, of course it wasn’t. It seems to me that much of human social evolution consists of a natural widening of the sphere of human interaction, from clan, to tribe, to city-state, to nation-state…

    The creation of nations is the result of expanded means of transportation, and of communication, which bring people of different regions into increased contact with one another, and thus create the basis for common language, traditions, and identity on a greater geographical scale than was previously possible. Revolutions like the French revolution formalized into law what had already been made possible by changes in the material base of society, and were the last step in creating nations of citizens. In that sense, they were nationalistic.

    Once a nation has come together, you have a united entity that is capable of interacting with other united entities, can trade, form alliances, sign treaties, etc. Meanwhile, the means of transportation and communication continue to advance, bringing nations into increased contact with one another. The birth of nations was a step towards the birth of a global order. What you characterize as the globalist program of the French revolutionaries is likely natural human social evolution. Yes, nationalism and internationalism are distinct ideologically; but historically, they are just links in an evolutionary chain, with the latter standing on the shoulders of the former.

    Finally, you say the revolution was imperialist. In a way, you are correct. It was after the revolution that Napoleon came to power, declared himself emperor, and began the conquest of other countries. But I don’t know that this was the original agenda of the revolutionaries. It may be that empire was forced on the French. The French revolution was a radical departure from the political forms that Europe had inherited from medieval times. It is likely that “all the powers of old Europe had entered into a holy alliance” to suppress the revolution. The French revolution did not have the benefit of two huge oceans separating itself from its enemies; the enemies were at the border. Maybe it was a case of export or die.

    While it may appear that I am endorsing globalism here, there is a difference between organic internationalism on the one hand, and forced globalism, with its manufactured identity politics, on the other. One is ground up and natural, the other top down and artificial. I think what I said in my previous post above still stands. The world is not a simple place. Our minds reflect reality, and if my thoughts appear somewhat contradictory, it is because the world we live in is contradictory.

    Cheers.

    A good analysis. Unfortunately there’s a natural tendency for formation of elites who use state power to protect their elite status. Democracy has to guard very carefully against this.

    Also, over time, elites tend to become decadent end exploitative. For example, European aristocracies grew out of out of legitimate military leadership, but morphed into a decadent crowd concerned with the good life, hunting and ballrooms – with the Russian aristocracy prior to the Revolution being a classic example (check out Pushkin’s world).

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.

    The US is no different. It has a protected elite that have their own rules, and economic inequality that exceeds the British or Russian aristocracies at their peak. They even use the same phrase as the French Ancien Régime when referring to the great unwashed (Les Déplorables).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    Thanks for the compliment.

    Also, over time, elites tend to become decadent end exploitative.

     

    Agree. That’s why Jefferson said “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    , @dfordoom

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.
     
    I think you may be making the mistake of seeing the French Revolution as a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses. Most of the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were uprisings of the increasingly powerful and wealthy middle classes who weren't exploited or oppressed but who saw the chance of looting the aristocracy. The poor old huddled masses usually weren't consulted and were either exploited by the revolutionaries or were hostile to the revolution.

    It's usually not the genuinely downtrodden who revolt. It's usually a rising new elite trying to displace the old elite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Talha says:
    @KenH

    Ah OK – both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.
     
    Do you know something about Orban and Hungary the rest of us don't in regards to Israel? I do know that Israel was an ally of white S. Africa but did nothing to protect it from machinations by S. African and American Jewry which resulted in the imposition of black rule on the white minority.

    So if Jewry decides that Hungary must be diversified via the Afro-Islamic invasion don't expect Bibi or any other Israeli prime minister to object.

    Do you know something about Orban and Hungary the rest of us don’t in regards to Israel?

    Nope – which is why what you stated makes sense. Both sides are trying to play each other for whatever benefits that construes on the global stage.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. KenH says:
    @Corvinus
    "Every white nation needs to be governed by a pro-white Caesar whose highest priority is the welfare of his own people above all things if it is to survive."

    And what happens when the majority of whites in those nations directly oppose the Alt Right's jackboots of nationalism for only white people? Do not these whites have the freedom to association to include non-whites as being "their own people" and "one of them"?

    Some would argue that we are heading to a civil war. Assuming it occurs by 2033, are you prepared to join the front lines, or remain in the back as an armchair warrior if and when the shooting starts? Are you prepared to curb stomp little boys and girls, many of them white, merely because you pay homage to this "pro-white Caesar"?

    I would venture you fortunately lack the guile and gumption to engage in such action. St. Breivik, you are not.

    Indeed, in this context, Patrick is right when he says "as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people".

    And what happens when the majority of whites in those nations directly oppose the Alt Right’s jackboots of nationalism for only white people?

    And how about the left’s jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites and especially whites who don’t hate themselves? How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that’s a righteous and noble hate and bigotry.

    Do not these whites have the freedom to association to include non-whites as being “their own people” and “one of them”?

    If you put your thinking cap on you’d see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites. Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that’s what you all wish then more power to you and them if you’re really true believers in the cult of “muh diversity”.

    I would venture you fortunately lack the guile and gumption to engage in such action. St. Breivik, you are not.

    According to what your crystal ball? I’ll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people. I don’t need to beat my chest and act tough or tell you what my plans are. I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history.

    Indeed, in this context, Patrick is right when he says “as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people”.

    Are you auditioning for the late Rev. Billy Graham’s job?

    Read More
    • Agree: BenKenobi
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "And how about the left’s jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites..."

    Which is patently false. First, you are absolutely misapplying the concept "fascism" here, which means "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce." The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery. Second, America doesn't "belong" to any one racial or ethnic group. It consists of citizens, including whites, who have not been excluded in being part of the body politic or social fabric. You have a knack for wild generalizations. Third, whites have every liberty to form their own groups. It is just that not all white people are on board with the groups that YOU want to form or be part of. Which is their freedom of association to oppose.

    "and especially whites who don’t hate themselves?"

    In your world, whites hate themselves only if they do not conform to your belief system. Which, if you truly think about it, is ridiculous. White Americans are not monolithic. They belong to a number of groups, and love their membership in those groups. They need not be virtue signaled to death by your insistence that they only love themselves if they look out for all whites.

    "How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that’s a righteous and noble hate and bigotry."

    Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture. Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?

    "If you put your thinking cap on you’d see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites."

    It is a matter of economics here, not race. Upper-class people want to live in nice places, regardless of race or ethnicity. That is their liberty. It is reasonable and sensible for well-off folks to live in well-off places next to people who are also well-off. Again, it's about finances. Moreover, white people who live in such areas interact with non-whites on a day to day basis, whether it be at work or at play. You either don't see it, or if you do see it, you don't want to see it.

    "Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that’s what you all wish then more power to you and them if you’re really true believers in the cult of “muh diversity”."

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another. That is called being human.

    Now, regarding Detroit, there are a host of reasons for the downfall of that city other than racial matters. Would you like to know more, citizen, and become educated on the matter?

    According to what your crystal ball? I’ll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people."

    Your people are white Americans, which includes me.

    "I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history."

    That is all fantasy, my friend. If there is this invasion that already has taken place in the States, and whites are about to become extinct, you choosing not to lift a finger now to do something about it tells me everything I need to know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Miro23 says:
    @Talha
    Ah OK - both are trying to play each other, I get it. Sounds like the developing relationship between the Saudis and Israel.

    Peace.

    OT but I was wondering about the Sunni – Shia divide. It’s the Shias who are facing off against the US/Israel and defending Lebanon, while the Sunni leadership of Saudi Arabia ally with Israel/US/ ISIS + support the “regime change” projects.

    How do regular Sunnis see this? A success, a failure or what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. martin2 says:
    @geokat62

    Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck.
     
    Give it up, already.

    The data are in... and the results are overwhelming. The ADL's Diversity Is Our Strength meme has been completely debunked. Don't believe me? Just look at what is transpiring in the Rainbow Nation, where the black majority leaders are inciting their people to "shoot to kill" the remaining white farmers. Or, better yet, see how warmly Diversity is being embraced by the ADL's pet project, the Jewish state, where virtually no one can become a citizen, unless they are Jewish.

    While the nationalism of the past admittedly may have had its ugly side, it is making a comeback for a reason. With each passing day, more and more of The Dumb Goyim are snapping out of the cultural Marxist spell that Liberty, Equality, and Freedom are guarantees that nobody’s boot is on your neck and are starting to realize that the future is looking very dim for themselves and their offspring. And, truth to told, all the diversity training in the world cannot remedy this situation.

    No, as As Orwell predicted, there will always be someone's boot on our neck. That said, if I were Hungarian, I'd rather have Orban's boot on my neck than Soros'.

    More than 600,000 white English people have left London in the last 20 or so years, and now we have an epidemic of acid attacks and stabbings taking place in that city. According to the leftits and liberal establishment, things would only get better when white people left, especially the white working and lower middle classes. (I guess they are still figuring out a way to blame white people.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Miro23
    A good analysis. Unfortunately there's a natural tendency for formation of elites who use state power to protect their elite status. Democracy has to guard very carefully against this.

    Also, over time, elites tend to become decadent end exploitative. For example, European aristocracies grew out of out of legitimate military leadership, but morphed into a decadent crowd concerned with the good life, hunting and ballrooms - with the Russian aristocracy prior to the Revolution being a classic example (check out Pushkin's world).

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.

    The US is no different. It has a protected elite that have their own rules, and economic inequality that exceeds the British or Russian aristocracies at their peak. They even use the same phrase as the French Ancien Régime when referring to the great unwashed (Les Déplorables).

    Thanks for the compliment.

    Also, over time, elites tend to become decadent end exploitative.

    Agree. That’s why Jefferson said “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mario Partisan
    First, like you, I have described myself as a recovering leftist. Second, I’m not responding for the purpose of fighting, but rather to discuss and maybe to learn.

    You disagree with me that the French revolution was nationalistic. I will admit: I’m not an authority on the French revolution and could stand to read more about it. However, from what I understand, “Citizen” was a common way for people to address each other during the revolution. It seems to me that there is a connection between the concept of citizenship and the concept of a nation.

    Was it not the revolution that transformed the French people from subjects of the king into citizens of the nation? It seems to me that a country under a hereditary absolutist monarchy is more akin to a gigantic feudal manor than to a nation. It is when the people go from being subjects to citizens (a democratic change) that a nation is born.

    You say that the revolution was the first step in the globalist agenda. In hindsight, the revolution may have been a step towards a global order, but I don’t think that was a planned outcome.

    If you go back in history, you find man living in small clans consisting of a handful of people who are closely related to each other. At some point, man progressed towards a higher level of social interaction. Was that progression part of the globalist agenda? No, of course it wasn’t. It seems to me that much of human social evolution consists of a natural widening of the sphere of human interaction, from clan, to tribe, to city-state, to nation-state…

    The creation of nations is the result of expanded means of transportation, and of communication, which bring people of different regions into increased contact with one another, and thus create the basis for common language, traditions, and identity on a greater geographical scale than was previously possible. Revolutions like the French revolution formalized into law what had already been made possible by changes in the material base of society, and were the last step in creating nations of citizens. In that sense, they were nationalistic.

    Once a nation has come together, you have a united entity that is capable of interacting with other united entities, can trade, form alliances, sign treaties, etc. Meanwhile, the means of transportation and communication continue to advance, bringing nations into increased contact with one another. The birth of nations was a step towards the birth of a global order. What you characterize as the globalist program of the French revolutionaries is likely natural human social evolution. Yes, nationalism and internationalism are distinct ideologically; but historically, they are just links in an evolutionary chain, with the latter standing on the shoulders of the former.

    Finally, you say the revolution was imperialist. In a way, you are correct. It was after the revolution that Napoleon came to power, declared himself emperor, and began the conquest of other countries. But I don’t know that this was the original agenda of the revolutionaries. It may be that empire was forced on the French. The French revolution was a radical departure from the political forms that Europe had inherited from medieval times. It is likely that “all the powers of old Europe had entered into a holy alliance” to suppress the revolution. The French revolution did not have the benefit of two huge oceans separating itself from its enemies; the enemies were at the border. Maybe it was a case of export or die.

    While it may appear that I am endorsing globalism here, there is a difference between organic internationalism on the one hand, and forced globalism, with its manufactured identity politics, on the other. One is ground up and natural, the other top down and artificial. I think what I said in my previous post above still stands. The world is not a simple place. Our minds reflect reality, and if my thoughts appear somewhat contradictory, it is because the world we live in is contradictory.

    Cheers.

    It seems to me that there is a connection between the concept of citizenship and the concept of a nation.

    Ah, that’s where we differ. I see the concept of citizenship as being fundamentally hostile to nationalism. But then I’m instinctively a blood-and-soil kind of nationalist.

    To my way of thinking both the French and American Revolutions were anti-nationalist. Both were infected, fatally, by universalist ideas.

    It seems to me that a country under a hereditary absolutist monarchy is more akin to a gigantic feudal manor than to a nation. It is when the people go from being subjects to citizens (a democratic change) that a nation is born.

    There again our perspectives differ. To me a nation is a gigantic feudal manor – a web of mutual duties and responsibilities. I can’t see how democratic nationalism can exist in the long term.

    Maybe it was a case of export or die.

    I think that’s the nature of revolution.

    I can see where you’re coming from and I appreciate your courteous reply. It’s just a matter of totally different perspectives. I see stability and order as being more important than progress and growth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Miro23
    A good analysis. Unfortunately there's a natural tendency for formation of elites who use state power to protect their elite status. Democracy has to guard very carefully against this.

    Also, over time, elites tend to become decadent end exploitative. For example, European aristocracies grew out of out of legitimate military leadership, but morphed into a decadent crowd concerned with the good life, hunting and ballrooms - with the Russian aristocracy prior to the Revolution being a classic example (check out Pushkin's world).

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.

    The US is no different. It has a protected elite that have their own rules, and economic inequality that exceeds the British or Russian aristocracies at their peak. They even use the same phrase as the French Ancien Régime when referring to the great unwashed (Les Déplorables).

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.

    I think you may be making the mistake of seeing the French Revolution as a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses. Most of the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were uprisings of the increasingly powerful and wealthy middle classes who weren’t exploited or oppressed but who saw the chance of looting the aristocracy. The poor old huddled masses usually weren’t consulted and were either exploited by the revolutionaries or were hostile to the revolution.

