The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
Out of Bounds, Off-Limits, or Just Plain Ignored
Six National Security Questions Hillary, Donald, Ted, Marco, et al., Don’t Want to Answer and Won’t Even Be Asked
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

To judge by the early returns, the presidential race of 2016 is shaping up as the most disheartening in recent memory. Other than as a form of low entertainment, the speeches, debates, campaign events, and slick TV ads already inundating the public sphere offer little of value. Rather than exhibiting the vitality of American democracy, they testify to its hollowness.

Present-day Iranian politics may actually possess considerably more substance than our own. There, the parties involved, whether favoring change or opposing it, understand that the issues at stake have momentous implications. Here, what passes for national politics is a form of exhibitionism about as genuine as pro wrestling.

A presidential election campaign ought to involve more than competing coalitions of interest groups or bevies of investment banks and billionaires vying to install their preferred candidate in the White House. It should engage and educate citizens, illuminating issues and subjecting alternative solutions to careful scrutiny.

That this one won’t even come close we can ascribe as much to the media as to those running for office, something the recent set of “debates” and the accompanying commentary have made painfully clear. With certain honorable exceptions such as NBC’s estimable Lester Holt, representatives of the press are less interested in fulfilling their civic duty than promoting themselves as active participants in the spectacle. They bait, tease, and strut. Then they subject the candidates’ statements and misstatements to minute deconstruction. The effect is to inflate their own importance while trivializing the proceedings they are purportedly covering.

Above all in the realm of national security, election 2016 promises to be not just a missed opportunity but a complete bust. Recent efforts to exercise what people in Washington like to call “global leadership” have met with many more failures and disappointments than clearcut successes. So you might imagine that reviewing the scorecard would give the current raft of candidates, Republican and Democratic alike, plenty to talk about.

But if you thought that, you’d be mistaken. Instead of considered discussion of first-order security concerns, the candidates have regularly opted for bluff and bluster, their chief aim being to remove all doubts regarding their hawkish bona fides.

In that regard, nothing tops rhetorically beating up on the so-called Islamic State. So, for example, Hillary Clinton promises to “smash the would-be caliphate,” Jeb Bush to “defeat ISIS for good,” Ted Cruz to “carpet bomb them into oblivion,” and Donald Trump to “bomb the shit out of them.” For his part, having recently acquired a gun as the “last line of defense between ISIS and my family,” Marco Rubio insists that when he becomes president, “The most powerful intelligence agency in the world is going to tell us where [ISIS militants] are; the most powerful military in the world is going to destroy them; and if we capture any of them alive, they are getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay.”

These carefully scripted lines perform their intended twofold function. First, they elicit applause and certify the candidate as plenty tough. Second, they spare the candidate from having to address matters far more deserving of presidential attention than managing the fight against the Islamic State.

In the hierarchy of challenges facing the United States today, ISIS ranks about on a par with Sicily back in 1943. While liberating that island was a necessary prelude to liberating Europe more generally, the German occupation of Sicily did not pose a direct threat to the Allied cause. So with far weightier matters to attend to — handling Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, for example — President Franklin Roosevelt wisely left the problem of Sicily to subordinates. FDR thereby demonstrated an aptitude for distinguishing between the genuinely essential and the merely important.

By comparison, today’s crop of presidential candidates either are unable to grasp, cannot articulate, or choose to ignore those matters that shouldrightfully fall under a commander-in-chief’s purview. Instead, they compete with one another in vowing to liberate the twenty-first-century equivalent of Sicily, as if doing so demonstrates their qualifications for the office.

What sort of national security concerns should be front and center in the current election cycle? While conceding that a reasoned discussion of heavily politicized matters like climate change, immigration, or anything to do with Israel is probably impossible, other issues of demonstrable significance deserve attention. What follows are six of them — by no means an exhaustive list — that I’ve framed as questions a debate moderator might ask of anyone seeking the presidency, along with brief commentaries explaining why neither the posing nor the answering of such questions is likely to happen anytime soon.

1. The War on Terror: Nearly 15 years after this “war” was launched by George W. Bush, why hasn’t “the most powerful military in the world,” “thefinest fighting force in the history of the world” won it? Why isn’t victory anywhere in sight?

As if by informal agreement, the candidates and the journalists covering the race have chosen to ignore the military enterprise inaugurated in 2001, initially called the Global War on Terrorism and continuing today without an agreed-upon name. Since 9/11, the United States has invaded, occupied, bombed, raided, or otherwise established a military presence in numerous countries across much of the Islamic world. How are we doing?

Given the resources expended and the lives lost or ruined, not particularly well it would seem. Intending to promote stability, reduce the incidence of jihadism, and reverse the tide of anti-Americanism among many Muslims, that “war” has done just the opposite. Advance the cause of democracy and human rights? Make that zero-for-four.

Amazingly, this disappointing record has been almost entirely overlooked in the campaign. The reasons why are not difficult to discern. First and foremost, both parties share in the serial failures of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere in the region. Pinning the entire mess on George W. Bush is no more persuasive than pinning it all on Barack Obama. An intellectually honest accounting would require explanations that look beyond reflexive partisanship. Among the matters deserving critical scrutiny is Washington’s persistent bipartisan belief in military might as an all-purpose problem solver. Not far behind should come questions about simple military competence that no American political figure of note or mainstream media outlet has the gumption to address.

The politically expedient position indulged by the media is to sidestep such concerns in favor of offering endless testimonials to the bravery and virtue of the troops, while calling for yet more of the same or even further escalation. Making a show of supporting the troops takes precedence over serious consideration of what they are continually being asked to do.

2. Nuclear Weapons: Today, more than 70 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what purpose do nukes serve? How many nuclear weapons and delivery systems does the United States actually need?

In an initiative that has attracted remarkably little public attention, the Obama administration has announced plans to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Estimated costs of this program reach as high as $1 trillion over the next three decades. Once finished — probably just in time for the 100th anniversary of Hiroshima — the United States will possess more flexible, precise, survivable, and therefore usable nuclear capabilities than anything hitherto imagined. In effect, the country will have acquired a first-strike capability — even as U.S. officials continue to affirm their earnest hope of removing the scourge of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth (other powers being the first to disarm, of course).

Whether, in the process, the United States will become more secure or whether there might be far wiser ways to spend that kind of money — shoring up cyber defenses, for example — would seem like questions those who could soon have their finger on the nuclear button might want to consider.

Yet we all know that isn’t going to happen. Having departed from the sphere of politics or strategy, nuclear policy has long since moved into the realm of theology. Much as the Christian faith derives from a belief in a Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so nuclear theology has its own Triad, comprised of manned bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched missiles. To question the existence of such a holy threesome constitutes rank heresy. It’s just not done — especially when there’s all that money about to be dropped into the collection plate.

3. Energy Security: Given the availability of abundant oil and natural gas reserves in the Western Hemisphere and the potential future abundance of alternative energy systems, why should the Persian Gulf continue to qualify as a vital U.S. national security interest?

Back in 1980, two factors prompted President Jimmy Carter to announce that the United States viewed the Persian Gulf as worth fighting for. The first was a growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and a belief that American consumers were guzzling gas at a rate that would rapidly deplete domestic reserves. The second was a concern that, having just invaded Afghanistan, the Soviet Union might next have an appetite for going after those giant gas stations in the Gulf, Iran, or even Saudi Arabia.

Today we know that the Western Hemisphere contains more than ample supplies of oil and natural gas to sustain the American way of life (while also heating up the planet). As for the Soviet Union, it no longer exists — a decade spent chewing on Afghanistan having produced a fatal case of indigestion.

No doubt ensuring U.S. energy security should remain a major priority. Yet in that regard, protecting Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela is far more relevant to the nation’s well-being than protecting Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq, while being far easier and cheaper to accomplish. So who will be the first presidential candidate to call for abrogating the Carter Doctrine? Show of hands, please?

4. Assassination: Now that the United States has normalized assassination as an instrument of policy, how well is it working? What are its benefits and costs?

George W. Bush’s administration pioneered the practice of using missile-armed drones as a method of extrajudicial killing. Barack Obama’s administration greatly expanded and routinized the practice.

The technique is clearly “effective” in the narrow sense of liquidating leaders and “lieutenants” of terror groups that policymakers want done away with. What’s less clear is whether the benefits of state-sponsored assassination outweigh the costs, which are considerable. The incidental killing of noncombatants provokes ire directed against the United States and provides terror groups with an excellent recruiting tool. The removal of Mr. Bad Actor from the field adversely affects the organization he leads for no longer than it takes for a successor to emerge. As often as not, the successor turns out to be nastier than Mr. Bad Actor himself.

It would be naïve to expect presidential candidates to interest themselves in the moral implications of assassination as now practiced on a regular basis from the White House. Still, shouldn’t they at least wonder whether it actually works as advertised? And as drone technology proliferates, shouldn’t they also contemplate the prospect of others — say, Russians, Chinese, and Iranians — following America’s lead and turning assassination into a global practice?

5. Europe: Seventy years after World War II and a quarter-century after the Cold War ended, why does European security remain an American responsibility? Given that Europeans are rich enough to defend themselves, why shouldn’t they?

Americans love Europe: old castles, excellent cuisine, and cultural attractions galore. Once upon a time, the parts of Europe that Americans love best needed protection. Devastated by World War II, Western Europe faced in the Soviet Union a threat that it could not handle alone. In a singular act of generosity laced with self-interest, Washington came to the rescue. By forming NATO, the United States committed itself to defend its impoverished and vulnerable European allies. Over time this commitment enabled France, Great Britain, West Germany, and other nearby countries to recover from the global war and become strong, prosperous, and democratic countries.

Today Europe is “whole and free,” incorporating not only most of the former Soviet empire, but even parts of the old Soviet Union itself. In place of the former Soviet threat, there is Vladimir Putin, a bully governing a rickety energy state that, media hype notwithstanding, poses no more than a modest danger to Europe itself. Collectively, the European Union’s economy, at $18 trillion, equals that of the United States and exceeds Russia’s, even in sunnier times, by a factor of nine. Its total population, easily outnumbering our own, is more than triple Russia’s. What these numbers tell us is that Europe is entirely capable of funding and organizing its own defense if it chooses to do so.

It chooses otherwise, in effect opting for something approximating disarmament. As a percentage of the gross domestic product, European nations spend a fraction of what the United States does on defense. When it comes to armaments, they prefer to be free riders and Washington indulges that choice. So even today, seven decades after World War II ended, U.S. forces continue to garrison Europe and America’s obligation to defend 26 countries on the far side of the Atlantic remains intact.

The persistence of this anomalous situation deserves election-year attention for one very important reason. It gets to the question of whether the United States can ever declare mission accomplished. Since the end of World War II, Washington has extended its security umbrella to cover not only Europe, but also virtually all of Latin America and large parts of East Asia. More recently, the Middle East, Central Asia, and now Africa have come in for increased attention. Today, U.S. forces alone maintain an active presence in 147 countries.

Do our troops ever really get to “come home”? The question is more than theoretical in nature. To answer it is to expose the real purpose of American globalism, which means, of course, that none of the candidates will touch it with a 10-foot pole.

6. Debt: Does the national debt constitute a threat to national security? If so, what are some politically plausible ways of reining it in?

Together, the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama can take credit for tripling the national debt since 2000. Well before Election Day this coming November, the total debt, now exceeding the entire gross domestic product, will breach the $19 trillion mark.

In 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,described that debt as “the most significant threat to our national security.” Although in doing so he wandered a bit out of his lane, he performed a rare and useful service by drawing a link between long-term security and fiscal responsibility. Ever so briefly, a senior military officer allowed consideration of the national interest to take precedence over the care and feeding of the military-industrial complex. It didn’t last long.

Mullen’s comment garnered a bit of attention, but failed to spur any serious congressional action. Again, we can see why, since Congress functions as an unindicted co-conspirator in the workings of that lucrative collaboration. Returning to anything like a balanced budget would require legislators to make precisely the sorts of choices that they are especially loathe to make — cutting military programs that line the pockets of donors and provide jobs for constituents. (Although the F-35 fighter may be one of the most bloated and expensive weapons programs in history, even Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has left no stone unturned in lobbying to get those planes stationed in his hometown of Burlington.)

Recently, the role of Congress in authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling has provided Republicans with an excuse for political posturing, laying responsibility for all that red ink entirely at the feet of President Obama — this despite the fact that he has reduced the annual deficit by two-thirds, from $1.3 trillion the year he took office to $439 billion last year.

This much is certain: regardless of who takes the prize in November, the United States will continue to accumulate debt at a non-trivial rate. If a Democrat occupies the White House, Republicans will pretend to care. If our next president is a Republican, they will keep mum. In either case, the approach to national security that does so much to keep the books out of balance will remain intact.

Come to think of it, averting real change might just be the one point on which the candidates generally agree.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, which Random House will publish in April.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. “When it comes to armaments, they prefer to be free riders and Washington indulges that choice. ”

    If the junior members paid more, they would demand more say in alliance policy. American leaders do not wish to grant that independence, preferring to call the policy tune exclusively, which requires being the ones to pay the military-industrial pipers.

    The demand for satrapy-like dependence and policy subordination “expose(s) the real purpose of American globalism.”

    As with the torment of the refugee crisis fomented upon Europe by adventurist American wars of choice, the negative consequences to her colonies of America-centric policies is not considered important by “Lady Liberty.” As Hillary Clinton’s neocon Nuland put it during the State Department’s Ukraine regime overthrow operation, “F–k the E.U.”

  2. France remains a nuclear weapons state, but it eliminated its land-based missile system years ago and now relies on submarines and some aircraft-carried weapons. There is an active debate in Great Britain whether or not to retain its remaining nuclear weapons delivery system–the Tident submarines. I admit that nuclear weapons policy is not nearly as important as the demographic transformation of the U.S. or the debt or the overextension of the American empire. But a nuclear force based on submarines and a few air deliverable tactical bombs strikes me as both highly survivable, sufficiently flexible and generally non-provocative. Nuclear weapons are not simply going to be disinvented, so it behooves us to manage them wisely.

  3. Yet we all know that isn’t going to happen. Having departed from the sphere of politics or strategy, nuclear policy has long since moved into the realm of theology. Much as the Christian faith derives from a belief in a Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so nuclear theology has its own Triad, comprised of manned bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine-launched missiles. To question the existence of such a holy threesome constitutes rank heresy. It’s just not done — especially when there’s all that money about to be dropped into the collection plate

    ^ use google search ‘St Augustine, just war theory, jesus loves nukes, us air force’

    And as drone technology proliferates, shouldn’t they also contemplate the prospect of others — say, Russians, Chinese, and Iranians — following America’s lead and turning assassination into a global practice?

    “No nation may go against its own acts’ is international law as old as Rome. In lay terms known as ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.’ So, yeah, the international law door has been opened to drones employed against the USA except that other nations would look at the USA as a rogue state in the matter (we should be so lucky.)

    What seems to have happened is, there was a deliberate policy decision taken tied to drones that connects the dots to closing Guantanamo. Clearly there has been a rationale of kills rather than captures were the better ends to a mean; Guantanamo, with necessary (‘color of law’) system involving lawyers, IRC inspection and whatnot, is a tangible propaganda asset to those opposed to the ‘war on terror’ policy. Dead faceless ‘terrorists’ buried by their families quickly abroad, not so much.

    It follows, there is a newer, nebulous math involved; in former times ‘actionable intelligence’ required physical agents on location to establish certainty of identity on location within an actionable time frame, to establish probability of success at a high percentage level. We don’t see that now. Instead, the model has been converted from a more time consuming (and accurate) method to profiling in an area where the target is suspected to frequent with a lower (much lower) level of successful outcome.

    The result? Classifying all persons in the targets larger zone of operations as ‘terrorists’ .. whereas before if four out of five operations were successful and the fifth operation could be called off, now four out of five operations are not successful; except for the cover story ALL of those people destroyed via profiling were somehow complicit in supporting the terrorist you sought. In other words, those people in former times ‘perhaps’ useful for interrogations (includes many or even mostly innocents) are simply slaughtered. By the numbers, if in prior model there were 80%+ success, now the reverse is true. But by exponentially upping the use of drones for not only killing but to gather (highly questionable) intelligence on the sought after targets, when making enough strikes through circumstantial evidence based on profiling, eventually there is a threshold where you’re likely to hit the desired target. If 8 out of 10 times you nailed the wrong people, those efforts are written off like a business expenditure with precisely zero worries of legal liability. It’s a calculated sociopath’s venture. Meanwhile, the sheer hate generated in the innocents family and friends, driving them to join the anti-USA efforts, generates profits aplenty for those Pentagon and CIA big-shots who move over to private sector as lobbyists for the arms industry.

    But the focus on drones detracts from those ‘other’ assassinations which mostly go undetected and consequently are under-reported:

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/04/death-of-a-mossad-agent/

    ^

    • Replies: @guest
  4. A valid article Andrew, but please, kindly explain why Putin is referred to as a bully? If indeed he is a bully, how should Bush and Obama be referred to, in terms of quantifying the bullied and the bullying? Any chance you’d respond with ratings for each of them on a scale of one to ten?

    Purely as a matter of speculation, given that the coming US Presidential election is likely to be rigged in Clinton’s favour, do you think she will qualify for being called a bully too?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  5. Aschwin says:

    “Pinning the entire mess on George W. Bush is no more persuasive than pinning it all on Barack Obama. An intellectually honest accounting would require explanations that look beyond reflexive partisanship”

    Trump runs on a platform of limited intervention, cooperating with Putin in Syria and abandoning the duplicitous project of engaging both ISIS and Assad via proxy. By denying both the Brzezinski and the Neo-con camp access to the means to fulfilling their global vision, he would effectively reverse the long-run course of “Pax Americana”.

    “When it comes to armaments, they prefer to be free riders and Washington indulges that choice.”

    Trump has stated that foreign countries will pay for their own security needs if they wish to continue the deployment of US troops in their respective territories. This also implies that if countries are unwilling to pay, Trump will withdraw US forces. This certainly upsets the US military-industrial complex, and I expect an all-out propaganda campaign in thr coming months.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  6. LondonBob says:

    If you look past Trump’s rhetoric for the rubes, he has raised a number of key questions that have been ignored. Namely cooperation with Russia against terrorism, the viability of the American Empire overseas, asking allies to do more, questioning interventionism and the sharp trade practices of the East Asian nations. Add in Rand Paul and I would say this has been a big breakthrough election.

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

    I am very far from sold on the idea that Donald Trump is the peace candidate. A peace candidate would say unequivocably that ISIS is the creation of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama Foreign Policy.

    To stop ISIS dead in its track the US should threaten Saudia Arabia and Israel with thermonuclear extermination…ISIS life support system comes to an end.

    This is why I will not be voting for Trump. I don’t trust him.

    Why not call for the elimination of Israeli nukes?

    Just a reminder:The USS Liberty….Dancing Israeli Art Students on a NJ rooftop on 9/11…Israel our Friend!!!!!

    I am a Native Born White American Race Patriot and I have 0 allegiance to the Jew-Pure state of Israel…and I have 0 allegiance to the Democratic Party….and 0 allegiance to the Republican Party….and 0 allegiance to Donald Trump….

  8. @Aschwin

    If Trump makes any serious intentions known, from a position of Presidential power, to clip the wings of the National Defense establishment, he’ll go the way of RFK/JFK. There is plenty of room up on that hill next to Bob Kennedy’s simple white cross.

  9. Rehmat says:

    It seems Mr. Bacevich is trying to sell the same old poisonous fluid in a new bottle. What the current odd 20 deranged politicians are selling to American voters to achieve White House residency next year, is nothing new. It had been happening for the last 300 years, because United States’ “democracy” was built on loot and corruption, and not on religious morality. White House seen many war criminals, sex maniacs and traitors as its residents.

    “I can understand why a candidate for the highest office (in the US) would have to dissimulate or dissemble. You have to lie to get into office, that’s a given. However, once you get into office, you are either, fearless and true or you are a whore. And if you are fearless and true it will get you shot. That’s the Catch 22. Study your history and see if you can connect the dots on who got shot and why?” – Les Visible in Have Fun Bending Over for the Catch 22, October 22, 2008.

    Since 1980s – Iranian democracy is based on religious morals, honesty, and patriotism. Under Iranian Constitution none these American politician would be allowed to contest presidential election.

    American Catholic writer, Joanna Francis, called Dr. Ahmadinejad better than her Pope Benedict XVI. Israel-born British Jewish musician and writer, Gilad Atzmon, called Ahmadinejad far better than former British prime minister Tony Blair in justice and dignity. American writer, John Kaminski, had wished America had a President like Ahmadinejad….

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/08/14/ahmadinejad-iran-is-among-the-best-nations/

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  10. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Jim Christian

    JFK was 0 threat to the establishment…JFK was the establishment. JFK was a Cold War War-Hawk. Just knowing this one fact about JFK blows the JFK assassination conspiracy theory out of the water.

    JFK the Cold War War-Hawk ignited the Cuban Missile Crisis when he ordered several terrorists attacks on the Cuban Civilian Population. We came to within 60 seconds of thermonuclear war…lights out permanently for the Human Species because of JFK.

    The Human Species was saved from permanent extinction by a Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian Naval Commander named Vitali Akripov. There should be a monument in every US City in honor of Commander Akripov.

    If Donald Trump is the new JFK…no one should vote for him!!!

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  11. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Conservative Orthodox Christian Russian Naval Commander named Vitali Akripov

    Vasily Aleksandrovich Archipov, Vice-Admiral, at the time of Cuban Missile Crisis–Captain II Rank, Chief Of Staff of 69th Brigade of Submarines (69 BRPL). He was communist. I was privileged to know him personally at a time, being a cadet of Naval Academy he was superintendent of.

  12. Rehmat says:
    @War for Blair Mountain

    NOPE – History ignorant. JFK was no “war hawk”. He was an anti-Semite for sure. He refused David Gurion, the mass murderer, request to help Israel become a nuclear power. JFK refused the request on the accuse that if he did that then he had to help other US allies like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt to become nuclear powers. His refusal made him a genuine target of Israeli Mossad.

    Even after 53 years, the Jewish-controlled mainstream media is still propagating the story of Lee Harvey Oswald being a lone shooter. However, there are many independent politicians, whistleblowers, authors and writers like former Rep. Paul Findley, Israeli whistleblower Mordecai Vanunu, author Michael Collin Piper, Israeli journalist Barry Chamish, Americam Pastor and journalist Mark Dankof, etc., who believe that JFK could have been a victim of Israeli Mossad as result of a letter JFK wrote to Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol on July 5, 1963. In the letter JFK insisted that the Zionist regime open Dimona nuclear facility for American inspectors…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2013/11/23/us-remembers-john-kennedy-after-50-years/

    • Replies: @Sherman
  13. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Smoothie

    Tell us more about Vice-Admiral Archipov. It was his call…and thank Dear Jesus Commander Archipov made the right call back in 1962. Millions of Americans were making runs to the grocery store stock piling food…very scared…very very scared!!!

  14. Aschwin says:

    ” A peace candidate would say unequivocably that ISIS is the creation of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama Foreign Policy”

    As a result of their actions? He is quite clear about ISIS being the result of US intervention. If you are referring to the creation of ISIS or the US-Turkey allowing ISIS to transport oil over Turkish borders, such a claim would hurt his chances for election.

  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Almost all politicians, including the current crop, are in the main good at knowing how to get themselves elected but little else. None of them know much about the intricacies of the economy, military matters, ISIS, foreign policy, where Azerbaijan is or anything else. For that they rely on specialists who tell them what to do. They don’t even write their own speeches but employ professional writers for that and then just read them off from notes or a teleprompter. Advisors tell them how to dress, what the talking points of the day are, members of the public asking questions turn out to be plants and the candidate has been coached beforehand, and so on. It’s more like they’re auditioning for a part in a movie. It’s hard to tell who the real person is underneath the image.
    The debates are unwatchable. It’s impossible to be profound in five minute soundbites. Also, consider the American public; they’re not very profound either. The bottom third of Americans are mentally below par and can’t be expected to know much. The next third is pretty mediocre. Together that’s over sixty percent of the voting public, a majority. If they can be bamboozled and stampeded the right way then anything can be sold to them. That’s why so-called debates seem more like reality shows; it’s all rah-rah and slogans repeated over and over, a personality contest. George Washington could never get elected today.

  16. @War for Blair Mountain

    Millions of Americans were making runs to the grocery store stock piling food…very scared…very very scared!!!

    In 1962 “millions of Americans” didn’t have a clue about Commander Archipov, couldn’t find Cuba on a map — hell, probably couldn’t spell Cuba.

    In 1962 “millions of American” steelworkers were not “making runs to the grocery store stock piling food” because they didn’t have money to do so. Steel strikes in 1959 and 1960 having been weathered — one of the strikes lasted for over 6 months — I remember my Dad coming home from United Steelworkers union-required picket duty with a bloody gash on his leg– and “minimal wage concessions gained,” good ole Ike extracted his pound of flesh: foreign steel gained inroads into US markets.

    The years of strikes resolved in a way that ultimately disadvantaged steelworkers and favored foreign imports, steelworkers soon faced extended lay-offs.

    That’s what we worried about as we crouched under our desks: Will Dad go back to work? Will we go home from school and find Mom crying again?

  17. Sherman says:
    @Rehmat

    Hey Homer,

    Since you’re a nuclear expert maybe you can explain to everyone what’s happening @ Dimona.

    Sherm

  18. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Other than as a form of low entertainment, the speeches, debates, campaign events, and slick TV ads already inundating the public sphere offer little of value. Rather than exhibiting the vitality of American democracy, they testify to its hollowness.

    This claim is simply silly.

    One may question candidates’ sincerity, competence and integrity, but there is no question that in raising the issues of national borders; immigration; the rule of law; cooperation not conflict with Russia — not least in efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear war; the role of Russia in Syria; the return of off-shored jobs to America; and education, Trump has presented a truly radical agenda that repudiates virtually all of the policies of the United States and its vassals over the last 24 years.

    To characterize Trump’s campaign as “a form of low entertainment” is to ignore the fact that 50% of the American electorate is, by definition, of below average intelligence and that to engage that half of the electorate in the democratic process it is necessary to speak with them in the language that they understand, something that Trump does perhaps better than any other politician has done since Winston Churchill’s wartime radio broadcasts.

  19. Dave37 says:

    I don’t mean to go off subject but didn’t the Soviets almost launch on us during the Able Archer exercise (1983?), thinking it was a cover for us attacking them? Anyway the problem with Nukes, seems to me, is that once used there’s no going back. Fortunately US policy has only threatened to use them, not so sure anyone in the middle east, far east or No. Korea, et al would be so hesitant. btw in 1962 we were stockpiling food because of Cuba but then we were in the Florida panhandle and could see some military assets moving around.

    • Replies: @guest
  20. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @War for Blair Mountain

    October Fury by Peter Hutchhausen could be a good primer. As superintendent Archipov commanded an immense respect among cadets and officers.

  21. Art says:

    Today Feb 1, 2016 may be a big day in American history. Iowa has the opportunity to change America’s direction. It can start Trump on the way to reversing the Zionist funk that controls America.

    Go Iowa – prevail over the left and right wing Zionist money establishment – vote for America – vote Trump!!

    • Replies: @Sherman
  22. Max Payne says:

    The biggest security threat to America is the white man and his high capacity for self-delusion.

    Liberal white people import non-whites from communities that are beyond a shadow of a doubt incompatible with Western values. Conservative white people sell out their own nation to the highest bidder (China, Israel, House of Saud; whoever can dish out hard cash) even if it means the US will be entangled in future wars and political conflicts.

    Both claim to do it for the greater good of the country (because admitting you’re doing it for the greater good of your bank account doesn’t feel as nice as false patriotism).

    Even in his own politics the white man has varying levels of delusions. Doubles-speak such as collateral damage (civilian killing) or ‘freedom and democracy’ (terror and plunder) are used interchangeably in every discussion. What the white-man calls “stability” is just code for “instability”.

    Sure. You may say “the Chinese are doing the same thing, worse even”. But the Chinese are just mimicking the white-man system. Last I checked Communism (and today’s evolved Capitalism ‘with Asian values’) were ideologies originally developed by the white man.

    Some of the most barbaric organizations in the world, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, are products of the white man and yet today most white people believe they are more civilized then their odd-coloured cousins (even though no group of humans on the planet can reach such levels of barbarity, it just does not come naturally to most human beings as it does for white people. The closest the non-white man got was the Rwanda Genocides and even then it was a drop in the bucket).

    To this day the white man can’t even recognize that he holds the entire planet hostage with his nuclear weapons. I can only imagine during the Cuban Missile Crisis how nations were on edge hoping to god these two white people, the Soviets and Americans, don’t destroy the planet over something ridiculously stupid.

    Once the white man acknowledges he is cursed with self-deception will he be able to truly free himself. He won’t fall for one-liner sound bites which throw his country into 8 years of occupation or into a war with a fourth-world power only to be humiliated in achieving zero objectives. He won’t meekly accept banks bailed out in the billions with his tax dollars while the same banks ruin his life over a neglected $2.50 transaction fee.

    Just saying… self-deception is everyone’s enemy. But for white people it’s genetically hard-coded.

  23. Sherman says:
    @Art

    Hi Little Art,

    Let’s go Trump!

    I’m sure you’ll be delighted when Trump becomes president and his Jewish daughter and grandchildren celebrate Chanukah in the White House!

    Perhaps his Jewish accountant (who I personally know) will be celebrating in the White House with them!

    Sherman

    • Replies: @Art
    , @joe webb
    , @Jim Christian
  24. Art says:
    @Sherman

    Perhaps his Jewish accountant (who I personally know) will be celebrating in the White House with them!

    Hi Sherm – tell us Little Jew – if what you say is true – why are Trump’s main detractors all Jews or Gentiles on the Jew payroll?

    Yours — Art

    p.s. How are the Palestinian’ beaches these days – sunny like they have been for the last 1,000 years?

    • Replies: @Sherman
  25. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Point number five would also apply equally well to Japan and South Korea.

  26. @Max Payne

    self-deception is everyone’s enemy. But for white people it’s genetically hard-coded

    Amen!

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/05/15/youve-got-apes/

    ^ on European cultural mentality

  27. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Solonto

    Thanks for telling the story about your father and family. I know exactly what you went through. I come from a very large Irish Catholic Family. My late Father , an aerospace engineer, was race-replaced along with hundreds of other Native Born White American Engineers by a well known aerospace company. These TRAITORS brought in the Hindus-and Sihks….India has now colonized and annexed the surrounding area…The Hindu-Sihk “Americans” went on to buy and own every politician in the area. My father’s name is on the plaque surrounding the last F-14 made by Gruman that is now perched on a concrete stand in Calverton along with several hundred other Native Born White American Gruman Engineers and Technicians. My late father also worked on the LEM. My family, like your family, experienced extreme economic terror.

    The older generation in my family tell me that October 1962 was a very very scary time period..and that everyone they knew was terrified that the world was coming to an end-everyone was off to the grocery store and hardware store. Thank you Commander Archipov!!!!!

    Smoothie

    Thanks for the info!

  28. Sherman says:
    @Art

    Hi Little Art,

    I prefer the beaches on the Sea of Galilee because on a clear day you can climb the Golan and watch Arabs attacking and killing each other.

    It’s more exciting than a UFC match!

    Sherm

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Jim Christian
  29. joe webb says:

    “Rather than exhibiting the vitality of American democracy, they testify to its hollowness.” The writer is referencing the campaign.

    He is totally wrong, and guided my some kind of liberal ghost. Like what does world war two and Italy got to do with anything? Punditry puke.

    This campaign is anything but ‘hollow.’ It has catapulted the US into the same rapid sea change as is happening in Europe.

    I guess the author disapproves of this sea change.

    He never uses the I word, Israel. If I were writing on the ME, it would simply be entitled, Israel and its shabbas goyim destroying any possibility of stability in the ME. It is that simple.

    This guy is a false flagger. HIs flag is the same old same old lame liberalism.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  30. joe webb says:
    @Max Payne

    you are missing something here. Altruism, the trickster in our white genome, which no other race possesses in such dimension, used to work well when we lived in small groups in caveman days. It helped us stay alive by creating enough trust to cooperate with other small tribal groups.

    Today is another matter, and that altruism is killing us, but another story.

    World War two was a great struggle over secular ideology. It was a battle over abstract Ideas. It was also a battle emotionally driven by emotions peculiar to the white man…again, harnessed by altruism….”It is not Fair!” is a mental construction largely characterizing only Whites.

    Other races simply fight over territory and resources, and opposing gangs of their own race.

    But NO! not the White Man. We fight over Fairness, racial equality, social justice, and the ever growing catalogue of Rights.

    Most races agree that there are no Rights. Just who has the power. They are way more in accord with general human nature in this regard.

    The ancient Greeks were like the Other races today: they fought one-another over territory and prestige, and they also , even in the same polis, were given to intense personal rivalry. To their credit, they also fought over relative democracy vs. relative oligarchy (Athens vs. Sparta.) Still, it was something they should not have done…fight , in this regard.

    We all know what happened. Peloponesian Wars finished them off, and in walked Rome. Still they had a good run, at least about 5 centuries.

    Whites are fighters, probably more so than other races. That is OK, more or less, for it has guaranteed our liberties. Don’t Tread on Me sort of thing. Individualism.

    To say that the USSR and Nazism was the most barbaric of all time is absurd. Technology, etc.

    Whites fight for ideas, and that is better than Whatever…and prostration before the Oriental Despot. Freedom and liberty means one fights, as we are now starting to do again. This is Good.

    The battle between extreme Collectivism and extreme Individualism has been eclipsed now by Race struggle. We will see what happens, now that to some large Degree, Abstractions have been cleared away and fundamental “existential” threats are perceived….naked at last. The last ism of our Times is Liberalism. The counter-revolution will develop its own divisions, and that is OK, but none of them will be Liberal.

    Black, Brown, White, Yellow…the fundamentals now…not the old isms.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  31. @joe webb

    He never uses the I word, Israel.

    Israel is the connective tissue; it is the unnamed entity behind each of numbers one- through six, and the beneficiary of all the death and mayhem that all of those events and phenomenon brought about.

  32. @joe webb

    “Most races agree that there are no Rights. Just who has the power. They are way more in accord with general human nature in this regard.”

    Rights are made up, they are mental concepts and most often a tool of government. I do disagree with who has the power being in accord with human nature. That would be man the animal’s nature. Just a continuation of red in tooth and claw.

    White control freaks initiate fighting for the same reason as all other control freaks: my ‘right’ to survive and prosper trumps your ‘right’ to survive and prosper. Straight out of the animal world, i.e. innate.

    From then on it’s just a matter of rationalizing it.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  33. @LondonBob

    All the campaigns consist of rhetoric for the dupes.

    As for a big breakthrough, I would like to see all the candidates draw up at least five Executive Orders they would sign upon being sworn in.

    Of course they could renege, but then they would be telling the voters they are lying sacks of sh t. Which they are.

  34. joe webb says:

    so right. this twerp is “Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country.”

    I would guess this Bacevich is a Slav and/or maybe a jew who hates Russia, but, main point, blames ‘Americans’ for their lack of enthusiasm for Vietnam, and other wars.

    Just another jerk-off liberal and bent-over for Israel. He loves it.

    Joe Webb

    • Disagree: Wizard of Oz, SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  35. joe webb says:
    @Sherman

    let me go out on a limb here. Trump will discipline Israel big time. He does not care for the ME wars and he knows what’s what.

    His daughter’s love life….he just fatherly supports her and what is more, it gives him an alibi.

    Not following him much, I did catch his fun remark…’if Israel can build a wall to keep out Palestinians, why can’t we build a wall to keep out illegal mexicans?’

    Subtext means, uh, fuk the jews but they are useful , not idiots, but nationalists whom we can use to justify our own nationalism. Gotta luv the jews.

    Joe Webb

  36. joe webb says:
    @Max Payne

    “To this day the white man can’t even recognize that he holds the entire planet hostage with his nuclear weapons. I can only imagine during the Cuban Missile Crisis how nations were on edge hoping to god these two white people, the Soviets and Americans, don’t destroy the planet over something ridiculously stupid.”

    look at what you wrote. It is absurd. The nukes kept communism in one country, more or less. Better dead than red was correct, although nobody thought it would be a nuked dead.

    During the Cuban missile crisis, Castro, the probable jew, wanted the US nuked.

    As I suggested before, Whites got problems, but it is a good thing we got the nukes, not Iran, and so on. The day may come when we take out India’s, Pakistan’s and Israel’s nukes.

    China’s may or may not be a problem. What we should do is combine with China to take out N. Korea’s capacity for major mischief. Oriental Despotism/nuclear despotism.

    You got a serious problem is recognizing how ‘bad’ most people are, with
    Whites being the least bad. The darker, the badder…yeah, Africa today, and Rwanda a few years ago. The only thing holding them back is technology.

    I recall that the machete was the available weapon. When they got tired of swinging the machetes, they just cut the achilles tendons so tomorrow’s victims could not get far during the night. 700,000 dulling the blades of machetes. Black be bootyful.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Aschwin
    , @NoseytheDuke
  37. Art says:
    @Sherman

    I prefer the beaches on the Sea of Galilee

    Hey Sherm — my guy was there a along time ago! — Art

  38. Aschwin says:
    @joe webb

    “Better dead than red was correct”

    Was it?
    As much as I’m appalled when i discover the influence of communist-sympathizers pre- and during the cold war, and the tolerance of Soviet violations of human rights and outright genocide in contrast to the hypersensitivity concerning the war crimes committed by the National Socialists in Germany, it seems to me that former Soviet countries are far healthier than the West.

    The reactions of Poland,Hungary,Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia to the refugee crisis engineered by Merkel and the European Commission is telling. In the recent elections in Poland the socialists only got a few percentage points in last years presidential elections. In Hungary the largest party is Fidesz and the second largest party Jobbik. The first highly critical of non-western immigration, the second extremely critical of non-western immigration.

    That in itself is a sign they are not catering to TPTB.

  39. @Sherman

    A Trump Family Christmas in the White House makes me all warm and fuzzy! It’s gonna piss off the resident Muslim commentators here, though.

  40. @Sherman

    It’s glorious. All we have to do is back away and watch them destroy each other. Trump is going to do just that. Bail out, support Russia, do business. I’m partial though, I dig on Israel myself.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  41. Dan Good says:

    What evidence is there that Putin is a moderate threat to Europe? It seems he would do anything to JOIN Europe but is constantly rejected. As for being a “bully”, could you define what you mean?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  42. geokat62 says:
    @Jim Christian

    It’s glorious. All we have to do is back away and watch them destroy each other.

    Why “destroy,” JC? Surely you meant to write “kill.” It’s not like you to use language a liberal would use. You’re not going soft on us, are you?

  43. guest says:

    FDR didn’t handle Stalin at all, though. His strategy boiled down to giving the Strong Man everything he wanted and hoping he likes us. Plus, we got the U.N. Whoopty-doo. He handled Churchill, after a fashion. But Churchill handled himself, really.

  44. guest says:

    “It should engage and educate citizens , illuminating issues and subjecting alternative solutions to careful scrutiny”

    Whoever said that? Elections don’t matter all that much because elected officials don’t matter, except to the officials themselves and the specific people who will benefit or be forestall from benefiting from them being in office. But if they did, or insofar as they do, what does educating the citizenry have to do with it?

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  45. guest says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    About the “what’s good for the goose…” rule, the U.S. will continue to avoid (openly) assassinating foreign heads of state, as well as any people likely to be defended by states. The type of people it targets in the robot war it assumes are already engaged in lawless war with us. That is the basic rationale of the war in terror.

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  46. guest says:
    @Dave37

    “Fortunately US policy has only threatened to use them”

    Tell that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  47. @guest

    @ troll, actually, it’s always an honor to be singled out.

    non sequitur |ˌnän ˈsekwitər|
    noun
    a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
    ORIGIN Latin, literally ‘it does not follow.’

    ‘it does not follow’ .. I like that.

    The GWOT (or whatever Obama’s people calls it these days) is based on a rationale of the USA is entitled to go after the ‘terrorists’ anywhere, regardless of state borders. If, in their present ‘discretion’ they avoid certain open provocations, the record is nonetheless clear, or that is, the G in GWOT.

    The door to reciprocity has been opened –

    • Replies: @guest
  48. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    There is only ONE party in the USA, the War for Wall Street and Israel party. Doesn’t matter if it’s a Repub or Dem in the WH, these endless wars will continue until we go completely bankrupt, both morally and financially.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  49. guest says:
    @Ronald Thomas West

    I don’t understand your reaction to my post. I don’t know what doesn’t follow. I wasn’t even disagreeing with you. My point is only that in the eyes of the U.S. government it was the “terrorists” who opened the doors. The fact that they used hijacked planes instead of drones is immaterial to our powers that arec. The world is a battlefield and the enemy doesn’t wear uniforms, therefore we can blow them up when and wherever we desire. That’s their rationale, not mine. It is legalistic, if not legal.

    Now, it does open us up to Russia, for instance, or anyone with the means to fight a robot war with us, so long as they have excuses as reasonable as the ones we’ve concocted to justify our perpetual war. Which shouldn’t be difficult. But my other point was that we avoid assassinating officials and anyone else we can expect to be protected by foreign states, or at least the foreign states we fear. (The other ones we declare outlaws and do with what we will.) This is purely practical, I think, and not at all legalistic, though we do still have laws against assassination.

    You’re right, however, the door to reciprocity has been opened. I think it already was, given the long, dark history of American Empire, and the CIA especially.

    • Replies: @Ronald Thomas West
  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    The unions absolutely devastated this country.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  51. @joe webb

    Chill Joe! All of this talk of “we” taking out various nations might be giving you a little wee stiffy but it doesn’t boost your intellectual standing very much. I very much doubt that there will be a seat at the table for “we” except perhaps as an entertainer should chest-thumping become a popular trend.

    The US entered the two World Wars when the bulk of the fighting and dying was already done. Most of America’s historic “great victories” have been against much weaker opponents. Most recently the US has lost the wars of its own making against seemingly inferior opponents.

    How has this worked out for you Joe? Surely you’ve noticed or heard about the great number of citizens of the land of the free sleeping in cars, depending on food banks, going without medical care, poisoned city water due to “savings”, bridges collapsing for the want of sensible maintenance. The debt, the erosion of rights and freedoms, the national disunity? No? Maybe it’s all of that deafening chest-thumping.

    Take heart though, with so much bravery on tap, should Americans ever choose to turn on those truly responsible for their problems things could return to good in no time at all. Peace.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  52. @Anonymous

    Actually it was the Unions more than anything that gave the American workers access to a middle class lifestyle, so how much more wrong can one be? Try thinking before you post.

    US auto workers had things better than any auto workers anywhere as did workers in manufacturing all across the US and it was by far thanks to unions.

    It was the capital class that wanted more and more when they already had more than they could ever need and so they destroyed the unions. This is also the reason for unchecked migration. See the decline in wages and living standards since the election of the “great” union-buster Reagan the Doofus. He was no true conservative and true to form he destroyed much and conserved little.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  53. joe webb says:
    @Drapetomaniac

    well, as they say, that said…animal behavior, etc., we as a species have come up with rules that do make sense to keep the relative peace. In no way do I criticize this attempt. Being Human means having rules. The basic rule is “no theft”. all the other rules just follow the logic of no theft.

    The problem is that while animals adjust to rank, we have trouble doing it. Rank is real and in the case of race, rank is also real, biologically real. It is the attempt to alter natural rank that gets us in trouble.

    Within any race, most will accept rank and order, except with blacks who are always fighting over rank. Whites probably fight more than Asians over rank. Asians accept the despot and prostrate themselves before him. Whites do not.

    Starting with the ancient Greeks, we have insisted on personal freedom, relative democracy and so on. Whites have big mouths, bigger than any other race. And we fight for our ‘rights’ to speak, etc.

    The Democratic Age refuses rank, especially racial rank. This is contrary to Nature. It is that simple. The normal ranking system of Whites is more or less an aristocratic order, with no King or Tyrant ruling over a mass. Feudalism has been the norm until 1789. That is the natural order.

    What some fascists do not understand is that Dictatorship by a Hitler, etc. is outside the historical experience of Whites. The Germans and Scandinavians of a one or two thousand years ago always elected their chiefs. Whites do not normally submit to a dictator. That is our biology.

    thus Rights are natural rights, and the naturalness criterion is to be discovered in history. Whites have these rights, but it is not at all clear that other races have the historical evidence that they are entitled to rights. A right is not cooked-up in the lib-rad mind and Announced. It grows, it is organically developed over time. Our liberties go back to merry England and then to Greece and Rome. Every other race has no pedigree in this regard. They do not deserve the rights that whites have fought for and developed.. They have not earned them.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  54. @Greg Bacon

    I was very fortunate to attend once a talk given by Gore Vidal at the Writer’s Guild in Beverly Hills. In it he stated, “There is only one political party in the US, it’s the Money Party and it has two branches called Republicans and Democrats”.

  55. @guest

    My apologies (short answers sometimes do leave the door opened to misconstrued however)

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  56. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    What some fascists do not understand is that Dictatorship by a Hitler, etc. is outside the historical experience of Whites. The Germans and Scandinavians of a one or two thousand years ago always elected their chiefs. Whites do not normally submit to a dictator. That is our biology.

    Those Germans and Scandinavians also engaged in blood feuds, pederasty, slavery, sexual slavery, rape, homosexuality, etc. I don’t think they necessarily explain that much about contemporary whites, nor are they necessarily a good model for whites. Hitler may have been many things, but I don’t think he raped boys or female slaves in public nor did he cultivate such behavior in the wider society. I think contemporary Germans would regard a society with men running around engaging in that sort of thing as far more despotic than Hitler’s Germany.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/01/hyper-masculine-behavior-among-iron-age-scandinavian-men/

    There was nothing in Greek culture – whether in art, law, or cult – which suggested that heterosexuality was natural and homosexuality unnatural. The Greeks regarded male homosexual desire as a natural part of life, and it was solely the differentiation between the active and the passive role in same-sex relations which was of profound importance (Dover 1989). The Gothic people, the Heruli, and the Scythians are all said to have practised pederasty between warriors and boys.

    In the extremely competitive and aggressive Scandinavian society in which blood feuds were taking place everywhere, often lasting for many years and several generations (e.g. Byock 1982; Miller 1990), the concept of honour evolved around reputation, respect and prestige. Social life and reputation were hierarchically organised and arranged according to dominance and submission, powerful and powerless. At the bottom of the social scale, female thralls [slaves] were routinely subjected to rape and traded as sexual subjects. In the account of a Viking market at Volga in 922, the Arab diplomat Ibn Fadlan describes how the Vikings (the Scandinavian Rus) regularly had sex with their slaves, often in public, and in groups of both sexes. This activity took place both in front of potential buyers and their own formal partners, whether wives or girlfriends, who seemed unaffected (Sørensen 1973: 70; Price 2005).

    • Replies: @joe webb
    , @joe webb
  57. joe webb says:
    @Anonymous

    What’s your point? Whites are not perfect, but we are far better than everybody else.

    Reading around in Icelandic Sagas a while back, I would fit right into old Viking society.

    Got a problem with that?

    Whites abolished slavery, etc. etc. Our altruism quotient is much higher than every other race.

    Show me another race that in various times were “better” than Whites.

    You appear to be a world-burner…a social justice nut case.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  58. joe webb says:
    @NoseytheDuke

    not taking our nations, just nuke capacity.

    try to stay on point. Joe

  59. joe webb says:
    @Anonymous

    by the way, I did not stress genetics enough in my piece on the evolution of rights.

    The White growth of rights is almost totally genetically based. The northern hunter-gatherers and the Indo-European aristocratic warriors combined the northern altruism trait with the Indo-European demand for personal freedom and free speech of sorts.

    When you read the Iliad, you see various folks mouthing off to their betters…this of course was the Individualism of Greece, etc. It is all genetic.

    Of course, it is also high intelligence which compasses the pragmatic perception of the need for consent and debate. Rules make sense, and impose Law on those who cannot figure it out.

    Nice piece I read recently in Burckhardt’ Greeks…that some loud-mouth Greek in conversation with Xerxes of Persia used the term King Law, to try to get the knuckle-head Xerxes to understand that not some dictator/oriental despot, but codified law was king in Greece.

    The despots will never understand. It is genetic.

    By the way, I see the problems we have, which is why I will vote for Trump. I am a kind of social democrat…for my people only. That is our white altruism speaking in me. Just because one is born smart, does not mean that one ‘should’ lord it over the less well endowed.

    Share the wealth….national socialism without Hitlerism.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  60. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    My point is, why do you criticize Hitler’s Germany and look to ancient Germans and Scandinavians as models, when the latter seem to have had a much more despotic and cruel society?

    Why do you think you’d fit in with ancient Germanic and Scandinavian societies? Did you even read MacDonald’s article? You’d be comfortable with the blood feuds, pederasty, trading and raping female slaves, etc.? Most whites today would not be. Did you read the part about how they regarded older men? From MacDonald’s article:

    Old men became females because they no longer penetrated others:

    As an old man living ‘innan stokks’ (the women’s domain), Egill was no longer part of the public world of his youth and manhood, and even the thrall [slave] women treated him with no respect, laughed at him, teased him, etc. Egill ends his life not only surrounded by women, but in a sense as one of them. In Sonatorrek (1) Egill himself complains about his weakness and the softness of his ‘bore (drill bit) of the foot/leg of taste/pleasure’. In Clover’s explanation the bore becomes a metaphor for the tongue, sword and penis — all three have softened and for that reason Egill ends far down the gender scale — as a powerless, effeminate geriatric. ‘Sooner or later, all of us end up alike in our softness – regardless of our past and regardless of our sex’ (Clover 1993: 385). Thus, sex changed progressively through life and was not a generalised category related to gender. To become argr was to become soft, impotent and powerless – including a man on whom a sexual act was performed.

    • Replies: @joe webb
  61. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    Colonel [U.S. Army (retired)] Andrew J. Bacevich, Sr.

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

    Read about this good, decent, honorable man and acknowledge the reality that you are are a lesser man than he is by almost any measure of virtue.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    Reading around in Icelandic Sagas a while back, I would fit right into old Viking society.

    More like the old Vikings would fit right into you, literally, and make you their bitch, according to The Occidental Observer article linked above.

  63. @Dan Good

    Putin’s Russia has to be rejected by the EU as it conceives itself for much the same reasons as Turkey, long an aspirant EU member, is now heading in the opposite direction. You indirectly raise the interesting question of compatibility. Is Russia with its lumpen Orthodox nationalist population (twice the population of Turkey) and Muslim minorities less likely to disrupt civilised Brussels and Strasbourg ruled Europe than a nationalist Sunni Muslim Turkey with Kurdish and secular minorities?

  64. @Anonymous

    Indeed. I only know Bacevich as a writer I first read in The American Conservative some years ago but that crude ranting insult from “Joe Webb” finally disqualifies Webb from consideration of anything he says – unless he were to apologise and acknowledge the unfortunate effects of alcohol with his medication.

  65. @guest

    Are you perhaps stuck in a rut which you don’t realise ended long ago. The consequences that everyone saw in pictures and film of H and N were probably the one big reason (once the USSR had the bomb anyway) why nuclear weapons have never been used again. Perhaps you would have had trouble giving credit to the British putting an end to the slave trade.

  66. @Max Payne

    What is this “the white man”. Must I infer that your definition is something like “those for whom self-deception is hard-coded”. So – though I don’t suppose you have enough knowledge of genetics to make Razib or Jayman utter more than a sigh – it’s got little to do with white skin but with having a particular inherited feature which compels self-deception while not preventing the creation of the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions which, with the anti-obfuscatory Enlightenment, created the modern world?

  67. @Ronald Thomas West

    You are right to apologise for the intemperate emission to which you have been given a courteous reasoned reply. A lesson for Joe Webb in your doing so.

  68. joe webb says:
    @Anonymous

    Generally, you girlie men cannot fathom that times change, and, Whites have changed the times more than any other race. No apologies for White behavior inasmuch as black and brown behavior has always been much “worse.” And still is much worse.

    As for Bacevich, I don;t recall my criticisms right at the moment, and I won’t bother to do any more on this girlie thread.

    The American Conservative has been a relatively useful magazine because it has gone after the Jews/neocons. I do not recall Bacevich even mentioning the word Jew or Israel.

    The problem with the Americacn Conservative was and is that it has a very strong paleo element which is way dated in terms of American political reality today, like nobody cares about the Constitution and Federalism and checks and balances, and, and.

    By the way I have read all of MacDonald’s stuff, and he and I are friends. The thing about KM is that he is willing to tell the truth, even about our White history. What the hell were the Jews, or Africans, or chinks, or Arabs doing a thousand years ago? Serving tea and fortune cookies, etc. To their slaves. Where did anybody have any rights except with Whites. The Vikings had rights, and they fought for them, and sure they were powerfully sexed, but fucking a slave is nothing compared to having liberty and free speech. But I guess you guys like the sex part more than Freedom.

    Then the harems of the middle east, and even now the continued savaging of the cunnus/clitoris/vulva of women and girls, and the eunuchs which have persisted right up to recent times.

    Seems like you guys got a special feeling for sexual violation.

    Changed my mind, I will re-read this article to see if there is anything to apologize about.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  69. @NoseytheDuke

    You write of unions as if they were all similar and behaved in a justifiable way from the point of view of the American people as a whole. Precisely because they were looking after, in collectivist fashion, people who rarely had individual talent or other qualities to allow them to rise in a competitive capitalist market place they generally became anticompetitive oligarchies that did well for the leadership and did well for their members by screwing everyone else when they controlled labor in a very prosperous industry (e.g. the motor industry) until their uncompetitive bureaucratic oligarchic ways did in the industry (e.g. the motor industry and it health and pension benefits). And then there were the unions for the relatively poor. How much help did those poor get from the unions for the labor aristocracy? I recall having it explained to me that the Spoleto Festival had to be held in the South because the corrupt nepotistic stage hands unions in the North simply ruled out modest or experimental productions. So yes…. but let’s not give unions too much credit.

  70. joe webb says:

    OK I just re-read it. The words Israel and Jew and neocon do not appear in his text.

    Therefore he is LIAR, and a stooge for the Jews and has nothing worth reading. It is just dopey punditry. He is a shabbas goyim, pushing the elevator door button for the New York Jew on Saturday.

    But, Otoh, he may just have recycled some old piece and forgot to include something like an update, like February 2016.

    You guys are total wimps and thumb-sucikers. If you were both in front of me I could probably put you both in the hospital faster than you can say lickety-split.

    Puts me in mind of your posture with regard to the jews, on your knees in front before them.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @geokat62
  71. @NoseytheDuke

    I took Bacevich’s reference to Putin as a “bully” to be simply the kind of shorthand one uses when the description isn’t part of the substantive point being made. A bit like saying “All sorts of criticisms may be made of Putin’s character and policies but for present purposes….”. “Bully” is shorter!

  72. @joe webb

    shut the f up, Joe Webb.

    Bacevich’s son was killed in Iraq.

    what the hell more do you want from a man?

    • Replies: @joe webb
  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    You’re criticizing the modern, albeit of course flawed in many respects, society of Hitler’s Germany, which despite its flaws was much more amenable and closer to modern white sensibilities than the ancient Germanic and Scandinavian societies you extol. Most whites today would be far more comfortable with the former and find it to be a better model than the latter, which would strike them as a cruel, despotic, and alien world. The idea that you would fit right in to Viking society and feel comfortable there compared to a 20th century German society is highly implausible.

    Sexual domination and violation seem to have played a not insignificant role in determining status in ancient Germanic and Scandinavian societies.

  74. joe webb says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Solon. boo-hoo. He was fighting for the jews. tough. Play the game and pay the price.

    Freedom of Thought and Speech does not much figure in you guys when your girlie emotions are stirred up. Think, don’t Feel.

    What I want from a man (not expecting it from a woman, or 99 % of them) is toughness. He sent his son out to fight for the jews. He is doubly a stooge for the Jews, and, (ahem) US Imperialism.

    O and Putin as a “bully”…..what bull shit toadying to the jews and Washinton who hate Putin because he threw the jews out of power, and rejects the International Capitalist Globalist Power run of course by the US.

    What’s wrong with you guys anyway? Are you Democrats? Libertarians? The old order of Liberalism is passing away. 2016 will go down in history at the beginning of the Counter-Revolution.

    (jewtimes today has a story on muzzle genital mutilation in Indonesia. What is worse, cutting up you own girl’s genitals or fucking a slave? Parse that out O you Moralists and Keepers of the Flame of Righteousness.

    Your Holinesses…sally forth and deal blows to the Evil One….Pogo knows where he is.

    Joe Webb

  75. joe webb says:

    by the way, Hitler was caused by Lenin, in simple reductive terms.

    What was wrong with Hitler fundamentally is his tyrant form of governance, using the term tyrant as in ancient Greece.

    This is not the White Way, as I have already remarked…historically. Intermediate political structures between the top and bottom is the White form of government. The Catholic Church followed Rome and brought the republican forms to us. Call it a pluralism, but only within what Castro called the fist of the revolution. At least for the first decade or so of the Change.

    A basically aristocratic type of form is the way forward. Aristocracies practice relative equality amongst themselves. This is checks and balances, probably the best we are capable of, given our egotism, envy, and resentment capacity for our betters. I say “our” meaning the species Man.

    Whites have a much better record than other races in this regard. Nobody is Pure, it is not in us. but some of you guys are as I have said, world burners…all or nothing types, Pol-pots, etc.

    As a friend said to me many years ago (an ex-jew friend) when I was complaining about some raw sex deal he was promoting (Freud: we bring you a plague), he said “People Fuck”. That helped adjust be the realities of species man, especially jews.

    So, I am , like Hitler, a sexual prude, and proud of it. Otoh, sex is only sex. Love is another matter.

    Love your people, and you will be several steps ahead of the puritans, girls, and the legions of girlie men. You cannot love everybody, maybe that is what has ensnared you. Where are your children? Your kids come first, even before your spouse. That is one of the rules. It also is what allows you to kill the intruder coming in your window, or across your border…no matter of what race.

    As I tell people, if the intruder is colored, one bullet is enough, carefully placed. If he is White, two or more bullets…to clean up the gene pool. time for adult men her.

    Joe Webb

  76. joe webb says:

    todays jewtimes:

    “By RUSSELL GOLDMAN FEB. 3, 2016

    The perilous flight of refugees continues, with some 67,000 asylum seekers traveling to Europe last month.”

    Here is something for you bleeding hearts to do. Go to Europe and counsel these rag-heads and africans on sexual etiquette. Do Good, Reform the Savages, Missionize them…that is what Whites do as no other race does it.

    Instruct them on the niceties of romantic love, invented by medieval Whites. Also teach them how to kiss…per an article at Unz a few months ago which had it that Whites historically are the only people who have kissed, another example of White high mental functioning capacity.

    Kissing as the highest form of love, starting of course with the enfant in your arms. You can also instruct Africans in their penchant to murder albino kids, cutting them up for witch-doctors’s ju ju. What’s a little cannibalism compared to fucking your slave a thousand years ago Whitey?

    A billion blacks now in Africa. Uhuru….Europe Bound, then North America.

    Homework: Read Camp of the Saints, by Jean Raspail, and learn how to smell the shit.

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    The northern hunter-gatherers and the Indo-European aristocratic warriors combined the northern altruism trait with the Indo-European demand for personal freedom and free speech of sorts.

    The northern hunter-gatherers of Ice Age Europe were replaced genetically:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3432060/An-unknown-chapter-human-history-took-place-Europe-15-000-years-ago-DNA-shows-hunter-gatherers-replaced-mystery-group-people-Ice-Age.html

    Almost 15,000 years ago, the population of Europe shifted and changed in ways that researchers have never identified before.

    Analysis of DNA taken from ancient teeth and bones uncovered evidence of a major ‘turnover’ in the genetic makeup of people in the region at the same time as a major climatic change.

    It is so unprecedented, researchers have called it an ‘unknown chapter of human history’ in which hunter-gatherer groups were replaced with a mystery population.

  78. joe webb says:

    Back to Duchesne and Kevin MacDonald. They both claim that three genetically, somewhat at least, different groups combined to make the modern White.

    Indo-European ‘egalitarian-aristocratic warriors ” think Homer (from what is called the Pontic steppes of Russia) , near eastern farmers ( I suppose from around Turkey ), and northern hunter gatherers, which i guess are related to the Whites today from the European North to some degree given our high altruism quotients.

    This is all I think I know. MacDonald is working on what might be his last book, on just where Whites came from, and he apparently tentatively accepts this thesis. He is looking at the DNA evidence of course.

    Joe Webb the only comment on this article you offered that I can make is that it claims a big ? mark on a new group of people who seem to have arrived on the scene. Maybe this is where Duchesne’s thesis comes into play.

    Been reading more on ancient Greece. Amazing stuff…yet, they did like to beat one-another up. Too bad..Of course, with technical progress, different arenas of work activity developed, thus allowing for more peaceful display of talent…and registration of prestige. Did not just have to fight. However, fighting remains primal in our genes. WE got a real big fight coming up to grow some balls back on our men…and women who are apparently deserting the bitch Hillary in droves.

    I hope the girlie passions have subsided and Realistic Men-think is coming along nicely.

  79. joe webb says:

    races/grouips don’t just disappear over a few hundred of years. This article is probably very incorrect, no matter what group or race they are talking about.

    My understanding of Neanderthal is that they overlapped about 5000 years with homo sapiens.
    Long enough to suggest that there was no immediate die/kill off. And most Whites and Asians carry some neanderthal genes as I recall. JW

  80. geokat62 says:
    @joe webb

    OK I just re-read it. The words Israel and Jew and neocon do not appear in his text.

    “While conceding that a reasoned discussion of heavily politicized matters like climate change, immigration, or anything to do with Israel is probably impossible…”

  81. joe webb says:

    thanks, I missed it. Here is more of it:

    “While conceding that a reasoned discussion of heavily politicized matters like climate change, immigration, or anything to do with Israel is probably impossible, other issues of demonstrable significance deserve attention. What follows are six of them — by no means an exhaustive list — that I’ve framed as ….”

    His title….”Out of Bounds, Off-Limits,..”

    So Israel is out of bounds, climate change too politicized? etc.Immigration too…what year does he think this is? Or is this just a recycled piece from yesterdecade.

    Out of bounds for Unz Review? say what?

    Out of bounds for any writer who wishes to ride on the beltway?

    So, proves my point in large…the country/political force that has done more damage to US foreign policy, the ME, the US relationship to realpolitik thinking about the ME, etc, etc, not to mention the US Treasury…is out of bounds.

    This guy is a liberal, gutless, and headed , as Obongo put it, for the junkyard of History.

    Trump will keep smiling at the jews in his living room, while he disciplines, at least, the Israeli Beast. Trump is a German.

    Joe Webb

  82. “Given the availability of abundant oil and natural gas reserves in the Western Hemisphere and the potential future abundance of alternative energy systems, […]”

    Dear Andrew, this is not a “given” at all. Aparently, you have not given this “given” much thought at all yet.
    In order to repair this hiatus, I could advize you to watch Chris Martenson’s Crash Course (especially the chapters 19, 20 and 21): https://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse.

    For the rest I enjoyed your analysis very much, thank you.

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 Andrew J. Bacevich Comments via RSS