The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Presidential Requirements
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

As of this February, there is a 90% chance that the US President come 2021 will be Trump, Bernie, or Bloomberg.

  • One of whom has been branded a Russian “asset” for the past 5 years.
  • One of whom spent his honeymoon in the USSR.
  • One of whom publicly sympathized with Russia’s incorporation of Crimea back in 2015.

Seems that being an old, white man who’s been accused of working for Putin is becoming a requirement for future American Presidents.

 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

  2. Apparently Putin has been the person actually playing 3D chess all along…

  3. if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War? serious question with much broader implications and scope. is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans? is it some kind of mind virus – one of the most contagious ever created? what is the defense? are we doomed to forever be resisting this stuff? the “It couldn’t happen here” boomers are clearly wrong – the US is very evidently headed in some kind of far leftist direction.

    intelligence is not necessarily any defense. ethnic homogeneity is not necessarily any defense. most of the east asian nations fell to communism. it came in from the north, and wiped out it’s opponents. only one outside group was able to try to come in and stop it. sometimes they did, sometimes they weren’t able to.

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it. once those slip, the communism can come in. the ultra germanic version of the US was, largely, the only nation that waged the Cold War against the communists. and to a lesser extent, the germanic UK. you won’t be able to count on the other europeans much. and, the “It couldn’t happen here” germanic boomers in the US are deliberately being replaced by their political enemies, specifically so the “It couldn’t happen here” DOES happen here. once the germanic population base declines, it seems inevitable what happens next politically.

    • LOL: WHAT
    • Replies: @another anon

    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War?
     
    LOL, you really have to ask?

    https://www.4sighthealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MilitaryIndustrialComplex-e1545183490238.png

    is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans?
     
    Congrats, comrade. You are beginning to get it.
    About 150 years too late, but better late than never.

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

    https://image.slidesharecdn.com/hsspresentationonkarlmarxandcommunism-140221073243-phpapp01/95/hss-presentation-on-karl-marx-and-communism-28-638.jpg?cb=1392968078

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it.
     
    Germanic communism rules, comrade ;-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkX_p2BgoNo
    , @Staedtler
    This is a very historically illiterate view.

    Socialism has a long tradition in the UK since the English Civil War, and arguably going back even further to Wat Tyler in the Middle Ages. In the 19th century you had prominent socialist reformers and thinkers such as Owen and Mill, and then Fabianism and the Labour party and the trade union movement in the 20th century.

    Socialism also has a tradition in Germany as Spengler shows in his book "Prussianism and Socialism".

    As far as whether socialism is a default state of sorts, obviously it's one of the basic default forms of economic and social organization. Households are generally run along socialist lines, and household management is the origin of economics and the meaning of the word "economics" in Greek. Many organizations are run internally along socialist lines.
    , @Korenchkin

    muh Germanic heritage I'm cooming
     
    Communism was created by a fat neckbeard NEET in London
    Communism destroyed the greatest geopolitical enemy of the Anglos and Germs
    Germans also sent Lenin to Petrograd with a trainfull of gold, basically kickstarting the revolution

    Up yours
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Based on the article, mythical Russian favor is the most important thing. Time to practice choosing your samovar.
    , @dfordoom

    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War?
     
    The point of the Cold War was to make a lot of money for the military-industrial complex and to provide a moral cover for America's imperialist ambitions.

    The British backed the Cold War because it made them feel better about being reduced to the status of a third-rate power, and having their empire taken away from them. They had this fantasy about being America's partner in the new American postwar world order. In fact they were never anything but despised lackeys.
  4. But Bernie doesn’t like Putin. He was more of a Chernenko fanboy.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Wherever did I say any of them actually have to like Russia?
    , @AnonFromTN
    When Andropov died and Chernenko became the next “peerless leader”, there was a joke in the USSR: the works on artificial kidney were discontinued; the works on artificial intelligence were initiated.
  5. I kind of like how Bloomberg is a Jewish oligarch, and I do like the idea of billionaires handing off power to each other.

    One of the problems with Trump is that his rough manner of speech gives the illusion that he in someway has sympathy for blue-collar workers.

  6. @Bragadocious
    But Bernie doesn't like Putin. He was more of a Chernenko fanboy.

    Wherever did I say any of them actually have to like Russia?

  7. in a much larger context, this is the Intelligence War – the battle for control by the smartest. in any system of living things, the most intelligent beings come to control stuff. for the entire Phanerozoic era, from the Cambrian forward, the process continued. it did not end when humans appeared 300,000 years ago. it is happening today.

    as they got smarter, they controlled more space. over thousands of years, their empires grew. expanding across a continent. then spanning continents. eventually by 1900, they had advanced to the point where the conflict for the control of an planet was inevitable. from that perspective, the 20th century was the battle for control of an entire planet, by the smartest human groups. the germans and japanese on one side, the english speakers and russians on the other side.

    and now, with the Sanders-Bloomberg election on the horizon, the jews are set to take control of the US, the ostensible victor of the 2 planetary battles resolved 70 years ago and 30 years ago. previously, the leadership of the Soviet Union was highly jewish. but now they’re mostly in control of the US. and will take full control in the 2020s. having used the Soviet Union to their ends as much as they could, then then jumped to a new host.

    Trump himself largely does what his jewish donors ask. and regardless of whether Trump is re-elected, he will be the last Republican President ever. after which, the Democrat party, that is to say, the jews, as they contribute almost all the money, and all the intellectual firepower, will take full control of the US permanently. meaning by extension they will be in control of the entire planet.

    beyond that phase, they could only be challenged for control of the planet by the Chinese, or, in the future, by an AI, which may be able to wrest control of the planet away from the humans. something smarter than the humans, taking control of the planet, in the Intelligence War. then perhaps taking control of Mars, and other planets.

    • Disagree: Homeschooling Mom in NY
    • Replies: @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    1) Jews if anything are losing ground in control of the U.S. to the combination of the surging population of non-whites and the ascent of populist whites.

    2) The number of high IQ gentiles is massively greater than high IQ jews.

    3) Jews aren't the highest IQ subpopulation on earth and are only higher than asians in the linguistic domain

    4) America's relative power on the global stage has already peaked and is receding, control of the U.S. isn't de facto control of the world

    5) The theory that the most intelligent always "control stuff" (lol) is absolutely retarded. In what way do deer "control" their habitat that insects or even amoebas don't? And why do Africans run their own countries that they didn't in the past? Why are there about a bajillion more Africans than jews? Why is the smartest fraction of jews (ashkenazim) shrinking while the dumbest is growing? So many questions, but none of them really worth asking, because even bothering to write this response I believe has been a tremendous waste of time.
    , @Swedish Family

    and now, with the Sanders-Bloomberg election on the horizon, the jews are set to take control of the US, the ostensible victor of the 2 planetary battles resolved 70 years ago and 30 years ago. previously, the leadership of the Soviet Union was highly jewish.
     
    You are painting with far too broad a brush (putting it mildly).

    Sanders snubbing the yearly AIPAC conference the other day was big news, and very much true to form. He has stayed doggedly neutral on Israeli-Palestinian matters all these years, as has plenty of writers on this site. Not all Jews see the world alike.

  8. i agree with Anatoly that Taiwan doesn’t have the heart or the balls to defend themselves from China. which means they’re entirely dependent on the US protecting them – the old, germanic US. which is about to go away, and become the jewish US. and the jewish US probably doesn’t care about Taiwan.

    so there will be nothing to stop the PRC from coming in there soon.

    an interesting question – what WILL the jewish America’s attitude be towards the communist regimes around the world? will they eventually start pulling out, opening the way for the communists to move forward into Korea and Japan? why would a jewish America be interested to fight communism globally?

    jewish America of course will be openly hostile to the now not communist Russia.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups - too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas - something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now - the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.

    Communism is a form of giving up on the society by a large number of permanently dissatisfied people. It is an economic nihilism enforced by brute force and promises. It always eventually burns itself out. What is missing from most belly-aching about communism is why it exists, what mistakes a society made to get to the point where communism seemed like an improvement for a large number of people. How bad had to be people like Chankaishek or Nicholas II to lose to people like Mao or Lenin?

    When you describe communism as some satanic force that appeared out of nowhere and fooled people with propaganda to seize power - you are describing your inability to understand history. Today there are too many angry people, too many who are in perpetuity on the losing side of the current system. Plus there are billions additional much poorer people waiting on the borders of the West who the desperate liberal elites want to use as 'new population'. This is not sustainable. During times like these a new set of elite leaders appear trying to play the situation for personal gain, ambition, or even to stabilise the system. But outcomes are uncertain.

    The best way to prevent communism is to stop hallucinating about 'makers and takers' ala Romney, and keep societies as homogeneous as possible.

    , @RadicalCenter
    To be fair to the Taiwanese people: other than acquiring a serious nuclear arsenal, how could a small island country with a small population defend itself against China in the long run, no matter how normal, brave, and proud they were?
  9. If Democrats will be nominating either Bernie Sanders or Mick Bloomberg, then Trump would easily win the election of this year.

    Democrats would have some possibly to win if they provide some black or brown politician to be nominated, that is relatively young compared to Trump (i.e. someone 40-50 years old), and has very normal or centre, mainstream views, to match all the views of a larger part of mainstream Americans who live in Swing States.

    In such a situation, Trump would have to respond by either Kanye or Kim Kardashian as his vice-President.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I should say that it’s just the other way round. Both Sanders and (even) Bloomberg could give Trump a very hard time. But Deval Patrick? Get serious. Or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, if they could be resurrected? An angry black(ish) woman or the world’s emptiest suit? It’s not accidental that they are long gone.
  10. Seems that being an old, white man who’s been accused of working for Putin is becoming a requirement for future American Presidents.

    Interestingly enough, two out of these three old, white men are Jewish–with the other one having a Jewish daughter and a Jewish son-in-law (as well as Jewish grandchildren, of course).

  11. If communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War?

    To fool us into thinking that communism was the enemy and not neo-liberalism.

    I sometimes wonder if the way that communism is generally defined isn’t archaic, and if it should be replaced with some formula which includes the absence of international replacement migration. As our historical timeframe increases, the main existential ideological dichotomy seems to obviously be about immigration.

    Economic communism was a flash in the pan, and is now, for all intents and purposes, a fossil. It has been abandoned, even by most radicals, in favor of more profitable economic models.

  12. @prime noticer
    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War? serious question with much broader implications and scope. is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans? is it some kind of mind virus - one of the most contagious ever created? what is the defense? are we doomed to forever be resisting this stuff? the "It couldn't happen here" boomers are clearly wrong - the US is very evidently headed in some kind of far leftist direction.

    intelligence is not necessarily any defense. ethnic homogeneity is not necessarily any defense. most of the east asian nations fell to communism. it came in from the north, and wiped out it's opponents. only one outside group was able to try to come in and stop it. sometimes they did, sometimes they weren't able to.

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it. once those slip, the communism can come in. the ultra germanic version of the US was, largely, the only nation that waged the Cold War against the communists. and to a lesser extent, the germanic UK. you won't be able to count on the other europeans much. and, the "It couldn't happen here" germanic boomers in the US are deliberately being replaced by their political enemies, specifically so the "It couldn't happen here" DOES happen here. once the germanic population base declines, it seems inevitable what happens next politically.

    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War?

    LOL, you really have to ask?

    is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans?

    Congrats, comrade. You are beginning to get it.
    About 150 years too late, but better late than never.

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

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it.

    Germanic communism rules, comrade 😉

  13. Interesting that a lot of the top US politicians are skeptical of the Deep State’s Russophobia. I think even many Democrats are, but they have felt so far it is a convenient weapon to attack Trump – though the results have been mixed to them.

  14. @prime noticer
    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War? serious question with much broader implications and scope. is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans? is it some kind of mind virus - one of the most contagious ever created? what is the defense? are we doomed to forever be resisting this stuff? the "It couldn't happen here" boomers are clearly wrong - the US is very evidently headed in some kind of far leftist direction.

    intelligence is not necessarily any defense. ethnic homogeneity is not necessarily any defense. most of the east asian nations fell to communism. it came in from the north, and wiped out it's opponents. only one outside group was able to try to come in and stop it. sometimes they did, sometimes they weren't able to.

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it. once those slip, the communism can come in. the ultra germanic version of the US was, largely, the only nation that waged the Cold War against the communists. and to a lesser extent, the germanic UK. you won't be able to count on the other europeans much. and, the "It couldn't happen here" germanic boomers in the US are deliberately being replaced by their political enemies, specifically so the "It couldn't happen here" DOES happen here. once the germanic population base declines, it seems inevitable what happens next politically.

    This is a very historically illiterate view.

    Socialism has a long tradition in the UK since the English Civil War, and arguably going back even further to Wat Tyler in the Middle Ages. In the 19th century you had prominent socialist reformers and thinkers such as Owen and Mill, and then Fabianism and the Labour party and the trade union movement in the 20th century.

    Socialism also has a tradition in Germany as Spengler shows in his book “Prussianism and Socialism”.

    As far as whether socialism is a default state of sorts, obviously it’s one of the basic default forms of economic and social organization. Households are generally run along socialist lines, and household management is the origin of economics and the meaning of the word “economics” in Greek. Many organizations are run internally along socialist lines.

    • Agree: Swedish Family
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    As far as whether socialism is a default state of sorts, obviously it’s one of the basic default forms of economic and social organization. Households are generally run along socialist lines, and household management is the origin of economics and the meaning of the word “economics” in Greek. Many organizations are run internally along socialist lines.
     
    Indeed, and to add to your examples, historians often see the Russian mir system as a stepping stone toward the rise of Russian socialism in the 19th century.
  15. @prime noticer
    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War? serious question with much broader implications and scope. is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans? is it some kind of mind virus - one of the most contagious ever created? what is the defense? are we doomed to forever be resisting this stuff? the "It couldn't happen here" boomers are clearly wrong - the US is very evidently headed in some kind of far leftist direction.

    intelligence is not necessarily any defense. ethnic homogeneity is not necessarily any defense. most of the east asian nations fell to communism. it came in from the north, and wiped out it's opponents. only one outside group was able to try to come in and stop it. sometimes they did, sometimes they weren't able to.

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it. once those slip, the communism can come in. the ultra germanic version of the US was, largely, the only nation that waged the Cold War against the communists. and to a lesser extent, the germanic UK. you won't be able to count on the other europeans much. and, the "It couldn't happen here" germanic boomers in the US are deliberately being replaced by their political enemies, specifically so the "It couldn't happen here" DOES happen here. once the germanic population base declines, it seems inevitable what happens next politically.

    muh Germanic heritage I’m cooming

    Communism was created by a fat neckbeard NEET in London
    Communism destroyed the greatest geopolitical enemy of the Anglos and Germs
    Germans also sent Lenin to Petrograd with a trainfull of gold, basically kickstarting the revolution

    Up yours

    • Replies: @neutral
    You can blame (((Marx))) and (((Lenin))) all you want, but the fact still remains that the majority of Russians still decided to fight for the red side in the civil war.
  16. @prime noticer
    i agree with Anatoly that Taiwan doesn't have the heart or the balls to defend themselves from China. which means they're entirely dependent on the US protecting them - the old, germanic US. which is about to go away, and become the jewish US. and the jewish US probably doesn't care about Taiwan.

    so there will be nothing to stop the PRC from coming in there soon.

    an interesting question - what WILL the jewish America's attitude be towards the communist regimes around the world? will they eventually start pulling out, opening the way for the communists to move forward into Korea and Japan? why would a jewish America be interested to fight communism globally?

    jewish America of course will be openly hostile to the now not communist Russia.