    It’s usually not the genuinely downtrodden who revolt. It’s usually a rising new elite trying to displace the old elite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    I think you may be making the mistake of seeing the French Revolution as a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses. Most of the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were uprisings of the increasingly powerful and wealthy middle classes who weren’t exploited or oppressed but who saw the chance of looting the aristocracy.
     
    Who was looting who? As background, my view is that aristocracies have to earn their position a national leaders. Early on it was quite straightforward, and usually on the battlefield, for example John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough:

    His leadership of the allied armies consolidated Britain's emergence as a front-rank power. He successfully maintained unity among the allies, thereby demonstrating his diplomatic skills. Throughout ten consecutive campaigns during the Spanish Succession war, Marlborough held together a discordant coalition through his sheer force of personality and raised the standing of British arms to a level not known since the Middle Ages. Although in the end he could not compel total capitulation from his enemies, his victories allowed Britain to rise from a minor to a major power, ensuring the country's growing prosperity throughout the 18th century.

    Wikipedia.
     
    But by the "Belle Epoque" 1871-1914 European aristocracies were a useless decadent elite.

    I would connect the rise in power of the commercial middle classes and industrialists to the Industrial Revolution. They were contributing more and wanted political power, and they got it through their money and democracy (actually allied with the old aristocracy) with the downside of the not so welcome growth of a politically aware working class.

    For me this was the start of a classic problem that still hasn't been resolved. The commercial and industrial elite should be the new aristocracy on grounds of wealth, power and influence, but they are motivated by the desire for private profit and will manipulate the state to enrich themselves. Classic 21st century USA.

    The French revolution set the scene, and was somewhat earlier 1789 - 1799, but it's a fact that all French non-aristocratic classes were exploited and oppressed through excessive taxation - and I would accept the consensus that this triggered the revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Miro23 says:
    @dfordoom

    In this context the French revolution was a reaction against excessive taxation and their exploitative aristocracy.
     
    I think you may be making the mistake of seeing the French Revolution as a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses. Most of the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were uprisings of the increasingly powerful and wealthy middle classes who weren't exploited or oppressed but who saw the chance of looting the aristocracy. The poor old huddled masses usually weren't consulted and were either exploited by the revolutionaries or were hostile to the revolution.

    It's usually not the genuinely downtrodden who revolt. It's usually a rising new elite trying to displace the old elite.

    I think you may be making the mistake of seeing the French Revolution as a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses. Most of the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were uprisings of the increasingly powerful and wealthy middle classes who weren’t exploited or oppressed but who saw the chance of looting the aristocracy.

    Who was looting who? As background, my view is that aristocracies have to earn their position a national leaders. Early on it was quite straightforward, and usually on the battlefield, for example John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough:

    His leadership of the allied armies consolidated Britain’s emergence as a front-rank power. He successfully maintained unity among the allies, thereby demonstrating his diplomatic skills. Throughout ten consecutive campaigns during the Spanish Succession war, Marlborough held together a discordant coalition through his sheer force of personality and raised the standing of British arms to a level not known since the Middle Ages. Although in the end he could not compel total capitulation from his enemies, his victories allowed Britain to rise from a minor to a major power, ensuring the country’s growing prosperity throughout the 18th century.

    Wikipedia.

    But by the “Belle Epoque” 1871-1914 European aristocracies were a useless decadent elite.

    I would connect the rise in power of the commercial middle classes and industrialists to the Industrial Revolution. They were contributing more and wanted political power, and they got it through their money and democracy (actually allied with the old aristocracy) with the downside of the not so welcome growth of a politically aware working class.

    For me this was the start of a classic problem that still hasn’t been resolved. The commercial and industrial elite should be the new aristocracy on grounds of wealth, power and influence, but they are motivated by the desire for private profit and will manipulate the state to enrich themselves. Classic 21st century USA.

    The French revolution set the scene, and was somewhat earlier 1789 – 1799, but it’s a fact that all French non-aristocratic classes were exploited and oppressed through excessive taxation – and I would accept the consensus that this triggered the revolution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Churchill of Marlborough was a snake. A remarkably talented snake, but still a snake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    And what happens when the majority of whites in those nations directly oppose the Alt Right’s jackboots of nationalism for only white people?
     
    And how about the left's jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites and especially whites who don't hate themselves? How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that's a righteous and noble hate and bigotry.

    Do not these whites have the freedom to association to include non-whites as being “their own people” and “one of them”?
     
    If you put your thinking cap on you'd see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites. Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that's what you all wish then more power to you and them if you're really true believers in the cult of "muh diversity".

    I would venture you fortunately lack the guile and gumption to engage in such action. St. Breivik, you are not.
     
    According to what your crystal ball? I'll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people. I don't need to beat my chest and act tough or tell you what my plans are. I'd venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history.

    Indeed, in this context, Patrick is right when he says “as we have ceased to be a moral and religious people”.
     
    Are you auditioning for the late Rev. Billy Graham's job?

    “And how about the left’s jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites…”

    Which is patently false. First, you are absolutely misapplying the concept “fascism” here, which means “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.” The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery. Second, America doesn’t “belong” to any one racial or ethnic group. It consists of citizens, including whites, who have not been excluded in being part of the body politic or social fabric. You have a knack for wild generalizations. Third, whites have every liberty to form their own groups. It is just that not all white people are on board with the groups that YOU want to form or be part of. Which is their freedom of association to oppose.

    “and especially whites who don’t hate themselves?”

    In your world, whites hate themselves only if they do not conform to your belief system. Which, if you truly think about it, is ridiculous. White Americans are not monolithic. They belong to a number of groups, and love their membership in those groups. They need not be virtue signaled to death by your insistence that they only love themselves if they look out for all whites.

    “How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that’s a righteous and noble hate and bigotry.”

    Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture. Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?

    “If you put your thinking cap on you’d see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites.”

    It is a matter of economics here, not race. Upper-class people want to live in nice places, regardless of race or ethnicity. That is their liberty. It is reasonable and sensible for well-off folks to live in well-off places next to people who are also well-off. Again, it’s about finances. Moreover, white people who live in such areas interact with non-whites on a day to day basis, whether it be at work or at play. You either don’t see it, or if you do see it, you don’t want to see it.

    “Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that’s what you all wish then more power to you and them if you’re really true believers in the cult of “muh diversity”.”

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another. That is called being human.

    Now, regarding Detroit, there are a host of reasons for the downfall of that city other than racial matters. Would you like to know more, citizen, and become educated on the matter?

    According to what your crystal ball? I’ll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people.”

    Your people are white Americans, which includes me.

    “I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history.”

    That is all fantasy, my friend. If there is this invasion that already has taken place in the States, and whites are about to become extinct, you choosing not to lift a finger now to do something about it tells me everything I need to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... whites have every liberty to form their own groups. "

    Not really. If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group. Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer's cavalcade of gay Nazi camp.

    "Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture."

    I will assume you're being sincere: Apparently, you don't follow trends. The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization.
    , @KenH

    The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery.... forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
     
    Oh really? You mean the over the top civil rights violations against the "Unite the Right" rallygoers by the Cville government wasn't forcible suppression of political opposition? The post CVille Congressional resolution condemning all whites who don't hate themselves as "klansmen and white supremacists" and imploring the president to use government agencies against them in violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment protections doesn't smack of fascism or authoritarian repression?

    Since Trump got elected antifa, a contradiction if there ever was one, has been destroying property, intimidating conservative speakers and preventing them from speaking through violence and threats of violence. And you agree with this, yes? I'd love to hear your mealy mouthed justification for antifa's violence. Antifa is just doing the job that the government would love to do but can't at this time.

    You're drowning in your own spit, Corvy.

    Second, America doesn’t “belong” to any one racial or ethnic group.
     
    Are you now the curator of American history? Israel doesn't belong to the Jews then either, right (((Corvinus)))? Japan doesn't belong to the Japanese and Saudi Arabia doesn't belong to the Arab Muslims. If America belongs to everyone then so does every other nation.

    Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?
     
    Sure they do. Just like whites have the right to exclude non-whites if they wish, right? You claim to be for freedom of association but offer nothing but double talk when it comes to whites wishing to live only among each other.

    It is a matter of economics here, not race.
     
    Wrong. It's a matter of both. If you don't think race factors in to the real estate decisions of the wealthy then you live in your own fantasy world.

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another.
     
    This rarely happens by choice, but I reached for a tissue after reading this.

    That is all fantasy, my friend.
     
    Perhaps but you're the one who keeps bringing the subject up. And don't forget that Anders Brevik, whom your fascinated with, targeted people like you. The fact that you're exhorting me and others to follow in his footsteps tells me everything I need to know about you, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Talha says:

    How do regular Sunnis see this? A success, a failure or what?

    I cannot arrogate myself to speak on behalf of all Sunnis. I can only speak of the ones I am most familiar with – traditional ones and even more moderate minded ones are not happy with Saudi, that’s being generous. Saudi has not only helped destroy Syria but has caused a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

    That said, I don’t know of a single Sunni in my circle who likes the Assad regime. Many of them, like myself feel his saving grace is that the people who would replace him after the civil war are even worse.

    My personal go to person on these matters is Shaykh Muhammad Yaqoubi who is a traditional scholar (and Sufi shaykh) in exile in Moroccco. He is very out-spoken about the damage done by Saudis to the Muslim world, yet is also against the Assad regime. He spoke out against the regime early on and had to leave the country, however – as early as 2015 he was stating publicly; ” continuing the fight is no longer in the interest of Syrians.”

    Thus, the way I see it (based on his opinion and the various comments I see from Sunni Muslims); the fighting needs should stop as soon as it can and a political solution needs to be arrived at with the major players at the table; including people who have a serious stake in the matter like Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Thus, the way I see it (based on his opinion and the various comments I see from Sunni Muslims); the fighting needs should stop as soon as it can and a political solution needs to be arrived at with the major players at the table; including people who have a serious stake in the matter like Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.
     
    Thanks for your informed opinion. These things are not so clear looking from the outside, and Western reporting seems to be mostly useless.

    So the problem are the Israelis/US/Saudis who are pushing wars more than the Sunnis or Shias themselves.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    What does Shaykh Muhammad Yaqoubi have against Assad?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Miro23 says:
    @Talha

    How do regular Sunnis see this? A success, a failure or what?
     
    I cannot arrogate myself to speak on behalf of all Sunnis. I can only speak of the ones I am most familiar with - traditional ones and even more moderate minded ones are not happy with Saudi, that's being generous. Saudi has not only helped destroy Syria but has caused a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

    That said, I don't know of a single Sunni in my circle who likes the Assad regime. Many of them, like myself feel his saving grace is that the people who would replace him after the civil war are even worse.

    My personal go to person on these matters is Shaykh Muhammad Yaqoubi who is a traditional scholar (and Sufi shaykh) in exile in Moroccco. He is very out-spoken about the damage done by Saudis to the Muslim world, yet is also against the Assad regime. He spoke out against the regime early on and had to leave the country, however - as early as 2015 he was stating publicly; " continuing the fight is no longer in the interest of Syrians."

    Thus, the way I see it (based on his opinion and the various comments I see from Sunni Muslims); the fighting needs should stop as soon as it can and a political solution needs to be arrived at with the major players at the table; including people who have a serious stake in the matter like Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.

    Peace.

    Thus, the way I see it (based on his opinion and the various comments I see from Sunni Muslims); the fighting needs should stop as soon as it can and a political solution needs to be arrived at with the major players at the table; including people who have a serious stake in the matter like Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.

    Thanks for your informed opinion. These things are not so clear looking from the outside, and Western reporting seems to be mostly useless.

    So the problem are the Israelis/US/Saudis who are pushing wars more than the Sunnis or Shias themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    So the problem are the Israelis/US/Saudis who are pushing wars more than the Sunnis or Shias themselves.
     
    I would certainly say so. The average Sunni and Shiah get along OK - we're not super chummy; they have their mosques and we have ours and we usually don't pray behind each other - this is unlike say the various Sunni schools that may have slight variations in prayer, but make it a point to pray behind each other. It's really only the takfiris that want to kill Shiah (as well as plenty of Sunnis they consider deviant). I had friends in UCLA who were Shiah, still do even though I consider myself as Orthodox Sunni as they come and believe Shiah positions are heterodox (and they reciprocate).

    This whole thing was really kicked off with the invasion of Iraq and the forces it unleashed. In times of desperation, war, crisis etc. some of the worst elements of society come out and this is simply part of human nature.

    Take for instance the break up of Yugoslavia. Let's put the Muslims aside for a bit. In that conflict, once civil order broke down; Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats committed war crimes against each other's populations. Things were going fine for a good long while, but this brought divisions, that most people really hadn't cared about, to a crescendo.

    Another good example before this whole mess is the Armenia-Azerbaijan war in the 90's. Azerbaijan is almost 90% Shiah, but plenty of Sunni volunteers went to fight on their side.

    There is little doubt in my head that much of this would simply not have occurred without the external interference. That doesn't mean that, naively, everything was fine and dandy - rather external forces were the catalyst for the mess we see today.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    I think you may be making the mistake of seeing the French Revolution as a spontaneous uprising of the oppressed masses. Most of the revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries were uprisings of the increasingly powerful and wealthy middle classes who weren’t exploited or oppressed but who saw the chance of looting the aristocracy.
     
    Who was looting who? As background, my view is that aristocracies have to earn their position a national leaders. Early on it was quite straightforward, and usually on the battlefield, for example John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough:

    His leadership of the allied armies consolidated Britain's emergence as a front-rank power. He successfully maintained unity among the allies, thereby demonstrating his diplomatic skills. Throughout ten consecutive campaigns during the Spanish Succession war, Marlborough held together a discordant coalition through his sheer force of personality and raised the standing of British arms to a level not known since the Middle Ages. Although in the end he could not compel total capitulation from his enemies, his victories allowed Britain to rise from a minor to a major power, ensuring the country's growing prosperity throughout the 18th century.

    Wikipedia.
     
    But by the "Belle Epoque" 1871-1914 European aristocracies were a useless decadent elite.

    I would connect the rise in power of the commercial middle classes and industrialists to the Industrial Revolution. They were contributing more and wanted political power, and they got it through their money and democracy (actually allied with the old aristocracy) with the downside of the not so welcome growth of a politically aware working class.

    For me this was the start of a classic problem that still hasn't been resolved. The commercial and industrial elite should be the new aristocracy on grounds of wealth, power and influence, but they are motivated by the desire for private profit and will manipulate the state to enrich themselves. Classic 21st century USA.

    The French revolution set the scene, and was somewhat earlier 1789 - 1799, but it's a fact that all French non-aristocratic classes were exploited and oppressed through excessive taxation - and I would accept the consensus that this triggered the revolution.

    Churchill of Marlborough was a snake. A remarkably talented snake, but still a snake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Churchill of Marlborough was a snake. A remarkably talented snake, but still a snake.
     
    Agreed. Treachery seemed to run in the Churchill family.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Rurik

    holocaust’ scam
     
    everyone who denies the Holy Holocaust - when the most evil people that ever lived tried to murder God Himself (the Jewish people) are as bad as the Nazis in Hungary who demand to remain Nazis, who refuse to do what they must - blend their Nazi genes away in a sea of homogenizing humanity.

    We are all humans, but some humans, (Nazis like the Hungarians) want to preserve their unique Nazi ethnic identity. This is where George Soros comes in, and flings open the gates to the Nazi kingdom, to a purifying wave of African migrants and gypsies and Muslims and everyone else they can get, who in time, will blend away the vile identity of Hungary's (and Germany's and Norway's and France's) Nazis, and save God's people from the next time Hitler wants to make soap and lampshades.

    ” … to a purifying wave of African migrants … ”

    should be

    ” … to a putrefying wave of African migrants … ”

    that’s more accurate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Talha says:
    @Miro23

    Thus, the way I see it (based on his opinion and the various comments I see from Sunni Muslims); the fighting needs should stop as soon as it can and a political solution needs to be arrived at with the major players at the table; including people who have a serious stake in the matter like Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.
     
    Thanks for your informed opinion. These things are not so clear looking from the outside, and Western reporting seems to be mostly useless.

    So the problem are the Israelis/US/Saudis who are pushing wars more than the Sunnis or Shias themselves.

    So the problem are the Israelis/US/Saudis who are pushing wars more than the Sunnis or Shias themselves.

    I would certainly say so. The average Sunni and Shiah get along OK – we’re not super chummy; they have their mosques and we have ours and we usually don’t pray behind each other – this is unlike say the various Sunni schools that may have slight variations in prayer, but make it a point to pray behind each other. It’s really only the takfiris that want to kill Shiah (as well as plenty of Sunnis they consider deviant). I had friends in UCLA who were Shiah, still do even though I consider myself as Orthodox Sunni as they come and believe Shiah positions are heterodox (and they reciprocate).

    This whole thing was really kicked off with the invasion of Iraq and the forces it unleashed. In times of desperation, war, crisis etc. some of the worst elements of society come out and this is simply part of human nature.

    Take for instance the break up of Yugoslavia. Let’s put the Muslims aside for a bit. In that conflict, once civil order broke down; Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats committed war crimes against each other’s populations. Things were going fine for a good long while, but this brought divisions, that most people really hadn’t cared about, to a crescendo.

    Another good example before this whole mess is the Armenia-Azerbaijan war in the 90′s. Azerbaijan is almost 90% Shiah, but plenty of Sunni volunteers went to fight on their side.

    There is little doubt in my head that much of this would simply not have occurred without the external interference. That doesn’t mean that, naively, everything was fine and dandy – rather external forces were the catalyst for the mess we see today.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Corvinus
    "And how about the left’s jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites..."

    Which is patently false. First, you are absolutely misapplying the concept "fascism" here, which means "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce." The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery. Second, America doesn't "belong" to any one racial or ethnic group. It consists of citizens, including whites, who have not been excluded in being part of the body politic or social fabric. You have a knack for wild generalizations. Third, whites have every liberty to form their own groups. It is just that not all white people are on board with the groups that YOU want to form or be part of. Which is their freedom of association to oppose.

    "and especially whites who don’t hate themselves?"

    In your world, whites hate themselves only if they do not conform to your belief system. Which, if you truly think about it, is ridiculous. White Americans are not monolithic. They belong to a number of groups, and love their membership in those groups. They need not be virtue signaled to death by your insistence that they only love themselves if they look out for all whites.

    "How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that’s a righteous and noble hate and bigotry."

    Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture. Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?

    "If you put your thinking cap on you’d see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites."

    It is a matter of economics here, not race. Upper-class people want to live in nice places, regardless of race or ethnicity. That is their liberty. It is reasonable and sensible for well-off folks to live in well-off places next to people who are also well-off. Again, it's about finances. Moreover, white people who live in such areas interact with non-whites on a day to day basis, whether it be at work or at play. You either don't see it, or if you do see it, you don't want to see it.

    "Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that’s what you all wish then more power to you and them if you’re really true believers in the cult of “muh diversity”."

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another. That is called being human.

    Now, regarding Detroit, there are a host of reasons for the downfall of that city other than racial matters. Would you like to know more, citizen, and become educated on the matter?

    According to what your crystal ball? I’ll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people."

    Your people are white Americans, which includes me.

    "I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history."

    That is all fantasy, my friend. If there is this invasion that already has taken place in the States, and whites are about to become extinct, you choosing not to lift a finger now to do something about it tells me everything I need to know.

    ” … whites have every liberty to form their own groups. ”

    Not really. If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group. Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer’s cavalcade of gay Nazi camp.

    “Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture.”

    I will assume you’re being sincere: Apparently, you don’t follow trends. The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint
     
    if you're a Brit or Swede who thinks England or Sweden have a right to maintain their ethnic and/or cultural character, then from every orifice of the hive comes the screeching of 'Nazis! and 'white supremacists!!!!'

    "RACISTS!!!'

    if you're a white American who thinks Affirmative Action is wrong and racist and unfair, well then brace yourself for the orgy of hatred and screeching, 'white supremacists!!!'

    and it goes beyond race now even to include 'hateful constructs of the patriarchy'; like gender.

    that it's all prima facie insane, doesn't get in the way of they're screeching and hysterics.

    And even here on the Unz Review, there are people who would say that any desire of white Americans to maintain any shred of their (white = racist) culture or heritage, are nothing more than vile "white supremacists", who must be hounded and harangued for the crime of not hating their own kind (with the kind of visceral, rancorous race-hatred that they hate white people with ; )

    We live in a surreal idiocracy, where the most preposterous idiocies are given credence as if they were anything but the gibbering's of a drooling lunatic.

    All you have to do is realize they want what you have. White people have created amazing civilizations in Europe and N. America and elsewhere, and it's only natural that everyone else would want such things for themselves. Duh.

    But where it gets beyond ludicrous/obnoxious is when they demand white people have no right to even exist. Which is their mantra today, because they aren't laughed out of the room, as they obviously should be.
    , @Corvinus
    "If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group."

    Yet, despite SJW machinations, those whites have the freedom to form their own in-group. It doesn't mean they are free from outside pressure. Besides, any group is "stigmatized" by their ideological opponents, so that argument goes out the door.

    "Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer’s cavalcade of gay Nazi camp."

    Spencer's group is indeed serious. See, you just stigmatized his merry band, yet they still remain steadfast in their desire to gain footing in their community.

    “Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture.”

    "I will assume you’re being sincere: Apparently, you don’t follow trends."

    The trend is that the Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left, write a narrative that normies find over-the-top.

    "The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization."

    A societal mantra as dictated by radical white liberals, not whites in general. In similar fashion, the Alt Right demands that whites accept "race realism", lest they be labeled "race traitors" and summarily labeled as "enemies".

    Works both ways here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Rurik says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... whites have every liberty to form their own groups. "

    Not really. If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group. Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer's cavalcade of gay Nazi camp.

    "Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture."

    I will assume you're being sincere: Apparently, you don't follow trends. The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization.

    The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint

    if you’re a Brit or Swede who thinks England or Sweden have a right to maintain their ethnic and/or cultural character, then from every orifice of the hive comes the screeching of ‘Nazis! and ‘white supremacists!!!!’

    “RACISTS!!!’

    if you’re a white American who thinks Affirmative Action is wrong and racist and unfair, well then brace yourself for the orgy of hatred and screeching, ‘white supremacists!!!’

    and it goes beyond race now even to include ‘hateful constructs of the patriarchy’; like gender.

    that it’s all prima facie insane, doesn’t get in the way of they’re screeching and hysterics.

    And even here on the Unz Review, there are people who would say that any desire of white Americans to maintain any shred of their (white = racist) culture or heritage, are nothing more than vile “white supremacists”, who must be hounded and harangued for the crime of not hating their own kind (with the kind of visceral, rancorous race-hatred that they hate white people with ; )

    We live in a surreal idiocracy, where the most preposterous idiocies are given credence as if they were anything but the gibbering’s of a drooling lunatic.

    All you have to do is realize they want what you have. White people have created amazing civilizations in Europe and N. America and elsewhere, and it’s only natural that everyone else would want such things for themselves. Duh.

    But where it gets beyond ludicrous/obnoxious is when they demand white people have no right to even exist. Which is their mantra today, because they aren’t laughed out of the room, as they obviously should be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Corvinus says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... whites have every liberty to form their own groups. "

    Not really. If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group. Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer's cavalcade of gay Nazi camp.

    "Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture."

    I will assume you're being sincere: Apparently, you don't follow trends. The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization.

    “If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group.”

    Yet, despite SJW machinations, those whites have the freedom to form their own in-group. It doesn’t mean they are free from outside pressure. Besides, any group is “stigmatized” by their ideological opponents, so that argument goes out the door.

    “Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer’s cavalcade of gay Nazi camp.”

    Spencer’s group is indeed serious. See, you just stigmatized his merry band, yet they still remain steadfast in their desire to gain footing in their community.

    “Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture.”

    “I will assume you’re being sincere: Apparently, you don’t follow trends.”

    The trend is that the Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left, write a narrative that normies find over-the-top.

    “The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization.”

    A societal mantra as dictated by radical white liberals, not whites in general. In similar fashion, the Alt Right demands that whites accept “race realism”, lest they be labeled “race traitors” and summarily labeled as “enemies”.

    Works both ways here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "Works both ways here."

    No it doesn't. White liberals are the establishment, that is, white liberals who are neoliberal economically and neoconservative in terms of foreign policy. Establishment white liberals also view race relations through 60s era lenses, just like you. The soft bigotry of low expectations. The Alt Right has no political power to demand anything.

    Richard Spencer and his neo Nazis deserve to be stigmatized. They might as well be controlled opposition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon
    Churchill of Marlborough was a snake. A remarkably talented snake, but still a snake.

    Churchill of Marlborough was a snake. A remarkably talented snake, but still a snake.

    Agreed. Treachery seemed to run in the Churchill family.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. KenH says:
    @Corvinus
    "And how about the left’s jackbooted fascism that holds that America belongs to every racial group except whites..."

    Which is patently false. First, you are absolutely misapplying the concept "fascism" here, which means "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce." The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery. Second, America doesn't "belong" to any one racial or ethnic group. It consists of citizens, including whites, who have not been excluded in being part of the body politic or social fabric. You have a knack for wild generalizations. Third, whites have every liberty to form their own groups. It is just that not all white people are on board with the groups that YOU want to form or be part of. Which is their freedom of association to oppose.

    "and especially whites who don’t hate themselves?"

    In your world, whites hate themselves only if they do not conform to your belief system. Which, if you truly think about it, is ridiculous. White Americans are not monolithic. They belong to a number of groups, and love their membership in those groups. They need not be virtue signaled to death by your insistence that they only love themselves if they look out for all whites.

    "How come you never speak out against that bigotry? Hint: because to you and other lefties that’s a righteous and noble hate and bigotry."

    Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture. Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?

    "If you put your thinking cap on you’d see that most of the diversity worshipping white and (((white))) leftists you look to for guidance live in whitetopias and rarely choose to associate with non-whites."

    It is a matter of economics here, not race. Upper-class people want to live in nice places, regardless of race or ethnicity. That is their liberty. It is reasonable and sensible for well-off folks to live in well-off places next to people who are also well-off. Again, it's about finances. Moreover, white people who live in such areas interact with non-whites on a day to day basis, whether it be at work or at play. You either don't see it, or if you do see it, you don't want to see it.

    "Somehow I doubt most of these people will freely choose to live in the equivalent of Detroit or San Paulo, Brazil, but if that’s what you all wish then more power to you and them if you’re really true believers in the cult of “muh diversity”."

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another. That is called being human.

    Now, regarding Detroit, there are a host of reasons for the downfall of that city other than racial matters. Would you like to know more, citizen, and become educated on the matter?

    According to what your crystal ball? I’ll do what is necessary to protect me, my friends and family and my people."

    Your people are white Americans, which includes me.

    "I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history."

    That is all fantasy, my friend. If there is this invasion that already has taken place in the States, and whites are about to become extinct, you choosing not to lift a finger now to do something about it tells me everything I need to know.

    The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery…. forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.

    Oh really? You mean the over the top civil rights violations against the “Unite the Right” rallygoers by the Cville government wasn’t forcible suppression of political opposition? The post CVille Congressional resolution condemning all whites who don’t hate themselves as “klansmen and white supremacists” and imploring the president to use government agencies against them in violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment protections doesn’t smack of fascism or authoritarian repression?

    Since Trump got elected antifa, a contradiction if there ever was one, has been destroying property, intimidating conservative speakers and preventing them from speaking through violence and threats of violence. And you agree with this, yes? I’d love to hear your mealy mouthed justification for antifa’s violence. Antifa is just doing the job that the government would love to do but can’t at this time.

    You’re drowning in your own spit, Corvy.

    Second, America doesn’t “belong” to any one racial or ethnic group.

    Are you now the curator of American history? Israel doesn’t belong to the Jews then either, right (((Corvinus)))? Japan doesn’t belong to the Japanese and Saudi Arabia doesn’t belong to the Arab Muslims. If America belongs to everyone then so does every other nation.

    Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?

    Sure they do. Just like whites have the right to exclude non-whites if they wish, right? You claim to be for freedom of association but offer nothing but double talk when it comes to whites wishing to live only among each other.

    It is a matter of economics here, not race.

    Wrong. It’s a matter of both. If you don’t think race factors in to the real estate decisions of the wealthy then you live in your own fantasy world.

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another.

    This rarely happens by choice, but I reached for a tissue after reading this.

    That is all fantasy, my friend.

    Perhaps but you’re the one who keeps bringing the subject up. And don’t forget that Anders Brevik, whom your fascinated with, targeted people like you. The fact that you’re exhorting me and others to follow in his footsteps tells me everything I need to know about you, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Oh really? You mean the over the top civil rights violations against the “Unite the Right” rallygoers by the Cville government wasn’t forcible suppression of political opposition?"

    Freedom of assembly does not mean complete and unadulterated freedom of assembly. There are restrictions, as outlined by city government with Supreme Court protection on such restrictions. Clearly, the Coalition of the Right and Left Fringe groups posed a potential risk to public safety, considering some protestors wore battle gear and carried items that could be used as weapons. The march took place as scheduled.

    "The post CVille Congressional resolution condemning all whites who don’t hate themselves as “klansmen and white supremacists”..."

    Whites do not hate themselves if they are opposed to what they believe to be unjust and immoral. That is a mischaracterization on your part. Furthermore, the resolution rejected "rejecting White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups", NOT whites. You are clearly lying here.

    "and imploring the president to use government agencies against them in violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment protections doesn’t smack of fascism or authoritarian repression?"

    Fascism does not mean the executive branch implementing the rule of law.

    "Since Trump got elected antifa, a contradiction if there ever was one, has been destroying property, intimidating conservative speakers and preventing them from speaking through violence and threats of violence. And you agree with this, yes?"

    No, I vehemently oppose such actions. There is no justification. Lock them up.

    "Antifa is just doing the job that the government would love to do but can’t at this time."

    That would another false statement on your part.

    "Are you now the curator of American history? Israel doesn’t belong to the Jews then either, right (((Corvinus)))?"

    Israel belongs to the Jews and Palestinians.

    "Japan doesn’t belong to the Japanese..."

    Japan belongs to the citizens who dictate who is Japanese.

    "Saudi Arabia doesn’t belong to the Arab Muslims."

    Saudi Arabia belongs to the citizens, who just happen to be Arab Muslims.

    "If America belongs to everyone then so does every other nation."

    America belongs to its citizens, who are from different racial and ethnic groups. Pay closer attention.

    "Sure they do. Just like whites have the right to exclude non-whites if they wish, right? You claim to be for freedom of association but offer nothing but double talk when it comes to whites wishing to live only among each other."

    Whites are living only among each other! There are a number of white communities.

    "Wrong. It’s a matter of both. If you don’t think race factors in to the real estate decisions of the wealthy then you live in your own fantasy world."

    Green talks.

    "This rarely happens by choice, but I reached for a tissue after reading this."

    Actually, the interaction between the races happens by choice, a willingness on their part to work and play together.

    "And don’t forget that Anders Brevik, whom your fascinated with, targeted people like you."

    He targeted teens at a youth camp.

    "The fact that you’re exhorting me and others to follow in his footsteps tells me everything I need to know about you, too."

    You were the one who said "I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history." So following in Brevik's footsteps seems the likely next move for you and your ilk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Corvinus
    "If a group of whites publicly professed in-group preference and wanted to coalesce around identitarian issues, white sjw Stalinists would move quickly, primarily on social media, to stigmatize such a group."

    Yet, despite SJW machinations, those whites have the freedom to form their own in-group. It doesn't mean they are free from outside pressure. Besides, any group is "stigmatized" by their ideological opponents, so that argument goes out the door.

    "Especially if said group was more serious than Richard Spencer’s cavalcade of gay Nazi camp."

    Spencer's group is indeed serious. See, you just stigmatized his merry band, yet they still remain steadfast in their desire to gain footing in their community.

    “Because it is not bigotry for white people to make their own decisions about race and culture.”

    "I will assume you’re being sincere: Apparently, you don’t follow trends."

    The trend is that the Coalition of the Fringes, Right and Left, write a narrative that normies find over-the-top.

    "The societal mantra, especially for whites, is to accept enforced diversity without complaint or be doxxed, which will be followed by economic marginalization."

    A societal mantra as dictated by radical white liberals, not whites in general. In similar fashion, the Alt Right demands that whites accept "race realism", lest they be labeled "race traitors" and summarily labeled as "enemies".

    Works both ways here.

    “Works both ways here.”

    No it doesn’t. White liberals are the establishment, that is, white liberals who are neoliberal economically and neoconservative in terms of foreign policy. Establishment white liberals also view race relations through 60s era lenses, just like you. The soft bigotry of low expectations. The Alt Right has no political power to demand anything.

    Richard Spencer and his neo Nazis deserve to be stigmatized. They might as well be controlled opposition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "White liberals are the establishment, that is, white liberals who are neoliberal economically and neoconservative in terms of foreign policy."

    Actually, white liberals and conservatives are the establishment, with either group having members adhering to neoconservative foreign policy measures.

    "Establishment white liberals also view race relations through 60s era lenses, just like you."

    Actually, white people, whether it be liberal or conservative, view race relations through today's lens

    "The Alt Right has no political power to demand anything."

    It's not about political power, it's about articulating a narrative.

    "Richard Spencer and his neo Nazis deserve to be stigmatized. They might as well be controlled opposition."

    That must be your inner Vox Day talking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Talha

    How do regular Sunnis see this? A success, a failure or what?
     
    I cannot arrogate myself to speak on behalf of all Sunnis. I can only speak of the ones I am most familiar with - traditional ones and even more moderate minded ones are not happy with Saudi, that's being generous. Saudi has not only helped destroy Syria but has caused a humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

    That said, I don't know of a single Sunni in my circle who likes the Assad regime. Many of them, like myself feel his saving grace is that the people who would replace him after the civil war are even worse.

    My personal go to person on these matters is Shaykh Muhammad Yaqoubi who is a traditional scholar (and Sufi shaykh) in exile in Moroccco. He is very out-spoken about the damage done by Saudis to the Muslim world, yet is also against the Assad regime. He spoke out against the regime early on and had to leave the country, however - as early as 2015 he was stating publicly; " continuing the fight is no longer in the interest of Syrians."

    Thus, the way I see it (based on his opinion and the various comments I see from Sunni Muslims); the fighting needs should stop as soon as it can and a political solution needs to be arrived at with the major players at the table; including people who have a serious stake in the matter like Iran, Iraq, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, etc.

    Peace.

    What does Shaykh Muhammad Yaqoubi have against Assad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    Much the same that we have against much of the Muslim world's leaders.

    He is the inheritor of family dynasty established by a military coup - in charge of an autocratic and invasive state apparatus that imprisons and tortures its dissidents. Much of this is covered in Mr. Margolis' recent article.

    As he says, this fairly common for that part of the world, but it doesn't mean it doesn't chafe the people living under them. On top of that much of the ruling elite are either; 1) Alawi or 2) secularized Arab nationalist Sunnis aka Baath Party. A lot of the conflict is between the lifestyles of the rural areas versus the urban upper class. And this is without outside influence that pushed it in a very militant and extremist direction. In one of the videos in early 2013, when Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi was still in favor of local armed resistance, he mentioned that there were plenty of armed Sufi units operating in places like Homs and other cities. Then of course the Gulf money started coming in and more involved US influence and magically Daesh appears on the scene in 2014.

    Saddam Hussein would be a very good analogy - a secularized nationalist Sunni (Baath Party) minority lording it over a majority Shiah (and more religious) majority.

    Many Sunni scholars simply stayed quiet about the political situation; neither supporting nor rejecting the armed resistance and some scholars (fewer in number supported the regime).

    A lot of gray areas here. I can tell you, of the Syrians I know (none of them are Salafi-Wahhabi types) nobody likes the regime. They may not be in favor of continuing the civil war since it has devastated their country and their relatives in the old country, but if there was a vote tomorrow, they would kick out Assad in a heartbeat. Obviously, that is not representative of all Syrians.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    The United States is not a fascist government, contrary to your tinfoil hattery.... forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.
     
    Oh really? You mean the over the top civil rights violations against the "Unite the Right" rallygoers by the Cville government wasn't forcible suppression of political opposition? The post CVille Congressional resolution condemning all whites who don't hate themselves as "klansmen and white supremacists" and imploring the president to use government agencies against them in violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment protections doesn't smack of fascism or authoritarian repression?

    Since Trump got elected antifa, a contradiction if there ever was one, has been destroying property, intimidating conservative speakers and preventing them from speaking through violence and threats of violence. And you agree with this, yes? I'd love to hear your mealy mouthed justification for antifa's violence. Antifa is just doing the job that the government would love to do but can't at this time.

    You're drowning in your own spit, Corvy.

    Second, America doesn’t “belong” to any one racial or ethnic group.
     
    Are you now the curator of American history? Israel doesn't belong to the Jews then either, right (((Corvinus)))? Japan doesn't belong to the Japanese and Saudi Arabia doesn't belong to the Arab Muslims. If America belongs to everyone then so does every other nation.

    Again, do whites have the freedom of association to choose to include non-whites in their groups, and to marry and procreate with those groups? Why or why not?
     
    Sure they do. Just like whites have the right to exclude non-whites if they wish, right? You claim to be for freedom of association but offer nothing but double talk when it comes to whites wishing to live only among each other.

    It is a matter of economics here, not race.
     
    Wrong. It's a matter of both. If you don't think race factors in to the real estate decisions of the wealthy then you live in your own fantasy world.

    There is no cult here of diversity, just people from different races and ethnicities who choose to interact with one another.
     
    This rarely happens by choice, but I reached for a tissue after reading this.

    That is all fantasy, my friend.
     
    Perhaps but you're the one who keeps bringing the subject up. And don't forget that Anders Brevik, whom your fascinated with, targeted people like you. The fact that you're exhorting me and others to follow in his footsteps tells me everything I need to know about you, too.

    “Oh really? You mean the over the top civil rights violations against the “Unite the Right” rallygoers by the Cville government wasn’t forcible suppression of political opposition?”

    Freedom of assembly does not mean complete and unadulterated freedom of assembly. There are restrictions, as outlined by city government with Supreme Court protection on such restrictions. Clearly, the Coalition of the Right and Left Fringe groups posed a potential risk to public safety, considering some protestors wore battle gear and carried items that could be used as weapons. The march took place as scheduled.

    “The post CVille Congressional resolution condemning all whites who don’t hate themselves as “klansmen and white supremacists”…”

    Whites do not hate themselves if they are opposed to what they believe to be unjust and immoral. That is a mischaracterization on your part. Furthermore, the resolution rejected “rejecting White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups”, NOT whites. You are clearly lying here.

    “and imploring the president to use government agencies against them in violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment protections doesn’t smack of fascism or authoritarian repression?”

    Fascism does not mean the executive branch implementing the rule of law.

    “Since Trump got elected antifa, a contradiction if there ever was one, has been destroying property, intimidating conservative speakers and preventing them from speaking through violence and threats of violence. And you agree with this, yes?”

    No, I vehemently oppose such actions. There is no justification. Lock them up.

    “Antifa is just doing the job that the government would love to do but can’t at this time.”

    That would another false statement on your part.

    “Are you now the curator of American history? Israel doesn’t belong to the Jews then either, right (((Corvinus)))?”

    Israel belongs to the Jews and Palestinians.

    “Japan doesn’t belong to the Japanese…”

    Japan belongs to the citizens who dictate who is Japanese.

    “Saudi Arabia doesn’t belong to the Arab Muslims.”

    Saudi Arabia belongs to the citizens, who just happen to be Arab Muslims.

    “If America belongs to everyone then so does every other nation.”

    America belongs to its citizens, who are from different racial and ethnic groups. Pay closer attention.

    “Sure they do. Just like whites have the right to exclude non-whites if they wish, right? You claim to be for freedom of association but offer nothing but double talk when it comes to whites wishing to live only among each other.”

    Whites are living only among each other! There are a number of white communities.

    “Wrong. It’s a matter of both. If you don’t think race factors in to the real estate decisions of the wealthy then you live in your own fantasy world.”

    Green talks.

    “This rarely happens by choice, but I reached for a tissue after reading this.”

    Actually, the interaction between the races happens by choice, a willingness on their part to work and play together.

    “And don’t forget that Anders Brevik, whom your fascinated with, targeted people like you.”

    He targeted teens at a youth camp.

    “The fact that you’re exhorting me and others to follow in his footsteps tells me everything I need to know about you, too.”

    You were the one who said “I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history.” So following in Brevik’s footsteps seems the likely next move for you and your ilk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    The march took place as scheduled.
     
    Only after the city of CVille was taken to federal court and forced to issue a permit which they previously tried to revoke. Then the day of the rally they didn't provide safe passage to the the UtR protestors to and from the rally location and allowed violent antifa counterprotestors to attack them which forced the UtR rallygoers to use force to defend themselves. This allowed the police the declare the rally "unlawful" which appears to have been the plan.

    Probably the most egregious case of first amendment violations I can recall but since the victims were politically incorrect whites they don't have civil rights (only in theory) and nobody cares. So much for claims of white privilege.

    You were the one who said “I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes.......
     
    Because that'a very real possibility especially when cities, states and then the entire nation collapses with nothing to replace it. Vacuums get filled and sometimes not by something pretty. Again, if you think the status quo will last forever and ever you're in fantasy land. Things can and do change rapidly. Just look at the Soviet Union who everyone thought would endure for much longer than it did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Corvinus says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    "Works both ways here."

    No it doesn't. White liberals are the establishment, that is, white liberals who are neoliberal economically and neoconservative in terms of foreign policy. Establishment white liberals also view race relations through 60s era lenses, just like you. The soft bigotry of low expectations. The Alt Right has no political power to demand anything.

    Richard Spencer and his neo Nazis deserve to be stigmatized. They might as well be controlled opposition.

    “White liberals are the establishment, that is, white liberals who are neoliberal economically and neoconservative in terms of foreign policy.”

    Actually, white liberals and conservatives are the establishment, with either group having members adhering to neoconservative foreign policy measures.

    “Establishment white liberals also view race relations through 60s era lenses, just like you.”

    Actually, white people, whether it be liberal or conservative, view race relations through today’s lens

    “The Alt Right has no political power to demand anything.”

    It’s not about political power, it’s about articulating a narrative.

    “Richard Spencer and his neo Nazis deserve to be stigmatized. They might as well be controlled opposition.”

    That must be your inner Vox Day talking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I have called you out as a B+ troll, aping Tom Parsons of Orwell's "1984."

    Lately, though, I'm not so sure. It's hard to imagine anyone at this point still finding amusement in the snip-and-snipe.

    I know you're busy (even if there are more than one), but I would appreciate your sharing what you consider a substantial concession you've made to another commenter on this website.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "White liberals are the establishment, that is, white liberals who are neoliberal economically and neoconservative in terms of foreign policy."

    Actually, white liberals and conservatives are the establishment, with either group having members adhering to neoconservative foreign policy measures.

    "Establishment white liberals also view race relations through 60s era lenses, just like you."

    Actually, white people, whether it be liberal or conservative, view race relations through today's lens

    "The Alt Right has no political power to demand anything."

    It's not about political power, it's about articulating a narrative.

    "Richard Spencer and his neo Nazis deserve to be stigmatized. They might as well be controlled opposition."

    That must be your inner Vox Day talking.

    I have called you out as a B+ troll, aping Tom Parsons of Orwell’s “1984.”

    Lately, though, I’m not so sure. It’s hard to imagine anyone at this point still finding amusement in the snip-and-snipe.

    I know you’re busy (even if there are more than one), but I would appreciate your sharing what you consider a substantial concession you’ve made to another commenter on this website.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Talha says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    What does Shaykh Muhammad Yaqoubi have against Assad?

    Hey S2C,

    Much the same that we have against much of the Muslim world’s leaders.

    He is the inheritor of family dynasty established by a military coup – in charge of an autocratic and invasive state apparatus that imprisons and tortures its dissidents. Much of this is covered in Mr. Margolis’ recent article.

    As he says, this fairly common for that part of the world, but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t chafe the people living under them. On top of that much of the ruling elite are either; 1) Alawi or 2) secularized Arab nationalist Sunnis aka Baath Party. A lot of the conflict is between the lifestyles of the rural areas versus the urban upper class. And this is without outside influence that pushed it in a very militant and extremist direction. In one of the videos in early 2013, when Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi was still in favor of local armed resistance, he mentioned that there were plenty of armed Sufi units operating in places like Homs and other cities. Then of course the Gulf money started coming in and more involved US influence and magically Daesh appears on the scene in 2014.

    Saddam Hussein would be a very good analogy – a secularized nationalist Sunni (Baath Party) minority lording it over a majority Shiah (and more religious) majority.

    Many Sunni scholars simply stayed quiet about the political situation; neither supporting nor rejecting the armed resistance and some scholars (fewer in number supported the regime).

    A lot of gray areas here. I can tell you, of the Syrians I know (none of them are Salafi-Wahhabi types) nobody likes the regime. They may not be in favor of continuing the civil war since it has devastated their country and their relatives in the old country, but if there was a vote tomorrow, they would kick out Assad in a heartbeat. Obviously, that is not representative of all Syrians.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    He is the inheritor of family dynasty established by a military coup – in charge of an autocratic and invasive state apparatus that imprisons and tortures its dissidents. Much of this is covered in Mr. Margolis’ recent article.
     
    I'll need to read Margolis's latest, but do you honestly think a Sunni strongman/religious fanatic would be any better than Assad? One cannot rule a middle Eastern Muslim nation like a metrosexual and not expect to be overthrown. A certain degree of ruthlessness is required to maintain a semblance of order especially one with so many antagonistic groups (Shia-Alawi, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, Druze, etc.).

    The Sunni majority has some legitimate grievances against Assad but the Assad dynasty hasn't been all bad either. The public sanitation and health reforms enacted under Hafez Al Assad helped the population grow from three million to twenty three million and Sunnis enjoyed sizable increases, so it's not like Assad is trying to kill off or diminish the Sunnis as Jewish occupied Western governments are attempting to do to their white majorities via mass immigration, promoting interracial relationships, feminism and other "culture of death" methods.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Rurik says:

    Hey Talha,

    A lot of gray areas here. I can tell you, …
    … but if there was a vote tomorrow, they would kick out Assad in a heartbeat. Obviously, that is not representative of all Syrians.

    Isn’t it true that if there were an honest vote held there tomorrow, that Assad would win in a landslide? Kurds, Salafi-Wahhabi and your fellow moderate Sunnis notwithstanding?

    That at least is my (admittedly very limited) perception.

    I have a metric, and I’ve mentioned it to you before, for judging the respective merits (or lack there of) of a government or even personality in that part of the world. (actually it goes for the entire planet)

    ~ To know when a government is rotten and corrupt to the core, murderous and committed to the destruction of the peoples of your nation or country, all you have to do is figure out if it’s an ally of the Fiend.

    And the exact degree to which it’s an ally of the Fiend, is the exact degree to which it is rotten and sinister and evil.

    And it works nearly perfectly!

    Here’s an example. This nation is demonstrating the core of its character at the UN

    Just as Ecuador and Russia opposed the Fiend by giving sanctuary to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, respectively.

    By being in direct opposition to the Fiend, they’re demonstrating their respective decency and honor. And in contrast, to know who’s rotten to the core, and sinister and villainous, all you have to do is look at who licks Bibi’s err, um, hand.

    Starting of course with the ZUSA, and then on to England and France and Saudi Arabia.

    So for me, in that part of the world, it is Saudi Arabia who is at the extreme end of illegitimate regimes. And then you go from there, to the more moderate minions of the Fiend, like Jordan and Turkey; (who may be moving towards decency, in a measurable way be seeing how well it repudiates the Fiend = Bibi and crew).

    It really does work extremely well for those of us not familiar with the intricacies of the Middle East.

    Is Iran an honorable player on the world’s stage?

    Why yes, yes it is. Just look at how the Fiend goes apoplectic at the very mention of Iran.

    What about Lebanon? Yes, they’re good.

    Egypt? Not so much.

    and on and on.

    So with Syria, clearly from my metric, that regime is far preferable to what the Fiend would replace it with.

    That’s how I figure these things out, being as I don’t have your insight into such things.

    (An insight, btw that I feel all of us at Unz are indebted to).

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    And the exact degree to which it’s an ally of the Fiend, is the exact degree to which it is rotten and sinister and evil.
     
    This is true, but being "virtuous" (a hard metric to apply in the ME, really) does not correlate with being popular.

    Assad is extremely popular with minorities; the Sunni Arabs are probably much better off with him than without him, but it can be hard being ruled by a minority.

    (And yes, the rich are a minority too...)
    , @Talha
    Hey Rurik,

    Isn’t it true that if there were an honest vote held there tomorrow, that Assad would win in a landslide?
     
    I honestly don't know - which is why I mentioned that if you were to poll the Syrians I know, which are plenty (but obviously not comprehensive), Assad would be out by unanimous consensus.

    The opposition to Zionism is a good metric. I can guarantee you that anybody who I or Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi or my acquaintances would rather have in a position of power will not be chummy with Israel.

    It is good to keep in mind the recent example of Egypt since you brought it up; a secular military dictatorship came down and a (flawed, but generally popular) Islamist government came up that started causing too many waves:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTV2Qi4x4Sc

    Gaza was happy:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxzSthEfY_c

    "President Mohammed Morsi yesterday threw aside Cairo's historical reserve with Islamist groups abroad, meeting with Khaled Meshaal, leader of Hamas, just one day after holding talks with his Palestinian arch-rival. In hosting Mr Meshaal in the Egyptian capital just one day after consultations with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Morsi appeared to commit himself more deeply to efforts aimed at reconciling the two main Palestinian factions, which have been at odds since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2007."
    https://www.thenational.ae/world/africa/egypt-s-morsi-begins-new-era-with-palestinians-1.438309

    "[The coup ousting Morsi] In the long-term it is good news from the US good news for Israel and most important good news for muslims throughout the Middle East."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-9XXP8_iro

    Within short order and with plenty of interference and instigation from Saudi, Gen. Sisi made a successful coup attempt and we are back at square one.

    "While most of the world is ambivalent about the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Egypt by the army this week, the Saudi royal family is enthusiastically endorsing the generals’ move. The Kingdom hopes the coup marks the beginning of the end of the Arab Awakening and a return to stability and autocracy across the Arab world."
    https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/saudi-arabia-cheers-the-coup-in-egypt/

    Remember, this is why these are very gray areas. Many of those who oppose Assad do not automatically fall into the pro-Zionist camp - they simply do not want an autocrat backed by a deep-state and military apparatus running the show. They do not then want him replaced by someone who is pro-Zionist.

    Of course, some that do oppose Assad are firmly within the pro-Zionist camp. You can usually tell this by seeing where the funding is coming from. Early on, when Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi supported the insurrection (2013), it was very locally managed but he was already warning that the local groups and ulema did not have the funds to carry on the fight for long. It was quickly taken advantage of and the Gulf money started flowing to particular groups - that's where everything started turning into the brutal nightmare. Sh. Muhammad had already sensed this was going nowhere except that the takfiris were steadily gaining influence with external funding. By mid-2015 he was already calling for ceasing hostilities.

    So with Syria, clearly from my metric, that regime is far preferable to what the Fiend would replace it with.
     
    No doubt, which is why men like Sh. Muhammad want the civil war to end and the matter to be decided with a political solution; I would imagine an internationally monitored plebiscite.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rurik
    Hey Talha,

    A lot of gray areas here. I can tell you, ...
    ... but if there was a vote tomorrow, they would kick out Assad in a heartbeat. Obviously, that is not representative of all Syrians.
     
    Isn't it true that if there were an honest vote held there tomorrow, that Assad would win in a landslide? Kurds, Salafi-Wahhabi and your fellow moderate Sunnis notwithstanding?

    That at least is my (admittedly very limited) perception.

    I have a metric, and I've mentioned it to you before, for judging the respective merits (or lack there of) of a government or even personality in that part of the world. (actually it goes for the entire planet)

    ~ To know when a government is rotten and corrupt to the core, murderous and committed to the destruction of the peoples of your nation or country, all you have to do is figure out if it's an ally of the Fiend.

    And the exact degree to which it's an ally of the Fiend, is the exact degree to which it is rotten and sinister and evil.

    And it works nearly perfectly!

    Here's an example. This nation is demonstrating the core of its character at the UN

    https://img.rt.com/files/2017.04/original/58e7e663c4618801168b4591.jpg

    Just as Ecuador and Russia opposed the Fiend by giving sanctuary to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, respectively.

    By being in direct opposition to the Fiend, they're demonstrating their respective decency and honor. And in contrast, to know who's rotten to the core, and sinister and villainous, all you have to do is look at who licks Bibi's err, um, hand.

    Starting of course with the ZUSA, and then on to England and France and Saudi Arabia.

    So for me, in that part of the world, it is Saudi Arabia who is at the extreme end of illegitimate regimes. And then you go from there, to the more moderate minions of the Fiend, like Jordan and Turkey; (who may be moving towards decency, in a measurable way be seeing how well it repudiates the Fiend = Bibi and crew).

    It really does work extremely well for those of us not familiar with the intricacies of the Middle East.

    Is Iran an honorable player on the world's stage?

    Why yes, yes it is. Just look at how the Fiend goes apoplectic at the very mention of Iran.

    What about Lebanon? Yes, they're good.

    Egypt? Not so much.

    and on and on.

    So with Syria, clearly from my metric, that regime is far preferable to what the Fiend would replace it with.

    That's how I figure these things out, being as I don't have your insight into such things.

    (An insight, btw that I feel all of us at Unz are indebted to).

    Peace.

    And the exact degree to which it’s an ally of the Fiend, is the exact degree to which it is rotten and sinister and evil.

    This is true, but being “virtuous” (a hard metric to apply in the ME, really) does not correlate with being popular.

    Assad is extremely popular with minorities; the Sunni Arabs are probably much better off with him than without him, but it can be hard being ruled by a minority.

    (And yes, the rich are a minority too…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    the Sunni Arabs are probably much better off with him than without him
     
    I know Syrians personally that were praising God and thanking Him when they found out his older brother Basil died in a car accident. Bashar is much, much more preferable to his elder brother. Slim pickings in that region.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Talha says:
    @Rurik
    Hey Talha,

    A lot of gray areas here. I can tell you, ...
    ... but if there was a vote tomorrow, they would kick out Assad in a heartbeat. Obviously, that is not representative of all Syrians.
     
    Isn't it true that if there were an honest vote held there tomorrow, that Assad would win in a landslide? Kurds, Salafi-Wahhabi and your fellow moderate Sunnis notwithstanding?

    That at least is my (admittedly very limited) perception.

    I have a metric, and I've mentioned it to you before, for judging the respective merits (or lack there of) of a government or even personality in that part of the world. (actually it goes for the entire planet)

    ~ To know when a government is rotten and corrupt to the core, murderous and committed to the destruction of the peoples of your nation or country, all you have to do is figure out if it's an ally of the Fiend.

    And the exact degree to which it's an ally of the Fiend, is the exact degree to which it is rotten and sinister and evil.

    And it works nearly perfectly!

    Here's an example. This nation is demonstrating the core of its character at the UN

    https://img.rt.com/files/2017.04/original/58e7e663c4618801168b4591.jpg

    Just as Ecuador and Russia opposed the Fiend by giving sanctuary to Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, respectively.

    By being in direct opposition to the Fiend, they're demonstrating their respective decency and honor. And in contrast, to know who's rotten to the core, and sinister and villainous, all you have to do is look at who licks Bibi's err, um, hand.

    Starting of course with the ZUSA, and then on to England and France and Saudi Arabia.

    So for me, in that part of the world, it is Saudi Arabia who is at the extreme end of illegitimate regimes. And then you go from there, to the more moderate minions of the Fiend, like Jordan and Turkey; (who may be moving towards decency, in a measurable way be seeing how well it repudiates the Fiend = Bibi and crew).

    It really does work extremely well for those of us not familiar with the intricacies of the Middle East.

    Is Iran an honorable player on the world's stage?

    Why yes, yes it is. Just look at how the Fiend goes apoplectic at the very mention of Iran.

    What about Lebanon? Yes, they're good.

    Egypt? Not so much.

    and on and on.

    So with Syria, clearly from my metric, that regime is far preferable to what the Fiend would replace it with.

    That's how I figure these things out, being as I don't have your insight into such things.

    (An insight, btw that I feel all of us at Unz are indebted to).

    Peace.

    Hey Rurik,

    Isn’t it true that if there were an honest vote held there tomorrow, that Assad would win in a landslide?

    I honestly don’t know – which is why I mentioned that if you were to poll the Syrians I know, which are plenty (but obviously not comprehensive), Assad would be out by unanimous consensus.

    The opposition to Zionism is a good metric. I can guarantee you that anybody who I or Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi or my acquaintances would rather have in a position of power will not be chummy with Israel.

    It is good to keep in mind the recent example of Egypt since you brought it up; a secular military dictatorship came down and a (flawed, but generally popular) Islamist government came up that started causing too many waves:

    Gaza was happy:

    “President Mohammed Morsi yesterday threw aside Cairo’s historical reserve with Islamist groups abroad, meeting with Khaled Meshaal, leader of Hamas, just one day after holding talks with his Palestinian arch-rival. In hosting Mr Meshaal in the Egyptian capital just one day after consultations with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Morsi appeared to commit himself more deeply to efforts aimed at reconciling the two main Palestinian factions, which have been at odds since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2007.”

    https://www.thenational.ae/world/africa/egypt-s-morsi-begins-new-era-with-palestinians-1.438309

    “[The coup ousting Morsi] In the long-term it is good news from the US good news for Israel and most important good news for muslims throughout the Middle East.”

    Within short order and with plenty of interference and instigation from Saudi, Gen. Sisi made a successful coup attempt and we are back at square one.

    “While most of the world is ambivalent about the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Egypt by the army this week, the Saudi royal family is enthusiastically endorsing the generals’ move. The Kingdom hopes the coup marks the beginning of the end of the Arab Awakening and a return to stability and autocracy across the Arab world.”

    https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/saudi-arabia-cheers-the-coup-in-egypt/

    Remember, this is why these are very gray areas. Many of those who oppose Assad do not automatically fall into the pro-Zionist camp – they simply do not want an autocrat backed by a deep-state and military apparatus running the show. They do not then want him replaced by someone who is pro-Zionist.

    Of course, some that do oppose Assad are firmly within the pro-Zionist camp. You can usually tell this by seeing where the funding is coming from. Early on, when Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi supported the insurrection (2013), it was very locally managed but he was already warning that the local groups and ulema did not have the funds to carry on the fight for long. It was quickly taken advantage of and the Gulf money started flowing to particular groups – that’s where everything started turning into the brutal nightmare. Sh. Muhammad had already sensed this was going nowhere except that the takfiris were steadily gaining influence with external funding. By mid-2015 he was already calling for ceasing hostilities.

    So with Syria, clearly from my metric, that regime is far preferable to what the Fiend would replace it with.

    No doubt, which is why men like Sh. Muhammad want the civil war to end and the matter to be decided with a political solution; I would imagine an internationally monitored plebiscite.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey Talha,

    I honestly don’t know – which is why I mentioned that if you were to poll the Syrians I know, which are plenty (but obviously not comprehensive), Assad would be out by unanimous consensus.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

    if you peruse the chart that shows which nations allowed the Syrians living there to vote in the election, it sort of bears out what I was saying about how you can glimmer the integrity of a nation's government by its ties to the Fiend.

    The nations that refused expatriate voting, are the nations that are either vassals of, or aligned with the Fiend in some form or other. Vs. the nations that allowed it.

    Conspicuously missing from this list is Israel. As I wanted to know if they allowed the Syrians under their occupation (especially in the Golan) to vote, (as I considered it unlikely), I checked it out.

    Israel Denies Golan Syrians' Voting Right - UN Fails to ...
    https://nsnbc.me/2014/05/22/israel-denied-golan-syrians-voting...
    Israel denied Syrians in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights to participate in the upcoming Syrian Presidential Elections

    this is what happened when I clicked on the link

    This page can’t be displayed


    It turns out the Syrians in the Golan wanted to vote in the election, and were certainly pro-Assad, but Israel didn't allow them to cast their vote.

    But what is shocking, shocking ! Talha, is that if you look at the Wiki-page, it says this

    The following ten countries did not allow expatriate voting

    But Israel is not even mentioned! How can this be?!?!?!

    Anyways, yes, I was appalled when Morsi went after Assad. I know there is strife in the Arab/Muslim community. I know there is oppression and lack of free-expression and so on.. But as long as the Fiend is lording it all over all of your (Muslim) lands (especially in Africa and the Middle East), and murdering and humiliating and stealing Muslim lands right and left, with the latest outrage being their claim to Jerusalem....

    I just wish the Muslim world do what Draba (the black gladiator) tried to do in this scene..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCLyLBrugD0

    and agree that as long as Palestine languishes under the sadistic and merciless malevolence of the Fiend, that they'd set aside their differences until at least that was resolved.

    Who do the Muslims think are providing weapons to both sides of these conflicts, just as the Romans provided weapons to the gladiators- for their own amusement, to bask in the bloodshed and slaughter?

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Talha says:
    @Anon

    And the exact degree to which it’s an ally of the Fiend, is the exact degree to which it is rotten and sinister and evil.
     
    This is true, but being "virtuous" (a hard metric to apply in the ME, really) does not correlate with being popular.

    Assad is extremely popular with minorities; the Sunni Arabs are probably much better off with him than without him, but it can be hard being ruled by a minority.

    (And yes, the rich are a minority too...)

    the Sunni Arabs are probably much better off with him than without him

    I know Syrians personally that were praising God and thanking Him when they found out his older brother Basil died in a car accident. Bashar is much, much more preferable to his elder brother. Slim pickings in that region.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. KenH says:
    @Corvinus
    "Oh really? You mean the over the top civil rights violations against the “Unite the Right” rallygoers by the Cville government wasn’t forcible suppression of political opposition?"

    Freedom of assembly does not mean complete and unadulterated freedom of assembly. There are restrictions, as outlined by city government with Supreme Court protection on such restrictions. Clearly, the Coalition of the Right and Left Fringe groups posed a potential risk to public safety, considering some protestors wore battle gear and carried items that could be used as weapons. The march took place as scheduled.

    "The post CVille Congressional resolution condemning all whites who don’t hate themselves as “klansmen and white supremacists”..."

    Whites do not hate themselves if they are opposed to what they believe to be unjust and immoral. That is a mischaracterization on your part. Furthermore, the resolution rejected "rejecting White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups", NOT whites. You are clearly lying here.

    "and imploring the president to use government agencies against them in violation of first, fourth and fifth amendment protections doesn’t smack of fascism or authoritarian repression?"

    Fascism does not mean the executive branch implementing the rule of law.

    "Since Trump got elected antifa, a contradiction if there ever was one, has been destroying property, intimidating conservative speakers and preventing them from speaking through violence and threats of violence. And you agree with this, yes?"

    No, I vehemently oppose such actions. There is no justification. Lock them up.

    "Antifa is just doing the job that the government would love to do but can’t at this time."

    That would another false statement on your part.

    "Are you now the curator of American history? Israel doesn’t belong to the Jews then either, right (((Corvinus)))?"

    Israel belongs to the Jews and Palestinians.

    "Japan doesn’t belong to the Japanese..."

    Japan belongs to the citizens who dictate who is Japanese.

    "Saudi Arabia doesn’t belong to the Arab Muslims."

    Saudi Arabia belongs to the citizens, who just happen to be Arab Muslims.

    "If America belongs to everyone then so does every other nation."

    America belongs to its citizens, who are from different racial and ethnic groups. Pay closer attention.

    "Sure they do. Just like whites have the right to exclude non-whites if they wish, right? You claim to be for freedom of association but offer nothing but double talk when it comes to whites wishing to live only among each other."

    Whites are living only among each other! There are a number of white communities.

    "Wrong. It’s a matter of both. If you don’t think race factors in to the real estate decisions of the wealthy then you live in your own fantasy world."

    Green talks.

    "This rarely happens by choice, but I reached for a tissue after reading this."

    Actually, the interaction between the races happens by choice, a willingness on their part to work and play together.

    "And don’t forget that Anders Brevik, whom your fascinated with, targeted people like you."

    He targeted teens at a youth camp.

    "The fact that you’re exhorting me and others to follow in his footsteps tells me everything I need to know about you, too."

    You were the one who said "I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes the prospect of tens of thousands of heavily armed and pissed off white men will give you and other lefties the worst case of diarrhea in history." So following in Brevik's footsteps seems the likely next move for you and your ilk.

    The march took place as scheduled.

    Only after the city of CVille was taken to federal court and forced to issue a permit which they previously tried to revoke. Then the day of the rally they didn’t provide safe passage to the the UtR protestors to and from the rally location and allowed violent antifa counterprotestors to attack them which forced the UtR rallygoers to use force to defend themselves. This allowed the police the declare the rally “unlawful” which appears to have been the plan.

    Probably the most egregious case of first amendment violations I can recall but since the victims were politically incorrect whites they don’t have civil rights (only in theory) and nobody cares. So much for claims of white privilege.

    You were the one who said “I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes…….

    Because that’a very real possibility especially when cities, states and then the entire nation collapses with nothing to replace it. Vacuums get filled and sometimes not by something pretty. Again, if you think the status quo will last forever and ever you’re in fantasy land. Things can and do change rapidly. Just look at the Soviet Union who everyone thought would endure for much longer than it did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Only after the city of CVille was taken to federal court and forced to issue a permit which they previously tried to revoke."

    Which is under the legal purview of CVille to take such action. Consequently, they were sued by the ALCU. Authorities, residents, and business owners--many who are white--said they were concerned the rally and counter-demonstrations would cause disruptions in the downtown area. The city also cited concerns about security and safety for its reasons for asking the event to be relocated a mile away. The rally went forward.

    Do you even understand how this permit process works for rallies and marches?

    "Then the day of the rally they didn’t provide safe passage to the the UtR protestors to and from the rally location..."

    The police provided the appropriate level of protection.

    "and allowed violent antifa counterprotestors to attack them which forced the UtR rallygoers to use force to defend themselves."

    No, the police did not "allow" anything. The radicals from both sides took matters into their own hands.

    "This allowed the police the declare the rally “unlawful” which appears to have been the plan."

    What was unlawful was not the rally itself, but the actions conducted at the rally that led to violence. As a result, the rally was broken up as a matter of public safety, an issue that had been brought up by citizens there, including whites.

    "Probably the most egregious case of first amendment violations I can recall but since the victims were politically incorrect whites they don’t have civil rights (only in theory) and nobody cares. So much for claims of white privilege."

    There wasn't any "violations" considering the rally was held.

    "Because that’a very real possibility especially when cities, states and then the entire nation collapses with nothing to replace it."

    Highly unlikely there will be a massive civil war as predicted by the Alt Right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. KenH says:
    @Talha
    Hey S2C,

    Much the same that we have against much of the Muslim world's leaders.

    He is the inheritor of family dynasty established by a military coup - in charge of an autocratic and invasive state apparatus that imprisons and tortures its dissidents. Much of this is covered in Mr. Margolis' recent article.

    As he says, this fairly common for that part of the world, but it doesn't mean it doesn't chafe the people living under them. On top of that much of the ruling elite are either; 1) Alawi or 2) secularized Arab nationalist Sunnis aka Baath Party. A lot of the conflict is between the lifestyles of the rural areas versus the urban upper class. And this is without outside influence that pushed it in a very militant and extremist direction. In one of the videos in early 2013, when Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi was still in favor of local armed resistance, he mentioned that there were plenty of armed Sufi units operating in places like Homs and other cities. Then of course the Gulf money started coming in and more involved US influence and magically Daesh appears on the scene in 2014.

    Saddam Hussein would be a very good analogy - a secularized nationalist Sunni (Baath Party) minority lording it over a majority Shiah (and more religious) majority.

    Many Sunni scholars simply stayed quiet about the political situation; neither supporting nor rejecting the armed resistance and some scholars (fewer in number supported the regime).

    A lot of gray areas here. I can tell you, of the Syrians I know (none of them are Salafi-Wahhabi types) nobody likes the regime. They may not be in favor of continuing the civil war since it has devastated their country and their relatives in the old country, but if there was a vote tomorrow, they would kick out Assad in a heartbeat. Obviously, that is not representative of all Syrians.

    Peace.

    He is the inheritor of family dynasty established by a military coup – in charge of an autocratic and invasive state apparatus that imprisons and tortures its dissidents. Much of this is covered in Mr. Margolis’ recent article.

    I’ll need to read Margolis’s latest, but do you honestly think a Sunni strongman/religious fanatic would be any better than Assad? One cannot rule a middle Eastern Muslim nation like a metrosexual and not expect to be overthrown. A certain degree of ruthlessness is required to maintain a semblance of order especially one with so many antagonistic groups (Shia-Alawi, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, Druze, etc.).

    The Sunni majority has some legitimate grievances against Assad but the Assad dynasty hasn’t been all bad either. The public sanitation and health reforms enacted under Hafez Al Assad helped the population grow from three million to twenty three million and Sunnis enjoyed sizable increases, so it’s not like Assad is trying to kill off or diminish the Sunnis as Jewish occupied Western governments are attempting to do to their white majorities via mass immigration, promoting interracial relationships, feminism and other “culture of death” methods.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    but do you honestly think a Sunni strongman/religious fanatic would be any better than Assad?
     
    Possibly not, but those aren't the only options. A Sunni strongman like Saddam wouldn't be much different, a Sunni strongman like Erdogan would be more digestible. Nobody I know wants a religious fanatic, the Russians bombed the last guy and, to my knowledge, no one has stood up as the successor to Baghdadi (assuming the guy was real in the first place).

    but the Assad dynasty hasn’t been all bad either.
     
    Yes, no leader in the area is pure evil - despite what the Neocons constantly spew. It's always a cost/benefit analysis.

    The public sanitation and health reforms enacted under Hafez Al Assad
     
    Sure and the Saudis have spent billions improving infrastructure and quality of life of the average Saudi. It is quite impressive on a material level. Yet people still have political grievances.

    so it’s not like Assad is trying to kill off or diminish the Sunnis
     
    The Sunnis are ascendant since religious sentiment in the region is ascendant. I fully agree with Sh. Muhammad on the matter. The fighting should stop and a political solution should be arrived at and perhaps a nation-wide vote should take place. Either way, there needs to be a political compromise; Russia and Iran see this (both of their populations also do not want this to drag on). If Assad is radioactive, they will help get rid of him and work to get someone in power that will look after their interests in the country and who is more palatable.

    I am not too worried about the Alawis - they have a secret-sauce religion that their normal followers don't even know details about. It worked fine when they were isolated in mountain redoubts and valleys, but it won't stand the light of day - Imam Ghazali (ra) put them into the ground intellectually centuries ago. Both Assad brothers are married into Sunni families. Even if Assad remains in power, Syria is going to come out of the civil war making more compromises with the concerns of its Sunni majority population; both the ones that supported the government and those that fought against it.

    I'm looking at the way this is trending decades down the road. If what I hear from my Syrian friends about their relatives in Syria is accurate; this war has not made the society more secular, it has made it more religious. Even the Shiah participation in the conflict was from their religious groups.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Why does the clown Buchanan use the word Autocrats for people who are clearly populists?

    The senile is strong in this one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    The march took place as scheduled.
     
    Only after the city of CVille was taken to federal court and forced to issue a permit which they previously tried to revoke. Then the day of the rally they didn't provide safe passage to the the UtR protestors to and from the rally location and allowed violent antifa counterprotestors to attack them which forced the UtR rallygoers to use force to defend themselves. This allowed the police the declare the rally "unlawful" which appears to have been the plan.

    Probably the most egregious case of first amendment violations I can recall but since the victims were politically incorrect whites they don't have civil rights (only in theory) and nobody cares. So much for claims of white privilege.

    You were the one who said “I’d venture that if and when that day ever comes.......
     
    Because that'a very real possibility especially when cities, states and then the entire nation collapses with nothing to replace it. Vacuums get filled and sometimes not by something pretty. Again, if you think the status quo will last forever and ever you're in fantasy land. Things can and do change rapidly. Just look at the Soviet Union who everyone thought would endure for much longer than it did.

    “Only after the city of CVille was taken to federal court and forced to issue a permit which they previously tried to revoke.”

    Which is under the legal purview of CVille to take such action. Consequently, they were sued by the ALCU. Authorities, residents, and business owners–many who are white–said they were concerned the rally and counter-demonstrations would cause disruptions in the downtown area. The city also cited concerns about security and safety for its reasons for asking the event to be relocated a mile away. The rally went forward.

    Do you even understand how this permit process works for rallies and marches?

    “Then the day of the rally they didn’t provide safe passage to the the UtR protestors to and from the rally location…”

    The police provided the appropriate level of protection.

    “and allowed violent antifa counterprotestors to attack them which forced the UtR rallygoers to use force to defend themselves.”

    No, the police did not “allow” anything. The radicals from both sides took matters into their own hands.

    “This allowed the police the declare the rally “unlawful” which appears to have been the plan.”

    What was unlawful was not the rally itself, but the actions conducted at the rally that led to violence. As a result, the rally was broken up as a matter of public safety, an issue that had been brought up by citizens there, including whites.

    “Probably the most egregious case of first amendment violations I can recall but since the victims were politically incorrect whites they don’t have civil rights (only in theory) and nobody cares. So much for claims of white privilege.”

    There wasn’t any “violations” considering the rally was held.

    “Because that’a very real possibility especially when cities, states and then the entire nation collapses with nothing to replace it.”

    Highly unlikely there will be a massive civil war as predicted by the Alt Right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    The rally went forward.
     
    And was immediately declared unlawful by ensuring that violence broke out among both sides. In some cases police were literally shoving UtR rallygoers into throngs of violent antifa and other left wing counter protesters. You'll deny this because that's just what you do.

    Do you even understand how this permit process works for rallies and marches?
     
    And you're a grizzled veteran of how many rallies and marches?

    The police provided the appropriate level of protection.
     
    Wrong according to witnesses and the after action review compiled by former U.S. attorney Tim Heaphy. Appropriate level of protection would have meant keeping counter protesters at least 50 ft away behind barricades and a wall of law enforcement officers. Do you just make it up as you go?

    No, the police did not “allow” anything. The radicals from both sides took matters into their own hands.
     
    "Heaphy said he heard from a couple of officers in the police command center that day who said Thomas told officers, “Let them fight for a little. It will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-police-chief-resigns-in-wake-of-report-on-white-supremacist-rally/2017/12/18/536ac8a2-e42c-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.cce1cd0ec010

    Boom shocka locka!


    There wasn’t any “violations” considering the rally was held.
     
    And then abruptly declared unlawful because the police chief told his officers to "let them fight for a little". See above.

    Highly unlikely there will be a massive civil war as predicted by the Alt Right.
     
    Not many on the alt-right are predicting it, only conceding that it's one of many possibilities which it is. But Louis Farrakhan was promoting civil war and exhorting his followers to "kill those who kill us" in response to police killings of violent black criminals and it was crickets from left wing news sources.

    Suggest you apply for a job at CNN since you just seem to wing it and create your own narratives about certain events.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Rurik says:
    @Talha
    Hey Rurik,

    Isn’t it true that if there were an honest vote held there tomorrow, that Assad would win in a landslide?
     
    I honestly don't know - which is why I mentioned that if you were to poll the Syrians I know, which are plenty (but obviously not comprehensive), Assad would be out by unanimous consensus.

    The opposition to Zionism is a good metric. I can guarantee you that anybody who I or Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi or my acquaintances would rather have in a position of power will not be chummy with Israel.

    It is good to keep in mind the recent example of Egypt since you brought it up; a secular military dictatorship came down and a (flawed, but generally popular) Islamist government came up that started causing too many waves:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTV2Qi4x4Sc

    Gaza was happy:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxzSthEfY_c

    "President Mohammed Morsi yesterday threw aside Cairo's historical reserve with Islamist groups abroad, meeting with Khaled Meshaal, leader of Hamas, just one day after holding talks with his Palestinian arch-rival. In hosting Mr Meshaal in the Egyptian capital just one day after consultations with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mr Morsi appeared to commit himself more deeply to efforts aimed at reconciling the two main Palestinian factions, which have been at odds since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in 2007."
    https://www.thenational.ae/world/africa/egypt-s-morsi-begins-new-era-with-palestinians-1.438309

    "[The coup ousting Morsi] In the long-term it is good news from the US good news for Israel and most important good news for muslims throughout the Middle East."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-9XXP8_iro

    Within short order and with plenty of interference and instigation from Saudi, Gen. Sisi made a successful coup attempt and we are back at square one.

    "While most of the world is ambivalent about the overthrow of a democratically elected President in Egypt by the army this week, the Saudi royal family is enthusiastically endorsing the generals’ move. The Kingdom hopes the coup marks the beginning of the end of the Arab Awakening and a return to stability and autocracy across the Arab world."
    https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/saudi-arabia-cheers-the-coup-in-egypt/

    Remember, this is why these are very gray areas. Many of those who oppose Assad do not automatically fall into the pro-Zionist camp - they simply do not want an autocrat backed by a deep-state and military apparatus running the show. They do not then want him replaced by someone who is pro-Zionist.

    Of course, some that do oppose Assad are firmly within the pro-Zionist camp. You can usually tell this by seeing where the funding is coming from. Early on, when Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi supported the insurrection (2013), it was very locally managed but he was already warning that the local groups and ulema did not have the funds to carry on the fight for long. It was quickly taken advantage of and the Gulf money started flowing to particular groups - that's where everything started turning into the brutal nightmare. Sh. Muhammad had already sensed this was going nowhere except that the takfiris were steadily gaining influence with external funding. By mid-2015 he was already calling for ceasing hostilities.

    So with Syria, clearly from my metric, that regime is far preferable to what the Fiend would replace it with.
     
    No doubt, which is why men like Sh. Muhammad want the civil war to end and the matter to be decided with a political solution; I would imagine an internationally monitored plebiscite.

    Peace.

    Hey Talha,

    I honestly don’t know – which is why I mentioned that if you were to poll the Syrians I know, which are plenty (but obviously not comprehensive), Assad would be out by unanimous consensus.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

    if you peruse the chart that shows which nations allowed the Syrians living there to vote in the election, it sort of bears out what I was saying about how you can glimmer the integrity of a nation’s government by its ties to the Fiend.

    The nations that refused expatriate voting, are the nations that are either vassals of, or aligned with the Fiend in some form or other. Vs. the nations that allowed it.

    Conspicuously missing from this list is Israel. As I wanted to know if they allowed the Syrians under their occupation (especially in the Golan) to vote, (as I considered it unlikely), I checked it out.

    Israel Denies Golan Syrians’ Voting Right – UN Fails to …

    https://nsnbc.me/2014/05/22/israel-denied-golan-syrians-voting…

    Israel denied Syrians in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights to participate in the upcoming Syrian Presidential Elections

    this is what happened when I clicked on the link

    This page can’t be displayed

    It turns out the Syrians in the Golan wanted to vote in the election, and were certainly pro-Assad, but Israel didn’t allow them to cast their vote.

    But what is shocking, shocking ! Talha, is that if you look at the Wiki-page, it says this

    The following ten countries did not allow expatriate voting

    But Israel is not even mentioned! How can this be?!?!?!

    Anyways, yes, I was appalled when Morsi went after Assad. I know there is strife in the Arab/Muslim community. I know there is oppression and lack of free-expression and so on.. But as long as the Fiend is lording it all over all of your (Muslim) lands (especially in Africa and the Middle East), and murdering and humiliating and stealing Muslim lands right and left, with the latest outrage being their claim to Jerusalem….

    I just wish the Muslim world do what Draba (the black gladiator) tried to do in this scene..

    and agree that as long as Palestine languishes under the sadistic and merciless malevolence of the Fiend, that they’d set aside their differences until at least that was resolved.

    Who do the Muslims think are providing weapons to both sides of these conflicts, just as the Romans provided weapons to the gladiators- for their own amusement, to bask in the bloodshed and slaughter?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Rurik,

    I'm with you. I'm praying for unity on that front also. If you poll the Muslim street, the concept of a united Ummah is still quite strong. And when it comes to Palestinians; most definitely want the occupation to end and want their governments to do something about it. At the end of the day, this is one of the reasons why autocrats are supported over many Muslim nations. For instance, Morsi may have made bad remarks about Assad, but he was very quick to act upon the will of most Egyptians to help ease the situation for the Palestinians:
    In 2012...
    "''The Egyptian side has informed us that the Rafah crossing would open all days of the week, without more details,' the news agency quoted Ehab Al-Ghsain, spokesman for the interior ministry in Gaza, as saying. The news was reportedly confirmed by an Egyptian security source, suggesting increasingly warm relations between recently elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and Gaza’s Islamist Hamas government."
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/sources-say-egypt-reopens-rafah-crossing-with-gaza/

    And what has happened since Sisi took over?:
    "Since the ousting of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, Cairo has seldom opened Rafah."
    https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/gaza-news/Egypt-closes-Rafah-crossing-early-543390

    The Israelis are keeping track of and openly reporting all of this.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. KenH says:
    @Corvinus
    "Only after the city of CVille was taken to federal court and forced to issue a permit which they previously tried to revoke."

    Which is under the legal purview of CVille to take such action. Consequently, they were sued by the ALCU. Authorities, residents, and business owners--many who are white--said they were concerned the rally and counter-demonstrations would cause disruptions in the downtown area. The city also cited concerns about security and safety for its reasons for asking the event to be relocated a mile away. The rally went forward.

    Do you even understand how this permit process works for rallies and marches?

    "Then the day of the rally they didn’t provide safe passage to the the UtR protestors to and from the rally location..."

    The police provided the appropriate level of protection.

    "and allowed violent antifa counterprotestors to attack them which forced the UtR rallygoers to use force to defend themselves."

    No, the police did not "allow" anything. The radicals from both sides took matters into their own hands.

    "This allowed the police the declare the rally “unlawful” which appears to have been the plan."

    What was unlawful was not the rally itself, but the actions conducted at the rally that led to violence. As a result, the rally was broken up as a matter of public safety, an issue that had been brought up by citizens there, including whites.

    "Probably the most egregious case of first amendment violations I can recall but since the victims were politically incorrect whites they don’t have civil rights (only in theory) and nobody cares. So much for claims of white privilege."

    There wasn't any "violations" considering the rally was held.

    "Because that’a very real possibility especially when cities, states and then the entire nation collapses with nothing to replace it."

    Highly unlikely there will be a massive civil war as predicted by the Alt Right.

    The rally went forward.

    And was immediately declared unlawful by ensuring that violence broke out among both sides. In some cases police were literally shoving UtR rallygoers into throngs of violent antifa and other left wing counter protesters. You’ll deny this because that’s just what you do.

    Do you even understand how this permit process works for rallies and marches?

    And you’re a grizzled veteran of how many rallies and marches?

    The police provided the appropriate level of protection.

    Wrong according to witnesses and the after action review compiled by former U.S. attorney Tim Heaphy. Appropriate level of protection would have meant keeping counter protesters at least 50 ft away behind barricades and a wall of law enforcement officers. Do you just make it up as you go?

    No, the police did not “allow” anything. The radicals from both sides took matters into their own hands.

    Heaphy said he heard from a couple of officers in the police command center that day who said Thomas told officers, “Let them fight for a little. It will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-police-chief-resigns-in-wake-of-report-on-white-supremacist-rally/2017/12/18/536ac8a2-e42c-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.cce1cd0ec010

    Boom shocka locka!

    There wasn’t any “violations” considering the rally was held.

    And then abruptly declared unlawful because the police chief told his officers to “let them fight for a little”. See above.

    Highly unlikely there will be a massive civil war as predicted by the Alt Right.

    Not many on the alt-right are predicting it, only conceding that it’s one of many possibilities which it is. But Louis Farrakhan was promoting civil war and exhorting his followers to “kill those who kill us” in response to police killings of violent black criminals and it was crickets from left wing news sources.

    Suggest you apply for a job at CNN since you just seem to wing it and create your own narratives about certain events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "And was immediately declared unlawful by ensuring that violence broke out among both sides."

    Exactly, because citizens there had stated their direct concerns, including white people. Again, do you even understand how permits for protests and how actual protests work?

    "In some cases police were literally shoving UtR rallygoers into throngs of violent antifa and other left wing counter protesters. You’ll deny this because that’s just what you do."

    Of course the police were shoving protesters from both sides.
    Of course the police were using physical force on those whom they believed were engaging in unlawful activity and resisting arresting.

    There is no denying here. Are you that dense?

    "And you’re a grizzled veteran of how many rallies and marches?"

    12.

    "Wrong according to witnesses and the after action review compiled by former U.S. attorney Tim Heaphy. Appropriate level of protection would have meant keeping counter protesters at least 50 ft away behind barricades and a wall of law enforcement officers. Do you just make it up as you go?"

    Appropriate action was taken at the time. There will always be a review of procedures and how those procedures were implemented, with criticisms on how the police acted or should have acted. And from that report, people lose their jobs due to allegations made or due to the facts that show major breakdowns in protocols.

    "Not many on the alt-right are predicting it, only conceding that it’s one of many possibilities which it is. But Louis Farrakhan was promoting civil war and exhorting his followers to “kill those who kill us” in response to police killings of violent black criminals and it was crickets from left wing news sources."

    That's what he does. He is a joke. He is the black Richard Spencer. Do you not even pay attention?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Talha says:
    @KenH

    He is the inheritor of family dynasty established by a military coup – in charge of an autocratic and invasive state apparatus that imprisons and tortures its dissidents. Much of this is covered in Mr. Margolis’ recent article.
     
    I'll need to read Margolis's latest, but do you honestly think a Sunni strongman/religious fanatic would be any better than Assad? One cannot rule a middle Eastern Muslim nation like a metrosexual and not expect to be overthrown. A certain degree of ruthlessness is required to maintain a semblance of order especially one with so many antagonistic groups (Shia-Alawi, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, Druze, etc.).

    The Sunni majority has some legitimate grievances against Assad but the Assad dynasty hasn't been all bad either. The public sanitation and health reforms enacted under Hafez Al Assad helped the population grow from three million to twenty three million and Sunnis enjoyed sizable increases, so it's not like Assad is trying to kill off or diminish the Sunnis as Jewish occupied Western governments are attempting to do to their white majorities via mass immigration, promoting interracial relationships, feminism and other "culture of death" methods.

    but do you honestly think a Sunni strongman/religious fanatic would be any better than Assad?

    Possibly not, but those aren’t the only options. A Sunni strongman like Saddam wouldn’t be much different, a Sunni strongman like Erdogan would be more digestible. Nobody I know wants a religious fanatic, the Russians bombed the last guy and, to my knowledge, no one has stood up as the successor to Baghdadi (assuming the guy was real in the first place).

    but the Assad dynasty hasn’t been all bad either.

    Yes, no leader in the area is pure evil – despite what the Neocons constantly spew. It’s always a cost/benefit analysis.

    The public sanitation and health reforms enacted under Hafez Al Assad

    Sure and the Saudis have spent billions improving infrastructure and quality of life of the average Saudi. It is quite impressive on a material level. Yet people still have political grievances.

    so it’s not like Assad is trying to kill off or diminish the Sunnis

    The Sunnis are ascendant since religious sentiment in the region is ascendant. I fully agree with Sh. Muhammad on the matter. The fighting should stop and a political solution should be arrived at and perhaps a nation-wide vote should take place. Either way, there needs to be a political compromise; Russia and Iran see this (both of their populations also do not want this to drag on). If Assad is radioactive, they will help get rid of him and work to get someone in power that will look after their interests in the country and who is more palatable.

    I am not too worried about the Alawis – they have a secret-sauce religion that their normal followers don’t even know details about. It worked fine when they were isolated in mountain redoubts and valleys, but it won’t stand the light of day – Imam Ghazali (ra) put them into the ground intellectually centuries ago. Both Assad brothers are married into Sunni families. Even if Assad remains in power, Syria is going to come out of the civil war making more compromises with the concerns of its Sunni majority population; both the ones that supported the government and those that fought against it.

    I’m looking at the way this is trending decades down the road. If what I hear from my Syrian friends about their relatives in Syria is accurate; this war has not made the society more secular, it has made it more religious. Even the Shiah participation in the conflict was from their religious groups.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Is it authoritarian? Or just autonomous?

    Is it more authoritarian to be ruled by an imperialist like Soros? Or by EU that goes after thought criminals and forces nations to be mass-invaded by Africans and Muslims?

    It's national authoritarianism vs globalist authoritarianism. Globalists disparage democratic will in Eastern European nations. They way the people must obey the globo elites.

    Who are the real tyrants?

    said:
    ” Or by EU that goes after thought criminals and forces nations ”

    Below is where free speech on the impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline is illegal, violators go to prison for Thought Crimes.
    An obvious admission that the storyline doesn’t stand up to scientific, logical, & rational scrutiny.

    With no proof of ‘Nazi homicidal gas chambers’, no massive human remains that would necessarily exist, and no physical evidence by the thousands of tons that would be readily found IF the impossible ‘holocaust’ storyline was factual, we are then left with desperate, unhinged Zionists.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Wally says:
    @Alfa158
    Buchanan is normally a pretty smart guy, but in this case he appears to be confused about the meaning of the words autocrat and authoritarian versus liberal democrat. Orban is a democratically elected leader not an autocrat. Pat seems to conflate authoritarianism with taking action, and liberal democracy with passivity.
    “Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”
    I also recall that Franklin Roosevelt rose to power through a democratic election. So what? Is Orban Hitler or Roosevelt?
    This is one of Buchanan’s silliest articles in a long time.

    “Recall Hitler rose to power through a democratic election.”

    So what?

    There is Hitler with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there is Hitler without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Talha says:
    @Rurik
    Hey Talha,

    I honestly don’t know – which is why I mentioned that if you were to poll the Syrians I know, which are plenty (but obviously not comprehensive), Assad would be out by unanimous consensus.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014

    if you peruse the chart that shows which nations allowed the Syrians living there to vote in the election, it sort of bears out what I was saying about how you can glimmer the integrity of a nation's government by its ties to the Fiend.

    The nations that refused expatriate voting, are the nations that are either vassals of, or aligned with the Fiend in some form or other. Vs. the nations that allowed it.

    Conspicuously missing from this list is Israel. As I wanted to know if they allowed the Syrians under their occupation (especially in the Golan) to vote, (as I considered it unlikely), I checked it out.

    Israel Denies Golan Syrians' Voting Right - UN Fails to ...
    https://nsnbc.me/2014/05/22/israel-denied-golan-syrians-voting...
    Israel denied Syrians in the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan Heights to participate in the upcoming Syrian Presidential Elections

    this is what happened when I clicked on the link

    This page can’t be displayed


    It turns out the Syrians in the Golan wanted to vote in the election, and were certainly pro-Assad, but Israel didn't allow them to cast their vote.

    But what is shocking, shocking ! Talha, is that if you look at the Wiki-page, it says this

    The following ten countries did not allow expatriate voting

    But Israel is not even mentioned! How can this be?!?!?!

    Anyways, yes, I was appalled when Morsi went after Assad. I know there is strife in the Arab/Muslim community. I know there is oppression and lack of free-expression and so on.. But as long as the Fiend is lording it all over all of your (Muslim) lands (especially in Africa and the Middle East), and murdering and humiliating and stealing Muslim lands right and left, with the latest outrage being their claim to Jerusalem....

    I just wish the Muslim world do what Draba (the black gladiator) tried to do in this scene..

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCLyLBrugD0

    and agree that as long as Palestine languishes under the sadistic and merciless malevolence of the Fiend, that they'd set aside their differences until at least that was resolved.

    Who do the Muslims think are providing weapons to both sides of these conflicts, just as the Romans provided weapons to the gladiators- for their own amusement, to bask in the bloodshed and slaughter?

    Peace.

    Hey Rurik,

    I’m with you. I’m praying for unity on that front also. If you poll the Muslim street, the concept of a united Ummah is still quite strong. And when it comes to Palestinians; most definitely want the occupation to end and want their governments to do something about it. At the end of the day, this is one of the reasons why autocrats are supported over many Muslim nations. For instance, Morsi may have made bad remarks about Assad, but he was very quick to act upon the will of most Egyptians to help ease the situation for the Palestinians:
    In 2012…
    “”The Egyptian side has informed us that the Rafah crossing would open all days of the week, without more details,’ the news agency quoted Ehab Al-Ghsain, spokesman for the interior ministry in Gaza, as saying. The news was reportedly confirmed by an Egyptian security source, suggesting increasingly warm relations between recently elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and Gaza’s Islamist Hamas government.”

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/sources-say-egypt-reopens-rafah-crossing-with-gaza/

    And what has happened since Sisi took over?:
    “Since the ousting of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, Cairo has seldom opened Rafah.”

    https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/gaza-news/Egypt-closes-Rafah-crossing-early-543390

    The Israelis are keeping track of and openly reporting all of this.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    Hey Talha,

    I know this thread has fallen off the page, but just wanted to respond to your always thoughtful posts.

    BTW, when I saw this in the news, I thought of our conversation..

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-khamenei/irans-khamenei-urges-muslim-nations-to-unite-against-u-s-state-tv-idUSKBN1HX0ZC

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Corvinus says:
    @KenH

    The rally went forward.
     
    And was immediately declared unlawful by ensuring that violence broke out among both sides. In some cases police were literally shoving UtR rallygoers into throngs of violent antifa and other left wing counter protesters. You'll deny this because that's just what you do.

    Do you even understand how this permit process works for rallies and marches?
     
    And you're a grizzled veteran of how many rallies and marches?

    The police provided the appropriate level of protection.
     
    Wrong according to witnesses and the after action review compiled by former U.S. attorney Tim Heaphy. Appropriate level of protection would have meant keeping counter protesters at least 50 ft away behind barricades and a wall of law enforcement officers. Do you just make it up as you go?

    No, the police did not “allow” anything. The radicals from both sides took matters into their own hands.
     
    "Heaphy said he heard from a couple of officers in the police command center that day who said Thomas told officers, “Let them fight for a little. It will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/charlottesville-police-chief-resigns-in-wake-of-report-on-white-supremacist-rally/2017/12/18/536ac8a2-e42c-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.cce1cd0ec010

    Boom shocka locka!


    There wasn’t any “violations” considering the rally was held.
     
    And then abruptly declared unlawful because the police chief told his officers to "let them fight for a little". See above.

    Highly unlikely there will be a massive civil war as predicted by the Alt Right.
     
    Not many on the alt-right are predicting it, only conceding that it's one of many possibilities which it is. But Louis Farrakhan was promoting civil war and exhorting his followers to "kill those who kill us" in response to police killings of violent black criminals and it was crickets from left wing news sources.

    Suggest you apply for a job at CNN since you just seem to wing it and create your own narratives about certain events.

    “And was immediately declared unlawful by ensuring that violence broke out among both sides.”

    Exactly, because citizens there had stated their direct concerns, including white people. Again, do you even understand how permits for protests and how actual protests work?

    “In some cases police were literally shoving UtR rallygoers into throngs of violent antifa and other left wing counter protesters. You’ll deny this because that’s just what you do.”

    Of course the police were shoving protesters from both sides.
    Of course the police were using physical force on those whom they believed were engaging in unlawful activity and resisting arresting.

    There is no denying here. Are you that dense?

    “And you’re a grizzled veteran of how many rallies and marches?”

    12.

    “Wrong according to witnesses and the after action review compiled by former U.S. attorney Tim Heaphy. Appropriate level of protection would have meant keeping counter protesters at least 50 ft away behind barricades and a wall of law enforcement officers. Do you just make it up as you go?”

    Appropriate action was taken at the time. There will always be a review of procedures and how those procedures were implemented, with criticisms on how the police acted or should have acted. And from that report, people lose their jobs due to allegations made or due to the facts that show major breakdowns in protocols.

    “Not many on the alt-right are predicting it, only conceding that it’s one of many possibilities which it is. But Louis Farrakhan was promoting civil war and exhorting his followers to “kill those who kill us” in response to police killings of violent black criminals and it was crickets from left wing news sources.”

    That’s what he does. He is a joke. He is the black Richard Spencer. Do you not even pay attention?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Rurik says:
    @Talha
    Hey Rurik,

    I'm with you. I'm praying for unity on that front also. If you poll the Muslim street, the concept of a united Ummah is still quite strong. And when it comes to Palestinians; most definitely want the occupation to end and want their governments to do something about it. At the end of the day, this is one of the reasons why autocrats are supported over many Muslim nations. For instance, Morsi may have made bad remarks about Assad, but he was very quick to act upon the will of most Egyptians to help ease the situation for the Palestinians:
    In 2012...
    "''The Egyptian side has informed us that the Rafah crossing would open all days of the week, without more details,' the news agency quoted Ehab Al-Ghsain, spokesman for the interior ministry in Gaza, as saying. The news was reportedly confirmed by an Egyptian security source, suggesting increasingly warm relations between recently elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and Gaza’s Islamist Hamas government."
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/sources-say-egypt-reopens-rafah-crossing-with-gaza/

    And what has happened since Sisi took over?:
    "Since the ousting of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi in July 2013, Cairo has seldom opened Rafah."
    https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/gaza-news/Egypt-closes-Rafah-crossing-early-543390

    The Israelis are keeping track of and openly reporting all of this.

    Peace.

    Hey Talha,

    I know this thread has fallen off the page, but just wanted to respond to your always thoughtful posts.

    BTW, when I saw this in the news, I thought of our conversation..

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-khamenei/irans-khamenei-urges-muslim-nations-to-unite-against-u-s-state-tv-idUSKBN1HX0ZC

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Thanks Rurik, I agree - I really wish our government would back off, but it seems there is little chance of that happening voluntarily.

    I do not wish to see more of my fellow US citizen-soldiers dying over this stupidity. I derive no pleasure from this.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Talha says:
    @Rurik
    Hey Talha,

    I know this thread has fallen off the page, but just wanted to respond to your always thoughtful posts.

    BTW, when I saw this in the news, I thought of our conversation..

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-khamenei/irans-khamenei-urges-muslim-nations-to-unite-against-u-s-state-tv-idUSKBN1HX0ZC

    Peace.

    Thanks Rurik, I agree – I really wish our government would back off, but it seems there is little chance of that happening voluntarily.

    I do not wish to see more of my fellow US citizen-soldiers dying over this stupidity. I derive no pleasure from this.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Diversity Heretic

    But let Monsieur Macron bring in another 5 million former subject peoples of the French Empire and he will discover that the magnanimity and altruism of the French has its limits, and a Le Pen will soon replace him in the Elysee Palace.
     
    Not likely. With additional immigration and 40% of "French" children born in 2016 having at least one parent of African or Middle East origin, the prospect of a nationalist along the lines of Marine Le Pen being elected are approximately zero. One can only hope that the nations of Eastern Europe will see the unnfolding demographic, political and cultural catastrophe of the U.K., Germany, France and Sweden and decide national suicide is not a good option.

    I do not know where you get your figures from. Less than 25% of French births are to non Europeans or mixed couples. France is still over 80% European Caucasian. Furthermore there is little doubt that one of three things will happen in France within less than a decade: Marine Le Pen will be elcted President, a Marxist will be elected President or there will be a revolution and civil war in la Belle France that will make 1789 and afterwards look like a tea party. The French are increasingly fed up with being a dumping ground for the surplus population of their former colonies and a huge backlash is building against the race and nation traitors and their globalist backers in charge. Stay tuned.

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

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan 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?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored