The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Mark Engler Archive
Three Times When the World Broke Open -- and Two When It Might Again
In Praise of Impractical Movements
🔊 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
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

Bernie Sanders’s insurgent presidential campaign has opened up a debate about how social change happens in our society. The official version of how progress is won — currently voiced by mainstream pundits and members of a spooked Democratic Party establishment — goes something like this: politics is a tricky business, gains coming through the work of pragmatic insiders who know how to maneuver within the system. In order to get things done, you have to play the game, be realistic, and accept the established limits of debate in Washington, D.C.

A recent article in the Atlantic summed up this perspective with the tagline, “At this polarized moment, it’s incremental change or nothing.” This view, however, leaves out a critical driver of social transformation. It fails to account for what might be the most important engine of progress: grassroots movements by citizens demanding change.

Social change is seldom either as incremental or predictable as many insiders suggest. Every once in a while, an outburst of resistance seems to break open a world of possibility, creating unforeseen opportunities for transformation. Indeed, according to that leading theorist of disruptive power, Frances Fox Piven, the “great moments of equalizing reform in American political history” — securing labor rights, expanding the vote, or creating a social safety net — have been directly related to surges of widespread defiance.

Unlike elected officials who preoccupy themselves with policies considered practical and attainable within the political climate of the moment, social movements change the political weather. They turn issues and demands considered both unrealistic and politically inconvenient into matters that can no longer be ignored; they succeed, that is, by championing the impractical.

Such movements, of course, face immense barriers, but that shouldn’t stop us from acknowledging their importance and highlighting the key role played by moments of mass defiance in shaping our world. Outbreaks of hope and determined impracticality provide an important rebuttal to the politics of accommodation, to the idea that the minor tweaking of the status quo is the best we can expect in our lifetimes.

Here, then, are three moments when the world broke open — and two when it still might.

Civil Rights: An “Unwise and Untimely” Movement

In hindsight, it’s easy enough for people today to imagine that progress on civil rights was preordained. But that’s hardly how things looked as the 1960s began. Six years after the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling declared “separate educational facilities… inherently unequal,” defiance of the law had become a badge of honor for officials throughout the South. White Citizens’ Councils had come to dominate local politics in much of the region, and ever more vocally racist politicians were winning elections to Congress over more genteel (if still bigoted) Southern politicians of a previous generation.

Civil rights bills had passed in Washington, D.C., in 1957 and 1960, but only after they were watered down to homeopathic levels. Activists even debated whether to ask President Dwight Eisenhower to veto the first of those bills, and Thurgood Marshall deemed the second “not worth the paper it’s written on.” However inadequate those bills were, Eisenhower had expressed doubts that any further legislation would be enacted for at least a decade, possibly two. On taking office, President John Kennedy was hardly more hopeful and possibly even less enthusiastic when it came to taking action of any sort. As journalist Todd Purdum has noted, Kennedy “believed that strong civil rights legislation would be difficult if not impossible to pass, and that it could well jeopardize the rest of his legislative program.”

In this context, civil rights activists were constantly counseled to embrace the mildest sort of incrementalism and avoid divisive tactics.

Those who reignited the civil rights movement did so by roundly ignoring this advice. Highly disruptive sit-ins at lunch counters starting in 1960 were followed by the Freedom Rides of 1961, in which interracial groups of activists dramatically endeavored to desegregate interstate busing in the South. These actions commanded public attention and compelled politicians who only wanted to ignore civil rights issues to take a stand. Gradually, the disruptions began to create a new consensus around the urgency of ending Jim Crow discrimination.

The genius of Martin Luther King, Jr., lay in recognizing that the explosive events altering the perceived limits of the possible were not accidents; rather, there was a craft to engineering them. With the Birmingham campaign of 1963, aimed at breaking segregation’s hold on that city, his Southern Christian Leadership Conference teamed up with local activists in a premeditated attempt to create a public crisis, using escalating acts of civil resistance to galvanize popular sentiment.

Liberal critics called the campaign “unwise and untimely.” Yet the gambit of the activists paid off handsomely. As historian Michael Kazin has pointed out, nationally televised scenes of police dogs snapping at unarmed demonstrators and water cannons opening up on student marchers “convinced a plurality of whites, for the first time, to support the cause of black freedom.” Moreover, the effort spawned a wide array of copycat protests. “A score of Birminghams followed the first,” explained the organizer of the Freedom Rides, James Farmer. By some counts, close to 1,000 demonstrations took place across the South during the summer of 1963, resulting in some 20,000 arrests.

“Birmingham, and the protests that immediately followed it,” writes historian Adam Fairclough, “transformed the political climate so that civil rights legislation became feasible; before, it had been impossible.”

When Dictators Fall

Throughout much of the twentieth century, it was believed that nonviolent uprisings could not succeed in an authoritarian context — that if Gandhi, for instance, had protested not the British rule of India but the rule of some state like Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union, he would have been promptly disappeared or murdered. Yet in the past several decades, campaigns of civil resistance have prevailed against a remarkable variety of undemocratic and repressive regimes from the Philippines to Chile, Poland to Tunisia, in ways that shocked seasoned observers.

One dramatic example was Serbia. In mid-1999, Slobodan Milosevic, the strongman who had ruled the country for a decade and whose campaigns of ethnic cleansing against Bosnian Croats and Muslims had earned him the nickname “the Butcher of the Balkans,” had a solid grip on power. He had survived protests over election theft and had passed laws reining in freedom of the press and the independence of the country’s university system. A 78-day bombing campaign by NATO that year only rallied the population to his nationalist appeals. By August, the Washington Post wrote that Milosevic was “more firmly entrenched than ever.”

Just over a year later, however, he would lose power amid mass protests and shortly thereafter be sent to The Hague to face trial as a war criminal. A crucial catalyst in the upheaval that unseated him was a youth-based group called Otpor.

Otpor’s disobedience began with small, often humorous stunts, designed to show that resistance was possible. For example, when authorities in the city of Novi Sad brought much official pomp to the construction of a new bridge over the Danube River, even though the bridge was little more than a temporary pontoon, Otpor seized the opportunity. The activists ceremoniously built their own toy bridge over a pond in one of the city’s central parks. The stunt left authorities with two bad options: arrest people for creating a Styrofoam prop and look cartoonishly repressive or let Otpor mock the regime without reprisal.

While attracting amused audiences with such displays, the group’s activists were methodically signing up new recruits for training sessions on the principles of nonviolent revolt. Ultimately, they drew tens of thousands of people into their networks. In the fall of 2000, when Milosevic attempted to steal another election, they were ready. Allying with the country’s labor movement and opposition parties, Otpor helped launch an escalating series of strikes and protests which climaxed when more than half-a-million people massed in the center of the capital, Belgrade, on October 5th, forcing Milosevic to cede power.

“Initially Otpor was viewed as just another student organization with no real political influence, and neither the regime nor the opposition parties paid much attention to it,” former activists Danijela Nenadic and Nenad Belcevic have written. “By the time the regime realized the strength, impact, and significance of Otpor, it was too late to stop the momentum of resistance.”

There can, of course, be limits to what such nonviolent mass revolts can accomplish in situations rife with repression. As Egypt’s experience in the Arab Spring shows, dramatic upheavals are no substitute for long-term organizing that can build alternative institutions and give democratic forces something to fall back on in bad times (as the times certainly are in Egypt under the repressive military government currently ruling the country). Nevertheless, unarmed uprisings have prompted some stunning transformations. Using a database they compiled of more than 300 struggles against undemocratic regimes, political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan offered striking evidence in 2011 that nonviolent movements can and do succeed with remarkable frequency.

If those fighting in undemocratic societies have an advantage in their pursuit of transformative change, it’s this: there is little pretense that insider politics is a viable route to change of any sort. Left with few good options, those who are unsatisfied with the world they inherited have little choice but to transform unrealistic aims into winning ones.

Gay Marriage: Touching the Third Rail

Lest anyone imagine that transformative change takes place only in faraway places or bygone decades, the struggle around gay marriage provides an example of just such a shift that was recent, swift, and thorough. Unlike Otpor’s antics or the disobedience campaigns of the civil rights movement, advocates for same-sex marriage did not generally rely on civil disobedience or mass protest to generate momentum. (There were, however, notable exceptions to this, including San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s 2004 decision to marry same-sex couples in defiance of state law, marches on Washington in 2000 and 2009, large-scale demonstrations in California against controversial Proposition 8, which attempted to permanently ban gay marriage in that state, and a variety of incidents in which members of the clergy broke official prohibitions to perform such weddings.)

Though its focus may not have been mass protest, gay marriage was still a notable instance in which change came not through the leadership of an outspoken president or champions in Congress, but despite all the timid political realists in Washington.

A decade and a half ago, as author and gay rights activist Marc Solomon has pointed out, “no state allowed same-sex couples to marry, support for gay marriage nationwide hovered around 30%, and politicians everywhere thought of it as the third rail of American politics — draw near at your peril.” Leaders of the movement to make it an American reality like Evan Wolfson, founder of the organization Freedom to Marry, worked long and hard to engender a major shift in public opinion as a way to transform the political weather.

“I’m not in this just to change the law,” Wolfson argued in 2001. “It’s about changing society.” Pushing only for more easily obtainable gains, such as domestic partnerships, he contended, was a mistake. Instead, he advocated going “into the room, asking for what we deserve, telling our powerful stories, and engaging the reachable allies. We may leave the room not getting everything we want, but don’t go in bargaining against yourself.” The movement committed itself, in the words of historian Josh Zeitz, “to a decades-long campaign to win the hearts and minds of ordinary voters.”

Remarkably, the transformation came far more quickly. As state-level campaigns progressed, the once politically toxic issue morphed into a mainstream crusade. In 2011, for the first time, polls showed public support for same-sex marriage to be over 50%. After that, progress came at a furious pace as the world broke open. Politicians suddenly began announcing that they had “evolved” on the issue, with six senators declaring their support for same-sex marriage in a single April week in 2013. Hillary Clinton joined them soon after, explicitly announcing her support, despite having declared in 2004, “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” Even prominent conservatives began to convert. Former representative Robert Barr, for one, who had sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, came to favor its repeal.

Between 2010 and 2014, more than a dozen states joined the growing list of jurisdictions allowing same-sex marriage. Increasingly, the wins came via legislation and public votes, not merely court decisions by judges. By the time the Supreme Court was ready to make major rulings on the issue, it was hardly a fair fight.

As Wolfson put it, “We had persuaded the country, and the courts followed.”

Breaking Open New Possibilities

The beauty of impractical movements is that they confound established expectations about the political future, which means it’s difficult to predict when and where new outbreaks of defiance and hope will succeed in capturing the public imagination. Still, there are a number of areas in which, at this very moment, activists are developing strategies of disruptive revolt with an eye to producing the kind of whirlwind moments that can redefine the public perception of what’s politically practical and necessary.

Two that might matter in the near future are those focused on immigrant rights and climate change.

One of the great political success stories of the last five years has been the unlikely triumph of the DREAM Act students. These immigrant youths, mostly Latino, advocated a piece of legislation designed to provide legal status for the children of undocumented immigrants: young people brought to the country as kids, who spent their formative years in the United States and are seeking to attend college or serve in the armed forces. Previously such young people had no choice but to live in the shadows, with the danger of deportation constantly hanging over their families. But like gay rights activists before them, an emergent movement of DREAMers made “coming out” — in their case, about their undocumented status — a point of pride and political power.

Traffic blockades, civil disobedience at detention centers, and even sit-ins at Obama campaign offices made their cause one which the White House could not ignore. Starting in June 2012, President Obama issued a series of guidelines that would ultimately allow more than five million immigrants, including DREAM Act students, to live and work in the country legally. Moreover, immigrant rights protests have placed Republicans in the unenviable position of either enraging their nativist base or alienating one of the country’s fastest growing voting blocs. Vox correspondent Dara Lind calls this “the massive prisoner’s dilemma the GOP faces on immigration.”

Now, many leaders from this youth movement are about to launch a major push for a comprehensive immigration solution, one that would be less vulnerable to court challenges or changes of administration than President Obama’s executive orders. Having consciously plumbed lessons from the tradition of civil resistance, theirs is an effort sure to be creative, bold, and confrontational.

Another issue on which activists are organizing in a major way and that may be primed for a breakthrough is climate change — and a breakthrough is needed if civilization as we know it is to continue. It’s frequently said that climate change represents a tougher fight than an issue like same-sex marriage, since the latter involved a change in cultural attitudes but threatened to impose no significant economic costs on giant corporations or economic elites.

It’s true that environmentalists are squaring off against some of the world’s most profitable and powerful companies, like ExxonMobil. But this is hardly the end of the story. Conventional wisdom once held that the British would never leave India because of the profits generated by colonialism and the Raj. Great Britain was then the most powerful force in the world, and many believed that it could never be moved. But that was only until, in a changing world, a transformative local resistance movement rewrote the equation, economic and otherwise.

In the future, severe super-storms, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, record heat waves, spreading wild fires, and other ecological dislocations and disasters resulting from global warming will begin to pile up billions of dollars in lost property, failed crops, tidal waves of refugees, and the like. This means that one day in the not-so-distant future the economic forces lining up on either side of climate change may not seem so desperately unequal.

Those who have already taken direct action to combat climate change have been told again and again that their efforts would yield few results. And just as frequently they have proven the skeptics wrong. The Keystone XL pipeline, slated to bring carbon-dirty tar sands oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast from Canada — the target of civil disobedience from Washington D.C. to Nebraska to Alberta — was once considered a “done deal” by industry analysts. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called it a “no brainer” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that she was inclined to sign off on it. In 2010, few would have predicted that President Obama would ultimately veto the project.

The ongoing effort to convince institutions such as churches and universities to divest from fossil fuel companies — a campaign backed by international protests and campus building occupations — has similarly been derided as “misguided” and “at best, completely ineffective.” Yet with investment funds worth $3.4 trillion combined having shifted away from these industries, the Globe and Mail reports that “changing investor attitudes are starting to hit coal-related firms across the globe” as “pension fund managers and other institutional investors are now questioning the long-term returns offered by coal and oil companies.”

A determined generation of climate activists, reared on these struggles, aided by international allies, and engaged with past social movements, is prepared to make fossil fuel extraction a moral issue and fight to alter the limits of political debate in order to offer humanity the hope of a decent and reasonable future. Like others who have broken open the world of possibility, they recognize that there is a cost to playing the inside game, to basing your politics on the Beltway version of hardheaded realism — especially given the grim future realism of global environmental disaster.

Never before has humanity depended so fully for the survival of us all on a social movement being willing to bet on impracticality.

Mark Engler is a writer based in Philadelphia and an editorial board member at Dissent. Paul Engler is a co-founder of the Momentum Training, which instructs hundreds of activists each year in the principles of effective protest. Their new book on the craft of mass mobilization, This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century(Nation Books), has just been published. They can be reached via the

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Civil Rights 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. With these cultural marxists deploying the latest and greatest strategies from mass political psychology, its no wonder conservatives are browbeaten into accepting the various deviant ’causes’. Socially engineered mores enacted from a morality that views the state as the arbiter of social relations is about as far from conservatism as you can get.

    And Britain was a spent shell after WWII. All they wanted was to get the hell out of India. The costs of maintaining it were too high.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  2. puffdaddy says:

    Gay marriage became acceptable because to oppose it meant losing your job or worse. People say they support it or have made themselves forget about it because of the threat that hangs over anyone who doesn’t comply with the prevailing ideology, which is always determined by progressives using fringe groups to break up anything that smacks of tradition (or religion, God forbid!). In other words, most are lying. This is the same with race; being called “racist” is worse than actually BEING a murderer, rapist, or pedophile. SO no one can be honest about race expect in places like this, where we are somewhat protected. Like another commenter said in another article on Unz by Ilana Mercer, “I’m sick of black people.” I’m also sick of gay people. The State determining what is right and wrong to believe is social change I can do without, whether or not I happen to agree with the whims of The State and its progressive moralists or not.

    • Agree: Alec Leamas, Jeff77450
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    , @JEGG
  3. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    hey you guys — get a real job.

    your moooovement theories are as bad as you history.

  4. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    ‘Gay marriage’. When dick-tators rise.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  5. @Lemurmaniac

    Liberals endeavor to extract (forage) resources from their environment to survive. Given enough time the producers will be overwhelmed and environment will be depleted. Happens in nature, too.

    Conservatives are more willing to produce rather than take wealth and libertarians even more so.

  6. b says:

    Very mainstream American point of view with misinterpreted history and false facts. What will happen, yet to be seen.

  7. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Intrigued by the headline, I was disappointed by piffle that one can readily see in the Sunday WaPo or NYT. I won’t take the time to learn more about the authors, but they sound like faux historians, adept in manipulating the institutions of power (courts, SJWarrioring, nationalized governance) in the USA today.

    Whatever one’s views on marriage, why would a “social transformation” need to be effected through a 5-4 vote of unelected governmental officials? If you don’t yet realize that this country is increasingly ruled from the Imperial Capital, just compare that recent episode to the achievement of women’s suffrage. Many of your friends are unaware that the Constitution in that instance was not only amended in writing, but ratified (albeit by cunningly avoiding the actual State legislatures) in accordance with its terms by a supermajority of the states. Erased history, as we await the next decree from our rulers and other betters.

    • Replies: @Ace
  8. @puffdaddy

    Well, Puff, all you have to do to gauge a White Liberal’s inner racist, especially a wealthy White Liberal, is take note where they live. Without exception, their digs are far from Southside Chicago-style Blacks. For all their admonishments to the rest of us about our practical concerns they paint as racism, it turns out Liberals are pretty practical too!

    Hell, even wealthy Blacks stay out of “Southside”, so to speak. Wealthy Blacks, the actors, the athletes, the politicians, are all quite practical. Wealthy white liberal women, all VERY practical.

    Liberals, Black and White alike, are racist-practical for themselves, inclusive and diverse for the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
  9. @Priss Factor

    Is that a potato in your pants, or are you just glad to see Hitler?

    Ha! Sorry. Ya coulda played straight man to Johnny Carson.

  10. That the author can refer to immigrant ‘rights’ without spending one moment exploring why it might not deserve to be pursued as a great political cause is breathtaking: Immigrants have the privilege to take up residence when it is granted, and the right to be returned to their home country when it is not.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
  11. pyrrhus says:

    Global warming nonsense aside, the point is that if a large percentage of the population wants something enough, and is willing to engage in passive resistance, they will get it….

  12. Singh says:

    Lol gandhi never won freedom, he was controlled opposition.

    Second where does this perception that britain was better than soviets or nazis come from?

    It not only starved 100s of millions but took India from 30% of World GDP to 2 in 90 years. Both Nazis & Soviets can claim economic achievement at the very least.

    In top of that, they tried to convert entire regions to the cucked suicide cult called christianity (source of modern sjws you so complain about)

    Even until recently, it sent ‘aid’ in the form of evangelical or environmental ngos who wish to convert people or ban festivals however oppose bans on animal slaughter.

    Help stall electricity projects & then shoot a video about people with no electricity & blame the government. Why do you think they get scared when we test Nukes?

    After the collapse of america, they know london is getting hammered. These same christians are the ones who banned the olympics you ‘whites’ have so much love for.

    There were dozens of rebellions & hundreds of skirmishes/battles in the 90 years between 1857 & 1947.

    Many of the ww1 veterans especially Sikhs came back & became insurgents. Same with ww2,

    Notice how the first army to be deployed in Europa was Indian Army yet it’s never mentioned during remembrance day.

  13. Singh says:

    I also think you ignore geopolitical power within the scenarios you describe.

    Without a near peer competitor in the ussr who could realistically fund insurgencies against america, I don’t think the government would have kow towed.

    The scientific consensus on the outcome of letting animals out of their cages was clear, even then.

    Why has no movement succeeded since & only gathers steam now when three countries: India, China, Russia are immune to american invasion & Japan/s korea are voicing concerns.

    Unless you two yourselves are judeo christian sjws you know that values don’t need to change. Constant normative inversion is core to the abrahamic ideology, which is why countries afflicted with the disease are inherently unstable.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  14. @The Alarmist

    In the tacit worldview of the author, “rights” are tools to overturn the established order (that is, power in the hands of white male gentiles). Therefore, people who quite literally by domestic law, the law of nations and custom are without any right to be in the United States magically have an extra-statutory supreme right to reside in the United States and enjoy all of the benefits and privileges of citizenship by virtue of being brown. I have no doubt that should Hillary succeed Mr. Obama in the White House and as is foretasted appoint several Justices, this “right” will be said to have been found in the United States Constitution.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  15. Speaking as a paleoconservative, I can only rejoice at the stupidity, a-historicism, and lack of basic insight displayed by these pathetic avatars of this country’s “progressives”. If this pathetically delusional fantasizing is at all typical of current left wing “thinking” then Trump’s way to the White House and the sure-to-follow main stream political re-alignment of this country is a good bet. I hope the ultimate result will be a return to a constitutional, democratic, neo-isolationist, and very weakly federalist republic. My ultimate hope is that the USA winds up looking a lot more like a uni-cultural Switzerland.

    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
  16. @Jus' Sayin'...

    Switzerland is anything but a uni-cultural country. Just for a starter the country has four(4) official languages.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    , @Romanian
  17. Randal says:

    One dramatic example was Serbia.

    More of a counter-example, surely, if you account for the reality that Otpor would probably have been crushed had it not been for multi-million dollar (and who knows what black budget dirty tricks and propaganda) external assistance from the world’s only superpower, whose dirty work they were doing.

    I mean, even Wikipedia talks about it openly:

    By late November 2000 information started appearing about substantial outside assistance Otpor! received leading up to the revolution. Otpor! was a recipient of substantial funds from U.S. government-affiliated organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), and US Agency for International Development (USAID).[38]

    Contacting various officials from the U.S. based organizations, in his New York Times Magazine piece, journalist Roger Cohen sought to shed some light on the extent of American logistical and financial assistance received by Otpor. Paul B. McCarthy from the Washington-based NED stated that Otpor! received the majority of US$3 million spent by NED in Serbia from September 1998 until October 2000. At the same time, McCarthy himself held a series of meetings with Otpor’s leaders in Podgorica, as well as Szeged and Budapest.[38]

    Just how much of the US resources appropriated in the year 2000 by USAID, for democracy and governance, which included support to groups that worked to bring an end to the Milošević era through peaceful, democratic means, went to Otpor is not clear. However, what is clear is that the Democratic Opposition of Serbia—a broad alliance of those seeking Slobodan Milošević’s downfall, among them the Democratic Party (Serbia) Otpor would later merge with—received in excess of $30 million to “purchase cell phones and computers for DOS’s leadership and to recruit and train an army of 20,000 election monitors” as well as to supplement them with “a sophisticated marketing campaign with posters, badges and T-shirts.”[39] Donald L. Pressley, the assistant administrator at USAID said that several hundred thousand dollars were given to Otpor directly for similar purposes.[38]

    Daniel Calingaert, an official with IRI, said Otpor! received “some of the US$1.8 million” his institute spent in the country throughout 2000, but didn’t specify the concrete figures. He also said he met Otpor! leaders “seven to ten times” in Montenegro (then part of FR Yugoslavia), and Hungary, beginning in October 1999.[38] IRI particularly focused a lot of its attention on Otpor!, organizing a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the Hilton Hotel in Budapest during March 2000 and paying for about two dozen Otpor! leaders to attend it.[40] Lectured by retired U.S. Army Colonel Robert Helvey, who did two tours of duty in the Vietnam War before devoting himself to study of nonviolent resistance methods around the world, including those used in Burma and the civil rights struggle in the American South, the Serbian students received training in such matters as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine the authorities.[40]

    Whether this formed a part of a concerted American effort to remove Milošević remains speculative, though it bears mentioning that US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright “had told her officials that she wished Milošević gone from power by the time her term of office ended in 2002”.[39]


    And of course, if Milosevic hadn’t been defeated in a major war aimed at toppling him, he might still be there and Europe might not now have a nasty muslim narco-ministate propped up by NATO troops staining its map.

  18. JEGG says:

    I think gay marriage has became acceptable because in the last 20 years, most people found out that some of their ordinary and clearly acceptable family members, neighbors and co-workers are gay. They have learned not to stereotype when it comes to sexual orientation because in actual fact (with only a few exceptions) being gay is no big deal.

  19. @Jim Christian

    As Godfather Michael said to the senator in Godfather II: “Senator, we’re all part of the same hypocrisy.”

    It has always been thus.

  20. woodNfish says:

    Another issue on which activists are organizing in a major way and that may be primed for a breakthrough is climate change — and a breakthrough is needed if civilization as we know it is to continue. – Mark & Paul Engler

    The Englers are loons. They are obviously too stupid to recognize fraud when it is right in front of them, and I don’t plan on wasting my time telling them why hey are wrong. Let them wallow in their ignorance.

    • Agree: Ace
    • Replies: @anonymous
  21. woodNfish says:

    So according to you, Christians predated Jews. I think your history is a bit weak.

    • Replies: @utu
  22. @Singh

    I take it you mean the first army from outside Europe to be deployed in Europe, not the first army to be deployed in Europe.

    On that count, the Indian Expeditionary Force A units [I Indian Corps as they were eventually designated] appear to have been disembarking at Marseilles September 26-30, 1914. That is definitely quite early, but not surprising for a large body of already formed regulars such as the Indian Army could produce [Canada at this time was recruiting almost from scratch and its earliest battalions didn’t even sail until later in 1914, not fighting until first Ypres in 1915; I assume Australia had a similar cycle]. So far as I can tell, La Bassee in the second half of October was their first battle, during the ‘race to the sea’ phase of the 1914 campaign. Again, very early.

    Nevertheless, not first non-Europeans to deploy or fight.

    I have a hard time believing the French weren’t already pulling in Africans by the end of August but can’t find dates for disembarkation in France quickly.

    The Moroccan division of the French army had, in early September, already taken part in the first battle of the Marne. It wasn’t wholly Moroccan, to be sure. It included some Legion units which had Europeans in them, and at one point Malagasy troops. Not sure its exact composition in September 1914. But it was a formed body of troops from outside Europe that included mainly non-European natives.

    Isn’t the Indian army mentioned along with the rest on Remembrance Day? They have an Indian Army cemetery in England where there appear to be commemorations every year. I seem to keep seeing documentary accounts of Indian service in France on TV, as well as, of course, plenty of reference to Indian service in the Middle East in both world wars. At Whitehall, when the national service is carried out, do they just mention Britain’s own dead [that would not seem inappropriate; the rest of the old empire has its own services and commemorate their own dead, not Britain’s specifically] or do they rhyme off all the then-Dominions and colonies and amazingly omit India, or what? If so, I concede surprise. I have never encountered any significant commemoration of the old British army that forgets the Indian army. Maybe specific engagements in which it didn’t fight, but that would be it. They loved the Indian army.

    Entirely willing to concede the economic impact of the Raj for these purposes, but all I can find for combined total of famine deaths is more like 60 million. Not hundreds of millions. A figure that size would have come nearer to depopulating the whole country, depending on how many hundreds of millions.

    Also, famine, even when the ultimate product of exploitative policy, still seems to me morally distinct from rounding up millions of people for deliberate extermination, or rounding up peaceful villagers in such numbers and machine gunning them into ditches, etc. Even the massacres of the British required someone to rebel or riot first. The Germans and Russians were content to round up people by the millions for massacre even in the absence of any kind of resistance to their rule. The murder was the point, not merely a tool of suppression.

    So yeah, in an admittedly base competition I think the Brits were still better than the Germans or Russians.

    If you replaced a victorious but utterly economically, militarily and morally spent Britain committed to liberal ideological claims in 1945, with a victorious Germany riding high on quite different moral values, and somehow had India in their clutches, they might not have succeeded in holding India but they would have made a much more impressive show of it.

  23. @Regnum Nostrum

    If you read what I wrote, you’ll notice I want the US to be like a uni-cultural Switzerland. The uni-cultural was added precisely because I was fully aware that Switzerland has always been a multicultural country and I do not think the USA can it become so without effectively self-destructing. OTOH just about everything else about Switzerland would be an improvement over the current state of the USA, e.g., its inward looking foreign policy, its immigration and naturalization policies, its fiscal conservatism, and its rational social welfare policies supporting traditional cultural values. I didn’t think I;’d have to spell any of this out

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Bill Jones
  24. @Singh

    Its hard to be sure of the full depth of your ignorance because verbal junk like “constant normative inversion” associated with some “Abrahamic ideology” obscures vision. You sound like one of those classic joke figures who claimed to be X.Y. Singh FBA Jaipur [the F standing for Failed] after spouting the nonsense sociology he hadn’t quite understood.
    On my visits to India, though not a Brit I have always heard more than a few Indian people talking wistfully of the days of honest British rule and very many proud and grateful for what joining the modern world as Anglophones has given them. You seem to be that sad sort of expat, a deracinated Sikh who has lost his roots but never succeeded well enough in America or the UK to feel otherwise than a resentful failure.

    I’m not sure what you think all the Abrahamic faiths have in common to justify writing of “Abrahamic ideology” in the Marxist or whatever other version you are adopting. Does Hinduism or Sikhism make more sense or promote better morals?

    • Replies: @Singh
  25. @random observer

    I think Australia had introduced some kind of National Service about 1909 so was perhaps a bit ahead of Canada in readiness to fight the Empire’s battles. Quite a few officers would have served in the Boer War (1899-1902) and others had many years as citizen soldiers who were ready enough for Gallipoli where they landed first on 25th April 1915. (My maternal grandfather and at least one of his brothers were volunteers in South Africa but my grandfather at least was a family man with many daughters who didn’t serve in WW1).

  26. Romanian says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    That’s what he said. He wants a Switzerland, but one that is monocultural. Otherwise, it would not have made sense to add uni-cultural to Switzerland.

  27. Bill says:

    That’s completely delusional. At best, homosexuality is a debilitating mental illness which typically comes along with numerous, severe comorbidities. Maybe you know some gays who manage to keep it together long enough to manage Thanksgiving with their family. More likely, it’s by watching Will and Grace that you’ve come by the ludicrous stereotype of gays you use.

  28. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    On the surface, the Civil Rights Movement made good, actually great, sense. Why should the Negroes be denied full equality on the basis of mere skin color?
    But it was a tragic mistake in one crucial sense. The difference between whites and blacks isn’t merely one of skin color. Blacks have the Jafro soul that makes them act crazy, and they are tougher and more aggressive. They are the biggest threat to civilization. A small number of Negroes cannot destroy civilization. They might even add some color and rhythm to it. But too many Negroes means trouble. This is why EU, Brazil, and even US may be doomed. Too many Negroes. This is why white Libs hope that immigration’s browning/yellowing will serve as buffer to the blackening.

    The inverse of US is South Africa. US in 1960s was 10% black, the rest mostly white. And it was great. South Africa at end of Apartheid was the opposite. 90% black, 10% whites. And there was no way SA could succeed with or without apartheid. Indeed, it is bound to grow worse without it since democracy favors blacks who are nuts.

    So, the lesson of CRM is that lofty ideals are rendered worthless IF they are premised on fatally flawed mis-reading of reality.
    If indeed blacks were no more than whites with black skin, I think CRM would have succeeded. But it has failed in so many areas because too many blacks are riled up with Jafro souls and have more muscles.

    As for dictators, their fall is good, but what replaced them isn’t necessarily better. The problem is that so many new democracies came into being with support of US, therefore they became political and cultural puppets/satellites of the American Empire. Look at Poland. How great to see the passing of communist tyranny. That was good. But Poland became a whore of the US and EU.
    A nation can be politically democratic at home but still lack genuine sovereignty as a puppet of US. Look at not only EU nations — essentially tools of the US — but Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. They have elections and large measure of social freedoms, but they are political puppets of the US. In a way, one could argue China is freer. China is now mostly socially free like other Asian nations. But there are no elections, so it is undemocratic. BUT, it has national sovereignty whereas Japan, SK, and Taiwan must follow US foreign policy dictates.
    And look at Latin America. So much of neo-democratic neo-liberal reforms were really meant to turn those nations into satellites of the Wall Street gang, and this was what set off another round of anti-American reaction in the 2000s, esp under the gross gargoylean leadership of Bush II.

    As for the Middle East and North Africa, I think one would have to be tarded and sick not to realize that the ‘democracies’ imposed on those parts by the US have turned out to be just as bad or even worse than what had prevailed under strongman rule.

    Another problem with democracies is that their freedom makes them easier as targets of US covert-imperialism. We saw this in Ukraine and US. Now, I like the idea of democracy and freedom and etc. But US intelligence-and-subversion networks have a way of using all sorts of means, especially through so-called NGO’s, to funnel money and means to free societies so that US puppets will gain control and serve Washington. We saw this with Suckassvillain in Georgia. Or that toady in Colombia.

    And homos have been among the main agents of US neo-imperialism that is controlled by globo-Zionists. Jewish elites seek out homo communities in every nation, give them tons of cash, spread homo agenda. Once homos rise in power with US backing, they work to undermine national culture and values in favor of globalist ones of decadence, whore-ishness, Afro-pimpery, and urban elite snottiness.

    As for ‘gay marriage’ and homomania, they are not about equality or tolerance. They are about coercion and lies. We are forced to celebrate homos, in the way we are not forced to celebrate incest or polygamy. If equality rules America, why don’t we have incest pride parades and polygamy pride parades? Because incest-sexuals and polygamists don’t have the power to control culture and politics. Jews control the US and they’ve chosen the creative homo community as their main partners-in-crime.

    Also, forcing people to believe that unequal things are equal isn’t true equality. That’s like saying lies and truths have equal value. But forcing people to believe 2 + 2 =5 is of same value as 2 + 2 = 4 is a corruption of equality. Equality must be about things of equal value.

    The idea that men whose idea of ‘sex’ involves fecal penetration are on the same biological and moral plane as men and women who have proper sex to produce life is pure decadence leading to degeneration. The idea of ‘two daddies’ or ‘two mommies’ is a total lie, and indeed for such to become actual reality, we have to resort to Frankenstein science that perverts the very meaning of life.

    True tolerance is admitting that some people are born homo and that they should be left alone to be fruity. Anything beyond that is sick decadence.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
  29. Jeff77450 says:

    I’m not an economist or a historian but I find it hard to believe that at any time in the past ~200 years India was 30% of world GDP. Can you provide a source for that claim?

    To what extent did the British contributions of technology & infrastructure (railroads, telegraph/telephone, ports, airports, roads, electric power, modern medicine, etc.) and concepts of government contribute to India’s economic growth?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @Singh
  30. utu says:

    It can be argued that Christianity predates rabbinical Judaism as the latter was developed in opposition to Christianity. So in this sense Christians predate Jews except for Karaites who stayed faithful to Torah but rejected the Talmud.

  31. utu says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    You want Switzerland in the US? It’s very easy. Just restore the state rights and autonomy so state taxes constitute 70-80% of all taxes. Federal government is very weak and small in Switzerland. Switzerland was created by people for the people while the US was created by elite masons for the purpose of facilitating liberal revolution throughout the world. The US does not exist for the American people. American people exist to legitimize the US as the world policeman and enforcer of the world elites. Sadly, majority of Americans in their ignorance are more than happy to provide this legitimization. Kicking some poor country ass is one way of feeling powerful (by proxy) by powerless Americans.

    • Replies: @Ace
  32. woodNfish says:

    You can argue it anyway you want, but you’d still be wrong.

  33. schmenz says:

    “… being gay is no big deal.”

    You might want to tell that to the people who have had their lives and businesses ruined by the gaystapo. And it would be helpful to try to understand how a young boy’s life has been shattered by being buggered by homosexuals.

    It is also instructive to study the diseases that their unnatural and unsanitary habits produce. It is perhaps a bigger deal than you think.

  34. MarkinLA says:

    It not only starved 100s of millions but took India from 30% of World GDP to 2 in 90 years.

    Even if this were true, and I doubt it, it would be because of the Industrial Revolution and what it did to Europe and the US and not the British causing a decline in India.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Singh
  35. I don’t often resort to course language, but what a couple of either stupid or dishonest assholes these two are. A clear majority consider SS Marriage to be a ridiculous and disgusting insult to civilization, and the Obergefell decision to be a similar insult to the rule of law. It was raw judicial tyranny, and nothing more, that imposed it on a once self-governing nation; no consent or legal reasoning required – just a recent and very silly froth of precious elite consensus.

    Similarly, the glorious civil rights movement was wonderful only to the extent you steadfastly commit to completely disregarding its actual consequences.

    Global warming? Stop it, you’re killing me . . .

  36. @Jus' Sayin'...

    You can have successful multiculturalism if the cultures are all European.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  37. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Englers seem to be a pair of Trotskyists. After reading this tripe I now see why Stalin needed to get rid of the Trotskyite bacillus that was the source of moral disease in that country.

  38. Sam Shama says:

    Well as a matter of fact this is well documented by Angus Maddison in: “World Economy: A Millenial perspective”

    Maddison was the pre-eminent economic data historian in modern times and offered rare insights into global economic performance over a much longer arc than most. On page 127 you will find a table that sets forth the shares of World GDP, 1000-1998. There you will find that Asia (ex-Japan) contributed 62% in in 1500 and dropped to 36.2 by 1800. The larger contribution was from India which at that point exceeded the economy of China,

    All that being said, I am unable to comprehend entirely what Mr. Singh’s is driving at, given that the whole point of empire was to further the interests of the colonial power, and England was a far less exploitative one compared to, say the Dutch who [by Maddison’s estimates] funnelled away about 60% of Indonesia’s savings compared to England’s 20% during the period 1868-1930. Needless to say in both cases these capital transfers were absolutely critical inputs for the Industrial Revolution that transformed the West. It might be validly argued that England’s contribution to India is better assessed in the lasting impact of English, which cemented diverse states into a nation, not to mention the legal, financial, educational and scientific institutions that it bequeathed.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Singh
  39. @MarkinLA

    And let’s not forget that without the contribution of Thomas Crapper Indians would still be defecating in the disease riddled streets.

    Oh, wait…………

    • Replies: @Singh
  40. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Yes yes yes social movements and often trump politic ones as they can be deeper.

    But this time–this time–as Conrad Black put it, the revolution is Mr. Trump’s not Mr. Sanders’.

  41. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam Shama

    There you will find that Asia (ex-Japan) contributed 62% in in 1500 and dropped to 36.2 by 1800.

    I am surprised that anybody would with a straight face make any claims about “world GDP” in 1500 or 1800. There are hardly any reliable statistics from that era and how do you compared what things are worth in pre-industrial times?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  42. @Alec Leamas

    One of those eponymous penumbras, eh?

  43. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says: • Website

    We need to be aware of the homo agenda as the new imperialism.

    It’s interesting that Liberals expressed outrage about conservative German reaction against Weimar cultural decadence but have generally sympathized with communist moral rage against decadent American capitalist influence.

    The very Liberals who rooted for the decadents in Bob Fosse’s CABARET against the puritanical Nazis were rooting for the puritanical Castroite/Guevaraite communists against the decadence and degenerate influence of American capital in Cuba in THE GODFATHER PART 2.
    Liberals who celebrated the decadence of Weimar Germany denounced the decadence of Havana under Batista, the stooge of US capitalism.

    Many Liberals and all Leftists also lionized the puritanical Viet Cong and North Vietnamese communists against US influence in Saigon that was turning Viets into gum-chewing consumers and prostitutes.

    When Jews used decadence and degeneration against white people(as in Weimar Germany), that was all very good.
    But when non-whites waged a moral war against Western Capitalist materialism dominated by Wasp America, they were the good guys and American power was the bad guy: not only destroyer of lives but corrupter of souls.

    But because US is no longer Wasp-American-dominated but Jewish-dominated(and because Jews gave up on classic socialism and fully embraced globo-capitalism as their cash cow), globalist Jews are now openly using decadence and degeneration as a Culture War against the entire world, and homo activists are their main agents in this.

    Jews are now pushing the Weimarization of the world.

  44. Ace says:

    Piffle indeed.

    Apparently Egypt under “the repressive military government” is worse than when it was under the Muslim Brotherhood. Thins are bad under Gen. Sisi who has called for a Muslim religious revolution. However, they were un-bad when Christians endured torture and beatings under Morsi.

    And how could the authors resist the ever-specious global warming hogwash or hand wringing over the XL pipeline?

  45. Ace says:

    There is nothing in the Declaration or Constitution that comes remotely close to “facilitating liberal revolution throughout the world.” Nothing in our early history indicates that any secret plan for same was in operation.

    Present day America, however, is besotted with installing “democracy” everywhere but that has nothing to do with our laws. The ignoring of those laws is making it possible.

    • Replies: @utu
  46. Sam Shama says:

    Well I can’t be sure whether Maddison was documenting his painstaking decade long research with a straight face or with a smirk. He is however recognised as a top man in his field.

    It is not a “claim” but the end product of very careful research/analysis and all the data, [I mean literally the tables containing series, their documented and corroborated sources, methodology are all available in this roughly 700 page publication. It is also the basis of much of the OECD economics institutes’ publications on these questions.

    So as to your claim that their are “hardly” any reliable statistics in that period is based on a great deal of research I take it?

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @MarkinLA
  47. Sam Shama says:
    @Sam Shama

    Also please read the book if you want to seriously discuss this subject, and then feel free to make valid criticism

  48. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam Shama

    So as to your claim that their are “hardly” any reliable statistics in that period is based on a great deal of research I take it?

    No based on something called common sense. Nobody had any idea what was the GDP in the Americas, Australia, or Africa in 1500. Empires and kingdoms came and went along with any wealth. Pretending to believe you have any realistic estimate of the wealth of the places with almost no outside contact like in central Asia is something only someone as stupid as an economist could believe he could do.

    This is like that moron thinking there were 25 million Amerindians in North America when Columbus landed. He makes that clam yet there is no evidence of large scale settlements of that time yet we can find the remnants of Viking settlements of a few hundred people.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @Wizard of Oz
  49. There used to be a saying that was thought to be pretty wise by just about everybody, left, right, and center: hard cases make bad law.

    But now we believe that law should only be made for hard cases.

  50. utu says:

    Give the founding fathers more credit. You are underestimating them.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @Ace
  51. @utu

    The so called “founding fathers”- what an appalling phrase, were primarily interested in increasing the ability of the central government to pay the interest on the debt that they owned that was incurred in the revolutionary war.
    fewer than 3% of the population voted in Washington’s first election.

    • Replies: @Ace
  52. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Another hater from the sub-continent who shows his real feelings by moving to the very west he badmouths.

    • Replies: @Singh
  53. Singh says:

    No, they had a policy of deindustrialization. I see everyone here thinks it was beneficial & believes in the nonsense of the britshits creating ‘India’ (Bharat) when that concept existed from before the time Hindu kings ruled from Turkey/Syria to Xinjiang to Indonesia.

    It’s ok, you anglos are in demographic decline & we have a growing nuclear arsenal.

    I hope you understand where this SIKH is going with this.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @MarkinLA
    , @Ace
  54. Singh says:

    Who says I’m in the west, & if Hindus are coming to the west to loot the wealth & send it back, why u mad bro?

    Focus on the black & muslim immigration first, that’s what’s really destroying you. & then the jews/christians..

  55. Singh says:
    @Sam Shama

    I think the lasting impact of england is seen in pakistan, & you deserve every crime they commit against you up to nuclear genocide.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    , @Wizard of Oz
  56. Singh says:

    How is the british/american concept of government even mention able when its a bad copy of the traditional Vedic Republican system which still exists today.

    British ‘democracy’ & ‘secularism’ is/was meant to destroy Dharmic identities & replace them with abrahamic ones.

    Example that, where an american general is quoted as saying the real reason is to flood japan with missionaries. You ‘secular’ scum still pour billions into sending missionaries like good slaves/jew cucks.

    O well, your women have already decided your fate.

  57. Singh says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Every britshit claims this, can never back it up & ignores the education system which produces these imbeciles.

    Saying one type of looter was better is not a compliment. Remember what those people mean is decades ago there was less loss if values, among other things.

    So they wish for the very thing you hate, those people also elected a man who is accused of killing 1000s of muslims & is testing missiles that can reach london right now.

    Ad hominem attacks show you’ve lost the initiative, yes of course any pagan ideology is better than an abrahamic one that’s undebateable.

    Especially Dharmic ones,

    I’m obviously not deracinated & I’m not an expat I’m a returnee to the motherland.

    You can stay rooted in your suicidal christian ideology, it makes no difference to us. Those of you who leave it, will live.

    Those who don’t, will be cremated.

  58. Singh says:
    @random observer

    Not sure about britain, my experience has been in north america.

    India was allied with japan & germany though. The russians & germans were concerned with murder yes but, the british wanted something far worse.

    Cause a famine then flood the area with missionaries..

    I see total excess mortality as very high however the direct famine seems to be kept at 60-85 million yes.

    End of the day, the narrative that england civilized the savages among other things (which most of older generation believe) is the issue.

    It’s the central story of england, & really all it has left/going for it at this stage.

    I’ll await replies before I say anything more,

  59. Sam Shama says:

    You obviously haven’t the foggiest re: this subject when you say ‘based on common sense’. That is a totally blinkered position. Common sense is what led you to offer mortgages to blokes who couldn’t pay back. One does not need to subscribe to the notion that all ills besetting former colonies have resulted on account of past rent extraction, but ignoring objective analysis and data is just daft.

    Run along, mate.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  60. Singh says:
    @Bill Jones

    We have black shit on our streets, causing disease.

    On your’s it rapes a few hundred white women per day..

  61. Sam Shama says:

    Steady on there. [Some may disagree], but you are posting your rants in English aren’t you?

    • Replies: @Singh
  62. MarkinLA says:

    Yeah, I forgot the industrial revolution started in India, how silly of me.

  63. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam Shama

    Common sense is what led you to offer mortgages to blokes who couldn’t pay back.

    No politics and an uncontrolled Wall Street appetite for interest bearing assets led to that. Common sense would not have made those mortgage.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  64. MarkinLA says:

    Europe and US grew extremely rapidly due to the industrial revolution and their GDP increased may times while backwaters like India stagnated so that statistic is bogus. What were the British supposed to do, build all their factories in India?

    • Replies: @Singh
  65. Sam Shama says:

    [….an uncontrolled Wall Street appetite for interest bearing assets]

    Tell me then, did your ‘common sense’ prompt you to short the cmbx aaa tranche from 2006?

    Trouble with common sense is that it is all too common.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  66. Singh says:
    @Sam Shama

    People on this site obviously don’t speak my language. Or are you implying that I don’t speak five?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  67. Ace says:

    It’s not that I am underestimating the Founders, it’s that I don’t understand on what basis you make the assertion that you did.

    Nothing in the positive law of the early U.S. supports your idea. If you want to make a “super secret masonic cabal of conspiratorialists” argument, that’s fine but at least say that or otherwise point to the law that set the U.S. up to be what you allege. How is it I underestimate them?

  68. Ace says:
    @Bill Jones

    I prefer Founding Fathers and Ratifiers and, no, there’s nothing wrong with “Founding Fathers.” The superior term would be?

    The Founding Fathers wanted to “[increase] the ability of the central government to pay the interest” so that is why they proposed a federal government that had limited powers of taxation?

    Ain’t it awful!? Only 3% voted and very few of them women. Result: Washington. You must love it now that women vote and we have an almost universal franchise. Result: The Constitution-optional Obama.

    That has elevated politics and served the nation well.

  69. Singh says:

    You’re just a deracinated anglo kid living in america, cut off from the euro culture. That’s why you say shit like this, spend some time in your motherland.

    British specifically used tariffs among other things, to target certain industries for destruction.

    The actual british guy has already replied respectfully & admitted half of this is true. I don’t know why you’re getting irritated lol.

  70. Ace says:

    I have always been puzzled why so much American manufacturing ended up on the shores of a Communist dictatorship instead of on the Subcontinent with its pleasant and capable people.

    That said, I have difficulty in understanding your hostility toward the “Anglos” based on ancient history which I have not seen in other Indians or Sikhs in the U.S. If the Hindu rulers ruled from Turkey to Xinjiang at some point, do you wish us to believe that that was an experience of Hindu benevolence for which the subject population were grateful.

    U.S. servicemen who return to modern Vietnam report that they encounter nothing but friendliness from the Vietnamese. Why all this about the Sikh nuclear arsenal?

    • Replies: @Singh
  71. @Singh

    I wasn’t aware of the protective tariffs protecting the early English cotton industry so I thank you for the link which, provisionally, I take to give a true and fair view.

    It is only incidentally about India and is really about justifying the protection of infant industries against the free trade purists. It points out that the tariffs were imposed successively long before Britain in any sense controlled India. Assuming however that they were heavily ramped up at a critical period of the conversion to steam power at the beginning of the 19th century the case for the Brits “de-industrialising” India then falls a bit short – starting with the problem of calling India’s cheap labour regime “industry” in the pertinent sense. [To make a lot of people unemployed may be disastrous but not the same as, for example, the killing or exiling of the educated (many examples but Cambodia may be the purest and worst, but don’t ignore self-inflicted wounds like France’s effective expulsion of the Huguenots) or the theft – USSR in Germany – or banning of important skills or machinery].

    The biggest problem with your argument in so far as it relies on the facts asserted in that linked piece is that it presupposes that India depended on exporting to the relatively tiny populstion of Britain. France alone was 3 or 4 times as populous without counting China. Then there is the dependence on the British East India Company’s control of Bengal for making the case that “India” was “deindustrialised” by the British nation. More is needed to make any kind of case though I remain grateful for being pointed towards the evidence of protectionism. It is a reminder that the US thrived on appropriating intellectual property well over 100 years before it became aggressively protective of IP and suffered much legal and illegal appropriation in China.

    • Replies: @Singh
  72. @MarkinLA

    No evidence of large scale settlements in pre-Columbian North America? The magpie in my mind turns up Mississipi and now I am off Googling…. Oh dear I’m afraid you have to be penalised a couple of yards: just look up Mississipian Culture and Cahokia.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  73. @Bill Jones

    Does “European” in this context include what you would expect of educated English speaking diaspora Chinese and Indians? I’m hoping they make up for some others….

  74. Singh says:

    Because vietnam worships the Buddha & this is the Buddha’s motherland.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  75. Singh says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    It had finished industry textile, shipbuilding, steel
    You wanted to destroy the country’s identity & convert it.
    You failed.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  76. @Singh

    Be careful how you boast! That reminds me of the head of language training in the British Foreign Office of whom it was said “he speaks fifteen languages fluently snd can’t say anything untelligent in any of them”.

    You need an editor to stop people forming a similar view – one who would be a fact as well as logic checker.

  77. MarkinLA says:
    @Sam Shama

    Tell me then, did your ‘common sense’ prompt you to short the cmbx aaa tranche from 2006?

    Everybody with a brain knew real estate was in a bubble. From what I read only rich people got to play the game of buying naked credit default swaps. The best way for a small player to play was to short the mortgage companies. The problem with that is if you shorted in 2006 you might have been squeezed out by 2008. I don’t like shorting high flyers, you know they will crash and burn but more times than not it is long after you have been wiped out, and it hurts physically (constant stress) too.

  78. MarkinLA says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I have had people point this out to me. However, from what I have read this place dies out before Columbus showed up. The claim is that there was 25 million Amerindians when Columbus arrived and disease (or something) killed them all off. There are no large scale settlements such that 25 million can be justified even with the claim that the capital of the Aztec Empire had a population of 250,000. The Maya had collapsed by then.

  79. @Singh

    As you apparently know that Sam Shama is British you would have to know that he is also Jewish. Is it not unbecoming of you not to show respect by avoiding the kind of references to Jews you have made that are redolent of rabid anti-Semitism?

    Of course I suspect that you are trolling, unlike the raving Rehmat who does appear to be a genuine anti-Jewish (as well as anti-Zionist) obsessive. Your statement that you have returned to the motherland makes one inclined to ask what you failed at in the West and what were the circumstances that led to the rancid resentment in your twisted soul – and it would be of interest if you were to give us more of your bio. That would be interesting even if most of what you write is just careless trollung mischief.

    I wonder why you capitlaised SIKH in one reply? Was it a trolling tease to see who was well informed enough to pick up the clues? After all Sikhism has/had a history remarkably like that of Christianity and is/was as far from poly/pantheist Hindism as the Early Fathers (cp. the Ten Gurus) were from the Roman poly/pantheist imperial religion. Monistic as well as monotheistic, but so are some Christians. Against caste and slavery but there were of course some fudges amongst rich landowners. Martyrdom by the ruling emperor etc. I suspect that you don’t care a damn for India’s premodern traditions. You must surely know that British missionaries – like those of all Protestant countries at least – were a private enterprise and highly varied. Just as Islam seems earlier to have had a natural appeal to the lower castes (whose conditions are surely not amongst the sub-continental traditions you are proud of) Christian missionaries I understand also had success with the underdogs in India.

    I’m not at all religious but know a fair bit about religions and I can say that your assertion that the Abrahamic religions are undebateable (apparently in contrast to some subcontintental religious tradition???) is absurd unless you have some very confining criteria in mind. In fact it is so absurd that, rather than pour out 1000 words to illustrate its falsity I invite you to explain what you meant, in particular what contrast you have in mind when you assert that undebateability.

    Also, given that despite some Hindu communities’ prejudices being given brutal effect to, females are at least a rather large minority in India, and given that Sikhism has always been against burning widows but lacked the power to do it outside the Punjab, is it not more than a small benefit of British rule that it was substantially abolished throughout India?

  80. MarkinLA says:

    No the point is simply this. The Industrial Revolution made Europe and the US 100 times wealthier and able to produce things 100 times faster and India and China basically stayed the same. Nothing you posted refutes that. It just said the Brits stopped importing Indian goods. Obviously if India was so dependent on Britain for its exports that its share of world production falls by a factor of 15, they could not have been producing much in the first place. They had a lot of people who could sit in front of a spinning wheel or loom all day long unlike Britain so it would seem like they had a large output. Once the steam engine allowed hundreds of looms to run with only a few people then the output of India isn’t so impressive anymore.

    These tariffs did not “destroy” Indian industry. They destroyed inefficient Indian manual labor intensive crafts. The Indians were free to sell their inferior fabrics to anybody who would buy them (obviously nobody). All the tariffs do is make the transition period where high start up costs by British manufacturers can cause some companies to go under while they work the bugs out. Machines were going to make cloth it was just a matter of time.

    I am not getting irritated. I am just pointing out the fallacy in your argument but you can;t seem to understand it so I have to repeat it.

  81. @Singh

    Of course the real lasting impact on the whole of India and Pakistan of what you very oddly call “[E]england” as if you were seriously ignorant of British history and of the part the Empire played in creating great career opportunities for the Scots and Irish (and Welsh) is population growth. Both modern medicine and hygeine, and improved crops, plus modern transport of grain and other foodstuffs have led to the growth of population way beyond what was possible before 1800.

    That explains why, when India’s regular cycle of (largely monsoon failure) famines occurred under the Raj the numbers of deaths might be larger. It also meant of course that there are now many more happy Indians than there would have been without the West’s impact on India from the 18th century to date:-)

  82. @Singh

    Mere assertion, even when clearly expressed, isn’t persuasive or even informative.

    I am sorry to think that you are perhaps not just posing as an angry resentful disappointed young man trying to find something grander to project his frustrations on. At least Rehmat seems happily barking.

  83. @Singh

    Interesting logic. You feel entitled as a Sikh or maybe because of your ancient subcontinental genes to appropriate as a boost to your pride and self worth everything of value which appeared first on the Indian sub-continent. So it is easy for you to deduce that Vietnamese friendliness derives from their mostly having a religion which originated 2500 years ago in India! Indians tend to be good at hockey and cricket. Why not try resting your brain and giving them a try . At any rate get out a bit more.

  84. Agent76 says:

    Dr. King’s 2-minute message to you

  85. Singh says:

    I mean both of you can still keep going on but, you’re still both anglo cucks.

  86. Singh says:

    Mark why not 101x? Your little economic theories fail to take in politics. Export global % also fell,

    I mean you stole capital & used it to advance but, claim & act like you’re not a thief.

    Wizard is just some man, trying to relive his childhood with juvenile insults.

    I mean, what does it make a difference? There are also more christian & muslim enemies to deal with so it’s just the same.

    You guys will learn after the war.

    Jai Hind

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  87. martin_2 says:

    Population of Indian subcontinent in 1800, before the British started managing things, 185 million. Population in 1950, shortly after they left, 450 million.
    But apparently hundreds of millions were starved!

  88. martin_2 says:
    @random observer

    But the population of India increased dramatically during the period of British rule, FFS!

  89. martin_2 says:

    The British had something like 50,000 soldiers in the whole of India. The population of India was in the hundreds of millions. India was weeks away from the UK. Yet somehow the British managed to rule by terror, according to Singh. This doesn’t say much for the fighting qualities of the Indians does it!

  90. Singh says:

    No one said they ruled, it’s like america in syria going by proxy.

    The fighting qualities are shown by the fact that anglos are ultimately reduced to giving their women to blacks, while worshipping non white kike jesus.

    Lol debates of words, can only go so far. We’ll see in WW3 who comes out on top.

    Jai Hind

  91. MarkinLA says:

    You are obviously unhinged. Take your Thorazine before you post next time.

    • Replies: @Singh
  92. Singh says:

    Average abrahamic response, those who don’t agree must be crazy. American exceptionalism is also an abrahamic ideology (I know you will call yourself ‘atheist’) as it is the jewish mentality imported by anglos.

    1. No self critical analysis of actions
    Ie they hate us for our freedoms, or why so much anti semitism

    2. All non american are savages, all those who don’t follow our value system must be bombed; or all goyim are animals.

    Just remember when you go to war, it’s to support transvestite homosexuals forcefully adopting kids & for black men to have ‘rapeerations’ with white anglo saxon women.

    You probably need the medicine more than me. Significant part of your population is on mental drugs & commits mass shootings.

    We have many guns here as well, don’t have that problem. Even when trump wins,

    He can’t change you wannabe jew cucks into real men.

    Also wizard of oz look at the connection between the west & israel due to christianity.

    Same with us & the East.

  93. @JEGG

    Gay marriage became acceptable because of the “everything goes” mentality required in a deindustrialized and multicultural society of sellers.

    Have you ever met a homosexual who isn’t a narcissist?

  94. I don’t remember a whole lot of discussion about gay marriage being a Constitutional right until it suddenly happened. Maybe the discussion was all over he media; I don’t live in the United States. But it seemed like the Constitution was rather used to force legality regardless of any dissent. Just my speculation, but after seeing the White House drenched in gay pride colors (now that made, and got laughed at, in the international news!) I suspect it was blatant social engineering by judicial fiat.

    • Replies: @anonymose
  95. @Stephen R. Diamond

    “Have you ever met a homosexual who isn’t a narcissist?”

    Plenty, actually, and working in places you’d probably not expect.

  96. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I suspect they know it’s a fraud…It’s a useful Fraud from their perspective.

  97. anonymose says:
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    It’s funny that Obama had to lie about being on the fence about gay marriage to get elected. Now it’s practically a hate crime to have a second thought about it.

    I read a Hillary staffer’s email from the Wkileaks stash – she was saying Hillary still isn’t big on it so don’t even bring it up if it isn’t necessary.

    They pretty much do what they have to do/say to get elected.

    As far as the average citizen… they are just along for the ride. They will have to adjust their personal opinions to match what the elite tells them is moral this week.

Current Commenter

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 Mark Engler Comments via RSS
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?