    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups – too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas – something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now – the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.

    Communism is a form of giving up on the society by a large number of permanently dissatisfied people. It is an economic nihilism enforced by brute force and promises. It always eventually burns itself out. What is missing from most belly-aching about communism is why it exists, what mistakes a society made to get to the point where communism seemed like an improvement for a large number of people. How bad had to be people like Chankaishek or Nicholas II to lose to people like Mao or Lenin?

    When you describe communism as some satanic force that appeared out of nowhere and fooled people with propaganda to seize power – you are describing your inability to understand history. Today there are too many angry people, too many who are in perpetuity on the losing side of the current system. Plus there are billions additional much poorer people waiting on the borders of the West who the desperate liberal elites want to use as ‘new population’. This is not sustainable. During times like these a new set of elite leaders appear trying to play the situation for personal gain, ambition, or even to stabilise the system. But outcomes are uncertain.

    The best way to prevent communism is to stop hallucinating about ‘makers and takers‘ ala Romney, and keep societies as homogeneous as possible.

    • Agree: Guillaume Tell
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups – too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas – something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now – the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.
     
    Agreed, but a reminder that communism is merely an extreme subcategory of socialism (the other being the highly successful ideology we know as social democracy). Communism, then, should be seen as a nasty thing onto itself -- not as the natural end result of socialism (which can also mean social democracy, arguably the best system of government the world has ever seen). A parallel might be drawn to theocracy, which is basically perverted religiosity, and obviously a bad thing.
    , @MBlanc46
    Homogeneous, yes, to a certain extent. But, more important, arrange economic organizations in such a way that even the lower echelons justifiably feel that they are, to use a fashionable word, stakeholders.
  17. It needs to be pointed out that the leaders of the Soviet gerontocracy were younger than the Americans candidates mentioned.

    Also two of those are jews, so not white.

    • Replies: @songbird
    At this point, Trump should probably be considered an honorary Jew, except for the fact that many American Jews crassly call him Drümpf.
  18. @Korenchkin

    muh Germanic heritage I'm cooming
     
    Communism was created by a fat neckbeard NEET in London
    Communism destroyed the greatest geopolitical enemy of the Anglos and Germs
    Germans also sent Lenin to Petrograd with a trainfull of gold, basically kickstarting the revolution

    Up yours

    You can blame (((Marx))) and (((Lenin))) all you want, but the fact still remains that the majority of Russians still decided to fight for the red side in the civil war.

    • Replies: @Korenchkin
    The most repressive state in history combined with an Orwellian propaganda system was required to keep Russians from rebelling and forcing them to accept the Communist system
    As Solzhenitsyn pointed out, they needed to know nothing of their past and have the Communists as their sole source of information in order to be true believers
    The first ethnic Russian who became leader of the USSR was also the last leader of the USSR, Gorbachev
    Georgians, Latvians, Jews, Poles and Ukrainians now cry crocodile tears about the state which wouldn't have come to exist without them
    Not to mention Germans and Anglos who completely sabotaged the Russian Empire for their own interests

    A far worse fate awaits the Germans and English now, and there's hardly a peep about it, at least the French still have the balls to go out in the streets and fight their regime

    , @Autists Anonymous Rehab Camp Fugitive
    Russian minorities. It's like if a US civil war happened right now, and the democrat side won by employing infinite niggers and mexicans while being funded by every one of america's enemies. Whether white people support it would hardly matter.
    , @Svidomyatheart
    Pretty much this

    I do not post here enough so I cant use the agree button which I would have done otherwise

    No matter how much post communist russians try and twist the ill fated events of 1917 the irreparable damage done to russia was primarily done by them and not only non russian minorities
  19. @neutral
    You can blame (((Marx))) and (((Lenin))) all you want, but the fact still remains that the majority of Russians still decided to fight for the red side in the civil war.

    The most repressive state in history combined with an Orwellian propaganda system was required to keep Russians from rebelling and forcing them to accept the Communist system
    As Solzhenitsyn pointed out, they needed to know nothing of their past and have the Communists as their sole source of information in order to be true believers
    The first ethnic Russian who became leader of the USSR was also the last leader of the USSR, Gorbachev
    Georgians, Latvians, Jews, Poles and Ukrainians now cry crocodile tears about the state which wouldn’t have come to exist without them
    Not to mention Germans and Anglos who completely sabotaged the Russian Empire for their own interests

    A far worse fate awaits the Germans and English now, and there’s hardly a peep about it, at least the French still have the balls to go out in the streets and fight their regime

  20. @neutral
    You can blame (((Marx))) and (((Lenin))) all you want, but the fact still remains that the majority of Russians still decided to fight for the red side in the civil war.

    Russian minorities. It’s like if a US civil war happened right now, and the democrat side won by employing infinite niggers and mexicans while being funded by every one of america’s enemies. Whether white people support it would hardly matter.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ....Russian minorities.
     
    The core area of support for the Reds was central Russia and St. Petersburg, overwhelmingly Russian. There were many minorities, esp. among the leadership, but the Red Army consisted mostly of people who were Russian peasants and workers. Foreign interference was on both sides.

    Try again.
  21. One of whom publicly sympathized with Russia’s incorporation of Crimea back in 2015.

    Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for it. Most Crimeans are Russian…what’s the problem?

    • Agree: aedib
    • Replies: @another anon
    Why should be Crimean question decisive in American presidential elections?
    Why should Anglos care about Crimea?

    Because it's always been this way.

    https://i.imgur.com/C8qnswA.jpg

    (source: The Economist Sep 22 1855)


    Small brain: Crimea belongs to Ukraine

    Normal brain: Crimea belongs to Russia

    Galaxy brain: Crimea belongs to British Empire
  22. @neutral
    It needs to be pointed out that the leaders of the Soviet gerontocracy were younger than the Americans candidates mentioned.

    Also two of those are jews, so not white.

    At this point, Trump should probably be considered an honorary Jew, except for the fact that many American Jews crassly call him Drümpf.

  23. I love it. White people are evil. Men are evil. The older generation is evil. So the only two candidates standing in the Democratic party, three if you count Bloomberg, are old white men. Clearly, Democrats do not want anyone under age 30 to vote in November.

  24. @prime noticer
    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War? serious question with much broader implications and scope. is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans? is it some kind of mind virus - one of the most contagious ever created? what is the defense? are we doomed to forever be resisting this stuff? the "It couldn't happen here" boomers are clearly wrong - the US is very evidently headed in some kind of far leftist direction.

    intelligence is not necessarily any defense. ethnic homogeneity is not necessarily any defense. most of the east asian nations fell to communism. it came in from the north, and wiped out it's opponents. only one outside group was able to try to come in and stop it. sometimes they did, sometimes they weren't able to.

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it. once those slip, the communism can come in. the ultra germanic version of the US was, largely, the only nation that waged the Cold War against the communists. and to a lesser extent, the germanic UK. you won't be able to count on the other europeans much. and, the "It couldn't happen here" germanic boomers in the US are deliberately being replaced by their political enemies, specifically so the "It couldn't happen here" DOES happen here. once the germanic population base declines, it seems inevitable what happens next politically.

    Based on the article, mythical Russian favor is the most important thing. Time to practice choosing your samovar.

  25. @prime noticer
    in a much larger context, this is the Intelligence War - the battle for control by the smartest. in any system of living things, the most intelligent beings come to control stuff. for the entire Phanerozoic era, from the Cambrian forward, the process continued. it did not end when humans appeared 300,000 years ago. it is happening today.

    as they got smarter, they controlled more space. over thousands of years, their empires grew. expanding across a continent. then spanning continents. eventually by 1900, they had advanced to the point where the conflict for the control of an planet was inevitable. from that perspective, the 20th century was the battle for control of an entire planet, by the smartest human groups. the germans and japanese on one side, the english speakers and russians on the other side.

    and now, with the Sanders-Bloomberg election on the horizon, the jews are set to take control of the US, the ostensible victor of the 2 planetary battles resolved 70 years ago and 30 years ago. previously, the leadership of the Soviet Union was highly jewish. but now they're mostly in control of the US. and will take full control in the 2020s. having used the Soviet Union to their ends as much as they could, then then jumped to a new host.

    Trump himself largely does what his jewish donors ask. and regardless of whether Trump is re-elected, he will be the last Republican President ever. after which, the Democrat party, that is to say, the jews, as they contribute almost all the money, and all the intellectual firepower, will take full control of the US permanently. meaning by extension they will be in control of the entire planet.

    beyond that phase, they could only be challenged for control of the planet by the Chinese, or, in the future, by an AI, which may be able to wrest control of the planet away from the humans. something smarter than the humans, taking control of the planet, in the Intelligence War. then perhaps taking control of Mars, and other planets.

    1) Jews if anything are losing ground in control of the U.S. to the combination of the surging population of non-whites and the ascent of populist whites.

    2) The number of high IQ gentiles is massively greater than high IQ jews.

    3) Jews aren’t the highest IQ subpopulation on earth and are only higher than asians in the linguistic domain

    4) America’s relative power on the global stage has already peaked and is receding, control of the U.S. isn’t de facto control of the world

    5) The theory that the most intelligent always “control stuff” (lol) is absolutely retarded. In what way do deer “control” their habitat that insects or even amoebas don’t? And why do Africans run their own countries that they didn’t in the past? Why are there about a bajillion more Africans than jews? Why is the smartest fraction of jews (ashkenazim) shrinking while the dumbest is growing? So many questions, but none of them really worth asking, because even bothering to write this response I believe has been a tremendous waste of time.

  26. @neutral
    You can blame (((Marx))) and (((Lenin))) all you want, but the fact still remains that the majority of Russians still decided to fight for the red side in the civil war.

    Pretty much this

    I do not post here enough so I cant use the agree button which I would have done otherwise

    No matter how much post communist russians try and twist the ill fated events of 1917 the irreparable damage done to russia was primarily done by them and not only non russian minorities

  27. @Autists Anonymous Rehab Camp Fugitive
    Russian minorities. It's like if a US civil war happened right now, and the democrat side won by employing infinite niggers and mexicans while being funded by every one of america's enemies. Whether white people support it would hardly matter.

    ….Russian minorities.

    The core area of support for the Reds was central Russia and St. Petersburg, overwhelmingly Russian. There were many minorities, esp. among the leadership, but the Red Army consisted mostly of people who were Russian peasants and workers. Foreign interference was on both sides.

    Try again.

    • Replies: @another anon
    This had been debated here many times.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/baltlivesmatter/

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/centenary-of-the-bolshevik-usurpation/

    Every Russian nationalist worth his salt knows that Jews and Balts are true supermen, one Jew or Balt can dominate hundreds of Slavs with mere power of his will. Any resistance is futile.
    , @AP

    The core area of support for the Reds was central Russia and St. Petersburg
     
    Primarily urban areas.

    Red Army consisted mostly of people who were Russian peasants and workers
     
    Workers more than peasants.

    And most effective troops were angry Latvians. Without them the Revolution would have ended quickly.
  28. It strikes me that there are four political choices going forward:

    1.) least bad: voting your conscience (and feeling guilty)
    2.) most bad: accelerationism
    3.) don’t vote: no legitimacy
    4.) picking a face to go with a regime: mandate of heaven

    I kind of like #4.

  29. Why Bernie Sucks

    Two pertinent pieces concerning Bernie Sanders:

    https://theduran.com/same-lame-russia-meddling-bs-trump-bernie-react-in-completely-different-ways-video/

    Over the decades, Sanders has taken some US foreign policy establishment views, which include not challenging the 1999 Clinton administration led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

    &

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/26/anti-russian-xenophobia-reaches-ridiculous-levels/

    Adam Schiff comes closest to being a modern day Joseph McCarthy. Regarding the actual present day realities, Hollywood is probably not objectively sane enough to do an updated version of the 1960s film The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming, noted in this piece:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/24092017-another-absurd-russia-bashing-development-analysis/

    Some disagreement with the above linked Counterpunch article on the USSR. While its post WW II threat to the West was at times hyped, it nevertheless did constitute a geopolitical challenge to the West in a way that post-Soviet Russia doesn’t.

    • Agree: Denis
    • Replies: @Denis
    The primary problem with a Bernie Sanders presidency is that, as we have seen with Trump and Obama before him, the deeply ingrained interests that steer America do not change with administrations. Even if a president were openly hostile to some of their policies, he would still be hamstrung by the opposition of donors, judges, the mainstream media, and high-ranking military officers and intelligence agents.

    These unelected groups and individuals together wield substantially more power than the president and, critically, they do not have an 8-year window in which they can enact their policies.

  30. @Beckow

    ....Russian minorities.
     
    The core area of support for the Reds was central Russia and St. Petersburg, overwhelmingly Russian. There were many minorities, esp. among the leadership, but the Red Army consisted mostly of people who were Russian peasants and workers. Foreign interference was on both sides.

    Try again.

    This had been debated here many times.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/baltlivesmatter/

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/centenary-of-the-bolshevik-usurpation/

    Every Russian nationalist worth his salt knows that Jews and Balts are true supermen, one Jew or Balt can dominate hundreds of Slavs with mere power of his will. Any resistance is futile.

  31. @Realist

    One of whom publicly sympathized with Russia’s incorporation of Crimea back in 2015.
     
    Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for it. Most Crimeans are Russian...what's the problem?

    Why should be Crimean question decisive in American presidential elections?
    Why should Anglos care about Crimea?

    Because it’s always been this way.

    (source: The Economist Sep 22 1855)

    Small brain: Crimea belongs to Ukraine

    Normal brain: Crimea belongs to Russia

    Galaxy brain: Crimea belongs to British Empire

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Indeed it is a former part of the British Empire. Anglo-Saxon thegns who fled to join the Varangian guard after the Norman conquest were granted lands in Crimea by the Byzantine Empire. Welsh princes from about a century later when it was their turn.
    , @Autists Anonymous Rehab Camp Fugitive
    Breaking News: American sub-iqer thinks himself a geopolitical genius because he found the crimean war was a thing.
  32. @Staedtler
    This is a very historically illiterate view.

    Socialism has a long tradition in the UK since the English Civil War, and arguably going back even further to Wat Tyler in the Middle Ages. In the 19th century you had prominent socialist reformers and thinkers such as Owen and Mill, and then Fabianism and the Labour party and the trade union movement in the 20th century.

    Socialism also has a tradition in Germany as Spengler shows in his book "Prussianism and Socialism".

    As far as whether socialism is a default state of sorts, obviously it's one of the basic default forms of economic and social organization. Households are generally run along socialist lines, and household management is the origin of economics and the meaning of the word "economics" in Greek. Many organizations are run internally along socialist lines.

    As far as whether socialism is a default state of sorts, obviously it’s one of the basic default forms of economic and social organization. Households are generally run along socialist lines, and household management is the origin of economics and the meaning of the word “economics” in Greek. Many organizations are run internally along socialist lines.

    Indeed, and to add to your examples, historians often see the Russian mir system as a stepping stone toward the rise of Russian socialism in the 19th century.

  33. @prime noticer
    in a much larger context, this is the Intelligence War - the battle for control by the smartest. in any system of living things, the most intelligent beings come to control stuff. for the entire Phanerozoic era, from the Cambrian forward, the process continued. it did not end when humans appeared 300,000 years ago. it is happening today.

    as they got smarter, they controlled more space. over thousands of years, their empires grew. expanding across a continent. then spanning continents. eventually by 1900, they had advanced to the point where the conflict for the control of an planet was inevitable. from that perspective, the 20th century was the battle for control of an entire planet, by the smartest human groups. the germans and japanese on one side, the english speakers and russians on the other side.

    and now, with the Sanders-Bloomberg election on the horizon, the jews are set to take control of the US, the ostensible victor of the 2 planetary battles resolved 70 years ago and 30 years ago. previously, the leadership of the Soviet Union was highly jewish. but now they're mostly in control of the US. and will take full control in the 2020s. having used the Soviet Union to their ends as much as they could, then then jumped to a new host.

    Trump himself largely does what his jewish donors ask. and regardless of whether Trump is re-elected, he will be the last Republican President ever. after which, the Democrat party, that is to say, the jews, as they contribute almost all the money, and all the intellectual firepower, will take full control of the US permanently. meaning by extension they will be in control of the entire planet.

    beyond that phase, they could only be challenged for control of the planet by the Chinese, or, in the future, by an AI, which may be able to wrest control of the planet away from the humans. something smarter than the humans, taking control of the planet, in the Intelligence War. then perhaps taking control of Mars, and other planets.

    and now, with the Sanders-Bloomberg election on the horizon, the jews are set to take control of the US, the ostensible victor of the 2 planetary battles resolved 70 years ago and 30 years ago. previously, the leadership of the Soviet Union was highly jewish.

    You are painting with far too broad a brush (putting it mildly).

    Sanders snubbing the yearly AIPAC conference the other day was big news, and very much true to form. He has stayed doggedly neutral on Israeli-Palestinian matters all these years, as has plenty of writers on this site. Not all Jews see the world alike.

  34. @another anon
    Why should be Crimean question decisive in American presidential elections?
    Why should Anglos care about Crimea?

    Because it's always been this way.

    https://i.imgur.com/C8qnswA.jpg

    (source: The Economist Sep 22 1855)


    Small brain: Crimea belongs to Ukraine

    Normal brain: Crimea belongs to Russia

    Galaxy brain: Crimea belongs to British Empire

    Indeed it is a former part of the British Empire. Anglo-Saxon thegns who fled to join the Varangian guard after the Norman conquest were granted lands in Crimea by the Byzantine Empire. Welsh princes from about a century later when it was their turn.

  35. @Mikhail
    Why Bernie Sucks

    Two pertinent pieces concerning Bernie Sanders:

    https://theduran.com/same-lame-russia-meddling-bs-trump-bernie-react-in-completely-different-ways-video/

    Over the decades, Sanders has taken some US foreign policy establishment views, which include not challenging the 1999 Clinton administration led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

    &

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/26/anti-russian-xenophobia-reaches-ridiculous-levels/

    Adam Schiff comes closest to being a modern day Joseph McCarthy. Regarding the actual present day realities, Hollywood is probably not objectively sane enough to do an updated version of the 1960s film The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming, noted in this piece:

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/24092017-another-absurd-russia-bashing-development-analysis/

    Some disagreement with the above linked Counterpunch article on the USSR. While its post WW II threat to the West was at times hyped, it nevertheless did constitute a geopolitical challenge to the West in a way that post-Soviet Russia doesn't.

    The primary problem with a Bernie Sanders presidency is that, as we have seen with Trump and Obama before him, the deeply ingrained interests that steer America do not change with administrations. Even if a president were openly hostile to some of their policies, he would still be hamstrung by the opposition of donors, judges, the mainstream media, and high-ranking military officers and intelligence agents.

    These unelected groups and individuals together wield substantially more power than the president and, critically, they do not have an 8-year window in which they can enact their policies.

  36. @Beckow
    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups - too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas - something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now - the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.

    Communism is a form of giving up on the society by a large number of permanently dissatisfied people. It is an economic nihilism enforced by brute force and promises. It always eventually burns itself out. What is missing from most belly-aching about communism is why it exists, what mistakes a society made to get to the point where communism seemed like an improvement for a large number of people. How bad had to be people like Chankaishek or Nicholas II to lose to people like Mao or Lenin?

    When you describe communism as some satanic force that appeared out of nowhere and fooled people with propaganda to seize power - you are describing your inability to understand history. Today there are too many angry people, too many who are in perpetuity on the losing side of the current system. Plus there are billions additional much poorer people waiting on the borders of the West who the desperate liberal elites want to use as 'new population'. This is not sustainable. During times like these a new set of elite leaders appear trying to play the situation for personal gain, ambition, or even to stabilise the system. But outcomes are uncertain.

    The best way to prevent communism is to stop hallucinating about 'makers and takers' ala Romney, and keep societies as homogeneous as possible.

    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups – too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas – something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now – the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.

    Agreed, but a reminder that communism is merely an extreme subcategory of socialism (the other being the highly successful ideology we know as social democracy). Communism, then, should be seen as a nasty thing onto itself — not as the natural end result of socialism (which can also mean social democracy, arguably the best system of government the world has ever seen). A parallel might be drawn to theocracy, which is basically perverted religiosity, and obviously a bad thing.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    The categorization is not air-tight, there is something about communism that is a kind of its own, the vague 'quantity grows into quality' idea. But real communism is a doozy, it is also rare - most so-called communist societies spent most of their time as a combination of regular socialism with primal political anger, what I would call revenge politics. Revenge is fun, and sometimes needed, but it is no way to run a stable society.

    I agree that social democracy is a great system. It works well in affluent, homogeneous societies of a certain size, but it doesn't scale well. Its big problem is the gradual appearance of out-of-control liberal depravity and lack of traditional constraints. But in its initial and middle phases it is a great system.
  37. 2020 presidential elections in the US are going to be a real spectacle worth watching. It will be like Ukraine: Putin’s agent fighting Kremlin stooge. Whoever ends up being a nominee, that part won’t change. Only fools will want to participate in that show. But there are millions of them.

  38. @Bragadocious
    But Bernie doesn't like Putin. He was more of a Chernenko fanboy.

    When Andropov died and Chernenko became the next “peerless leader”, there was a joke in the USSR: the works on artificial kidney were discontinued; the works on artificial intelligence were initiated.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    FYI: Andropov had chronic kidney disease.
  39. @AnonFromTN
    When Andropov died and Chernenko became the next “peerless leader”, there was a joke in the USSR: the works on artificial kidney were discontinued; the works on artificial intelligence were initiated.

    FYI: Andropov had chronic kidney disease.

    • Replies: @Denis
    So if Sanders de-thrones Trump, we will see a decrease of research in artificial intelligence, and an increase in heart transplant research.
  40. @AnonFromTN
    FYI: Andropov had chronic kidney disease.

    So if Sanders de-thrones Trump, we will see a decrease of research in artificial intelligence, and an increase in heart transplant research.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Absolutely. And I don’t even want to think who will be funded by our tax money if he croaks before inauguration.
  41. @Denis
    So if Sanders de-thrones Trump, we will see a decrease of research in artificial intelligence, and an increase in heart transplant research.

    Absolutely. And I don’t even want to think who will be funded by our tax money if he croaks before inauguration.

  42. All part of the Putin’s cunning plan. Next step – get somebody with unpronounceable name for Russian president, such as Cheburashkozaschishenniy (defended by Cheburashkas). Watch American media melt down as talking heads struggle to pronounce the name hundreds of times per day.

  43. @Dmitry
    If Democrats will be nominating either Bernie Sanders or Mick Bloomberg, then Trump would easily win the election of this year.

    Democrats would have some possibly to win if they provide some black or brown politician to be nominated, that is relatively young compared to Trump (i.e. someone 40-50 years old), and has very normal or centre, mainstream views, to match all the views of a larger part of mainstream Americans who live in Swing States.

    In such a situation, Trump would have to respond by either Kanye or Kim Kardashian as his vice-President.

    I should say that it’s just the other way round. Both Sanders and (even) Bloomberg could give Trump a very hard time. But Deval Patrick? Get serious. Or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, if they could be resurrected? An angry black(ish) woman or the world’s emptiest suit? It’s not accidental that they are long gone.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I'm quite sure that Obama - in the alternative world where he had waited until now - could defeat Trump in the election, while Sanders and Bloomberg will definitely not.

    Trump will only be 74 years old at the time of the election - a young person, comparatively. Sanders will be 79 years old. And Bloomberg will be 79,5 years old.

  44. @Beckow
    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups - too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas - something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now - the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.

    Communism is a form of giving up on the society by a large number of permanently dissatisfied people. It is an economic nihilism enforced by brute force and promises. It always eventually burns itself out. What is missing from most belly-aching about communism is why it exists, what mistakes a society made to get to the point where communism seemed like an improvement for a large number of people. How bad had to be people like Chankaishek or Nicholas II to lose to people like Mao or Lenin?

    When you describe communism as some satanic force that appeared out of nowhere and fooled people with propaganda to seize power - you are describing your inability to understand history. Today there are too many angry people, too many who are in perpetuity on the losing side of the current system. Plus there are billions additional much poorer people waiting on the borders of the West who the desperate liberal elites want to use as 'new population'. This is not sustainable. During times like these a new set of elite leaders appear trying to play the situation for personal gain, ambition, or even to stabilise the system. But outcomes are uncertain.

    The best way to prevent communism is to stop hallucinating about 'makers and takers' ala Romney, and keep societies as homogeneous as possible.

    Homogeneous, yes, to a certain extent. But, more important, arrange economic organizations in such a way that even the lower echelons justifiably feel that they are, to use a fashionable word, stakeholders.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    I agree, but my point is that it is a lot easier to have social protections for lower echelons in smaller, homogeneous societies. That prevents a slide into uber-market dystopia or into angry, nihilistic communism.

    Large, heterogeneous societies can be a lot of fun on the way up, when they grow by acquiring more and more resources and absorbing more and more varied people. But they eventually reach a point when the resources growth is too hard and internal cohesion becomes very low. So they either double down on 'we are the gods' imperial nonsense often with catastrophic results, or they start some artificial unifying communist-like experiment with even worse results.

    You can't have tens or hundreds of million of people with not much in common and shrinking resources in a functional society. Both Sanders a Trump are belated attempts to deal with it. I find the cluelessness very entertaining. It will go on for decades, this is just the beginning - these are the good times...
  45. @another anon
    Why should be Crimean question decisive in American presidential elections?
    Why should Anglos care about Crimea?

    Because it's always been this way.

    https://i.imgur.com/C8qnswA.jpg

    (source: The Economist Sep 22 1855)


    Small brain: Crimea belongs to Ukraine

    Normal brain: Crimea belongs to Russia

    Galaxy brain: Crimea belongs to British Empire

    Breaking News: American sub-iqer thinks himself a geopolitical genius because he found the crimean war was a thing.

  46. @MBlanc46
    Homogeneous, yes, to a certain extent. But, more important, arrange economic organizations in such a way that even the lower echelons justifiably feel that they are, to use a fashionable word, stakeholders.

    I agree, but my point is that it is a lot easier to have social protections for lower echelons in smaller, homogeneous societies. That prevents a slide into uber-market dystopia or into angry, nihilistic communism.

    Large, heterogeneous societies can be a lot of fun on the way up, when they grow by acquiring more and more resources and absorbing more and more varied people. But they eventually reach a point when the resources growth is too hard and internal cohesion becomes very low. So they either double down on ‘we are the gods’ imperial nonsense often with catastrophic results, or they start some artificial unifying communist-like experiment with even worse results.

    You can’t have tens or hundreds of million of people with not much in common and shrinking resources in a functional society. Both Sanders a Trump are belated attempts to deal with it. I find the cluelessness very entertaining. It will go on for decades, this is just the beginning – these are the good times…

  47. @Swedish Family

    You are missing the point of what is going on with communism. All large, heterogeneous societies in times of crisis tend to go for the communist solution. It is built into the dynamic of large groups – too many lose out in a market system and a lack of solidarity prevents normal social policies that would block the slide into communism. With repeated traumas – something like WWI or Japanese occupation of China, or maybe now – the communist instinct appears and sometimes prevails.
     
    Agreed, but a reminder that communism is merely an extreme subcategory of socialism (the other being the highly successful ideology we know as social democracy). Communism, then, should be seen as a nasty thing onto itself -- not as the natural end result of socialism (which can also mean social democracy, arguably the best system of government the world has ever seen). A parallel might be drawn to theocracy, which is basically perverted religiosity, and obviously a bad thing.

    The categorization is not air-tight, there is something about communism that is a kind of its own, the vague ‘quantity grows into quality‘ idea. But real communism is a doozy, it is also rare – most so-called communist societies spent most of their time as a combination of regular socialism with primal political anger, what I would call revenge politics. Revenge is fun, and sometimes needed, but it is no way to run a stable society.

    I agree that social democracy is a great system. It works well in affluent, homogeneous societies of a certain size, but it doesn’t scale well. Its big problem is the gradual appearance of out-of-control liberal depravity and lack of traditional constraints. But in its initial and middle phases it is a great system.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    I agree that social democracy is a great system. It works well in affluent, homogeneous societies of a certain size, but it doesn’t scale well. Its big problem is the gradual appearance of out-of-control liberal depravity and lack of traditional constraints. But in its initial and middle phases it is a great system.
     
    Very true. I didn't spell it out, but one of my qualms about social democracy is that, in the long run, it seems often something of a Pandora's box of lunacy. I still like to say that Sweden under Tage Erlander, the Swedish PM between 1946 and 1969, is my ideal society (with some reservations, of course), but I often ask myself how much of the madness that followed this era was already built into the foregoing one. That is to say, can the Erlander era be seen apart from what it gave birth to? How I think about that answer on any given day tends to inform my answer.

    There is also the question of how far what we now think of as "social democracy" was really more in the tradition of conservative paternalism. At least in Sweden, all the way through the 80s (and perhaps a little beyond), a goal of the Swedish labor movement was that it should outshine the upper classes on their own turf (being better spoken, more widely read, more hard-working, more of a moral exemplar, etc.), and I often find myself thinking that this is actually a very conservative -- in the best way -- ideal.

  48. @MBlanc46
    I should say that it’s just the other way round. Both Sanders and (even) Bloomberg could give Trump a very hard time. But Deval Patrick? Get serious. Or Kamala Harris or Cory Booker, if they could be resurrected? An angry black(ish) woman or the world’s emptiest suit? It’s not accidental that they are long gone.

    I’m quite sure that Obama – in the alternative world where he had waited until now – could defeat Trump in the election, while Sanders and Bloomberg will definitely not.

    Trump will only be 74 years old at the time of the election – a young person, comparatively. Sanders will be 79 years old. And Bloomberg will be 79,5 years old.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Just like Soviet Politburo when it elected Chernenko as a replacement “peerless leader” after Andropov died. Maybe it’s a good thing that the US president is just a figurehead with very little real power.
    , @Okechukwu
    The Dem nominee, whoever he is, even is he's the guy that plays Mickey Mouse at Disneyland, starts out with about 200 electoral votes just for showing up. He/she only needs an additional 70. It's conceivable that they will get it. Trump barely won a few of the battleground states against a lazy Hillary who wasn't running for anything other than being president. Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won't stay home this time.
  49. @Dmitry
    I'm quite sure that Obama - in the alternative world where he had waited until now - could defeat Trump in the election, while Sanders and Bloomberg will definitely not.

    Trump will only be 74 years old at the time of the election - a young person, comparatively. Sanders will be 79 years old. And Bloomberg will be 79,5 years old.

    Just like Soviet Politburo when it elected Chernenko as a replacement “peerless leader” after Andropov died. Maybe it’s a good thing that the US president is just a figurehead with very little real power.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko

    Bloomberg will be around 79 years old when he begins as President (after lame duck period). He will still be president until almost 87 years old up to the end of his Presidential term at the beginning of 2029, if he can be re-elected.

    Aside from that, someone would have to evaluate his sanity - these billionaires who want to work as government officials as old men, instead of relaxing for airconditioned sunset years in a mansion in somewhere like Martinique.

  50. @prime noticer
    i agree with Anatoly that Taiwan doesn't have the heart or the balls to defend themselves from China. which means they're entirely dependent on the US protecting them - the old, germanic US. which is about to go away, and become the jewish US. and the jewish US probably doesn't care about Taiwan.

    so there will be nothing to stop the PRC from coming in there soon.

    an interesting question - what WILL the jewish America's attitude be towards the communist regimes around the world? will they eventually start pulling out, opening the way for the communists to move forward into Korea and Japan? why would a jewish America be interested to fight communism globally?

    jewish America of course will be openly hostile to the now not communist Russia.

    To be fair to the Taiwanese people: other than acquiring a serious nuclear arsenal, how could a small island country with a small population defend itself against China in the long run, no matter how normal, brave, and proud they were?

  51. @Dmitry
    I'm quite sure that Obama - in the alternative world where he had waited until now - could defeat Trump in the election, while Sanders and Bloomberg will definitely not.

    Trump will only be 74 years old at the time of the election - a young person, comparatively. Sanders will be 79 years old. And Bloomberg will be 79,5 years old.

    The Dem nominee, whoever he is, even is he’s the guy that plays Mickey Mouse at Disneyland, starts out with about 200 electoral votes just for showing up. He/she only needs an additional 70. It’s conceivable that they will get it. Trump barely won a few of the battleground states against a lazy Hillary who wasn’t running for anything other than being president. Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won’t stay home this time.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN

    Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won’t stay home this time.
     
    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you? If it does, did you talk to your psychiatrist lately?
  52. @Okechukwu
    The Dem nominee, whoever he is, even is he's the guy that plays Mickey Mouse at Disneyland, starts out with about 200 electoral votes just for showing up. He/she only needs an additional 70. It's conceivable that they will get it. Trump barely won a few of the battleground states against a lazy Hillary who wasn't running for anything other than being president. Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won't stay home this time.

    Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won’t stay home this time.

    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you? If it does, did you talk to your psychiatrist lately?

    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you?
     
    It doesn't matter. 183-248 electoral votes are baked in for the Dem nominee. California and New York aren't suddenly going to go Republican just because Bernie, Warren, Biden or Bloomberg is the nominee.

    The battle is going to over 4 or 5 purple toss-up states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. Those are really the only states that could go either way.

    , @Servant of Gla'aki

    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you? If it does, did you talk to your psychiatrist lately?
     
    In 2018, we had the highest midterm voter turn-out since 1914. It seems reasonable to construe that 2020 will also feature a high rate of voter participation.
  53. @prime noticer
    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War? serious question with much broader implications and scope. is some form of Communism the default state for a lot of humans? is it some kind of mind virus - one of the most contagious ever created? what is the defense? are we doomed to forever be resisting this stuff? the "It couldn't happen here" boomers are clearly wrong - the US is very evidently headed in some kind of far leftist direction.

    intelligence is not necessarily any defense. ethnic homogeneity is not necessarily any defense. most of the east asian nations fell to communism. it came in from the north, and wiped out it's opponents. only one outside group was able to try to come in and stop it. sometimes they did, sometimes they weren't able to.

    what is the defense? ultra hardcore germanic demographics seem to be the only thing that can stop it. once those slip, the communism can come in. the ultra germanic version of the US was, largely, the only nation that waged the Cold War against the communists. and to a lesser extent, the germanic UK. you won't be able to count on the other europeans much. and, the "It couldn't happen here" germanic boomers in the US are deliberately being replaced by their political enemies, specifically so the "It couldn't happen here" DOES happen here. once the germanic population base declines, it seems inevitable what happens next politically.

    if communist Sanders can be President, then what was the point of the Cold War?

    The point of the Cold War was to make a lot of money for the military-industrial complex and to provide a moral cover for America’s imperialist ambitions.

    The British backed the Cold War because it made them feel better about being reduced to the status of a third-rate power, and having their empire taken away from them. They had this fantasy about being America’s partner in the new American postwar world order. In fact they were never anything but despised lackeys.

  54. @Beckow

    ....Russian minorities.
     
    The core area of support for the Reds was central Russia and St. Petersburg, overwhelmingly Russian. There were many minorities, esp. among the leadership, but the Red Army consisted mostly of people who were Russian peasants and workers. Foreign interference was on both sides.

    Try again.

    The core area of support for the Reds was central Russia and St. Petersburg

    Primarily urban areas.

    Red Army consisted mostly of people who were Russian peasants and workers

    Workers more than peasants.

    And most effective troops were angry Latvians. Without them the Revolution would have ended quickly.

  55. @AnonFromTN
    Just like Soviet Politburo when it elected Chernenko as a replacement “peerless leader” after Andropov died. Maybe it’s a good thing that the US president is just a figurehead with very little real power.

    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko

    Bloomberg will be around 79 years old when he begins as President (after lame duck period). He will still be president until almost 87 years old up to the end of his Presidential term at the beginning of 2029, if he can be re-elected.

    Aside from that, someone would have to evaluate his sanity – these billionaires who want to work as government officials as old men, instead of relaxing for airconditioned sunset years in a mansion in somewhere like Martinique.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Bloomberg is unlikely to be nominated. If he is, he would be unlikely to win. Only Sanders has a chance, however slim. A lot of people still support him, although as far as I am concerned, he showed himself to be a piece of shit in 2016 when he supported mad cackling witch who cheated him out of nomination. But Bloomberg is very likely to live until 2029. Look at Soros: for the last ten years he looks like he died two weeks ago, but no such luck, he is still alive.
    , @Okechukwu

    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko
     
    Bloomberg's mind is still razor sharp though. He probably has the fitness of a 50-something.
  56. @Dmitry
    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko

    Bloomberg will be around 79 years old when he begins as President (after lame duck period). He will still be president until almost 87 years old up to the end of his Presidential term at the beginning of 2029, if he can be re-elected.

    Aside from that, someone would have to evaluate his sanity - these billionaires who want to work as government officials as old men, instead of relaxing for airconditioned sunset years in a mansion in somewhere like Martinique.

    Bloomberg is unlikely to be nominated. If he is, he would be unlikely to win. Only Sanders has a chance, however slim. A lot of people still support him, although as far as I am concerned, he showed himself to be a piece of shit in 2016 when he supported mad cackling witch who cheated him out of nomination. But Bloomberg is very likely to live until 2029. Look at Soros: for the last ten years he looks like he died two weeks ago, but no such luck, he is still alive.

    • Replies: @Okechukwu

    Only Sanders has a chance, however slim.
     
    Remember, we're dealing with a quirky electoral college here. Every Dem nominee has a chance, a very good chance, particularly against a polarizing figure like Trump who has shed Independents and moderate Republicans and has galvanized liberals.

    As stated, the Dem nominee is bequeathed about 200 electoral votes by virtue of blue states like CA that are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

  57. @Beckow
    The categorization is not air-tight, there is something about communism that is a kind of its own, the vague 'quantity grows into quality' idea. But real communism is a doozy, it is also rare - most so-called communist societies spent most of their time as a combination of regular socialism with primal political anger, what I would call revenge politics. Revenge is fun, and sometimes needed, but it is no way to run a stable society.

    I agree that social democracy is a great system. It works well in affluent, homogeneous societies of a certain size, but it doesn't scale well. Its big problem is the gradual appearance of out-of-control liberal depravity and lack of traditional constraints. But in its initial and middle phases it is a great system.

    I agree that social democracy is a great system. It works well in affluent, homogeneous societies of a certain size, but it doesn’t scale well. Its big problem is the gradual appearance of out-of-control liberal depravity and lack of traditional constraints. But in its initial and middle phases it is a great system.

    Very true. I didn’t spell it out, but one of my qualms about social democracy is that, in the long run, it seems often something of a Pandora’s box of lunacy. I still like to say that Sweden under Tage Erlander, the Swedish PM between 1946 and 1969, is my ideal society (with some reservations, of course), but I often ask myself how much of the madness that followed this era was already built into the foregoing one. That is to say, can the Erlander era be seen apart from what it gave birth to? How I think about that answer on any given day tends to inform my answer.

    There is also the question of how far what we now think of as “social democracy” was really more in the tradition of conservative paternalism. At least in Sweden, all the way through the 80s (and perhaps a little beyond), a goal of the Swedish labor movement was that it should outshine the upper classes on their own turf (being better spoken, more widely read, more hard-working, more of a moral exemplar, etc.), and I often find myself thinking that this is actually a very conservative — in the best way — ideal.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Pandora’s box of lunacy.
     
    A good description of unhinged leftish liberalism, you should trade mark it.

    In Sweden a contributing factor to the Social Democracy self-destruction were the neo-liberal-libertarian fashions that hit around the 90's, the simpletons who loved the 'makers or takers' stories, thought sidewalks should be privatized, and that virtual money that we live on is a commodity that can run out - really, that's what the monetarism nonsense actually claims.

    At that point European social-democrats went into a tailspin, mimicking the libertarian nonsense and trying to reinvent themselves as social libertines and cultural morons. Open borders, absurdist culture, and gender chaos inevitably followed. The reason that social-democrats were successful before was that they were actually very conservative. It was the anything-goes liberals who pushed the nonsense and liberals under normal circumstances can never get more than 15-20% of the vote (that's still the case almost everywhere in the world). They gained power by marching through social-democratic and often also conservative parties - slowly changing them from the inside. It is a failure on a personnel level, or maybe a consequence of nepotism - a lot of crazies are entitled descendants.

  58. @AnonFromTN

    Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won’t stay home this time.
     
    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you? If it does, did you talk to your psychiatrist lately?

    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you?

    It doesn’t matter. 183-248 electoral votes are baked in for the Dem nominee. California and New York aren’t suddenly going to go Republican just because Bernie, Warren, Biden or Bloomberg is the nominee.

    The battle is going to over 4 or 5 purple toss-up states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. Those are really the only states that could go either way.

  59. @Dmitry
    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko

    Bloomberg will be around 79 years old when he begins as President (after lame duck period). He will still be president until almost 87 years old up to the end of his Presidential term at the beginning of 2029, if he can be re-elected.

    Aside from that, someone would have to evaluate his sanity - these billionaires who want to work as government officials as old men, instead of relaxing for airconditioned sunset years in a mansion in somewhere like Martinique.

    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko

    Bloomberg’s mind is still razor sharp though. He probably has the fitness of a 50-something.

    • Replies: @Znzn
    Well his economic ideas are still wedded to when he was in his 50s.
  60. @AnonFromTN
    Bloomberg is unlikely to be nominated. If he is, he would be unlikely to win. Only Sanders has a chance, however slim. A lot of people still support him, although as far as I am concerned, he showed himself to be a piece of shit in 2016 when he supported mad cackling witch who cheated him out of nomination. But Bloomberg is very likely to live until 2029. Look at Soros: for the last ten years he looks like he died two weeks ago, but no such luck, he is still alive.

    Only Sanders has a chance, however slim.

    Remember, we’re dealing with a quirky electoral college here. Every Dem nominee has a chance, a very good chance, particularly against a polarizing figure like Trump who has shed Independents and moderate Republicans and has galvanized liberals.

    As stated, the Dem nominee is bequeathed about 200 electoral votes by virtue of blue states like CA that are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    That’s the problem with indirect presidential vote. Consider TN. If the Reps nominate a horse, good God-fearing church-going people of TN would vote for a horse. The horse would get a majority of TN votes and all TN electors.

    Then again, every cloud has silver lining. This rotten indirect system saved us from the mad cackling witch in 2016. Virtually no one, however bad, could be worse than her. Trump included.

    Speaking of horses, a horse as the POTUS would likely be better than the presidents we had since god knows when.
  61. @Okechukwu

    Only Sanders has a chance, however slim.
     
    Remember, we're dealing with a quirky electoral college here. Every Dem nominee has a chance, a very good chance, particularly against a polarizing figure like Trump who has shed Independents and moderate Republicans and has galvanized liberals.

    As stated, the Dem nominee is bequeathed about 200 electoral votes by virtue of blue states like CA that are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

    That’s the problem with indirect presidential vote. Consider TN. If the Reps nominate a horse, good God-fearing church-going people of TN would vote for a horse. The horse would get a majority of TN votes and all TN electors.

    Then again, every cloud has silver lining. This rotten indirect system saved us from the mad cackling witch in 2016. Virtually no one, however bad, could be worse than her. Trump included.

    Speaking of horses, a horse as the POTUS would likely be better than the presidents we had since god knows when.

  62. The fact that Bloomberg is still an option after his debate (non) performance boggles the mind. The few moments he wasn’t protected with prepared advertisements and favorable audiences he completely dropped the ball. My mind will be blown if he actually pulls it off.

  63. @Okechukwu

    If Bloomberg wins (very unlikely), and does not die, he will be soon an older leader than Chernenko
     
    Bloomberg's mind is still razor sharp though. He probably has the fitness of a 50-something.

    Well his economic ideas are still wedded to when he was in his 50s.

  64. @Swedish Family

    I agree that social democracy is a great system. It works well in affluent, homogeneous societies of a certain size, but it doesn’t scale well. Its big problem is the gradual appearance of out-of-control liberal depravity and lack of traditional constraints. But in its initial and middle phases it is a great system.
     
    Very true. I didn't spell it out, but one of my qualms about social democracy is that, in the long run, it seems often something of a Pandora's box of lunacy. I still like to say that Sweden under Tage Erlander, the Swedish PM between 1946 and 1969, is my ideal society (with some reservations, of course), but I often ask myself how much of the madness that followed this era was already built into the foregoing one. That is to say, can the Erlander era be seen apart from what it gave birth to? How I think about that answer on any given day tends to inform my answer.

    There is also the question of how far what we now think of as "social democracy" was really more in the tradition of conservative paternalism. At least in Sweden, all the way through the 80s (and perhaps a little beyond), a goal of the Swedish labor movement was that it should outshine the upper classes on their own turf (being better spoken, more widely read, more hard-working, more of a moral exemplar, etc.), and I often find myself thinking that this is actually a very conservative -- in the best way -- ideal.

    …Pandora’s box of lunacy.

    A good description of unhinged leftish liberalism, you should trade mark it.

    In Sweden a contributing factor to the Social Democracy self-destruction were the neo-liberal-libertarian fashions that hit around the 90’s, the simpletons who loved the ‘makers or takers‘ stories, thought sidewalks should be privatized, and that virtual money that we live on is a commodity that can run out – really, that’s what the monetarism nonsense actually claims.

    At that point European social-democrats went into a tailspin, mimicking the libertarian nonsense and trying to reinvent themselves as social libertines and cultural morons. Open borders, absurdist culture, and gender chaos inevitably followed. The reason that social-democrats were successful before was that they were actually very conservative. It was the anything-goes liberals who pushed the nonsense and liberals under normal circumstances can never get more than 15-20% of the vote (that’s still the case almost everywhere in the world). They gained power by marching through social-democratic and often also conservative parties – slowly changing them from the inside. It is a failure on a personnel level, or maybe a consequence of nepotism – a lot of crazies are entitled descendants.

  65. @AnonFromTN

    Many people stayed home who otherwise would have voted Democrat. They won’t stay home this time.
     
    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you? If it does, did you talk to your psychiatrist lately?

    Are you sure? Does the remaining Dem zoo inspire you? If it does, did you talk to your psychiatrist lately?

    In 2018, we had the highest midterm voter turn-out since 1914. It seems reasonable to construe that 2020 will also feature a high rate of voter participation.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS