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
The Alt Right Is Dead
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

Certainly seems so to me.

AltRight.com’s Vincent Law was pretty optimistic at the start of 2017: “Overall assessment of the situation: Feels great, man.

Only problem is – it appears that he either left them or was fired, which means that AltRight.com is no longer even worth following (Greg Hood is good but posts too infrequently).

And that was after some kind of attack took their website offline for about three weeks, which is an unacceptable length of time for a serious organization.

(For instance, The Daily Stormer, which say what you will about it at least has technically competent people behind it, was only down for a couple of days when it came under an unparalleled assault from hosting and DNS providers).

Then there’s, well, this:

As TPM reported, Heimbach, 26, was arrested early Tuesday morning and charged with one felony count of domestic battery in the presence of a child under 16, and one misdemeanor count of battery.
The arrest followed a bizarre sequence of events stemming from an extramarital affair Heimbach was conducting, according to the police report.
The white nationalist leader is married to Brooke Heimbach, the step-daughter of Matt Parrott, the Traditionalist Worker Party’s chief spokesman. Matthew Heimbach was also carrying on an affair with Parrott’s wife, Jessica Parrott. Per the police report, when Brooke Heimbach and Matt Parrott confronted Matthew Heimbach about the relationship, Matthew physically attacked both of them.
The group all live in the same trailer park compound in rural Paoli, Indiana, where the Traditionalist Worker Party is based. In statements to the police, all four listed their professions as “white nationalists.”

Only the very best people. /s

All of this is happening just as the Trump administration is moving towards 100% zrada [betrayal] on the budget, on the Wall, on foreign policy, and even on guns (!).

Republicans are demoralized, they even lost in Pennsylvania recently, predictions markets are giving a 70% chance Dems will control the House and 40% (!!) chance that Dems will control the Senate after 2018.

Trump will be a lame duck after 2018 and will be put out of his misery in 2020, at least so long as the Dems don’t wheel out Hillary’s shuffling corpse or some SJW ethnic minority harpy like Kamala Harris. (In fairness, them being Dems, that can’t be excluded).

I am really sorry to say it but things are tracking my Blackpill Scenario [which is not a prediction] pretty damn well.

Anyhow, I suppose the one good and lasting consequence of Trumpism is that he genuinely has shifted the Overton Window.

Immigration restriction is no longer taboo.

Even race differences in IQ are might be edging into not entirely unhandshakeworthy territory. (E.g., someone as high profile as Jordan Peterson has been talking about it recently – though admittedly only with respect to Jews, since noticing high Jewish IQ is more or less kosher).

As Audacious Epigone – one of the most hardcore Trumpists, though even he has recently thrown in the towel – stated in the comments to one of The Derb’s most recent article: “This doesn’t negate Trump’s role as presaging what is to come. Moses to the impending Joshua, John the Baptist to the impending Jesus, Gracchi to the impending Sulla, Caesar to the impending Augustus–take your pick. It’s clear now that Trump is just the warning shot, not the war bringer.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Alt Right, Politics, United States 
Hide 340 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. As a proud 2016 Meme War veteran and a card-carrying Kekistani, I will never forget the halcyon days of Nov 2016 – Jan 2017. This was our A New Hope, when a plucky orange-haired 70-year old teenager fired a cartoon frog down the exhaust port of the social justice Death Star.

    Now, we are deep in the Empire Strikes Back territory.

    Let us hope for a Return of the Shitlords, except with plucky frog people instead of those damn Ewoks.

    • Agree: reiner Tor, Brabantian
    • LOL: TomSchmidt, Talha
    • Replies: @Sonny
    @Darth Pepe

    So if there where no pre-programeed or (programmed during and after) voting machines - the Democrats wouldn't of won any elections . Only way to stop this fake voting scam is - Paper Ballots Only , counted by you and me and those dam ballots never leave the room !

  2. Impending… Impending… hmm…
    Well, I guess it’s time to put down bet as to when this will occur.
    Will it be in 2 years? within 10 years?
    Or will it be like the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?

  3. there’s 3.0 Dissident right emerging though.

    Spencer’s star has been sinking since Heilgate.

    But you have new and/or newly ascendant forces emerging like Patrick Casey, Allsup, Fuentes, Warski, other new youtubers, Red Ice, Counter-Currents, Fash the Nation, Ricky Vaughn, and Thermidore Mag . AmRen, MPC, Daily Stormer, Unz Review, Social Matter, TRS, Vox Day, VDARE continue to chug along.

    its good the alt-right brand is dying though. It had some successes but will ultimately provide yet another lesson in what not to do.

  4. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:

    I remember thinking around New Year’s that it would be done by the end of the decade but at this rate if it still exists in any coherent form by the summer I’d be very surprised. There was a lot of fun to be had and some interesting characters lurking about but when you get to the heart of it the only actual ideas they were able to come up with were either to reboot basic bitch neo-Nazism or reboot American hurrah patriotism (on the grounds it could still be implicitly neo-Nazi if you wanted to pretend it was). The two camps that are left arguing whether to hold rallies where a few dozen people attend until they somehow form a new fascist country or whether to start waving American flags and wait for the Republican party to start courting them as their new base and begin the long march through the institutions seem equally silly.

  5. A profound topic meriting discussion … but grounds for optimism are available nonetheless … For those who would like a positive pump-up on this topic, Château Heartiste (CH) is doing a worthy job, both in its postings and comment sections (tho the main topics of CH are female foibles and gender relations screw-ups under the Poz goons, exposed along with A-1 non-PC dating and mating truth). For example, from CH, on Donald John Trump:

    To think that one man can turn the tide against such an infestation would seem laughable to any rational man but he has made us put our faith in him. The fact he even allows us to dream of a revived America is amazing. Don’t give up on him yet.

    Trump is not the enemy. He is our ally in a fight with incredible odds against him, and an implacable merciless conniving enemy intent on destroying his Presidency and the hopes of the Good Half of America who voted for him. He will backslide. He will make mistakes. He will occasionally tactically retreat in the face of a massive enemy offensive. And he will hate doing it, because he truly does care about the Forgotten Americans who made him their emissary.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/the-globobus-spending-bill-and-the-magabyss/
    On a technical point, there is a claim that the betrayal-seeming trillion-dollar-plus spending bill Trump signed, is actually a clever unseen victory because it is an ‘Omnibus Spending’ bill and not a ‘Budget’, and only the latter is binding. For an ‘Omnibus’ bill – as Obama showed and proved – the President has wide discretionary powers to spend, to delay, to not spend, and in effect to divert funds. (Yes, the 666D chess argument again.) E.g., when national emergency gets declared, Trump can use the military budget to build The Wall.

    An acronym to know –
    TINVOWOOT
    There Is No Voting Our Way Out Of This

    Do not despair, fellow truth-appreciating noble humans … there is more unseen power than one may suspect … the spirits of our ancestors are ready to help us, if we keep our hearts strong

  6. Trump will win in 2020 – as American presidents after first term have historical advantage, and the ‘swing states’ that he won in 2016 year, will not change.

    As for ‘alt-right’ (which is mainly name for the American Nazi movement as I can read its ideas), this has no relationship to Trump or his ideas – but it will fluctuate up and down depending on economic trends (i.e. inversely to economic growth, with some delay). If the economy is growing, it will diminish – and vice-versa.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry



    As for ‘alt-right’ (which is mainly name for the American Nazi movement as I can read its ideas), this has no relationship to Trump or his ideas – but it will fluctuate up and down depending on economic trends (i.e. inversely to economic growth, with some delay). If the economy is growing, it will diminish – and vice-versa.
     
    The alt-right encompasses outright Nazis but is considerably more diverse than that. There are Jews in the alt-right as well, and of the gentiles there's a range of opinions on Jews.

    The main thread is that we do not want to be replaced.

    Trump appealed to us because his (somewhat) restrictionist immigration platform is a step to conserving our demographic majority in our country. He isn't alt right of course, but sometimes he sounds like us when he blurts things out--such as labeling black countries "shitholes" and suggesting we take in more immigrants from Norway.

    Politics for youth in America is increasingly divorced from economics owing to the chaotic diversity they are forced to grow up in. As Lee Kwan Yew said:


    In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
     
    I have economic interests, but my racial interests predominate.


    He said that he ‘opposed the Iraq War, because why didn’t we steal their oil afterwards?’. And then added things like ‘I’m the most militaristic person you can imagine’ – which led to cheers from his audience.

    That is not a view of a pacifist. During the election campaign, he sounded like the American capitalist interpretation Zhirinovsky.

    The only issue where he didn’t care for war, was that it wasn’t making America money (i.e. stealing the Arab’s oil).
     
    No one ever thought Trump was a pacifist. He simply stated that our foreign wars in this century were stupid and had a negative impact on us, and he has repeatedly stated he wants friendlier relations with Russia.

    Otherwise he promoted a stronger military, since like most patriotic Americans he wrongly respects our worthless military.

    His comments on Iraq are quite sensible. The Iraq War was a bad, bad idea, but if you're going to invade another country shouldn't you at least try to turn a profit? Who cares if it's "stealing"? Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve "their" oil (oil that we found and developed mind you).

    That these remarks gave the ruling class the vapors tells you everything you need to know about them. All for imperialism and colonial wars (even great power wars for some of them!), but absolutely opposed to these wars benefiting America in any way.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @iffen
    @Dmitry

    and the ‘swing states’ that he won in 2016 year, will not change.

    There's a reason for them being labeled swing states.

  7. German_reader says:

    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one’s hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse. Maybe Trump will still deliver here by starting some catastrophic war (even if one should hardly wish for such a development).

    • Agree: polskijoe
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one’s hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
     
    They pretended they supported Trump more as a tactic in order to get into the media - likewise, the CNN and New York Times, used them as part of their campaign against Trump.

    Any observer with a high enough level of English, who watches the primary sources, could know Trump has no relationship to this 'alt-right' movement, either in his campaign promises, his life experience, or way of thinking. (By the way, this is far from a bad thing - as the 'alt-right' is not something that could benefit international relations, or internal domestic order, anymore than Black Lives Matter, Neo-Conservativism, or Social Justice Warriors).

    -

    On another topic, is it rather comical the fake mythology printed in places like CNN and New York Times, that Russia supported Trump, or 'hacked the election'.

    There was the fact Trump had some sympathetic media coverage and people in Russia - for example, on so many youtube comments - were admiring him and hoping relations would improve.

    But this hopeful feeling, is generally the case with fresh American presidents. Obama actually had some quite positive media coverage in 2008, before his negative actions in a lot of areas became very clear.

    Replies: @Lemurmaniac

    , @Pericles
    @German_reader


    a grotesque figure like Trump

     

    Lol, mind the glass house, buddy.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    , @El Dato
    @German_reader

    I think we can forget about the completion of the program of German Idealism then?

    I never liked Hegel anyway. Guy was on crack.

    , @songbird
    @German_reader

    I don't know how realistic a collapse is. I think a lot of people are deluding themselves into thinking that the world is some computer program that will crash and reboot, but is Brazil going to reboot? Or Venezuela? There may be some peaks and troughs, but nothing like a reboot.

    I've said his before, but it bears repeating: the answer to the Fermi Paradox may be Brazil. Maybe, what happens to worlds where intelligence develops is not some cosmic ray burst or nuclear or bio-war, but mass migration of sun peoples into ice peoples' lands. I'm not talking a return to agriculture, but a permanent post-industrial malaise, where welfare still exists and merit has no fecundity.

    When the Roman Empire collapsed, it was mostly Germans who had invaded them. What if it had been hundreds of millions of blacks? As terrifying as that thought is, that was an agricultural economy. Maybe, in time, it still would have righted itself. Perhaps, after all the books had rotted to pieces. But what we are talking about is something different.

    The US went to the moon. Russia could have gone. China will probably go. Could Brazil ever go? Eurabia? I'm not so sure.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @Miro23
    @German_reader


    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse.
     
    That's what it looks like. And it's a strange kind of "Global Hegemony" that runs permanent deficits, has outsourced its industrial base, has a divided society and levels of inequality never seen before in the Western world.

    Realistically, the US does look more like a failed state heading into some kind of social and economic collapse.

    Replies: @polskijoe

  8. All of this is happening just as the Trump administration is moving towards 100% zrada [betrayal] on.. on foreign policy

    Only if you believe what the coverage on New York Times or CNN claimed of him in 2016.

    I was following the election very closely – watching his speeches on YouTube, for example. Looking at primary sources is always far better than secondary sources.

    He said that he ‘opposed the Iraq War, because why didn’t we steal their oil afterwards?’. And then added things like ‘I’m the most militaristic person you can imagine’ – which led to cheers from his audience.

    That is not a view of a pacifist. During the election campaign, he sounded like the American capitalist interpretation Zhirinovsky.

    The only issue where he didn’t care for war, was that it wasn’t making America money (i.e. stealing the Arab’s oil).

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Dmitry

    You're right that he never campaigned as a principled non-interventionist, that was just wishful thinking; he made lots of bombastic militaristic statements during his campaign. And killing off the Iran nuclear deal was one of his campaign promises, there were always grounds for concern here.
    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Dmitry

  9. I’m not pleased with recent events, but there is a possible white pill. As Vox Gay says, never count the God-Emperor out.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/977855968364171264

    Because of the $700 & $716 Billion Dollars gotten to rebuild our Military, many jobs are created and our Military is again rich. Building a great Border Wall, with drugs (poison) and enemy combatants pouring into our Country, is all about National Defense. Build WALL through M!

    Iron Ann Coulter has also recommended this strategy.

    Much Pentagon funding is appropriated by law, but there are still billions in discretionary funding. And the armed forces already possess considerable engineering and construction talent in the form of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Sea Bees.

    This also neatly gets around the rule in the bill prohibiting any of the existing wall prototypes for construction. And in any case that’s no real obstacle–just phone up Netanyahu and ask for his blueprints.

    The only obstacle to this is the brass, whom can be fired at will. Doubtless Mad Duck Mattis will try to stop any such effort, which hopefully sets up a purge of military dweebs. Absolutely nothing will be lost in such a purge, as every American officer over O-5 is a spineless cuck specifically selected for a complete lack of independence and creativity.

    I will be the last to praise the hiring of Fox Bolton, but it’s at least part of a pattern of Trump firing the “You can’t do this!” faggots like the incompetent lightweight Herb McDisaster.

    Naturally we can expect the 9th Circuit Court to issue an injunction stopping construction, at which point in time we should hope someone reminds the President of what Andrew Jackson did. Jackson’s portrait was specifically hung in the Oval Office by Trump.

    All of this is happening just as the Trump administration is moving towards 100% zrada [betrayal] on the budget, on the Wall, on foreign policy, and even on guns (!).

    Did anyone expect Trump to be Charlton Heston on guns? Even during the campaign he stated that he was in favor of prohibiting persons on the Do Not Fly List from being allowed to purchase firearms. And thus far the major thing that’s coming out of this is possibly raising the age for purchasing “assault rifles” to 21 and banning “bump stocks”. Those aren’t even bad ideas, though I’m obviously not in favor of concessions to our hoplophobic and Americophobic enemies.

    While I consider the budget a betrayal (and not just on THE WALL), bear in mind that Trump campaigned on massive military spending increases. The reason for spending increases on enemy programs was to get the Democrats to acquiesce to the defense increases. Our pathetic military is, unfortunately, broadly popular and nobody except libertarians is outraged by other government programs with the sole exception of Planned Parenthood.

    But the most important thing about the budget is it ends in September. This means the next awful budget can and should be vetoed. With any luck Mad Duck Mattis is out by then, who allegedly persuaded Trump not to veto on the grounds that the military will FLATLINE without it.

    Republicans are demoralized, they even lost in Pennsylvania recently, predictions markets are giving a 70% chance Dems will control the House and 40% (!!) chance that Dems will control the Senate after 2018.

    The incumbent Republican was a cuckservative who initially didn’t bother to campaign, and when he did he initially attempted to campaign to his blue collar constituents on…tax cuts. The Democrat, Conor Lamb, campaigned on blue collar economic issues.

    The Congressional Republicans deserve to be massacred. Such a massacre will allow nationalist Republicans like Tom Cotton and Ron Johnson to gain ascendancy.

    Lastly, let’s not forget that a President can survive the opposition party controlling Congress. Every President since Carter has faced this.

    Trump will be a lame duck after 2018 and will be put out of his misery in 2020, at least so long as the Dems don’t wheel out Hillary’s shuffling corpse or some SJW ethnic minority harpy like Kamala Harris. (In fairness, them being Dems, that can’t be excluded).

    No President since Taft has been defeated in reelection with a strong economy. This late in an expansion we can’t rule out recession by 2020, but so far the wheels keep on churning.

    If the economy is good they might try to repeat the strategy that defeated Taft however. They could easily run Zog Gaysick (John Kasich) with major financing in order to split off the cuckservative faggot bloc, handing the election to the enemy.

    ************************************************
    ************************************************

    As for the alt right, no we are not over. Dissident movements, for obvious reasons, attract many unsavory and unstable types. But you need to start somewhere.

    I’ve been alt right for the past decade, and case in point some of the commenters here for instance accuse me of mental instability. Of course in reality they are guilty of the grievous sins of autismophobia, belligerophobia, and trollophobia.

    The big danger is that internet censorship gets more effective, but thus far it’s not very good. Alt-tech needs to scale up more, and it needs to have more compelling advantages than just “free speech”. PayPal is ripe for disruption, the product is genuinely awful. Twitter is determined not to grow its user base, though unfortunately Torba is more interested in trolling and purity spiraling than establishing a serious rival.

    If Peter Turchin’s theories are correct, we can also expect some ambitious elites to join us in the next decade. Some of us may also be elite by then. In general everyone on the alt right MUST pursue financial independence, either through wealth or minimalism. Don’t let them break your rice bowl.

    The issue, as always, is time. The clock is running out on the ability for us to save the country peacefully. And the future is not necessarily Brazil Norte. It could be South Africa.

    One possible black swan white pill: the US loses a war to Russia and/or China. Defeat on the battlefield often discredits the ruling class. I’m deeply skeptical of the ability of a completely pozzed, cucked, and zogged military that hasn’t had a successful major procurement program in this century to prevail against a serious antagonist.

    Something like one-fifth of female “sailors” get knocked up whenever one of our warships deploys. The Army has more mandatory training days than actual days available, and a lot of training relates to “diversity” and “sexual harassment”. Flight training in the chair force is down under 200 hours per year. There are countless more examples.

  10. German_reader says:
    @Dmitry

    All of this is happening just as the Trump administration is moving towards 100% zrada [betrayal] on.. on foreign policy
     
    Only if you believe what the coverage on New York Times or CNN claimed of him in 2016.

    I was following the election very closely - watching his speeches on YouTube, for example. Looking at primary sources is always far better than secondary sources.

    He said that he 'opposed the Iraq War, because why didn't we steal their oil afterwards?'. And then added things like 'I'm the most militaristic person you can imagine' - which led to cheers from his audience.

    That is not a view of a pacifist. During the election campaign, he sounded like the American capitalist interpretation Zhirinovsky.

    The only issue where he didn't care for war, was that it wasn't making America money (i.e. stealing the Arab's oil).

    Replies: @German_reader

    You’re right that he never campaigned as a principled non-interventionist, that was just wishful thinking; he made lots of bombastic militaristic statements during his campaign. And killing off the Iran nuclear deal was one of his campaign promises, there were always grounds for concern here.
    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    @German_reader

    Well, the current North Korea policy is not moderate, but it is not particularly aggressive in a bad way either.

    I guess we have to thank the South Koreans for getting rid of Park and replacing her with a superior president who is more independent from Washington.

    , @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.
     
    He only attacked Bush Iraq war - because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged 'altruistic' motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had 'non-altruistic' motives - i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous 'English hypocrisy' of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about 'civilizing' and 'help' the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it's nothing personal. He doesn't have opinion of tropical people as some 'uncivilized' savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent - very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual 'Trump-style' Iraq-war.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Thorfinnsson, @Lemurmaniac

  11. “Nim słońce wstanie, rosa wyżre oczy”

    (Before the sun rises, dew will eat away the eyes)

  12. @German_reader
    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one's hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse. Maybe Trump will still deliver here by starting some catastrophic war (even if one should hardly wish for such a development).

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Pericles, @El Dato, @songbird, @Miro23

    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one’s hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.

    They pretended they supported Trump more as a tactic in order to get into the media – likewise, the CNN and New York Times, used them as part of their campaign against Trump.

    Any observer with a high enough level of English, who watches the primary sources, could know Trump has no relationship to this ‘alt-right’ movement, either in his campaign promises, his life experience, or way of thinking. (By the way, this is far from a bad thing – as the ‘alt-right’ is not something that could benefit international relations, or internal domestic order, anymore than Black Lives Matter, Neo-Conservativism, or Social Justice Warriors).

    On another topic, is it rather comical the fake mythology printed in places like CNN and New York Times, that Russia supported Trump, or ‘hacked the election’.

    There was the fact Trump had some sympathetic media coverage and people in Russia – for example, on so many youtube comments – were admiring him and hoping relations would improve.

    But this hopeful feeling, is generally the case with fresh American presidents. Obama actually had some quite positive media coverage in 2008, before his negative actions in a lot of areas became very clear.

    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    @Dmitry

    There's can't be 'order' if you have multicultural, multiracial societies supercharged by liberalism and Jews.

    The alt-right and BLM are an effect, not a cause.

  13. It would be more accurate to say that MAGA fanboys are dead. Weev, Anglin and the others turned themselves into braindead Trump cheerleaders over the past six months, with an acceleration after the new year. What happened to TWP need not be fatal. As far as I’ve heard, Hovater and the others are continuing, but obviously Parrott and Heimbach are purged.

    As for Trump, his betrayal was not exactly a surprise to anyone’s who has been paying attention. He could have killed DACA from day one with a stroke of a pen but refused to do so. He appointed Wall Street Jews as his economic advisors (Mnuchin at the treasury, Cohn as his head of economic advisor group). He recently replaced Cohn with another Wall Street Jew, Kudlow.

    What we have is not death but a divergence. The “reform from within” crowd, Vaughn, Weev, Anglin et al are now being separated from Cantwell, Wallace and others who now insist on further radicalisation.

    Ultimately, once people become fully redpilled, there isn’t any way going back. Trump will crash and burn in 2020 and the GOP will (likely) be wiped out in the upcoming midterms. All of this means that the seeds for radicalisation will become stronger and more plentiful, not the other way around.

    Ask yourself: is there more Alt Right content out on the web today than there were a year ago? The answer is unambiguously yes. YouTube in particular has seen an explosion of it. Are the previously established brands getting more traffic? Red Ice has more subs than ever. Anglin recently said that they have as much traffic now as pre-Cville, and this is with changing their domain name god knows how many times.

    I don’t buy the “alt right is dead” meme. Trump’s presidency is, but that was never the same thing (despite hysterical screeching from shitlibs) as the Alt-Right. As for altright.com, who ever gave a shit about what they wrote? You must have been one of their few readers. Everyone knows that TRS & TDS have been the main outlets. RedIce has been more normie friendly, but still dipped in those water. Occidental Dissent has been growing rapidly of late and show some potential.

    Your blackpill timeline was just an observation of previous trends and then you did a simple extrapolation into the future By late December, when you posted it, the pattern was already crystal clear. No great prize to have previous trends matching any future timeline. See my previous point about Trump’s cucking from early on.

    The only people who were surprised by these recent events are the retarded Trump fanboys and morons like Anglin or weev who turned themselves into braindead cheerleaders. But everyone else understands that the Alt Right did not need Trump, and it will survive him. If anything, it will become more radicalised and grow even bigger as his presidency descends into the gutter. Or does anyone seriously think that permanent democratic rule, a one-party state á la California will sedate people?

    That was always the danger with a Trump presidency. He’d delay everything but not change anything and take up 8 valuable years. Instead we got all the betrayals served very early on, saving us a lot of years of internal debate. I never bought the god emperor meme and the notion that the AR is tied up to Trump is even more retarded. More accurately, the credibility and the reputation of retarded people within the AR who will now (thankfully) be marginalised.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Polish Perspective

    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn't even make any sense.

    BE LIKE TRUMP
    Trump won the White woman vote by not cucking
    We win women the same way
    Appealing to women will fail
    -Daily Stormer

    https://dailystormer.name/thotpocalypse-now-episode-4-a-stay-of-execution/

    If I'm not mistaken, this is Chateau Heartiste's logic. It is impossible to overestimate just how stupid this is.

    I suppose he doesn't have much choice but to try and spin White women's support for Trump as a vindication of his misogyny and double down. Reasonable people should know better.

    Replies: @neutral, @Thomm, @dfordoom

  14. Anonymous[392] • Disclaimer says:

    Lol at the Trumptards in this thread. I knew Trump was a bullshitter from the start and was not swayed by his lies. In retrospect it is very clear the kind of guy Trump is. He has no ideology, he just wants to be famous and loved and will sell out his base and staff if it advances HIS cause.

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump and thinking they can change him. Even the spin now a days is that Trump is good because he presages what is to come. Actually, Trump is a disaster and the Dems will use Trump to push 100% the opposite direction and go full SJW on us. The true candidate that would have made a difference was none other than Ton Paul.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Anonymous



    Lol at the Trumptards in this thread. I knew Trump was a bullshitter from the start and was not swayed by his lies. In retrospect it is very clear the kind of guy Trump is. He has no ideology, he just wants to be famous and loved and will sell out his base and staff if it advances HIS cause.

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump and thinking they can change him. Even the spin now a days is that Trump is good because he presages what is to come.
     
    It's quite clear that Trump genuinely believes in economic nationalism, as he has a public record of it stretching back to at least 1980. He also clearly wants THE WALL.

    Unfortunately he lacks the ability to get either of them. I suspect his idea to use the military to build THE WALL will come to nothing as well.

    Other than that you're not wrong.


    Actually, Trump is a disaster and the Dems will use Trump to push 100% the opposite direction and go full SJW on us.
     
    Well I got my tax cut at least, and even better my foreign corporate earnings will no longer be taxed. Not what the alt-right is fighting for, but I'll take it.

    To give my own possible blackpill scenario:

    -GOP loses both houses in November
    -GOP agrees to remove Trump from office for thirty pieces of silver
    -Schumer scraps the filibuster
    -Immigration and Naturalization Acts repealed, ICE abolished
    -Affirmative action massively strengthened to fight the scourge of "white privilege"
    -USA transforms into South Africa


    The true candidate that would have made a difference was none other than Ton Paul.
     
    I respect Ron Paul as a very principled and courageous man. And at the very least no one would talk him out of ending our foreign wars and empire of bases.

    That said, electing fanatical religious zealots who worship gold bullion and repeatedly prophecy that the Financial Doomsday is coming Real Soon Now does not appeal to me.

    And other than Hans Herman Hoppe most libertarians are as awful on immigration as liberals.
    , @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump.

    Well, for some of them anyway. There are a lot of people out there who gave up their real lives to live as their online personas full time as a Trump cheerleader or "right-wing activist." They've hung on this long because they got hooked on the public attention or they were actually able to make some money off of it. When the "movement" dies, these people will have nowhere to go. It's like that one weird kid who tried to keep high school parties going after everyone started to go home because they had a shitty home life or something.

    , @Johnny Smoggins
    @Anonymous

    The alt right isn't Trump and Trump isn't the alt right. It existed before him and it will exist after him. I see it hardening and radicalizing. There's no room anymore for a Milo or Cernovich.

    Trump was useful to beat Hillary but that was about it. Many of us wrote him off upon learning that his precious princess daughter married a Jew and converted.

    There was a lot of naïve innocence, particularly from Americans, on the alt right that Trump's presidency was the beginning of a turnaround. It never was. It can't be repeated enough; we're not voting our way out of this.

  15. @Dmitry
    Trump will win in 2020 - as American presidents after first term have historical advantage, and the 'swing states' that he won in 2016 year, will not change.

    As for 'alt-right' (which is mainly name for the American Nazi movement as I can read its ideas), this has no relationship to Trump or his ideas - but it will fluctuate up and down depending on economic trends (i.e. inversely to economic growth, with some delay). If the economy is growing, it will diminish - and vice-versa.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @iffen

    As for ‘alt-right’ (which is mainly name for the American Nazi movement as I can read its ideas), this has no relationship to Trump or his ideas – but it will fluctuate up and down depending on economic trends (i.e. inversely to economic growth, with some delay). If the economy is growing, it will diminish – and vice-versa.

    The alt-right encompasses outright Nazis but is considerably more diverse than that. There are Jews in the alt-right as well, and of the gentiles there’s a range of opinions on Jews.

    The main thread is that we do not want to be replaced.

    Trump appealed to us because his (somewhat) restrictionist immigration platform is a step to conserving our demographic majority in our country. He isn’t alt right of course, but sometimes he sounds like us when he blurts things out–such as labeling black countries “shitholes” and suggesting we take in more immigrants from Norway.

    Politics for youth in America is increasingly divorced from economics owing to the chaotic diversity they are forced to grow up in. As Lee Kwan Yew said:

    In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

    I have economic interests, but my racial interests predominate.

    He said that he ‘opposed the Iraq War, because why didn’t we steal their oil afterwards?’. And then added things like ‘I’m the most militaristic person you can imagine’ – which led to cheers from his audience.

    That is not a view of a pacifist. During the election campaign, he sounded like the American capitalist interpretation Zhirinovsky.

    The only issue where he didn’t care for war, was that it wasn’t making America money (i.e. stealing the Arab’s oil).

    No one ever thought Trump was a pacifist. He simply stated that our foreign wars in this century were stupid and had a negative impact on us, and he has repeatedly stated he wants friendlier relations with Russia.

    Otherwise he promoted a stronger military, since like most patriotic Americans he wrongly respects our worthless military.

    His comments on Iraq are quite sensible. The Iraq War was a bad, bad idea, but if you’re going to invade another country shouldn’t you at least try to turn a profit? Who cares if it’s “stealing”? Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil (oil that we found and developed mind you).

    That these remarks gave the ruling class the vapors tells you everything you need to know about them. All for imperialism and colonial wars (even great power wars for some of them!), but absolutely opposed to these wars benefiting America in any way.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

  16. The altright died when Richard Spencer’s dumb ass decided that he and only he was going to be able to define what it meant and he only he was going to be allowed to be the face of the movement. And then he proceeded to act as if he never read Alinky’s rule to create a polarizing figure… and he never read Evola’s and Spengler’s admonishes against crowd mobbery. He’s a fuckup who fucks up everything he touches.

  17. @German_reader
    @Dmitry

    You're right that he never campaigned as a principled non-interventionist, that was just wishful thinking; he made lots of bombastic militaristic statements during his campaign. And killing off the Iran nuclear deal was one of his campaign promises, there were always grounds for concern here.
    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Dmitry

    Well, the current North Korea policy is not moderate, but it is not particularly aggressive in a bad way either.

    I guess we have to thank the South Koreans for getting rid of Park and replacing her with a superior president who is more independent from Washington.

  18. @German_reader
    @Dmitry

    You're right that he never campaigned as a principled non-interventionist, that was just wishful thinking; he made lots of bombastic militaristic statements during his campaign. And killing off the Iran nuclear deal was one of his campaign promises, there were always grounds for concern here.
    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Dmitry

    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.

    He only attacked Bush Iraq war – because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged ‘altruistic’ motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had ‘non-altruistic’ motives – i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous ‘English hypocrisy’ of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about ‘civilizing’ and ‘help’ the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it’s nothing personal. He doesn’t have opinion of tropical people as some ‘uncivilized’ savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent – very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual ‘Trump-style’ Iraq-war.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    @Dmitry

    The good thing about such naked imperialism is that it is harder to sell people who do not belong to your nations. They tend to prefer the dishonest one.

    , @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry

    He only attacked Bush Iraq war – because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged ‘altruistic’ motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had ‘non-altruistic’ motives – i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous ‘English hypocrisy’ of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about ‘civilizing’ and ‘help’ the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it’s nothing personal. He doesn’t have opinion of tropical people as some ‘uncivilized’ savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).
     

    If you're going to pursue imperialism, you should benefit from it. That's a no-brainer. Otherwise you're a cuck empire, which is what we are.

    The shift in British imperialism was not false consciousness at all, but very real. The British historian Corelli Barnett documented this well in his The Pride and Fall sequence of books.

    Basically evangelical Christianity and enlightenment liberalism transformed the British from the world's most ruthless imperialists into cucks. The ultimate mismatch was evangelical Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Nazi Adolf Hitler.

    And sorry, if you think savage races are civilized you're living on Pluto.

    There are many real examples of this. The greatest example is the abolitionist movement. The British, against their own self-interest abolished the slave trade. Not only their own, but every one else's as well. The Royal Navy maintained a permanent squadron in Africa specifically to interdict slave ships.

    In the 1830s the slaves in the British Caribbean were emancipated. This was at the time called, The Great Experiment, because liberal economists of the day predicted it would lead to increased agricultural productivity. Unsurprisingly, the exact opposite happened and the global competitive advantage in tropical cash crops moved to Cuba.

    Of course, the liberal economists didn't apologize for being wrong.

    And that was hardly the only example.

    Gladstone pursued an irrational anti-Ottoman foreign policy owing to Turkish "human rights" abuses against Britain's interests (contain the Russian Empire), and he tried to stop the acquisition of colonies in Africa.

    In 1919 Britain allowed India to adopt protectionism, directly harming British (and Canadian) manufacturers.

    In 1935-1936 Britain drove Mussolini into the arms of the H-man because they thought it was immoral to invade Ethiopia. Shortly afterwards the British made the H-man an enemy as well because they were mad he devoured Czechoslovakia (while, of course, refusing overtures from the USSR).

    Mussolini's reaction to meeting Halifax and Chamberlain is telling:

    “In substance, the visit was kept on a minor tone, since both the Duce [Mussolini] and myself are scarcely convinced of its utility. . . . How far apart we are from these people! It is another world. We were talking about it after dinner with the Duce . . . . ‘These men are not made of the same stuff,’ he was saying, ‘as the Francis Drakes and the other magnificent adventurers who created the Empire. These, after all, are the tired sons of a long line of rich men, and they will lose their Empire.’
     

    Turns out he was wrong about their desire to fight, but indeed they did lose their empire.

    In one last imperial gasp, Britain betrayed the British whites of Africa in order to virtue signal.

    There was hypocrisy and inconsistency of course, but that always exists. Nazi Germany hypocritically allied with non-white Japan for instance for strategic reasons.

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent – very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual ‘Trump-style’ Iraq-war.
     

    We are not Japanese, South Korean, or Iraqi. There is no logical reason for us to be altruistic to any of them. It's completely irrational and the idea we should be altruistic to them (or anyone else) is why we're in danger of ceasing to exist.

    That's not to say we should be malicious to them either, as you said it's not personal. Our relations should be business-like.

    The reason for us to oppose our imperialism is that it is not in our self-interest. Our foreign policy in this century has cost literally trillions, killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and driven Russia and China into tacit alliance.

    Even imperialism pursued correctly is mostly of little use today for the simple reason that human capital is much, much more important than natural capital. Add to that that imperialism carries substantial risks, like getting into a great power war that could go nuclear.
     

    , @Lemurmaniac
    @Dmitry

    My main problem with the American Empire is that its run for the benefit and ideological proclivities of the Washington set. I'm opposed to subjugating fellow Europeans, but I see no reason why we shouldn't establish suzerainty over non-white countries if its in our genuine interests. If we don't, China (and later India, Indonesia, and maybe Brazil) will.

    For example, no matter who is running Anglo countries, its apparent we are dependent upon global oceanic dominance for our survival. Thus, we should simply take over dune coon fiefdoms like Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain. Their populations would enjoy more so-called 'human rights' (they don't really exist, but whatever) under us, and we would get their oil and strategic ports without having to tolerate their funding of terrorist forces.

  19. @German_reader
    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one's hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse. Maybe Trump will still deliver here by starting some catastrophic war (even if one should hardly wish for such a development).

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Pericles, @El Dato, @songbird, @Miro23

    a grotesque figure like Trump

    Lol, mind the glass house, buddy.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Pericles

    Unless the Muslims demand that the glass house be covered because sharia requires it, then the Germans will rush to get it done.

  20. @Anonymous
    Lol at the Trumptards in this thread. I knew Trump was a bullshitter from the start and was not swayed by his lies. In retrospect it is very clear the kind of guy Trump is. He has no ideology, he just wants to be famous and loved and will sell out his base and staff if it advances HIS cause.

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump and thinking they can change him. Even the spin now a days is that Trump is good because he presages what is to come. Actually, Trump is a disaster and the Dems will use Trump to push 100% the opposite direction and go full SJW on us. The true candidate that would have made a difference was none other than Ton Paul.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @Anon, @Johnny Smoggins

    Lol at the Trumptards in this thread. I knew Trump was a bullshitter from the start and was not swayed by his lies. In retrospect it is very clear the kind of guy Trump is. He has no ideology, he just wants to be famous and loved and will sell out his base and staff if it advances HIS cause.

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump and thinking they can change him. Even the spin now a days is that Trump is good because he presages what is to come.

    It’s quite clear that Trump genuinely believes in economic nationalism, as he has a public record of it stretching back to at least 1980. He also clearly wants THE WALL.

    Unfortunately he lacks the ability to get either of them. I suspect his idea to use the military to build THE WALL will come to nothing as well.

    Other than that you’re not wrong.

    Actually, Trump is a disaster and the Dems will use Trump to push 100% the opposite direction and go full SJW on us.

    Well I got my tax cut at least, and even better my foreign corporate earnings will no longer be taxed. Not what the alt-right is fighting for, but I’ll take it.

    To give my own possible blackpill scenario:

    -GOP loses both houses in November
    -GOP agrees to remove Trump from office for thirty pieces of silver
    -Schumer scraps the filibuster
    -Immigration and Naturalization Acts repealed, ICE abolished
    -Affirmative action massively strengthened to fight the scourge of “white privilege”
    -USA transforms into South Africa

    The true candidate that would have made a difference was none other than Ton Paul.

    I respect Ron Paul as a very principled and courageous man. And at the very least no one would talk him out of ending our foreign wars and empire of bases.

    That said, electing fanatical religious zealots who worship gold bullion and repeatedly prophecy that the Financial Doomsday is coming Real Soon Now does not appeal to me.

    And other than Hans Herman Hoppe most libertarians are as awful on immigration as liberals.

  21. @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.
     
    He only attacked Bush Iraq war - because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged 'altruistic' motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had 'non-altruistic' motives - i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous 'English hypocrisy' of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about 'civilizing' and 'help' the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it's nothing personal. He doesn't have opinion of tropical people as some 'uncivilized' savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent - very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual 'Trump-style' Iraq-war.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Thorfinnsson, @Lemurmaniac

    The good thing about such naked imperialism is that it is harder to sell people who do not belong to your nations. They tend to prefer the dishonest one.

  22. German_reader says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry



    As for ‘alt-right’ (which is mainly name for the American Nazi movement as I can read its ideas), this has no relationship to Trump or his ideas – but it will fluctuate up and down depending on economic trends (i.e. inversely to economic growth, with some delay). If the economy is growing, it will diminish – and vice-versa.
     
    The alt-right encompasses outright Nazis but is considerably more diverse than that. There are Jews in the alt-right as well, and of the gentiles there's a range of opinions on Jews.

    The main thread is that we do not want to be replaced.

    Trump appealed to us because his (somewhat) restrictionist immigration platform is a step to conserving our demographic majority in our country. He isn't alt right of course, but sometimes he sounds like us when he blurts things out--such as labeling black countries "shitholes" and suggesting we take in more immigrants from Norway.

    Politics for youth in America is increasingly divorced from economics owing to the chaotic diversity they are forced to grow up in. As Lee Kwan Yew said:


    In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
     
    I have economic interests, but my racial interests predominate.


    He said that he ‘opposed the Iraq War, because why didn’t we steal their oil afterwards?’. And then added things like ‘I’m the most militaristic person you can imagine’ – which led to cheers from his audience.

    That is not a view of a pacifist. During the election campaign, he sounded like the American capitalist interpretation Zhirinovsky.

    The only issue where he didn’t care for war, was that it wasn’t making America money (i.e. stealing the Arab’s oil).
     
    No one ever thought Trump was a pacifist. He simply stated that our foreign wars in this century were stupid and had a negative impact on us, and he has repeatedly stated he wants friendlier relations with Russia.

    Otherwise he promoted a stronger military, since like most patriotic Americans he wrongly respects our worthless military.

    His comments on Iraq are quite sensible. The Iraq War was a bad, bad idea, but if you're going to invade another country shouldn't you at least try to turn a profit? Who cares if it's "stealing"? Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve "their" oil (oil that we found and developed mind you).

    That these remarks gave the ruling class the vapors tells you everything you need to know about them. All for imperialism and colonial wars (even great power wars for some of them!), but absolutely opposed to these wars benefiting America in any way.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil

    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims? That’s total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you’re trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won’t be a big loss.

    • Agree: Randal, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @German_reader

    Not to mention that 'no-one deserves oil'. But it is common consensus that the state in whose territory oil is found, is the one who should receive the tax on it, and also determine even the details (what level of tax it receives from it, production volume, etc).

    I don't support cultural relativism or the idea that we should uncritically try to imagine what another country believes, or give them equal weighting to our own.

    But it's useful to see that, the Arabs - for example, - might say 'America doesn't deserve its oil - they are infidels, etc'.

    The common norms for who owns natural resources, are pretty important. Not just for some moral reasons. But in terms of international stability. If Trump took the oil of Iraq. Then this would lead to precedent, in which many countries would again try to confiscate resources of their neighbors - and as casus belli. In such an international system, we will easily see China conquering various African countries for their resources, and - in other words, a return to the 19th century imperial conflicts, but with some different players.

    , @Randal
    @German_reader


    You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims?
     
    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they've been propagandised into hatred, or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies - with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest - a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    It's not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it's very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    And the bottom line is exactly as you put it - that they travel across entire fucking oceans to find muslim monsters to destroy (as their own John Quincy Adams warned them not to), and then moan like little girls when the monsters actually have the cheek to fight back now and then.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader, @grapesoda

    , @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader

    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims? That’s total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you’re trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won’t be a big loss.
     

    Look, I'll be very clear.

    I do not support wars in the Middle East. I can't think of any Americans in the alt-right who do, other than Whiskey, who seems to think if we don't destroy Iran then sexy Persian beasts will breed with our women. Or something.

    My only point is that Trump's instinct to profit from imperialism is rational. We are not currently capable of that, and even if we were the costs still exceed the benefits. Perhaps we'd make out well in purely financial terms, but is that worth American boys dying for? And then there's the established fact that this has poisoned our relations with Russia and China.

    I agree completely that Islamic states are no threat to us at all owing to geography, and also their general incompetence. The only Islamic state that can threaten a white country is Turkey, which is as you say not our problem.

    The threat, as you know clearly, comes from Islamic immigrants. And while it's not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we've tripled our Mohammedan population.

    I'll also qualify my comment of Mohammedans being enemies that it seems good relations are possible with everyone other than Arab & North Caucasus Sunnis. And even Arab Sunni states can be fine if run by secular or military dictators.

    A grand civilizational war against Mohammedans is satisfying on a metaphysical level, but rationally cannot be justified.

    The reason Americans are obsessed with the Middle East is down to Israel & path dependency. I am sure I do not need to explain the Israel angle, but I'll explain the path dependency one.

    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.

    After 9-11 the neocohens had their justification for unleashing massive wars throughout the Middle East, and terrorism made for an easy justification to a scared and vengeful public. Since then always being at war in the Middle East has become "normal".

    The obvious way to prevent this would've been a permanent peace treaty with Iraq after the war and treating it as a normal country, but our leaders have lost the ability to do so since they convince themselves (and the public through propaganda) that anyone we are fighting is genuinely evil and that no compromise is possible.

    Hence why Sergei Lavrov calls us, "Not agreement-capable."

    Replies: @Randal, @German_reader

    , @DFH
    @German_reader


    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast
     
    9/11
    , @Krastos the Gluemaker
    @German_reader

    You're a commenter who is worth responding to a good deal of the time and I've seen a lot of discussion like this lately, but it's worth pointing out:

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story - the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don't just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys. The rest of the justification for diplomacy or economics or realpolitik is just post-hoc tacked onto that underlying scaffold.

    It's not only the alt-right espousing these views at all, nor the neo-cons, nor anything like that. It's really not, and non-Americans often just don't understand. Everyone should have learned this from Vietnam, then especially the Iraq War granting the age of individuals, but I don't think non-US citizens are learning it from media/books etc because it doesn't quite grok the vivid reality.

    Besides religion or race or other identity like that, though those things can contribute, the jingoist deeply ingrained into the American psyche, really fascinating topic to explore and certainly not fully understood. It's why one can sometimes still tell or respect the "non-normies" with weird contrarian urges even when they are hugely wrong about stuff as at least they are sometimes not part of the groupthink.

    While I think Christian values are a part of it it's not just that, it's not just propaganda either despite how Hollywood/comic book movies etc work. It's also raw ignorance and lived experience for the typical American, who is monolingual, doesn't travel, etc.

    On the theme of Americans always assuming their military is 100% the shining knight good guys, many Americans have litearlly barely ever heard of only World War II, the Civil War, and American Revolution, (seriously, American school history classes often have situations where "we don't teach the Vietnam War or anything more modern than that" And of course actual survey data shows just how little groups like urban African Americans know). No nuance in anything.

    As for on topicness: The alt-right isn't dead so much as it didn't exist in any numbers in the first place.

    Karlin I've found often has a blinkered view of the USA, being familiar with what, a couple coastal enclaves, and not informed about US political science realities. For instance, still very unlikely the Dems take the Senate again this year, keep in mind the neoliberal MSM of course says things in its own agenda's interests.

    So the problem is mistaking Internet trolling for the real world. The modal Trump voter was a "cuckservative" elderly creationist; same as Republican voters for decades, really. That a few hundred neoNazi marchers had one march, for all the noise the MSM makes, is not actually representative of the country.

    Just how not even 1% of the population are serious libertarians and only that because of drug addicts who want more legal drugs, likewise the weird mish-mash of neoNazis and whoever claimed to be alt-right simply didn't have any numbers, never even 1% of voters. It's a mistake, though somewhat forgiveable, and the mirror image of neoliberals who think there are 50 million coal miners coming out of the woodwork, to believe that what you read on the Internet or saw at one coastal city think tank conference represents American politics or the electorate or whatever.

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly "English speaking US alt-right folks" were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it's in for a slow decline (except if there's a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @German_reader, @utu, @dfordoom

    , @KenH
    @German_reader


    but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast?
     
    Americans wouldn't be if not for Jewish power over our foreign policy via AIPAC, heavily Jewish neoconservative think tanks and the Jewish owned lamestream media. White Americans are being propagandized and manipulated into hating and destroying Israel's enemies in the region while at the same time diaspora Jewish leftists propagandize non-whites stateside into hating and destroying the white population who comprise most of the military fighting men and experts who Israel depends on to fight their wars of regional hegemony.

    I'm not sure how Israel plans to survive once the American military becomes a third world, transgendered rabble that can't fight or shoot straight and who doesn't give a flying F about Israel, anti-semitism or their alleged sufferings in WWII. But we're told Ashkenazi Jews have super high IQ's so I'm sure they've got it all figured out.

    The Germans have been so guilt tripped, emasculated and deballed over alleged misdeeds during WWII(by Jewish and American occupiers) that any fighting is considered tantamount to Nazism, so Jews won't be able to rely on them to fight their battles since (a) they've lost the will to fight and (b) they're too busy committing suicide by welcoming millions of Muslim executioners into their once proud nation.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  23. @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one’s hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
     
    They pretended they supported Trump more as a tactic in order to get into the media - likewise, the CNN and New York Times, used them as part of their campaign against Trump.

    Any observer with a high enough level of English, who watches the primary sources, could know Trump has no relationship to this 'alt-right' movement, either in his campaign promises, his life experience, or way of thinking. (By the way, this is far from a bad thing - as the 'alt-right' is not something that could benefit international relations, or internal domestic order, anymore than Black Lives Matter, Neo-Conservativism, or Social Justice Warriors).

    -

    On another topic, is it rather comical the fake mythology printed in places like CNN and New York Times, that Russia supported Trump, or 'hacked the election'.

    There was the fact Trump had some sympathetic media coverage and people in Russia - for example, on so many youtube comments - were admiring him and hoping relations would improve.

    But this hopeful feeling, is generally the case with fresh American presidents. Obama actually had some quite positive media coverage in 2008, before his negative actions in a lot of areas became very clear.

    Replies: @Lemurmaniac

    There’s can’t be ‘order’ if you have multicultural, multiracial societies supercharged by liberalism and Jews.

    The alt-right and BLM are an effect, not a cause.

  24. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Lol at the Trumptards in this thread. I knew Trump was a bullshitter from the start and was not swayed by his lies. In retrospect it is very clear the kind of guy Trump is. He has no ideology, he just wants to be famous and loved and will sell out his base and staff if it advances HIS cause.

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump and thinking they can change him. Even the spin now a days is that Trump is good because he presages what is to come. Actually, Trump is a disaster and the Dems will use Trump to push 100% the opposite direction and go full SJW on us. The true candidate that would have made a difference was none other than Ton Paul.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @Anon, @Johnny Smoggins

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump.

    Well, for some of them anyway. There are a lot of people out there who gave up their real lives to live as their online personas full time as a Trump cheerleader or “right-wing activist.” They’ve hung on this long because they got hooked on the public attention or they were actually able to make some money off of it. When the “movement” dies, these people will have nowhere to go. It’s like that one weird kid who tried to keep high school parties going after everyone started to go home because they had a shitty home life or something.

  25. The Alt Right Is Dead

    Speaking as someone for whom the “Alt Right” was, if it was anything other than just an undefined descriptive term for non-establishment conservatives, always only ever a clique of mostly Johnny-come-lately loudmouths that was over-inflated by media attention after the Trump victory, it’s hard to care much one way or the other.

    Whatever happens to the members of said clique, the problems that gave rise to the general increase in dissident right and nationalist sentiment across the US sphere haven’t gone anywhere, and there are no solutions in sight that don’t require a resurgence in right wing parties of national survival and the ascent of those parties to power, whether it takes a decade or three decades.

    • Agree: Bill
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    @Randal

    Well said. Gathering systematic forces are generative of nationalist sentiment and ideology. The era of peace and prosperity upon which bourgeois SWPL culture emerged and depends is coming to a permanent end.

    To me, the central learning experience from the rise and fall of the alt-right is that we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society. Show ponies like Spencer and Reich LARPers are a dead end. We have to stop buying the propaganda of liberal democracy that power is acquired through generating mass consent in the public square. Evangelizing should be properly seen as a way to grow a base of human capital.

    Replies: @Randal, @Mitleser

  26. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

    Not to mention that ‘no-one deserves oil’. But it is common consensus that the state in whose territory oil is found, is the one who should receive the tax on it, and also determine even the details (what level of tax it receives from it, production volume, etc).

    I don’t support cultural relativism or the idea that we should uncritically try to imagine what another country believes, or give them equal weighting to our own.

    But it’s useful to see that, the Arabs – for example, – might say ‘America doesn’t deserve its oil – they are infidels, etc’.

    The common norms for who owns natural resources, are pretty important. Not just for some moral reasons. But in terms of international stability. If Trump took the oil of Iraq. Then this would lead to precedent, in which many countries would again try to confiscate resources of their neighbors – and as casus belli. In such an international system, we will easily see China conquering various African countries for their resources, and – in other words, a return to the 19th century imperial conflicts, but with some different players.

  27. @German_reader
    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one's hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse. Maybe Trump will still deliver here by starting some catastrophic war (even if one should hardly wish for such a development).

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Pericles, @El Dato, @songbird, @Miro23

    I think we can forget about the completion of the program of German Idealism then?

    I never liked Hegel anyway. Guy was on crack.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  28. @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.
     
    He only attacked Bush Iraq war - because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged 'altruistic' motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had 'non-altruistic' motives - i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous 'English hypocrisy' of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about 'civilizing' and 'help' the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it's nothing personal. He doesn't have opinion of tropical people as some 'uncivilized' savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent - very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual 'Trump-style' Iraq-war.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Thorfinnsson, @Lemurmaniac

    He only attacked Bush Iraq war – because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged ‘altruistic’ motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had ‘non-altruistic’ motives – i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous ‘English hypocrisy’ of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about ‘civilizing’ and ‘help’ the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it’s nothing personal. He doesn’t have opinion of tropical people as some ‘uncivilized’ savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).

    If you’re going to pursue imperialism, you should benefit from it. That’s a no-brainer. Otherwise you’re a cuck empire, which is what we are.

    The shift in British imperialism was not false consciousness at all, but very real. The British historian Corelli Barnett documented this well in his The Pride and Fall sequence of books.

    Basically evangelical Christianity and enlightenment liberalism transformed the British from the world’s most ruthless imperialists into cucks. The ultimate mismatch was evangelical Neville Chamberlain negotiating with Nazi Adolf Hitler.

    And sorry, if you think savage races are civilized you’re living on Pluto.

    There are many real examples of this. The greatest example is the abolitionist movement. The British, against their own self-interest abolished the slave trade. Not only their own, but every one else’s as well. The Royal Navy maintained a permanent squadron in Africa specifically to interdict slave ships.

    In the 1830s the slaves in the British Caribbean were emancipated. This was at the time called, The Great Experiment, because liberal economists of the day predicted it would lead to increased agricultural productivity. Unsurprisingly, the exact opposite happened and the global competitive advantage in tropical cash crops moved to Cuba.

    Of course, the liberal economists didn’t apologize for being wrong.

    And that was hardly the only example.

    Gladstone pursued an irrational anti-Ottoman foreign policy owing to Turkish “human rights” abuses against Britain’s interests (contain the Russian Empire), and he tried to stop the acquisition of colonies in Africa.

    In 1919 Britain allowed India to adopt protectionism, directly harming British (and Canadian) manufacturers.

    In 1935-1936 Britain drove Mussolini into the arms of the H-man because they thought it was immoral to invade Ethiopia. Shortly afterwards the British made the H-man an enemy as well because they were mad he devoured Czechoslovakia (while, of course, refusing overtures from the USSR).

    Mussolini’s reaction to meeting Halifax and Chamberlain is telling:

    “In substance, the visit was kept on a minor tone, since both the Duce [Mussolini] and myself are scarcely convinced of its utility. . . . How far apart we are from these people! It is another world. We were talking about it after dinner with the Duce . . . . ‘These men are not made of the same stuff,’ he was saying, ‘as the Francis Drakes and the other magnificent adventurers who created the Empire. These, after all, are the tired sons of a long line of rich men, and they will lose their Empire.’

    Turns out he was wrong about their desire to fight, but indeed they did lose their empire.

    In one last imperial gasp, Britain betrayed the British whites of Africa in order to virtue signal.

    There was hypocrisy and inconsistency of course, but that always exists. Nazi Germany hypocritically allied with non-white Japan for instance for strategic reasons.

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent – very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual ‘Trump-style’ Iraq-war.

    We are not Japanese, South Korean, or Iraqi. There is no logical reason for us to be altruistic to any of them. It’s completely irrational and the idea we should be altruistic to them (or anyone else) is why we’re in danger of ceasing to exist.

    That’s not to say we should be malicious to them either, as you said it’s not personal. Our relations should be business-like.

    The reason for us to oppose our imperialism is that it is not in our self-interest. Our foreign policy in this century has cost literally trillions, killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and driven Russia and China into tacit alliance.

    Even imperialism pursued correctly is mostly of little use today for the simple reason that human capital is much, much more important than natural capital. Add to that that imperialism carries substantial risks, like getting into a great power war that could go nuclear.

    • Agree: Lemurmaniac
  29. @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    But some of his statements were ambivalent enough that one could think he might moderate US foreign policy out of enlightened self-interest (e.g. when he bashed Jeb Bush over the Iraq war). That was obviously a mistake.
     
    He only attacked Bush Iraq war - because it was not making America richer. His opposition was not to war, but to alleged 'altruistic' motives of war. And when he talked about this in speeches, he said that he would have supported it if it had 'non-altruistic' motives - i.e. to take their oil.

    This way of thinking, by the way, is very much of the British imperialists in the Early 19th century.

    There was a shift that occurred in British imperialism during the 19th century, from undisguised motives of seeking wealth and power, to the famous 'English hypocrisy' of the later 19th century and early 20th century, when the false consciousness was promoted about 'civilizing' and 'help' the tropical peoples (the latter is a similar view to Neo-Conservativism movement) .

    Trump is very much of the viewpoint of the early British imperialism. And his criticism of Bush Iraq intervention is in the style, early 19th century British imperialism may criticize the later British imperialism.

    For him, it's nothing personal. He doesn't have opinion of tropical people as some 'uncivilized' savage nationalities that has to be improved (in the way of the later Victorian Englishman believed).

    So his viewpoint is a refreshing one for American audiences that dream of increasing American power and wealth, with no concern for the countries whose expense this will at.

    But American public is on a continent - very far from where the main costs will be. If I was Japanese, or South Korean, in particular, I would be very worried about the tensions with North Korea that he could create.

    Likewise, of course, if you were Iraqi, it would hardly be much fun to both get bombed and then also to lose all your oil to what would have been the counter-factual 'Trump-style' Iraq-war.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Thorfinnsson, @Lemurmaniac

    My main problem with the American Empire is that its run for the benefit and ideological proclivities of the Washington set. I’m opposed to subjugating fellow Europeans, but I see no reason why we shouldn’t establish suzerainty over non-white countries if its in our genuine interests. If we don’t, China (and later India, Indonesia, and maybe Brazil) will.

    For example, no matter who is running Anglo countries, its apparent we are dependent upon global oceanic dominance for our survival. Thus, we should simply take over dune coon fiefdoms like Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain. Their populations would enjoy more so-called ‘human rights’ (they don’t really exist, but whatever) under us, and we would get their oil and strategic ports without having to tolerate their funding of terrorist forces.

  30. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

    You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims?

    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred, or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies – with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest – a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    It’s not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it’s very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    And the bottom line is exactly as you put it – that they travel across entire fucking oceans to find muslim monsters to destroy (as their own John Quincy Adams warned them not to), and then moan like little girls when the monsters actually have the cheek to fight back now and then.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
    @Randal

    This is my prescription: No American wars on Islamic countries, no Islamic immigration to America.

    Replies: @Randal

    , @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal

    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred
     

    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.

    Some examples:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/the-artist-who-created-the-obama-hope-posters-is-back-with-a-new-art-this-inauguration/?utm_term=.bcdbe2604866

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/01/Shepard-GreaterThanFear.jpg

    Note that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos (world's richest man), is the second most prestigious newspaper in the United States, is traditionally considered the house newspaper of the CIA, and a film about how the Washington Post destroyed President Nixon received an Academy Award.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/protest-trump-travel-ban-muslims-airports

    Here you can see that the reaction to the weak travel ban (as opposed to the far superior Muslim ban) provoked outrage.

    And who can forget Hillary Clinton: http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

    “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
     

    The ruling class wants us to worship Mohammedans (and immigrants generally) just as they have programmed us to worship homo-sexuals, negroes, and skanks.

    They want speaking out against Mohammedans to be heresy, as it is in many Western countries already.

    or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies – with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest – a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.
     

    Now you're on firmer ground and I agree.

    It’s not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.
     

    It's not as bad here as in Europe, but our Mohammedan population has gone from one million to three million since September 11.

    And there was, of course, the matter of September 11.


    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it’s very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.
     
    Please.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243493

    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.

    "In Austria now, you have a political party that's part of the coalition, that has neo-Nazi backgrounds, but its main messaging is anti-migrant, is Islamophobic. But we know that is not separable from anti-Semitism, the two go hand in hand," she emphasized.
     

    Many Jews seem to believe that if we protect our borders that the next day the gas chambers will be back in business.

    Fortunately the Israelis themselves are improving on this to judge by Netanyahu's friendly relations with the Visegrad 4. Of course they still can't help themselves as judging by their freakout over Poland's silly but amusing new Holocaust law.

    Replies: @Randal

    , @German_reader
    @Randal


    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it’s very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.
     
    That's a problem in Europe as well (at least in Germany, and certainly also in Britain), there are tons of anti-Islam people who are fervently pro-Israel and push all manner of dishonest nonsense about issues like the Israelis' supposed right to all of Jerusalem that have no relation whatsoever to the issue of mass immigration to Europe. It's something that needs to be resisted imo, it's not in the interests of European nationalists to let themselves be coopted into Israel's conflicts with its neighbors.
    I agree with your general assessment, and that's the reason why I'm deeply suspicious of people like Steve Bannon (who seems to look forward to some sort of grand civilizational clash), one should be very wary of them.
    , @grapesoda
    @Randal

    That's pretty funny this guy is calling other people loudmouths. What an utter tool.

    Yes you're right, all 300 million of us decided together to go fight wars overseas, not our leaders. It's been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist but you refuse to listen and still keep on spouting the same s***.

    And it's impossible that we could have any principled objections to Islam based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history, and so may other objections that I'm not going to list here because you're not worth the time.

    Btw I wouldn't be surprised if "Randal" is a dirty Muslim himself. He seems obsessed with the Islam issue, and shows that characteristic Muslim lack of self-awareness, always ready to get aggressive at the drop of a hat, and then go act like a little victim little bitch when it suits him.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Talha, @Anon

  31. Too soon to make that call, Anatoly. The Alt-Right is rebranding itself as the Dissident Right, which is good because of the old term’s association with the idiot Spencer.

  32. @Randal
    @German_reader


    You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims?
     
    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they've been propagandised into hatred, or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies - with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest - a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    It's not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it's very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    And the bottom line is exactly as you put it - that they travel across entire fucking oceans to find muslim monsters to destroy (as their own John Quincy Adams warned them not to), and then moan like little girls when the monsters actually have the cheek to fight back now and then.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader, @grapesoda

    This is my prescription: No American wars on Islamic countries, no Islamic immigration to America.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Fidelios Automata


    This is my prescription: No American wars on Islamic countries, no Islamic immigration to America.
     
    That would be my prescription for my own country as well. It's pretty much basic common sense, for goodness sake!
  33. @Randal

    The Alt Right Is Dead
     
    Speaking as someone for whom the "Alt Right" was, if it was anything other than just an undefined descriptive term for non-establishment conservatives, always only ever a clique of mostly Johnny-come-lately loudmouths that was over-inflated by media attention after the Trump victory, it's hard to care much one way or the other.

    Whatever happens to the members of said clique, the problems that gave rise to the general increase in dissident right and nationalist sentiment across the US sphere haven't gone anywhere, and there are no solutions in sight that don't require a resurgence in right wing parties of national survival and the ascent of those parties to power, whether it takes a decade or three decades.

    Replies: @Lemurmaniac

    Well said. Gathering systematic forces are generative of nationalist sentiment and ideology. The era of peace and prosperity upon which bourgeois SWPL culture emerged and depends is coming to a permanent end.

    To me, the central learning experience from the rise and fall of the alt-right is that we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society. Show ponies like Spencer and Reich LARPers are a dead end. We have to stop buying the propaganda of liberal democracy that power is acquired through generating mass consent in the public square. Evangelizing should be properly seen as a way to grow a base of human capital.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Lemurmaniac


    we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society
     
    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends. The old Conservative Party had plenty like that in this country in the mid-late C20th, but said party has since become almost universally populated by true believers in leftist antiracist etc dogmas. I suspect your Republican Party is much the same.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @dfordoom

    , @Mitleser
    @Lemurmaniac


    We have to stop buying the propaganda of liberal democracy that power is acquired through generating mass consent in the public square. Evangelizing should be properly seen as a way to grow a base of human capital.
     
    You need both
    In Turkey, the Islamists are winning because they had mass consent and an alternative elite that could push the secular establishment out.
  34. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims? That’s total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you’re trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won’t be a big loss.

    Look, I’ll be very clear.

    I do not support wars in the Middle East. I can’t think of any Americans in the alt-right who do, other than Whiskey, who seems to think if we don’t destroy Iran then sexy Persian beasts will breed with our women. Or something.

    My only point is that Trump’s instinct to profit from imperialism is rational. We are not currently capable of that, and even if we were the costs still exceed the benefits. Perhaps we’d make out well in purely financial terms, but is that worth American boys dying for? And then there’s the established fact that this has poisoned our relations with Russia and China.

    I agree completely that Islamic states are no threat to us at all owing to geography, and also their general incompetence. The only Islamic state that can threaten a white country is Turkey, which is as you say not our problem.

    The threat, as you know clearly, comes from Islamic immigrants. And while it’s not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we’ve tripled our Mohammedan population.

    I’ll also qualify my comment of Mohammedans being enemies that it seems good relations are possible with everyone other than Arab & North Caucasus Sunnis. And even Arab Sunni states can be fine if run by secular or military dictators.

    A grand civilizational war against Mohammedans is satisfying on a metaphysical level, but rationally cannot be justified.

    The reason Americans are obsessed with the Middle East is down to Israel & path dependency. I am sure I do not need to explain the Israel angle, but I’ll explain the path dependency one.

    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.

    After 9-11 the neocohens had their justification for unleashing massive wars throughout the Middle East, and terrorism made for an easy justification to a scared and vengeful public. Since then always being at war in the Middle East has become “normal”.

    The obvious way to prevent this would’ve been a permanent peace treaty with Iraq after the war and treating it as a normal country, but our leaders have lost the ability to do so since they convince themselves (and the public through propaganda) that anyone we are fighting is genuinely evil and that no compromise is possible.

    Hence why Sergei Lavrov calls us, “Not agreement-capable.”

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.
     
    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran's elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    , @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    And while it’s not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we’ve tripled our Mohammedan population.
     
    Obviously very foolish policy, the focus should be on stopping all Islamic immigration and putting restrictions on Muslims already in the country who are engaged in subversive activity. But that's not what Trump's proposing, it's basically just more of the old "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here - while importing ever more of them so we can't be accused of racism" nonsense.
    As for imperialism, I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you...the British empire was indeed most successful in the 18th century when it was absolutely ruthless, the biggest slave trader around and waging wars only for genuine national interests. With the rise of humanitarian sentiment in the 19th century it grew much less efficient and its dissolution ultimately became inevitable. If one isn't willing to crush any resistance with the most brutal methods imaginable, up to and including genocide, one shouldn't engage in imperialism since it's bound to fail. Not worth it imo.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson

  35. We Anglos must revive our ancient alliance with Iran! It’s essential for removing kebab, evidently.

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

  36. @Fidelios Automata
    @Randal

    This is my prescription: No American wars on Islamic countries, no Islamic immigration to America.

    Replies: @Randal

    This is my prescription: No American wars on Islamic countries, no Islamic immigration to America.

    That would be my prescription for my own country as well. It’s pretty much basic common sense, for goodness sake!

  37. @Lemurmaniac
    @Randal

    Well said. Gathering systematic forces are generative of nationalist sentiment and ideology. The era of peace and prosperity upon which bourgeois SWPL culture emerged and depends is coming to a permanent end.

    To me, the central learning experience from the rise and fall of the alt-right is that we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society. Show ponies like Spencer and Reich LARPers are a dead end. We have to stop buying the propaganda of liberal democracy that power is acquired through generating mass consent in the public square. Evangelizing should be properly seen as a way to grow a base of human capital.

    Replies: @Randal, @Mitleser

    we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society

    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends. The old Conservative Party had plenty like that in this country in the mid-late C20th, but said party has since become almost universally populated by true believers in leftist antiracist etc dogmas. I suspect your Republican Party is much the same.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal



    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends. The old Conservative Party had plenty like that in this country in the mid-late C20th, but said party has since become almost universally populated by true believers in leftist antiracist etc dogmas. I suspect your Republican Party is much the same.
     
    The Republican Party is a bit different in that it was not founded as a conservative or agrarian party.

    It was originally founded as an antislavery party, which in Britain was originally associated with the Liberals, though the Tories were quickly converted and it was the Duke of Wellington who abolished slavery.

    After Reconstruction (military occupation of the defeated Confederacy) ended, the proto-SJWs disappeared and the party was a protectionist party for Northern WASPs with competing conservative and progressive factions.

    The party began to emerge in its current form when President Nixon used a Trumpian strategy to bring Southern Democrats and working class Northern Catholics into the party. The transition was finally completed in the last decade.

    Republican officeholders tend to alternate between cuckservative true believers and civic nationalists who are hardly alt-right but object to open borders and being smeared as racists.

    There were never polite closet racists in the party other than Nixon himself and old line Southern Democrats who switched party affiliation (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc.).

    Other than Trump himself, the party leadership is mostly cuckservative. Some may be true believer anti-racists, but generally they're in it for the money.
    , @dfordoom
    @Randal


    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends.
     
    What's needed is a revolutionary vanguard, well-disciplined but fanatical, and utterly ruthless and unscrupulous. They need to be absolutely dedicated to the revolution. And, as you say, they must be prepared to lie and cheat when necessary.

    In the early to mid-20th century communism had no difficulty in finding such people so there's no reason why a different kind of political movement should not be able to find the necessary revolutionary cadres. But if you want a successful revolution you need a revolutionary movement, one that seems to offer a program so appealing that people are prepared to endure persecution and even risk death in order to bring it about.

    I'm not talking about violent revolution, which even if desirable (which it isn't) is doomed to failure, but even a non-violent revolution is going to be opposed by the existing elites with savage and brutal attempts at repression.

    Conservatism has been a failure because it just doesn't attract zealots. It attracts reasonable moderate people and reasonable moderate people don't lead successful revolutions.

    If you want to win you need a religious dedication among the leaders and fanatical zeal among the foot-soldiers.

    Replies: @Talha

  38. @Randal
    @German_reader


    You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims?
     
    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they've been propagandised into hatred, or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies - with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest - a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    It's not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it's very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    And the bottom line is exactly as you put it - that they travel across entire fucking oceans to find muslim monsters to destroy (as their own John Quincy Adams warned them not to), and then moan like little girls when the monsters actually have the cheek to fight back now and then.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader, @grapesoda

    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred

    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.

    Some examples:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/the-artist-who-created-the-obama-hope-posters-is-back-with-a-new-art-this-inauguration/?utm_term=.bcdbe2604866

    Note that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos (world’s richest man), is the second most prestigious newspaper in the United States, is traditionally considered the house newspaper of the CIA, and a film about how the Washington Post destroyed President Nixon received an Academy Award.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/protest-trump-travel-ban-muslims-airports

    Here you can see that the reaction to the weak travel ban (as opposed to the far superior Muslim ban) provoked outrage.

    And who can forget Hillary Clinton: http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

    “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

    The ruling class wants us to worship Mohammedans (and immigrants generally) just as they have programmed us to worship homo-sexuals, negroes, and skanks.

    They want speaking out against Mohammedans to be heresy, as it is in many Western countries already.

    or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies – with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest – a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    Now you’re on firmer ground and I agree.

    It’s not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    It’s not as bad here as in Europe, but our Mohammedan population has gone from one million to three million since September 11.

    And there was, of course, the matter of September 11.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it’s very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    Please.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243493

    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.

    “In Austria now, you have a political party that’s part of the coalition, that has neo-Nazi backgrounds, but its main messaging is anti-migrant, is Islamophobic. But we know that is not separable from anti-Semitism, the two go hand in hand,” she emphasized.

    Many Jews seem to believe that if we protect our borders that the next day the gas chambers will be back in business.

    Fortunately the Israelis themselves are improving on this to judge by Netanyahu’s friendly relations with the Visegrad 4. Of course they still can’t help themselves as judging by their freakout over Poland’s silly but amusing new Holocaust law.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.
     
    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.

    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population - less than the number of jews according to Pew.

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.


    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.
     
    An ADL representative is a liar, and there's little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it's because they've let something slip out that's against their own interests.

    In this case, you've quoted an ADL liar claiming that "islamophobia is associated with antisemitism ". It's hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @dfordoom

  39. @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader

    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims? That’s total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you’re trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won’t be a big loss.
     

    Look, I'll be very clear.

    I do not support wars in the Middle East. I can't think of any Americans in the alt-right who do, other than Whiskey, who seems to think if we don't destroy Iran then sexy Persian beasts will breed with our women. Or something.

    My only point is that Trump's instinct to profit from imperialism is rational. We are not currently capable of that, and even if we were the costs still exceed the benefits. Perhaps we'd make out well in purely financial terms, but is that worth American boys dying for? And then there's the established fact that this has poisoned our relations with Russia and China.

    I agree completely that Islamic states are no threat to us at all owing to geography, and also their general incompetence. The only Islamic state that can threaten a white country is Turkey, which is as you say not our problem.

    The threat, as you know clearly, comes from Islamic immigrants. And while it's not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we've tripled our Mohammedan population.

    I'll also qualify my comment of Mohammedans being enemies that it seems good relations are possible with everyone other than Arab & North Caucasus Sunnis. And even Arab Sunni states can be fine if run by secular or military dictators.

    A grand civilizational war against Mohammedans is satisfying on a metaphysical level, but rationally cannot be justified.

    The reason Americans are obsessed with the Middle East is down to Israel & path dependency. I am sure I do not need to explain the Israel angle, but I'll explain the path dependency one.

    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.

    After 9-11 the neocohens had their justification for unleashing massive wars throughout the Middle East, and terrorism made for an easy justification to a scared and vengeful public. Since then always being at war in the Middle East has become "normal".

    The obvious way to prevent this would've been a permanent peace treaty with Iraq after the war and treating it as a normal country, but our leaders have lost the ability to do so since they convince themselves (and the public through propaganda) that anyone we are fighting is genuinely evil and that no compromise is possible.

    Hence why Sergei Lavrov calls us, "Not agreement-capable."

    Replies: @Randal, @German_reader

    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.

    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran’s elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal



    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran’s elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.
     
    There was no pattern of permanent war in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War.

    Interventions yes, but that's what a superpower does during the Cold War.

    You'll note that President Reagan prudently abandoned the mission in the Lebanon after the Beirut bombing.

    The neocohens had considerably less power in the Cold War and were not always able to push pro-Israeli policies.

    President Eisenhower, for instance, torpedoed the Suez Affair.

    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, President George HW Bush attempted to put an end to Israel's occupation with the Madrid Conference. His Secretary of State James Baker even made this remark:


    Fuck the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.
     
    The complete domination of American foreign policy by the Zionist agenda emerged only in this century.

    I'm also skeptical on oil. Obviously America had an interest in the region owing to oil (which our NATO allies were much more dependent on than us), but then why did we permit the First Energy Crisis to happen?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @utu

  40. German_reader says:
    @Randal
    @German_reader


    You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims?
     
    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they've been propagandised into hatred, or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies - with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest - a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    It's not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it's very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    And the bottom line is exactly as you put it - that they travel across entire fucking oceans to find muslim monsters to destroy (as their own John Quincy Adams warned them not to), and then moan like little girls when the monsters actually have the cheek to fight back now and then.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader, @grapesoda

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it’s very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    That’s a problem in Europe as well (at least in Germany, and certainly also in Britain), there are tons of anti-Islam people who are fervently pro-Israel and push all manner of dishonest nonsense about issues like the Israelis’ supposed right to all of Jerusalem that have no relation whatsoever to the issue of mass immigration to Europe. It’s something that needs to be resisted imo, it’s not in the interests of European nationalists to let themselves be coopted into Israel’s conflicts with its neighbors.
    I agree with your general assessment, and that’s the reason why I’m deeply suspicious of people like Steve Bannon (who seems to look forward to some sort of grand civilizational clash), one should be very wary of them.

  41. @Randal
    @Lemurmaniac


    we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society
     
    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends. The old Conservative Party had plenty like that in this country in the mid-late C20th, but said party has since become almost universally populated by true believers in leftist antiracist etc dogmas. I suspect your Republican Party is much the same.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @dfordoom

    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends. The old Conservative Party had plenty like that in this country in the mid-late C20th, but said party has since become almost universally populated by true believers in leftist antiracist etc dogmas. I suspect your Republican Party is much the same.

    The Republican Party is a bit different in that it was not founded as a conservative or agrarian party.

    It was originally founded as an antislavery party, which in Britain was originally associated with the Liberals, though the Tories were quickly converted and it was the Duke of Wellington who abolished slavery.

    After Reconstruction (military occupation of the defeated Confederacy) ended, the proto-SJWs disappeared and the party was a protectionist party for Northern WASPs with competing conservative and progressive factions.

    The party began to emerge in its current form when President Nixon used a Trumpian strategy to bring Southern Democrats and working class Northern Catholics into the party. The transition was finally completed in the last decade.

    Republican officeholders tend to alternate between cuckservative true believers and civic nationalists who are hardly alt-right but object to open borders and being smeared as racists.

    There were never polite closet racists in the party other than Nixon himself and old line Southern Democrats who switched party affiliation (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, etc.).

    Other than Trump himself, the party leadership is mostly cuckservative. Some may be true believer anti-racists, but generally they’re in it for the money.

  42. German_reader says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader

    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims? That’s total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you’re trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won’t be a big loss.
     

    Look, I'll be very clear.

    I do not support wars in the Middle East. I can't think of any Americans in the alt-right who do, other than Whiskey, who seems to think if we don't destroy Iran then sexy Persian beasts will breed with our women. Or something.

    My only point is that Trump's instinct to profit from imperialism is rational. We are not currently capable of that, and even if we were the costs still exceed the benefits. Perhaps we'd make out well in purely financial terms, but is that worth American boys dying for? And then there's the established fact that this has poisoned our relations with Russia and China.

    I agree completely that Islamic states are no threat to us at all owing to geography, and also their general incompetence. The only Islamic state that can threaten a white country is Turkey, which is as you say not our problem.

    The threat, as you know clearly, comes from Islamic immigrants. And while it's not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we've tripled our Mohammedan population.

    I'll also qualify my comment of Mohammedans being enemies that it seems good relations are possible with everyone other than Arab & North Caucasus Sunnis. And even Arab Sunni states can be fine if run by secular or military dictators.

    A grand civilizational war against Mohammedans is satisfying on a metaphysical level, but rationally cannot be justified.

    The reason Americans are obsessed with the Middle East is down to Israel & path dependency. I am sure I do not need to explain the Israel angle, but I'll explain the path dependency one.

    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.

    After 9-11 the neocohens had their justification for unleashing massive wars throughout the Middle East, and terrorism made for an easy justification to a scared and vengeful public. Since then always being at war in the Middle East has become "normal".

    The obvious way to prevent this would've been a permanent peace treaty with Iraq after the war and treating it as a normal country, but our leaders have lost the ability to do so since they convince themselves (and the public through propaganda) that anyone we are fighting is genuinely evil and that no compromise is possible.

    Hence why Sergei Lavrov calls us, "Not agreement-capable."

    Replies: @Randal, @German_reader

    And while it’s not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we’ve tripled our Mohammedan population.

    Obviously very foolish policy, the focus should be on stopping all Islamic immigration and putting restrictions on Muslims already in the country who are engaged in subversive activity. But that’s not what Trump’s proposing, it’s basically just more of the old “let’s fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here – while importing ever more of them so we can’t be accused of racism” nonsense.
    As for imperialism, I’m actually somewhat in agreement with you…the British empire was indeed most successful in the 18th century when it was absolutely ruthless, the biggest slave trader around and waging wars only for genuine national interests. With the rise of humanitarian sentiment in the 19th century it grew much less efficient and its dissolution ultimately became inevitable. If one isn’t willing to crush any resistance with the most brutal methods imaginable, up to and including genocide, one shouldn’t engage in imperialism since it’s bound to fail. Not worth it imo.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader



    Obviously very foolish policy, the focus should be on stopping all Islamic immigration and putting restrictions on Muslims already in the country who are engaged in subversive activity. But that’s not what Trump’s proposing, it’s basically just more of the old “let’s fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here – while importing ever more of them so we can’t be accused of racism” nonsense.
     
    Candidate Trump proposed this in 2015 with his "Muslim Ban", though this was watered down to "extreme vetting". Very early in the administration he implemented a weak version of this with the "Travel Ban". This of course is now being turned into another tool of US imperialism as Venezuela and North Korea have been added to the list. Not that I want Venezuelans or Koreans moving here either, so not all bad.

    Trump and some of his advisors also propose ending "chain migration" and have already reduced "refugee" intake, which are the main ways Mohammedans get into America.

    I am not for a moment going defend Trump's foreign policy here of course. A good example was his harsh rhetoric on the Islamic State. The Islamic State posed precisely zero threat to America, and the campaign was successfully used by Deep State dweebs to occupy Eastern Syria.


    As for imperialism, I’m actually somewhat in agreement with you…the British empire was indeed most successful in the 18th century when it was absolutely ruthless, the biggest slave trader around and waging wars only for genuine national interests. With the rise of humanitarian sentiment in the 19th century it grew much less efficient and its dissolution ultimately became inevitable. If one isn’t willing to crush any resistance with the most brutal methods imaginable, up to and including genocide, one shouldn’t engage in imperialism since it’s bound to fail. Not worth it imo.
     
    Pathological altruism must be completely and utterly destroyed for us to survive and prosper.

    Imperialism is generally not worth it these days for many other reasons. The most obvious one is nuclear weapons.

    Another one is defeat. As a German this is something your ancestors learned bitterly.

    It's quite possible America will suffer both of these catastrophic events, though owing to geography foreign occupation is highly unlikely.
  43. @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    Basically, this all down to the Gulf War. Intervening in the Gulf War created a permanent pattern of intervention in the Middle East, with permanent bases established so the USA and UK could repeatedly bomb Iraq.
     
    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran's elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran’s elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.

    There was no pattern of permanent war in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War.

    Interventions yes, but that’s what a superpower does during the Cold War.

    You’ll note that President Reagan prudently abandoned the mission in the Lebanon after the Beirut bombing.

    The neocohens had considerably less power in the Cold War and were not always able to push pro-Israeli policies.

    President Eisenhower, for instance, torpedoed the Suez Affair.

    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, President George HW Bush attempted to put an end to Israel’s occupation with the Madrid Conference. His Secretary of State James Baker even made this remark:

    Fuck the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.

    The complete domination of American foreign policy by the Zionist agenda emerged only in this century.

    I’m also skeptical on oil. Obviously America had an interest in the region owing to oil (which our NATO allies were much more dependent on than us), but then why did we permit the First Energy Crisis to happen?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Thorfinnsson


    President Eisenhower, for instance, torpedoed the Suez Affair.
     
    That was mostly because the U.S. was outraged that the British and the French thought they had the right to conduct their own foreign policy.
    , @utu
    @Thorfinnsson


    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, President George HW Bush attempted to put an end to Israel’s occupation with the Madrid Conference.
     
    He thought that after the Desert Storm with 90% support he could make a move on Israel. He quickly backed off which was his mistake because if he went public he would get support from Americans. Thereafter he knew he will not be permitted to be reelected so basically he threw a towel and Clinton won. The economy thing "it's the economy stupid" was virtually manufactured by media. Since his standoff with Yitzhak Shamir NYT's Friedman and Safire were on his case twice a week.
  44. OT

    Yemenis have been sending several missiles at the Saudi Kingdom, as far as Riyadh, with several airport targeted in the country. Some footage of spectacular failure at interception by Patriot batteries

    Missile parts fell on main streets of Riyadh. And during this same night, Israel so-called Iron dome inexplicably fired 10 missiles over what was described as a “false alarm”, with IDF admitting later there were actually no incoming rockets.

    Coincidence? It’s as if someone was keen to demonstrate the failure of Western AD tonight, and by extension destroy the false sense of security associated with these systems.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    @Bukephalos

    I don't know much about the capabilities of the Israeli army but I think that it is a widely accepted view that the KSA is incapable of handling much of their military equipment along with being just generally incompetent, so maybe it is merely coincidence like it looks like?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  45. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    And while it’s not as bad here as in Europe, since 9-11 we’ve tripled our Mohammedan population.
     
    Obviously very foolish policy, the focus should be on stopping all Islamic immigration and putting restrictions on Muslims already in the country who are engaged in subversive activity. But that's not what Trump's proposing, it's basically just more of the old "let's fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here - while importing ever more of them so we can't be accused of racism" nonsense.
    As for imperialism, I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you...the British empire was indeed most successful in the 18th century when it was absolutely ruthless, the biggest slave trader around and waging wars only for genuine national interests. With the rise of humanitarian sentiment in the 19th century it grew much less efficient and its dissolution ultimately became inevitable. If one isn't willing to crush any resistance with the most brutal methods imaginable, up to and including genocide, one shouldn't engage in imperialism since it's bound to fail. Not worth it imo.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Obviously very foolish policy, the focus should be on stopping all Islamic immigration and putting restrictions on Muslims already in the country who are engaged in subversive activity. But that’s not what Trump’s proposing, it’s basically just more of the old “let’s fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here – while importing ever more of them so we can’t be accused of racism” nonsense.

    Candidate Trump proposed this in 2015 with his “Muslim Ban”, though this was watered down to “extreme vetting”. Very early in the administration he implemented a weak version of this with the “Travel Ban”. This of course is now being turned into another tool of US imperialism as Venezuela and North Korea have been added to the list. Not that I want Venezuelans or Koreans moving here either, so not all bad.

    Trump and some of his advisors also propose ending “chain migration” and have already reduced “refugee” intake, which are the main ways Mohammedans get into America.

    I am not for a moment going defend Trump’s foreign policy here of course. A good example was his harsh rhetoric on the Islamic State. The Islamic State posed precisely zero threat to America, and the campaign was successfully used by Deep State dweebs to occupy Eastern Syria.

    As for imperialism, I’m actually somewhat in agreement with you…the British empire was indeed most successful in the 18th century when it was absolutely ruthless, the biggest slave trader around and waging wars only for genuine national interests. With the rise of humanitarian sentiment in the 19th century it grew much less efficient and its dissolution ultimately became inevitable. If one isn’t willing to crush any resistance with the most brutal methods imaginable, up to and including genocide, one shouldn’t engage in imperialism since it’s bound to fail. Not worth it imo.

    Pathological altruism must be completely and utterly destroyed for us to survive and prosper.

    Imperialism is generally not worth it these days for many other reasons. The most obvious one is nuclear weapons.

    Another one is defeat. As a German this is something your ancestors learned bitterly.

    It’s quite possible America will suffer both of these catastrophic events, though owing to geography foreign occupation is highly unlikely.

  46. @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal

    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred
     

    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.

    Some examples:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2017/01/20/the-artist-who-created-the-obama-hope-posters-is-back-with-a-new-art-this-inauguration/?utm_term=.bcdbe2604866

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/01/Shepard-GreaterThanFear.jpg

    Note that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos (world's richest man), is the second most prestigious newspaper in the United States, is traditionally considered the house newspaper of the CIA, and a film about how the Washington Post destroyed President Nixon received an Academy Award.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/protest-trump-travel-ban-muslims-airports

    Here you can see that the reaction to the weak travel ban (as opposed to the far superior Muslim ban) provoked outrage.

    And who can forget Hillary Clinton: http://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/

    “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
     

    The ruling class wants us to worship Mohammedans (and immigrants generally) just as they have programmed us to worship homo-sexuals, negroes, and skanks.

    They want speaking out against Mohammedans to be heresy, as it is in many Western countries already.

    or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies – with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest – a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.
     

    Now you're on firmer ground and I agree.

    It’s not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.
     

    It's not as bad here as in Europe, but our Mohammedan population has gone from one million to three million since September 11.

    And there was, of course, the matter of September 11.


    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it’s very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.
     
    Please.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/243493

    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.

    "In Austria now, you have a political party that's part of the coalition, that has neo-Nazi backgrounds, but its main messaging is anti-migrant, is Islamophobic. But we know that is not separable from anti-Semitism, the two go hand in hand," she emphasized.
     

    Many Jews seem to believe that if we protect our borders that the next day the gas chambers will be back in business.

    Fortunately the Israelis themselves are improving on this to judge by Netanyahu's friendly relations with the Visegrad 4. Of course they still can't help themselves as judging by their freakout over Poland's silly but amusing new Holocaust law.

    Replies: @Randal

    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.

    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.

    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population – less than the number of jews according to Pew.

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.

    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.

    An ADL representative is a liar, and there’s little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it’s because they’ve let something slip out that’s against their own interests.

    In this case, you’ve quoted an ADL liar claiming that “islamophobia is associated with antisemitism “. It’s hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal



    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.
     
    I am sure you can find it, but I rarely see "Islamophobic" propaganda from anyone in the mainstream. Newt Gingrich dabbles in it, and of course you get it from Iron Ann Coulter who is for some reason still allowed on television.

    The propaganda is rather "anti-Islamist" and "anti-terrorist". The common rejoinder to people who point out the terroristic and other undesirable proclivities of Mohammedans (other than accusing them of blasphemy) is that "moderate Muslims" oppose terrorism (occasionally true but irrelevant).

    No one in the population other than true believer liberals supports mass Mohammedan invasion here or likely anywhere else. However there is an emerging elite consensus that borders must be abolished, with apparently no open dissenters other than Trump and Thiel.


    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population – less than the number of jews according to Pew.
    What was misleading about it? I assume all commenters on this blog know what America's population size is.

    Tripling in such a short timespan, immediately after the worst terrorist attack in American history, is highly alarming.

    The US immigration system allows citizens (including naturalized ones) to sponsor adult relatives for immigration. Thus once an immigrant group arrives in America, it leads to continuous immigration from that group until their country of origin converges with American living standards (which in the cases of inferior populations never happens).

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.
     
    Our idiotic foreign wars certainly do not help, but Mohammedans create problems anywhere they go.

    As Enoch Powell said, "Numbers are of the essence."


    An ADL representative is a liar, and there’s little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it’s because they’ve let something slip out that’s against their own interests.

    In this case, you’ve quoted an ADL liar claiming that “islamophobia is associated with antisemitism “. It’s hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.
     
    I'm not endorsing his views. I'm noting that most Jewish organization in America consider them equivalent.

    I'm aware most mainstream nationalist groups support Zionism. Occasionally cynically (to deflect charges of antisemitism), but often because they falsely confuse our own interests with Israel's.
     

    Replies: @Randal

    , @dfordoom
    @Randal


    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.
     
    You have to remember that there are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims. Good Muslims are the ones who live in western countries. They're good because (thanks to Magic Dirt) they'll eventually learn to embrace the core values of western culture (atheism, consumerism, pornography, homosexuality, celebrity-worship, slut-worship, etc).

    The Bad Muslims are the ones who live in Muslim countries. They're bad because they reject the core values of western culture (see above) and because they're inconvenient for Israel. The only way to deal with them is to bomb them.
  47. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast

    9/11

  48. @German_reader
    It was a dumb movement anyway and putting one's hopes into a grotesque figure like Trump was just desperate wishful thinking. Good riddance.
    From a European perspective it seems pretty clear now that the US is irredeemable on every level and that neither its immigration policy nor its foreign policy aiming at permanent global hegemony will be changed without some drastic form of collapse. Maybe Trump will still deliver here by starting some catastrophic war (even if one should hardly wish for such a development).

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Pericles, @El Dato, @songbird, @Miro23

    I don’t know how realistic a collapse is. I think a lot of people are deluding themselves into thinking that the world is some computer program that will crash and reboot, but is Brazil going to reboot? Or Venezuela? There may be some peaks and troughs, but nothing like a reboot.

    I’ve said his before, but it bears repeating: the answer to the Fermi Paradox may be Brazil. Maybe, what happens to worlds where intelligence develops is not some cosmic ray burst or nuclear or bio-war, but mass migration of sun peoples into ice peoples’ lands. I’m not talking a return to agriculture, but a permanent post-industrial malaise, where welfare still exists and merit has no fecundity.

    When the Roman Empire collapsed, it was mostly Germans who had invaded them. What if it had been hundreds of millions of blacks? As terrifying as that thought is, that was an agricultural economy. Maybe, in time, it still would have righted itself. Perhaps, after all the books had rotted to pieces. But what we are talking about is something different.

    The US went to the moon. Russia could have gone. China will probably go. Could Brazil ever go? Eurabia? I’m not so sure.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @songbird

    Yeah, I'm afraid you might be on to something. The prospect of large-scale violence is horrifying and I don't wish for it, but in some ways the prospect of current trends going on as they are now until there's a black planet, forever and everywhere, is even more horrible (at least to me). And maybe that's what's going to happen, with everything just becoming slightly worse every year and most people just passively accepting it.

  49. German_reader says:
    @songbird
    @German_reader

    I don't know how realistic a collapse is. I think a lot of people are deluding themselves into thinking that the world is some computer program that will crash and reboot, but is Brazil going to reboot? Or Venezuela? There may be some peaks and troughs, but nothing like a reboot.

    I've said his before, but it bears repeating: the answer to the Fermi Paradox may be Brazil. Maybe, what happens to worlds where intelligence develops is not some cosmic ray burst or nuclear or bio-war, but mass migration of sun peoples into ice peoples' lands. I'm not talking a return to agriculture, but a permanent post-industrial malaise, where welfare still exists and merit has no fecundity.

    When the Roman Empire collapsed, it was mostly Germans who had invaded them. What if it had been hundreds of millions of blacks? As terrifying as that thought is, that was an agricultural economy. Maybe, in time, it still would have righted itself. Perhaps, after all the books had rotted to pieces. But what we are talking about is something different.

    The US went to the moon. Russia could have gone. China will probably go. Could Brazil ever go? Eurabia? I'm not so sure.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Yeah, I’m afraid you might be on to something. The prospect of large-scale violence is horrifying and I don’t wish for it, but in some ways the prospect of current trends going on as they are now until there’s a black planet, forever and everywhere, is even more horrible (at least to me). And maybe that’s what’s going to happen, with everything just becoming slightly worse every year and most people just passively accepting it.

  50. America’s actually lucky they don’t have an extremist Muslim community, which is why they have far less common terrorist attacks (except for a few like 9/11 which was by non-American citizens). By comparison, in Russia there is a large community – with extremists – and the expected far higher number of terrorists acts.

    Only a very small proportion of Muslims support these extremist ideologies, and they will become unfairly blamed for these terrorist acts – but there is a fact that every country which will have such a community will have to live with the threat of terrorist attacks, and also cost of additional security measures in their cities.

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry



    America’s actually lucky they don’t have an extremist Muslim community, which is why they have far less common terrorist attacks (except for a few like 9/11 which was by non-American citizens). By comparison, in Russia there is a large community – with extremists – and the expected far higher number of terrorists acts.
     
    Depending on the source, Mohammedans are between 6-15% of the population of the Russian Federation. Pew claims 10%.

    Presently they're only 1.1% of America's population.

    Terrorist attacks by Mohammedans in America are becoming more common. Prior to 9-11 I can only think of two, though there were probably more.

    As Enoch Powell said, "Numbers are of the essence."

    That's why it's important to stop Islam early. Otherwise you get frequent terrorist attacks like in Russia, France, and India.


    Only a very small proportion of Muslims support these extremist ideologies, and they will become unfairly blamed for these terrorist acts – but there is a fact that every country which will have such a community will have to live with the threat of terrorist attacks, and also cost of additional security measures in their cities.
     
    It's a small proportion of Mohammedans, but the proportion of Mohammedans who support and carry out terrorism appears to be higher than any other group.

    Their terrorism is also more ruthless.

    E.g. the IRA had the courtesy to warn the British government about its truck bombs in advance so populated centers could be evacuated.

    Only communists are comparable, but fortunately communism as a religion is dead.

    There is more to it than terrorism as well as seen by the grooming gang scandals in Great Britain.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @German_reader
    @Dmitry


    By comparison, in Russia there is a large community
     
    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.

    Replies: @Talha, @Thorfinnsson

  51. I certainly do hope that Nazi LARPing is dead, along with nihilist troll culture, anti-Christianism, anti-Americanism, and foolish hopes that Jared Kushner’s father-in-law is somehow “on our side”.

    The burial of the Frog Emperor’s putrid corpse is long overdue.

    Donald Trump emerged from a heavily Jewish milieu. There was never any chance that he would make a good faith effort to actually implement the America First platform (immigration restriction and a non-interventionist foreign policy).

    His election’s real value was as a plebiscite on the America First platform. Would the American people support this platform, despite it being associated with such an unappealing personality?

    The answer was a resounding yes. Never again can anyone claim that this political stance is fringe.

    All of Pat Buchanan’s 1992 warnings have been vindicated by the course of events, and by 2016 the American people were ready to embrace his platform. The task now is to elect a better congress in 2018, and then elect a better president in 2020, so that this platform can be implemented.

    I suspect many leading figures of the Alt-Right were ADL fundraisers, provocateurs and saboteurs intent on making nationalism look bad. Others were talented and sincere men, but with some flawed ideas which unfortunately blinded them to the true nature of the Judas goats in their midst.

    The establishment’s strategy is to isolate and destroy the sincere and talented men – the ugly politics of personal destruction. The task of the right should be to provide moral support to these individuals while they heal, so that they can eventually bounce back, wiser and stronger than ever.

    • Replies: @polskijoe
    @John Gruskos

    Agree with much of your first paragraph.

    Most antiAmericanism stems from dislike/hate of the US governments/establishment (in and out of USA)
    and sometimes from the fact that people dont do nothing about it. (usually outside the USA).

    You know Buchanan is fairly respectable person. I agree with most his points. Though some may be outdated.

    Paleoconservativism may have worked in the 1990s or before.
    Would it still work today? Im not so sure.


    The establishment on the Republican side prefers:
    Neocons, MIC types and Rockefeller Republicans.

  52. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

    You’re a commenter who is worth responding to a good deal of the time and I’ve seen a lot of discussion like this lately, but it’s worth pointing out:

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story – the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don’t just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys. The rest of the justification for diplomacy or economics or realpolitik is just post-hoc tacked onto that underlying scaffold.

    It’s not only the alt-right espousing these views at all, nor the neo-cons, nor anything like that. It’s really not, and non-Americans often just don’t understand. Everyone should have learned this from Vietnam, then especially the Iraq War granting the age of individuals, but I don’t think non-US citizens are learning it from media/books etc because it doesn’t quite grok the vivid reality.

    Besides religion or race or other identity like that, though those things can contribute, the jingoist deeply ingrained into the American psyche, really fascinating topic to explore and certainly not fully understood. It’s why one can sometimes still tell or respect the “non-normies” with weird contrarian urges even when they are hugely wrong about stuff as at least they are sometimes not part of the groupthink.

    While I think Christian values are a part of it it’s not just that, it’s not just propaganda either despite how Hollywood/comic book movies etc work. It’s also raw ignorance and lived experience for the typical American, who is monolingual, doesn’t travel, etc.

    On the theme of Americans always assuming their military is 100% the shining knight good guys, many Americans have litearlly barely ever heard of only World War II, the Civil War, and American Revolution, (seriously, American school history classes often have situations where “we don’t teach the Vietnam War or anything more modern than that” And of course actual survey data shows just how little groups like urban African Americans know). No nuance in anything.

    As for on topicness: The alt-right isn’t dead so much as it didn’t exist in any numbers in the first place.

    Karlin I’ve found often has a blinkered view of the USA, being familiar with what, a couple coastal enclaves, and not informed about US political science realities. For instance, still very unlikely the Dems take the Senate again this year, keep in mind the neoliberal MSM of course says things in its own agenda’s interests.

    So the problem is mistaking Internet trolling for the real world. The modal Trump voter was a “cuckservative” elderly creationist; same as Republican voters for decades, really. That a few hundred neoNazi marchers had one march, for all the noise the MSM makes, is not actually representative of the country.

    Just how not even 1% of the population are serious libertarians and only that because of drug addicts who want more legal drugs, likewise the weird mish-mash of neoNazis and whoever claimed to be alt-right simply didn’t have any numbers, never even 1% of voters. It’s a mistake, though somewhat forgiveable, and the mirror image of neoliberals who think there are 50 million coal miners coming out of the woodwork, to believe that what you read on the Internet or saw at one coastal city think tank conference represents American politics or the electorate or whatever.

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly “English speaking US alt-right folks” were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it’s in for a slow decline (except if there’s a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Krastos the Gluemaker


    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly “English speaking US alt-right folks” were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it’s in for a slow decline (except if there’s a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.
     
    This is how the competent intelligence agencies in overseas (non-American) countries would have assessed it as well.

    They can see the use of this alt-right 'group' (various internet weirdos and also the Neo-Nazi movement), as pure tactic of Democrat Party controlled media to scare people into not voting for Donald Trump

    Likewise, the hypocrisy can be seen, when actual large and destabilizing far-right and neo-Nazi movements, such as exist in Ukraine and the Baltics, would hardly even be mentioned by the same media. But a few dozen ones in America - it's somehow supposed to be related to the powerful US Republican Party, which is a politically quite centrist group.
    , @German_reader
    @Krastos the Gluemaker

    Oh, I think I do understand that many Americans hold rather demented jingoist views (actually read a fairly interesting book about those sentiments a few months ago, "America right or wrong: An anatomy of American nationalism" by Anatol Lieven, written during the 2nd Bush II administration iirc, but still very much relevant, some of the quotes by American politicians in it actually still shocked me; I recommend it to everyone interested in the background to some of the people who have reemerged in Trump's orbit). I find it rather depressing, not least because it seems clear to me that the policies these people support won't really benefit them at all, they're indulging paranoid fantasies about foreign threats that in reality are remote to non-existent, while the real issues of their demographic replacement and loss of economic status aren't adressed at all.
    I agree about the alt-right...I think it's clear it never was much more than an internet phenomenon. Richard Spencer's belief that people like him made Trump president with their Twitter memes is just silly.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @utu
    @Krastos the Gluemaker

    I think you got it. Perhaps it might be even worse in terms of jingoism and no nuance.

    , @dfordoom
    @Krastos the Gluemaker


    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story – the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don’t just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys.
     
    And that jingoism has been there almost from the beginning. The US was already an imperialist power at least as early as the 1840s.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the bizarre nature of American evangelical Christianity? Evangelicals seem to have a certain amount of that Chosen People arrogance, and a missionary zeal. Or maybe it's the crazy Enlightenment ideas that infected the Founding Fathers.

    Or maybe it's just the complete lack of an actual culture or an actual identity, so that Americans can only feel a sense of Americanism by invading other countries.

    Replies: @utu

  53. @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.
     
    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.

    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population - less than the number of jews according to Pew.

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.


    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.
     
    An ADL representative is a liar, and there's little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it's because they've let something slip out that's against their own interests.

    In this case, you've quoted an ADL liar claiming that "islamophobia is associated with antisemitism ". It's hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @dfordoom

    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.

    I am sure you can find it, but I rarely see “Islamophobic” propaganda from anyone in the mainstream. Newt Gingrich dabbles in it, and of course you get it from Iron Ann Coulter who is for some reason still allowed on television.

    The propaganda is rather “anti-Islamist” and “anti-terrorist”. The common rejoinder to people who point out the terroristic and other undesirable proclivities of Mohammedans (other than accusing them of blasphemy) is that “moderate Muslims” oppose terrorism (occasionally true but irrelevant).

    No one in the population other than true believer liberals supports mass Mohammedan invasion here or likely anywhere else. However there is an emerging elite consensus that borders must be abolished, with apparently no open dissenters other than Trump and Thiel.

    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population – less than the number of jews according to Pew.
    What was misleading about it? I assume all commenters on this blog know what America’s population size is.

    Tripling in such a short timespan, immediately after the worst terrorist attack in American history, is highly alarming.

    The US immigration system allows citizens (including naturalized ones) to sponsor adult relatives for immigration. Thus once an immigrant group arrives in America, it leads to continuous immigration from that group until their country of origin converges with American living standards (which in the cases of inferior populations never happens).

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.

    Our idiotic foreign wars certainly do not help, but Mohammedans create problems anywhere they go.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”

    An ADL representative is a liar, and there’s little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it’s because they’ve let something slip out that’s against their own interests.

    In this case, you’ve quoted an ADL liar claiming that “islamophobia is associated with antisemitism “. It’s hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.

    I’m not endorsing his views. I’m noting that most Jewish organization in America consider them equivalent.

    I’m aware most mainstream nationalist groups support Zionism. Occasionally cynically (to deflect charges of antisemitism), but often because they falsely confuse our own interests with Israel’s.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    I am sure you can find it, but I rarely see “Islamophobic” propaganda from anyone in the mainstream. Newt Gingrich dabbles in it, and of course you get it from Iron Ann Coulter who is for some reason still allowed on television.
     
    In fairness, I suspect you don't notice it much because you mostly agree with it.

    All the "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense and all the pretence that muslims don't mostly attack the US because of the US's stupid wars in their own countries of origin, or in muslim countries with which they sympathise - that's pretty much all anti-muslim propaganda in the US. There are certainly places where muslims are a problem directly, but the US mostly only gets targeted by muslims because the US sticks its nose, brutishly and murderously, into muslim countries' affairs, and has done so on a large scale since at least WW2.

    [On that score you should certainly look at the track record of oil in motivating such interference, before Israel became the big one.]

    Our idiotic foreign wars certainly do not help, but Mohammedans create problems anywhere they go.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”
     
    Indeed, and only an idiot would support mass muslim immigration to his country, but the US is still a long, long way from the situation in which muslim numbers cause much of a problem in themselves.

    And that said, the root problem isn't muslims either, but mass immigration. Mass immigration, except in special cases such as settler colonial countries actively seeking population to fill up looted lands (such as the US pre-C20th), is inherently divisive and harmful, with the scale of the harm usually related to the numbers, and to the degree of cultural (including religious) and racial difference of the immigrating community from the indigenes. Granted, some groups are inherently worse than others, and muslims are one of the worst, but the general rule nevertheless stands.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  54. @Dmitry
    America's actually lucky they don't have an extremist Muslim community, which is why they have far less common terrorist attacks (except for a few like 9/11 which was by non-American citizens). By comparison, in Russia there is a large community - with extremists - and the expected far higher number of terrorists acts.

    Only a very small proportion of Muslims support these extremist ideologies, and they will become unfairly blamed for these terrorist acts - but there is a fact that every country which will have such a community will have to live with the threat of terrorist attacks, and also cost of additional security measures in their cities.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader

    America’s actually lucky they don’t have an extremist Muslim community, which is why they have far less common terrorist attacks (except for a few like 9/11 which was by non-American citizens). By comparison, in Russia there is a large community – with extremists – and the expected far higher number of terrorists acts.

    Depending on the source, Mohammedans are between 6-15% of the population of the Russian Federation. Pew claims 10%.

    Presently they’re only 1.1% of America’s population.

    Terrorist attacks by Mohammedans in America are becoming more common. Prior to 9-11 I can only think of two, though there were probably more.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”

    That’s why it’s important to stop Islam early. Otherwise you get frequent terrorist attacks like in Russia, France, and India.

    Only a very small proportion of Muslims support these extremist ideologies, and they will become unfairly blamed for these terrorist acts – but there is a fact that every country which will have such a community will have to live with the threat of terrorist attacks, and also cost of additional security measures in their cities.

    It’s a small proportion of Mohammedans, but the proportion of Mohammedans who support and carry out terrorism appears to be higher than any other group.

    Their terrorism is also more ruthless.

    E.g. the IRA had the courtesy to warn the British government about its truck bombs in advance so populated centers could be evacuated.

    Only communists are comparable, but fortunately communism as a religion is dead.

    There is more to it than terrorism as well as seen by the grooming gang scandals in Great Britain.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Thorfinnsson


    Depending on the source, Mohammedans are between 6-15% of the population of the Russian Federation. Pew claims 10%.

    Presently they’re only 1.1% of America’s population.

    Terrorist attacks by Mohammedans in America are becoming more common. Prior to 9-11 I can only think of two, though there were probably more.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”

    That’s why it’s important to stop Islam early. Otherwise you get frequent terrorist attacks like in Russia, France, and India.
     
    Many Muslims in Russia are highly secular and normal people. This was a kind of heritage of the success of the Soviet Union in secularization of populations. But there are indeed extremist elements, and even this small minority has a very devastating impact when it comes to frequency of terrorist attacks (which in many years do not result in huge casualties, but they do result in very significant costs in terms of additional security measures and national tensions).

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson

  55. @Krastos the Gluemaker
    @German_reader

    You're a commenter who is worth responding to a good deal of the time and I've seen a lot of discussion like this lately, but it's worth pointing out:

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story - the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don't just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys. The rest of the justification for diplomacy or economics or realpolitik is just post-hoc tacked onto that underlying scaffold.

    It's not only the alt-right espousing these views at all, nor the neo-cons, nor anything like that. It's really not, and non-Americans often just don't understand. Everyone should have learned this from Vietnam, then especially the Iraq War granting the age of individuals, but I don't think non-US citizens are learning it from media/books etc because it doesn't quite grok the vivid reality.

    Besides religion or race or other identity like that, though those things can contribute, the jingoist deeply ingrained into the American psyche, really fascinating topic to explore and certainly not fully understood. It's why one can sometimes still tell or respect the "non-normies" with weird contrarian urges even when they are hugely wrong about stuff as at least they are sometimes not part of the groupthink.

    While I think Christian values are a part of it it's not just that, it's not just propaganda either despite how Hollywood/comic book movies etc work. It's also raw ignorance and lived experience for the typical American, who is monolingual, doesn't travel, etc.

    On the theme of Americans always assuming their military is 100% the shining knight good guys, many Americans have litearlly barely ever heard of only World War II, the Civil War, and American Revolution, (seriously, American school history classes often have situations where "we don't teach the Vietnam War or anything more modern than that" And of course actual survey data shows just how little groups like urban African Americans know). No nuance in anything.

    As for on topicness: The alt-right isn't dead so much as it didn't exist in any numbers in the first place.

    Karlin I've found often has a blinkered view of the USA, being familiar with what, a couple coastal enclaves, and not informed about US political science realities. For instance, still very unlikely the Dems take the Senate again this year, keep in mind the neoliberal MSM of course says things in its own agenda's interests.

    So the problem is mistaking Internet trolling for the real world. The modal Trump voter was a "cuckservative" elderly creationist; same as Republican voters for decades, really. That a few hundred neoNazi marchers had one march, for all the noise the MSM makes, is not actually representative of the country.

    Just how not even 1% of the population are serious libertarians and only that because of drug addicts who want more legal drugs, likewise the weird mish-mash of neoNazis and whoever claimed to be alt-right simply didn't have any numbers, never even 1% of voters. It's a mistake, though somewhat forgiveable, and the mirror image of neoliberals who think there are 50 million coal miners coming out of the woodwork, to believe that what you read on the Internet or saw at one coastal city think tank conference represents American politics or the electorate or whatever.

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly "English speaking US alt-right folks" were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it's in for a slow decline (except if there's a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @German_reader, @utu, @dfordoom

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly “English speaking US alt-right folks” were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it’s in for a slow decline (except if there’s a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    This is how the competent intelligence agencies in overseas (non-American) countries would have assessed it as well.

    They can see the use of this alt-right ‘group’ (various internet weirdos and also the Neo-Nazi movement), as pure tactic of Democrat Party controlled media to scare people into not voting for Donald Trump

    Likewise, the hypocrisy can be seen, when actual large and destabilizing far-right and neo-Nazi movements, such as exist in Ukraine and the Baltics, would hardly even be mentioned by the same media. But a few dozen ones in America – it’s somehow supposed to be related to the powerful US Republican Party, which is a politically quite centrist group.

  56. @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry



    America’s actually lucky they don’t have an extremist Muslim community, which is why they have far less common terrorist attacks (except for a few like 9/11 which was by non-American citizens). By comparison, in Russia there is a large community – with extremists – and the expected far higher number of terrorists acts.
     
    Depending on the source, Mohammedans are between 6-15% of the population of the Russian Federation. Pew claims 10%.

    Presently they're only 1.1% of America's population.

    Terrorist attacks by Mohammedans in America are becoming more common. Prior to 9-11 I can only think of two, though there were probably more.

    As Enoch Powell said, "Numbers are of the essence."

    That's why it's important to stop Islam early. Otherwise you get frequent terrorist attacks like in Russia, France, and India.


    Only a very small proportion of Muslims support these extremist ideologies, and they will become unfairly blamed for these terrorist acts – but there is a fact that every country which will have such a community will have to live with the threat of terrorist attacks, and also cost of additional security measures in their cities.
     
    It's a small proportion of Mohammedans, but the proportion of Mohammedans who support and carry out terrorism appears to be higher than any other group.

    Their terrorism is also more ruthless.

    E.g. the IRA had the courtesy to warn the British government about its truck bombs in advance so populated centers could be evacuated.

    Only communists are comparable, but fortunately communism as a religion is dead.

    There is more to it than terrorism as well as seen by the grooming gang scandals in Great Britain.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Depending on the source, Mohammedans are between 6-15% of the population of the Russian Federation. Pew claims 10%.

    Presently they’re only 1.1% of America’s population.

    Terrorist attacks by Mohammedans in America are becoming more common. Prior to 9-11 I can only think of two, though there were probably more.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”

    That’s why it’s important to stop Islam early. Otherwise you get frequent terrorist attacks like in Russia, France, and India.

    Many Muslims in Russia are highly secular and normal people. This was a kind of heritage of the success of the Soviet Union in secularization of populations. But there are indeed extremist elements, and even this small minority has a very devastating impact when it comes to frequency of terrorist attacks (which in many years do not result in huge casualties, but they do result in very significant costs in terms of additional security measures and national tensions).

    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry



    Many Muslims in Russia are highly secular and normal people. This was a kind of heritage of the success of the Soviet Union in secularization of populations. But there are indeed extremist elements, and even this small minority has a very devastating impact when it comes to frequency of terrorist attacks (which in many years do not result in huge casualties, but they do result in very significant costs in terms of additional security measures and national tensions).
     
    If I understand correctly until recently the problem was just with people from the North Caucasus.

    Some of the traditional Islamic populations groups in Russia like Tatars and Bashkirs strike me as more or less white.

    But the recent St. Petersburg attacks were carried about by Uzbeks, which is an alarming development.

    Our Islamic population was originally just upper class subcontinentals and Persians and were and are fine. But in more recent years the more undesirable sorts of Mohammedans from "shithole countries" such as Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. have been appearing.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  57. German_reader says:
    @Krastos the Gluemaker
    @German_reader

    You're a commenter who is worth responding to a good deal of the time and I've seen a lot of discussion like this lately, but it's worth pointing out:

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story - the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don't just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys. The rest of the justification for diplomacy or economics or realpolitik is just post-hoc tacked onto that underlying scaffold.

    It's not only the alt-right espousing these views at all, nor the neo-cons, nor anything like that. It's really not, and non-Americans often just don't understand. Everyone should have learned this from Vietnam, then especially the Iraq War granting the age of individuals, but I don't think non-US citizens are learning it from media/books etc because it doesn't quite grok the vivid reality.

    Besides religion or race or other identity like that, though those things can contribute, the jingoist deeply ingrained into the American psyche, really fascinating topic to explore and certainly not fully understood. It's why one can sometimes still tell or respect the "non-normies" with weird contrarian urges even when they are hugely wrong about stuff as at least they are sometimes not part of the groupthink.

    While I think Christian values are a part of it it's not just that, it's not just propaganda either despite how Hollywood/comic book movies etc work. It's also raw ignorance and lived experience for the typical American, who is monolingual, doesn't travel, etc.

    On the theme of Americans always assuming their military is 100% the shining knight good guys, many Americans have litearlly barely ever heard of only World War II, the Civil War, and American Revolution, (seriously, American school history classes often have situations where "we don't teach the Vietnam War or anything more modern than that" And of course actual survey data shows just how little groups like urban African Americans know). No nuance in anything.

    As for on topicness: The alt-right isn't dead so much as it didn't exist in any numbers in the first place.

    Karlin I've found often has a blinkered view of the USA, being familiar with what, a couple coastal enclaves, and not informed about US political science realities. For instance, still very unlikely the Dems take the Senate again this year, keep in mind the neoliberal MSM of course says things in its own agenda's interests.

    So the problem is mistaking Internet trolling for the real world. The modal Trump voter was a "cuckservative" elderly creationist; same as Republican voters for decades, really. That a few hundred neoNazi marchers had one march, for all the noise the MSM makes, is not actually representative of the country.

    Just how not even 1% of the population are serious libertarians and only that because of drug addicts who want more legal drugs, likewise the weird mish-mash of neoNazis and whoever claimed to be alt-right simply didn't have any numbers, never even 1% of voters. It's a mistake, though somewhat forgiveable, and the mirror image of neoliberals who think there are 50 million coal miners coming out of the woodwork, to believe that what you read on the Internet or saw at one coastal city think tank conference represents American politics or the electorate or whatever.

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly "English speaking US alt-right folks" were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it's in for a slow decline (except if there's a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @German_reader, @utu, @dfordoom

    Oh, I think I do understand that many Americans hold rather demented jingoist views (actually read a fairly interesting book about those sentiments a few months ago, “America right or wrong: An anatomy of American nationalism” by Anatol Lieven, written during the 2nd Bush II administration iirc, but still very much relevant, some of the quotes by American politicians in it actually still shocked me; I recommend it to everyone interested in the background to some of the people who have reemerged in Trump’s orbit). I find it rather depressing, not least because it seems clear to me that the policies these people support won’t really benefit them at all, they’re indulging paranoid fantasies about foreign threats that in reality are remote to non-existent, while the real issues of their demographic replacement and loss of economic status aren’t adressed at all.
    I agree about the alt-right…I think it’s clear it never was much more than an internet phenomenon. Richard Spencer’s belief that people like him made Trump president with their Twitter memes is just silly.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    Oh, I think I do understand that many Americans hold rather demented jingoist views (actually read a fairly interesting book about those sentiments a few months ago,
     
    It seems a natural reaction to extreme power, extreme wealth, and extreme geographical isolation.

    Overall, as far as being the emperors of the world, and only super-power goes, they could have been worse.

    Although the power of their country, has created some negative personality characteristics, which is also the case of people of post Soviet countries.

    You can see a lot in Americans - this swing between thinking their country is the best in the world, and thinking it is the worst in the world.

    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism ('world's going to end tomorrow'). Again, like a lot of behaviour - it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.

    Replies: @German_reader

  58. German_reader says:
    @Dmitry
    America's actually lucky they don't have an extremist Muslim community, which is why they have far less common terrorist attacks (except for a few like 9/11 which was by non-American citizens). By comparison, in Russia there is a large community - with extremists - and the expected far higher number of terrorists acts.

    Only a very small proportion of Muslims support these extremist ideologies, and they will become unfairly blamed for these terrorist acts - but there is a fact that every country which will have such a community will have to live with the threat of terrorist attacks, and also cost of additional security measures in their cities.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader

    By comparison, in Russia there is a large community

    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @German_reader


    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden.
     
    Hear, hear - but what are you guys going to do about the native converts, like this brother?
    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gy8x4m/german-far-right-politician-converts-to-islam

    That’s the more intriguing question.

    Peace.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader



    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.
     
    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course.

    The same is true of France, which the H-man denounced as intent on "negrizing". Orwell described French civilization as being devoid of "color prejudice".

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany (which still had a problem with illegal Jewish immigrants from Poland as astonishing as that sounds).

    The case of Britain relates to my earlier response to Dmitry about "English hypocrisy".

    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British...agreed.

    Mind-boggling.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Tyrion 2, @Hippopotamusdrome

  59. “Immigration restriction is no longer taboo.”

    Was it ever taboo? It seems more taboo than ever before, now, both within the GOP and the Democratic Party. Tester once voted against the DREAM Act; now he’s for it. Brat won on that issue; in a Rubio district, no less.

    But, yes, it looks like the alt-right is zombified, much like the Ron Paul movement was after the 2012 GOP national convention. Something will replace it (probably something leftwing).

    Also, surely you mean “at the start of 2018”.

    • Replies: @Jon0815
    @E. Harding


    Was it ever taboo?
     
    Immigration restrictionism (cutting legal immigration levels) has been taboo for decades, essentially excluded from public debate. Now, thanks to Cotton's RAISE Act and Trunp's support for it, that has changed. Not only are legal immigration cuts being discussed in the establishment media, but a majority of the House GOP supports a bill that would enact such cuts by ending chain migration.
  60. @German_reader
    @Krastos the Gluemaker

    Oh, I think I do understand that many Americans hold rather demented jingoist views (actually read a fairly interesting book about those sentiments a few months ago, "America right or wrong: An anatomy of American nationalism" by Anatol Lieven, written during the 2nd Bush II administration iirc, but still very much relevant, some of the quotes by American politicians in it actually still shocked me; I recommend it to everyone interested in the background to some of the people who have reemerged in Trump's orbit). I find it rather depressing, not least because it seems clear to me that the policies these people support won't really benefit them at all, they're indulging paranoid fantasies about foreign threats that in reality are remote to non-existent, while the real issues of their demographic replacement and loss of economic status aren't adressed at all.
    I agree about the alt-right...I think it's clear it never was much more than an internet phenomenon. Richard Spencer's belief that people like him made Trump president with their Twitter memes is just silly.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Oh, I think I do understand that many Americans hold rather demented jingoist views (actually read a fairly interesting book about those sentiments a few months ago,

    It seems a natural reaction to extreme power, extreme wealth, and extreme geographical isolation.

    Overall, as far as being the emperors of the world, and only super-power goes, they could have been worse.

    Although the power of their country, has created some negative personality characteristics, which is also the case of people of post Soviet countries.

    You can see a lot in Americans – this swing between thinking their country is the best in the world, and thinking it is the worst in the world.

    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism (‘world’s going to end tomorrow’). Again, like a lot of behaviour – it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Dmitry


    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism (‘world’s going to end tomorrow’). Again, like a lot of behaviour – it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.
     
    No, I think you don't quite get this because you're Russian, and for Russians today is probably the best time in their history regarding general living standards. The perception in the US (and also in large parts of Western Europe) is rather different imo, there's a real sense that our societies are going down, that today is worse than 30 or 40 years ago, and that tomorrow will be even worse, because of economic insecurity for the former middle class and because of ongoing demographic replacement that is destroying the national culture. This isn't just nostalgia, it's a justified sense of dread about the likely endpoint of current trends.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @LondonBob

  61. @German_reader
    @Dmitry


    By comparison, in Russia there is a large community
     
    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.

    Replies: @Talha, @Thorfinnsson

    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden.

    Hear, hear – but what are you guys going to do about the native converts, like this brother?
    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gy8x4m/german-far-right-politician-converts-to-islam

    That’s the more intriguing question.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Talha

    Most Westerners don't find Islam attractive at all, the number of converts is insignificant and will remain so. The increasing Islamic presence in Europe will probably sharpen anti-Islamic sentiment among native Europeans since Islam will be perceived as an aggressive religion of foreign invaders. The things one reads about Muslims in German internet forums today are already rather extreme (even by my standards!), this will probably get more pronounced.
    I mean, I understand that you believe that your religion is the true way for all of mankind, and that it would be beneficial for all of us to adopt Islam (otherwise we'll face divine punishment after all), but absent some miracle it's exceedingly unlikely that large numbers of native Europeans will convert to Islam (unless Muslims establish political control and establish the usual framework of stick and carrot incentives for conversions).

    Replies: @Talha

  62. German_reader says:
    @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    Oh, I think I do understand that many Americans hold rather demented jingoist views (actually read a fairly interesting book about those sentiments a few months ago,
     
    It seems a natural reaction to extreme power, extreme wealth, and extreme geographical isolation.

    Overall, as far as being the emperors of the world, and only super-power goes, they could have been worse.

    Although the power of their country, has created some negative personality characteristics, which is also the case of people of post Soviet countries.

    You can see a lot in Americans - this swing between thinking their country is the best in the world, and thinking it is the worst in the world.

    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism ('world's going to end tomorrow'). Again, like a lot of behaviour - it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.

    Replies: @German_reader

    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism (‘world’s going to end tomorrow’). Again, like a lot of behaviour – it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.

    No, I think you don’t quite get this because you’re Russian, and for Russians today is probably the best time in their history regarding general living standards. The perception in the US (and also in large parts of Western Europe) is rather different imo, there’s a real sense that our societies are going down, that today is worse than 30 or 40 years ago, and that tomorrow will be even worse, because of economic insecurity for the former middle class and because of ongoing demographic replacement that is destroying the national culture. This isn’t just nostalgia, it’s a justified sense of dread about the likely endpoint of current trends.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @German_reader


    No, I think you don’t quite get this because you’re Russian, and for Russians today is probably the best time in their history regarding general living standards. The perception in the US (and also in large parts of Western Europe) is rather different imo, there’s a real sense that our societies are going down, that today is worse than 30 or 40 years ago, and that tomorrow will be even worse, because of economic insecurity for the former middle class and because of ongoing demographic replacement that is destroying the national culture. This isn’t just nostalgia, it’s a justified sense of dread about the likely endpoint of current trends.
     
    Maybe if you are watch too much news about dodging bullets in the highschool class room, or MS-13 drivebys outside the 7-11.

    I was travelling in America last summer (we covered a huge area in the automobile). Overall standard of living seems pretty amazing, as does the peacefulness, safety, quiet and orderedness of American society.

    Some cities - like Los Angeles - are a bit dysfunctional, with a lot of homeless, but it's not representative of overall experience of this country.

    Maybe the boredom of prosperity and large houses will kill you.

    America is a very successful country, and that's the real reason they should oppose immigration (why would you want to change a place which has become so successful and powerful?)

    -

    If you talk about deterioration of civilization and high culture, this is of course true in America (over the last 50 years), and it is everywhere.


    -

    If you talk about the problems in Europe, of the mass Islamist immigration (for example, recently in Germany), then sure I see more serious future problems.

    Although the level of problems can be highly exaggerated, it doesn't mean it should not be fixed rapidly at the early stage (which it still is).

    I was on holiday in Paris in the last autumn, and it's there it's impossible not to see all the problems of post-colonial flooding, where they just turned some areas into a Middle Eastern and African style places. (I personally like Middle East a lot - at least for a holiday, but I doubt it's compatible with how Westerners want to live).
    , @LondonBob
    @German_reader

    Trump is a lame duck President and always has been. They pulled out all the stops and it has largely worked. I am not going criticise him, he achieved wildly beyond my expectations just getting where he got. The US is so corrupted I think the best outcome would be a ollapse in time to save Europe.

  63. @Dmitry
    @Thorfinnsson


    Depending on the source, Mohammedans are between 6-15% of the population of the Russian Federation. Pew claims 10%.

    Presently they’re only 1.1% of America’s population.

    Terrorist attacks by Mohammedans in America are becoming more common. Prior to 9-11 I can only think of two, though there were probably more.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”

    That’s why it’s important to stop Islam early. Otherwise you get frequent terrorist attacks like in Russia, France, and India.
     
    Many Muslims in Russia are highly secular and normal people. This was a kind of heritage of the success of the Soviet Union in secularization of populations. But there are indeed extremist elements, and even this small minority has a very devastating impact when it comes to frequency of terrorist attacks (which in many years do not result in huge casualties, but they do result in very significant costs in terms of additional security measures and national tensions).

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Many Muslims in Russia are highly secular and normal people. This was a kind of heritage of the success of the Soviet Union in secularization of populations. But there are indeed extremist elements, and even this small minority has a very devastating impact when it comes to frequency of terrorist attacks (which in many years do not result in huge casualties, but they do result in very significant costs in terms of additional security measures and national tensions).

    If I understand correctly until recently the problem was just with people from the North Caucasus.

    Some of the traditional Islamic populations groups in Russia like Tatars and Bashkirs strike me as more or less white.

    But the recent St. Petersburg attacks were carried about by Uzbeks, which is an alarming development.

    Our Islamic population was originally just upper class subcontinentals and Persians and were and are fine. But in more recent years the more undesirable sorts of Mohammedans from “shithole countries” such as Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. have been appearing.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Thorfinnsson



    But the recent St. Petersburg attacks were carried about by Uzbeks, which is an alarming development.
     
    The Central Asian republics were highly secularized, although maybe changing a little since the 1990s.

    And, to look briefly on the other side of the Caspian - there is Azerbaijan, the most secular Muslim country in the world.
  64. German_reader says:
    @Talha
    @German_reader


    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden.
     
    Hear, hear - but what are you guys going to do about the native converts, like this brother?
    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gy8x4m/german-far-right-politician-converts-to-islam

    That’s the more intriguing question.

    Peace.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Most Westerners don’t find Islam attractive at all, the number of converts is insignificant and will remain so. The increasing Islamic presence in Europe will probably sharpen anti-Islamic sentiment among native Europeans since Islam will be perceived as an aggressive religion of foreign invaders. The things one reads about Muslims in German internet forums today are already rather extreme (even by my standards!), this will probably get more pronounced.
    I mean, I understand that you believe that your religion is the true way for all of mankind, and that it would be beneficial for all of us to adopt Islam (otherwise we’ll face divine punishment after all), but absent some miracle it’s exceedingly unlikely that large numbers of native Europeans will convert to Islam (unless Muslims establish political control and establish the usual framework of stick and carrot incentives for conversions).

    • Replies: @Talha
    @German_reader

    Hear, hear - but that wasn’t my question; what do you plan to do with them?

    I mean, I know of native European converts that I keep up with on Twitter that basically are encouraging other converts to marry native (have big families) and consider themselves as the founders of the new surviving bloodlines in the post-collapse West. They are traditional, Sufi-loving and hate Salafi-Wahhabi ideology with a passion.

    The future belongs to those who bother showing up.

    Peace.

    Replies: @German_reader

  65. @German_reader
    @Dmitry


    By comparison, in Russia there is a large community
     
    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.

    Replies: @Talha, @Thorfinnsson

    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.

    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course.

    The same is true of France, which the H-man denounced as intent on “negrizing”. Orwell described French civilization as being devoid of “color prejudice”.

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany (which still had a problem with illegal Jewish immigrants from Poland as astonishing as that sounds).

    The case of Britain relates to my earlier response to Dmitry about “English hypocrisy”.

    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British…agreed.

    Mind-boggling.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city
     
    Never heard of that, I know such things happened in the 1960s, but in the 1930s?
    I know there were some Indian MPs in Britain even around 1900, but presumably those were upper-class gentlemen.
    My father actually is English (born in 1947), so I know a bit about life in Britain (Lancashire in his case) in the 1950s and early 1960s. The only foreigners of note in his immediate surroundings were Eastern Europeans, Poles and Latvians who had come to Britain after WW2 and generally hated the Soviets. And the general intellectual climate at his grammar school was incredibly right-wing and racist by today's standards (even if there were some leftists and do-gooders). He and his classmates received paramilitary training in some sort of RAF auxiliary programme and were told that in case of war with the Soviet Union they would be tasked with "neutralizing" British communists (which they probably would have interpreted as just putting them up against the next wall and shooting them). One teacher called Nigeria "Niggeria" in geography class. And the headmaster more or less told his pupils that the Irish in their bogs were racially inferior compared to the English (anti-Catholicism was also a prominent feature of the general culture)...not that I want to condone anti-Irish racism, but that kind of attitude tells me that the transformation of Britain in recent decades wasn't inevitable or just the result of some natural process.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    , @Tyrion 2
    @Thorfinnsson


    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British…agreed.
     
    I believe they imagined that only a handful of people would move here and they could easily deport anyone if not. Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.

    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course
     
    There was more immigration to Britain last year than every year between 1066 and 1950 combined, as calculated by David Goodhart.

    If you try to cut it there is always a special plea for every individual immigrant which is always taken by the spineless at face value e.g refugee, student, family, already here, key worker, cultural links etc.

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany
     
    And all of those countries only degenerated to that from a truly national immigration programme based on shared history, mutual responsibility, culture and dependency.

    These bonds are an order of magnitude more important than simple skin colour and will always be more important. Even while there is a lot of overlap.

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Thorfinnsson



    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany

     

    Aren't we forgetting a certain special country?

    Anyway, a random sample from the totally non-racist world of non-whites

    Japan accepted 28 refugees in 2016

    15-year-old girl crossing Indo-Bangla border shot dead by BSF
  66. @German_reader
    @Talha

    Most Westerners don't find Islam attractive at all, the number of converts is insignificant and will remain so. The increasing Islamic presence in Europe will probably sharpen anti-Islamic sentiment among native Europeans since Islam will be perceived as an aggressive religion of foreign invaders. The things one reads about Muslims in German internet forums today are already rather extreme (even by my standards!), this will probably get more pronounced.
    I mean, I understand that you believe that your religion is the true way for all of mankind, and that it would be beneficial for all of us to adopt Islam (otherwise we'll face divine punishment after all), but absent some miracle it's exceedingly unlikely that large numbers of native Europeans will convert to Islam (unless Muslims establish political control and establish the usual framework of stick and carrot incentives for conversions).

    Replies: @Talha

    Hear, hear – but that wasn’t my question; what do you plan to do with them?

    I mean, I know of native European converts that I keep up with on Twitter that basically are encouraging other converts to marry native (have big families) and consider themselves as the founders of the new surviving bloodlines in the post-collapse West. They are traditional, Sufi-loving and hate Salafi-Wahhabi ideology with a passion.

    The future belongs to those who bother showing up.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Talha


    but that wasn’t my question; what do you plan to do with them?
     
    I don't plan to do anything with them since I don't regard them as a serious threat and believe people with weird or delusional beliefs should be left alone as long as they don't act against the interests of mainstream society.
    And since I'm a generous fellow and actually quite moderate (a moderate Nazi some people would probably say), I wouldn't even be in favour of expelling long-established Turks and the like out of Germany (which would be hugely controversial anyway and at least somewhat unfair)...my main interest is in forcibly removing the invaders of recent years...and it doesn't even matter much whether they're Muslim or hold some other beliefs like Pentecostalism or just believe in juju, they need to go anyway.
    As for the people you know on Twitter I think you're engaging in wishful thinking. No matter how many children these converts have, they're a fringe phenomenon.

    Replies: @Talha

  67. @German_reader
    @Dmitry


    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism (‘world’s going to end tomorrow’). Again, like a lot of behaviour – it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.
     
    No, I think you don't quite get this because you're Russian, and for Russians today is probably the best time in their history regarding general living standards. The perception in the US (and also in large parts of Western Europe) is rather different imo, there's a real sense that our societies are going down, that today is worse than 30 or 40 years ago, and that tomorrow will be even worse, because of economic insecurity for the former middle class and because of ongoing demographic replacement that is destroying the national culture. This isn't just nostalgia, it's a justified sense of dread about the likely endpoint of current trends.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @LondonBob

    No, I think you don’t quite get this because you’re Russian, and for Russians today is probably the best time in their history regarding general living standards. The perception in the US (and also in large parts of Western Europe) is rather different imo, there’s a real sense that our societies are going down, that today is worse than 30 or 40 years ago, and that tomorrow will be even worse, because of economic insecurity for the former middle class and because of ongoing demographic replacement that is destroying the national culture. This isn’t just nostalgia, it’s a justified sense of dread about the likely endpoint of current trends.

    Maybe if you are watch too much news about dodging bullets in the highschool class room, or MS-13 drivebys outside the 7-11.

    I was travelling in America last summer (we covered a huge area in the automobile). Overall standard of living seems pretty amazing, as does the peacefulness, safety, quiet and orderedness of American society.

    Some cities – like Los Angeles – are a bit dysfunctional, with a lot of homeless, but it’s not representative of overall experience of this country.

    Maybe the boredom of prosperity and large houses will kill you.

    America is a very successful country, and that’s the real reason they should oppose immigration (why would you want to change a place which has become so successful and powerful?)

    If you talk about deterioration of civilization and high culture, this is of course true in America (over the last 50 years), and it is everywhere.

    If you talk about the problems in Europe, of the mass Islamist immigration (for example, recently in Germany), then sure I see more serious future problems.

    Although the level of problems can be highly exaggerated, it doesn’t mean it should not be fixed rapidly at the early stage (which it still is).

    I was on holiday in Paris in the last autumn, and it’s there it’s impossible not to see all the problems of post-colonial flooding, where they just turned some areas into a Middle Eastern and African style places. (I personally like Middle East a lot – at least for a holiday, but I doubt it’s compatible with how Westerners want to live).

  68. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    Mohammedans are our enemies and do not deserve “their” oil
     
    I dislike Muslims intensely and wish none of them had ever set foot in my country (and I want at least the recent arrivals expelled, with extreme force if necessary), but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast? You're separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren't a threat to you, what's the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world's Muslims? That's total madness and will end in disaster for everyone involved. Sorry, even if you're trolling, but these childish power fantasies and justifications of imperialism are one reason why the end of the alt-right won't be a big loss.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @Randal, @Thorfinnsson, @DFH, @Krastos the Gluemaker, @KenH

    but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast?

    Americans wouldn’t be if not for Jewish power over our foreign policy via AIPAC, heavily Jewish neoconservative think tanks and the Jewish owned lamestream media. White Americans are being propagandized and manipulated into hating and destroying Israel’s enemies in the region while at the same time diaspora Jewish leftists propagandize non-whites stateside into hating and destroying the white population who comprise most of the military fighting men and experts who Israel depends on to fight their wars of regional hegemony.

    I’m not sure how Israel plans to survive once the American military becomes a third world, transgendered rabble that can’t fight or shoot straight and who doesn’t give a flying F about Israel, anti-semitism or their alleged sufferings in WWII. But we’re told Ashkenazi Jews have super high IQ’s so I’m sure they’ve got it all figured out.

    The Germans have been so guilt tripped, emasculated and deballed over alleged misdeeds during WWII(by Jewish and American occupiers) that any fighting is considered tantamount to Nazism, so Jews won’t be able to rely on them to fight their battles since (a) they’ve lost the will to fight and (b) they’re too busy committing suicide by welcoming millions of Muslim executioners into their once proud nation.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @KenH


    I’m not sure how Israel plans to survive once the American military becomes a third world, transgendered rabble that can’t fight or shoot straight and who doesn’t give a flying F about Israel, anti-semitism or their alleged sufferings in WWII. But we’re told Ashkenazi Jews have super high IQ’s so I’m sure they’ve got it all figured out.

     

    If relations with America and Israel would ever break off (if it's happens, it is probably going to take at least another decade or two),

    Then Israel and Russia would build a strong relation.

    Currently Israel is a kind of extension of America, so the relation with Russia is very limited (what's the point in investing in an American property).

    But it's like the most attractive middle eastern girl at the 'prom'. They would not be single for long, if their American partner broke relationship.

    You can sit in a cafe in Tel Aviv (it's where I was visiting last month), and you are in a kind of idealized successful version of a Middle East. It's a much more pleasant and functional environment than most Middle East.

    Russia would kind of dream of having this territory. And selling weapons to it, which weapons would shortly be used and tested and advertised.

    You can see the view to Syria, which is as if were the only Middle Eastern 'beach resort' still on market (after Egypt left Soviet Union alliance for America, during later 1970s). And even Syria as kind of a ugly sister in comparison, is still worth some efforts.

    Replies: @KenH

  69. German_reader says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader



    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.
     
    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course.

    The same is true of France, which the H-man denounced as intent on "negrizing". Orwell described French civilization as being devoid of "color prejudice".

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany (which still had a problem with illegal Jewish immigrants from Poland as astonishing as that sounds).

    The case of Britain relates to my earlier response to Dmitry about "English hypocrisy".

    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British...agreed.

    Mind-boggling.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Tyrion 2, @Hippopotamusdrome

    There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city

    Never heard of that, I know such things happened in the 1960s, but in the 1930s?
    I know there were some Indian MPs in Britain even around 1900, but presumably those were upper-class gentlemen.
    My father actually is English (born in 1947), so I know a bit about life in Britain (Lancashire in his case) in the 1950s and early 1960s. The only foreigners of note in his immediate surroundings were Eastern Europeans, Poles and Latvians who had come to Britain after WW2 and generally hated the Soviets. And the general intellectual climate at his grammar school was incredibly right-wing and racist by today’s standards (even if there were some leftists and do-gooders). He and his classmates received paramilitary training in some sort of RAF auxiliary programme and were told that in case of war with the Soviet Union they would be tasked with “neutralizing” British communists (which they probably would have interpreted as just putting them up against the next wall and shooting them). One teacher called Nigeria “Niggeria” in geography class. And the headmaster more or less told his pupils that the Irish in their bogs were racially inferior compared to the English (anti-Catholicism was also a prominent feature of the general culture)…not that I want to condone anti-Irish racism, but that kind of attitude tells me that the transformation of Britain in recent decades wasn’t inevitable or just the result of some natural process.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    That school... Was it Lancaster Royal Grammar School by any chance?

    Replies: @German_reader

  70. @Anonymous
    Lol at the Trumptards in this thread. I knew Trump was a bullshitter from the start and was not swayed by his lies. In retrospect it is very clear the kind of guy Trump is. He has no ideology, he just wants to be famous and loved and will sell out his base and staff if it advances HIS cause.

    Alt Righters are like battered wives. Always crawling back to Trump and thinking they can change him. Even the spin now a days is that Trump is good because he presages what is to come. Actually, Trump is a disaster and the Dems will use Trump to push 100% the opposite direction and go full SJW on us. The true candidate that would have made a difference was none other than Ton Paul.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @Anon, @Johnny Smoggins

    The alt right isn’t Trump and Trump isn’t the alt right. It existed before him and it will exist after him. I see it hardening and radicalizing. There’s no room anymore for a Milo or Cernovich.

    Trump was useful to beat Hillary but that was about it. Many of us wrote him off upon learning that his precious princess daughter married a Jew and converted.

    There was a lot of naïve innocence, particularly from Americans, on the alt right that Trump’s presidency was the beginning of a turnaround. It never was. It can’t be repeated enough; we’re not voting our way out of this.

  71. German_reader says:
    @Talha
    @German_reader

    Hear, hear - but that wasn’t my question; what do you plan to do with them?

    I mean, I know of native European converts that I keep up with on Twitter that basically are encouraging other converts to marry native (have big families) and consider themselves as the founders of the new surviving bloodlines in the post-collapse West. They are traditional, Sufi-loving and hate Salafi-Wahhabi ideology with a passion.

    The future belongs to those who bother showing up.

    Peace.

    Replies: @German_reader

    but that wasn’t my question; what do you plan to do with them?

    I don’t plan to do anything with them since I don’t regard them as a serious threat and believe people with weird or delusional beliefs should be left alone as long as they don’t act against the interests of mainstream society.
    And since I’m a generous fellow and actually quite moderate (a moderate Nazi some people would probably say), I wouldn’t even be in favour of expelling long-established Turks and the like out of Germany (which would be hugely controversial anyway and at least somewhat unfair)…my main interest is in forcibly removing the invaders of recent years…and it doesn’t even matter much whether they’re Muslim or hold some other beliefs like Pentecostalism or just believe in juju, they need to go anyway.
    As for the people you know on Twitter I think you’re engaging in wishful thinking. No matter how many children these converts have, they’re a fringe phenomenon.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @German_reader

    Seem like fairly reasonable positions to me - thanks.

    Peace.

  72. @German_reader
    @Talha


    but that wasn’t my question; what do you plan to do with them?
     
    I don't plan to do anything with them since I don't regard them as a serious threat and believe people with weird or delusional beliefs should be left alone as long as they don't act against the interests of mainstream society.
    And since I'm a generous fellow and actually quite moderate (a moderate Nazi some people would probably say), I wouldn't even be in favour of expelling long-established Turks and the like out of Germany (which would be hugely controversial anyway and at least somewhat unfair)...my main interest is in forcibly removing the invaders of recent years...and it doesn't even matter much whether they're Muslim or hold some other beliefs like Pentecostalism or just believe in juju, they need to go anyway.
    As for the people you know on Twitter I think you're engaging in wishful thinking. No matter how many children these converts have, they're a fringe phenomenon.

    Replies: @Talha

    Seem like fairly reasonable positions to me – thanks.

    Peace.

  73. @Randal
    @Lemurmaniac


    we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society
     
    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends. The old Conservative Party had plenty like that in this country in the mid-late C20th, but said party has since become almost universally populated by true believers in leftist antiracist etc dogmas. I suspect your Republican Party is much the same.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @dfordoom

    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends.

    What’s needed is a revolutionary vanguard, well-disciplined but fanatical, and utterly ruthless and unscrupulous. They need to be absolutely dedicated to the revolution. And, as you say, they must be prepared to lie and cheat when necessary.

    In the early to mid-20th century communism had no difficulty in finding such people so there’s no reason why a different kind of political movement should not be able to find the necessary revolutionary cadres. But if you want a successful revolution you need a revolutionary movement, one that seems to offer a program so appealing that people are prepared to endure persecution and even risk death in order to bring it about.

    I’m not talking about violent revolution, which even if desirable (which it isn’t) is doomed to failure, but even a non-violent revolution is going to be opposed by the existing elites with savage and brutal attempts at repression.

    Conservatism has been a failure because it just doesn’t attract zealots. It attracts reasonable moderate people and reasonable moderate people don’t lead successful revolutions.

    If you want to win you need a religious dedication among the leaders and fanatical zeal among the foot-soldiers.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom

    My personal take is that this kind of a movement has to divorce itself from assuming anything about the power structure other than it is hostile. Getting into it is poisonous. I would suggest concentrating at the grass roots level to get those very dedicated followers until they are at a critical mass where things can organically change.

    A good model is Turkey. The government was staunchly anti-religious for decades. The power structure was not only openly hostile to religion but tried to control the theological component of society. The fact that it was pushed back after nearly 80 years or so of effort should show something. Play the long term game, see the chess board 25 moves later and don’t compromise on principles.

    The dedication in resistance needs to be equal or superior in devotion from the other side. A brother was recently telling us that when the Turks banned public hijab and were ruthless in enforcing it, his grandmother was part of an effort to dig tunnels so Muslim women could get to where they needed.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  74. @KenH
    @German_reader


    but what is it with Americans and their militant fixation on the Mideast?
     
    Americans wouldn't be if not for Jewish power over our foreign policy via AIPAC, heavily Jewish neoconservative think tanks and the Jewish owned lamestream media. White Americans are being propagandized and manipulated into hating and destroying Israel's enemies in the region while at the same time diaspora Jewish leftists propagandize non-whites stateside into hating and destroying the white population who comprise most of the military fighting men and experts who Israel depends on to fight their wars of regional hegemony.

    I'm not sure how Israel plans to survive once the American military becomes a third world, transgendered rabble that can't fight or shoot straight and who doesn't give a flying F about Israel, anti-semitism or their alleged sufferings in WWII. But we're told Ashkenazi Jews have super high IQ's so I'm sure they've got it all figured out.

    The Germans have been so guilt tripped, emasculated and deballed over alleged misdeeds during WWII(by Jewish and American occupiers) that any fighting is considered tantamount to Nazism, so Jews won't be able to rely on them to fight their battles since (a) they've lost the will to fight and (b) they're too busy committing suicide by welcoming millions of Muslim executioners into their once proud nation.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    I’m not sure how Israel plans to survive once the American military becomes a third world, transgendered rabble that can’t fight or shoot straight and who doesn’t give a flying F about Israel, anti-semitism or their alleged sufferings in WWII. But we’re told Ashkenazi Jews have super high IQ’s so I’m sure they’ve got it all figured out.

    If relations with America and Israel would ever break off (if it’s happens, it is probably going to take at least another decade or two),

    Then Israel and Russia would build a strong relation.

    Currently Israel is a kind of extension of America, so the relation with Russia is very limited (what’s the point in investing in an American property).

    But it’s like the most attractive middle eastern girl at the ‘prom’. They would not be single for long, if their American partner broke relationship.

    You can sit in a cafe in Tel Aviv (it’s where I was visiting last month), and you are in a kind of idealized successful version of a Middle East. It’s a much more pleasant and functional environment than most Middle East.

    Russia would kind of dream of having this territory. And selling weapons to it, which weapons would shortly be used and tested and advertised.

    You can see the view to Syria, which is as if were the only Middle Eastern ‘beach resort’ still on market (after Egypt left Soviet Union alliance for America, during later 1970s). And even Syria as kind of a ugly sister in comparison, is still worth some efforts.

    • Replies: @KenH
    @Dmitry

    There's nothing stopping Israel from reaching out to Russia now. Israel is more like the plain Jane dating the popular high school quarterback. The plain Jane's popularity and respect comes from her relationship with the star QB. So it is with Israel and the U.S. with the latter being the star quarterback.

    But once the star QB breaks up with plain Jane she she loses friends and prestige and becomes average again. The same thing would happen with Israel if we adopted a neutral stance towards her and kept her at an arm's length as we should. Israel has little to offer anyone other than grief and China and Russia would demand a more quid pro quo arrangement than the U.S. who only gives while Israel takes.

    Since China is not Christian they are more clear eyed and pragmatic about the world around them and don't put Jews on a pedestal or worship them like the average Christian. They wouldn't be intimidated or cowed by charges of anti-Semitism.

    Israel is a fundamentally parasitic state. It is always in a tenuous position being the only non-Muslim state in the region and requires a financial and military benefactor for survival. For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually? Not long at all.

    Replies: @Greasy William

  75. @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal



    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran’s elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.
     
    There was no pattern of permanent war in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War.

    Interventions yes, but that's what a superpower does during the Cold War.

    You'll note that President Reagan prudently abandoned the mission in the Lebanon after the Beirut bombing.

    The neocohens had considerably less power in the Cold War and were not always able to push pro-Israeli policies.

    President Eisenhower, for instance, torpedoed the Suez Affair.

    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, President George HW Bush attempted to put an end to Israel's occupation with the Madrid Conference. His Secretary of State James Baker even made this remark:


    Fuck the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.
     
    The complete domination of American foreign policy by the Zionist agenda emerged only in this century.

    I'm also skeptical on oil. Obviously America had an interest in the region owing to oil (which our NATO allies were much more dependent on than us), but then why did we permit the First Energy Crisis to happen?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @utu

    President Eisenhower, for instance, torpedoed the Suez Affair.

    That was mostly because the U.S. was outraged that the British and the French thought they had the right to conduct their own foreign policy.

  76. @dfordoom
    @Randal


    We need people who can lie about their views when necessary to pass the leftist inquisitions that gatekeep most public positions these days, but can be relied upon to act when it counts in ways that serve nationalist and traditionalist ends.
     
    What's needed is a revolutionary vanguard, well-disciplined but fanatical, and utterly ruthless and unscrupulous. They need to be absolutely dedicated to the revolution. And, as you say, they must be prepared to lie and cheat when necessary.

    In the early to mid-20th century communism had no difficulty in finding such people so there's no reason why a different kind of political movement should not be able to find the necessary revolutionary cadres. But if you want a successful revolution you need a revolutionary movement, one that seems to offer a program so appealing that people are prepared to endure persecution and even risk death in order to bring it about.

    I'm not talking about violent revolution, which even if desirable (which it isn't) is doomed to failure, but even a non-violent revolution is going to be opposed by the existing elites with savage and brutal attempts at repression.

    Conservatism has been a failure because it just doesn't attract zealots. It attracts reasonable moderate people and reasonable moderate people don't lead successful revolutions.

    If you want to win you need a religious dedication among the leaders and fanatical zeal among the foot-soldiers.

    Replies: @Talha

    My personal take is that this kind of a movement has to divorce itself from assuming anything about the power structure other than it is hostile. Getting into it is poisonous. I would suggest concentrating at the grass roots level to get those very dedicated followers until they are at a critical mass where things can organically change.

    A good model is Turkey. The government was staunchly anti-religious for decades. The power structure was not only openly hostile to religion but tried to control the theological component of society. The fact that it was pushed back after nearly 80 years or so of effort should show something. Play the long term game, see the chess board 25 moves later and don’t compromise on principles.

    The dedication in resistance needs to be equal or superior in devotion from the other side. A brother was recently telling us that when the Turks banned public hijab and were ruthless in enforcing it, his grandmother was part of an effort to dig tunnels so Muslim women could get to where they needed.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    My personal take is that this kind of a movement has to divorce itself from assuming anything about the power structure other than it is hostile. Getting into it is poisonous.
     
    You're probably right. Even if you infiltrate the power structure with the best of intentions there's a danger you'll be corrupted by it.

    Play the long term game, see the chess board 25 moves later and don’t compromise on principles.
     
    One of the many flaws of democracy is that it discourages long-term political thinking. The short term is tomorrow, the medium term is next week and the long term is the next election. The idea of having a strategy for gaining power in 20 years or 30 years is just unimaginable, but that didn't bother people like Lenin or Mao.
  77. @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    This is bullshit. We are instead propagandized that Islamophobia is wrong.
     
    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.

    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population - less than the number of jews according to Pew.

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.


    Nazarian also noted that Islamophobia cannot effectively be separated from anti-Semitism.
     
    An ADL representative is a liar, and there's little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it's because they've let something slip out that's against their own interests.

    In this case, you've quoted an ADL liar claiming that "islamophobia is associated with antisemitism ". It's hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.

    Replies: @Thorfinnsson, @dfordoom

    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.

    You have to remember that there are Good Muslims and Bad Muslims. Good Muslims are the ones who live in western countries. They’re good because (thanks to Magic Dirt) they’ll eventually learn to embrace the core values of western culture (atheism, consumerism, pornography, homosexuality, celebrity-worship, slut-worship, etc).

    The Bad Muslims are the ones who live in Muslim countries. They’re bad because they reject the core values of western culture (see above) and because they’re inconvenient for Israel. The only way to deal with them is to bomb them.

  78. @Krastos the Gluemaker
    @German_reader

    You're a commenter who is worth responding to a good deal of the time and I've seen a lot of discussion like this lately, but it's worth pointing out:

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story - the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don't just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys. The rest of the justification for diplomacy or economics or realpolitik is just post-hoc tacked onto that underlying scaffold.

    It's not only the alt-right espousing these views at all, nor the neo-cons, nor anything like that. It's really not, and non-Americans often just don't understand. Everyone should have learned this from Vietnam, then especially the Iraq War granting the age of individuals, but I don't think non-US citizens are learning it from media/books etc because it doesn't quite grok the vivid reality.

    Besides religion or race or other identity like that, though those things can contribute, the jingoist deeply ingrained into the American psyche, really fascinating topic to explore and certainly not fully understood. It's why one can sometimes still tell or respect the "non-normies" with weird contrarian urges even when they are hugely wrong about stuff as at least they are sometimes not part of the groupthink.

    While I think Christian values are a part of it it's not just that, it's not just propaganda either despite how Hollywood/comic book movies etc work. It's also raw ignorance and lived experience for the typical American, who is monolingual, doesn't travel, etc.

    On the theme of Americans always assuming their military is 100% the shining knight good guys, many Americans have litearlly barely ever heard of only World War II, the Civil War, and American Revolution, (seriously, American school history classes often have situations where "we don't teach the Vietnam War or anything more modern than that" And of course actual survey data shows just how little groups like urban African Americans know). No nuance in anything.

    As for on topicness: The alt-right isn't dead so much as it didn't exist in any numbers in the first place.

    Karlin I've found often has a blinkered view of the USA, being familiar with what, a couple coastal enclaves, and not informed about US political science realities. For instance, still very unlikely the Dems take the Senate again this year, keep in mind the neoliberal MSM of course says things in its own agenda's interests.

    So the problem is mistaking Internet trolling for the real world. The modal Trump voter was a "cuckservative" elderly creationist; same as Republican voters for decades, really. That a few hundred neoNazi marchers had one march, for all the noise the MSM makes, is not actually representative of the country.

    Just how not even 1% of the population are serious libertarians and only that because of drug addicts who want more legal drugs, likewise the weird mish-mash of neoNazis and whoever claimed to be alt-right simply didn't have any numbers, never even 1% of voters. It's a mistake, though somewhat forgiveable, and the mirror image of neoliberals who think there are 50 million coal miners coming out of the woodwork, to believe that what you read on the Internet or saw at one coastal city think tank conference represents American politics or the electorate or whatever.

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly "English speaking US alt-right folks" were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it's in for a slow decline (except if there's a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @German_reader, @utu, @dfordoom

    I think you got it. Perhaps it might be even worse in terms of jingoism and no nuance.

  79. The alt is always trivial. Few people ever seek to marginalize themselves when a society is not in full collapse. The right; however, is actually dying in that it has no elite support and few bougousie who would dare grant it even token funding. Wild eyed proles may seethe at the fact they are being marginalized and replaced, but proles without any leaders or funding are just a herd of cats. The neolib republicans are effectively putting the kibosh on the American right as a political entity. The future of US politics is two flavors of Progressivism until the current oligarchs get rolled up by China as their global economic failures and lack of competent human capital become impossible obstacles.

  80. @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal



    No, the Gulf War was just another step along a path begun decades before. Oil started it and Israel finished it.

    Long before the Gulf War there was a lengthy history of US intervention in the ME: interference in the Iran-Iraq war, the Lebanese intervention that resulted in the Beirut bombings, support for Israel in its wars, the overthrow of Iran’s elected government (and similar interference in politics at various times in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, among other places), support for the Saudi and other sunni kleptocrats, just to name the more notorious interventions.
     
    There was no pattern of permanent war in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War.

    Interventions yes, but that's what a superpower does during the Cold War.

    You'll note that President Reagan prudently abandoned the mission in the Lebanon after the Beirut bombing.

    The neocohens had considerably less power in the Cold War and were not always able to push pro-Israeli policies.

    President Eisenhower, for instance, torpedoed the Suez Affair.

    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, President George HW Bush attempted to put an end to Israel's occupation with the Madrid Conference. His Secretary of State James Baker even made this remark:


    Fuck the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.
     
    The complete domination of American foreign policy by the Zionist agenda emerged only in this century.

    I'm also skeptical on oil. Obviously America had an interest in the region owing to oil (which our NATO allies were much more dependent on than us), but then why did we permit the First Energy Crisis to happen?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @utu

    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, President George HW Bush attempted to put an end to Israel’s occupation with the Madrid Conference.

    He thought that after the Desert Storm with 90% support he could make a move on Israel. He quickly backed off which was his mistake because if he went public he would get support from Americans. Thereafter he knew he will not be permitted to be reelected so basically he threw a towel and Clinton won. The economy thing “it’s the economy stupid” was virtually manufactured by media. Since his standoff with Yitzhak Shamir NYT’s Friedman and Safire were on his case twice a week.

  81. Meet Toni Lane Casserly :

    She is a pretty white girl who is extremely keen on abolishing borders, and allowing unlimited Muslims and Africans to come to the West. She really craves men of these races.

    She is using blockchain to supercede the restrictions nation-states impose, and is getting quite a platform.

    I don’t approve of this either, but it isn’t my primary pet cause the way it is for WNs.

    But what is you WN wiggers gonna do? One such woman has more impact than 1,000,000 WNs.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Thomm


    But what is you WN wiggers gonna do? One such woman has more impact than 1,000,000 WNs.
     
    Don't be ridiculous. This woman has no impact whatsoever.

    Do you seriously think if some gentile billionaire started handing out money to "nonprofits" to protest the genocide in South Africa there would be no takers?

    Replies: @Thomm

  82. AK, what do you think about Jordan Peterson (ie his oeuvre)?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @ussr andy

    I don't follow him.

    I actually first heard of him remarkably late, at spandrell's blog: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/the-money-is-in-religion/

    I assume he does good work, but I'm not too interested for obv reasons (1. probably won't learn much from him; 2. not a fan of the video format).

    Replies: @ussr andy

  83. @German_reader
    @Thorfinnsson


    There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city
     
    Never heard of that, I know such things happened in the 1960s, but in the 1930s?
    I know there were some Indian MPs in Britain even around 1900, but presumably those were upper-class gentlemen.
    My father actually is English (born in 1947), so I know a bit about life in Britain (Lancashire in his case) in the 1950s and early 1960s. The only foreigners of note in his immediate surroundings were Eastern Europeans, Poles and Latvians who had come to Britain after WW2 and generally hated the Soviets. And the general intellectual climate at his grammar school was incredibly right-wing and racist by today's standards (even if there were some leftists and do-gooders). He and his classmates received paramilitary training in some sort of RAF auxiliary programme and were told that in case of war with the Soviet Union they would be tasked with "neutralizing" British communists (which they probably would have interpreted as just putting them up against the next wall and shooting them). One teacher called Nigeria "Niggeria" in geography class. And the headmaster more or less told his pupils that the Irish in their bogs were racially inferior compared to the English (anti-Catholicism was also a prominent feature of the general culture)...not that I want to condone anti-Irish racism, but that kind of attitude tells me that the transformation of Britain in recent decades wasn't inevitable or just the result of some natural process.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    That school… Was it Lancaster Royal Grammar School by any chance?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    No, the school my father went to doesn't exist anymore, it was closed down in the late 1960s when they started introducing comprehensives. One of the many crimes of the evil Labour party. I take it you went to Lancaster Royal Grammar School when you lived in the UK?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  84. @Talha
    @dfordoom

    My personal take is that this kind of a movement has to divorce itself from assuming anything about the power structure other than it is hostile. Getting into it is poisonous. I would suggest concentrating at the grass roots level to get those very dedicated followers until they are at a critical mass where things can organically change.

    A good model is Turkey. The government was staunchly anti-religious for decades. The power structure was not only openly hostile to religion but tried to control the theological component of society. The fact that it was pushed back after nearly 80 years or so of effort should show something. Play the long term game, see the chess board 25 moves later and don’t compromise on principles.

    The dedication in resistance needs to be equal or superior in devotion from the other side. A brother was recently telling us that when the Turks banned public hijab and were ruthless in enforcing it, his grandmother was part of an effort to dig tunnels so Muslim women could get to where they needed.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    My personal take is that this kind of a movement has to divorce itself from assuming anything about the power structure other than it is hostile. Getting into it is poisonous.

    You’re probably right. Even if you infiltrate the power structure with the best of intentions there’s a danger you’ll be corrupted by it.

    Play the long term game, see the chess board 25 moves later and don’t compromise on principles.

    One of the many flaws of democracy is that it discourages long-term political thinking. The short term is tomorrow, the medium term is next week and the long term is the next election. The idea of having a strategy for gaining power in 20 years or 30 years is just unimaginable, but that didn’t bother people like Lenin or Mao.

  85. @Krastos the Gluemaker
    @German_reader

    You're a commenter who is worth responding to a good deal of the time and I've seen a lot of discussion like this lately, but it's worth pointing out:

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story - the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don't just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys. The rest of the justification for diplomacy or economics or realpolitik is just post-hoc tacked onto that underlying scaffold.

    It's not only the alt-right espousing these views at all, nor the neo-cons, nor anything like that. It's really not, and non-Americans often just don't understand. Everyone should have learned this from Vietnam, then especially the Iraq War granting the age of individuals, but I don't think non-US citizens are learning it from media/books etc because it doesn't quite grok the vivid reality.

    Besides religion or race or other identity like that, though those things can contribute, the jingoist deeply ingrained into the American psyche, really fascinating topic to explore and certainly not fully understood. It's why one can sometimes still tell or respect the "non-normies" with weird contrarian urges even when they are hugely wrong about stuff as at least they are sometimes not part of the groupthink.

    While I think Christian values are a part of it it's not just that, it's not just propaganda either despite how Hollywood/comic book movies etc work. It's also raw ignorance and lived experience for the typical American, who is monolingual, doesn't travel, etc.

    On the theme of Americans always assuming their military is 100% the shining knight good guys, many Americans have litearlly barely ever heard of only World War II, the Civil War, and American Revolution, (seriously, American school history classes often have situations where "we don't teach the Vietnam War or anything more modern than that" And of course actual survey data shows just how little groups like urban African Americans know). No nuance in anything.

    As for on topicness: The alt-right isn't dead so much as it didn't exist in any numbers in the first place.

    Karlin I've found often has a blinkered view of the USA, being familiar with what, a couple coastal enclaves, and not informed about US political science realities. For instance, still very unlikely the Dems take the Senate again this year, keep in mind the neoliberal MSM of course says things in its own agenda's interests.

    So the problem is mistaking Internet trolling for the real world. The modal Trump voter was a "cuckservative" elderly creationist; same as Republican voters for decades, really. That a few hundred neoNazi marchers had one march, for all the noise the MSM makes, is not actually representative of the country.

    Just how not even 1% of the population are serious libertarians and only that because of drug addicts who want more legal drugs, likewise the weird mish-mash of neoNazis and whoever claimed to be alt-right simply didn't have any numbers, never even 1% of voters. It's a mistake, though somewhat forgiveable, and the mirror image of neoliberals who think there are 50 million coal miners coming out of the woodwork, to believe that what you read on the Internet or saw at one coastal city think tank conference represents American politics or the electorate or whatever.

    The alt-right never was anything more than some Internet weirdos and Nazis, ironically a huge proportion of supposedly "English speaking US alt-right folks" were various Euros and foreigners in the first place, and remember, Hillary lost the 2016 election rather than anybody doing anything to win it. The Republican party itself has the same constituencies as always and that does mean it's in for a slow decline (except if there's a sudden collapse) over time as they are not going to win over changing US demographics.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @German_reader, @utu, @dfordoom

    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story – the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don’t just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys.

    And that jingoism has been there almost from the beginning. The US was already an imperialist power at least as early as the 1840s.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the bizarre nature of American evangelical Christianity? Evangelicals seem to have a certain amount of that Chosen People arrogance, and a missionary zeal. Or maybe it’s the crazy Enlightenment ideas that infected the Founding Fathers.

    Or maybe it’s just the complete lack of an actual culture or an actual identity, so that Americans can only feel a sense of Americanism by invading other countries.

    • Replies: @utu
    @dfordoom


    it’s the crazy Enlightenment ideas that infected the Founding Fathers
     
    I think it was something more specific than Enlightenment. Already before Revolution they were talking about a continental empire from ocean to ocean including the Caribbean basin and Canada was to be absorbed as well which they tried in 1812.

    America always was a bigger project than just a country for its people. Its people really do not matter. Any people will do. Just like props you can bring in and use. They were sucking people from all over by any means: slavery, servitude, immigrants.

    Just as well it is possible that America was a masonic project from day one to bring the new world order and Americans are its tools but welfare of Americans is not its objective.

    As far as the pride and hubris of ordinary Americans when it came to talking about being better than Europeans already Tocqueville wrote about how touchy they were to any hint of criticism when not being praised.
  86. @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    That school... Was it Lancaster Royal Grammar School by any chance?

    Replies: @German_reader

    No, the school my father went to doesn’t exist anymore, it was closed down in the late 1960s when they started introducing comprehensives. One of the many crimes of the evil Labour party. I take it you went to Lancaster Royal Grammar School when you lived in the UK?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    Yes.

    On reflection, I saw the disintegration of the "old ways" first hand. The technology teacher made Jew jokes - but he was an ancient guy close to retirement. Young teachers had strong anti-racism bend - one project I dimly recall having to do was on Islam as a religion of peace. Only exception in the latter demographic was an English teacher - but he was an immigrant from South Africa.

    The RAF/cadet stuff was optional. I did it for a year, but in the end weekly parades were too much bother for the chance to fly twice a year. It did have a shooting range though which was pretty cool and there was no requirement to participate in stupid parades to use it.

    Replies: @German_reader

  87. @dfordoom
    @Krastos the Gluemaker


    American jingoism, for a huge proportion of the population, and especially the normies, maybe like 2/3 of them is as strong as some science fiction story – the Tyranids or Orks or whatever analogy is appropriate. American normies don’t just view their side and the military as always being the good guys; everyone else might as well not be human, not just the bad guys.
     
    And that jingoism has been there almost from the beginning. The US was already an imperialist power at least as early as the 1840s.

    Perhaps it has something to do with the bizarre nature of American evangelical Christianity? Evangelicals seem to have a certain amount of that Chosen People arrogance, and a missionary zeal. Or maybe it's the crazy Enlightenment ideas that infected the Founding Fathers.

    Or maybe it's just the complete lack of an actual culture or an actual identity, so that Americans can only feel a sense of Americanism by invading other countries.

    Replies: @utu

    it’s the crazy Enlightenment ideas that infected the Founding Fathers

    I think it was something more specific than Enlightenment. Already before Revolution they were talking about a continental empire from ocean to ocean including the Caribbean basin and Canada was to be absorbed as well which they tried in 1812.

    America always was a bigger project than just a country for its people. Its people really do not matter. Any people will do. Just like props you can bring in and use. They were sucking people from all over by any means: slavery, servitude, immigrants.

    Just as well it is possible that America was a masonic project from day one to bring the new world order and Americans are its tools but welfare of Americans is not its objective.

    As far as the pride and hubris of ordinary Americans when it came to talking about being better than Europeans already Tocqueville wrote about how touchy they were to any hint of criticism when not being praised.

  88. @ussr andy
    AK, what do you think about Jordan Peterson (ie his oeuvre)?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I don’t follow him.

    I actually first heard of him remarkably late, at spandrell’s blog: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/the-money-is-in-religion/

    I assume he does good work, but I’m not too interested for obv reasons (1. probably won’t learn much from him; 2. not a fan of the video format).

    • Replies: @ussr andy
    @Anatoly Karlin

    thanks. one thing that irritates me is the 50 million killed by Stalin (personally), but I guess it's just in Westerners' DNA (also, singling out Stalin when Lenin was just as bad, only for not quite as long), but I like the anti-SJW stuff and the self-help stuff

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  89. @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    No, the school my father went to doesn't exist anymore, it was closed down in the late 1960s when they started introducing comprehensives. One of the many crimes of the evil Labour party. I take it you went to Lancaster Royal Grammar School when you lived in the UK?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Yes.

    On reflection, I saw the disintegration of the “old ways” first hand. The technology teacher made Jew jokes – but he was an ancient guy close to retirement. Young teachers had strong anti-racism bend – one project I dimly recall having to do was on Islam as a religion of peace. Only exception in the latter demographic was an English teacher – but he was an immigrant from South Africa.

    The RAF/cadet stuff was optional. I did it for a year, but in the end weekly parades were too much bother for the chance to fly twice a year. It did have a shooting range though which was pretty cool and there was no requirement to participate in stupid parades to use it.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Interesting that elements of something like my father had experienced in his youth existed even in the late 1990s, I wouldn't have thought so. But I guess this once again underlines how transformative the last 25-30 years have been througout the West, in a mostly negative way.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  90. @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    Yes.

    On reflection, I saw the disintegration of the "old ways" first hand. The technology teacher made Jew jokes - but he was an ancient guy close to retirement. Young teachers had strong anti-racism bend - one project I dimly recall having to do was on Islam as a religion of peace. Only exception in the latter demographic was an English teacher - but he was an immigrant from South Africa.

    The RAF/cadet stuff was optional. I did it for a year, but in the end weekly parades were too much bother for the chance to fly twice a year. It did have a shooting range though which was pretty cool and there was no requirement to participate in stupid parades to use it.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Interesting that elements of something like my father had experienced in his youth existed even in the late 1990s, I wouldn’t have thought so. But I guess this once again underlines how transformative the last 25-30 years have been througout the West, in a mostly negative way.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    Another example of the breakdown of traditional British mores, from a close acquaintance.

    Large percentage of British firemen (and I think siloviks in general) belong to the Freemasons - or used to, I doubt that is still the case today. While there are a great many elements of mutual help within it, contrary to propaganda, Freemasons are a traditionalist order that doesn't seek to undermine society; instead, to the extent they have political leanings, it's conservative-patriotic. At society dinners middle-aged firemen would drink toasts to the health of the Queen with no irony in the 1990s. But that was dwindled away by the early 2000s. I find it impossible to imagine my cohort doing that.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Philip Owen

  91. @Anatoly Karlin
    @ussr andy

    I don't follow him.

    I actually first heard of him remarkably late, at spandrell's blog: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/the-money-is-in-religion/

    I assume he does good work, but I'm not too interested for obv reasons (1. probably won't learn much from him; 2. not a fan of the video format).

    Replies: @ussr andy

    thanks. one thing that irritates me is the 50 million killed by Stalin (personally), but I guess it’s just in Westerners’ DNA (also, singling out Stalin when Lenin was just as bad, only for not quite as long), but I like the anti-SJW stuff and the self-help stuff

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @ussr andy

    Timothy Snyder compared Lenin and Stalin, and came up with a lower number for Stalin, but not by a vast margin. (Though the number of directly killed as opposed to excess deaths was vastly lower.) Interestingly, he didn’t consider those killed before 1924, even though Stalin was part of the same regime of which his system was a continuation. If Hitler died in early 1942, and Göring went on to kill exactly the same number of people as Hitler did, then he would be a worse mass murderer than Hitler. But would it make sense to separate the two?

  92. 1. Re strange and/or morally questionable people having prominent roles in the Alt Right: Immigration restrictionism, anti feminism and race realism are 100% taboo subjects. As a result, any movement that makes them their centerpiece is always going to attract eccentric and unseemly characters because those are precisely the type of people who will be immune to brain washing and not be deterred by social pressure.

    2. Trump betrayed nothing by signing the omnibus. It was a bad bill but he had to sign it or he would have been dragged into a shutdown fight that he had no chance of winning. The Congressional GOP did betray their voters but what else is new? We already knew what we were dealing with in Ryan and McConnell and we did get a big increase in defense spending which we sorely needed. We needed the defense spending because there are a ton of defense hawks in the GOP who are angry about how defense spending has been frozen for years and were liable to make a deal with Pelosi to pass the Dream Act in exchange for more DoD money.

    3. Re our current situation and medium/long term prognosis: In September 1941, it looked like the Nazis were winning the war. But actually, Germany had already lost if one examined the situation more closely.

    While I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say that we’ve already won, but our situation is much better than it appears on the surface. Consider:
    A. Trump’s popularity is exactly where it was 2 1/2 months ago, and is about 2 points higher than it was for most of the latter part of 2017: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    B. The Democrats lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot is currently down to 5.7: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

    Historically, the Generic Ballot has wildly overestimated Democrat performance in the House popular vote. Regardless, it is estimated that the Democrats need to win the House popular vote by 8 points to take back the House, and they only won it by 7 in 2008 when they had Obama on the ticket. I just don’t see it happening.

    C. As for the way the Dems are clobbering the GOP in special elections, all that shows is that the Dems are super motivated and that Republicans are not and that the Dems can pull off upsets when they run great candidates against horrible GOP candidates.

    In AL, the Dems had a great candidate in Doug Jones against a creepy Evangelical weirdo who was already extremely unpopular. Then came a coordinated hit job from the Democrats, the media and the GOPe to tarnish Roy Moore as a rapist (he’s actually just a creep) and that was enough to allow Jones to squeak out the win.

    In PA-18, the Dems ran a perfect candidate against an anti union Repub in a rust belt district. And the GOP guy ran on tax cuts instead of immigration which is definitely was a horrible move in such a district. But that’s the GOP for you.

    Bottom line: don’t read too much into special elections and off year elections. There has been only one election since Nov 2016 that has had midterm level turnout and that was GA-06. And there the Republican actually over preformed.

    D. The American economy is booming and the Dems are going to run Kamala Harris on an explicit platform of white genocide in 2020. Whereas the rhetoric in 2016 was intense, in 2020 it will be outright apocalyptic. Trump will win several points and will be stronger than ever and finally able to accomplish something re immigration. And if Trump somehow does lose, that may be even better: there is no way Trump will concede and maybe we’ll get our long needed civil war.

    4. Don’t waste energy worrying about Bolton. He was brought in for internal political reasons and Trump doesn’t listen to his advisers anyway. There will be no war with either Iran or NK because Trump knows that a large war would be the end of his Presidency.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Greasy William

    Well, thanks for this cogently stated case for positive.

    , @neutral
    @Greasy William


    Trump will win several points and will be stronger than ever and finally able to accomplish something re immigration
     
    If he could not do anything now, why is he able to do this later?

    Replies: @Greasy William

  93. @ussr andy
    @Anatoly Karlin

    thanks. one thing that irritates me is the 50 million killed by Stalin (personally), but I guess it's just in Westerners' DNA (also, singling out Stalin when Lenin was just as bad, only for not quite as long), but I like the anti-SJW stuff and the self-help stuff

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Timothy Snyder compared Lenin and Stalin, and came up with a lower number for Stalin, but not by a vast margin. (Though the number of directly killed as opposed to excess deaths was vastly lower.) Interestingly, he didn’t consider those killed before 1924, even though Stalin was part of the same regime of which his system was a continuation. If Hitler died in early 1942, and Göring went on to kill exactly the same number of people as Hitler did, then he would be a worse mass murderer than Hitler. But would it make sense to separate the two?

  94. @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Interesting that elements of something like my father had experienced in his youth existed even in the late 1990s, I wouldn't have thought so. But I guess this once again underlines how transformative the last 25-30 years have been througout the West, in a mostly negative way.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Another example of the breakdown of traditional British mores, from a close acquaintance.

    Large percentage of British firemen (and I think siloviks in general) belong to the Freemasons – or used to, I doubt that is still the case today. While there are a great many elements of mutual help within it, contrary to propaganda, Freemasons are a traditionalist order that doesn’t seek to undermine society; instead, to the extent they have political leanings, it’s conservative-patriotic. At society dinners middle-aged firemen would drink toasts to the health of the Queen with no irony in the 1990s. But that was dwindled away by the early 2000s. I find it impossible to imagine my cohort doing that.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It wouldn't surprise me if the British monarchy would end within the lifetime of many of those reading here...tbh not sure it would be a great loss, it's not like it has done anything to prevent Britain's descent into her present state.
    Pro-royal sentiment actually doesn't feature that prominently in my father's recollections of his youth. He remembers one commie sympathizer in the early 1960s even suggesting that the "royal family should be done away with, like they did in Russia" :-) And that apparently caused much less outrage than when commies claimed one had to be grateful towards the Red army because they had supposedly saved Britain (to which the - hardly correct - reply was "Bomber command saved them"). Maybe it was a regional (northern) and class (lower middle class, former working class) thing though regarding feelings towards the monarchy.

    Replies: @Pavlo, @dfordoom

    , @Philip Owen
    @Anatoly Karlin

    The whole public sector was once stiff with Freemasons, at least in Tory areas. State owñed industry too. Emergency services as you suggest are probably he last hold out.

  95. @Greasy William
    1. Re strange and/or morally questionable people having prominent roles in the Alt Right: Immigration restrictionism, anti feminism and race realism are 100% taboo subjects. As a result, any movement that makes them their centerpiece is always going to attract eccentric and unseemly characters because those are precisely the type of people who will be immune to brain washing and not be deterred by social pressure.

    2. Trump betrayed nothing by signing the omnibus. It was a bad bill but he had to sign it or he would have been dragged into a shutdown fight that he had no chance of winning. The Congressional GOP did betray their voters but what else is new? We already knew what we were dealing with in Ryan and McConnell and we did get a big increase in defense spending which we sorely needed. We needed the defense spending because there are a ton of defense hawks in the GOP who are angry about how defense spending has been frozen for years and were liable to make a deal with Pelosi to pass the Dream Act in exchange for more DoD money.

    3. Re our current situation and medium/long term prognosis: In September 1941, it looked like the Nazis were winning the war. But actually, Germany had already lost if one examined the situation more closely.

    While I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that we've already won, but our situation is much better than it appears on the surface. Consider:
    A. Trump's popularity is exactly where it was 2 1/2 months ago, and is about 2 points higher than it was for most of the latter part of 2017: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    B. The Democrats lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot is currently down to 5.7: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

    Historically, the Generic Ballot has wildly overestimated Democrat performance in the House popular vote. Regardless, it is estimated that the Democrats need to win the House popular vote by 8 points to take back the House, and they only won it by 7 in 2008 when they had Obama on the ticket. I just don't see it happening.

    C. As for the way the Dems are clobbering the GOP in special elections, all that shows is that the Dems are super motivated and that Republicans are not and that the Dems can pull off upsets when they run great candidates against horrible GOP candidates.

    In AL, the Dems had a great candidate in Doug Jones against a creepy Evangelical weirdo who was already extremely unpopular. Then came a coordinated hit job from the Democrats, the media and the GOPe to tarnish Roy Moore as a rapist (he's actually just a creep) and that was enough to allow Jones to squeak out the win.

    In PA-18, the Dems ran a perfect candidate against an anti union Repub in a rust belt district. And the GOP guy ran on tax cuts instead of immigration which is definitely was a horrible move in such a district. But that's the GOP for you.

    Bottom line: don't read too much into special elections and off year elections. There has been only one election since Nov 2016 that has had midterm level turnout and that was GA-06. And there the Republican actually over preformed.

    D. The American economy is booming and the Dems are going to run Kamala Harris on an explicit platform of white genocide in 2020. Whereas the rhetoric in 2016 was intense, in 2020 it will be outright apocalyptic. Trump will win several points and will be stronger than ever and finally able to accomplish something re immigration. And if Trump somehow does lose, that may be even better: there is no way Trump will concede and maybe we'll get our long needed civil war.

    4. Don't waste energy worrying about Bolton. He was brought in for internal political reasons and Trump doesn't listen to his advisers anyway. There will be no war with either Iran or NK because Trump knows that a large war would be the end of his Presidency.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @neutral

    Well, thanks for this cogently stated case for positive.

  96. With immigration, Obama and other dems were saying the same thing about restricting immigration 5-10 years ago. Trump has only poked a stick in the fire to make to dems ultra-pro-immigration. I very much doubt they would be so pro-immigration if Trump was publicly more circumspect on the subject. He’s a TV reality star who thrived on WWF-style conflict, but I’m not sure that’s how it works in politics.

  97. German_reader says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    Another example of the breakdown of traditional British mores, from a close acquaintance.

    Large percentage of British firemen (and I think siloviks in general) belong to the Freemasons - or used to, I doubt that is still the case today. While there are a great many elements of mutual help within it, contrary to propaganda, Freemasons are a traditionalist order that doesn't seek to undermine society; instead, to the extent they have political leanings, it's conservative-patriotic. At society dinners middle-aged firemen would drink toasts to the health of the Queen with no irony in the 1990s. But that was dwindled away by the early 2000s. I find it impossible to imagine my cohort doing that.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Philip Owen

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the British monarchy would end within the lifetime of many of those reading here…tbh not sure it would be a great loss, it’s not like it has done anything to prevent Britain’s descent into her present state.
    Pro-royal sentiment actually doesn’t feature that prominently in my father’s recollections of his youth. He remembers one commie sympathizer in the early 1960s even suggesting that the “royal family should be done away with, like they did in Russia” 🙂 And that apparently caused much less outrage than when commies claimed one had to be grateful towards the Red army because they had supposedly saved Britain (to which the – hardly correct – reply was “Bomber command saved them“). Maybe it was a regional (northern) and class (lower middle class, former working class) thing though regarding feelings towards the monarchy.

    • Replies: @Pavlo
    @German_reader

    The monarchy has been preserved by sheer inertia for at least two decades now, but it is in no danger - modern Britain's revolutionaries are comfortable with capitalism and class privilege, and prefer subverting institutions to demolishing them.

    The prospect of a black queen or (another) gay king is far too attractive to both the labour and tory front benches for the Cromwell option to ever be seriously entertained.

    , @dfordoom
    @German_reader


    It wouldn’t surprise me if the British monarchy would end within the lifetime of many of those reading here…
     
    The British monarchy ended in 1688. Since then they've been expensive useless figureheads. If you're not going to have a real monarchy why waste money on a silly pretend monarchy?

    Personally my preference would be to go back to having an actual monarchy.

    In any case the Windsor usurpers should certainly go. They're just worthless celebrity trash. Which I guess means that they're the ideal royal family for Britain in 2018.
  98. reiner Tor: (sorry, misclicked)
    it’s the same with some modern leaders. the West really seems to like those leaders who rule over a weak, accomodating Russia regardless of actual damage. Or maybe the criteria is not the damage to Russians, lol

  99. @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It wouldn't surprise me if the British monarchy would end within the lifetime of many of those reading here...tbh not sure it would be a great loss, it's not like it has done anything to prevent Britain's descent into her present state.
    Pro-royal sentiment actually doesn't feature that prominently in my father's recollections of his youth. He remembers one commie sympathizer in the early 1960s even suggesting that the "royal family should be done away with, like they did in Russia" :-) And that apparently caused much less outrage than when commies claimed one had to be grateful towards the Red army because they had supposedly saved Britain (to which the - hardly correct - reply was "Bomber command saved them"). Maybe it was a regional (northern) and class (lower middle class, former working class) thing though regarding feelings towards the monarchy.

    Replies: @Pavlo, @dfordoom

    The monarchy has been preserved by sheer inertia for at least two decades now, but it is in no danger – modern Britain’s revolutionaries are comfortable with capitalism and class privilege, and prefer subverting institutions to demolishing them.

    The prospect of a black queen or (another) gay king is far too attractive to both the labour and tory front benches for the Cromwell option to ever be seriously entertained.

  100. @Lemurmaniac
    @Randal

    Well said. Gathering systematic forces are generative of nationalist sentiment and ideology. The era of peace and prosperity upon which bourgeois SWPL culture emerged and depends is coming to a permanent end.

    To me, the central learning experience from the rise and fall of the alt-right is that we need to quietly but thoroughly create an elite capable of penetrating the actual bases of power in society. Show ponies like Spencer and Reich LARPers are a dead end. We have to stop buying the propaganda of liberal democracy that power is acquired through generating mass consent in the public square. Evangelizing should be properly seen as a way to grow a base of human capital.

    Replies: @Randal, @Mitleser

    We have to stop buying the propaganda of liberal democracy that power is acquired through generating mass consent in the public square. Evangelizing should be properly seen as a way to grow a base of human capital.

    You need both
    In Turkey, the Islamists are winning because they had mass consent and an alternative elite that could push the secular establishment out.

    • Agree: Talha
  101. @Bukephalos
    OT

    Yemenis have been sending several missiles at the Saudi Kingdom, as far as Riyadh, with several airport targeted in the country. Some footage of spectacular failure at interception by Patriot batteries

    https://twitter.com/StratSentinel/status/978013802213060608

    Missile parts fell on main streets of Riyadh. And during this same night, Israel so-called Iron dome inexplicably fired 10 missiles over what was described as a "false alarm", with IDF admitting later there were actually no incoming rockets.

    Coincidence? It's as if someone was keen to demonstrate the failure of Western AD tonight, and by extension destroy the false sense of security associated with these systems.

    Replies: @Hyperborean

    I don’t know much about the capabilities of the Israeli army but I think that it is a widely accepted view that the KSA is incapable of handling much of their military equipment along with being just generally incompetent, so maybe it is merely coincidence like it looks like?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Hyperborean

    Aren’t the Saudi weapons handled by mercenaries? Mostly from Pakistan, some from the USA and other western countries. I’d think even the Pakis could be taught to handle sophisticated equipment (they can operate nukes, after all), but what they cannot teach them, they could rent some Americans to do it for them.

    Replies: @Bukephalos, @Hyperborean, @Talha

  102. @Thorfinnsson
    @Randal



    Nope. In fairness you are correct to point out that there is propaganda in both directions. It seems not to cancel out, but to create a rather schizophrenic population willing to support both mass muslim immigration and wars for Israel.
     
    I am sure you can find it, but I rarely see "Islamophobic" propaganda from anyone in the mainstream. Newt Gingrich dabbles in it, and of course you get it from Iron Ann Coulter who is for some reason still allowed on television.

    The propaganda is rather "anti-Islamist" and "anti-terrorist". The common rejoinder to people who point out the terroristic and other undesirable proclivities of Mohammedans (other than accusing them of blasphemy) is that "moderate Muslims" oppose terrorism (occasionally true but irrelevant).

    No one in the population other than true believer liberals supports mass Mohammedan invasion here or likely anywhere else. However there is an emerging elite consensus that borders must be abolished, with apparently no open dissenters other than Trump and Thiel.


    Though in regard to the latter, the numbers you quote are misleading, bearing in mind the increase in the muslim population has only brought it to 1.1% of the total US population – less than the number of jews according to Pew.
    What was misleading about it? I assume all commenters on this blog know what America's population size is.

    Tripling in such a short timespan, immediately after the worst terrorist attack in American history, is highly alarming.

    The US immigration system allows citizens (including naturalized ones) to sponsor adult relatives for immigration. Thus once an immigrant group arrives in America, it leads to continuous immigration from that group until their country of origin converges with American living standards (which in the cases of inferior populations never happens).

    The problems with muslim immigrants in the US, unlike in Europe and the UK where sheer numbers are the cause of many problems, is almost entirely because of terrorism triggered by your own stupid wars for Israel and general bloody interference in the muslim countries from whence these immigrants and their children come, or with whom they feel sympathy.
     
    Our idiotic foreign wars certainly do not help, but Mohammedans create problems anywhere they go.

    As Enoch Powell said, "Numbers are of the essence."


    An ADL representative is a liar, and there’s little point quoting them as though their words are evidence of anything, unless it’s because they’ve let something slip out that’s against their own interests.

    In this case, you’ve quoted an ADL liar claiming that “islamophobia is associated with antisemitism “. It’s hardly surprising that an ADL liar would want to put that about, but it relates to their propaganda effort, not to the reality of actual anti-Islam, pro-Israel voices , from Britain First and the EDL in my country to the likes of Pipes in yours.
     
    I'm not endorsing his views. I'm noting that most Jewish organization in America consider them equivalent.

    I'm aware most mainstream nationalist groups support Zionism. Occasionally cynically (to deflect charges of antisemitism), but often because they falsely confuse our own interests with Israel's.
     

    Replies: @Randal

    I am sure you can find it, but I rarely see “Islamophobic” propaganda from anyone in the mainstream. Newt Gingrich dabbles in it, and of course you get it from Iron Ann Coulter who is for some reason still allowed on television.

    In fairness, I suspect you don’t notice it much because you mostly agree with it.

    All the “they hate us for our freedom” nonsense and all the pretence that muslims don’t mostly attack the US because of the US’s stupid wars in their own countries of origin, or in muslim countries with which they sympathise – that’s pretty much all anti-muslim propaganda in the US. There are certainly places where muslims are a problem directly, but the US mostly only gets targeted by muslims because the US sticks its nose, brutishly and murderously, into muslim countries’ affairs, and has done so on a large scale since at least WW2.

    [On that score you should certainly look at the track record of oil in motivating such interference, before Israel became the big one.]

    Our idiotic foreign wars certainly do not help, but Mohammedans create problems anywhere they go.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”

    Indeed, and only an idiot would support mass muslim immigration to his country, but the US is still a long, long way from the situation in which muslim numbers cause much of a problem in themselves.

    And that said, the root problem isn’t muslims either, but mass immigration. Mass immigration, except in special cases such as settler colonial countries actively seeking population to fill up looted lands (such as the US pre-C20th), is inherently divisive and harmful, with the scale of the harm usually related to the numbers, and to the degree of cultural (including religious) and racial difference of the immigrating community from the indigenes. Granted, some groups are inherently worse than others, and muslims are one of the worst, but the general rule nevertheless stands.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Randal


    except in special cases such as settler colonial countries actively seeking population to fill up looted lands
     
    Even there, immigration simply reduced native fertility. Wouldn’t it have been more beneficial to its citizens if the country was filled a bit slower, but with their own offspring? The US would already have 150 or maybe 200 million inhabitants anyway, but with better cohesion and perhaps higher quality of life. Even the military might not be noticeably weaker.

    Replies: @Randal

  103. @Hyperborean
    @Bukephalos

    I don't know much about the capabilities of the Israeli army but I think that it is a widely accepted view that the KSA is incapable of handling much of their military equipment along with being just generally incompetent, so maybe it is merely coincidence like it looks like?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Aren’t the Saudi weapons handled by mercenaries? Mostly from Pakistan, some from the USA and other western countries. I’d think even the Pakis could be taught to handle sophisticated equipment (they can operate nukes, after all), but what they cannot teach them, they could rent some Americans to do it for them.

    • Replies: @Bukephalos
    @reiner Tor

    That's what I tend to think as well, that Americans are manning these systems. I suppose Saudi royals can demand and obtain this, but it doesn't seem we can find open-source information confirming or infirming

    , @Hyperborean
    @reiner Tor

    I was under the impression that the mercenaries were mainly in infantry roles, but maybe I am wrong. The mainstream articles I've read mostly just seem to suggest that the reason for the failures of the Saudi army is inexperience and lack of proper training. In any case if the evidently-poor missile defense really is handled by foreign mercenaries wouldn't be worse for the Saudi government since it implies that they can't just buy their way into military victory?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Talha
    @reiner Tor

    They do hire Pakistani mercs (or borrow) for their planes:
    “There is no doubt that Pakistani pilots fly Saudi Tornadoes and F-15s and UAE's Mirage 2000s.”
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm

    They even flew for Syria against Israel in one of the wars.

    They used to be really good, don’t know if they’ve kept that edge:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/931153924731445254

    Peace.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  104. @Randal
    @Thorfinnsson


    I am sure you can find it, but I rarely see “Islamophobic” propaganda from anyone in the mainstream. Newt Gingrich dabbles in it, and of course you get it from Iron Ann Coulter who is for some reason still allowed on television.
     
    In fairness, I suspect you don't notice it much because you mostly agree with it.

    All the "they hate us for our freedom" nonsense and all the pretence that muslims don't mostly attack the US because of the US's stupid wars in their own countries of origin, or in muslim countries with which they sympathise - that's pretty much all anti-muslim propaganda in the US. There are certainly places where muslims are a problem directly, but the US mostly only gets targeted by muslims because the US sticks its nose, brutishly and murderously, into muslim countries' affairs, and has done so on a large scale since at least WW2.

    [On that score you should certainly look at the track record of oil in motivating such interference, before Israel became the big one.]

    Our idiotic foreign wars certainly do not help, but Mohammedans create problems anywhere they go.

    As Enoch Powell said, “Numbers are of the essence.”
     
    Indeed, and only an idiot would support mass muslim immigration to his country, but the US is still a long, long way from the situation in which muslim numbers cause much of a problem in themselves.

    And that said, the root problem isn't muslims either, but mass immigration. Mass immigration, except in special cases such as settler colonial countries actively seeking population to fill up looted lands (such as the US pre-C20th), is inherently divisive and harmful, with the scale of the harm usually related to the numbers, and to the degree of cultural (including religious) and racial difference of the immigrating community from the indigenes. Granted, some groups are inherently worse than others, and muslims are one of the worst, but the general rule nevertheless stands.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    except in special cases such as settler colonial countries actively seeking population to fill up looted lands

    Even there, immigration simply reduced native fertility. Wouldn’t it have been more beneficial to its citizens if the country was filled a bit slower, but with their own offspring? The US would already have 150 or maybe 200 million inhabitants anyway, but with better cohesion and perhaps higher quality of life. Even the military might not be noticeably weaker.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @reiner Tor

    That would, I suspect, require a degree of patient, long view strategizing that is utterly beyond any democratic form of government, even a constitutional republic.

  105. @reiner Tor
    @Randal


    except in special cases such as settler colonial countries actively seeking population to fill up looted lands
     
    Even there, immigration simply reduced native fertility. Wouldn’t it have been more beneficial to its citizens if the country was filled a bit slower, but with their own offspring? The US would already have 150 or maybe 200 million inhabitants anyway, but with better cohesion and perhaps higher quality of life. Even the military might not be noticeably weaker.

    Replies: @Randal

    That would, I suspect, require a degree of patient, long view strategizing that is utterly beyond any democratic form of government, even a constitutional republic.

  106. @reiner Tor
    @Hyperborean

    Aren’t the Saudi weapons handled by mercenaries? Mostly from Pakistan, some from the USA and other western countries. I’d think even the Pakis could be taught to handle sophisticated equipment (they can operate nukes, after all), but what they cannot teach them, they could rent some Americans to do it for them.

    Replies: @Bukephalos, @Hyperborean, @Talha

    That’s what I tend to think as well, that Americans are manning these systems. I suppose Saudi royals can demand and obtain this, but it doesn’t seem we can find open-source information confirming or infirming

  107. @reiner Tor
    @Hyperborean

    Aren’t the Saudi weapons handled by mercenaries? Mostly from Pakistan, some from the USA and other western countries. I’d think even the Pakis could be taught to handle sophisticated equipment (they can operate nukes, after all), but what they cannot teach them, they could rent some Americans to do it for them.

    Replies: @Bukephalos, @Hyperborean, @Talha

    I was under the impression that the mercenaries were mainly in infantry roles, but maybe I am wrong. The mainstream articles I’ve read mostly just seem to suggest that the reason for the failures of the Saudi army is inexperience and lack of proper training. In any case if the evidently-poor missile defense really is handled by foreign mercenaries wouldn’t be worse for the Saudi government since it implies that they can’t just buy their way into military victory?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Hyperborean

    I definitely read somewhere that a lot of the sophisticated equipment was operated by Americans. I think the Iranians had the same arrangement back when they bought weapons they didn’t have the expertise to operate.

  108. @Hyperborean
    @reiner Tor

    I was under the impression that the mercenaries were mainly in infantry roles, but maybe I am wrong. The mainstream articles I've read mostly just seem to suggest that the reason for the failures of the Saudi army is inexperience and lack of proper training. In any case if the evidently-poor missile defense really is handled by foreign mercenaries wouldn't be worse for the Saudi government since it implies that they can't just buy their way into military victory?

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    I definitely read somewhere that a lot of the sophisticated equipment was operated by Americans. I think the Iranians had the same arrangement back when they bought weapons they didn’t have the expertise to operate.

  109. @German_reader
    @Anatoly Karlin

    It wouldn't surprise me if the British monarchy would end within the lifetime of many of those reading here...tbh not sure it would be a great loss, it's not like it has done anything to prevent Britain's descent into her present state.
    Pro-royal sentiment actually doesn't feature that prominently in my father's recollections of his youth. He remembers one commie sympathizer in the early 1960s even suggesting that the "royal family should be done away with, like they did in Russia" :-) And that apparently caused much less outrage than when commies claimed one had to be grateful towards the Red army because they had supposedly saved Britain (to which the - hardly correct - reply was "Bomber command saved them"). Maybe it was a regional (northern) and class (lower middle class, former working class) thing though regarding feelings towards the monarchy.

    Replies: @Pavlo, @dfordoom

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the British monarchy would end within the lifetime of many of those reading here…

    The British monarchy ended in 1688. Since then they’ve been expensive useless figureheads. If you’re not going to have a real monarchy why waste money on a silly pretend monarchy?

    Personally my preference would be to go back to having an actual monarchy.

    In any case the Windsor usurpers should certainly go. They’re just worthless celebrity trash. Which I guess means that they’re the ideal royal family for Britain in 2018.

  110. @E. Harding
    "Immigration restriction is no longer taboo."

    Was it ever taboo? It seems more taboo than ever before, now, both within the GOP and the Democratic Party. Tester once voted against the DREAM Act; now he's for it. Brat won on that issue; in a Rubio district, no less.

    But, yes, it looks like the alt-right is zombified, much like the Ron Paul movement was after the 2012 GOP national convention. Something will replace it (probably something leftwing).

    Also, surely you mean "at the start of 2018".

    Replies: @Jon0815

    Was it ever taboo?

    Immigration restrictionism (cutting legal immigration levels) has been taboo for decades, essentially excluded from public debate. Now, thanks to Cotton’s RAISE Act and Trunp’s support for it, that has changed. Not only are legal immigration cuts being discussed in the establishment media, but a majority of the House GOP supports a bill that would enact such cuts by ending chain migration.

  111. The Alt Right died the day that the Doom Prophet, Dr Nicholas Land, beheld them and decided that they were not insane enough for his Blackpill Simulation of the world.

  112. @reiner Tor
    @Hyperborean

    Aren’t the Saudi weapons handled by mercenaries? Mostly from Pakistan, some from the USA and other western countries. I’d think even the Pakis could be taught to handle sophisticated equipment (they can operate nukes, after all), but what they cannot teach them, they could rent some Americans to do it for them.

    Replies: @Bukephalos, @Hyperborean, @Talha

    They do hire Pakistani mercs (or borrow) for their planes:
    “There is no doubt that Pakistani pilots fly Saudi Tornadoes and F-15s and UAE’s Mirage 2000s.”
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm

    They even flew for Syria against Israel in one of the wars.

    They used to be really good, don’t know if they’ve kept that edge:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/931153924731445254

    Peace.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Talha


    They used to be really good, don’t know if they’ve kept that edge:
     
    I read good things about the Pakistani military, but I also don’t know how it changed.

    Replies: @Greasy William

  113. @Greasy William
    1. Re strange and/or morally questionable people having prominent roles in the Alt Right: Immigration restrictionism, anti feminism and race realism are 100% taboo subjects. As a result, any movement that makes them their centerpiece is always going to attract eccentric and unseemly characters because those are precisely the type of people who will be immune to brain washing and not be deterred by social pressure.

    2. Trump betrayed nothing by signing the omnibus. It was a bad bill but he had to sign it or he would have been dragged into a shutdown fight that he had no chance of winning. The Congressional GOP did betray their voters but what else is new? We already knew what we were dealing with in Ryan and McConnell and we did get a big increase in defense spending which we sorely needed. We needed the defense spending because there are a ton of defense hawks in the GOP who are angry about how defense spending has been frozen for years and were liable to make a deal with Pelosi to pass the Dream Act in exchange for more DoD money.

    3. Re our current situation and medium/long term prognosis: In September 1941, it looked like the Nazis were winning the war. But actually, Germany had already lost if one examined the situation more closely.

    While I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say that we've already won, but our situation is much better than it appears on the surface. Consider:
    A. Trump's popularity is exactly where it was 2 1/2 months ago, and is about 2 points higher than it was for most of the latter part of 2017: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    B. The Democrats lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot is currently down to 5.7: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/

    Historically, the Generic Ballot has wildly overestimated Democrat performance in the House popular vote. Regardless, it is estimated that the Democrats need to win the House popular vote by 8 points to take back the House, and they only won it by 7 in 2008 when they had Obama on the ticket. I just don't see it happening.

    C. As for the way the Dems are clobbering the GOP in special elections, all that shows is that the Dems are super motivated and that Republicans are not and that the Dems can pull off upsets when they run great candidates against horrible GOP candidates.

    In AL, the Dems had a great candidate in Doug Jones against a creepy Evangelical weirdo who was already extremely unpopular. Then came a coordinated hit job from the Democrats, the media and the GOPe to tarnish Roy Moore as a rapist (he's actually just a creep) and that was enough to allow Jones to squeak out the win.

    In PA-18, the Dems ran a perfect candidate against an anti union Repub in a rust belt district. And the GOP guy ran on tax cuts instead of immigration which is definitely was a horrible move in such a district. But that's the GOP for you.

    Bottom line: don't read too much into special elections and off year elections. There has been only one election since Nov 2016 that has had midterm level turnout and that was GA-06. And there the Republican actually over preformed.

    D. The American economy is booming and the Dems are going to run Kamala Harris on an explicit platform of white genocide in 2020. Whereas the rhetoric in 2016 was intense, in 2020 it will be outright apocalyptic. Trump will win several points and will be stronger than ever and finally able to accomplish something re immigration. And if Trump somehow does lose, that may be even better: there is no way Trump will concede and maybe we'll get our long needed civil war.

    4. Don't waste energy worrying about Bolton. He was brought in for internal political reasons and Trump doesn't listen to his advisers anyway. There will be no war with either Iran or NK because Trump knows that a large war would be the end of his Presidency.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @neutral

    Trump will win several points and will be stronger than ever and finally able to accomplish something re immigration

    If he could not do anything now, why is he able to do this later?

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @neutral

    Because he does not yet have full control over the Republican party.

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and the Republican Senate majority has been expanded from 51 to 56 or so, Trump will finally have the juice to get immigration restriction through.

    Trump may have won the election, but resistance to Trumpism has yet to be extinguished from the GOP. Only a purging of some of the most loathsome cucks and a decisive popular vote victory in 2020 will allow for the full transformation of the GOP into the Party of Trump.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Daniel Chieh

  114. @Talha
    @reiner Tor

    They do hire Pakistani mercs (or borrow) for their planes:
    “There is no doubt that Pakistani pilots fly Saudi Tornadoes and F-15s and UAE's Mirage 2000s.”
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/air-force-combat.htm

    They even flew for Syria against Israel in one of the wars.

    They used to be really good, don’t know if they’ve kept that edge:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/931153924731445254

    Peace.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    They used to be really good, don’t know if they’ve kept that edge:

    I read good things about the Pakistani military, but I also don’t know how it changed.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    They have a good air force, their ground forces have always been shit.

    Why do the Saudi's use so many different kinds of planes? It must make maintenance a nightmare.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Daniel Chieh

  115. @neutral
    @Greasy William


    Trump will win several points and will be stronger than ever and finally able to accomplish something re immigration
     
    If he could not do anything now, why is he able to do this later?

    Replies: @Greasy William

    Because he does not yet have full control over the Republican party.

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and the Republican Senate majority has been expanded from 51 to 56 or so, Trump will finally have the juice to get immigration restriction through.

    Trump may have won the election, but resistance to Trumpism has yet to be extinguished from the GOP. Only a purging of some of the most loathsome cucks and a decisive popular vote victory in 2020 will allow for the full transformation of the GOP into the Party of Trump.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Greasy William


    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist
     
    replaced by whom? As far as I can see Trump has totally failed to build a coherent movement and has almost no capable and principled people on his side (and those who showed some promise or loyalty like Sessions or that Kobach guy were treated like shit by Trump or not cultivated in any way). It's nothing but a Twitter-based personality cult...which may be amusing, but doesn't achieve anything.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Greasy William

    To have a Party of Trump, you need to have a reasonably coordinated and organized individuals who have demonstrated competence on execution, at least, a local level. This is kind of grassroots organization is something that NSDAP had and Trump does not.

  116. @reiner Tor
    @Talha


    They used to be really good, don’t know if they’ve kept that edge:
     
    I read good things about the Pakistani military, but I also don’t know how it changed.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    They have a good air force, their ground forces have always been shit.

    Why do the Saudi’s use so many different kinds of planes? It must make maintenance a nightmare.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    Yes, I read about their air force that they have way lower rates of accidents than Indians (okay, that might be a low bar), and that it was due to the fact that most officers and even enlisted men (at least proportionally, I’m not sure) in the British Indian military were Muslims and joined the Pakistani forces after independence. While India had to expand its forces very quickly and never really overcame the lack of a modern military tradition.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Greasy William


    Why do the Saudi’s use so many different kinds of planes? It must make maintenance a nightmare.

     

    Why do the Saudis do anything? Cronyism and corruption.
  117. German_reader says:
    @Greasy William
    @neutral

    Because he does not yet have full control over the Republican party.

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and the Republican Senate majority has been expanded from 51 to 56 or so, Trump will finally have the juice to get immigration restriction through.

    Trump may have won the election, but resistance to Trumpism has yet to be extinguished from the GOP. Only a purging of some of the most loathsome cucks and a decisive popular vote victory in 2020 will allow for the full transformation of the GOP into the Party of Trump.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Daniel Chieh

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist

    replaced by whom? As far as I can see Trump has totally failed to build a coherent movement and has almost no capable and principled people on his side (and those who showed some promise or loyalty like Sessions or that Kobach guy were treated like shit by Trump or not cultivated in any way). It’s nothing but a Twitter-based personality cult…which may be amusing, but doesn’t achieve anything.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @German_reader

    Nothing is written in stone, but it is generally expected that Ryan is going to step down after the midterms (can you blame him?) and will be replaced by Mark Meadows. Meadows isn't exactly a Trumpist, more of a Tea Party loon, but he is extremely anti immigrant which is all that I care about.

    Kobach never could have been confirmed and Sessions behavior vis-a-vis the Russia thing has been disgraceful.

    There are some Trump like guys among the younger Republicans. Tom Cotton is great and young guys like Josh Hawley are expected to come in 2018. There all Russia haters but that's something we just have to put up with that for the time being. As long as they are just talking about starting WWIII, we can live with it.

    If Trump can stay in for 8 years, there will be plenty of Republicans ready to carry on his legacy and many of them will make themselves known to us over the next several years. That's why the most important thing about Trump isn't that he succeeds, it's that he merely survives.

    Replies: @German_reader

  118. @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    They have a good air force, their ground forces have always been shit.

    Why do the Saudi's use so many different kinds of planes? It must make maintenance a nightmare.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Daniel Chieh

    Yes, I read about their air force that they have way lower rates of accidents than Indians (okay, that might be a low bar), and that it was due to the fact that most officers and even enlisted men (at least proportionally, I’m not sure) in the British Indian military were Muslims and joined the Pakistani forces after independence. While India had to expand its forces very quickly and never really overcame the lack of a modern military tradition.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    The Indians also because of their nuke program have been cut off from Western weapons so the backbone of the air force is a variety Soviet surplus "flying coffins" like the Mig-25. I don't think that Indians are necessarily bad pilots. Pakistan on the other hand is so strategically valuable to Uncle Sam that the US has been willing to keep their air force supplied despite Pakistan's equally massive nuclear program, although it seems like Pakistan is transitioning to a mixture of domestic and Chinese fighters. Possibly Pakistan does not view the US as a reliable partner long term.

    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s. Supposedly France wants to sell India the Rafale but the Indians aren't interested for some reason. They probably aren't expecting a war anytime soon.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Randal

  119. @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    Yes, I read about their air force that they have way lower rates of accidents than Indians (okay, that might be a low bar), and that it was due to the fact that most officers and even enlisted men (at least proportionally, I’m not sure) in the British Indian military were Muslims and joined the Pakistani forces after independence. While India had to expand its forces very quickly and never really overcame the lack of a modern military tradition.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    The Indians also because of their nuke program have been cut off from Western weapons so the backbone of the air force is a variety Soviet surplus “flying coffins” like the Mig-25. I don’t think that Indians are necessarily bad pilots. Pakistan on the other hand is so strategically valuable to Uncle Sam that the US has been willing to keep their air force supplied despite Pakistan’s equally massive nuclear program, although it seems like Pakistan is transitioning to a mixture of domestic and Chinese fighters. Possibly Pakistan does not view the US as a reliable partner long term.

    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s. Supposedly France wants to sell India the Rafale but the Indians aren’t interested for some reason. They probably aren’t expecting a war anytime soon.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    What I read the Indians never understood that it’s not enough to buy new toys, they need to spend money to maintain them, and, even more important, they need to spend a lot of money to train their crews. The Indians keep allocating a disproportionately large portion of their budget to acquisition of new weapons, but they don’t spend enough on training or maintenance.

    The Pakistanis are not like that, they have a modern military tradition going back to British times (the Indians have much less of it, or perhaps civilians have an inordinate influence over the military budget allocations), and they spend (or at least spent when I read about it) the amount needed to train their crews and to maintain their equipment, even if it means less money to buy new equipment.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Talha

    , @Randal
    @Greasy William


    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s.
     
    The Russians are jointly developing the Su57 with India - it doesn't get more modern than that (I haven't been following the program closely, and there seem to have been the usual rumours of fallings out, but as far as I'm aware it's still going ahead).

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  120. @German_reader
    @Greasy William


    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist
     
    replaced by whom? As far as I can see Trump has totally failed to build a coherent movement and has almost no capable and principled people on his side (and those who showed some promise or loyalty like Sessions or that Kobach guy were treated like shit by Trump or not cultivated in any way). It's nothing but a Twitter-based personality cult...which may be amusing, but doesn't achieve anything.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    Nothing is written in stone, but it is generally expected that Ryan is going to step down after the midterms (can you blame him?) and will be replaced by Mark Meadows. Meadows isn’t exactly a Trumpist, more of a Tea Party loon, but he is extremely anti immigrant which is all that I care about.

    Kobach never could have been confirmed and Sessions behavior vis-a-vis the Russia thing has been disgraceful.

    There are some Trump like guys among the younger Republicans. Tom Cotton is great and young guys like Josh Hawley are expected to come in 2018. There all Russia haters but that’s something we just have to put up with that for the time being. As long as they are just talking about starting WWIII, we can live with it.

    If Trump can stay in for 8 years, there will be plenty of Republicans ready to carry on his legacy and many of them will make themselves known to us over the next several years. That’s why the most important thing about Trump isn’t that he succeeds, it’s that he merely survives.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Greasy William


    Tom Cotton is great
     
    He's also a demented warmonger who would like to get ever deeper into the Mideast morass from what I've read. If people like him succed in getting the US involved in another disastrous military intervention, it will contaminate the entire movement for immigration restriction.

    If Trump can stay in for 8 years, there will be plenty of Republicans ready to carry on his legacy
     
    That sounds like wishful thinking to me. Even a lot of people who voted for Trump seem to be unhappy and disappointed by him, with good reason. Only way I can see him winning in 2020 is if the Democrats run some crazy candidate who makes white genocide his official programme and openly indulges the left's revenge fantasies...that might get enough people to vote for Trump again as the lesser evil. Not that my opinion as a foreigner is worth anything, but AK's view that someone like Biden would easily beat Trump seems very likely to me.

    Replies: @Randal

  121. German_reader says:
    @Greasy William
    @German_reader

    Nothing is written in stone, but it is generally expected that Ryan is going to step down after the midterms (can you blame him?) and will be replaced by Mark Meadows. Meadows isn't exactly a Trumpist, more of a Tea Party loon, but he is extremely anti immigrant which is all that I care about.

    Kobach never could have been confirmed and Sessions behavior vis-a-vis the Russia thing has been disgraceful.

    There are some Trump like guys among the younger Republicans. Tom Cotton is great and young guys like Josh Hawley are expected to come in 2018. There all Russia haters but that's something we just have to put up with that for the time being. As long as they are just talking about starting WWIII, we can live with it.

    If Trump can stay in for 8 years, there will be plenty of Republicans ready to carry on his legacy and many of them will make themselves known to us over the next several years. That's why the most important thing about Trump isn't that he succeeds, it's that he merely survives.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Tom Cotton is great

    He’s also a demented warmonger who would like to get ever deeper into the Mideast morass from what I’ve read. If people like him succed in getting the US involved in another disastrous military intervention, it will contaminate the entire movement for immigration restriction.

    If Trump can stay in for 8 years, there will be plenty of Republicans ready to carry on his legacy

    That sounds like wishful thinking to me. Even a lot of people who voted for Trump seem to be unhappy and disappointed by him, with good reason. Only way I can see him winning in 2020 is if the Democrats run some crazy candidate who makes white genocide his official programme and openly indulges the left’s revenge fantasies…that might get enough people to vote for Trump again as the lesser evil. Not that my opinion as a foreigner is worth anything, but AK’s view that someone like Biden would easily beat Trump seems very likely to me.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @German_reader



    Tom Cotton is great

    He’s also a demented warmonger who would like to get ever deeper into the Mideast morass from what I’ve read.
     
    I suspect those are features rather than bugs, as far as Greasy is concerned.

    Replies: @Greasy William

  122. @Greasy William
    @neutral

    Because he does not yet have full control over the Republican party.

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and the Republican Senate majority has been expanded from 51 to 56 or so, Trump will finally have the juice to get immigration restriction through.

    Trump may have won the election, but resistance to Trumpism has yet to be extinguished from the GOP. Only a purging of some of the most loathsome cucks and a decisive popular vote victory in 2020 will allow for the full transformation of the GOP into the Party of Trump.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Daniel Chieh

    To have a Party of Trump, you need to have a reasonably coordinated and organized individuals who have demonstrated competence on execution, at least, a local level. This is kind of grassroots organization is something that NSDAP had and Trump does not.

  123. Because he does not yet have full control over the Republican party.

    If he did, we would already have a DREAM amnesty, because it’s clear that Trump really, really wants to amnesty the “Dreamers”.

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and the Republican Senate majority has been expanded from 51 to 56 or so, Trump will finally have the juice to get immigration restriction through.

    Trump is a fraud who doesn’t really care about immigration restriction. The best case scenario for restrictionists would be that he doesn’t run again in 2020, and the GOP nominates someone who not only actually understands and cares about the immigration issue, but can make the argument for restrictionism in an informed and persuasive way (unfortunately the only plausible nominee who fits that description, Tom Cotton, is also a lunatic neocon super-hawk).

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Jon0815

    Cotton isn't really a neocon, more of just a generic Russophobic war monger. Although it can be hard to tell the difference.

    Sadly, the army, navy and air force officer corps are full of guys exactly like Tom Cotton. I wish it wasn't true, but that's just how it is.

    But it doesn't really matter what these guys say as long as they see daylight once they are in office. Mattis used to be extremely pro war but dramatically changed his tune once he became Sec of Defense. Same thing would happen to Cotton and others like him.

  124. @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    They have a good air force, their ground forces have always been shit.

    Why do the Saudi's use so many different kinds of planes? It must make maintenance a nightmare.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Daniel Chieh

    Why do the Saudi’s use so many different kinds of planes? It must make maintenance a nightmare.

    Why do the Saudis do anything? Cronyism and corruption.

  125. @Jon0815

    Because he does not yet have full control over the Republican party.
     
    If he did, we would already have a DREAM amnesty, because it's clear that Trump really, really wants to amnesty the "Dreamers".

    After he decisively wins re-election, Graham, McCain and Flake have all been exterminated, Ryan has been replaced with a Trumpist, the Mueller investigation has been shut down, and the Republican Senate majority has been expanded from 51 to 56 or so, Trump will finally have the juice to get immigration restriction through.
     
    Trump is a fraud who doesn't really care about immigration restriction. The best case scenario for restrictionists would be that he doesn't run again in 2020, and the GOP nominates someone who not only actually understands and cares about the immigration issue, but can make the argument for restrictionism in an informed and persuasive way (unfortunately the only plausible nominee who fits that description, Tom Cotton, is also a lunatic neocon super-hawk).

    Replies: @Greasy William

    Cotton isn’t really a neocon, more of just a generic Russophobic war monger. Although it can be hard to tell the difference.

    Sadly, the army, navy and air force officer corps are full of guys exactly like Tom Cotton. I wish it wasn’t true, but that’s just how it is.

    But it doesn’t really matter what these guys say as long as they see daylight once they are in office. Mattis used to be extremely pro war but dramatically changed his tune once he became Sec of Defense. Same thing would happen to Cotton and others like him.

  126. @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    The Indians also because of their nuke program have been cut off from Western weapons so the backbone of the air force is a variety Soviet surplus "flying coffins" like the Mig-25. I don't think that Indians are necessarily bad pilots. Pakistan on the other hand is so strategically valuable to Uncle Sam that the US has been willing to keep their air force supplied despite Pakistan's equally massive nuclear program, although it seems like Pakistan is transitioning to a mixture of domestic and Chinese fighters. Possibly Pakistan does not view the US as a reliable partner long term.

    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s. Supposedly France wants to sell India the Rafale but the Indians aren't interested for some reason. They probably aren't expecting a war anytime soon.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Randal

    What I read the Indians never understood that it’s not enough to buy new toys, they need to spend money to maintain them, and, even more important, they need to spend a lot of money to train their crews. The Indians keep allocating a disproportionately large portion of their budget to acquisition of new weapons, but they don’t spend enough on training or maintenance.

    The Pakistanis are not like that, they have a modern military tradition going back to British times (the Indians have much less of it, or perhaps civilians have an inordinate influence over the military budget allocations), and they spend (or at least spent when I read about it) the amount needed to train their crews and to maintain their equipment, even if it means less money to buy new equipment.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    @reiner Tor


    What I read the Indians never understood that it’s not enough to buy new toys, they need to spend money to maintain them, and, even more important, they need to spend a lot of money to train their crews. The Indians keep allocating a disproportionately large portion of their budget to acquisition of new weapons, but they don’t spend enough on training or maintenance.
     
    That is why they have lost so many Su-30s.
    Not enough investment into maintenance.

    The Pakistanis are not like that
     
    Pakistani procurement seems to better.
    Just compare India's Tejas with Pakistan's JF-17.
    , @Talha
    @reiner Tor

    Pakistan has built itself on a certain model and thought process. It is next to a mutually hostile neighbor which outguns and outnumbers it vastly. Its position is defensive; they know they could never win an offensive war against India in a million years. Thus they have put a lot of eggs in one basket; the air force (and to a certain degree, some relatively well-trained special forces units). They know if India comes rolling in with massive mechanized divisions, they won't be able to numerically halt the advance unless they win in the air.

    If they win in the air, then this will negate India's superior numbers on the ground.

    The scenario that gives the Pakistani military command nightmares is a blitzkrieg by India's mechanized divisions through Lahore and across the north to Afghanistan - effectively cutting the country's top 1/3 (including important cities like Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar and potentially Multan) from the south 2/3. However to accomplish this, they will have to roll across a lot of area that is sparsely populated, particularly the Thal Desert and surrounding areas:
    http://www.discover-pakistan.com/uploads/4/5/9/1/45917479/4468149_orig.png

    My older cousin is much more read up on this and he mentioned once to me that the Pakistani military command has a contingency plan to deploy nuclear weapons within its own territory on these swaths of desert on large concentrations of Indian armor to prevent them from accomplishing the above scenario, likely before they take control of the Indus River; it would completely break the back of any Indian expeditionary force and would be completely within its rights and sidestep any international condemnation.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Greasy William

  127. @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    The Indians also because of their nuke program have been cut off from Western weapons so the backbone of the air force is a variety Soviet surplus "flying coffins" like the Mig-25. I don't think that Indians are necessarily bad pilots. Pakistan on the other hand is so strategically valuable to Uncle Sam that the US has been willing to keep their air force supplied despite Pakistan's equally massive nuclear program, although it seems like Pakistan is transitioning to a mixture of domestic and Chinese fighters. Possibly Pakistan does not view the US as a reliable partner long term.

    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s. Supposedly France wants to sell India the Rafale but the Indians aren't interested for some reason. They probably aren't expecting a war anytime soon.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Randal

    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s.

    The Russians are jointly developing the Su57 with India – it doesn’t get more modern than that (I haven’t been following the program closely, and there seem to have been the usual rumours of fallings out, but as far as I’m aware it’s still going ahead).

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Randal

    The Indians bailed out of the program.

    Replies: @Randal, @Dmitry

  128. @German_reader
    @Greasy William


    Tom Cotton is great
     
    He's also a demented warmonger who would like to get ever deeper into the Mideast morass from what I've read. If people like him succed in getting the US involved in another disastrous military intervention, it will contaminate the entire movement for immigration restriction.

    If Trump can stay in for 8 years, there will be plenty of Republicans ready to carry on his legacy
     
    That sounds like wishful thinking to me. Even a lot of people who voted for Trump seem to be unhappy and disappointed by him, with good reason. Only way I can see him winning in 2020 is if the Democrats run some crazy candidate who makes white genocide his official programme and openly indulges the left's revenge fantasies...that might get enough people to vote for Trump again as the lesser evil. Not that my opinion as a foreigner is worth anything, but AK's view that someone like Biden would easily beat Trump seems very likely to me.

    Replies: @Randal

    Tom Cotton is great

    He’s also a demented warmonger who would like to get ever deeper into the Mideast morass from what I’ve read.

    I suspect those are features rather than bugs, as far as Greasy is concerned.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Randal

    I oppose essentially all US wars except for a strike against North Korea. I enjoy US support for the Kurds because it causes anguish to Russophiles, and the Torah teaches us that nothing is more important than trolling Russophiles, but if I myself were President I would reluctantly cease all such support.

    After NK has been destroyed, if there must be further wars then I would prefer the US turn it's military might on the most evil state in human history: Mexico. Leave the ME alone, I say.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

  129. @Thorfinnsson
    @Dmitry



    Many Muslims in Russia are highly secular and normal people. This was a kind of heritage of the success of the Soviet Union in secularization of populations. But there are indeed extremist elements, and even this small minority has a very devastating impact when it comes to frequency of terrorist attacks (which in many years do not result in huge casualties, but they do result in very significant costs in terms of additional security measures and national tensions).
     
    If I understand correctly until recently the problem was just with people from the North Caucasus.

    Some of the traditional Islamic populations groups in Russia like Tatars and Bashkirs strike me as more or less white.

    But the recent St. Petersburg attacks were carried about by Uzbeks, which is an alarming development.

    Our Islamic population was originally just upper class subcontinentals and Persians and were and are fine. But in more recent years the more undesirable sorts of Mohammedans from "shithole countries" such as Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. have been appearing.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    But the recent St. Petersburg attacks were carried about by Uzbeks, which is an alarming development.

    The Central Asian republics were highly secularized, although maybe changing a little since the 1990s.

    And, to look briefly on the other side of the Caspian – there is Azerbaijan, the most secular Muslim country in the world.

  130. @Randal
    @Greasy William


    Russia should sell India more modern weapons instead of just monkey model crap from the 80s.
     
    The Russians are jointly developing the Su57 with India - it doesn't get more modern than that (I haven't been following the program closely, and there seem to have been the usual rumours of fallings out, but as far as I'm aware it's still going ahead).

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    The Indians bailed out of the program.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @reiner Tor

    I thought it was still an option and the noises were all part of the negotiation process - but as I said I haven't been paying it much attention. Regardless, it suggests the problem is not Russia declining to sell them modern equipment as Greasy suggested.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    , @Dmitry
    @reiner Tor

    Nothing official yet - probably just 'leaking' these comments, as the Indian 'bad cop' negotiation style:

    https://vz.ru/news/2018/3/20/913446.html

  131. @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    What I read the Indians never understood that it’s not enough to buy new toys, they need to spend money to maintain them, and, even more important, they need to spend a lot of money to train their crews. The Indians keep allocating a disproportionately large portion of their budget to acquisition of new weapons, but they don’t spend enough on training or maintenance.

    The Pakistanis are not like that, they have a modern military tradition going back to British times (the Indians have much less of it, or perhaps civilians have an inordinate influence over the military budget allocations), and they spend (or at least spent when I read about it) the amount needed to train their crews and to maintain their equipment, even if it means less money to buy new equipment.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Talha

    What I read the Indians never understood that it’s not enough to buy new toys, they need to spend money to maintain them, and, even more important, they need to spend a lot of money to train their crews. The Indians keep allocating a disproportionately large portion of their budget to acquisition of new weapons, but they don’t spend enough on training or maintenance.

    That is why they have lost so many Su-30s.
    Not enough investment into maintenance.

    The Pakistanis are not like that

    Pakistani procurement seems to better.
    Just compare India’s Tejas with Pakistan’s JF-17.

  132. @reiner Tor
    @Randal

    The Indians bailed out of the program.

    Replies: @Randal, @Dmitry

    I thought it was still an option and the noises were all part of the negotiation process – but as I said I haven’t been paying it much attention. Regardless, it suggests the problem is not Russia declining to sell them modern equipment as Greasy suggested.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Randal

    The Russians were being super stingy with the tech transfers. They always play this game which is why nobody wants to co develop weapons systems with them.

    Replies: @Randal

  133. @Randal
    @German_reader



    Tom Cotton is great

    He’s also a demented warmonger who would like to get ever deeper into the Mideast morass from what I’ve read.
     
    I suspect those are features rather than bugs, as far as Greasy is concerned.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    I oppose essentially all US wars except for a strike against North Korea. I enjoy US support for the Kurds because it causes anguish to Russophiles, and the Torah teaches us that nothing is more important than trolling Russophiles, but if I myself were President I would reluctantly cease all such support.

    After NK has been destroyed, if there must be further wars then I would prefer the US turn it’s military might on the most evil state in human history: Mexico. Leave the ME alone, I say.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Greasy William

    What does the Torah teach about shitposting on blogs?

    Replies: @Greasy William

  134. @Randal
    @reiner Tor

    I thought it was still an option and the noises were all part of the negotiation process - but as I said I haven't been paying it much attention. Regardless, it suggests the problem is not Russia declining to sell them modern equipment as Greasy suggested.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    The Russians were being super stingy with the tech transfers. They always play this game which is why nobody wants to co develop weapons systems with them.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Greasy William

    It's still an ultra-modern aircraft, and care over tech transfers isn't exactly unusual in this area. I don't believe the Yanks would be giving away any crown jewels if they were supplying India.

    If it doesn't go ahead in the end, I suspect whatever they claim the reasons are, it will be Indian budgetary issues that are behind it.

  135. @Greasy William
    @Randal

    The Russians were being super stingy with the tech transfers. They always play this game which is why nobody wants to co develop weapons systems with them.

    Replies: @Randal

    It’s still an ultra-modern aircraft, and care over tech transfers isn’t exactly unusual in this area. I don’t believe the Yanks would be giving away any crown jewels if they were supplying India.

    If it doesn’t go ahead in the end, I suspect whatever they claim the reasons are, it will be Indian budgetary issues that are behind it.

  136. @Greasy William
    @Randal

    I oppose essentially all US wars except for a strike against North Korea. I enjoy US support for the Kurds because it causes anguish to Russophiles, and the Torah teaches us that nothing is more important than trolling Russophiles, but if I myself were President I would reluctantly cease all such support.

    After NK has been destroyed, if there must be further wars then I would prefer the US turn it's military might on the most evil state in human history: Mexico. Leave the ME alone, I say.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    What does the Torah teach about shitposting on blogs?

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Daniel Chieh

    It is considered the greatest of all mitzvahs

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Jeff Albertson

  137. @Daniel Chieh
    @Greasy William

    What does the Torah teach about shitposting on blogs?

    Replies: @Greasy William

    It is considered the greatest of all mitzvahs

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Greasy William

    Your piety does honor to us all, as does knowing who you would bang.

    , @Jeff Albertson
    @Greasy William

    As a lurker, I must say that you've really upped your game, here. I had originally (possibly by mistake) considered you a clever troll, but you lately seem to be most thoughtful and coherent.
    By pure coincidence, I'm finding myself in agreement with much of it.

    I've long believed that we should just give Israel whatever it wants, while we still have something to bargain with. Possibly Trump can get something for America out of the deal. That would be a first.

    Replies: @Greasy William

  138. (Even race differences in IQ might be edging into not entirely unhandshakeworthy territory. (E.g., someE.g., someone as high profile as Jordan Peterson has been talking about it recently – though admittedly only with respect to Jews, since noticing high Jewish IQ is more or less kosher).

    And not only that – he does praise The Bell Curve as reasonable and insightful – after – as he says – – having it read . t w i c e voilà!

    (Peterson is tough. Tougher than Pinker).

  139. @German_reader
    @Dmitry


    And also various kinds of apocalyptic histrionism (‘world’s going to end tomorrow’). Again, like a lot of behaviour – it has something related with trying to reduce their feelings of boredom, living as they do in a very safe and comfortable life.
     
    No, I think you don't quite get this because you're Russian, and for Russians today is probably the best time in their history regarding general living standards. The perception in the US (and also in large parts of Western Europe) is rather different imo, there's a real sense that our societies are going down, that today is worse than 30 or 40 years ago, and that tomorrow will be even worse, because of economic insecurity for the former middle class and because of ongoing demographic replacement that is destroying the national culture. This isn't just nostalgia, it's a justified sense of dread about the likely endpoint of current trends.

    Replies: @Dmitry, @LondonBob

    Trump is a lame duck President and always has been. They pulled out all the stops and it has largely worked. I am not going criticise him, he achieved wildly beyond my expectations just getting where he got. The US is so corrupted I think the best outcome would be a ollapse in time to save Europe.

  140. @Thomm
    Meet Toni Lane Casserly :

    https://youtu.be/cJPE4H_fgBQ

    She is a pretty white girl who is extremely keen on abolishing borders, and allowing unlimited Muslims and Africans to come to the West. She really craves men of these races.

    She is using blockchain to supercede the restrictions nation-states impose, and is getting quite a platform.

    I don’t approve of this either, but it isn’t my primary pet cause the way it is for WNs.

    But what is you WN wiggers gonna do? One such woman has more impact than 1,000,000 WNs.

    Replies: @Rosie

    But what is you WN wiggers gonna do? One such woman has more impact than 1,000,000 WNs.

    Don’t be ridiculous. This woman has no impact whatsoever.

    Do you seriously think if some gentile billionaire started handing out money to “nonprofits” to protest the genocide in South Africa there would be no takers?

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie


    Don’t be ridiculous. This woman has no impact whatsoever.
     
    False. She has direct contact with many billionaires, and receives a lot of funding. She is central to the globalist agenda.

    Replies: @Rosie

  141. @Polish Perspective
    It would be more accurate to say that MAGA fanboys are dead. Weev, Anglin and the others turned themselves into braindead Trump cheerleaders over the past six months, with an acceleration after the new year. What happened to TWP need not be fatal. As far as I've heard, Hovater and the others are continuing, but obviously Parrott and Heimbach are purged.

    As for Trump, his betrayal was not exactly a surprise to anyone's who has been paying attention. He could have killed DACA from day one with a stroke of a pen but refused to do so. He appointed Wall Street Jews as his economic advisors (Mnuchin at the treasury, Cohn as his head of economic advisor group). He recently replaced Cohn with another Wall Street Jew, Kudlow.

    What we have is not death but a divergence. The "reform from within" crowd, Vaughn, Weev, Anglin et al are now being separated from Cantwell, Wallace and others who now insist on further radicalisation.

    Ultimately, once people become fully redpilled, there isn't any way going back. Trump will crash and burn in 2020 and the GOP will (likely) be wiped out in the upcoming midterms. All of this means that the seeds for radicalisation will become stronger and more plentiful, not the other way around.

    Ask yourself: is there more Alt Right content out on the web today than there were a year ago? The answer is unambiguously yes. YouTube in particular has seen an explosion of it. Are the previously established brands getting more traffic? Red Ice has more subs than ever. Anglin recently said that they have as much traffic now as pre-Cville, and this is with changing their domain name god knows how many times.

    I don't buy the "alt right is dead" meme. Trump's presidency is, but that was never the same thing (despite hysterical screeching from shitlibs) as the Alt-Right. As for altright.com, who ever gave a shit about what they wrote? You must have been one of their few readers. Everyone knows that TRS & TDS have been the main outlets. RedIce has been more normie friendly, but still dipped in those water. Occidental Dissent has been growing rapidly of late and show some potential.

    Your blackpill timeline was just an observation of previous trends and then you did a simple extrapolation into the future By late December, when you posted it, the pattern was already crystal clear. No great prize to have previous trends matching any future timeline. See my previous point about Trump's cucking from early on.

    The only people who were surprised by these recent events are the retarded Trump fanboys and morons like Anglin or weev who turned themselves into braindead cheerleaders. But everyone else understands that the Alt Right did not need Trump, and it will survive him. If anything, it will become more radicalised and grow even bigger as his presidency descends into the gutter. Or does anyone seriously think that permanent democratic rule, a one-party state á la California will sedate people?

    That was always the danger with a Trump presidency. He'd delay everything but not change anything and take up 8 valuable years. Instead we got all the betrayals served very early on, saving us a lot of years of internal debate. I never bought the god emperor meme and the notion that the AR is tied up to Trump is even more retarded. More accurately, the credibility and the reputation of retarded people within the AR who will now (thankfully) be marginalised.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn’t even make any sense.

    BE LIKE TRUMP
    Trump won the White woman vote by not cucking
    We win women the same way
    Appealing to women will fail
    -Daily Stormer

    https://dailystormer.name/thotpocalypse-now-episode-4-a-stay-of-execution/

    If I’m not mistaken, this is Chateau Heartiste’s logic. It is impossible to overestimate just how stupid this is.

    I suppose he doesn’t have much choice but to try and spin White women’s support for Trump as a vindication of his misogyny and double down. Reasonable people should know better.

    • Replies: @neutral
    @Rosie

    Andrew Anglin clearly has issues with women, but he is not the Pope of the alt right that decrees all ideas to be adhered to.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Thomm
    @Rosie

    Sorry, but WN has an extremely high overlap with feminism.

    The primary problem in the West today, bar none, is the overvaluation of the female and undervaluation of the male.

    That is why Men's Rights is the true Alt-Right. Race nationalism is really just feminism of a different sort.

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn’t even make any sense.
     
    There's a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.

    Replies: @Rosie

  142. @reiner Tor
    @Randal

    The Indians bailed out of the program.

    Replies: @Randal, @Dmitry

    Nothing official yet – probably just ‘leaking’ these comments, as the Indian ‘bad cop’ negotiation style:

    https://vz.ru/news/2018/3/20/913446.html

  143. @Rosie
    @Polish Perspective

    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn't even make any sense.

    BE LIKE TRUMP
    Trump won the White woman vote by not cucking
    We win women the same way
    Appealing to women will fail
    -Daily Stormer

    https://dailystormer.name/thotpocalypse-now-episode-4-a-stay-of-execution/

    If I'm not mistaken, this is Chateau Heartiste's logic. It is impossible to overestimate just how stupid this is.

    I suppose he doesn't have much choice but to try and spin White women's support for Trump as a vindication of his misogyny and double down. Reasonable people should know better.

    Replies: @neutral, @Thomm, @dfordoom

    Andrew Anglin clearly has issues with women, but he is not the Pope of the alt right that decrees all ideas to be adhered to.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @neutral

    I know. I don't hold the alt-Right responsible for everything he says, and to be perfectly honest, I don't mind him doing his thing, but it's important that his approach to the Woman Question not become alt-Right orthodoxy. I know for a fact the most extreme woman-haters use ridicule (cuck! White knight!) to shame and silence men who take a more moderate and realistic view on the issue, and that's what really gets on my nerves. It's "free speech for me, but not for thee, unless you hate women as much as me."

    Replies: @neutral

  144. @Anatoly Karlin
    @German_reader

    Another example of the breakdown of traditional British mores, from a close acquaintance.

    Large percentage of British firemen (and I think siloviks in general) belong to the Freemasons - or used to, I doubt that is still the case today. While there are a great many elements of mutual help within it, contrary to propaganda, Freemasons are a traditionalist order that doesn't seek to undermine society; instead, to the extent they have political leanings, it's conservative-patriotic. At society dinners middle-aged firemen would drink toasts to the health of the Queen with no irony in the 1990s. But that was dwindled away by the early 2000s. I find it impossible to imagine my cohort doing that.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Philip Owen

    The whole public sector was once stiff with Freemasons, at least in Tory areas. State owñed industry too. Emergency services as you suggest are probably he last hold out.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
  145. @neutral
    @Rosie

    Andrew Anglin clearly has issues with women, but he is not the Pope of the alt right that decrees all ideas to be adhered to.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I know. I don’t hold the alt-Right responsible for everything he says, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t mind him doing his thing, but it’s important that his approach to the Woman Question not become alt-Right orthodoxy. I know for a fact the most extreme woman-haters use ridicule (cuck! White knight!) to shame and silence men who take a more moderate and realistic view on the issue, and that’s what really gets on my nerves. It’s “free speech for me, but not for thee, unless you hate women as much as me.”

    • Replies: @neutral
    @Rosie


    I know for a fact the most extreme woman-haters use ridicule (cuck! White knight!)
     
    The word cuck is generally applied to those that sell out their own race to gain favour from (((those))) that rule.I think the word is appropriate, it tends not to be used for gender discussions but rather for those that are race traitors.

    Replies: @Rosie

  146. @Rosie
    @neutral

    I know. I don't hold the alt-Right responsible for everything he says, and to be perfectly honest, I don't mind him doing his thing, but it's important that his approach to the Woman Question not become alt-Right orthodoxy. I know for a fact the most extreme woman-haters use ridicule (cuck! White knight!) to shame and silence men who take a more moderate and realistic view on the issue, and that's what really gets on my nerves. It's "free speech for me, but not for thee, unless you hate women as much as me."

    Replies: @neutral

    I know for a fact the most extreme woman-haters use ridicule (cuck! White knight!)

    The word cuck is generally applied to those that sell out their own race to gain favour from (((those))) that rule.I think the word is appropriate, it tends not to be used for gender discussions but rather for those that are race traitors.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @neutral

    I have no problem with the word when it is used against race traitors, because it's the simple truth. However, it is also used to refer to men who disagree with extreme anti-woman sentiment on the alt-Right, as a synonym for "White Knight." Maybe they've stopped doing that. The memes change so quickly, it's hard to keep up.

  147. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    But what is you WN wiggers gonna do? One such woman has more impact than 1,000,000 WNs.
     
    Don't be ridiculous. This woman has no impact whatsoever.

    Do you seriously think if some gentile billionaire started handing out money to "nonprofits" to protest the genocide in South Africa there would be no takers?

    Replies: @Thomm

    Don’t be ridiculous. This woman has no impact whatsoever.

    False. She has direct contact with many billionaires, and receives a lot of funding. She is central to the globalist agenda.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Thomm


    False. She has direct contact with many billionaires, and receives a lot of funding. She is central to the globalist agenda.
     
    Without the billionaires, she would be nothing. Where are the White billionaires offering to fund protests against grooming gangs?

    Replies: @Thomm

  148. @Rosie
    @Polish Perspective

    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn't even make any sense.

    BE LIKE TRUMP
    Trump won the White woman vote by not cucking
    We win women the same way
    Appealing to women will fail
    -Daily Stormer

    https://dailystormer.name/thotpocalypse-now-episode-4-a-stay-of-execution/

    If I'm not mistaken, this is Chateau Heartiste's logic. It is impossible to overestimate just how stupid this is.

    I suppose he doesn't have much choice but to try and spin White women's support for Trump as a vindication of his misogyny and double down. Reasonable people should know better.

    Replies: @neutral, @Thomm, @dfordoom

    Sorry, but WN has an extremely high overlap with feminism.

    The primary problem in the West today, bar none, is the overvaluation of the female and undervaluation of the male.

    That is why Men’s Rights is the true Alt-Right. Race nationalism is really just feminism of a different sort.

    • Troll: German_reader
  149. It was murdered.

    The Power deplatfomed it, cut off its finances, used media to smear it as ‘neo-nazi’ or ‘white supremacist’, let antifa run riot, denied conference reservations, and denied it legal representation.

    Jews rule America.

    If Alt Right had been given equal playing field, it’d be much bigger.

  150. @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader



    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.
     
    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course.

    The same is true of France, which the H-man denounced as intent on "negrizing". Orwell described French civilization as being devoid of "color prejudice".

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany (which still had a problem with illegal Jewish immigrants from Poland as astonishing as that sounds).

    The case of Britain relates to my earlier response to Dmitry about "English hypocrisy".

    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British...agreed.

    Mind-boggling.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Tyrion 2, @Hippopotamusdrome

    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British…agreed.

    I believe they imagined that only a handful of people would move here and they could easily deport anyone if not. Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.

    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course

    There was more immigration to Britain last year than every year between 1066 and 1950 combined, as calculated by David Goodhart.

    If you try to cut it there is always a special plea for every individual immigrant which is always taken by the spineless at face value e.g refugee, student, family, already here, key worker, cultural links etc.

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany

    And all of those countries only degenerated to that from a truly national immigration programme based on shared history, mutual responsibility, culture and dependency.

    These bonds are an order of magnitude more important than simple skin colour and will always be more important. Even while there is a lot of overlap.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Tyrion 2


    Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.
     
    They sure seem to muster up the will to crack down on their own people, don't they?

    They don't just let them in. They tax their own people to support them. I call b.s.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

    , @dfordoom
    @Tyrion 2


    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.
     
    I like that quote.
  151. @neutral
    @Rosie


    I know for a fact the most extreme woman-haters use ridicule (cuck! White knight!)
     
    The word cuck is generally applied to those that sell out their own race to gain favour from (((those))) that rule.I think the word is appropriate, it tends not to be used for gender discussions but rather for those that are race traitors.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I have no problem with the word when it is used against race traitors, because it’s the simple truth. However, it is also used to refer to men who disagree with extreme anti-woman sentiment on the alt-Right, as a synonym for “White Knight.” Maybe they’ve stopped doing that. The memes change so quickly, it’s hard to keep up.

  152. @Tyrion 2
    @Thorfinnsson


    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British…agreed.
     
    I believe they imagined that only a handful of people would move here and they could easily deport anyone if not. Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.

    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course
     
    There was more immigration to Britain last year than every year between 1066 and 1950 combined, as calculated by David Goodhart.

    If you try to cut it there is always a special plea for every individual immigrant which is always taken by the spineless at face value e.g refugee, student, family, already here, key worker, cultural links etc.

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany
     
    And all of those countries only degenerated to that from a truly national immigration programme based on shared history, mutual responsibility, culture and dependency.

    These bonds are an order of magnitude more important than simple skin colour and will always be more important. Even while there is a lot of overlap.

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.

    They sure seem to muster up the will to crack down on their own people, don’t they?

    They don’t just let them in. They tax their own people to support them. I call b.s.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Rosie


    They sure seem to muster up the will to crack down on their own people, don’t they?
     
    Isn't that always the way of the coward? Like when Obama pushed his lovely grandmother under the bus to boost his black authenticity?
  153. @Thomm
    @Rosie


    Don’t be ridiculous. This woman has no impact whatsoever.
     
    False. She has direct contact with many billionaires, and receives a lot of funding. She is central to the globalist agenda.

    Replies: @Rosie

    False. She has direct contact with many billionaires, and receives a lot of funding. She is central to the globalist agenda.

    Without the billionaires, she would be nothing. Where are the White billionaires offering to fund protests against grooming gangs?

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    So you admit that since she has billionaire backing, her cause is making great strides.

    This contradicts your claim that is not making any progress, in Comment #141.

    Replies: @Rosie

  154. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    False. She has direct contact with many billionaires, and receives a lot of funding. She is central to the globalist agenda.
     
    Without the billionaires, she would be nothing. Where are the White billionaires offering to fund protests against grooming gangs?

    Replies: @Thomm

    So you admit that since she has billionaire backing, her cause is making great strides.

    This contradicts your claim that is not making any progress, in Comment #141.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Thomm

    That wasn't my point. My point is that she personally is an insignificant pawn. In other words, it's not "her cause" but theirs. She is but a tool of the plutocrats.

    Replies: @Thomm

  155. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    So you admit that since she has billionaire backing, her cause is making great strides.

    This contradicts your claim that is not making any progress, in Comment #141.

    Replies: @Rosie

    That wasn’t my point. My point is that she personally is an insignificant pawn. In other words, it’s not “her cause” but theirs. She is but a tool of the plutocrats.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    Well, yes, but she is a visible figurehead and eventually earns big speaking fees and TV spots.

    The point is, this is why a lot of white women are pro-globalism. More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @dfordoom

  156. @Rosie
    @Thomm

    That wasn't my point. My point is that she personally is an insignificant pawn. In other words, it's not "her cause" but theirs. She is but a tool of the plutocrats.

    Replies: @Thomm

    Well, yes, but she is a visible figurehead and eventually earns big speaking fees and TV spots.

    The point is, this is why a lot of white women are pro-globalism. More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Thomm

    While its doubtless that female suffrage has been the root of a great deal of issues and contrary to Rosie's beliefs, involvement of women is specifically cause of an increasing amount of Alt-Right rot(compare, for example, how Daily Stormer was able to survive a huge barrage of silencing and in general the no-thot groups I know survive far, far better), the real cause is really liberal democracy in general.

    Its really a pity, because participatory democracy is a great concept. But so is life, and yet it ends in death.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @dfordoom
    @Thomm


    More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.
     
    True, because feminism is the disease that has eaten away the soul of western society and left it vulnerable to opportunist infections like diversity.

    Feminism has destroyed the natural sympathy and affection between men and women. This has been disastrous for men, and disastrous for women.
  157. The point is, this is why a lot of white women are pro-globalist.

    Congress is 80% male, and 100% bought-and-paid for kept whores for the “Globalists.”

    More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.

    Fortunately, it’s becoming clear to more and more Whites that this nothing but yet another divide and conquer diversionary tactic. Never-mind the subversive plutocrats, White college girls are the real menace!

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin

  158. @Dmitry
    @KenH


    I’m not sure how Israel plans to survive once the American military becomes a third world, transgendered rabble that can’t fight or shoot straight and who doesn’t give a flying F about Israel, anti-semitism or their alleged sufferings in WWII. But we’re told Ashkenazi Jews have super high IQ’s so I’m sure they’ve got it all figured out.

     

    If relations with America and Israel would ever break off (if it's happens, it is probably going to take at least another decade or two),

    Then Israel and Russia would build a strong relation.

    Currently Israel is a kind of extension of America, so the relation with Russia is very limited (what's the point in investing in an American property).

    But it's like the most attractive middle eastern girl at the 'prom'. They would not be single for long, if their American partner broke relationship.

    You can sit in a cafe in Tel Aviv (it's where I was visiting last month), and you are in a kind of idealized successful version of a Middle East. It's a much more pleasant and functional environment than most Middle East.

    Russia would kind of dream of having this territory. And selling weapons to it, which weapons would shortly be used and tested and advertised.

    You can see the view to Syria, which is as if were the only Middle Eastern 'beach resort' still on market (after Egypt left Soviet Union alliance for America, during later 1970s). And even Syria as kind of a ugly sister in comparison, is still worth some efforts.

    Replies: @KenH

    There’s nothing stopping Israel from reaching out to Russia now. Israel is more like the plain Jane dating the popular high school quarterback. The plain Jane’s popularity and respect comes from her relationship with the star QB. So it is with Israel and the U.S. with the latter being the star quarterback.

    But once the star QB breaks up with plain Jane she she loses friends and prestige and becomes average again. The same thing would happen with Israel if we adopted a neutral stance towards her and kept her at an arm’s length as we should. Israel has little to offer anyone other than grief and China and Russia would demand a more quid pro quo arrangement than the U.S. who only gives while Israel takes.

    Since China is not Christian they are more clear eyed and pragmatic about the world around them and don’t put Jews on a pedestal or worship them like the average Christian. They wouldn’t be intimidated or cowed by charges of anti-Semitism.

    Israel is a fundamentally parasitic state. It is always in a tenuous position being the only non-Muslim state in the region and requires a financial and military benefactor for survival. For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually? Not long at all.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @KenH


    For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually?
     
    Infinitely.

    Israel didn't get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.

    The harder part is going to be replacing US weapons.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @KenH

  159. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    Well, yes, but she is a visible figurehead and eventually earns big speaking fees and TV spots.

    The point is, this is why a lot of white women are pro-globalism. More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @dfordoom

    While its doubtless that female suffrage has been the root of a great deal of issues and contrary to Rosie’s beliefs, involvement of women is specifically cause of an increasing amount of Alt-Right rot(compare, for example, how Daily Stormer was able to survive a huge barrage of silencing and in general the no-thot groups I know survive far, far better), the real cause is really liberal democracy in general.

    Its really a pity, because participatory democracy is a great concept. But so is life, and yet it ends in death.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    While its doubtless that female suffrage has been the root of a great deal of issues . . .

     

    Proof?

    BTW aren't you an Asian supremacist?

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

  160. @Daniel Chieh
    @Thomm

    While its doubtless that female suffrage has been the root of a great deal of issues and contrary to Rosie's beliefs, involvement of women is specifically cause of an increasing amount of Alt-Right rot(compare, for example, how Daily Stormer was able to survive a huge barrage of silencing and in general the no-thot groups I know survive far, far better), the real cause is really liberal democracy in general.

    Its really a pity, because participatory democracy is a great concept. But so is life, and yet it ends in death.

    Replies: @Rosie

    While its doubtless that female suffrage has been the root of a great deal of issues . . .

    Proof?

    BTW aren’t you an Asian supremacist?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    lol, no.

    There is no proof that we aren't just bits in a simulation made by a Cartesian demon, but there is plenty of evidence that female suffrage consistently leans both toward 1)liberalism and 2)socialism(as defined by expanding size of government):

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

    Note that this isn't limited to European governments or whites: female empowerment tends to move the country toward liberalism in East Asian countries as well and definitively drops fertility(South Korea being a prime candidate). Insofar as China has moved toward nationalism, it is in part because women have actually been further excluded from the government:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM9tD1SX0AAea4_.jpg

    Gays have been effectively excluded from any meaningful position of power for as long as I can remember.

    In short, though, the incentives of women rarely align in a fashion supportive of traditional interests for a variety of reasons, and thus(and gays) tend to form a consistent "fifth column" which NGOs work on. This is an inevitability: insofar as traditional values are defined in a way which were based from male dominance, subverting from them necessarily causes broadening damage to the overall system: akin to changing chemicals in a pool, it is impossible to avoid collateral effects on society. This in itself is probably workable but democracy's effective methodology and overall short-time perspective means that such damage must constantly increase and expand until it destroys its context.

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    Replies: @Rosie

  161. @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    While its doubtless that female suffrage has been the root of a great deal of issues . . .

     

    Proof?

    BTW aren't you an Asian supremacist?

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    lol, no.

    There is no proof that we aren’t just bits in a simulation made by a Cartesian demon, but there is plenty of evidence that female suffrage consistently leans both toward 1)liberalism and 2)socialism(as defined by expanding size of government):

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

    Note that this isn’t limited to European governments or whites: female empowerment tends to move the country toward liberalism in East Asian countries as well and definitively drops fertility(South Korea being a prime candidate). Insofar as China has moved toward nationalism, it is in part because women have actually been further excluded from the government:

    Gays have been effectively excluded from any meaningful position of power for as long as I can remember.

    In short, though, the incentives of women rarely align in a fashion supportive of traditional interests for a variety of reasons, and thus(and gays) tend to form a consistent “fifth column” which NGOs work on. This is an inevitability: insofar as traditional values are defined in a way which were based from male dominance, subverting from them necessarily causes broadening damage to the overall system: akin to changing chemicals in a pool, it is impossible to avoid collateral effects on society. This in itself is probably workable but democracy’s effective methodology and overall short-time perspective means that such damage must constantly increase and expand until it destroys its context.

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    Why do you suppose 70% of White women in Georgia voted for Trump, while only 36% of White women in Washington voted for Trump?

    I keep hearing about "women's nature." Is "women's nature" different in Georgia and Washington, or might it have something to do with the fact that politics is downstream from culture?

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wa

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga

    Replies: @Thomm, @Daniel Chieh

  162. @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    What I read the Indians never understood that it’s not enough to buy new toys, they need to spend money to maintain them, and, even more important, they need to spend a lot of money to train their crews. The Indians keep allocating a disproportionately large portion of their budget to acquisition of new weapons, but they don’t spend enough on training or maintenance.

    The Pakistanis are not like that, they have a modern military tradition going back to British times (the Indians have much less of it, or perhaps civilians have an inordinate influence over the military budget allocations), and they spend (or at least spent when I read about it) the amount needed to train their crews and to maintain their equipment, even if it means less money to buy new equipment.

    Replies: @Mitleser, @Talha

    Pakistan has built itself on a certain model and thought process. It is next to a mutually hostile neighbor which outguns and outnumbers it vastly. Its position is defensive; they know they could never win an offensive war against India in a million years. Thus they have put a lot of eggs in one basket; the air force (and to a certain degree, some relatively well-trained special forces units). They know if India comes rolling in with massive mechanized divisions, they won’t be able to numerically halt the advance unless they win in the air.

    If they win in the air, then this will negate India’s superior numbers on the ground.

    The scenario that gives the Pakistani military command nightmares is a blitzkrieg by India’s mechanized divisions through Lahore and across the north to Afghanistan – effectively cutting the country’s top 1/3 (including important cities like Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar and potentially Multan) from the south 2/3. However to accomplish this, they will have to roll across a lot of area that is sparsely populated, particularly the Thal Desert and surrounding areas:

    My older cousin is much more read up on this and he mentioned once to me that the Pakistani military command has a contingency plan to deploy nuclear weapons within its own territory on these swaths of desert on large concentrations of Indian armor to prevent them from accomplishing the above scenario, likely before they take control of the Indus River; it would completely break the back of any Indian expeditionary force and would be completely within its rights and sidestep any international condemnation.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Talha

    Well I guess we can all sleep soundly knowing that Pakistan has developed a contingency plan for something that India has no interest or capability of doing.

    Replies: @Talha

  163. @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    lol, no.

    There is no proof that we aren't just bits in a simulation made by a Cartesian demon, but there is plenty of evidence that female suffrage consistently leans both toward 1)liberalism and 2)socialism(as defined by expanding size of government):

    http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

    Note that this isn't limited to European governments or whites: female empowerment tends to move the country toward liberalism in East Asian countries as well and definitively drops fertility(South Korea being a prime candidate). Insofar as China has moved toward nationalism, it is in part because women have actually been further excluded from the government:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM9tD1SX0AAea4_.jpg

    Gays have been effectively excluded from any meaningful position of power for as long as I can remember.

    In short, though, the incentives of women rarely align in a fashion supportive of traditional interests for a variety of reasons, and thus(and gays) tend to form a consistent "fifth column" which NGOs work on. This is an inevitability: insofar as traditional values are defined in a way which were based from male dominance, subverting from them necessarily causes broadening damage to the overall system: akin to changing chemicals in a pool, it is impossible to avoid collateral effects on society. This in itself is probably workable but democracy's effective methodology and overall short-time perspective means that such damage must constantly increase and expand until it destroys its context.

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Why do you suppose 70% of White women in Georgia voted for Trump, while only 36% of White women in Washington voted for Trump?

    I keep hearing about “women’s nature.” Is “women’s nature” different in Georgia and Washington, or might it have something to do with the fact that politics is downstream from culture?

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wa

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    Women who vote for Republicans are not right-wing. They are responsible for turning the GOP into a big-government party.

    When women got involved in the Tea Party, the Tea Party swiftly ended. Expecting women to support small government is like expecting government employees to support small government.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    Married women vote differently. However, there is an overall pattern which can be observed with population groups, which I'm sure the Alt-Right has always liked to talk about. The fact that "subversion" or general liberalization and decreasing TFR is such an effective method that progressive organizations such as the Open Society Foundation explicitly talk about promoting it is not a coincidence. And as noted, it applies across all population groups which makes it particularly consistent as a metric.

    I should add, of course, that this could be seen in the effect of women's participation in organizations, including but not limited to alt right groups that I knew of: the general result is that it basically "ruins" it, as the mannerbund essentially has a set of informal rules, mores and language which basically get trashed by including women.

    Of course, limiting women from participating isn't the entire solution like someone like Roissy would like to advocate, as the general issues of stupidity triumphing in any demotic solution continue. Nothing which I said, incidentally, is without personal experience and knowledge, so take that as you will. Incidentally, at one point when I was actually seeking to sabotage an organization(long story) in a political video game, I specifically aimed to get them to promote women into command positions. It was quite successful.

    For the sabotage, not the organization.

    I will pray that the Cartesian demon's emu-brain adds more cycles to the NPCs, it may help. Have a good simulated life.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm, @Anonymous

  164. @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    Why do you suppose 70% of White women in Georgia voted for Trump, while only 36% of White women in Washington voted for Trump?

    I keep hearing about "women's nature." Is "women's nature" different in Georgia and Washington, or might it have something to do with the fact that politics is downstream from culture?

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wa

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga

    Replies: @Thomm, @Daniel Chieh

    Women who vote for Republicans are not right-wing. They are responsible for turning the GOP into a big-government party.

    When women got involved in the Tea Party, the Tea Party swiftly ended. Expecting women to support small government is like expecting government employees to support small government.

  165. @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    Why do you suppose 70% of White women in Georgia voted for Trump, while only 36% of White women in Washington voted for Trump?

    I keep hearing about "women's nature." Is "women's nature" different in Georgia and Washington, or might it have something to do with the fact that politics is downstream from culture?

    Not that this means anything to someone with motivated reasoning.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/wa

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ga

    Replies: @Thomm, @Daniel Chieh

    Married women vote differently. However, there is an overall pattern which can be observed with population groups, which I’m sure the Alt-Right has always liked to talk about. The fact that “subversion” or general liberalization and decreasing TFR is such an effective method that progressive organizations such as the Open Society Foundation explicitly talk about promoting it is not a coincidence. And as noted, it applies across all population groups which makes it particularly consistent as a metric.

    I should add, of course, that this could be seen in the effect of women’s participation in organizations, including but not limited to alt right groups that I knew of: the general result is that it basically “ruins” it, as the mannerbund essentially has a set of informal rules, mores and language which basically get trashed by including women.

    Of course, limiting women from participating isn’t the entire solution like someone like Roissy would like to advocate, as the general issues of stupidity triumphing in any demotic solution continue. Nothing which I said, incidentally, is without personal experience and knowledge, so take that as you will. Incidentally, at one point when I was actually seeking to sabotage an organization(long story) in a political video game, I specifically aimed to get them to promote women into command positions. It was quite successful.

    For the sabotage, not the organization.

    I will pray that the Cartesian demon’s emu-brain adds more cycles to the NPCs, it may help. Have a good simulated life.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    No data, no evidence. Nothing but your own unverifiable "experience." Sorry, but if you are going to blame the demise of the West on women, you're going to have to do better than that.

    Replies: @Thomm

    , @Thomm
    @Daniel Chieh

    White Nationalism is a Goddess Cult.

    It really is, since so much of it is woman-worship by low-value men.

    , @Anonymous
    @Daniel Chieh

    But how can that be? I mean if they're naturally meek followers, surely it should be pretty easy to get them in line?

    How can they be both born followers and consistent wreckers, destroying publications, organizations and civilizations just like that, right under all the manly leaders' noses? Doesn't sound all that logical.

    Come on, people, make a decision already. Which is it?

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie

  166. @Rosie

    The point is, this is why a lot of white women are pro-globalist.
     
    Congress is 80% male, and 100% bought-and-paid for kept whores for the "Globalists."

    More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.
     
    Fortunately, it's becoming clear to more and more Whites that this nothing but yet another divide and conquer diversionary tactic. Never-mind the subversive plutocrats, White college girls are the real menace!

    Replies: @Thomm

    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Thomm

    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for "tradition" in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.

    As with all things, feminism is both a result of, and a driver for, further change in a society. It has positive and negative externalities; I opine more negative ones but it should be noted that no modern society, even the most "regressive" ones, do not have significant elements of feminism.

    I mostly exist to provide Landian view of why everything fails. Except Cthulhu, of course. And the endless screaming to come.

    Replies: @Thomm

    , @Rosie
    @Thomm


    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.
     
    Heartiste needs to get his priorities straight.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.
     
    Aren't you kind of begging the question, here?

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.
     
    When all else fails, appeal to authority.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Thomm

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/female-suffrage/

  167. @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    Married women vote differently. However, there is an overall pattern which can be observed with population groups, which I'm sure the Alt-Right has always liked to talk about. The fact that "subversion" or general liberalization and decreasing TFR is such an effective method that progressive organizations such as the Open Society Foundation explicitly talk about promoting it is not a coincidence. And as noted, it applies across all population groups which makes it particularly consistent as a metric.

    I should add, of course, that this could be seen in the effect of women's participation in organizations, including but not limited to alt right groups that I knew of: the general result is that it basically "ruins" it, as the mannerbund essentially has a set of informal rules, mores and language which basically get trashed by including women.

    Of course, limiting women from participating isn't the entire solution like someone like Roissy would like to advocate, as the general issues of stupidity triumphing in any demotic solution continue. Nothing which I said, incidentally, is without personal experience and knowledge, so take that as you will. Incidentally, at one point when I was actually seeking to sabotage an organization(long story) in a political video game, I specifically aimed to get them to promote women into command positions. It was quite successful.

    For the sabotage, not the organization.

    I will pray that the Cartesian demon's emu-brain adds more cycles to the NPCs, it may help. Have a good simulated life.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm, @Anonymous

    No data, no evidence. Nothing but your own unverifiable “experience.” Sorry, but if you are going to blame the demise of the West on women, you’re going to have to do better than that.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    How about this, from Heartiste :

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/

    Or this :

    The feminist war on everything civilized.

    The fact is, no amount of logic and facts will convince Rosie, because she is only here to get gina tingles. Women like her get aroused by being corrected by men, so the keep coming back for more. To oblige her is to merely entertain her.

    Replies: @Rosie

  168. @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    Married women vote differently. However, there is an overall pattern which can be observed with population groups, which I'm sure the Alt-Right has always liked to talk about. The fact that "subversion" or general liberalization and decreasing TFR is such an effective method that progressive organizations such as the Open Society Foundation explicitly talk about promoting it is not a coincidence. And as noted, it applies across all population groups which makes it particularly consistent as a metric.

    I should add, of course, that this could be seen in the effect of women's participation in organizations, including but not limited to alt right groups that I knew of: the general result is that it basically "ruins" it, as the mannerbund essentially has a set of informal rules, mores and language which basically get trashed by including women.

    Of course, limiting women from participating isn't the entire solution like someone like Roissy would like to advocate, as the general issues of stupidity triumphing in any demotic solution continue. Nothing which I said, incidentally, is without personal experience and knowledge, so take that as you will. Incidentally, at one point when I was actually seeking to sabotage an organization(long story) in a political video game, I specifically aimed to get them to promote women into command positions. It was quite successful.

    For the sabotage, not the organization.

    I will pray that the Cartesian demon's emu-brain adds more cycles to the NPCs, it may help. Have a good simulated life.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm, @Anonymous

    White Nationalism is a Goddess Cult.

    It really is, since so much of it is woman-worship by low-value men.

  169. @Rosie
    @Daniel Chieh

    No data, no evidence. Nothing but your own unverifiable "experience." Sorry, but if you are going to blame the demise of the West on women, you're going to have to do better than that.

    Replies: @Thomm

    How about this, from Heartiste :

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/

    Or this :

    The feminist war on everything civilized.

    The fact is, no amount of logic and facts will convince Rosie, because she is only here to get gina tingles. Women like her get aroused by being corrected by men, so the keep coming back for more. To oblige her is to merely entertain her.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Thomm


    The fact is, no amount of logic and facts will convince Rosie, because she is only here to get gina tingles.
     
    Argumentum ad vaginum.

    I'll tell you what, Thomm, I'll have a look at your links tomorrow, but prepare to get your arse handed to you on a platter if this is nothing but the same old manosphere bs I've already heard a million times.

    Replies: @Thomm

  170. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin

    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for “tradition” in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.

    As with all things, feminism is both a result of, and a driver for, further change in a society. It has positive and negative externalities; I opine more negative ones but it should be noted that no modern society, even the most “regressive” ones, do not have significant elements of feminism.

    I mostly exist to provide Landian view of why everything fails. Except Cthulhu, of course. And the endless screaming to come.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Daniel Chieh


    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for “tradition” in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.
     
    You erroneously conflate 'tradition' with opposition to the tendency to overvalue women. Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.

    Similarly, even in Muslim societies, while women are restricted in many ways (which is no fun for anyone), it is still men who do the dangerous jobs, are sent to die in wars, have lower life expectancy, etc.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries. There were obvious biological reasons for this (the reproduction bottleneck), but those are now obsolete since no one wants a birth rate of 10 anymore, and women have proven that they can't handle democracy. Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources. The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer from whites/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is).

    Read the articles listed here :
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-feminist-war-on/

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie

  171. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin

    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.

    Heartiste needs to get his priorities straight.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.

    Aren’t you kind of begging the question, here?

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.

    When all else fails, appeal to authority.

  172. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    How about this, from Heartiste :

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/decivilizing-human-nature-unleashed/

    Or this :

    The feminist war on everything civilized.

    The fact is, no amount of logic and facts will convince Rosie, because she is only here to get gina tingles. Women like her get aroused by being corrected by men, so the keep coming back for more. To oblige her is to merely entertain her.

    Replies: @Rosie

    The fact is, no amount of logic and facts will convince Rosie, because she is only here to get gina tingles.

    Argumentum ad vaginum.

    I’ll tell you what, Thomm, I’ll have a look at your links tomorrow, but prepare to get your arse handed to you on a platter if this is nothing but the same old manosphere bs I’ve already heard a million times.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    "Manosphere BS"????

    LOLOLOL!

    Rosie, you simply don't understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Read Judgybitch for starters (a woman who does understand how women think) :

    http://judgybitch.com/

    Replies: @Anon

  173. @Greasy William
    @Daniel Chieh

    It is considered the greatest of all mitzvahs

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Jeff Albertson

    Your piety does honor to us all, as does knowing who you would bang.

    • LOL: Talha
  174. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    The fact is, no amount of logic and facts will convince Rosie, because she is only here to get gina tingles.
     
    Argumentum ad vaginum.

    I'll tell you what, Thomm, I'll have a look at your links tomorrow, but prepare to get your arse handed to you on a platter if this is nothing but the same old manosphere bs I've already heard a million times.

    Replies: @Thomm

    “Manosphere BS”????

    LOLOLOL!

    Rosie, you simply don’t understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Read Judgybitch for starters (a woman who does understand how women think) :

    http://judgybitch.com/

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Thomm


    Rosie, you simply don’t understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.
     
    Well, well, well. Seems we have a psychiatrist on the blog today!

    (But based on comment history a disturbingly autistic psychiatrist. Physician, heal thyself.)

    Heh heh heh heh, as the saying goes.
  175. @Daniel Chieh
    @Thomm

    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for "tradition" in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.

    As with all things, feminism is both a result of, and a driver for, further change in a society. It has positive and negative externalities; I opine more negative ones but it should be noted that no modern society, even the most "regressive" ones, do not have significant elements of feminism.

    I mostly exist to provide Landian view of why everything fails. Except Cthulhu, of course. And the endless screaming to come.

    Replies: @Thomm

    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for “tradition” in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.

    You erroneously conflate ‘tradition’ with opposition to the tendency to overvalue women. Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.

    Similarly, even in Muslim societies, while women are restricted in many ways (which is no fun for anyone), it is still men who do the dangerous jobs, are sent to die in wars, have lower life expectancy, etc.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries. There were obvious biological reasons for this (the reproduction bottleneck), but those are now obsolete since no one wants a birth rate of 10 anymore, and women have proven that they can’t handle democracy. Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources. The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer from whites/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is).

    Read the articles listed here :
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-feminist-war-on/

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Thomm

    The problem with democracy isn't women.

    The problem with democracy is democracy.

    , @Rosie
    @Thomm


    Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.
     
    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom. That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen. Imagine thinking women do not "face harm" when their boys are killed in the line of duty, military or civilian. Not only does this imply that women are not human, but even that we are not warm-blooded mammals. Rather, we're like reptiles. Don't alligator moms have like hundreds of young at a time? Not only does she care nothing for their welfare, but I think she sometimes eats them. Okay, so Thom doesn't go quite so far as to accuse us of cannibalizing our own sons, at least not yet.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries.
     
    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you. If I am not much mistaken, men maximize their own reproductive fitness by sleeping with as many women as they can. Of course, that doesn't mean they act on this instinct.

    Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources
     
    .

    Nonsense. Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them. If you want to claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that's fine, but don't be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is.
     
    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries. Before mass immigration, there was no interest whatsoever in doing away with it as the men were perfectly willing to help women in need and abuse was not widespread. I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers, even if it disproportionately affected women. This is the problem with you anti-feminist crusaders. You never seem to actually want to talk about policies that would address your concerns. You just want to use your concerns to demonize women. It is a transparent polarization strategy.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Talha, @Anon

  176. @Thomm
    @Daniel Chieh


    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for “tradition” in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.
     
    You erroneously conflate 'tradition' with opposition to the tendency to overvalue women. Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.

    Similarly, even in Muslim societies, while women are restricted in many ways (which is no fun for anyone), it is still men who do the dangerous jobs, are sent to die in wars, have lower life expectancy, etc.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries. There were obvious biological reasons for this (the reproduction bottleneck), but those are now obsolete since no one wants a birth rate of 10 anymore, and women have proven that they can't handle democracy. Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources. The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer from whites/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is).

    Read the articles listed here :
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-feminist-war-on/

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie

    The problem with democracy isn’t women.

    The problem with democracy is democracy.

  177. Anon[306] • Disclaimer says:

    Women will follow and enforce the status quo and act however the dominant figure around wants them to. The issue is not women themselves, the issue is the foreign elite telling white women how to act, and to act against the interests of white men. Women would flip tomorrow if white nationalists ran the media and state apparatus instead of this foreign tribe.

    Now back to the alt right discussion, please.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anon


    Women will follow and enforce the status quo and act however the dominant figure around wants them to. The issue is not women themselves, the issue is the foreign elite telling white women how to act, and to act against the interests of white men.
     
    That's what the foreign elite thought, until November 2016.

    Despite the most extraordinary media assault on a candidate in history, working class White women bitch-slapped the anti-White establishment with a landslide 61% vote for the evil nazi, putting White male college graduates to shame as they only went 53% for Trump.

    The only White group that voted for Hillary was college grad women, who only voted 51% for Hillary. Imagine after a lifetime of propaganda, four years in college learning all about how evil White men are, and getting a chance to vote for the First Woman POTUS, and still barely a majority voted for her. Ouch!

    Replies: @polskijoe

  178. @KenH
    @Dmitry

    There's nothing stopping Israel from reaching out to Russia now. Israel is more like the plain Jane dating the popular high school quarterback. The plain Jane's popularity and respect comes from her relationship with the star QB. So it is with Israel and the U.S. with the latter being the star quarterback.

    But once the star QB breaks up with plain Jane she she loses friends and prestige and becomes average again. The same thing would happen with Israel if we adopted a neutral stance towards her and kept her at an arm's length as we should. Israel has little to offer anyone other than grief and China and Russia would demand a more quid pro quo arrangement than the U.S. who only gives while Israel takes.

    Since China is not Christian they are more clear eyed and pragmatic about the world around them and don't put Jews on a pedestal or worship them like the average Christian. They wouldn't be intimidated or cowed by charges of anti-Semitism.

    Israel is a fundamentally parasitic state. It is always in a tenuous position being the only non-Muslim state in the region and requires a financial and military benefactor for survival. For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually? Not long at all.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually?

    Infinitely.

    Israel didn’t get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.

    The harder part is going to be replacing US weapons.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    There was some help before, e.g. I think some nuclear material disappeared in the US and then probably mysteriously reappeared in Israel. But overall I agree, Israel would have survived without it (and probably would have built nukes anyway later on), and likely would survive for a long time after cutting off all US aid. I never agreed to the WN talking points about how Israel would collapse the day after US aid was cut off.

    It wouldn’t be a good or desirable development from an Israeli point of view, but it wouldn’t be an existential threat, unless it was accompanied by strong BDS, embargo, etc. on the part of all or most of the US sphere. Even so, it’d probably mean a lot of strong anti-Jewish sentiment, and so probably increased Jewish immigration to Israel. It’s also unlikely that all countries cut off their relations to Israel, obviously China or Russia would be eager to buy cutting edge western technology from Israel. So probably Israel would survive and might even get stronger.

    Replies: @Greasy William, @Dmitry

    , @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    We’re talking about Arab opponents. Israel currently has cutting edge military technology. Unlikely to need modern weapons for several decades. You can figure out something until then, like a combination of Russian and Chinese imports.

    , @KenH
    @Greasy William


    Israel didn’t get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.
     
    Israel would have lost the six day war without Nixon's airlift of large amounts of military weaponry, so much so that it put the U.S. military in Europe temporarily at risk.

    https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/10/how-richard-nixon-saved-israel/

    Israel would descend into third world status without American and European financial and military aid.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  179. @Greasy William
    @KenH


    For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually?
     
    Infinitely.

    Israel didn't get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.

    The harder part is going to be replacing US weapons.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @KenH

    There was some help before, e.g. I think some nuclear material disappeared in the US and then probably mysteriously reappeared in Israel. But overall I agree, Israel would have survived without it (and probably would have built nukes anyway later on), and likely would survive for a long time after cutting off all US aid. I never agreed to the WN talking points about how Israel would collapse the day after US aid was cut off.

    It wouldn’t be a good or desirable development from an Israeli point of view, but it wouldn’t be an existential threat, unless it was accompanied by strong BDS, embargo, etc. on the part of all or most of the US sphere. Even so, it’d probably mean a lot of strong anti-Jewish sentiment, and so probably increased Jewish immigration to Israel. It’s also unlikely that all countries cut off their relations to Israel, obviously China or Russia would be eager to buy cutting edge western technology from Israel. So probably Israel would survive and might even get stronger.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    Yes exactly. The people who say that they just want the US to stay "neutral" in the conflict only say that because they are militarily illiterate. When US aid does stop and Israel still doesn't collapse, they will say that the US should stop selling Israel weapons. When that happens and Israel doesn't collapse they will say the US should cease diplomatic support in the UN. When that happens and still nothing they will call for the US to intervene against Israel militarily, at which point they will presumably realize how stupid they were to rail against Islamic immigration for so long. But by then it will be too late. Kinda tragic.


    Unlikely to need modern weapons for several decades.
     
    You need the US to sell you the spare parts to keep those weapons working, as Iran learned the hard way after the Revolution.

    You can figure out something until then, like a combination of Russian and Chinese imports.
     
    Russia and China aren't the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren't going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world to sell a relatively small number of weapons to a state that they fundamentally don't like or trust.

    My proposal for the new US mideast policy is as follows:
    1. The US announces an immediate termination of all aid and weapons sales to Israel.
    2. US troops and equipment are removed from Israel immediately.
    3. All joint military exercises with Israel cease immediately.
    4. The US announces that it will no longer veto anti Israel resolutions in the UN, but that it will not enforce them either. If China and Russia want to pass a resolution calling on Israel to do or stop doing something, let them enforce it themselves.
    5. All non naval US bases in the region will be closed down.
    6. The Kurds will be abandoned. They should be used to it by now. For me this one would hurt a lot.
    7. Intelligence cooperation and trade with Israel will continue as before.
    8. Aid to Egypt and Jordan will continue and so will the alliance with the Saudis.

    These policy changes will allow the US to finally wash its hands of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From now on whenever Israel does something that people don't like and the world comes crying to the US, the US can just shrug and say "talk to Israel".

    As for Israel, like I said the problem would be replacing the US weapons. The loss of the aid can be paid for just by cutting off the welfare to the Haredim and the Arab Israelis. Some of the new weapons systems can be paid for by hacking IDF pensions, eliminating the utterly worthless female soldiers (who are referred to as "company mattresses" in the IDF) and getting rid of the expensive "non lethal" crowd control weapons the IDF uses to babysit the Palestinians. Even so, Israel would still have to double it's defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.

    The UN stuff wouldn't be a big deal. The UN is toothless without the US to act as its enforcer. Israel would just leave the UN and tell the nations, "If you don't like our policies, you know where to find us."

    Alas I don't see the US making these policy changes for another 20 to 30 years or so when the 2nd American Civil War breaks out.

    Even people who don't care about the Arab-Israeli conflict should still support US disengagement from the region because it is our best chance to see cool new weapons systems in action. We haven't gotten to see a proper war since the first Gulf War in the early 90's, and that wasn't even a remotely fair fight. The next Syrian Israeli war, in contrast, should be a lot of fun.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Dmitry

    , @Dmitry
    @reiner Tor


    , obviously China or Russia would be eager to buy cutting edge western technology from Israel.
     
    Russia only has to buy drones from Israel - and one of its drone contracts was a technology transfer one. This was an area where Russia was behind. The reason is apparently the miniaturized electronics onboard.

    They also buy some miniaturized electronics from Israel to install in the domestic drones.

    In other military areas, Russia is fine by itself, as it has a domestic military industry, where it's ahead of even the Americans in some areas.

    -

    China (or Chinese free-market) has started investing in non-military hi-tech scene in Israel.

    When you are in Israel, this year you see quite a lot of Chinese (or Japanese?) groups of businessmen. So there is an activity level there.
  180. @Greasy William
    @KenH


    For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually?
     
    Infinitely.

    Israel didn't get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.

    The harder part is going to be replacing US weapons.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @KenH

    We’re talking about Arab opponents. Israel currently has cutting edge military technology. Unlikely to need modern weapons for several decades. You can figure out something until then, like a combination of Russian and Chinese imports.

  181. @Rosie
    @Tyrion 2


    Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.
     
    They sure seem to muster up the will to crack down on their own people, don't they?

    They don't just let them in. They tax their own people to support them. I call b.s.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

    They sure seem to muster up the will to crack down on their own people, don’t they?

    Isn’t that always the way of the coward? Like when Obama pushed his lovely grandmother under the bus to boost his black authenticity?

  182. @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    There was some help before, e.g. I think some nuclear material disappeared in the US and then probably mysteriously reappeared in Israel. But overall I agree, Israel would have survived without it (and probably would have built nukes anyway later on), and likely would survive for a long time after cutting off all US aid. I never agreed to the WN talking points about how Israel would collapse the day after US aid was cut off.

    It wouldn’t be a good or desirable development from an Israeli point of view, but it wouldn’t be an existential threat, unless it was accompanied by strong BDS, embargo, etc. on the part of all or most of the US sphere. Even so, it’d probably mean a lot of strong anti-Jewish sentiment, and so probably increased Jewish immigration to Israel. It’s also unlikely that all countries cut off their relations to Israel, obviously China or Russia would be eager to buy cutting edge western technology from Israel. So probably Israel would survive and might even get stronger.

    Replies: @Greasy William, @Dmitry

    Yes exactly. The people who say that they just want the US to stay “neutral” in the conflict only say that because they are militarily illiterate. When US aid does stop and Israel still doesn’t collapse, they will say that the US should stop selling Israel weapons. When that happens and Israel doesn’t collapse they will say the US should cease diplomatic support in the UN. When that happens and still nothing they will call for the US to intervene against Israel militarily, at which point they will presumably realize how stupid they were to rail against Islamic immigration for so long. But by then it will be too late. Kinda tragic.

    Unlikely to need modern weapons for several decades.

    You need the US to sell you the spare parts to keep those weapons working, as Iran learned the hard way after the Revolution.

    You can figure out something until then, like a combination of Russian and Chinese imports.

    Russia and China aren’t the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren’t going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world to sell a relatively small number of weapons to a state that they fundamentally don’t like or trust.

    My proposal for the new US mideast policy is as follows:
    1. The US announces an immediate termination of all aid and weapons sales to Israel.
    2. US troops and equipment are removed from Israel immediately.
    3. All joint military exercises with Israel cease immediately.
    4. The US announces that it will no longer veto anti Israel resolutions in the UN, but that it will not enforce them either. If China and Russia want to pass a resolution calling on Israel to do or stop doing something, let them enforce it themselves.
    5. All non naval US bases in the region will be closed down.
    6. The Kurds will be abandoned. They should be used to it by now. For me this one would hurt a lot.
    7. Intelligence cooperation and trade with Israel will continue as before.
    8. Aid to Egypt and Jordan will continue and so will the alliance with the Saudis.

    These policy changes will allow the US to finally wash its hands of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From now on whenever Israel does something that people don’t like and the world comes crying to the US, the US can just shrug and say “talk to Israel”.

    As for Israel, like I said the problem would be replacing the US weapons. The loss of the aid can be paid for just by cutting off the welfare to the Haredim and the Arab Israelis. Some of the new weapons systems can be paid for by hacking IDF pensions, eliminating the utterly worthless female soldiers (who are referred to as “company mattresses” in the IDF) and getting rid of the expensive “non lethal” crowd control weapons the IDF uses to babysit the Palestinians. Even so, Israel would still have to double it’s defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.

    The UN stuff wouldn’t be a big deal. The UN is toothless without the US to act as its enforcer. Israel would just leave the UN and tell the nations, “If you don’t like our policies, you know where to find us.”

    Alas I don’t see the US making these policy changes for another 20 to 30 years or so when the 2nd American Civil War breaks out.

    Even people who don’t care about the Arab-Israeli conflict should still support US disengagement from the region because it is our best chance to see cool new weapons systems in action. We haven’t gotten to see a proper war since the first Gulf War in the early 90’s, and that wasn’t even a remotely fair fight. The next Syrian Israeli war, in contrast, should be a lot of fun.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William


    You need the US to sell you the spare parts to keep those weapons working, as Iran learned the hard way after the Revolution.
     
    Israel is not Iran. It is probably much more able to produce those spare parts than Iran was in the 1980s. Probably not for the F-35, but they have so many they could cannibalize some. And it’s hardly needed against the Arabs. The Russians and the Chinese would be eager to help anyway in exchange for just one functional F-35.

    Russia and China aren’t the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren’t going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world to sell a relatively small number of weapons to a state that they fundamentally don’t like or trust.
     
    They don’t like or trust Iran either. Or Syria, for the matter. The rest of the Arabs are American allies or satellites anyway. So the Arabs don’t seem to mind Israel friendship when it comes to choosing their allies or masters.

    Iran is not fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel anyway, or at worst only in a theoretical way. To Russia, Israel would anyway be more valuable than Iran, because Israel could offer it something it lacks (western high technology), while Iran only has things Russia has in abundance (oil, natural gas, corruption, incompetence). For China it would be a different story, but even they would be at least somewhat interested in Israeli technologies. Also, if Iran dumps them, they could make amends with the Arabs, or vice versa.
    , @Dmitry
    @Greasy William


    Even so, Israel would still have to double it’s defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.
     
    Israel's defense spending is $20 billion a year.

    The aid from the US is around $4 billion a year American-built equipment provided on top.

    If they lose the aid, then they would have to increase spending by $4 billion. On the other hand, that extra spending would go on domestic manufacturers.

    Russia and China aren’t the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren’t going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world
     
    The game is based - from Russia perspective - on who is an American piece, and what is not one.

    Currently Israel is just an American chesspiece.

    Investment in an American owned property, is limited.

    '

    Replies: @Greasy William

  183. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    You are just making excuses for feminism. Even Heartiste has declared that feminism is worse than anti-white racism.

    This is because feminism destroys ENTIRE societies.

    There is a good chance Anatoly Karlin agrees.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Anatoly Karlin

  184. @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    Yes exactly. The people who say that they just want the US to stay "neutral" in the conflict only say that because they are militarily illiterate. When US aid does stop and Israel still doesn't collapse, they will say that the US should stop selling Israel weapons. When that happens and Israel doesn't collapse they will say the US should cease diplomatic support in the UN. When that happens and still nothing they will call for the US to intervene against Israel militarily, at which point they will presumably realize how stupid they were to rail against Islamic immigration for so long. But by then it will be too late. Kinda tragic.


    Unlikely to need modern weapons for several decades.
     
    You need the US to sell you the spare parts to keep those weapons working, as Iran learned the hard way after the Revolution.

    You can figure out something until then, like a combination of Russian and Chinese imports.
     
    Russia and China aren't the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren't going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world to sell a relatively small number of weapons to a state that they fundamentally don't like or trust.

    My proposal for the new US mideast policy is as follows:
    1. The US announces an immediate termination of all aid and weapons sales to Israel.
    2. US troops and equipment are removed from Israel immediately.
    3. All joint military exercises with Israel cease immediately.
    4. The US announces that it will no longer veto anti Israel resolutions in the UN, but that it will not enforce them either. If China and Russia want to pass a resolution calling on Israel to do or stop doing something, let them enforce it themselves.
    5. All non naval US bases in the region will be closed down.
    6. The Kurds will be abandoned. They should be used to it by now. For me this one would hurt a lot.
    7. Intelligence cooperation and trade with Israel will continue as before.
    8. Aid to Egypt and Jordan will continue and so will the alliance with the Saudis.

    These policy changes will allow the US to finally wash its hands of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From now on whenever Israel does something that people don't like and the world comes crying to the US, the US can just shrug and say "talk to Israel".

    As for Israel, like I said the problem would be replacing the US weapons. The loss of the aid can be paid for just by cutting off the welfare to the Haredim and the Arab Israelis. Some of the new weapons systems can be paid for by hacking IDF pensions, eliminating the utterly worthless female soldiers (who are referred to as "company mattresses" in the IDF) and getting rid of the expensive "non lethal" crowd control weapons the IDF uses to babysit the Palestinians. Even so, Israel would still have to double it's defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.

    The UN stuff wouldn't be a big deal. The UN is toothless without the US to act as its enforcer. Israel would just leave the UN and tell the nations, "If you don't like our policies, you know where to find us."

    Alas I don't see the US making these policy changes for another 20 to 30 years or so when the 2nd American Civil War breaks out.

    Even people who don't care about the Arab-Israeli conflict should still support US disengagement from the region because it is our best chance to see cool new weapons systems in action. We haven't gotten to see a proper war since the first Gulf War in the early 90's, and that wasn't even a remotely fair fight. The next Syrian Israeli war, in contrast, should be a lot of fun.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Dmitry

    You need the US to sell you the spare parts to keep those weapons working, as Iran learned the hard way after the Revolution.

    Israel is not Iran. It is probably much more able to produce those spare parts than Iran was in the 1980s. Probably not for the F-35, but they have so many they could cannibalize some. And it’s hardly needed against the Arabs. The Russians and the Chinese would be eager to help anyway in exchange for just one functional F-35.

    Russia and China aren’t the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren’t going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world to sell a relatively small number of weapons to a state that they fundamentally don’t like or trust.

    They don’t like or trust Iran either. Or Syria, for the matter. The rest of the Arabs are American allies or satellites anyway. So the Arabs don’t seem to mind Israel friendship when it comes to choosing their allies or masters.

    Iran is not fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel anyway, or at worst only in a theoretical way. To Russia, Israel would anyway be more valuable than Iran, because Israel could offer it something it lacks (western high technology), while Iran only has things Russia has in abundance (oil, natural gas, corruption, incompetence). For China it would be a different story, but even they would be at least somewhat interested in Israeli technologies. Also, if Iran dumps them, they could make amends with the Arabs, or vice versa.

  185. @Rosie
    @Polish Perspective

    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn't even make any sense.

    BE LIKE TRUMP
    Trump won the White woman vote by not cucking
    We win women the same way
    Appealing to women will fail
    -Daily Stormer

    https://dailystormer.name/thotpocalypse-now-episode-4-a-stay-of-execution/

    If I'm not mistaken, this is Chateau Heartiste's logic. It is impossible to overestimate just how stupid this is.

    I suppose he doesn't have much choice but to try and spin White women's support for Trump as a vindication of his misogyny and double down. Reasonable people should know better.

    Replies: @neutral, @Thomm, @dfordoom

    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn’t even make any sense.

    There’s a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    There’s a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.
     
    I think there is actually quite a bit of sense in what you say here. The problem is that the alt-Right has redefined feminism to mean any sense of self-confidence on the part of women. Even opposition to Wife-beating is "feminist" on the alt-Right.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

  186. @Tyrion 2
    @Thorfinnsson


    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British…agreed.
     
    I believe they imagined that only a handful of people would move here and they could easily deport anyone if not. Then it happened and the exhausted elite just sort of went with it.

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.

    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course
     
    There was more immigration to Britain last year than every year between 1066 and 1950 combined, as calculated by David Goodhart.

    If you try to cut it there is always a special plea for every individual immigrant which is always taken by the spineless at face value e.g refugee, student, family, already here, key worker, cultural links etc.

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany
     
    And all of those countries only degenerated to that from a truly national immigration programme based on shared history, mutual responsibility, culture and dependency.

    These bonds are an order of magnitude more important than simple skin colour and will always be more important. Even while there is a lot of overlap.

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    Most multiculturalism is mere rationalisation for cowardice in the face of unintended change.

    I like that quote.

  187. Asking for the Alt Right to stop bashing women makes no sense. The demographic the Alt Right appeals to are sexually frustrated young men who carry a tremendous amount of resentment for women.

    Guys who are able to get girls don’t spend all day creating humorous memes on 4chan because they are too busy playing sports, partying and banging sluts.

    Any “pro white” online forum that attempts to ban misogyny will quickly turn into a boring Stormfront clone.

    The internet Alt-Right has always been a cesspool, and thus it shall remain.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Greasy William


    Asking for the Alt Right to stop bashing women makes no sense.
     
    Then all is lost. If a majority of alt-Right men are just out for revenge against women, they're not really pro-White. Forced to choose, they will make a priority of punishing women rather than advocating for Whites.
  188. @Thomm
    @Rosie

    Well, yes, but she is a visible figurehead and eventually earns big speaking fees and TV spots.

    The point is, this is why a lot of white women are pro-globalism. More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @dfordoom

    More importantly, fighting feminism is Job #1.

    True, because feminism is the disease that has eaten away the soul of western society and left it vulnerable to opportunist infections like diversity.

    Feminism has destroyed the natural sympathy and affection between men and women. This has been disastrous for men, and disastrous for women.

  189. Anonymous[306] • Disclaimer says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    @Rosie

    Married women vote differently. However, there is an overall pattern which can be observed with population groups, which I'm sure the Alt-Right has always liked to talk about. The fact that "subversion" or general liberalization and decreasing TFR is such an effective method that progressive organizations such as the Open Society Foundation explicitly talk about promoting it is not a coincidence. And as noted, it applies across all population groups which makes it particularly consistent as a metric.

    I should add, of course, that this could be seen in the effect of women's participation in organizations, including but not limited to alt right groups that I knew of: the general result is that it basically "ruins" it, as the mannerbund essentially has a set of informal rules, mores and language which basically get trashed by including women.

    Of course, limiting women from participating isn't the entire solution like someone like Roissy would like to advocate, as the general issues of stupidity triumphing in any demotic solution continue. Nothing which I said, incidentally, is without personal experience and knowledge, so take that as you will. Incidentally, at one point when I was actually seeking to sabotage an organization(long story) in a political video game, I specifically aimed to get them to promote women into command positions. It was quite successful.

    For the sabotage, not the organization.

    I will pray that the Cartesian demon's emu-brain adds more cycles to the NPCs, it may help. Have a good simulated life.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Thomm, @Anonymous

    But how can that be? I mean if they’re naturally meek followers, surely it should be pretty easy to get them in line?

    How can they be both born followers and consistent wreckers, destroying publications, organizations and civilizations just like that, right under all the manly leaders’ noses? Doesn’t sound all that logical.

    Come on, people, make a decision already. Which is it?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Anonymous

    Read your Schopenhauer.

    Like most things, it is a symptom of deeper rot rather than necessarily the cause of it.

    , @Rosie
    @Anonymous

    Seriously, one minute we're too easy to manipulate. The next minute we're so out of control we need to be chained to the stove.

  190. Actually, the fake alt-right is dead, which is good since the media has lost their stalking horse. The real alt-right is just beginning and is inevitable.

  191. @Anonymous
    @Daniel Chieh

    But how can that be? I mean if they're naturally meek followers, surely it should be pretty easy to get them in line?

    How can they be both born followers and consistent wreckers, destroying publications, organizations and civilizations just like that, right under all the manly leaders' noses? Doesn't sound all that logical.

    Come on, people, make a decision already. Which is it?

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie

    Read your Schopenhauer.

    Like most things, it is a symptom of deeper rot rather than necessarily the cause of it.

  192. It’s obvious that the white guys who make up the alt-right have no idea how to fight a social or cultural war, especially not from an underdog position, because they’re used to being on top.

    Their organizing skills are far inferior to the left. Their image and rhetoric are embarrassingly cringy (“Proud Boys”, “Atomwaffen”, “Patriot Prayer” etc). They don’t understand how to wield criticism as a social weapon. They are verbally inferior to the left, unaccepting of internal criticism, and therefore slip into the same powerless niche occupied by Stormfront, despite claiming they haven’t.

    90% of them are either old dudes who just want to vent on the internet, or young dudes who only want to “have fun” by posting frogs and “owning” SJWs. That is how you lose culture wars. It’s also why the solution to liberal internationalism will eventually have to come from outside the west.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Jason Liu

    I probably will write further on this. I'll add a quick rejoinder here that one of the commentators is partly correct: the Alt-Right was operating under highly hostile conditions and much of its unhealthy methodology was a result of being under that pressure.

  193. @Anon
    Women will follow and enforce the status quo and act however the dominant figure around wants them to. The issue is not women themselves, the issue is the foreign elite telling white women how to act, and to act against the interests of white men. Women would flip tomorrow if white nationalists ran the media and state apparatus instead of this foreign tribe.

    Now back to the alt right discussion, please.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Women will follow and enforce the status quo and act however the dominant figure around wants them to. The issue is not women themselves, the issue is the foreign elite telling white women how to act, and to act against the interests of white men.

    That’s what the foreign elite thought, until November 2016.

    Despite the most extraordinary media assault on a candidate in history, working class White women bitch-slapped the anti-White establishment with a landslide 61% vote for the evil nazi, putting White male college graduates to shame as they only went 53% for Trump.

    The only White group that voted for Hillary was college grad women, who only voted 51% for Hillary. Imagine after a lifetime of propaganda, four years in college learning all about how evil White men are, and getting a chance to vote for the First Woman POTUS, and still barely a majority voted for her. Ouch!

    • Replies: @polskijoe
    @Rosie

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    The feminism of 1900 has been accepted by vast majority of the West.

    Men and women in general are different. They also need to work together and share some similarities.
    Both needed for society for function.

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

  194. @Anonymous
    @Daniel Chieh

    But how can that be? I mean if they're naturally meek followers, surely it should be pretty easy to get them in line?

    How can they be both born followers and consistent wreckers, destroying publications, organizations and civilizations just like that, right under all the manly leaders' noses? Doesn't sound all that logical.

    Come on, people, make a decision already. Which is it?

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie

    Seriously, one minute we’re too easy to manipulate. The next minute we’re so out of control we need to be chained to the stove.

  195. @Greasy William
    Asking for the Alt Right to stop bashing women makes no sense. The demographic the Alt Right appeals to are sexually frustrated young men who carry a tremendous amount of resentment for women.

    Guys who are able to get girls don't spend all day creating humorous memes on 4chan because they are too busy playing sports, partying and banging sluts.

    Any "pro white" online forum that attempts to ban misogyny will quickly turn into a boring Stormfront clone.

    The internet Alt-Right has always been a cesspool, and thus it shall remain.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Asking for the Alt Right to stop bashing women makes no sense.

    Then all is lost. If a majority of alt-Right men are just out for revenge against women, they’re not really pro-White. Forced to choose, they will make a priority of punishing women rather than advocating for Whites.

  196. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    The alt-Right needs to stop bashing women like, yesterday. So often the hatred of women doesn’t even make any sense.
     
    There's a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.

    Replies: @Rosie

    There’s a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.

    I think there is actually quite a bit of sense in what you say here. The problem is that the alt-Right has redefined feminism to mean any sense of self-confidence on the part of women. Even opposition to Wife-beating is “feminist” on the alt-Right.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    @Rosie

    It's a purity spiral. It's a mirror image of what is happening on the left. It is irredeemably dumb.

    Suddenly one side is wearing hats fashioned to look like female genitalia and proud to call themselves nasty (don't these ladies ever ask themselves, upon looking in the mirror, if they are the bad guys?) while the other is trying to rationalise away beating women - a crime that was never acceptable in the history of their entire civilisation? A civilisation, in part, distinguished by the genuine chivalry their ancestors aspired to.

  197. @Jason Liu
    It's obvious that the white guys who make up the alt-right have no idea how to fight a social or cultural war, especially not from an underdog position, because they're used to being on top.

    Their organizing skills are far inferior to the left. Their image and rhetoric are embarrassingly cringy ("Proud Boys", "Atomwaffen", "Patriot Prayer" etc). They don't understand how to wield criticism as a social weapon. They are verbally inferior to the left, unaccepting of internal criticism, and therefore slip into the same powerless niche occupied by Stormfront, despite claiming they haven't.

    90% of them are either old dudes who just want to vent on the internet, or young dudes who only want to "have fun" by posting frogs and "owning" SJWs. That is how you lose culture wars. It's also why the solution to liberal internationalism will eventually have to come from outside the west.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    I probably will write further on this. I’ll add a quick rejoinder here that one of the commentators is partly correct: the Alt-Right was operating under highly hostile conditions and much of its unhealthy methodology was a result of being under that pressure.

  198. @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    Yes exactly. The people who say that they just want the US to stay "neutral" in the conflict only say that because they are militarily illiterate. When US aid does stop and Israel still doesn't collapse, they will say that the US should stop selling Israel weapons. When that happens and Israel doesn't collapse they will say the US should cease diplomatic support in the UN. When that happens and still nothing they will call for the US to intervene against Israel militarily, at which point they will presumably realize how stupid they were to rail against Islamic immigration for so long. But by then it will be too late. Kinda tragic.


    Unlikely to need modern weapons for several decades.
     
    You need the US to sell you the spare parts to keep those weapons working, as Iran learned the hard way after the Revolution.

    You can figure out something until then, like a combination of Russian and Chinese imports.
     
    Russia and China aren't the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren't going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world to sell a relatively small number of weapons to a state that they fundamentally don't like or trust.

    My proposal for the new US mideast policy is as follows:
    1. The US announces an immediate termination of all aid and weapons sales to Israel.
    2. US troops and equipment are removed from Israel immediately.
    3. All joint military exercises with Israel cease immediately.
    4. The US announces that it will no longer veto anti Israel resolutions in the UN, but that it will not enforce them either. If China and Russia want to pass a resolution calling on Israel to do or stop doing something, let them enforce it themselves.
    5. All non naval US bases in the region will be closed down.
    6. The Kurds will be abandoned. They should be used to it by now. For me this one would hurt a lot.
    7. Intelligence cooperation and trade with Israel will continue as before.
    8. Aid to Egypt and Jordan will continue and so will the alliance with the Saudis.

    These policy changes will allow the US to finally wash its hands of the Arab-Israeli conflict. From now on whenever Israel does something that people don't like and the world comes crying to the US, the US can just shrug and say "talk to Israel".

    As for Israel, like I said the problem would be replacing the US weapons. The loss of the aid can be paid for just by cutting off the welfare to the Haredim and the Arab Israelis. Some of the new weapons systems can be paid for by hacking IDF pensions, eliminating the utterly worthless female soldiers (who are referred to as "company mattresses" in the IDF) and getting rid of the expensive "non lethal" crowd control weapons the IDF uses to babysit the Palestinians. Even so, Israel would still have to double it's defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.

    The UN stuff wouldn't be a big deal. The UN is toothless without the US to act as its enforcer. Israel would just leave the UN and tell the nations, "If you don't like our policies, you know where to find us."

    Alas I don't see the US making these policy changes for another 20 to 30 years or so when the 2nd American Civil War breaks out.

    Even people who don't care about the Arab-Israeli conflict should still support US disengagement from the region because it is our best chance to see cool new weapons systems in action. We haven't gotten to see a proper war since the first Gulf War in the early 90's, and that wasn't even a remotely fair fight. The next Syrian Israeli war, in contrast, should be a lot of fun.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Dmitry

    Even so, Israel would still have to double it’s defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.

    Israel’s defense spending is $20 billion a year.

    The aid from the US is around $4 billion a year American-built equipment provided on top.

    If they lose the aid, then they would have to increase spending by $4 billion. On the other hand, that extra spending would go on domestic manufacturers.

    Russia and China aren’t the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren’t going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world

    The game is based – from Russia perspective – on who is an American piece, and what is not one.

    Currently Israel is just an American chesspiece.

    Investment in an American owned property, is limited.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Dmitry


    If they lose the aid, then they would have to increase spending by $4 billion.
     
    Yes but if America stops selling them weapons then they need to make their own F-35s. Building all their own weapons would cost 20 to 30 billion a year. There is a reason that nobody except the US, France, Russia and China build their own major weapons platforms.

    Replies: @Mitleser

  199. @reiner Tor
    @Greasy William

    There was some help before, e.g. I think some nuclear material disappeared in the US and then probably mysteriously reappeared in Israel. But overall I agree, Israel would have survived without it (and probably would have built nukes anyway later on), and likely would survive for a long time after cutting off all US aid. I never agreed to the WN talking points about how Israel would collapse the day after US aid was cut off.

    It wouldn’t be a good or desirable development from an Israeli point of view, but it wouldn’t be an existential threat, unless it was accompanied by strong BDS, embargo, etc. on the part of all or most of the US sphere. Even so, it’d probably mean a lot of strong anti-Jewish sentiment, and so probably increased Jewish immigration to Israel. It’s also unlikely that all countries cut off their relations to Israel, obviously China or Russia would be eager to buy cutting edge western technology from Israel. So probably Israel would survive and might even get stronger.

    Replies: @Greasy William, @Dmitry

    , obviously China or Russia would be eager to buy cutting edge western technology from Israel.

    Russia only has to buy drones from Israel – and one of its drone contracts was a technology transfer one. This was an area where Russia was behind. The reason is apparently the miniaturized electronics onboard.

    They also buy some miniaturized electronics from Israel to install in the domestic drones.

    In other military areas, Russia is fine by itself, as it has a domestic military industry, where it’s ahead of even the Americans in some areas.

    China (or Chinese free-market) has started investing in non-military hi-tech scene in Israel.

    When you are in Israel, this year you see quite a lot of Chinese (or Japanese?) groups of businessmen. So there is an activity level there.

  200. @Dmitry
    @Greasy William


    Even so, Israel would still have to double it’s defense spending to ~50 billion a year, but that would only be 10% of GDP and therefor doable, if still unpleasant.
     
    Israel's defense spending is $20 billion a year.

    The aid from the US is around $4 billion a year American-built equipment provided on top.

    If they lose the aid, then they would have to increase spending by $4 billion. On the other hand, that extra spending would go on domestic manufacturers.

    Russia and China aren’t the anti Zionist crusaders that anti Israel people make them out to be, but they have no love for Israel either. They aren’t going to jeopardize their big contracts and partnerships with the Arab/Islamic world
     
    The game is based - from Russia perspective - on who is an American piece, and what is not one.

    Currently Israel is just an American chesspiece.

    Investment in an American owned property, is limited.

    '

    Replies: @Greasy William

    If they lose the aid, then they would have to increase spending by $4 billion.

    Yes but if America stops selling them weapons then they need to make their own F-35s. Building all their own weapons would cost 20 to 30 billion a year. There is a reason that nobody except the US, France, Russia and China build their own major weapons platforms.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    @Greasy William


    There is a reason that nobody except the US, France, Russia and China build their own major weapons platforms.
     
    But how many major weapons platforms does Israel really need?

    Replies: @Dmitry

  201. @Thomm
    @Daniel Chieh


    There is a good chance that Mr. Karlin does not agree, as I believe he has posted against autistic larping for “tradition” in a world with major economic and societal changes caused by irreversible technology.
     
    You erroneously conflate 'tradition' with opposition to the tendency to overvalue women. Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.

    Similarly, even in Muslim societies, while women are restricted in many ways (which is no fun for anyone), it is still men who do the dangerous jobs, are sent to die in wars, have lower life expectancy, etc.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries. There were obvious biological reasons for this (the reproduction bottleneck), but those are now obsolete since no one wants a birth rate of 10 anymore, and women have proven that they can't handle democracy. Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources. The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer from whites/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is).

    Read the articles listed here :
    http://www.antifeministtech.info/the-feminist-war-on/

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie

    Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.

    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom. That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen. Imagine thinking women do not “face harm” when their boys are killed in the line of duty, military or civilian. Not only does this imply that women are not human, but even that we are not warm-blooded mammals. Rather, we’re like reptiles. Don’t alligator moms have like hundreds of young at a time? Not only does she care nothing for their welfare, but I think she sometimes eats them. Okay, so Thom doesn’t go quite so far as to accuse us of cannibalizing our own sons, at least not yet.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries.

    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you. If I am not much mistaken, men maximize their own reproductive fitness by sleeping with as many women as they can. Of course, that doesn’t mean they act on this instinct.

    Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources

    .

    Nonsense. Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them. If you want to claim that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is.

    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries. Before mass immigration, there was no interest whatsoever in doing away with it as the men were perfectly willing to help women in need and abuse was not widespread. I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers, even if it disproportionately affected women. This is the problem with you anti-feminist crusaders. You never seem to actually want to talk about policies that would address your concerns. You just want to use your concerns to demonize women. It is a transparent polarization strategy.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen.
     
    In fact it's slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.

    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you.
     
    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely. A woman's idea of rationality is very different from a man's idea of rationality. I'm not saying one sex is superior or inferior - they're just incredibly different. Which is why feminism, instead of making life better, ended up making life worse for everyone. Feminists thought they could turn women into men, which is both misogynistic and doomed to failure.

    Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them.

    I have no problems with the welfare state. On balance I think it's a good thing. The welfare state is one area in which women do appear to be more rational than men.

    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries.
     
    I totally agree. That's one of the key pieces of evidence that mass immigration is essentially a right-wing project.

    I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers
     
    I don't think that taking the vote away from the poor is a very good idea.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Talha
    @Rosie


    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom.
     
    Excellent point - the station of motherhood is a tremendous responsibility and honor. All of us owe a massive debt of gratitude that we can never repay to them - thanks for this reminder. Any man who forgets what he owes to a woman (the womb that bore him) has committed enormous ingratitude.

    Peace.

    , @Anon
    @Rosie


    If you want to claim that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.
     
    Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough, but I don't really see the evidence for this. What I recall suggests that women vote largely the same way as men, with a slight bias towards political orthodoxy where men are slightly more inclined to "edgier" positions. Depending on the place and time period women can be quite conservative*. Ironically iirc in postwar Britain men went far more for the welfare state than women did-- weren't female votes the only thing keeping the Conservative Party around for a while (while the Liberal party collapsed completely)?

    *Margarita Nelken famously opposed female suffrage in Spain on precisely these grounds.

    Replies: @Rosie

  202. @Greasy William
    @Daniel Chieh

    It is considered the greatest of all mitzvahs

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Jeff Albertson

    As a lurker, I must say that you’ve really upped your game, here. I had originally (possibly by mistake) considered you a clever troll, but you lately seem to be most thoughtful and coherent.
    By pure coincidence, I’m finding myself in agreement with much of it.

    I’ve long believed that we should just give Israel whatever it wants, while we still have something to bargain with. Possibly Trump can get something for America out of the deal. That would be a first.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Jeff Albertson


    I had originally (possibly by mistake) considered you a clever troll, but you lately seem to be most thoughtful and coherent.
     
    I'm not a troll, I'm just mentally unbalanced.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  203. @Talha
    @reiner Tor

    Pakistan has built itself on a certain model and thought process. It is next to a mutually hostile neighbor which outguns and outnumbers it vastly. Its position is defensive; they know they could never win an offensive war against India in a million years. Thus they have put a lot of eggs in one basket; the air force (and to a certain degree, some relatively well-trained special forces units). They know if India comes rolling in with massive mechanized divisions, they won't be able to numerically halt the advance unless they win in the air.

    If they win in the air, then this will negate India's superior numbers on the ground.

    The scenario that gives the Pakistani military command nightmares is a blitzkrieg by India's mechanized divisions through Lahore and across the north to Afghanistan - effectively cutting the country's top 1/3 (including important cities like Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar and potentially Multan) from the south 2/3. However to accomplish this, they will have to roll across a lot of area that is sparsely populated, particularly the Thal Desert and surrounding areas:
    http://www.discover-pakistan.com/uploads/4/5/9/1/45917479/4468149_orig.png

    My older cousin is much more read up on this and he mentioned once to me that the Pakistani military command has a contingency plan to deploy nuclear weapons within its own territory on these swaths of desert on large concentrations of Indian armor to prevent them from accomplishing the above scenario, likely before they take control of the Indus River; it would completely break the back of any Indian expeditionary force and would be completely within its rights and sidestep any international condemnation.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    Well I guess we can all sleep soundly knowing that Pakistan has developed a contingency plan for something that India has no interest or capability of doing.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Greasy William

    That’s why it’s called contingency.

    They also detonated their bomb a couple of weeks after India did...contingencies.

    Peace.

  204. @Jeff Albertson
    @Greasy William

    As a lurker, I must say that you've really upped your game, here. I had originally (possibly by mistake) considered you a clever troll, but you lately seem to be most thoughtful and coherent.
    By pure coincidence, I'm finding myself in agreement with much of it.

    I've long believed that we should just give Israel whatever it wants, while we still have something to bargain with. Possibly Trump can get something for America out of the deal. That would be a first.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    I had originally (possibly by mistake) considered you a clever troll, but you lately seem to be most thoughtful and coherent.

    I’m not a troll, I’m just mentally unbalanced.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Greasy William


    I’m not a troll, I’m just mentally unbalanced.
     
    The mentally unbalanced are always welcome here.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  205. @Greasy William
    @Dmitry


    If they lose the aid, then they would have to increase spending by $4 billion.
     
    Yes but if America stops selling them weapons then they need to make their own F-35s. Building all their own weapons would cost 20 to 30 billion a year. There is a reason that nobody except the US, France, Russia and China build their own major weapons platforms.

    Replies: @Mitleser

    There is a reason that nobody except the US, France, Russia and China build their own major weapons platforms.

    But how many major weapons platforms does Israel really need?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Mitleser

    They would need to import about 50 expensive planes per decade, and to add funding to domestic production missile defense systems.

    But a lot of this costs can be exaggerated. For example, Greasy William gives a figure of 20 to 30 billion dollars a year (on top of their current expenditure of $20 billion a year).

    However, this would give them the same military expenditure as the UK and France. Both of which have nuclear-powered submarines, huge ocean fleets, and even aircraft carriers. They also have professional (salary paid) armies,

    All this is not necessary for Israel, which just has some specific expensive needs (i.e. airforce and missile defense). But their conscript army itself is far more cost-effective than e.g. Russian army (combat soldiers even in Russia receive a vastly higher salary than in Israel).

    As for planes - Israel has a domestic industry that can maintain them and build spare parts themselves (they already build their own electronics on them, and domestically produce many their munitions).

    The difficult part would mainly be in the initial importation/purchase (of around 50 planes each decade).

    Israel does not need huge ocean fleet, or aircraft carriers, and nuclear-powered submarines.

    It is just aspiring to be a 'regional power' in military term, not a 'great power' like Russia, France or the UK.

    It doesn't need to build things like this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

    Or this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

    Or this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

    -

    So it is difficult to see how its military expenditure could reach the $50 billion cited figure - which would be slightly more than what the UK spends each year.

  206. @Greasy William
    @Talha

    Well I guess we can all sleep soundly knowing that Pakistan has developed a contingency plan for something that India has no interest or capability of doing.

    Replies: @Talha

    That’s why it’s called contingency.

    They also detonated their bomb a couple of weeks after India did…contingencies.

    Peace.

  207. @Randal
    @German_reader


    You’re separated by a f***ing ocean from that region of the world, Islamic states aren’t a threat to you, what’s the point of those endless military interventions there? Do you want some grand civilizational war against all the world’s Muslims?
     
    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they've been propagandised into hatred, or manipulated into situations that place them in confrontation with muslims (see for instance the Beirut bombings, or the occupation of Iraq), by powerful lobbies - with the jewish and Israel lobbies among the most influential in this regard. Said lobbies absolutely want what you suggest - a grand civilizational war with muslims, because that war will ensure Israel the American teat to suck on permanently.

    It's not an accident, nor have they had anything like the mass muslim immigration experience we have had in Europe and the UK to create organic confrontation and resulting hostility.

    As Talha pointed out here the other day, it's very noticeable that the loudest anti-muslim voices are almost invariably pro-Israeli.

    And the bottom line is exactly as you put it - that they travel across entire fucking oceans to find muslim monsters to destroy (as their own John Quincy Adams warned them not to), and then moan like little girls when the monsters actually have the cheek to fight back now and then.

    Replies: @Fidelios Automata, @Thorfinnsson, @German_reader, @grapesoda

    That’s pretty funny this guy is calling other people loudmouths. What an utter tool.

    Yes you’re right, all 300 million of us decided together to go fight wars overseas, not our leaders. It’s been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist but you refuse to listen and still keep on spouting the same s***.

    And it’s impossible that we could have any principled objections to Islam based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history, and so may other objections that I’m not going to list here because you’re not worth the time.

    Btw I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself. He seems obsessed with the Islam issue, and shows that characteristic Muslim lack of self-awareness, always ready to get aggressive at the drop of a hat, and then go act like a little victim little bitch when it suits him.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @grapesoda


    It’s been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist
     
    Unz review is a fringe site though, hardly representative. Sure, lots of Americans are opposed to the forever war policy, but lots of others either support it or don't care enough to change their voting behaviour at elections. Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
    And this isn't primarily a question whether one has a positive or negative view of Islam (most of the European/UK/Russian commenters here certainly don't regard Islam as a positive or benign force). US foreign policy isn't even consistently anti-Islamic after all, but actually empowers the very worst actors in the Islamic world like Wahhabism-spreading Saudi-Arabia.

    Btw I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself.
     
    That's just silly.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Randal

    , @Talha
    @grapesoda


    based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history
     
    The fact is your dog killed hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself.
     
    Taqiyyah awesomeness v.2.5!!! But we cannot hide the dirtiness, we aren’t miracle workers.
    , @Anon
    @grapesoda

    Has the US ever supported non-Muslims against Muslims? Most of our military actions involving them seem to be either for Muslims against non-Muslims (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Burma if McCain gets his way) or for some Muslims against other Muslims (everywhere else, pretty much).

    Yes, I get that Israel is the exception. But our "support" there has been much less considerable than our support of actual Muslim causes elsewhere.

  208. @Mitleser
    @Greasy William


    There is a reason that nobody except the US, France, Russia and China build their own major weapons platforms.
     
    But how many major weapons platforms does Israel really need?

    Replies: @Dmitry

    They would need to import about 50 expensive planes per decade, and to add funding to domestic production missile defense systems.

    But a lot of this costs can be exaggerated. For example, Greasy William gives a figure of 20 to 30 billion dollars a year (on top of their current expenditure of $20 billion a year).

    However, this would give them the same military expenditure as the UK and France. Both of which have nuclear-powered submarines, huge ocean fleets, and even aircraft carriers. They also have professional (salary paid) armies,

    All this is not necessary for Israel, which just has some specific expensive needs (i.e. airforce and missile defense). But their conscript army itself is far more cost-effective than e.g. Russian army (combat soldiers even in Russia receive a vastly higher salary than in Israel).

    As for planes – Israel has a domestic industry that can maintain them and build spare parts themselves (they already build their own electronics on them, and domestically produce many their munitions).

    The difficult part would mainly be in the initial importation/purchase (of around 50 planes each decade).

    Israel does not need huge ocean fleet, or aircraft carriers, and nuclear-powered submarines.

    It is just aspiring to be a ‘regional power’ in military term, not a ‘great power’ like Russia, France or the UK.

    It doesn’t need to build things like this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

    Or this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

    Or this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

    So it is difficult to see how its military expenditure could reach the $50 billion cited figure – which would be slightly more than what the UK spends each year.

  209. American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred…

    Ask Hindus if they like Muslims. Or Thais. Or Filipinos. Idiot. You are either a Muslim or you live in a comfortable bubble. Muslims are unwelcome everywhere they go. They don’t even like each other.

    • Replies: @Mitleser
    @grapesoda


    Ask Hindus if they like Muslims. Or Thais. Or Filipinos.
     
    They have large Muslim population in past and present.
    America did not.
  210. @Thorfinnsson
    @German_reader



    Yes, but those Muslims were always there, Russia conquered them.
    By contrast, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any Muslims at all in the US. Or in Germany. Or in Sweden. Or even in Britain (the Pakistanis only came after the end of empire after all).
    This was a completely avoidable problem.
     
    Migration began before the war in fact. Britain even had an Indian MP in the 1890s. There was a strike by Sikh bus drivers wishing to wear turbans some time in the 1930s in an English city, I believe Birmingham. It was of course at a much lower level before the war of course.

    The same is true of France, which the H-man denounced as intent on "negrizing". Orwell described French civilization as being devoid of "color prejudice".

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany (which still had a problem with illegal Jewish immigrants from Poland as astonishing as that sounds).

    The case of Britain relates to my earlier response to Dmitry about "English hypocrisy".

    One of the demands of the Indian (and, later, Pakistani) independence negotiators was that they be continued to allowed to migrate to Great Britain in exchange for staying in the Commonwealth.

    And the British...agreed.

    Mind-boggling.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Tyrion 2, @Hippopotamusdrome

    Race-based immigration controls to my knowledge only ever existed in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Nazi Germany

    Aren’t we forgetting a certain special country?

    Anyway, a random sample from the totally non-racist world of non-whites

    Japan accepted 28 refugees in 2016

    15-year-old girl crossing Indo-Bangla border shot dead by BSF

  211. The difficult part would mainly be in the initial importation/purchase (of around 50 planes each decade).

    What you aren’t getting is that nobody besides the US would ever be willing to sell Israel combat aircraft. Any weapons sold to Israel inevitably will be used against Arab civilians and it just isn’t worth the headache for any country. The US sells Israel the weapons for domestic political reasons, not because it is good strategy for them.

    The only countries that make 5th generation fighters are the US, Russia and China. Russia and China would never be willing to sell fighters to Israel and even if they were, the PAK-FA (or whatever they’re calling it now) and the export variant of the J-20 don’t meet Israel’s requirements. Israel would have no choice but to develop it’s own F-35 clone.

    And all of it’s own spare parts. And it’s own engines for it’s tanks. And it’s own helicopters. And it’s own ships. And it’s own trucks.

    So yes, you are talking about an extra 30 billion a year.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Greasy William


    What you aren’t getting is that nobody besides the US would ever be willing to sell Israel combat aircraft. Any weapons sold to Israel inevitably will be used against Arab civilians and it just isn’t worth the headache for any country. The US sells Israel the weapons for domestic political reasons, not because it is good strategy for them.

    The only countries that make 5th generation fighters are the US, Russia and China. Russia and China would never be willing to sell fighters to Israel and even if they were, the PAK-FA (or whatever they’re calling it now) and the export variant of the J-20 don’t meet Israel’s requirements. Israel would have no choice but to develop it’s own F-35 clone.

    And all of it’s own spare parts. And it’s own engines for it’s tanks. And it’s own helicopters. And it’s own ships. And it’s own trucks.

    So yes, you are talking about an extra 30 billion a year.
     
    This step in the argument, is just something invented from your imagination.

    If the US stopped sending them planes, then they would still be able to buy them.

    But aside from this - of course Russia would love to sell them weapons.

    They try to get Israel interested, and periodically you can hear Russian officials inventing claims that Israel is going to buy its weapons. The funniest part when they then later comment on this supposed news, they themselves had invented a day earlier.

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4544618

    There's nothing that sells weapons better - especially amongst the Arabs - than using them against the Arabs. And the intervention of Russia in Syria is partly such an operation, as it will be great marketing.

    If Israel air force was flying Sukhoi aircraft, this would be a center-piece of marketing, especially as they would be regularly used and this would be encouraging other countries to copycat purchase from the manufacturer.
  212. German_reader says:
    @grapesoda
    @Randal

    That's pretty funny this guy is calling other people loudmouths. What an utter tool.

    Yes you're right, all 300 million of us decided together to go fight wars overseas, not our leaders. It's been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist but you refuse to listen and still keep on spouting the same s***.

    And it's impossible that we could have any principled objections to Islam based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history, and so may other objections that I'm not going to list here because you're not worth the time.

    Btw I wouldn't be surprised if "Randal" is a dirty Muslim himself. He seems obsessed with the Islam issue, and shows that characteristic Muslim lack of self-awareness, always ready to get aggressive at the drop of a hat, and then go act like a little victim little bitch when it suits him.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Talha, @Anon

    It’s been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist

    Unz review is a fringe site though, hardly representative. Sure, lots of Americans are opposed to the forever war policy, but lots of others either support it or don’t care enough to change their voting behaviour at elections. Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
    And this isn’t primarily a question whether one has a positive or negative view of Islam (most of the European/UK/Russian commenters here certainly don’t regard Islam as a positive or benign force). US foreign policy isn’t even consistently anti-Islamic after all, but actually empowers the very worst actors in the Islamic world like Wahhabism-spreading Saudi-Arabia.

    Btw I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself.

    That’s just silly.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @German_reader


    Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
     
    I appreciate your concern, but the point you have to keep in mind is that Americans have very little control over our pols because of the two-party system. If I am not mistaken, in your country there is more choice because of proportional representation.

    If we don't like our party's candidate, they must be primary challenged, but the establishment fights this tooth and nail, and you saw the monumental effort it took to get Trump nominated. Small donors simply do not have the wherewithal to accomplish that for hundreds of congressional candidates. It's a rigged game that voters simply cannot win.

    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech. Either way, we get the same result. Our governments ignore us, unfortunately. I've no idea what the solution is either.

    Replies: @Randal, @dfordoom

    , @Randal
    @German_reader


    That’s just silly.
     
    The guy's clearly upset and emotional. We all get like that occasionally.
  213. Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected

    I can promise you that the people re-elect McCain and Graham categorically do NOT support US wars in the middle east.

    First of all, I can’t stand either of those guys but I would vote for them myself if I lived in their states simply because the alternative would have a “D” next to their name. In SC especially, voting for a Dem is something that white people simply do not do. It would be considered the equivalent of a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

    McCain and Graham win their primaries because the GOPe ensures that any viable opponent they would have does not run for the nomination. As a result, the only people who ever run against them are Tea Party loons who want to stone gays, outlaw abortion and eliminate Social Security.

    Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose wars in the Middle East. This was not the case as recently as 2008, but a lot has changed since then.

    It isn’t our fault our leaders support war anymore then it’s our fault our leaders support immigration.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Greasy William


    In SC especially, voting for a Dem is something that white people simply do not do.
     
    Yes, I understand that whites in the South vote en bloc for the Republicans because of the race issue...I can sympathize with that. But if there were really widespread opposition to a belligerent foreign policy some intra-Republican challenger would eventually arise, even if the primary process is rigged. That just doesn't seem to ever happen, so I can only assume that most people who keep voting for people like Graham don't have much of a problem with his deranged views.

    It isn’t our fault our leaders support war anymore then it’s our fault our leaders support immigration.
     
    It's too easy to blame everything on the machinations of elites, even if those are very real and constrain the terms of debate through media manipulation etc. Populists need to realise that they're up not just against scheming elites, but also against a substantial part of their countrymen who support elite-approved policies (that applies to other countries as well...much as it pains me, it's undeniable that Merkel's open borders madness has support among a substantial part of the German population).

    Replies: @John Gruskos

  214. @German_reader
    @grapesoda


    It’s been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist
     
    Unz review is a fringe site though, hardly representative. Sure, lots of Americans are opposed to the forever war policy, but lots of others either support it or don't care enough to change their voting behaviour at elections. Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
    And this isn't primarily a question whether one has a positive or negative view of Islam (most of the European/UK/Russian commenters here certainly don't regard Islam as a positive or benign force). US foreign policy isn't even consistently anti-Islamic after all, but actually empowers the very worst actors in the Islamic world like Wahhabism-spreading Saudi-Arabia.

    Btw I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself.
     
    That's just silly.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Randal

    Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.

    I appreciate your concern, but the point you have to keep in mind is that Americans have very little control over our pols because of the two-party system. If I am not mistaken, in your country there is more choice because of proportional representation.

    If we don’t like our party’s candidate, they must be primary challenged, but the establishment fights this tooth and nail, and you saw the monumental effort it took to get Trump nominated. Small donors simply do not have the wherewithal to accomplish that for hundreds of congressional candidates. It’s a rigged game that voters simply cannot win.

    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech. Either way, we get the same result. Our governments ignore us, unfortunately. I’ve no idea what the solution is either.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Rosie


    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech.
     
    There's a lot of truth in that, I'd say.

    You should bear in mind that when German-Reader and I express frustration here with widespread American attitudes (on war in particular), we aren't referring to the majority of people posting here (apart from a minority - mostly trolls of various kinds). We're talking about the people who boobishly cheer the likes of McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" nonsense, or nod over their cornflakes at the latest declaration in the WP or NYT of some "threat" from Iran or NK justifying war, or of some "R2P" nonsense about America being a beacon of democracy and human rights, a shining city on the hill, with a humanitarian duty to intervene murderously in some foreign country's affairs, in ways that remarkably always seem to suit the purposes of particular influential lobbies and wealthy elites.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    but the point you have to keep in mind is that Americans have very little control over our pols because of the two-party system.
     
    Agreed. The purpose of a rigid two-party system is to ensure that democracy will never be anything more than an illusion. The British first-past-the-post system serves the same purpose. The difference between a two-party system like the US system and a one-party state is - well actually there's no difference at all. The US is every bit as democratic as North Korea.
  215. German_reader says:
    @Greasy William

    Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected
     
    I can promise you that the people re-elect McCain and Graham categorically do NOT support US wars in the middle east.

    First of all, I can't stand either of those guys but I would vote for them myself if I lived in their states simply because the alternative would have a "D" next to their name. In SC especially, voting for a Dem is something that white people simply do not do. It would be considered the equivalent of a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

    McCain and Graham win their primaries because the GOPe ensures that any viable opponent they would have does not run for the nomination. As a result, the only people who ever run against them are Tea Party loons who want to stone gays, outlaw abortion and eliminate Social Security.

    Republican voters overwhelmingly oppose wars in the Middle East. This was not the case as recently as 2008, but a lot has changed since then.

    It isn't our fault our leaders support war anymore then it's our fault our leaders support immigration.

    Replies: @German_reader

    In SC especially, voting for a Dem is something that white people simply do not do.

    Yes, I understand that whites in the South vote en bloc for the Republicans because of the race issue…I can sympathize with that. But if there were really widespread opposition to a belligerent foreign policy some intra-Republican challenger would eventually arise, even if the primary process is rigged. That just doesn’t seem to ever happen, so I can only assume that most people who keep voting for people like Graham don’t have much of a problem with his deranged views.

    It isn’t our fault our leaders support war anymore then it’s our fault our leaders support immigration.

    It’s too easy to blame everything on the machinations of elites, even if those are very real and constrain the terms of debate through media manipulation etc. Populists need to realise that they’re up not just against scheming elites, but also against a substantial part of their countrymen who support elite-approved policies (that applies to other countries as well…much as it pains me, it’s undeniable that Merkel’s open borders madness has support among a substantial part of the German population).

    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    @German_reader

    "I can only assume that most people who keep voting for people like Graham don’t have much of a problem with his deranged views."

    When given the chance, South Carolina Republicans voted for Trump over the establishment candidates who share Lindsey Graham's foreign policy views, such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

    Trump made a big point of denouncing the Iraq War in the last debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary election.

    Replies: @Randal

  216. @Greasy William

    The difficult part would mainly be in the initial importation/purchase (of around 50 planes each decade).
     
    What you aren't getting is that nobody besides the US would ever be willing to sell Israel combat aircraft. Any weapons sold to Israel inevitably will be used against Arab civilians and it just isn't worth the headache for any country. The US sells Israel the weapons for domestic political reasons, not because it is good strategy for them.

    The only countries that make 5th generation fighters are the US, Russia and China. Russia and China would never be willing to sell fighters to Israel and even if they were, the PAK-FA (or whatever they're calling it now) and the export variant of the J-20 don't meet Israel's requirements. Israel would have no choice but to develop it's own F-35 clone.

    And all of it's own spare parts. And it's own engines for it's tanks. And it's own helicopters. And it's own ships. And it's own trucks.

    So yes, you are talking about an extra 30 billion a year.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    What you aren’t getting is that nobody besides the US would ever be willing to sell Israel combat aircraft. Any weapons sold to Israel inevitably will be used against Arab civilians and it just isn’t worth the headache for any country. The US sells Israel the weapons for domestic political reasons, not because it is good strategy for them.

    The only countries that make 5th generation fighters are the US, Russia and China. Russia and China would never be willing to sell fighters to Israel and even if they were, the PAK-FA (or whatever they’re calling it now) and the export variant of the J-20 don’t meet Israel’s requirements. Israel would have no choice but to develop it’s own F-35 clone.

    And all of it’s own spare parts. And it’s own engines for it’s tanks. And it’s own helicopters. And it’s own ships. And it’s own trucks.

    So yes, you are talking about an extra 30 billion a year.

    This step in the argument, is just something invented from your imagination.

    If the US stopped sending them planes, then they would still be able to buy them.

    But aside from this – of course Russia would love to sell them weapons.

    They try to get Israel interested, and periodically you can hear Russian officials inventing claims that Israel is going to buy its weapons. The funniest part when they then later comment on this supposed news, they themselves had invented a day earlier.

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4544618

    There’s nothing that sells weapons better – especially amongst the Arabs – than using them against the Arabs. And the intervention of Russia in Syria is partly such an operation, as it will be great marketing.

    If Israel air force was flying Sukhoi aircraft, this would be a center-piece of marketing, especially as they would be regularly used and this would be encouraging other countries to copycat purchase from the manufacturer.

  217. @German_reader
    @Greasy William


    In SC especially, voting for a Dem is something that white people simply do not do.
     
    Yes, I understand that whites in the South vote en bloc for the Republicans because of the race issue...I can sympathize with that. But if there were really widespread opposition to a belligerent foreign policy some intra-Republican challenger would eventually arise, even if the primary process is rigged. That just doesn't seem to ever happen, so I can only assume that most people who keep voting for people like Graham don't have much of a problem with his deranged views.

    It isn’t our fault our leaders support war anymore then it’s our fault our leaders support immigration.
     
    It's too easy to blame everything on the machinations of elites, even if those are very real and constrain the terms of debate through media manipulation etc. Populists need to realise that they're up not just against scheming elites, but also against a substantial part of their countrymen who support elite-approved policies (that applies to other countries as well...much as it pains me, it's undeniable that Merkel's open borders madness has support among a substantial part of the German population).

    Replies: @John Gruskos

    “I can only assume that most people who keep voting for people like Graham don’t have much of a problem with his deranged views.”

    When given the chance, South Carolina Republicans voted for Trump over the establishment candidates who share Lindsey Graham’s foreign policy views, such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

    Trump made a big point of denouncing the Iraq War in the last debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary election.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @John Gruskos


    Trump made a big point of denouncing the Iraq War in the last debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary election.
     
    But, as his defenders here against charges of betraying his voters point out (with some justice), he carefully made the point that what was wrong with that war was that the US "should have taken the oil". I went back to reread a transcript of one of those key debates yesterday in the light of the discussion of the Bolton appointment, and it's actually pretty hard to make the case for Trump having campaigned on an anti-war basis (though I still think that was a big part of his appeal, it's just hard to really prove). Criticising failed wars is not the same as opposing wars.

    A lot of it is interpretation and confirmation bias - you can read his comments as representing a belief that interventionist wars are stupid in general, but you can also read them as saying that interventionist wars are fine as long as you are ruthless enough and win them.

    As for Lindsey Graham, himself (much the same is true for the contemptible McCain):

    When Graham ran for a second term in 2008, he was challenged in the Republican primary by National Executive Committeeman of the South Carolina Republican Party Buddy Witherspoon. Graham defeated him by 186,398 votes (66.82%) to 92,547 (33.18%), winning all but one of South Carolina's 46 counties. Graham then defeated Democratic pilot and engineer Bob Conley in the general election by 1,076,534 votes (57.53%) to 790,621 (42.25%),[44] having out-spent Conley by $6.6 million to $15,000.[45]
    .....
    In the run-up to the Republican primary, Graham's approval rating improved. According to a Winthrop poll from February 2013, he held a 59% positive rating among Republican likely voters.[51] In the primary, held on June 10, 2014, Graham won with 178,833 votes (56.42%). His nearest challenger, State Senator Lee Bright, received 48,904 votes (15.53%). In the general election, he defeated Democratic State Senator Brad Hutto and Independent Thomas Ravenel, a former Republican State Treasurer.[52]
     
    (Wikipedia)

    Partly these big wins are because nobody good stands against them, and nobody gets financial backing to stand against them, but that is precisely because they are not seen as vulnerable - their warmongering belligerence seems to do them little or no electoral damage (quite the contrary, more likely).

    And here's what Wikipedia says about US popular sentiment about the most egregious recent US war of aggression:

    Although pro-war sentiments were very high after 9/11, public opinion stabilized soon after, and slightly in favor of the war. According to a Gallup poll conducted from August 2002 through early March 2003, the number of Americans who favored the war in Iraq fell between 52 percent to 59 percent, while those who opposed it fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent.[10]

    Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the United Nations Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1]

    An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_of_Iraq

    Certainly doesn't look to me like a population mostly against war - looks like a population broadly supportive of a war of aggression against a country on the other side of the world from them, or at best split down the middle.

    And of course they promptly reelected the main perpetrator of the war, Bush II, a couple of years later, so it's hardly a surprise if the people around Trump think that he can get away, politically, with openly criminal attacks on Syrian government forces, or a "targeted strike" against North Korea.

    Replies: @John Gruskos

  218. @John Gruskos
    @German_reader

    "I can only assume that most people who keep voting for people like Graham don’t have much of a problem with his deranged views."

    When given the chance, South Carolina Republicans voted for Trump over the establishment candidates who share Lindsey Graham's foreign policy views, such as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich.

    Trump made a big point of denouncing the Iraq War in the last debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary election.

    Replies: @Randal

    Trump made a big point of denouncing the Iraq War in the last debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary election.

    But, as his defenders here against charges of betraying his voters point out (with some justice), he carefully made the point that what was wrong with that war was that the US “should have taken the oil”. I went back to reread a transcript of one of those key debates yesterday in the light of the discussion of the Bolton appointment, and it’s actually pretty hard to make the case for Trump having campaigned on an anti-war basis (though I still think that was a big part of his appeal, it’s just hard to really prove). Criticising failed wars is not the same as opposing wars.

    A lot of it is interpretation and confirmation bias – you can read his comments as representing a belief that interventionist wars are stupid in general, but you can also read them as saying that interventionist wars are fine as long as you are ruthless enough and win them.

    As for Lindsey Graham, himself (much the same is true for the contemptible McCain):

    When Graham ran for a second term in 2008, he was challenged in the Republican primary by National Executive Committeeman of the South Carolina Republican Party Buddy Witherspoon. Graham defeated him by 186,398 votes (66.82%) to 92,547 (33.18%), winning all but one of South Carolina’s 46 counties. Graham then defeated Democratic pilot and engineer Bob Conley in the general election by 1,076,534 votes (57.53%) to 790,621 (42.25%),[44] having out-spent Conley by $6.6 million to $15,000.[45]
    …..
    In the run-up to the Republican primary, Graham’s approval rating improved. According to a Winthrop poll from February 2013, he held a 59% positive rating among Republican likely voters.[51] In the primary, held on June 10, 2014, Graham won with 178,833 votes (56.42%). His nearest challenger, State Senator Lee Bright, received 48,904 votes (15.53%). In the general election, he defeated Democratic State Senator Brad Hutto and Independent Thomas Ravenel, a former Republican State Treasurer.[52]

    (Wikipedia)

    Partly these big wins are because nobody good stands against them, and nobody gets financial backing to stand against them, but that is precisely because they are not seen as vulnerable – their warmongering belligerence seems to do them little or no electoral damage (quite the contrary, more likely).

    And here’s what Wikipedia says about US popular sentiment about the most egregious recent US war of aggression:

    Although pro-war sentiments were very high after 9/11, public opinion stabilized soon after, and slightly in favor of the war. According to a Gallup poll conducted from August 2002 through early March 2003, the number of Americans who favored the war in Iraq fell between 52 percent to 59 percent, while those who opposed it fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent.[10]

    Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion “in the next week or two.” But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the United Nations Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1]

    An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_of_Iraq

    Certainly doesn’t look to me like a population mostly against war – looks like a population broadly supportive of a war of aggression against a country on the other side of the world from them, or at best split down the middle.

    And of course they promptly reelected the main perpetrator of the war, Bush II, a couple of years later, so it’s hardly a surprise if the people around Trump think that he can get away, politically, with openly criminal attacks on Syrian government forces, or a “targeted strike” against North Korea.

    • Replies: @John Gruskos
    @Randal

    I obsessively followed Trump's foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear - we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq's oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul. The American Conservative, a dovish publication, graded the various candidates on their foreign policy - if I remember correctly, Paul got an A, Trump a C, Cruz a D (he opposed the "no fly zone" in Syria and flirted with anti-neocon rhetoric), and most of the others an F. The American Conservative had an anti-Trump bias. He earned that C grading with unambiguously dovish rhetoric which forced The American Conservative to reluctantly give him the second highest score of any Republican candidate.

    Other than the bizarre "seize the oil" brain fart, the two things Trump was saying which were most incongruous with the overall thrust of his America First foreign policy were his insistence that he was "the most pro-Israel guy" and that the Iran nuclear deal was "the worst deal ever".

    But even there, he was more dovish than the other candidates. Unlike Rubio, he refused to use the words "tear up" with regards to the Iran deal (Trump would "strictly police" the deal, later he moved in a hawkish direction and said he would "dismantle" the deal, but he stubbornly refused to use the phrase "tear up"), and he mentioned in one debate that he would need to be an honest broker and show no favoritism if he were to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, provoking instant fury from Cruz and Rubio.

    The speech which Kushner wrote for Trump's AIPAC appearance in Spring 2016 was anomalously hawkish, but most of his other speeches and pronouncements could have been written by Pat Buchanan.

    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) - this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.

    Replies: @Swedish Family, @Randal

  219. @German_reader
    @grapesoda


    It’s been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist
     
    Unz review is a fringe site though, hardly representative. Sure, lots of Americans are opposed to the forever war policy, but lots of others either support it or don't care enough to change their voting behaviour at elections. Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
    And this isn't primarily a question whether one has a positive or negative view of Islam (most of the European/UK/Russian commenters here certainly don't regard Islam as a positive or benign force). US foreign policy isn't even consistently anti-Islamic after all, but actually empowers the very worst actors in the Islamic world like Wahhabism-spreading Saudi-Arabia.

    Btw I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself.
     
    That's just silly.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Randal

    That’s just silly.

    The guy’s clearly upset and emotional. We all get like that occasionally.

  220. @Rosie
    @German_reader


    Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
     
    I appreciate your concern, but the point you have to keep in mind is that Americans have very little control over our pols because of the two-party system. If I am not mistaken, in your country there is more choice because of proportional representation.

    If we don't like our party's candidate, they must be primary challenged, but the establishment fights this tooth and nail, and you saw the monumental effort it took to get Trump nominated. Small donors simply do not have the wherewithal to accomplish that for hundreds of congressional candidates. It's a rigged game that voters simply cannot win.

    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech. Either way, we get the same result. Our governments ignore us, unfortunately. I've no idea what the solution is either.

    Replies: @Randal, @dfordoom

    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech.

    There’s a lot of truth in that, I’d say.

    You should bear in mind that when German-Reader and I express frustration here with widespread American attitudes (on war in particular), we aren’t referring to the majority of people posting here (apart from a minority – mostly trolls of various kinds). We’re talking about the people who boobishly cheer the likes of McCain’s “bomb bomb Iran” nonsense, or nod over their cornflakes at the latest declaration in the WP or NYT of some “threat” from Iran or NK justifying war, or of some “R2P” nonsense about America being a beacon of democracy and human rights, a shining city on the hill, with a humanitarian duty to intervene murderously in some foreign country’s affairs, in ways that remarkably always seem to suit the purposes of particular influential lobbies and wealthy elites.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Randal


    We’re talking about the people who boobishly cheer the likes of McCain’s “bomb bomb Iran”
     
    Such people do not exist in the American general population. They did in 2008, but not anymore.

    There are very few supporters of war with Iran (or Syria) in America and about 75% of such people are media figures.

    edit: There probably is substantial support for war with Russia, however.

    Replies: @Randal

  221. @Randal
    @John Gruskos


    Trump made a big point of denouncing the Iraq War in the last debate before the 2016 South Carolina primary election.
     
    But, as his defenders here against charges of betraying his voters point out (with some justice), he carefully made the point that what was wrong with that war was that the US "should have taken the oil". I went back to reread a transcript of one of those key debates yesterday in the light of the discussion of the Bolton appointment, and it's actually pretty hard to make the case for Trump having campaigned on an anti-war basis (though I still think that was a big part of his appeal, it's just hard to really prove). Criticising failed wars is not the same as opposing wars.

    A lot of it is interpretation and confirmation bias - you can read his comments as representing a belief that interventionist wars are stupid in general, but you can also read them as saying that interventionist wars are fine as long as you are ruthless enough and win them.

    As for Lindsey Graham, himself (much the same is true for the contemptible McCain):

    When Graham ran for a second term in 2008, he was challenged in the Republican primary by National Executive Committeeman of the South Carolina Republican Party Buddy Witherspoon. Graham defeated him by 186,398 votes (66.82%) to 92,547 (33.18%), winning all but one of South Carolina's 46 counties. Graham then defeated Democratic pilot and engineer Bob Conley in the general election by 1,076,534 votes (57.53%) to 790,621 (42.25%),[44] having out-spent Conley by $6.6 million to $15,000.[45]
    .....
    In the run-up to the Republican primary, Graham's approval rating improved. According to a Winthrop poll from February 2013, he held a 59% positive rating among Republican likely voters.[51] In the primary, held on June 10, 2014, Graham won with 178,833 votes (56.42%). His nearest challenger, State Senator Lee Bright, received 48,904 votes (15.53%). In the general election, he defeated Democratic State Senator Brad Hutto and Independent Thomas Ravenel, a former Republican State Treasurer.[52]
     
    (Wikipedia)

    Partly these big wins are because nobody good stands against them, and nobody gets financial backing to stand against them, but that is precisely because they are not seen as vulnerable - their warmongering belligerence seems to do them little or no electoral damage (quite the contrary, more likely).

    And here's what Wikipedia says about US popular sentiment about the most egregious recent US war of aggression:

    Although pro-war sentiments were very high after 9/11, public opinion stabilized soon after, and slightly in favor of the war. According to a Gallup poll conducted from August 2002 through early March 2003, the number of Americans who favored the war in Iraq fell between 52 percent to 59 percent, while those who opposed it fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent.[10]

    Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the United Nations Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%.[1]

    An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War.[2]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion_of_Iraq

    Certainly doesn't look to me like a population mostly against war - looks like a population broadly supportive of a war of aggression against a country on the other side of the world from them, or at best split down the middle.

    And of course they promptly reelected the main perpetrator of the war, Bush II, a couple of years later, so it's hardly a surprise if the people around Trump think that he can get away, politically, with openly criminal attacks on Syrian government forces, or a "targeted strike" against North Korea.

    Replies: @John Gruskos

    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul. The American Conservative, a dovish publication, graded the various candidates on their foreign policy – if I remember correctly, Paul got an A, Trump a C, Cruz a D (he opposed the “no fly zone” in Syria and flirted with anti-neocon rhetoric), and most of the others an F. The American Conservative had an anti-Trump bias. He earned that C grading with unambiguously dovish rhetoric which forced The American Conservative to reluctantly give him the second highest score of any Republican candidate.

    Other than the bizarre “seize the oil” brain fart, the two things Trump was saying which were most incongruous with the overall thrust of his America First foreign policy were his insistence that he was “the most pro-Israel guy” and that the Iran nuclear deal was “the worst deal ever”.

    But even there, he was more dovish than the other candidates. Unlike Rubio, he refused to use the words “tear up” with regards to the Iran deal (Trump would “strictly police” the deal, later he moved in a hawkish direction and said he would “dismantle” the deal, but he stubbornly refused to use the phrase “tear up”), and he mentioned in one debate that he would need to be an honest broker and show no favoritism if he were to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, provoking instant fury from Cruz and Rubio.

    The speech which Kushner wrote for Trump’s AIPAC appearance in Spring 2016 was anomalously hawkish, but most of his other speeches and pronouncements could have been written by Pat Buchanan.

    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.

    • Replies: @Swedish Family
    @John Gruskos


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    I very much agree, and I don't buy the claims from Scott Adams and others that these expectations were simply figments of our confirmation biases.

    Replies: @Randal

    , @Randal
    @John Gruskos


    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul.
     
    Full Transcript of the Ninth Republican Debate in South Carolina

    This was the main transcript I was looking at the other day, from the New Hampshire debate (a key one in this regard). Trump starts out (on national security) by declaring his approval of an ongoing interventionist war on the other side of the planet:

    So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.
     
    He claims to have opposed the attack on Iraq before it occurred, but iirc that claim proved pretty doubtful. He then makes the shameful suggestion that the US "should keep the oil", which ought to be a pretty clear signal that this is not a man with any principled opposition to wars of aggression.

    I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen.
     
    Then his first criticism of Jeb Bush's comment was that you have to win one war before you can start another:

    You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.
     
    Then his complaint is not that the wars are being fought, but that they aren't being won:

    If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything
     
    Then there was lots of dog-whistling to antiwar listeners (bear in mind I include myself in that category), saying things they want to hear (Bush lied, money should have been spent on infrastructure, etc) but don't actually have any relevance to future actions.

    In all that, Trump was merely acting as a competent politician in a democracy. The essence of politics in a democracy (including the Republican forms) is to deceive the maximum number of people whose concerns you have no intention of promoting in reality into voting for you, while making as few actual commitments or statements of principle to which you might be held as possible.

    Now granted that to an extent I'm playing devil's advocate there, and you could equally go through and cherry-pick anti-war examples. But that's the point, really. It's largely a matter of confirmation bias. I think Trump did try to fool antiwar Americans into supporting him and fairly successfully (though given his opponent, even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton). He did so, though, without giving too many explicit hostages against conducting future wars of aggression.


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    In the end I do agree with you on this. It's just that he did it sufficiently competently (as a politician) that he can largely get away with it because the only people angry about it are by and large the anti-war Americans (ie the ones for whom war policy actually determines their vote), and they are pretty much a small minority. If he needs them, he will regret it, but he's no doubt hoping he won't need them because he will pick up more than he loses by pleasing the war lobbies and regaining some of the substantial jingoist vote.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @John Gruskos

  222. @Randal
    @Rosie


    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech.
     
    There's a lot of truth in that, I'd say.

    You should bear in mind that when German-Reader and I express frustration here with widespread American attitudes (on war in particular), we aren't referring to the majority of people posting here (apart from a minority - mostly trolls of various kinds). We're talking about the people who boobishly cheer the likes of McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" nonsense, or nod over their cornflakes at the latest declaration in the WP or NYT of some "threat" from Iran or NK justifying war, or of some "R2P" nonsense about America being a beacon of democracy and human rights, a shining city on the hill, with a humanitarian duty to intervene murderously in some foreign country's affairs, in ways that remarkably always seem to suit the purposes of particular influential lobbies and wealthy elites.

    Replies: @Greasy William

    We’re talking about the people who boobishly cheer the likes of McCain’s “bomb bomb Iran”

    Such people do not exist in the American general population. They did in 2008, but not anymore.

    There are very few supporters of war with Iran (or Syria) in America and about 75% of such people are media figures.

    edit: There probably is substantial support for war with Russia, however.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Greasy William


    Such people do not exist in the American general population. They did in 2008, but not anymore.

    There are very few supporters of war with Iran (or Syria) in America and about 75% of such people are media figures.
     
    They come and go according to the application of lobby and regime propaganda. Since the agreement was signed there has been no consistent regime/elite position on war propaganda against Iran, as there had been previously (all the nonsense about Iranian nukes is pretty much pure, dishonest, war propaganda).

    All of the up to 80% or so of Americans who answered polling questions to say they believed Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons or was/is a threat to the US, etc, are vulnerable to becoming jingoistic McCain boobs again with a few months of active war propaganda.
  223. @John Gruskos
    @Randal

    I obsessively followed Trump's foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear - we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq's oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul. The American Conservative, a dovish publication, graded the various candidates on their foreign policy - if I remember correctly, Paul got an A, Trump a C, Cruz a D (he opposed the "no fly zone" in Syria and flirted with anti-neocon rhetoric), and most of the others an F. The American Conservative had an anti-Trump bias. He earned that C grading with unambiguously dovish rhetoric which forced The American Conservative to reluctantly give him the second highest score of any Republican candidate.

    Other than the bizarre "seize the oil" brain fart, the two things Trump was saying which were most incongruous with the overall thrust of his America First foreign policy were his insistence that he was "the most pro-Israel guy" and that the Iran nuclear deal was "the worst deal ever".

    But even there, he was more dovish than the other candidates. Unlike Rubio, he refused to use the words "tear up" with regards to the Iran deal (Trump would "strictly police" the deal, later he moved in a hawkish direction and said he would "dismantle" the deal, but he stubbornly refused to use the phrase "tear up"), and he mentioned in one debate that he would need to be an honest broker and show no favoritism if he were to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, provoking instant fury from Cruz and Rubio.

    The speech which Kushner wrote for Trump's AIPAC appearance in Spring 2016 was anomalously hawkish, but most of his other speeches and pronouncements could have been written by Pat Buchanan.

    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) - this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.

    Replies: @Swedish Family, @Randal

    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.

    I very much agree, and I don’t buy the claims from Scott Adams and others that these expectations were simply figments of our confirmation biases.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Swedish Family


    I don’t buy the claims from Scott Adams and others that these expectations were simply figments of our confirmation biases
     
    I haven't read Adams (or anyone else, apart from a few comments hereabouts) suggesting that, but I do seem to have reached the same conclusion independently (and rather reluctantly).
  224. @John Gruskos
    @Randal

    I obsessively followed Trump's foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear - we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq's oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul. The American Conservative, a dovish publication, graded the various candidates on their foreign policy - if I remember correctly, Paul got an A, Trump a C, Cruz a D (he opposed the "no fly zone" in Syria and flirted with anti-neocon rhetoric), and most of the others an F. The American Conservative had an anti-Trump bias. He earned that C grading with unambiguously dovish rhetoric which forced The American Conservative to reluctantly give him the second highest score of any Republican candidate.

    Other than the bizarre "seize the oil" brain fart, the two things Trump was saying which were most incongruous with the overall thrust of his America First foreign policy were his insistence that he was "the most pro-Israel guy" and that the Iran nuclear deal was "the worst deal ever".

    But even there, he was more dovish than the other candidates. Unlike Rubio, he refused to use the words "tear up" with regards to the Iran deal (Trump would "strictly police" the deal, later he moved in a hawkish direction and said he would "dismantle" the deal, but he stubbornly refused to use the phrase "tear up"), and he mentioned in one debate that he would need to be an honest broker and show no favoritism if he were to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, provoking instant fury from Cruz and Rubio.

    The speech which Kushner wrote for Trump's AIPAC appearance in Spring 2016 was anomalously hawkish, but most of his other speeches and pronouncements could have been written by Pat Buchanan.

    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) - this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.

    Replies: @Swedish Family, @Randal

    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul.

    Full Transcript of the Ninth Republican Debate in South Carolina

    This was the main transcript I was looking at the other day, from the New Hampshire debate (a key one in this regard). Trump starts out (on national security) by declaring his approval of an ongoing interventionist war on the other side of the planet:

    So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.

    He claims to have opposed the attack on Iraq before it occurred, but iirc that claim proved pretty doubtful. He then makes the shameful suggestion that the US “should keep the oil”, which ought to be a pretty clear signal that this is not a man with any principled opposition to wars of aggression.

    I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen.

    Then his first criticism of Jeb Bush’s comment was that you have to win one war before you can start another:

    You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.

    Then his complaint is not that the wars are being fought, but that they aren’t being won:

    If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything

    Then there was lots of dog-whistling to antiwar listeners (bear in mind I include myself in that category), saying things they want to hear (Bush lied, money should have been spent on infrastructure, etc) but don’t actually have any relevance to future actions.

    In all that, Trump was merely acting as a competent politician in a democracy. The essence of politics in a democracy (including the Republican forms) is to deceive the maximum number of people whose concerns you have no intention of promoting in reality into voting for you, while making as few actual commitments or statements of principle to which you might be held as possible.

    Now granted that to an extent I’m playing devil’s advocate there, and you could equally go through and cherry-pick anti-war examples. But that’s the point, really. It’s largely a matter of confirmation bias. I think Trump did try to fool antiwar Americans into supporting him and fairly successfully (though given his opponent, even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton). He did so, though, without giving too many explicit hostages against conducting future wars of aggression.

    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.

    In the end I do agree with you on this. It’s just that he did it sufficiently competently (as a politician) that he can largely get away with it because the only people angry about it are by and large the anti-war Americans (ie the ones for whom war policy actually determines their vote), and they are pretty much a small minority. If he needs them, he will regret it, but he’s no doubt hoping he won’t need them because he will pick up more than he loses by pleasing the war lobbies and regaining some of the substantial jingoist vote.

    • Agree: German_reader, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Randal


    even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton
     
    But was he? I came to doubt it. At least I think we can say that Clinton might have been better on foreign policy.

    She’s a woman. Which immediately means not a risk-taker. The moment she wanted to implement the no-fly zones, someone would have told her the risks that there’d be a nuclear warhead coming down on her house in Chappaqua. Then she’d have reconsidered.

    I think the risk of having a woman president is that she wants to look strong and so might be more rigid, even when all the rational arguments are coming in. A strong person, a guy, might reconsider and compromise, but a weak person, a woman, playing strong, might be rigidly “strong,” as she imagines a strong guy to be rigid. So she might start WW3 out of silliness, to prove herself real tough.

    On the other hand, the risk of having a guy is all the testosterone (or replacement?) in his body (and a brain shaped by a lifetime of testosterone in his blood), which makes him a natural risk-taker. But the advantage is that he might be strong enough not to care what others think, and backtrack despite having previously committed to some very rigid stance.

    So under certain circumstances a woman might be more likely to start WW3. But here we’re having an unhinged narcissist. He also simultaneously has all the weaknesses of a woman, like trying to prove himself real tough. Yes, it’s because of Russiagate. But he’s not in a position to look soft or weak against Russia.

    So it all hangs on whether Clinton would really have started WW3 over no-fly zones. I think not, but I recognize that the risk was too high. However, now we’re approaching a similar situation in Syria. So even if you think Clinton would’ve started WW3 over Syria, we might get into the same situation regardless. But if she hadn’t started WW3 by now, then I think we’d now be safer from the risk of a nuclear war. She’d be better on North Korea, Iran, Russia, basically anything.

    I think we need to admit that there’s a not insignificant chance that Trump is worse than Clinton would be.
    , @John Gruskos
    @Randal

    Trump's campaign rhetoric was extremely hawkish - against radical Sunni terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, groups which have a history of targeting the American homeland with deadly terror attacks.

    But Trump's campaign rhetoric was dovish toward the enemies of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, especially Christian states such as Russia, but also secular Arab nationalists such as Syria, and by implication also the various Shiite armed groups fighting against ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

    Trump acknowledged that attacking the enemies of our enemies (as Clinton, Bush and Obama did) helps our real enemies.

    Based on his campaign rhetoric, the last thing I expected Trump to do was to bomb Syria, increase sanctions against Russia, and continue Obama's support for Saudi Arabia's war of aggression in Yemen.

  225. @Greasy William
    @KenH


    For all the geniuses who wish to argue otherwise then ask yourself how long Israel would last without the 4 billion (some say almost 10 billon) in aid we provide annually?
     
    Infinitely.

    Israel didn't get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.

    The harder part is going to be replacing US weapons.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @reiner Tor, @KenH

    Israel didn’t get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.

    Israel would have lost the six day war without Nixon’s airlift of large amounts of military weaponry, so much so that it put the U.S. military in Europe temporarily at risk.

    https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/10/how-richard-nixon-saved-israel/

    Israel would descend into third world status without American and European financial and military aid.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @KenH

    That was the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Greasy is correct that they didn’t receive any aid until 1967.

    Replies: @KenH, @LondonBob

  226. @Swedish Family
    @John Gruskos


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    I very much agree, and I don't buy the claims from Scott Adams and others that these expectations were simply figments of our confirmation biases.

    Replies: @Randal

    I don’t buy the claims from Scott Adams and others that these expectations were simply figments of our confirmation biases

    I haven’t read Adams (or anyone else, apart from a few comments hereabouts) suggesting that, but I do seem to have reached the same conclusion independently (and rather reluctantly).

  227. @Greasy William
    @Randal


    We’re talking about the people who boobishly cheer the likes of McCain’s “bomb bomb Iran”
     
    Such people do not exist in the American general population. They did in 2008, but not anymore.

    There are very few supporters of war with Iran (or Syria) in America and about 75% of such people are media figures.

    edit: There probably is substantial support for war with Russia, however.

    Replies: @Randal

    Such people do not exist in the American general population. They did in 2008, but not anymore.

    There are very few supporters of war with Iran (or Syria) in America and about 75% of such people are media figures.

    They come and go according to the application of lobby and regime propaganda. Since the agreement was signed there has been no consistent regime/elite position on war propaganda against Iran, as there had been previously (all the nonsense about Iranian nukes is pretty much pure, dishonest, war propaganda).

    All of the up to 80% or so of Americans who answered polling questions to say they believed Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons or was/is a threat to the US, etc, are vulnerable to becoming jingoistic McCain boobs again with a few months of active war propaganda.

  228. @grapesoda
    @Randal

    That's pretty funny this guy is calling other people loudmouths. What an utter tool.

    Yes you're right, all 300 million of us decided together to go fight wars overseas, not our leaders. It's been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist but you refuse to listen and still keep on spouting the same s***.

    And it's impossible that we could have any principled objections to Islam based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history, and so may other objections that I'm not going to list here because you're not worth the time.

    Btw I wouldn't be surprised if "Randal" is a dirty Muslim himself. He seems obsessed with the Islam issue, and shows that characteristic Muslim lack of self-awareness, always ready to get aggressive at the drop of a hat, and then go act like a little victim little bitch when it suits him.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Talha, @Anon

    based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history

    The fact is your dog killed hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if “Randal” is a dirty Muslim himself.

    Taqiyyah awesomeness v.2.5!!! But we cannot hide the dirtiness, we aren’t miracle workers.

  229. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.
     
    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom. That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen. Imagine thinking women do not "face harm" when their boys are killed in the line of duty, military or civilian. Not only does this imply that women are not human, but even that we are not warm-blooded mammals. Rather, we're like reptiles. Don't alligator moms have like hundreds of young at a time? Not only does she care nothing for their welfare, but I think she sometimes eats them. Okay, so Thom doesn't go quite so far as to accuse us of cannibalizing our own sons, at least not yet.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries.
     
    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you. If I am not much mistaken, men maximize their own reproductive fitness by sleeping with as many women as they can. Of course, that doesn't mean they act on this instinct.

    Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources
     
    .

    Nonsense. Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them. If you want to claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that's fine, but don't be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is.
     
    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries. Before mass immigration, there was no interest whatsoever in doing away with it as the men were perfectly willing to help women in need and abuse was not widespread. I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers, even if it disproportionately affected women. This is the problem with you anti-feminist crusaders. You never seem to actually want to talk about policies that would address your concerns. You just want to use your concerns to demonize women. It is a transparent polarization strategy.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Talha, @Anon

    That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen.

    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.

    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely. A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality. I’m not saying one sex is superior or inferior – they’re just incredibly different. Which is why feminism, instead of making life better, ended up making life worse for everyone. Feminists thought they could turn women into men, which is both misogynistic and doomed to failure.

    Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them.

    I have no problems with the welfare state. On balance I think it’s a good thing. The welfare state is one area in which women do appear to be more rational than men.

    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries.

    I totally agree. That’s one of the key pieces of evidence that mass immigration is essentially a right-wing project.

    I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers

    I don’t think that taking the vote away from the poor is a very good idea.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.
     
    I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Feminism has no parallel to the idea that women are biologically driven to incite violence between men so they can mate with the victors. This is a profoundly hateful idea that would logically lead to not only disenfranchisement of women but also outright denial of freedom of speech and movement and probably even the right to a basic education. Why would you educate a subversive, enemy population (i.e. slaves)?

    Feminism historically has focused on educating and reforming men. That is, teaching them to overcome "toxic masculinity." Of course, from men's point of view, it appears that feminists wish to "reform" you out of your manhood. I certainly understand that you find this objectionable, and I sympathize to some degree, but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government. Now I'm not saying you hold these views, only that these are typical MGTOW views.

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn't mean they're false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation. So far as I can tell, the men's movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these problems were widespread, but in the end that doesn't matter. These things happened, and were ignored on the grounds that a man's home is his castle, so we got feminism as a predictable response. Obviously, feminism has long since gone off the deep end, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely.
     
    This sounds like a dangerous overstatement to me. We can't possibly be "radically different in every way." The fact that you and I are having this conversation proves that we at least share the ability to use language to communicate. That is a very good start I would say.

    I don't mean to take you overly literally, and I certainly would be interested in your thoughts on how exactly we are different.

    A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality.
     
    OK. Care to elaborate?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Greasy William

  230. @Greasy William
    @Jeff Albertson


    I had originally (possibly by mistake) considered you a clever troll, but you lately seem to be most thoughtful and coherent.
     
    I'm not a troll, I'm just mentally unbalanced.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I’m not a troll, I’m just mentally unbalanced.

    The mentally unbalanced are always welcome here.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @dfordoom

    Give me your unhinged, your sperg, your mentally unbalanced yearning to date 10s or at least 7s, the wretched review...

    Replies: @Greasy William

  231. @Rosie
    @German_reader


    Since even totally deranged warmongers like McCain or Lindsey Graham keep getting re-elected (despite being horrible also on lots of other issues, like immigration restriction), there must be substantial agreement with their positions among large segments of the US public.
     
    I appreciate your concern, but the point you have to keep in mind is that Americans have very little control over our pols because of the two-party system. If I am not mistaken, in your country there is more choice because of proportional representation.

    If we don't like our party's candidate, they must be primary challenged, but the establishment fights this tooth and nail, and you saw the monumental effort it took to get Trump nominated. Small donors simply do not have the wherewithal to accomplish that for hundreds of congressional candidates. It's a rigged game that voters simply cannot win.

    I have heard it said before that we cannot get anything done because Americans have free speech, but no political choice, whereas Euros have political choice, but no free speech. Either way, we get the same result. Our governments ignore us, unfortunately. I've no idea what the solution is either.

    Replies: @Randal, @dfordoom

    but the point you have to keep in mind is that Americans have very little control over our pols because of the two-party system.

    Agreed. The purpose of a rigid two-party system is to ensure that democracy will never be anything more than an illusion. The British first-past-the-post system serves the same purpose. The difference between a two-party system like the US system and a one-party state is – well actually there’s no difference at all. The US is every bit as democratic as North Korea.

  232. The alt-right might be slightly down but it is far from dead. Alt-rightists were extremely active on twitter and winning arguments and successfully mocking leftists and Jews. Since those two groups are snowflakes and can’t take the heat they needed twitter heavies to step in and make the universe right again (i.e., make twitter a radical left echo chamber).

    Alt-right and white nationalist memes are still spreading and will continue to do so. Conservatives are worthless as always. Conservatism is dying and we should help usher in its death since it offers no racial defense of white people. The left is explicitly racial in its hatred of white people, so it’s time for the right to be explicitly racial in defending whites and returning the hatred.

    It’s very disappointing about Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrot especially since the former was an effective street activist and willing to physically fight the enemy and the latter is definitely one of the top writers and thinkers in white nationalism. As far as I can tell this was a self inflicted wound and due to a lack of respect for your comrades and not the result of any behind the scenes skullduggery by anti-racist/anti-white “watchdog” groups.

    Hopefully both will learn from this episode. Heimbach probably needs to serve a little prison time but Parrot should get back to writing as soon as he feels up to it.

  233. @Pericles
    @German_reader


    a grotesque figure like Trump

     

    Lol, mind the glass house, buddy.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    Unless the Muslims demand that the glass house be covered because sharia requires it, then the Germans will rush to get it done.

  234. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen.
     
    In fact it's slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.

    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you.
     
    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely. A woman's idea of rationality is very different from a man's idea of rationality. I'm not saying one sex is superior or inferior - they're just incredibly different. Which is why feminism, instead of making life better, ended up making life worse for everyone. Feminists thought they could turn women into men, which is both misogynistic and doomed to failure.

    Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them.

    I have no problems with the welfare state. On balance I think it's a good thing. The welfare state is one area in which women do appear to be more rational than men.

    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries.
     
    I totally agree. That's one of the key pieces of evidence that mass immigration is essentially a right-wing project.

    I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers
     
    I don't think that taking the vote away from the poor is a very good idea.

    Replies: @Rosie

    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.

    I’m afraid I must disagree with you here. Feminism has no parallel to the idea that women are biologically driven to incite violence between men so they can mate with the victors. This is a profoundly hateful idea that would logically lead to not only disenfranchisement of women but also outright denial of freedom of speech and movement and probably even the right to a basic education. Why would you educate a subversive, enemy population (i.e. slaves)?

    Feminism historically has focused on educating and reforming men. That is, teaching them to overcome “toxic masculinity.” Of course, from men’s point of view, it appears that feminists wish to “reform” you out of your manhood. I certainly understand that you find this objectionable, and I sympathize to some degree, but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government. Now I’m not saying you hold these views, only that these are typical MGTOW views.

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn’t mean they’re false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation. So far as I can tell, the men’s movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying these problems were widespread, but in the end that doesn’t matter. These things happened, and were ignored on the grounds that a man’s home is his castle, so we got feminism as a predictable response. Obviously, feminism has long since gone off the deep end, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely.

    This sounds like a dangerous overstatement to me. We can’t possibly be “radically different in every way.” The fact that you and I are having this conversation proves that we at least share the ability to use language to communicate. That is a very good start I would say.

    I don’t mean to take you overly literally, and I certainly would be interested in your thoughts on how exactly we are different.

    A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality.

    OK. Care to elaborate?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government.
     
    You've never met a feminist who thinks all men are rapists? You don't think feminists think that men are "irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education."

    But oddly enough feminists also think that women should emulate men. Feminism is an ideology of both hate and envy (and hate and envy do often go together).

    That is, teaching them to overcome “toxic masculinity.”
     
    How would you feel if men told you that you needed to be taught to overcome toxic femininity?

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation.
     
    Or, alternatively, the Temperance Movement was a movement of scolds and busybodies.

    So far as I can tell, the men’s movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism.

    So when is feminism going to come to grips with domestic violence in which women are the perpetrators? They could start by confronting the sky-high rates of domestic violence among lesbians.
    , @Greasy William
    @Rosie


    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn’t mean they’re false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.
     
    When are MGTOW gonna actually, you know, go their own way?

    For people that are "done with women", they sure spend a lot of time talking about them.

    Replies: @Talha

  235. @Rosie
    @Anon


    Women will follow and enforce the status quo and act however the dominant figure around wants them to. The issue is not women themselves, the issue is the foreign elite telling white women how to act, and to act against the interests of white men.
     
    That's what the foreign elite thought, until November 2016.

    Despite the most extraordinary media assault on a candidate in history, working class White women bitch-slapped the anti-White establishment with a landslide 61% vote for the evil nazi, putting White male college graduates to shame as they only went 53% for Trump.

    The only White group that voted for Hillary was college grad women, who only voted 51% for Hillary. Imagine after a lifetime of propaganda, four years in college learning all about how evil White men are, and getting a chance to vote for the First Woman POTUS, and still barely a majority voted for her. Ouch!

    Replies: @polskijoe

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    The feminism of 1900 has been accepted by vast majority of the West.

    Men and women in general are different. They also need to work together and share some similarities.
    Both needed for society for function.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @polskijoe


    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.
     
    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of "feminism" it's going to be very difficult to sort this out. Some don't want a clear definition because that would undermine the utility of this word as an all-purpose rhetorical weapon.

    Replies: @for-the-record

    , @dfordoom
    @polskijoe


    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.
     
    It's in the very nature of feminism to become more and more destructive. The basis of feminism is the belief that men and women are essentially identical. Reality disagrees, and therefore feminism always fails. Every time it fails feminists become more angry and more extreme.
  236. @John Gruskos
    I certainly do hope that Nazi LARPing is dead, along with nihilist troll culture, anti-Christianism, anti-Americanism, and foolish hopes that Jared Kushner's father-in-law is somehow "on our side".

    The burial of the Frog Emperor's putrid corpse is long overdue.

    Donald Trump emerged from a heavily Jewish milieu. There was never any chance that he would make a good faith effort to actually implement the America First platform (immigration restriction and a non-interventionist foreign policy).

    His election's real value was as a plebiscite on the America First platform. Would the American people support this platform, despite it being associated with such an unappealing personality?

    The answer was a resounding yes. Never again can anyone claim that this political stance is fringe.

    All of Pat Buchanan's 1992 warnings have been vindicated by the course of events, and by 2016 the American people were ready to embrace his platform. The task now is to elect a better congress in 2018, and then elect a better president in 2020, so that this platform can be implemented.

    I suspect many leading figures of the Alt-Right were ADL fundraisers, provocateurs and saboteurs intent on making nationalism look bad. Others were talented and sincere men, but with some flawed ideas which unfortunately blinded them to the true nature of the Judas goats in their midst.

    The establishment's strategy is to isolate and destroy the sincere and talented men - the ugly politics of personal destruction. The task of the right should be to provide moral support to these individuals while they heal, so that they can eventually bounce back, wiser and stronger than ever.

    Replies: @polskijoe

    Agree with much of your first paragraph.

    Most antiAmericanism stems from dislike/hate of the US governments/establishment (in and out of USA)
    and sometimes from the fact that people dont do nothing about it. (usually outside the USA).

    You know Buchanan is fairly respectable person. I agree with most his points. Though some may be outdated.

    Paleoconservativism may have worked in the 1990s or before.
    Would it still work today? Im not so sure.

    The establishment on the Republican side prefers:
    Neocons, MIC types and Rockefeller Republicans.

  237. @polskijoe
    @Rosie

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    The feminism of 1900 has been accepted by vast majority of the West.

    Men and women in general are different. They also need to work together and share some similarities.
    Both needed for society for function.

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out. Some don’t want a clear definition because that would undermine the utility of this word as an all-purpose rhetorical weapon.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    @Rosie

    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women"get along" much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn't transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% -- 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female "advancement" does not inevitably lead to the social "decline" that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Toronto Russian

  238. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.
     
    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom. That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen. Imagine thinking women do not "face harm" when their boys are killed in the line of duty, military or civilian. Not only does this imply that women are not human, but even that we are not warm-blooded mammals. Rather, we're like reptiles. Don't alligator moms have like hundreds of young at a time? Not only does she care nothing for their welfare, but I think she sometimes eats them. Okay, so Thom doesn't go quite so far as to accuse us of cannibalizing our own sons, at least not yet.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries.
     
    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you. If I am not much mistaken, men maximize their own reproductive fitness by sleeping with as many women as they can. Of course, that doesn't mean they act on this instinct.

    Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources
     
    .

    Nonsense. Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them. If you want to claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that's fine, but don't be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is.
     
    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries. Before mass immigration, there was no interest whatsoever in doing away with it as the men were perfectly willing to help women in need and abuse was not widespread. I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers, even if it disproportionately affected women. This is the problem with you anti-feminist crusaders. You never seem to actually want to talk about policies that would address your concerns. You just want to use your concerns to demonize women. It is a transparent polarization strategy.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Talha, @Anon

    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom.

    Excellent point – the station of motherhood is a tremendous responsibility and honor. All of us owe a massive debt of gratitude that we can never repay to them – thanks for this reminder. Any man who forgets what he owes to a woman (the womb that bore him) has committed enormous ingratitude.

    Peace.

  239. @KenH
    @Greasy William


    Israel didn’t get aid before the 6 day war and it did fine. It will have no problem after the aid is cut off.
     
    Israel would have lost the six day war without Nixon's airlift of large amounts of military weaponry, so much so that it put the U.S. military in Europe temporarily at risk.

    https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2010/10/how-richard-nixon-saved-israel/

    Israel would descend into third world status without American and European financial and military aid.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    That was the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Greasy is correct that they didn’t receive any aid until 1967.

    • Replies: @KenH
    @reiner Tor

    Ok, then yes, in 1967 the aid we provided Israel was small compared to what we give today and they still achieved a decisive victory over the Arab states. Yom Kippur was a different story. But I took Greasy's comment to mean Israel didn't need U.S. aid at any time then or now when if we didn't provide it in 1973 the war would have gone very badly for Israel likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @LondonBob
    @reiner Tor

    LBJ armed Israel to the teeth with offensive weapons, one of the many reasons the Israelis assassinated JFK.

  240. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.
     
    I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Feminism has no parallel to the idea that women are biologically driven to incite violence between men so they can mate with the victors. This is a profoundly hateful idea that would logically lead to not only disenfranchisement of women but also outright denial of freedom of speech and movement and probably even the right to a basic education. Why would you educate a subversive, enemy population (i.e. slaves)?

    Feminism historically has focused on educating and reforming men. That is, teaching them to overcome "toxic masculinity." Of course, from men's point of view, it appears that feminists wish to "reform" you out of your manhood. I certainly understand that you find this objectionable, and I sympathize to some degree, but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government. Now I'm not saying you hold these views, only that these are typical MGTOW views.

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn't mean they're false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation. So far as I can tell, the men's movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these problems were widespread, but in the end that doesn't matter. These things happened, and were ignored on the grounds that a man's home is his castle, so we got feminism as a predictable response. Obviously, feminism has long since gone off the deep end, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely.
     
    This sounds like a dangerous overstatement to me. We can't possibly be "radically different in every way." The fact that you and I are having this conversation proves that we at least share the ability to use language to communicate. That is a very good start I would say.

    I don't mean to take you overly literally, and I certainly would be interested in your thoughts on how exactly we are different.

    A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality.
     
    OK. Care to elaborate?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Greasy William

    but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government.

    You’ve never met a feminist who thinks all men are rapists? You don’t think feminists think that men are “irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education.”

    But oddly enough feminists also think that women should emulate men. Feminism is an ideology of both hate and envy (and hate and envy do often go together).

    That is, teaching them to overcome “toxic masculinity.”

    How would you feel if men told you that you needed to be taught to overcome toxic femininity?

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation.

    Or, alternatively, the Temperance Movement was a movement of scolds and busybodies.

    So far as I can tell, the men’s movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism.

    So when is feminism going to come to grips with domestic violence in which women are the perpetrators? They could start by confronting the sky-high rates of domestic violence among lesbians.

    • Agree: Thomm
  241. @polskijoe
    @Rosie

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    The feminism of 1900 has been accepted by vast majority of the West.

    Men and women in general are different. They also need to work together and share some similarities.
    Both needed for society for function.

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.

    It’s in the very nature of feminism to become more and more destructive. The basis of feminism is the belief that men and women are essentially identical. Reality disagrees, and therefore feminism always fails. Every time it fails feminists become more angry and more extreme.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  242. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    In fact it’s slightly less virulent than feminist hate for men. And it was feminism that started this tragic cycle of hate.
     
    I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Feminism has no parallel to the idea that women are biologically driven to incite violence between men so they can mate with the victors. This is a profoundly hateful idea that would logically lead to not only disenfranchisement of women but also outright denial of freedom of speech and movement and probably even the right to a basic education. Why would you educate a subversive, enemy population (i.e. slaves)?

    Feminism historically has focused on educating and reforming men. That is, teaching them to overcome "toxic masculinity." Of course, from men's point of view, it appears that feminists wish to "reform" you out of your manhood. I certainly understand that you find this objectionable, and I sympathize to some degree, but I think it still is far less vicious than the MGTOW attitude towards women. According to the MGTOW, women are irredeemably wicked by nature and cannot be improved with any amount of education. The only solution for women is subjection by force, because we cannot be reasoned with and have no capacity for self-government. Now I'm not saying you hold these views, only that these are typical MGTOW views.

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn't mean they're false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    You may be right that feminism started this cycle of hate, but then feminism did not emerge from nothing. It emerged as a direct historical consequence of the Temperance Movement, which was in its turn an attempt to deal with the very real problem of drunkenness and associated domestic violence and deprivation. So far as I can tell, the men's movement has not come to grips with this, and prefers to ignore the problems that gave rise to feminism. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these problems were widespread, but in the end that doesn't matter. These things happened, and were ignored on the grounds that a man's home is his castle, so we got feminism as a predictable response. Obviously, feminism has long since gone off the deep end, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

    Not just like you. Men and women are radically different in every way. Men and women do not think alike, not even remotely.
     
    This sounds like a dangerous overstatement to me. We can't possibly be "radically different in every way." The fact that you and I are having this conversation proves that we at least share the ability to use language to communicate. That is a very good start I would say.

    I don't mean to take you overly literally, and I certainly would be interested in your thoughts on how exactly we are different.

    A woman’s idea of rationality is very different from a man’s idea of rationality.
     
    OK. Care to elaborate?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Greasy William

    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn’t mean they’re false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.

    When are MGTOW gonna actually, you know, go their own way?

    For people that are “done with women”, they sure spend a lot of time talking about them.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Greasy William

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    Replies: @Greasy William, @dfordoom

  243. @Randal
    @John Gruskos


    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul.
     
    Full Transcript of the Ninth Republican Debate in South Carolina

    This was the main transcript I was looking at the other day, from the New Hampshire debate (a key one in this regard). Trump starts out (on national security) by declaring his approval of an ongoing interventionist war on the other side of the planet:

    So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.
     
    He claims to have opposed the attack on Iraq before it occurred, but iirc that claim proved pretty doubtful. He then makes the shameful suggestion that the US "should keep the oil", which ought to be a pretty clear signal that this is not a man with any principled opposition to wars of aggression.

    I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen.
     
    Then his first criticism of Jeb Bush's comment was that you have to win one war before you can start another:

    You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.
     
    Then his complaint is not that the wars are being fought, but that they aren't being won:

    If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything
     
    Then there was lots of dog-whistling to antiwar listeners (bear in mind I include myself in that category), saying things they want to hear (Bush lied, money should have been spent on infrastructure, etc) but don't actually have any relevance to future actions.

    In all that, Trump was merely acting as a competent politician in a democracy. The essence of politics in a democracy (including the Republican forms) is to deceive the maximum number of people whose concerns you have no intention of promoting in reality into voting for you, while making as few actual commitments or statements of principle to which you might be held as possible.

    Now granted that to an extent I'm playing devil's advocate there, and you could equally go through and cherry-pick anti-war examples. But that's the point, really. It's largely a matter of confirmation bias. I think Trump did try to fool antiwar Americans into supporting him and fairly successfully (though given his opponent, even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton). He did so, though, without giving too many explicit hostages against conducting future wars of aggression.


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    In the end I do agree with you on this. It's just that he did it sufficiently competently (as a politician) that he can largely get away with it because the only people angry about it are by and large the anti-war Americans (ie the ones for whom war policy actually determines their vote), and they are pretty much a small minority. If he needs them, he will regret it, but he's no doubt hoping he won't need them because he will pick up more than he loses by pleasing the war lobbies and regaining some of the substantial jingoist vote.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @John Gruskos

    even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton

    But was he? I came to doubt it. At least I think we can say that Clinton might have been better on foreign policy.

    She’s a woman. Which immediately means not a risk-taker. The moment she wanted to implement the no-fly zones, someone would have told her the risks that there’d be a nuclear warhead coming down on her house in Chappaqua. Then she’d have reconsidered.

    I think the risk of having a woman president is that she wants to look strong and so might be more rigid, even when all the rational arguments are coming in. A strong person, a guy, might reconsider and compromise, but a weak person, a woman, playing strong, might be rigidly “strong,” as she imagines a strong guy to be rigid. So she might start WW3 out of silliness, to prove herself real tough.

    On the other hand, the risk of having a guy is all the testosterone (or replacement?) in his body (and a brain shaped by a lifetime of testosterone in his blood), which makes him a natural risk-taker. But the advantage is that he might be strong enough not to care what others think, and backtrack despite having previously committed to some very rigid stance.

    So under certain circumstances a woman might be more likely to start WW3. But here we’re having an unhinged narcissist. He also simultaneously has all the weaknesses of a woman, like trying to prove himself real tough. Yes, it’s because of Russiagate. But he’s not in a position to look soft or weak against Russia.

    So it all hangs on whether Clinton would really have started WW3 over no-fly zones. I think not, but I recognize that the risk was too high. However, now we’re approaching a similar situation in Syria. So even if you think Clinton would’ve started WW3 over Syria, we might get into the same situation regardless. But if she hadn’t started WW3 by now, then I think we’d now be safer from the risk of a nuclear war. She’d be better on North Korea, Iran, Russia, basically anything.

    I think we need to admit that there’s a not insignificant chance that Trump is worse than Clinton would be.

  244. @dfordoom
    @Greasy William


    I’m not a troll, I’m just mentally unbalanced.
     
    The mentally unbalanced are always welcome here.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Give me your unhinged, your sperg, your mentally unbalanced yearning to date 10s or at least 7s, the wretched review…

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @reiner Tor

    ::golf clap::

  245. @Greasy William
    @Rosie


    The fact that MGTOWs views on women are hateful doesn’t mean they’re false, but fortunately we do have independent evidence that they are false.
     
    When are MGTOW gonna actually, you know, go their own way?

    For people that are "done with women", they sure spend a lot of time talking about them.

    Replies: @Talha

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    @Talha


    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?
     
    That's as far as I ever get.
    , @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run
     
    Liberalism doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it. Liberalism survives, and thrives, because it steals other people's children.

    Replies: @Talha

  246. @AnatolyKarlin doesn’t understand the alt-right if he thinks:

    1) that the Heimbach/Parrot kerfuffle was a negative event for the alt-right. TWP was never alt-right.
    They were *somewhat* fellow travelers, but many felt they were a problem and are greatly relieved to be rid of the WN 1.0/neo-Nazi faction.
    2) no idea what Trump’s success or failure has any effect on the alt-right. It never did.
    3) what does Richard Spencer and his blog have to do with the alt-right, in the whole? Spencer isn’t the alt-right, he isn’t the boss or leader of the alt-right, he’s just someone who chose to be an outer face. Maybe he will be in the future, maybe not.
    4) people may see the alt-rght as disappearing, but may not understand the current plan is to withdraw from the public, and go back undercover and rework the plan of action. What you’re seeing is being done on purpose. You won’t see alt-righters out on the street brawling w/Antifa in the next year during Trump’s upcoming rallies. On purpose.
    5) the numbers of people joining groups/coming to meetings/engaging online is a larger number of people than ever before. There is a plan, we had to have one after miscalculating and thinking we could do public events when we did. We weren’t ready.

  247. @Talha
    @Greasy William

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    Replies: @Greasy William, @dfordoom

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    That’s as far as I ever get.

    • LOL: Talha
  248. @reiner Tor
    @dfordoom

    Give me your unhinged, your sperg, your mentally unbalanced yearning to date 10s or at least 7s, the wretched review...

    Replies: @Greasy William

    ::golf clap::

  249. @reiner Tor
    @KenH

    That was the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Greasy is correct that they didn’t receive any aid until 1967.

    Replies: @KenH, @LondonBob

    Ok, then yes, in 1967 the aid we provided Israel was small compared to what we give today and they still achieved a decisive victory over the Arab states. Yom Kippur was a different story. But I took Greasy’s comment to mean Israel didn’t need U.S. aid at any time then or now when if we didn’t provide it in 1973 the war would have gone very badly for Israel likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @KenH


    likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.
     
    The loss of the Golan and the Sinai, of which the latter they lost anyway. After that I think they’d have become less complacent (they became less complacent anyway).

    But I think Israel’s very existence was never in any real danger, however paranoid they were about it at the time. Israel already had nuclear weapons and no one was interested in finding out whether they’d use them.

    Replies: @utu

  250. @Rosie
    @polskijoe


    There are apparently several types of feminism.
    The more new the more destructive.
     
    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of "feminism" it's going to be very difficult to sort this out. Some don't want a clear definition because that would undermine the utility of this word as an all-purpose rhetorical weapon.

    Replies: @for-the-record

    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn’t transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% — 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @for-the-record


    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives
     
    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of "female in chief executive positions." They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.
     
    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    Replies: @Randal, @for-the-record

    , @Rosie
    @for-the-record


    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    Here's my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don't think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family's support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn't need to earn as much as men. That's about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they'd have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn't bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that's because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    Replies: @polskijoe, @dfordoom

    , @Toronto Russian
    @for-the-record


    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women ”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    I wouldn't say so. A façade of old-fashioned male courtesy (giving flowers, opening doors etc) and sweet feminine charm is often just a façade. There's a lot of trouble, especially among the poor small-town and rural people. A lot of selfish, irresponsible and violent behavior. For example, it was unusual for me to see how Western families care for their sick children together. In Russia it's very common that a father abandons a sick child. Or any child if it's an inconvenience. "Dad has disappeared" is a disturbingly usual line in people's life stories. It appears something of the so-called Sub-Saharan African family pattern exists in Russia - women who do all the work, volatile men, even horticulture (ogorod). But children, unlike in Africa, aren't an economic asset - you have to send them to school, can't get away with making them herd goats or something - so there are much fewer of them.
    Domestic violence kills up to 14 000 women per year according to this regional TV report. That's not only husbands beating their wives, the policeman says, but also sons beating their mothers. If this isn't a sign of deep disfunction in family relationships, I don't know what is.
    https://youtu.be/JWtfLjpGqDk
    By the way, it reminded me of Pushkin's words "The government is Russia's only European." While state TV tells people violence is not normal and victims should get help, much of the general population is still in "If he beats you, he loves you" stage.
    Of course alcohol causes or makes worse a lot of disfunction, so it's a positive and hopeful development that alcoholism is going down. Being sober is now actively promoted by local organizations. Here are some activists for sober New Year celebration:
    https://pp.userapi.com/c625731/v625731770/13665/pCAz3uslMQU.jpg

    Replies: @Anonymous, @melanf

  251. @KenH
    @reiner Tor

    Ok, then yes, in 1967 the aid we provided Israel was small compared to what we give today and they still achieved a decisive victory over the Arab states. Yom Kippur was a different story. But I took Greasy's comment to mean Israel didn't need U.S. aid at any time then or now when if we didn't provide it in 1973 the war would have gone very badly for Israel likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.

    The loss of the Golan and the Sinai, of which the latter they lost anyway. After that I think they’d have become less complacent (they became less complacent anyway).

    But I think Israel’s very existence was never in any real danger, however paranoid they were about it at the time. Israel already had nuclear weapons and no one was interested in finding out whether they’d use them.

    • Replies: @utu
    @reiner Tor

    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    Replies: @KenH, @reiner Tor

  252. @Randal
    @John Gruskos


    I obsessively followed Trump’s foreign policy statements 2015-2016.

    Trump was pretty clear – we never should have gone into Iraq (or Libya, or Syria), trillions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted etc.

    He did float the idea of possibly seizing Iraq’s oil now to defray the costs already incurred (and at the time, there were Iraqi oilfields controlled by ISIS), but the general overall thrust of his foreign policy pronouncements were far more dovish than any other candidate with the exception of Rand Paul.
     
    Full Transcript of the Ninth Republican Debate in South Carolina

    This was the main transcript I was looking at the other day, from the New Hampshire debate (a key one in this regard). Trump starts out (on national security) by declaring his approval of an ongoing interventionist war on the other side of the planet:

    So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.
     
    He claims to have opposed the attack on Iraq before it occurred, but iirc that claim proved pretty doubtful. He then makes the shameful suggestion that the US "should keep the oil", which ought to be a pretty clear signal that this is not a man with any principled opposition to wars of aggression.

    I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen.
     
    Then his first criticism of Jeb Bush's comment was that you have to win one war before you can start another:

    You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.
     
    Then his complaint is not that the wars are being fought, but that they aren't being won:

    If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything
     
    Then there was lots of dog-whistling to antiwar listeners (bear in mind I include myself in that category), saying things they want to hear (Bush lied, money should have been spent on infrastructure, etc) but don't actually have any relevance to future actions.

    In all that, Trump was merely acting as a competent politician in a democracy. The essence of politics in a democracy (including the Republican forms) is to deceive the maximum number of people whose concerns you have no intention of promoting in reality into voting for you, while making as few actual commitments or statements of principle to which you might be held as possible.

    Now granted that to an extent I'm playing devil's advocate there, and you could equally go through and cherry-pick anti-war examples. But that's the point, really. It's largely a matter of confirmation bias. I think Trump did try to fool antiwar Americans into supporting him and fairly successfully (though given his opponent, even lying he was still the better choice over Clinton). He did so, though, without giving too many explicit hostages against conducting future wars of aggression.


    Those who say that Trump has betrayed his foreign policy promises are absolutely correct. Repeatedly bombing Syria, increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing American support for proxy wars against Syria, Yemen and Donbas, hiring John Bolton (!) – this is the exact opposite of everything we had a right to expect.
     
    In the end I do agree with you on this. It's just that he did it sufficiently competently (as a politician) that he can largely get away with it because the only people angry about it are by and large the anti-war Americans (ie the ones for whom war policy actually determines their vote), and they are pretty much a small minority. If he needs them, he will regret it, but he's no doubt hoping he won't need them because he will pick up more than he loses by pleasing the war lobbies and regaining some of the substantial jingoist vote.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @John Gruskos

    Trump’s campaign rhetoric was extremely hawkish – against radical Sunni terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, groups which have a history of targeting the American homeland with deadly terror attacks.

    But Trump’s campaign rhetoric was dovish toward the enemies of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, especially Christian states such as Russia, but also secular Arab nationalists such as Syria, and by implication also the various Shiite armed groups fighting against ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

    Trump acknowledged that attacking the enemies of our enemies (as Clinton, Bush and Obama did) helps our real enemies.

    Based on his campaign rhetoric, the last thing I expected Trump to do was to bomb Syria, increase sanctions against Russia, and continue Obama’s support for Saudi Arabia’s war of aggression in Yemen.

  253. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    @Thomm


    Remember that in the old days, it was quite normal for 500 men to be sent to die in a war, before a single woman faced harm.
     
    Except that every single one of those 500 boys had a mom. That is what is so sick about this new MGTOW misogyny. It is a hate unlike anything I have ever seen. Imagine thinking women do not "face harm" when their boys are killed in the line of duty, military or civilian. Not only does this imply that women are not human, but even that we are not warm-blooded mammals. Rather, we're like reptiles. Don't alligator moms have like hundreds of young at a time? Not only does she care nothing for their welfare, but I think she sometimes eats them. Okay, so Thom doesn't go quite so far as to accuse us of cannibalizing our own sons, at least not yet.

    The Female Imperative transcends cultures and centuries.
     
    There is no female imperative, as there is no male imperative. We are human beings with rational faculties just like you. If I am not much mistaken, men maximize their own reproductive fitness by sleeping with as many women as they can. Of course, that doesn't mean they act on this instinct.

    Since most women are not capable of productive work in a knowledge-based economy, they just vote themselves more resources
     
    .

    Nonsense. Women vote for the welfare state because children are a handicap in the labor force, and men have not always been able or willing to provide for them. If you want to claim that women shouldn't be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that's fine, but don't be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    The majority of government spending in Western democracies is a transfer from men to women (even more than a transfer/Asians to blacks; the black man is more likely to be a net payer of taxes than a white woman is.
     
    The welfare state works fine in homogeneous White countries. Before mass immigration, there was no interest whatsoever in doing away with it as the men were perfectly willing to help women in need and abuse was not widespread. I would have no objection to limiting the franchise to net taxpayers, even if it disproportionately affected women. This is the problem with you anti-feminist crusaders. You never seem to actually want to talk about policies that would address your concerns. You just want to use your concerns to demonize women. It is a transparent polarization strategy.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Talha, @Anon

    If you want to claim that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.

    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this. What I recall suggests that women vote largely the same way as men, with a slight bias towards political orthodoxy where men are slightly more inclined to “edgier” positions. Depending on the place and time period women can be quite conservative*. Ironically iirc in postwar Britain men went far more for the welfare state than women did– weren’t female votes the only thing keeping the Conservative Party around for a while (while the Liberal party collapsed completely)?

    *Margarita Nelken famously opposed female suffrage in Spain on precisely these grounds.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anon


    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this.
     
    I don't have much evidence. I'll admit that. All I can say is that my understanding is that women were at the forefront of private poor relief efforts in early industrial society. I think they called it "social housekeeping" because public roles for women were novel at the time, and they wanted to emphasize the feminine and traditional aspects of their work.

    From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Again, I'm not saying that I have an iron-clad case for women's suffrage as a necessary condition for the welfare state fully worked out, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were so, and I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences. Indeed, if I'm not mistaken there was a time when women voters were seen as protective against unnecessary warfare.

    Replies: @Anon

  254. Anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    @Rosie

    "Manosphere BS"????

    LOLOLOL!

    Rosie, you simply don't understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Read Judgybitch for starters (a woman who does understand how women think) :

    http://judgybitch.com/

    Replies: @Anon

    Rosie, you simply don’t understand how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you understand how women think. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    Well, well, well. Seems we have a psychiatrist on the blog today!

    (But based on comment history a disturbingly autistic psychiatrist. Physician, heal thyself.)

    Heh heh heh heh, as the saying goes.

  255. @grapesoda

    American hatred of islam and muslims is mostly because they’ve been propagandised into hatred...
     
    Ask Hindus if they like Muslims. Or Thais. Or Filipinos. Idiot. You are either a Muslim or you live in a comfortable bubble. Muslims are unwelcome everywhere they go. They don't even like each other.

    Replies: @Mitleser

    Ask Hindus if they like Muslims. Or Thais. Or Filipinos.

    They have large Muslim population in past and present.
    America did not.

  256. @grapesoda
    @Randal

    That's pretty funny this guy is calling other people loudmouths. What an utter tool.

    Yes you're right, all 300 million of us decided together to go fight wars overseas, not our leaders. It's been stated over and over that most people here are non-interventionist but you refuse to listen and still keep on spouting the same s***.

    And it's impossible that we could have any principled objections to Islam based on the fact that it has been responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people in its short history, and so may other objections that I'm not going to list here because you're not worth the time.

    Btw I wouldn't be surprised if "Randal" is a dirty Muslim himself. He seems obsessed with the Islam issue, and shows that characteristic Muslim lack of self-awareness, always ready to get aggressive at the drop of a hat, and then go act like a little victim little bitch when it suits him.

    Replies: @German_reader, @Talha, @Anon

    Has the US ever supported non-Muslims against Muslims? Most of our military actions involving them seem to be either for Muslims against non-Muslims (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Burma if McCain gets his way) or for some Muslims against other Muslims (everywhere else, pretty much).

    Yes, I get that Israel is the exception. But our “support” there has been much less considerable than our support of actual Muslim causes elsewhere.

  257. @for-the-record
    @Rosie

    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women"get along" much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn't transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% -- 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female "advancement" does not inevitably lead to the social "decline" that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Toronto Russian

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives

    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of “female in chief executive positions.” They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    • Replies: @Randal
    @Daniel Chieh


    Spandrellian Bioleninism
     
    Magnificent stuff!

    It's not often I'm stumped, vocabulary wise, even by fairly niche politico-economic jargon, but that's a fine sounding piece of jargon you young uns have come up with!

    Now you have to explain it in your own words, preferably without just copping out with links to longwinded essays on suspect websites.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    , @for-the-record
    @Daniel Chieh

    IMO its illusionary

    I would certainly like to hear the opinions of our Russian experts on this. My experience, from the 1990s, was that women were frequently found in senior management positions to an extent that, at that time anyway, would not have been the case in the West. I am also talking positions requiring technical expertise, notably in airport management.

  258. @Daniel Chieh
    @for-the-record


    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives
     
    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of "female in chief executive positions." They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.
     
    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    Replies: @Randal, @for-the-record

    Spandrellian Bioleninism

    Magnificent stuff!

    It’s not often I’m stumped, vocabulary wise, even by fairly niche politico-economic jargon, but that’s a fine sounding piece of jargon you young uns have come up with!

    Now you have to explain it in your own words, preferably without just copping out with links to longwinded essays on suspect websites.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @Randal

    Its pretty simple: there are people who are naturally less capable of gaining status in a traditional society - your usual actors such as transvestites, degenerates, poorly functioning minorities, ugly spinsters(which Spandrell calls "evil fat women") and other freaks. But many of them want high status anyway.

    Organizations that recruit them and give them high status(often at the expense of society) get a significant advantage in that they are loyal out of necessity. This isn't to be dismissed - loyalty is a hard problem and the reminder that "without us, you'll be back to being beaten by your husbands and being prosecuted for your sodomy" makes them effective foot soldiers, especially in terms of organization and enthusiasm.

    On the other hand, high functioning individuals such as average middle-class whites will be fine no matter. No matter how hostile society becomes, they usually will survive at least as individuals. In that sense, they can never be loyal pawns, not even to each other, up until you get to the South African situation. Loyalty isn't optimal for them: fighting to defend your fellow whites in SA, for example, might get you killed for no result(and certainly makes you non-handshakeworthy) and thus has an incredibly high opportunity cost. The same time and effort spent to emigrate and pay for your kid to get into Cambridge gives your family higher status than being a statistic or being famous with the SPLC.

    Replies: @Randal, @Talha

  259. @Darth Pepe
    As a proud 2016 Meme War veteran and a card-carrying Kekistani, I will never forget the halcyon days of Nov 2016 - Jan 2017. This was our A New Hope, when a plucky orange-haired 70-year old teenager fired a cartoon frog down the exhaust port of the social justice Death Star.

    Now, we are deep in the Empire Strikes Back territory.

    Let us hope for a Return of the Shitlords, except with plucky frog people instead of those damn Ewoks.

    Replies: @Sonny

    So if there where no pre-programeed or (programmed during and after) voting machines – the Democrats wouldn’t of won any elections . Only way to stop this fake voting scam is – Paper Ballots Only , counted by you and me and those dam ballots never leave the room !

  260. @for-the-record
    @Rosie

    This is quite right, and until we can agree on a working definition of “feminism” it’s going to be very difficult to sort this out.

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women"get along" much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives (45% according to the last survey I saw), although obviously this doesn't transfer over to the political sphere (in 128th place at 15.8% -- 1st place is Rwanda). So this does suggest that perhaps female "advancement" does not inevitably lead to the social "decline" that seems to be accepted by many people here.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @Rosie, @Toronto Russian

    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don’t think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family’s support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn’t need to earn as much as men. That’s about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they’d have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn’t bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that’s because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    • Replies: @polskijoe
    @Rosie

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The West was more worried about Stalinism than Bolshevism.
    So they used Bolshevik social views. In recent times those views have gone on steriods.
    Then used a mixture of capitalist and socialist views.

    The focus was more on social issues (drugs, feminism, perverts, abortions) rather than money.
    Some call it Cultural Marxism.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest.
     
    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum./blockquote>

    Agreed.

    Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes.

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don't intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     

     

    Replies: @for-the-record, @Rosie

  261. @Rosie
    @for-the-record


    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    Here's my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don't think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family's support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn't need to earn as much as men. That's about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they'd have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn't bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that's because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    Replies: @polskijoe, @dfordoom

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The West was more worried about Stalinism than Bolshevism.
    So they used Bolshevik social views. In recent times those views have gone on steriods.
    Then used a mixture of capitalist and socialist views.

    The focus was more on social issues (drugs, feminism, perverts, abortions) rather than money.
    Some call it Cultural Marxism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @polskijoe


    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.
     
    The New Left existed in order to persuade people to embrace capitalism, whilst thinking they were supporting socialism.

    Replies: @polskijoe

  262. @Anon
    @Rosie


    If you want to claim that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because we tend to support the welfare state, that’s fine, but don’t be surprised if we wind up with a Dickensian dystopian hellscape for a country.
     
    Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough, but I don't really see the evidence for this. What I recall suggests that women vote largely the same way as men, with a slight bias towards political orthodoxy where men are slightly more inclined to "edgier" positions. Depending on the place and time period women can be quite conservative*. Ironically iirc in postwar Britain men went far more for the welfare state than women did-- weren't female votes the only thing keeping the Conservative Party around for a while (while the Liberal party collapsed completely)?

    *Margarita Nelken famously opposed female suffrage in Spain on precisely these grounds.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Perhaps I just haven’t looked hard enough, but I don’t really see the evidence for this.

    I don’t have much evidence. I’ll admit that. All I can say is that my understanding is that women were at the forefront of private poor relief efforts in early industrial society. I think they called it “social housekeeping” because public roles for women were novel at the time, and they wanted to emphasize the feminine and traditional aspects of their work.

    From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Again, I’m not saying that I have an iron-clad case for women’s suffrage as a necessary condition for the welfare state fully worked out, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were so, and I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken there was a time when women voters were seen as protective against unnecessary warfare.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Rosie

    Florence Nightingale cannot be praised enough, but it's not quite fair to generalize about the time before her-- Surgeon-General Larrey is, surely, not a name to be ignored? And don't forget the enormous network of nuns who made the Catholic hospital system possible in the US-- a very necessary role at the time. It is a common modern error to dismiss all time before the present as utterly barbaric, when some softening of perspective would be more appropriate.

    Personally I'm not too concerned about suffrage for anybody-- there is, I think, a good rationale for limiting the franchise to one vote per household (man and wife must agree? or half a vote each?), but I am not really against our current system-- it's flawed, like every system made by mankind. You probably know, incidentally, that had female suffrage been put to a vote among women at the time it was introduced, at least in the UK or the US, it would have been soundly defeated (which is not necessarily an argument against it).


    I think the elimination of women from the electorate might well have undesirable consequences.
     
    Certainly-- even if only because the enormous upheaval necessary before such a thing could be even thinkable would be necessarily catastrophic.

    Another point about those 500 men-- for most of history giving birth was quite as dangerous as going to war.
  263. From what I understand, injured soldiers were neglected and left to die of infectious diseases before Florence Nightingale founded the profession of nursing as we understand it today.

    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @utu


    Traditionally British drafted prostitutes and fallen women on military campaigns who also attended wounded soldiers. French army in Crimean war had Catholic nuns. Florence Nightingale was a British response to Catholic nuns.
     
    Ok but that begs the question, doesn't it. Nuns were the first career girls. Your social workforce is going to have to come from somewhere. I suspect total removal of the most thoughtful and compassionate women from the marriage market is not good for the gene pool, and while it certainly makes sense to put fallen women to work caring for the sick and wounded in times of war or other crisis, it would be better still if they had never fallen to begin with. In early industrial society, a 13 year old girl could wind up on the streets because her father was injured, sick, or dead and she needed to generate income to feed the family. And let's be honest, this kind of prostitution is sexual wage slavery, little better than what is happening to Yazidi girls in the ME.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie

  264. @reiner Tor
    @KenH


    likely resulting in the loss of some of their current territory.
     
    The loss of the Golan and the Sinai, of which the latter they lost anyway. After that I think they’d have become less complacent (they became less complacent anyway).

    But I think Israel’s very existence was never in any real danger, however paranoid they were about it at the time. Israel already had nuclear weapons and no one was interested in finding out whether they’d use them.

    Replies: @utu

    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    • Replies: @KenH
    @utu

    That's correct. I believe their entire air force was comprised of aircraft provided by the French like the Mirage III fighter and the MD450. European nations had also provided a lot of firearms arms dating back to the massive Jewish incursion of Palestine after WWII. So Israel has always had a lot of outside help whether from France, Germany and other Europeans nations or the U.S. today.

    , @reiner Tor
    @utu

    I don’t think they got those weapons for free.

  265. @Talha
    @Greasy William

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run unless they plan on producing clones without wombs or something.

    The mathematics are determinant.

    Men. Going. To. Online. Wank?

    Peace.

    Replies: @Greasy William, @dfordoom

    Any movement, that doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it, is dead in the long run

    Liberalism doesn’t incorporate decently prolific women into it. Liberalism survives, and thrives, because it steals other people’s children.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom

    This is a reasonable point. I have noticed it does seem to be clearing the wheat from the chaff in a sense so perhaps we should be grateful in that sense; a self-imposed selection-downgrade in the survival of the fittest.

    I guess someone should tell them they should not try too hard though, they will end up killing the host.

    Peace.

  266. @Rosie
    @for-the-record


    To an outsider, it would appear that men and women”get along” much better in Russia (and perhaps other former Soviet republics) than in the West. Is this true?
     
    Here's my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest. Workplace discrimination continued, but I don't think it ever exceeded what would be considered reasonable given that men shoulder the primary financial responsibility for the family's support.

    If you want to be generous to the feminist movement, you could say that disparate treatment was still an injustice even if women didn't need to earn as much as men. That's about as far as I think reasonable people could go in giving feminists the benefit of the doubt. Sex discrimination in employment was outlawed in 1964.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum. However, unlike Brexit, feminist agitation served the interests of elites, who continued funding feminist organizations that otherwise could not have survived for lack of a natural constituency. Radical feminists could have carried on bloviating, but they'd have gotten no funding, no attention, and no traction without elite patronage.

    I do not agree with dfordoom that there is something in the nature of feminism that compels it to continue fighting when the major objectives have long since been achieved. Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes. If Russia isn't bothered by these radical malcontents, I would guess that's because hostile elites are not permitted to enable them with funding and publicity they could never get on the merits of their agenda.

    Replies: @polskijoe, @dfordoom

    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances were resolved by mid-century at the latest.

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been the end of the feminist movement. Its major goals accomplished, it would have petered out like UKIP after the Brexit referendum./blockquote>

    Agreed.

    Rather, I think certain elites deliberately fan the flames of the War of the Sexes for their own purposes.

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don’t intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.

    • Replies: @for-the-record
    @dfordoom

    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.

    In my mother's day (and to some extent when I was young, I believe) there were lot of humiliating restrictions on women -- not being able to take out a loan, needing her husband's signature to get a credit card, even serving on juries in some states. These affected women in general, not only a tiny handful.

    Saying that feminism has gone too far is one thing, denying its historical basis is going too far.

    Replies: @Toronto Russian, @Anon

    , @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    I agree, although I think the grievances were trivial and mostly only affected a tiny handful of upper-class women.
     
    Well, not quite. As I said before, drunkenness, domestic violence, gambling, etc. were problems that plagued working-class women. From their point of view, the problems of privileged women would have seemed trivial, but you have to remember, human needs are hierarchical. Higher needs, such as creativity and public service, begin to loom large as the lower needs are securely fulfilled. This works the same way for women as for men.

    Particularly miserable were bright girls born into the working class. Think Roald Dahl's Matilda. These girls, I suspect, are even more miserable now than they were in the past, when they at least had a good school where they could find respite from low-brow male chauvinism. Hopefully, Miss Honey is still out there offering hope and guidance to gifted girls lost in these increasingly miserable excuses for "schools."

    Obviously the elites do encourage the feminist crazies. But I still think the craziness itself comes from within feminism. You have a huge number of women who are essentially professional feminists. Their entire self-identity, and often their livelihood, comes from being feminist activists. They don’t intend to give up that. And as the evidence accumulates that feminism actually makes women more miserable those professional feminists become more strident and more fanatical.
     
    Right, but here again there would be no money to pay their salaries but for elite donations. They would have to find something useful to do rather than stir up trouble for a living. This is an important point, because the woman question is never going to go away. Industrialization brought changes to society that necessitated a renegotiation of gender roles. While femininity-masculinity is a timeless polarity, their specific manifestations are highly contextual. Change will come again, and the lines of communication must remain open so gender roles can adapt to meet the needs of society as it evolves in real time. Some say that the existence of radically destructive feminists today means men never should have listened to the reasonable ones in times past, because women are unreasonable and can never be satisfied. This is not true, and we need to defend ourselves from this unfounded, but understandable in the circumstances, view of women as perpetual malcontents.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  267. @polskijoe
    @Rosie

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The West was more worried about Stalinism than Bolshevism.
    So they used Bolshevik social views. In recent times those views have gone on steriods.
    Then used a mixture of capitalist and socialist views.

    The focus was more on social issues (drugs, feminism, perverts, abortions) rather than money.
    Some call it Cultural Marxism.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.

    The New Left existed in order to persuade people to embrace capitalism, whilst thinking they were supporting socialism.

    • Replies: @polskijoe
    @dfordoom

    On the economic side? You might be right. But I still think social issues were important.

    But after the New Deal didnt "socialist" like ideas poor in, mixing with capitalism?
    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  268. @dfordoom
    @polskijoe


    The feminist movement of the 1960s which is when the more evil feminism started.
    was part of the New Left.

    Basically a movement to passify and fool people to vote for something similar yet different to Communism.
     
    The New Left existed in order to persuade people to embrace capitalism, whilst thinking they were supporting socialism.

    Replies: @polskijoe

    On the economic side? You might be right. But I still think social issues were important.

    But after the New Deal didnt “socialist” like ideas poor in, mixing with capitalism?
    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @polskijoe


    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?
     
    The elites were ultra capitalists who hoped to maintain absolute social control by keeping the lower orders happy with handouts, mind-rotting trash entertainment, sex and drugs (it almost seems that they used Brave New World as an instruction manual).

    It might seem like a kind of semi-socialism but it isn't really, although the new world order they created does manage to combine many of the worst features of both capitalism and socialism.

    This the world the New Left made possible by their betrayal of all actual left-wing principles.
  269. Here is Stefan Molyneaux explaining why women should not have the right to vote :

    There is no doubt that the over-valuation of women is the central cause for the demise of our society.

  270. @polskijoe
    @dfordoom

    On the economic side? You might be right. But I still think social issues were important.

    But after the New Deal didnt "socialist" like ideas poor in, mixing with capitalism?
    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Essentially the elites were ultra capitalists while they gave capitalist-socialist mixture for the masses?

    The elites were ultra capitalists who hoped to maintain absolute social control by keeping the lower orders happy with handouts, mind-rotting trash entertainment, sex and drugs (it almost seems that they used Brave New World as an instruction manual).

    It might seem like a kind of semi-socialism but it isn’t really, although the new world order they created does manage to combine many of the worst features of both capitalism and socialism.

    This the world the New Left made possible by their betrayal of all actual left-wing principles.

    • Agree: polskijoe
  271. @utu
    @reiner Tor

    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    Replies: @KenH, @reiner Tor

    That’s correct. I believe their entire air force was comprised of aircraft provided by the French like the Mirage III fighter and the MD450. European nations had also provided a lot of firearms arms dating back to the massive Jewish incursion of Palestine after WWII. So Israel has always had a lot of outside help whether from France, Germany and other Europeans nations or the U.S. today.

  272. @utu
    @reiner Tor

    Before 1967 Israel was getting a lot of weapons from France.

    I always wondered if American air lift of weapons to Israel during Yom Kippur war was dictated by the threat by Israel of using nukes when they were losing in the initial phase. Or was it Nixon trying to save his own ass? It did not work for Nixon.

    Replies: @KenH, @reiner Tor

    I don’t think they got those weapons for free.

  273. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    There’s a big difference between bashing women and bashing feminism.

    The problems women face today are almost all the result of feminism, the most misogynistic ideology in history.
     
    I think there is actually quite a bit of sense in what you say here. The problem is that the alt-Right has redefined feminism to mean any sense of self-confidence on the part of women. Even opposition to Wife-beating is "feminist" on the alt-Right.

    Replies: @Tyrion 2

    It’s a purity spiral. It’s a mirror image of what is happening on the left. It is irredeemably dumb.

    Suddenly one side is wearing hats fashioned to look like female genitalia and proud to call themselves nasty (don’t these ladies ever ask themselves, upon looking in the mirror, if they are the bad guys?) while the other is trying to rationalise away beating women – a crime that was never acceptable in the history of their entire civilisation? A civilisation, in part, distinguished by the genuine chivalry their ancestors aspired to.

    • Agree: Rosie
  274. @Daniel Chieh
    @for-the-record


    Russia also continually tops the list of countries with the highest percentage of female executives
     
    IMO its illusionary(although Mr. Karlin would know more about it for Russia), much like Chinese having a high level of "female in chief executive positions." They exist to hide in name only with no real authority and exist in part to avoid accumulation of capital in a single name, which brings scrutiny for corruption. Wives and mistresses can be given company titles to explain their evident wealth, and use as reservoirs of capital storage; at most they exist in an important role only as an extent of vaguely feudal connections to actual male authority figures.

    Excluding them from significance the political sphere is mostly the important part at any rate.

    So this does suggest that perhaps female “advancement” does not inevitably lead to the social “decline” that seems to be accepted by many people here.
     
    Simple A causes B explanations rarely are accurate, though popular. Its more of a version of the triumph of Spandrellian Bioleninism, to which women tend to be a vanguard for.

    Replies: @Randal, @for-the-record

    IMO its illusionary

    I would certainly like to hear the opinions of our Russian experts on this. My experience, from the 1990s, was that women were frequently found in senior management positions to an extent that, at that time anyway, would not have been the case in the West. I am also talking positions requiring technical expertise, notably in airport management.

  275. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Here’s my take. Back in the early 20th Century, women had some legitimate grievances about their treatment by men. In my opinion, these grievances