The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
A Perpetual Crisis of Legitimacy
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

It is difficult to describe a situation in which four-in-ten people view the electoral process as fraudulent in any other way:

A common assertion among dissidents is that we’re not voting our way out of this. That dissident perspective is one of the things that make a dissident just that, a dissident. Most people do think there is an electoral solution for the country as it is currently constituted.

But it’s contingent upon their guy getting into office. Consider the net optimism of Americans at the end of October, before the 2020 election had taken place, and then compare it to the net optimism of Americans less than a month later when it looks like a changing of the guard will occur on Pennsylvania Avenue:

Everything is political now, including people’s very outlook on life itself. What a tragic thing that the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania determine which 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people for the next four years. There must be a better way.

 
Hide 183 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. There is a better way: Separation.

    • Agree: Gordo, Achmed E. Newman
    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @MBlanc46

    Separation won’t cut it, as the FSA and their masters know they’d lose the people paying the freight. One side would go gladly, and the other side would sooner see them die than escape without paying.

    , @Pop Warner
    @MBlanc46

    The federal government didn't accept it in 1860, and they won't now. If you want separation don't expect it to be peaceful in any way and don't expect them to give up easily.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    , @Jake
    @MBlanc46

    Separation is the only way.

  2. Everything is political now, including people’s very outlook on life itself.

    Maybe that’s just the inevitable end result of democracy. Democracy leads to the view that everything is everybody else’s business and that leads to the view that every single aspect of life is something that the government should do something about.

    You could see this happening even in the 19th century as the idea of democracy gradually took hold. Governments became more and more involved in areas of life they had never been much involved in before – areas such as education, health, even people’s sex lives. Everything required the government to pass some new piece of legislation. By 1920 the US Government was telling people they weren’t allowed to have a drink any more because the drinking of alcohol had become a political issue.

    What a tragic thing that the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania determine which 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people for the next four years. There must be a better way.

    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @dfordoom


    Governments became more and more involved in areas of life they had never been much involved in before – areas such as education, health, even people’s sex lives.
     
    Traditionally, those were the domains of the Church. In some countries, particularly Catholic countries, schools and hospitals were founded by religious orders. The state had no business with that.

    I think it was a better way. Certainly better than the current "secular government" telling us how to behave, who we can meet, whether we should wear masks or go out at night.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?
     
    If you mean China, I would have agreed with you no more than 3 years ago, Mr. Doom. Not anymore. See, when you have autocratic rule, with a head of The Party (and, don't get it wrong, the CCP RUNS the Chinese government) who just inserted himself as lifetime ruler in the "Constitution"*, he may decide to do something that will not be so good for society. Because it's not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain't nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.

    You really ought to read the book We Have Been Harmonized. The author is a Kung Flu Panicker and a TDS sufferer, but that he keeps that to a minimum. This book will scare the beJesus out of you. A Peak Stupidity review will be coming within a week.


    .

    * It's no real constitution if one guy can freaking change the thing at will.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Realist

    , @Almost Missouri
    @dfordoom


    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?
     
    Singapore. As Singapore's founder Lee Kwan Yew recognized, multicultural (which they call "multiracialism") and democracy are mutually incompatible. Since Singapore was already multiracial at its founding, they couldn't have democracy. So they don't. And they've been doing pretty well ever since.

    Also China is increasingly prosperous, functional and content and has about zero democracy.

    In fact, the entire eastern part of Asia is doing pretty well by historical standards and has very little democracy by western standards.
  3. Anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

    The link at the end of the essay takes the reader to a two-nations article. It is a fine essay, that linked essay, as far as it goes. But it is too general. I have yet to read a two-nations essay that lays-out the specific separation plan. It would set forth the specific obstacles to partition, and for each, exactly how these would be surmounted. History tells us that whenever the cultural and ethnic fragmentation is as severe as that present in the U.S., there are two possibilities: Either separation, or, one side squashes the other side. By “separation,” I do not refer to the kind of self-sorting that has been going on in the United States for the past two generations; the U.S. is past that. I suspect that the detailed plan has not been written for the two obvious reasons. So, as some famous dude from the canceled traditional canon wrote, Be drunk, always be drunk, on wine, poetry, or virtue.

  4. Some fascinating age differences there. The belief that the result was illegitimate seems to be largely a Boomer thing.

    In fact when you factor in political affiliation as well you could go so far as to say it’s mostly a boomercon thing.

    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @dfordoom

    More white people are boomers, race not age.

    Expect if they did jewish it would align more with blacks, always the outliers.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Dieter Kief
    @dfordoom

    Yeah - that's' then kind of business as usual, mentality wise. - The older ones tend to think that everything is - on a downward trail. and that's a constant since the beginning of western high culture in ancient Athens.

    Btw. - here is an older guy, who lacks all pessimism - and still thinks, that the election was stolen. a rare bird, if ever there was one:


    https://libre.tube/videos/watch/2cf4ee27-1e25-4aba-bff5-895b001855ba

    L Ron Wood, the interviewer, already quite tongue in cheek, but Russel Ramsland beats him - while delivering the bad news about the mess, the voting system is in. And he says, he can prove it with data.

    , @Dieter Kief
    @dfordoom


    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

     

    Yeah - that's' then business as usual, mentality wise. - The older ones tend to think that everything is - on a downward trail. That's an anthropological constant since the beginning of western high culture in ancient Athens.

    Btw. - here is an older guy, who lacks all pessimism - and still thinks, that the election was stolen. A rare bird, if ever there was one:


    https://libre.tube/videos/watch/2cf4ee27-1e25-4aba-bff5-895b001855ba

    L Ron Wood, the interviewer, talks already quite tongue in cheek, but Russel Ramsland beats him - while delivering the bad news about the mess, the voting system is in. And he says, he can prove it with data.
    , @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I have a friend, a fellow Gen Xer, who is a diehard Trump supporter, rants all day about how the election was illegitimate yet also has an obsessive hatred of boomers. I keep telling him that it's the young people who are the problem and that if it wasn't for boomers Trump would have lost in a landslide. I texted him the graphic of this poll to prove my point. Yet I'm sure he won't let go of his boomer hatred because it is a big part of who he is.

    Replies: @Curle

  5. Good to see secession and separation get more attention. If a confederation of Red states would then adopt explicit white racial consciousness would be even better. Much safer to do that once Blue state deadweight is gone.

    Was unable to see Kelly’s tweet with his proposed map.

  6. @MBlanc46
    There is a better way: Separation.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Pop Warner, @Jake

    Separation won’t cut it, as the FSA and their masters know they’d lose the people paying the freight. One side would go gladly, and the other side would sooner see them die than escape without paying.

  7. Everything is political now

    Although people in both the right and left are political about everything now (heck, *I* am political about everything now), the origin of this cultural total war squarely rests on the left.

    For all their talk of theocracy doom masturbation, right-leaning administrations over the years never imposed anything even resembling a hint of theocracy or oppression. No homosexuals were put in prisons, women weren’t prevented from becoming a majority of medical school students, and institutional preferences for blacks and Hispanics became ever stronger.

    Meanwhile, wherever the left dominated the levers of society, they engaged in scorched earth policies of personal destruction against their political opponents. Oppose government-sanctioned racial discrimination, aka affirmative action? You must lose your job, you evil racist, you! Oppose homosexual “marriage”? You must lose your business and be run out of a company you built, you bigot! Oppose men wearing women’s clothes and beating up women in sports? You must be driven off polite society, you hateful sexist, you!

    Theirs is basically a policy of triumphal eliminationism. That rightists have also become political “about everything” is regrettable (and not terribly in keeping with our natural tendencies), but is merely, and belated, self-defense.

    At this point, I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about solutions other than civil strife or peaceful separation. I vote for the latter. I will not have my children reach adulthood and be stranded in a society, in which they must hide their moral convictions or risk becoming persona non grata in their own country.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Meanwhile, wherever the left dominated the levers of society, they engaged in scorched earth policies of personal destruction against their political opponents. Oppose government-sanctioned racial discrimination, aka affirmative action? You must lose your job, you evil racist, you! Oppose homosexual “marriage”? You must lose your business and be run out of a company you built, you bigot! Oppose men wearing women’s clothes and beating up women in sports? You must be driven off polite society, you hateful sexist, you!
     
    Fortunately we’re a nation of laws. Unfortunately run by Deep State.

    https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-lawyer-argues-us-can-kill-its-own-citizens-without-review-when-state-secrets-are-involved

    US can kill its own citizens without review when state secrets are involved, DOJ lawyer argues
    By Debra Cassens Weiss
    November 18, 2020

    A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer argued Monday that the United States can kill its own citizens without judicial review when litigation would reveal state secrets.

    The argument drew alarm among judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Courthouse News Service reports.

    Judge Patricia Millett characterized the DOJ’s argument as giving the government the ability to “unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens,” according to coverage of the argument by Courthouse News Service. “Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is?”

    The government’s brief in the case supplies details of the lawsuit. The plaintiff, Bilal Abdul Kareem, is a U.S. citizen who works as a journalist in Syria for the “On the Ground Network” news channel, which provides access to the views of rebel fighters. The militants are linked to al-Qaida, according to Courthouse Service...
     

    Replies: @anon

  8. @dfordoom

    Everything is political now, including people’s very outlook on life itself.
     
    Maybe that's just the inevitable end result of democracy. Democracy leads to the view that everything is everybody else's business and that leads to the view that every single aspect of life is something that the government should do something about.

    You could see this happening even in the 19th century as the idea of democracy gradually took hold. Governments became more and more involved in areas of life they had never been much involved in before - areas such as education, health, even people's sex lives. Everything required the government to pass some new piece of legislation. By 1920 the US Government was telling people they weren't allowed to have a drink any more because the drinking of alcohol had become a political issue.

    What a tragic thing that the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania determine which 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people for the next four years. There must be a better way.
     
    Can you think of any country that doesn't have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn't there some country in Asia that fits that description?

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri

    Governments became more and more involved in areas of life they had never been much involved in before – areas such as education, health, even people’s sex lives.

    Traditionally, those were the domains of the Church. In some countries, particularly Catholic countries, schools and hospitals were founded by religious orders. The state had no business with that.

    I think it was a better way. Certainly better than the current “secular government” telling us how to behave, who we can meet, whether we should wear masks or go out at night.

  9. Whats strange is that the independents are more negative now, but they were supposed to have voted against Trump.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @neutral

    Trump won independents.

    Pathetic, if Georgia just did a proper audit it would comfortably flip. Probable Wisconsin will after their audit, and then the pressure for NV, AZ, MI and PA to flip would be irresistible. Looks like the legislature in PA might send a mother slate of electors anyway already.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @neutral

    Also notable: for a net gain of 74 percentage points of Democrat optimism, 106 points of Republican and 15 points of Independent optimism had to be sacrificed.

    As with money, so also with happiness itself, Democrats are massively inefficient.

  10. It would be less of a problem if more decisions were made at the state and local level. People would be less likely to talk about separation if they could just leave a state they are currently in that they don’t like and move to a state that they do like. I sometimes hear people who have moved here to Indiana complain about how conservative this state is. That is actually something I like about the state and one of the reasons I live here. For example, the coronavirus restrictions the Republican governor put in place are less onerous than in many states run by Democrats. I’m glad there is no Whitmer or Cuomo here.

    So conservatives should advocate letting each state go its own way in more areas. They usually but not always do this. They do have a temptation to have decisions made at a federal level when it involves something they don’t like such as legalizing marijuana. A more recent example were calls to have the federal government send troops to stop the looting and rioting in big Democrat run cities. Conservatives should be against this sort of federalizing of crime enforcement. They don’t think about what it might lead to if someday you have liberals running everything at the federal level.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Mark G.


    It would be less of a problem if more decisions were made at the state and local level.
     
    True, and that's how things used to be. There has always been a bit of a tendency for the Feds to stick their noses into local business, but it was generally under control until FDR's New Deal made the entire economy Federal business at a stroke. Then it got kicked into overdrive by the [anti-]Civil Rights revolution which made everything touching race (i.e. everything) directly Federal business.

    A more recent example were calls to have the federal government send troops to stop the looting and rioting in big Democrat run cities. Conservatives should be against this sort of federalizing of crime enforcement. They don’t think about what it might lead to if someday you have liberals running everything at the federal level.
     
    Federal power to suppress domestic insurrections goes back to the Insurrection Act of 1807, so it's not exactly new. And inasmuch as the Federal government was formed in the first place partly in reaction to 1787's Shay's Rebellion, it is even older. But this Federal power requires that the relevant state request it. I was impressed—and a little surprised—this summer at how scrupulous Trump was about insisting that the riot states make proper requests for Federal intervention. Of course, the states were all Dem-run, so they didn't make that request (also they were pro-rioter of course).

    If the riots had been rightist rather than leftist, a Democrat President wouldn't have hesitated to use Federal troops, even without a state invitation. How? Since the mid-20th century they've written themselves a bunch of loopholes into the Insurrection laws allowing unilateral Federal intervention if they say it is a "civil rights" issue. And if you haven't noticed, anything and everything can be a "civil rights" issue nowadays. So yes, when "liberals run everything at the federal level" they definitely will use Federal military power against patriotic Americans. But they were going to do that anyway irrespective of anything conservatives did or do, so no, it's not really a matter of some precedent that conservatives set being used against them. It's a matter of liberals implacably becoming more and more tyrannical.
  11. I learned the basic principle for this from Kurt Vonnegut, in some book of his decades ago:

    My wife and I have one country. It consists of three acres of land, two structures, a small, natural-gas-powered generating station (for emergencies) and one very short “road.” Population two. Gross national product measured in six figures. 100% White. Average education: post-graduate. Average age: old enough to say “fuck you” and then some.

    We are a democracy, but with only two voters, we have to hash things out. Consensus is the rule. Deism is the national religion, all others are frowned upon but tolerated among visitors.

    Our military exists for defense purposes only. It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver, plus an axe and other tools that would serve handsomely in hand-to-hand combat. We are prepared to defend ourselves, and at this point in life, at least this Citizen sort of doesn’t care if that eventually results in his death. Patrick Henry is one of our heroes.

    Aside from that, we don’t have a country. There is no United States of America. There is only the global regime, which is now attempting to “reset” us.

    From this three-acre country, we rely on food and other resources that mostly come from the regime. However, we have a few friends from whom we buy beef, pork, milk, eggs, vegetables and some fruits. That is because they own and operate nearby small farms, mostly boutique businesses in my opinion, but we know them.

    There are deer and other fine, meaty animals that wander here, even, appropriately this time of year, wild turkeys. There are trout in a stream half-a-mile away. We keep a rotating stock of necessities, months worth, in a basement room. The fuel tanks in our vehicles are always topped off. If “war” comes to our country, we will last a while, before we die as free people.

    There is no United States of America anymore, and yes, I am crazy, and I don’t GAF what you think about it.

    Oh, BTW, “Happy Thanksgiving.” LOL. Give thanks for what you once had.

    • Replies: @PhilK
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Give thanks for what you once had.

    That pretty much sums it up for me.

    , @Twinkie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver
     
    You don't have nearly enough dogs or guns. And how much ammo do you have? Ammo consumption is very low during peacetime and skyrockets once firing commences (and guns also wear out much faster than expected if used heavily and not gingerly cleaned and cared for as in peacetime). And don't forget lots of 22LR ammo for small game.

    On a far more serious note, do you have a reliable clean water supply and what kind of wilderness medical skills do you have? Have you at least some basic field medicine supplies, including Israeli bandages (for the said "commence firing" situations)?

    Replies: @unit472, @Buzz Mohawk, @Anonymous

  12. @Buzz Mohawk
    I learned the basic principle for this from Kurt Vonnegut, in some book of his decades ago:

    My wife and I have one country. It consists of three acres of land, two structures, a small, natural-gas-powered generating station (for emergencies) and one very short "road." Population two. Gross national product measured in six figures. 100% White. Average education: post-graduate. Average age: old enough to say "fuck you" and then some.

    We are a democracy, but with only two voters, we have to hash things out. Consensus is the rule. Deism is the national religion, all others are frowned upon but tolerated among visitors.

    Our military exists for defense purposes only. It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver, plus an axe and other tools that would serve handsomely in hand-to-hand combat. We are prepared to defend ourselves, and at this point in life, at least this Citizen sort of doesn't care if that eventually results in his death. Patrick Henry is one of our heroes.

    Aside from that, we don't have a country. There is no United States of America. There is only the global regime, which is now attempting to "reset" us.

    From this three-acre country, we rely on food and other resources that mostly come from the regime. However, we have a few friends from whom we buy beef, pork, milk, eggs, vegetables and some fruits. That is because they own and operate nearby small farms, mostly boutique businesses in my opinion, but we know them.

    There are deer and other fine, meaty animals that wander here, even, appropriately this time of year, wild turkeys. There are trout in a stream half-a-mile away. We keep a rotating stock of necessities, months worth, in a basement room. The fuel tanks in our vehicles are always topped off. If "war" comes to our country, we will last a while, before we die as free people.

    There is no United States of America anymore, and yes, I am crazy, and I don't GAF what you think about it.

    Oh, BTW, "Happy Thanksgiving." LOL. Give thanks for what you once had.

    Replies: @PhilK, @Twinkie

    Give thanks for what you once had.

    That pretty much sums it up for me.

  13. @dfordoom
    Some fascinating age differences there. The belief that the result was illegitimate seems to be largely a Boomer thing.

    In fact when you factor in political affiliation as well you could go so far as to say it's mostly a boomercon thing.

    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief, @Jay Fink

    More white people are boomers, race not age.

    Expect if they did jewish it would align more with blacks, always the outliers.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @LondonBob


    More white people are boomers, race not age.

    Expect if they did jewish it would align more with blacks, always the outliers.
     
    Maybe, but that just means that your oppositional force consists of elderly white Boomers. The Boomers were quite happy to take to the streets to try to change things half a century ago. Today they'd have to take their walking frames with them, and the protest marches would have to stop every now and then so they could take a nap.

    I just don't see the elderly as a revolutionary force (and I'm referring to peaceful revolution).
  14. @neutral
    Whats strange is that the independents are more negative now, but they were supposed to have voted against Trump.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Almost Missouri

    Trump won independents.

    Pathetic, if Georgia just did a proper audit it would comfortably flip. Probable Wisconsin will after their audit, and then the pressure for NV, AZ, MI and PA to flip would be irresistible. Looks like the legislature in PA might send a mother slate of electors anyway already.

  15. @Twinkie

    Everything is political now
     
    Although people in both the right and left are political about everything now (heck, *I* am political about everything now), the origin of this cultural total war squarely rests on the left.

    For all their talk of theocracy doom masturbation, right-leaning administrations over the years never imposed anything even resembling a hint of theocracy or oppression. No homosexuals were put in prisons, women weren't prevented from becoming a majority of medical school students, and institutional preferences for blacks and Hispanics became ever stronger.

    Meanwhile, wherever the left dominated the levers of society, they engaged in scorched earth policies of personal destruction against their political opponents. Oppose government-sanctioned racial discrimination, aka affirmative action? You must lose your job, you evil racist, you! Oppose homosexual "marriage"? You must lose your business and be run out of a company you built, you bigot! Oppose men wearing women's clothes and beating up women in sports? You must be driven off polite society, you hateful sexist, you!

    Theirs is basically a policy of triumphal eliminationism. That rightists have also become political "about everything" is regrettable (and not terribly in keeping with our natural tendencies), but is merely, and belated, self-defense.

    At this point, I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about solutions other than civil strife or peaceful separation. I vote for the latter. I will not have my children reach adulthood and be stranded in a society, in which they must hide their moral convictions or risk becoming persona non grata in their own country.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Anon

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    [MORE]

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won’t the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It’s a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn’t it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    • Thanks: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    First, thank you for the kind words. Second, yours are indeed very good and serious questions. Please allow me to ponder the matter at some length and give a considered response rather than the usual off-the-cuff reply.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you and to the rest of the commenters and readers here - even to Rosie (who is, after all, my fellow American)!

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Separation will not happen.

    What will happen is that the present tyranny of the woke will be replaced by an authoritarian regime managed by actual economic competents. The welfare state will be replaced by the work-your-ass-off state. "He who does not work, let him not eat" will become the tacitly recognized law of the land.

    There are very few, even among so-called conservatives, who are prepared for just how painful a transition this is going to be.

    , @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?"

    You had made several solid points until you jumped the shark on this question.

    The fact of the matter is that too many Americans love our nation to separate, and the level of political coordination is far beyond the country’s existing leadership. To piggyback off of your questions:

    "How in the world would the people 'hammer out details' when we have difficulty getting things done now?"

    "How would rights be delineated?"

    "How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?"

    "How would our national debt be dealt with?"

    "How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court"?

    "Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?"

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?"

    "How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to their ideology?"

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund


    1. ... why won’t the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?
     
    Yes, it will. But then, all of life consists in delaying the inevitable end. So why accept demise now when it can be indefinitely postponed?

    2. [&3] ... Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. ... It’s a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn’t it?
     
    Yes, they will, and yes, it is. That's why it is best not to ask Blues' permission. They will withhold it if they think they can. Better that we just do what we want and tell them, "Come and get us if you think it's worth it!" Μολὼν λαβέ, etc. If it's one state they might just be mad enough to try. If it's ten states, they'll just crap their pants, grind their teeth and pretend it's what they wanted all along.

    But really it's best not accept the left's frame at all. Most counties don't want Globohomo. Let each county decide. Ultimately, it's gonna happen that way anyway. Indeed, it's already happening. I think this also largely solves 3., 9., and to a certain extent 10..

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?...
     
    Who cares? Both the world and the US could benefit from us intervening abroad less.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?
     
    Good question. Hard to predict, yet has potentially big consequences. I can imagine a variety of plausible answers. One way to answer it is with the counter-question of what's going to happen to the petrodollar in the status quo? It may be doomed anyway. Then there is the question of whether its doom is a net good or bad thing in the long term? I will just make the observation that most of what we deplore about Globohomo is directly or indirectly financed out of the dollar's reserve currency status.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?
     
    This seems like a minor question because a) people cross borders and reside outside their home countries routinely so this isn't different, and b) if for whatever reason it matters to someone, they have plenty of time to make appropriate arrangements. Is there anyone stuck in the UK because they didn't know that Brexit was happening?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. ...
     
    "Left" and "Right" are often proxies for something else, e.g., ethno-religious, and I would argue that is the case again today in the US. Reds tend to be old-stock Americans, and practicing or notional Christians. Blues tend to be new-stock/paper-Americans or straight-up illegal, and to practice some unholy syncretion of heathen blood rites and Neolib Theology.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?
     
    I'm not sure Quebec's was really a secessionist movement so much as gambit to extort greater privileges from Canada's central government. As such, it was wildly successful.

    If DC/Globohomo wants to buy us Reds off of secession, I say, "Make us an offer." So far, their only offer is to exterminate us, and they have never once compromised, so I don't foresee a Canadian-style result here.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?
     
    Majority black counties can decide for themselves, as in 2..

    Replies: @anon, @AP

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage.
     
    The point that gets missed is that you cannot have meaningful negotiations when one side (in this case Team Blue) believes it's on the verge of winning total absolute victory and the other wide believes deep down inside that it's on the verge of utter defeat. Why would Team Blue even bother entering into negotiations on a separation? They know they hold all the cards (they have on their side the Federal Government, the intelligence agencies, the military-industrial complex, the mega-corporations, the NGOs, the banks, the media, the billionaires) and they know that Team Red holds at best a pair of deuces.

    You don't get a good deal when one side has no need whatsoever to compromise. Especially when that side wasn't interested in compromise even when its position was much less strong than it is now. They don't need a deal.

    In a political struggle you either win, in which case you get everything (control of the whole country), or you lose, in which case you get nothing. So even if you're losing it makes no sense to try to convince yourself that the other side is going to offer you a decent compromise.

    To me it seems like the talk of separation is like being utterly defeated and just throwing yourself at the conqueror's feet and asking for mercy, and hoping he'll say, "OK, we'll call it a draw."

    The only option is to fight on, and find a way to start winning. Which means using better strategies and maybe looking for some allies.
    , @Jake
    @V. K. Ovelund

    1. That's as valid a question as asking: "Why should I vote for another Republican when eventually a Democrat will hold the office?'

    2. The Blues, like their forebears the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, will not peacefully agree to any separation because they intend to force us all to bow to Wokism.

    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.

    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.

    4. The great Neocon argument, which is also an argument of Western Leftism for Liberal Imperialism.

    5. What becomes of the Euro and the Yen?

    6. As many as are stupid enough to have such a thing happen accidentally.

    7. The French State remains because the Revolution won and spread terror to all corners - the pro-Revolutionists have retained full control ever since.

    8. Why? I think it says most that elite Quebecois were easily bribed.

    9. If the Left would ever agree to anything, then the division would start with states as a whole and then split some because there are geographic areas areas of a state that are one color while the sate as a whole is the other color. For example, southern western IL are Red, while Chicago and its environs are Blue. Southern and western IL go with KY, while Chicagoland goes with Detroit and Milwaukee and Madison.

    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have given your questions some thought and here are my responses:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America.. Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    Perhaps. But I'd rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn't you? Perhaps we could make the future degradation not so easy to achieve by codifying the "Red America" constitution far more explicitly.

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines...

    I don't think "Red America" as such should accept that. I think a regional breakup into several republics is more preferable. Also, another possible scenario is separating between a series of "Blue" city states and the rest. Frankly, I don't think we can anticipate what kind of split or splits there would be.

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    Please see above.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?

    I am happy with our country no longer being the world policeman.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    There is no need to assume that the resulting borders will be another Iron Curtain. We tried to invade Canada and get along fine - more or less - with the latter.

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind?

    I suppose not. But the American Revolution was a rather unique type of revolution too.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    I agree with another commenter who wrote of Quebec's "independence" movement as an attempt at improving its lot within Canada rather than a serious separatist movement.

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    People could vote by counties.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I will have to insist that polities abide by their stated (and not revealed) preferences. Blacks will find out very soon what their erstwhile white allies really think of them. This seems like a win-win to me.

    By the way, I would like to make it clear that separation is not my preference. My top preference is reform. However, I think reform is becoming increasingly near-impossible due to the triumphal eliminiationism of the left, which I think is likely to lead to civil strife. What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    1) Good needn't be the enemy of the perfect.

    2) Maybe it'll be what southern Illinois counties signaled this election first. They voted overwhelmingly to leave the state. We could get more sensible state boundaries from that first, and then those states separate.

    3) People living in states whose politics they disagree with live in those states now. Some will move if political power moves more strongly to the state level. Some will stay.

    4) Feature rather than a bug. Seceding states will want to have some nuclear weapons.

    5) My suspicion is the breaking of the petrodollar will precipitate political dissolution.

    6) When Americans go to Canadian universities or Canadians go to American universities, it isn't the end of the family.

    7) Brexit was largely political in nature, though it's of course hard to disentangle all of those things.

    8) Scottish independence, too. South Sudan and East Timor were born this century, though.

    9) If a large red/blue state or a bloc of them secede together, it will create a cascading effect. If the West Coast seceded, remaining blue states would be looking at being perpetually locked out of power. Same thing if "Alberta South" did so--Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas--for remaining red states. Political considerations will start to change once this happens.

    10) Neither side--or none of the sides--will say they don't want blacks.

  16. Regarding that ‘better way’ AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly ‘red’ states whose voters reliably support ‘traditional’ America

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @brabantian


    ... one of the US secession strategy maps ...
     
    Source, please?
    , @Neuday
    @brabantian

    This assumes the borders for each state would remain, which is highly doubtful. I can say that Easter Oregon, Eastern Washington and Northern Nevada would be in the red, Traditional USA country.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @brabantian

    That's a numbers game that doesn't work in reality. Look at those States in the Deep South. They (along with SC too, but it's not shown due to a technicality, I assume) are red because White People vote R there. They do that because the black population is huge, and they know what's good for themselves.

    How exactly will a 40% non-white Mississippi (off the cuff number) fit in? "Doubtful in the future" too.

    We are much too mixed up at even the country level to separate so easily.

    , @anon
    @brabantian

    It's really a toss up, as best I can tell, whether secession is more likely in a blue state like CA or a red state like AK, when the federal winds don't blow their way. In any case, I don't expect the balkanization to stop there. Given the legal landscape, it would be sensible to fallback on state constitutions and decentralize further from there. Many of these states are pretty evenly divided and are not likely to hold together without a great deal of sovereignty bequeathed to their respective counties and municipalities.

    Small, autonomous, federated at will, with anything of value run privately, would do people everywhere a world of good.

    , @A123
    @brabantian

    If there is a succession, it will not follow state lines. That would leave too many Red Patriots suffering under Blue SJW Globalist regimes.

    The end result would have to look more like this split by U.S. House seats:
     
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/live_map_house.png
     
    I will not say that succession is impossible. However, it is very hard to believe that the self righteous & arrogant Team SJW Blue will be willing to accept a fair resolution with Team Populist Red.
    ____

    On a side note, Sidney Powell has "Let Loose the Kraken" lawsuit: (1)


    Defense Attorneys Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and others have filed a lawsuit in Georgia demanding that the results of the 2020 election be set aside because of “massive election fraud” and foreign influence in the election. The lawsuit claims that 96,600 mail-in ballots “were fraudulently cast” and that “136,098 ballots were illegally counted as a result of improper manipulation of the Dominion software.”
     
    PEACE 😇

    (1) https://pjmedia.com/election/victoria-taft/2020/11/26/breaking-sidney-powell-releases-the-kraken-in-georgia-with-explosive-new-lawsuit-n1174691
     
    https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/11/126430040_3618069048252727_2497141630209667824_n.jpg

    Replies: @AP

    , @Hibernian
    @brabantian

    Iowa belongs in the blue category. Indiana is redder than Iowa. Missouri might be a little questionable too; they came close to going for Obama in'08.

  17. @dfordoom
    Some fascinating age differences there. The belief that the result was illegitimate seems to be largely a Boomer thing.

    In fact when you factor in political affiliation as well you could go so far as to say it's mostly a boomercon thing.

    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief, @Jay Fink

    Yeah – that’s’ then kind of business as usual, mentality wise. – The older ones tend to think that everything is – on a downward trail. and that’s a constant since the beginning of western high culture in ancient Athens.

    Btw. – here is an older guy, who lacks all pessimism – and still thinks, that the election was stolen. a rare bird, if ever there was one:

    https://libre.tube/videos/watch/2cf4ee27-1e25-4aba-bff5-895b001855ba

    L Ron Wood, the interviewer, already quite tongue in cheek, but Russel Ramsland beats him – while delivering the bad news about the mess, the voting system is in. And he says, he can prove it with data.

  18. @dfordoom
    Some fascinating age differences there. The belief that the result was illegitimate seems to be largely a Boomer thing.

    In fact when you factor in political affiliation as well you could go so far as to say it's mostly a boomercon thing.

    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief, @Jay Fink

    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

    Yeah – that’s’ then business as usual, mentality wise. – The older ones tend to think that everything is – on a downward trail. That’s an anthropological constant since the beginning of western high culture in ancient Athens.

    Btw. – here is an older guy, who lacks all pessimism – and still thinks, that the election was stolen. A rare bird, if ever there was one:

    https://libre.tube/videos/watch/2cf4ee27-1e25-4aba-bff5-895b001855ba

    L Ron Wood, the interviewer, talks already quite tongue in cheek, but Russel Ramsland beats him – while delivering the bad news about the mess, the voting system is in. And he says, he can prove it with data.

  19. One notices that the poll seems to exclude the don’t knows. That is unusual. I wonder why.

  20. @brabantian
    Regarding that 'better way' AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly 'red' states whose voters reliably support 'traditional' America

    https://i.ibb.co/z8xfKQF/US-secession-strategy-map.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Neuday, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon, @A123, @Hibernian

    … one of the US secession strategy maps …

    Source, please?

  21. What a tragic thing that the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin …

    Were turned by Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum of Arizona.

    Prison made a man of him.

  22. @Buzz Mohawk
    I learned the basic principle for this from Kurt Vonnegut, in some book of his decades ago:

    My wife and I have one country. It consists of three acres of land, two structures, a small, natural-gas-powered generating station (for emergencies) and one very short "road." Population two. Gross national product measured in six figures. 100% White. Average education: post-graduate. Average age: old enough to say "fuck you" and then some.

    We are a democracy, but with only two voters, we have to hash things out. Consensus is the rule. Deism is the national religion, all others are frowned upon but tolerated among visitors.

    Our military exists for defense purposes only. It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver, plus an axe and other tools that would serve handsomely in hand-to-hand combat. We are prepared to defend ourselves, and at this point in life, at least this Citizen sort of doesn't care if that eventually results in his death. Patrick Henry is one of our heroes.

    Aside from that, we don't have a country. There is no United States of America. There is only the global regime, which is now attempting to "reset" us.

    From this three-acre country, we rely on food and other resources that mostly come from the regime. However, we have a few friends from whom we buy beef, pork, milk, eggs, vegetables and some fruits. That is because they own and operate nearby small farms, mostly boutique businesses in my opinion, but we know them.

    There are deer and other fine, meaty animals that wander here, even, appropriately this time of year, wild turkeys. There are trout in a stream half-a-mile away. We keep a rotating stock of necessities, months worth, in a basement room. The fuel tanks in our vehicles are always topped off. If "war" comes to our country, we will last a while, before we die as free people.

    There is no United States of America anymore, and yes, I am crazy, and I don't GAF what you think about it.

    Oh, BTW, "Happy Thanksgiving." LOL. Give thanks for what you once had.

    Replies: @PhilK, @Twinkie

    It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver

    You don’t have nearly enough dogs or guns. And how much ammo do you have? Ammo consumption is very low during peacetime and skyrockets once firing commences (and guns also wear out much faster than expected if used heavily and not gingerly cleaned and cared for as in peacetime). And don’t forget lots of 22LR ammo for small game.

    On a far more serious note, do you have a reliable clean water supply and what kind of wilderness medical skills do you have? Have you at least some basic field medicine supplies, including Israeli bandages (for the said “commence firing” situations)?

    • Replies: @unit472
    @Twinkie

    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won't. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.

    A .22 is useful however, a decent air rifle can bring down game and is much quieter. Bow hunting has the same advantage and can down large game.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    The purpose of my comment was to establish the fact that I no longer have a country except this little piece of land my wife and I maintain. We have no illusions or fantasies of fighting some battle against the powers that be. I am only making it clear that we no longer expect any help, protection, service or respect from what used to be our government -- and we no longer consider its elections valid.

    To be clear, we will continue to keep our heads down, obey the laws of, and pay our monetary tributes to, what used to be our government.

    Furthermore, I have no desire to hold out in a Hollywood post-apocalyptic world. Nor will I work to pass anything along for some future of humanity; it doesn't deserve it.

    As for the practical advice you gave, our tap water comes from three nearby reservoirs that serve the whole county. The closest one feeds the trout stream I mentioned, where I occasionally walk and go fly fishing. Even if everything shuts down, I, an old backpacker, would have no trouble hauling gallons of fresh water home on foot daily if necessary, from the same source that feeds out faucets. And yes, I know how to purify it.

    As for the medical contingencies to which you alluded, one of our neighbors is a doctor. He lives right down the road, in fact. If he is not available, I have first aid training. However, if I described this training, which I received in the US Forest Service forty years ago, you might find it lacking. Remember what I stated in my previous comment, though: I don't give a fuck what you think.

    Go away.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Oh, so NOW you know about Israeli bandages! SMDH 負け犬

    Replies: @Twinkie

  23. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    First, thank you for the kind words. Second, yours are indeed very good and serious questions. Please allow me to ponder the matter at some length and give a considered response rather than the usual off-the-cuff reply.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you and to the rest of the commenters and readers here – even to Rosie (who is, after all, my fellow American)!

  24. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    Separation will not happen.

    What will happen is that the present tyranny of the woke will be replaced by an authoritarian regime managed by actual economic competents. The welfare state will be replaced by the work-your-ass-off state. “He who does not work, let him not eat” will become the tacitly recognized law of the land.

    There are very few, even among so-called conservatives, who are prepared for just how painful a transition this is going to be.

  25. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    “10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?”

    You had made several solid points until you jumped the shark on this question.

    The fact of the matter is that too many Americans love our nation to separate, and the level of political coordination is far beyond the country’s existing leadership. To piggyback off of your questions:

    “How in the world would the people ‘hammer out details’ when we have difficulty getting things done now?”

    “How would rights be delineated?”

    “How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?”

    “How would our national debt be dealt with?”

    “How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court”?

    “Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?”

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?”

    “How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to their ideology?”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    “10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?”

    You had made several solid points until you jumped the shark on this question.
     

    Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash.

    Since you're so keen, you can have all the blacks. Maybe you'll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  26. @Twinkie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver
     
    You don't have nearly enough dogs or guns. And how much ammo do you have? Ammo consumption is very low during peacetime and skyrockets once firing commences (and guns also wear out much faster than expected if used heavily and not gingerly cleaned and cared for as in peacetime). And don't forget lots of 22LR ammo for small game.

    On a far more serious note, do you have a reliable clean water supply and what kind of wilderness medical skills do you have? Have you at least some basic field medicine supplies, including Israeli bandages (for the said "commence firing" situations)?

    Replies: @unit472, @Buzz Mohawk, @Anonymous

    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won’t. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.

    A .22 is useful however, a decent air rifle can bring down game and is much quieter. Bow hunting has the same advantage and can down large game.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @unit472


    The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.
     
    "On a far more serious note" that followed should reveal what I was trying to convey about "more dogs and more ammo!"

    I have repeated numerous times that people should fixate less on guns and such and instead secure reliable supply of fresh water and get some basic training in field medicine. Even though you can buy Israeli bandages for a few dollars online, I would venture to guess that they care carried by a miniscule, almost nonexistent, fraction of people who carry guns.

    And it doesn't require any significant training to use and can be a lifesaver:

    https://youtu.be/wNR8rRFgwNk
    , @Johann Ricke
    @unit472


    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won’t. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.
     
    The thing about gunfights is distance, which spoils your aim and cover, which conceals and potentially blocks the ordnance flying around. The following gunfight occurred at point-blank range, during a traffic stop:

    https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoob-files/the-lessons-of-tim-gramins/

    In less than 1 minute, about a hundred rounds were exchanged. At greater distances, the likelihood is that the both defender and attacker miss, and the attacker goes off looking for easier prey, much as predators in the wild will skirmish, then go their separate ways. Nature doesn't host animal clinics at predictable intervals. Similarly, where anarchy rules, readily available critical care doctors will be as scarce as hen's teeth. Even if an attacker wins, rubs out all the defenders, but is wounded himself, he might end up dead. And a victorious defender will likely shoot, shovel and shtum rather than take a wounded attacker to a doctor.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  27. anon[308] • Disclaimer says:

    Funny how when Americans think in splittist terms the thought that floods intrusively into their heads, squeezing out everything else, is CIVIL WAHRR!!!1!

    When everybody watched the Warsaw Pact dissolve itself with minimal fuss. Slovakia, the stans, the Balts, the Caucasus. The Slovenia slapstick secession was the closest thing to conflict, and Serbia just said “Ah fuck it.”

    There was a lot of subsequent violence because CIA ratfuckers jumped in there and warred on Russia with illegal sneak attacks and coup de main. But since the USA will be gone, no one will be doing that to us.

    A red/blue split is the merest first baby step. What you want is 30 Costa Ricas, denuclearized, demilitarized, proud of their competent diplomats instead of their torturers and murderers. A way to go, I know.

  28. The first chart shows college provides indoctrination…not education.

  29. The difference here is that the democrats have promised to force their policies on the other 160 million while the republicans have simply said, “Feel free to be crazy in your own backyard but we’d prefer you just leave us alone don’t force it everywhere else.”

    The democrats take that as being equivalent as they see the lack of craziness as “oppression” but no actual oppression is occurring, just a lack of craziness.

    The term “false equivalency” is thrown around a little recklessly right now, but I see this particular instance as being an appropriate use.

  30. @neutral
    Whats strange is that the independents are more negative now, but they were supposed to have voted against Trump.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Almost Missouri

    Also notable: for a net gain of 74 percentage points of Democrat optimism, 106 points of Republican and 15 points of Independent optimism had to be sacrificed.

    As with money, so also with happiness itself, Democrats are massively inefficient.

  31. @brabantian
    Regarding that 'better way' AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly 'red' states whose voters reliably support 'traditional' America

    https://i.ibb.co/z8xfKQF/US-secession-strategy-map.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Neuday, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon, @A123, @Hibernian

    This assumes the borders for each state would remain, which is highly doubtful. I can say that Easter Oregon, Eastern Washington and Northern Nevada would be in the red, Traditional USA country.

    • Agree: PhilK
  32. @dfordoom

    Everything is political now, including people’s very outlook on life itself.
     
    Maybe that's just the inevitable end result of democracy. Democracy leads to the view that everything is everybody else's business and that leads to the view that every single aspect of life is something that the government should do something about.

    You could see this happening even in the 19th century as the idea of democracy gradually took hold. Governments became more and more involved in areas of life they had never been much involved in before - areas such as education, health, even people's sex lives. Everything required the government to pass some new piece of legislation. By 1920 the US Government was telling people they weren't allowed to have a drink any more because the drinking of alcohol had become a political issue.

    What a tragic thing that the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania determine which 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people for the next four years. There must be a better way.
     
    Can you think of any country that doesn't have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn't there some country in Asia that fits that description?

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri

    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?

    If you mean China, I would have agreed with you no more than 3 years ago, Mr. Doom. Not anymore. See, when you have autocratic rule, with a head of The Party (and, don’t get it wrong, the CCP RUNS the Chinese government) who just inserted himself as lifetime ruler in the “Constitution”*, he may decide to do something that will not be so good for society. Because it’s not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain’t nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.

    You really ought to read the book We Have Been Harmonized. The author is a Kung Flu Panicker and a TDS sufferer, but that he keeps that to a minimum. This book will scare the beJesus out of you. A Peak Stupidity review will be coming within a week.

    .

    * It’s no real constitution if one guy can freaking change the thing at will.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @Achmed E. Newman

    with restraints upheld by a moral people

    That is a knee slapper if I ever heard one.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Realist
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Because it’s not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain’t nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.
     
    The same can be said of the US.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  33. @brabantian
    Regarding that 'better way' AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly 'red' states whose voters reliably support 'traditional' America

    https://i.ibb.co/z8xfKQF/US-secession-strategy-map.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Neuday, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon, @A123, @Hibernian

    That’s a numbers game that doesn’t work in reality. Look at those States in the Deep South. They (along with SC too, but it’s not shown due to a technicality, I assume) are red because White People vote R there. They do that because the black population is huge, and they know what’s good for themselves.

    How exactly will a 40% non-white Mississippi (off the cuff number) fit in? “Doubtful in the future” too.

    We are much too mixed up at even the country level to separate so easily.

  34. @Mark G.
    It would be less of a problem if more decisions were made at the state and local level. People would be less likely to talk about separation if they could just leave a state they are currently in that they don't like and move to a state that they do like. I sometimes hear people who have moved here to Indiana complain about how conservative this state is. That is actually something I like about the state and one of the reasons I live here. For example, the coronavirus restrictions the Republican governor put in place are less onerous than in many states run by Democrats. I'm glad there is no Whitmer or Cuomo here.

    So conservatives should advocate letting each state go its own way in more areas. They usually but not always do this. They do have a temptation to have decisions made at a federal level when it involves something they don't like such as legalizing marijuana. A more recent example were calls to have the federal government send troops to stop the looting and rioting in big Democrat run cities. Conservatives should be against this sort of federalizing of crime enforcement. They don't think about what it might lead to if someday you have liberals running everything at the federal level.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    It would be less of a problem if more decisions were made at the state and local level.

    True, and that’s how things used to be. There has always been a bit of a tendency for the Feds to stick their noses into local business, but it was generally under control until FDR’s New Deal made the entire economy Federal business at a stroke. Then it got kicked into overdrive by the [anti-]Civil Rights revolution which made everything touching race (i.e. everything) directly Federal business.

    A more recent example were calls to have the federal government send troops to stop the looting and rioting in big Democrat run cities. Conservatives should be against this sort of federalizing of crime enforcement. They don’t think about what it might lead to if someday you have liberals running everything at the federal level.

    Federal power to suppress domestic insurrections goes back to the Insurrection Act of 1807, so it’s not exactly new. And inasmuch as the Federal government was formed in the first place partly in reaction to 1787’s Shay’s Rebellion, it is even older. But this Federal power requires that the relevant state request it. I was impressed—and a little surprised—this summer at how scrupulous Trump was about insisting that the riot states make proper requests for Federal intervention. Of course, the states were all Dem-run, so they didn’t make that request (also they were pro-rioter of course).

    If the riots had been rightist rather than leftist, a Democrat President wouldn’t have hesitated to use Federal troops, even without a state invitation. How? Since the mid-20th century they’ve written themselves a bunch of loopholes into the Insurrection laws allowing unilateral Federal intervention if they say it is a “civil rights” issue. And if you haven’t noticed, anything and everything can be a “civil rights” issue nowadays. So yes, when “liberals run everything at the federal level” they definitely will use Federal military power against patriotic Americans. But they were going to do that anyway irrespective of anything conservatives did or do, so no, it’s not really a matter of some precedent that conservatives set being used against them. It’s a matter of liberals implacably becoming more and more tyrannical.

    • Thanks: Mark G., Charlotte
  35. @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?"

    You had made several solid points until you jumped the shark on this question.

    The fact of the matter is that too many Americans love our nation to separate, and the level of political coordination is far beyond the country’s existing leadership. To piggyback off of your questions:

    "How in the world would the people 'hammer out details' when we have difficulty getting things done now?"

    "How would rights be delineated?"

    "How would trade deals with foreign nations be reconstituted?"

    "How would our national debt be dealt with?"

    "How would we address legal decisions made by the Supreme Court"?

    "Would people be willing to move from your current place of residence to achieve such a goal?"

    “Would people support efforts made by the new government to coerce or force others to move?"

    "How would the people respond if forced to move merely due to their ideology?"

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    “10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?”

    You had made several solid points until you jumped the shark on this question.

    Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash.

    Since you’re so keen, you can have all the blacks. Maybe you’ll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown.

    • LOL: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash."

    The nonsense is you making a preposterous claim in the first place. Had you said "Whites like myself don't want blacks around" or "A good deal of whites I know don't want blacks around", then your statement has more credibility.

    "Maybe you’ll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown."

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood and surrounding environs. No trouble in the least. We did have a murder last year in my neck of the woods, and that was a white dude who killed another white dude over drug money.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Cloudbuster

  36. @dfordoom

    Everything is political now, including people’s very outlook on life itself.
     
    Maybe that's just the inevitable end result of democracy. Democracy leads to the view that everything is everybody else's business and that leads to the view that every single aspect of life is something that the government should do something about.

    You could see this happening even in the 19th century as the idea of democracy gradually took hold. Governments became more and more involved in areas of life they had never been much involved in before - areas such as education, health, even people's sex lives. Everything required the government to pass some new piece of legislation. By 1920 the US Government was telling people they weren't allowed to have a drink any more because the drinking of alcohol had become a political issue.

    What a tragic thing that the votes of a few thousand people in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania determine which 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people for the next four years. There must be a better way.
     
    Can you think of any country that doesn't have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn't there some country in Asia that fits that description?

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Achmed E. Newman, @Almost Missouri

    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?

    Singapore. As Singapore’s founder Lee Kwan Yew recognized, multicultural (which they call “multiracialism”) and democracy are mutually incompatible. Since Singapore was already multiracial at its founding, they couldn’t have democracy. So they don’t. And they’ve been doing pretty well ever since.

    Also China is increasingly prosperous, functional and content and has about zero democracy.

    In fact, the entire eastern part of Asia is doing pretty well by historical standards and has very little democracy by western standards.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  37. anon[366] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, whatever happens, legitimacy is irretrievably gone, the mask is off — and this is a positive thing! It means we will do the work of separation sooner rather than later, and most everyone will be better off.

    I’d like to see some polling on separatist sentiment around the country, maybe broken down into hot button issues, ie guns, etc. I imagine there would be some surprisingly bipartisan support. As far as I know, California has discussed it more seriously than any other state — and much further up the political food chain. Counties in the Virginias and Carolinas are pretty close to cutting themselves off from the rest of their states over gun confiscation. But I’m curious about places that might actually have a chance to demonstrate success — like a TX, NH, maybe even a corporate stronghold like DE?

    Someone will have to make a positive case, get local business leaders behind it to pay for the lobbying / signature gathering. I don’t know who that would be, but Mises.org has done a pretty good job banging the drum over the years…

  38. anon[366] • Disclaimer says:
    @brabantian
    Regarding that 'better way' AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly 'red' states whose voters reliably support 'traditional' America

    https://i.ibb.co/z8xfKQF/US-secession-strategy-map.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Neuday, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon, @A123, @Hibernian

    It’s really a toss up, as best I can tell, whether secession is more likely in a blue state like CA or a red state like AK, when the federal winds don’t blow their way. In any case, I don’t expect the balkanization to stop there. Given the legal landscape, it would be sensible to fallback on state constitutions and decentralize further from there. Many of these states are pretty evenly divided and are not likely to hold together without a great deal of sovereignty bequeathed to their respective counties and municipalities.

    Small, autonomous, federated at will, with anything of value run privately, would do people everywhere a world of good.

  39. I thought the source of all this pessimism was the widespread belief that Trump was robbed more than any existential doubts about democracy. Such doubts would be perfectly understandable, since, robbed or not, Trump got fewer votes than Biden and the Biden program is shaping up as a national catastrophe. Over seventy million voters voted for a demented old man whose program boils down to war and poverty for the masses.

  40. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Corvinus


    “10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?”

    You had made several solid points until you jumped the shark on this question.
     

    Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash.

    Since you're so keen, you can have all the blacks. Maybe you'll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash.”

    The nonsense is you making a preposterous claim in the first place. Had you said “Whites like myself don’t want blacks around” or “A good deal of whites I know don’t want blacks around”, then your statement has more credibility.

    “Maybe you’ll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown.”

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood and surrounding environs. No trouble in the least. We did have a murder last year in my neck of the woods, and that was a white dude who killed another white dude over drug money.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Corvinus

    Second verse, same as the first...

    , @Cloudbuster
    @Corvinus

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood

    Seven? Out of how many? Dare I guess that your neighborhood does not resemble a typical inner city black neighborhood? If you can actually count the black families, it doesn't

    My guess is that you follow John Derbyshire's advice in The Talk: Nonblack Version both in general and in the specific entry:

    (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  41. yer right, neuday, this is a start:

  42. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    1. … why won’t the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    Yes, it will. But then, all of life consists in delaying the inevitable end. So why accept demise now when it can be indefinitely postponed?

    2. [&3] … Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. … It’s a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn’t it?

    Yes, they will, and yes, it is. That’s why it is best not to ask Blues’ permission. They will withhold it if they think they can. Better that we just do what we want and tell them, “Come and get us if you think it’s worth it!” Μολὼν λαβέ, etc. If it’s one state they might just be mad enough to try. If it’s ten states, they’ll just crap their pants, grind their teeth and pretend it’s what they wanted all along.

    But really it’s best not accept the left’s frame at all. Most counties don’t want Globohomo. Let each county decide. Ultimately, it’s gonna happen that way anyway. Indeed, it’s already happening. I think this also largely solves 3., 9., and to a certain extent 10..

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?…

    Who cares? Both the world and the US could benefit from us intervening abroad less.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    Good question. Hard to predict, yet has potentially big consequences. I can imagine a variety of plausible answers. One way to answer it is with the counter-question of what’s going to happen to the petrodollar in the status quo? It may be doomed anyway. Then there is the question of whether its doom is a net good or bad thing in the long term? I will just make the observation that most of what we deplore about Globohomo is directly or indirectly financed out of the dollar’s reserve currency status.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    This seems like a minor question because a) people cross borders and reside outside their home countries routinely so this isn’t different, and b) if for whatever reason it matters to someone, they have plenty of time to make appropriate arrangements. Is there anyone stuck in the UK because they didn’t know that Brexit was happening?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. …

    “Left” and “Right” are often proxies for something else, e.g., ethno-religious, and I would argue that is the case again today in the US. Reds tend to be old-stock Americans, and practicing or notional Christians. Blues tend to be new-stock/paper-Americans or straight-up illegal, and to practice some unholy syncretion of heathen blood rites and Neolib Theology.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    I’m not sure Quebec’s was really a secessionist movement so much as gambit to extort greater privileges from Canada’s central government. As such, it was wildly successful.

    If DC/Globohomo wants to buy us Reds off of secession, I say, “Make us an offer.” So far, their only offer is to exterminate us, and they have never once compromised, so I don’t foresee a Canadian-style result here.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    Majority black counties can decide for themselves, as in 2..

    • Replies: @anon
    @Almost Missouri

    It's all upside! Petrodollar is a myth -- our debts are financed mostly by China and based on the productivity of the US economy. Nearly all states would make themselves MORE credit worthy by dropping the war budgets overnight (the Overton window would also expand a great deal, which may or may not appeal to investors, depending on the state).

    States could easily setup a central bank and fiat currency of their own, peg it to the dollar or not, or allow firms to issue their own scrip as they used to do (and still do). Doesn't really matter -- just get control of some productive property and you are credit worthy and can issue currency.

    , @AP
    @Almost Missouri

    Speaking of Quebec, any Red-Blue split in the USA would result in a high likelihood of Blue uniting with Canada. At least, geographically isolated Blue parts close to the border, that wouldn't dominate Canada (i.e., the Northeast might join Canada, but California/Vegas/Arizona/New Mexico wouldn't).

  43. @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?
     
    If you mean China, I would have agreed with you no more than 3 years ago, Mr. Doom. Not anymore. See, when you have autocratic rule, with a head of The Party (and, don't get it wrong, the CCP RUNS the Chinese government) who just inserted himself as lifetime ruler in the "Constitution"*, he may decide to do something that will not be so good for society. Because it's not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain't nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.

    You really ought to read the book We Have Been Harmonized. The author is a Kung Flu Panicker and a TDS sufferer, but that he keeps that to a minimum. This book will scare the beJesus out of you. A Peak Stupidity review will be coming within a week.


    .

    * It's no real constitution if one guy can freaking change the thing at will.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Realist

    with restraints upheld by a moral people

    That is a knee slapper if I ever heard one.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @RoatanBill

    I dunno, worked for 15o years or so ...

  44. @brabantian
    Regarding that 'better way' AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly 'red' states whose voters reliably support 'traditional' America

    https://i.ibb.co/z8xfKQF/US-secession-strategy-map.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Neuday, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon, @A123, @Hibernian

    If there is a succession, it will not follow state lines. That would leave too many Red Patriots suffering under Blue SJW Globalist regimes.

    The end result would have to look more like this split by U.S. House seats:
      
    I will not say that succession is impossible. However, it is very hard to believe that the self righteous & arrogant Team SJW Blue will be willing to accept a fair resolution with Team Populist Red.
    ____

    On a side note, Sidney Powell has “Let Loose the Kraken” lawsuit: (1)

    Defense Attorneys Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and others have filed a lawsuit in Georgia demanding that the results of the 2020 election be set aside because of “massive election fraud” and foreign influence in the election. The lawsuit claims that 96,600 mail-in ballots “were fraudulently cast” and that “136,098 ballots were illegally counted as a result of improper manipulation of the Dominion software.”

    PEACE 😇

    (1) https://pjmedia.com/election/victoria-taft/2020/11/26/breaking-sidney-powell-releases-the-kraken-in-georgia-with-explosive-new-lawsuit-n1174691
     

    • Replies: @AP
    @A123

    And the Blue might as well join Canada. It is more like Canada than it is like much of the Red.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  45. anon[366] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund


    1. ... why won’t the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?
     
    Yes, it will. But then, all of life consists in delaying the inevitable end. So why accept demise now when it can be indefinitely postponed?

    2. [&3] ... Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. ... It’s a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn’t it?
     
    Yes, they will, and yes, it is. That's why it is best not to ask Blues' permission. They will withhold it if they think they can. Better that we just do what we want and tell them, "Come and get us if you think it's worth it!" Μολὼν λαβέ, etc. If it's one state they might just be mad enough to try. If it's ten states, they'll just crap their pants, grind their teeth and pretend it's what they wanted all along.

    But really it's best not accept the left's frame at all. Most counties don't want Globohomo. Let each county decide. Ultimately, it's gonna happen that way anyway. Indeed, it's already happening. I think this also largely solves 3., 9., and to a certain extent 10..

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?...
     
    Who cares? Both the world and the US could benefit from us intervening abroad less.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?
     
    Good question. Hard to predict, yet has potentially big consequences. I can imagine a variety of plausible answers. One way to answer it is with the counter-question of what's going to happen to the petrodollar in the status quo? It may be doomed anyway. Then there is the question of whether its doom is a net good or bad thing in the long term? I will just make the observation that most of what we deplore about Globohomo is directly or indirectly financed out of the dollar's reserve currency status.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?
     
    This seems like a minor question because a) people cross borders and reside outside their home countries routinely so this isn't different, and b) if for whatever reason it matters to someone, they have plenty of time to make appropriate arrangements. Is there anyone stuck in the UK because they didn't know that Brexit was happening?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. ...
     
    "Left" and "Right" are often proxies for something else, e.g., ethno-religious, and I would argue that is the case again today in the US. Reds tend to be old-stock Americans, and practicing or notional Christians. Blues tend to be new-stock/paper-Americans or straight-up illegal, and to practice some unholy syncretion of heathen blood rites and Neolib Theology.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?
     
    I'm not sure Quebec's was really a secessionist movement so much as gambit to extort greater privileges from Canada's central government. As such, it was wildly successful.

    If DC/Globohomo wants to buy us Reds off of secession, I say, "Make us an offer." So far, their only offer is to exterminate us, and they have never once compromised, so I don't foresee a Canadian-style result here.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?
     
    Majority black counties can decide for themselves, as in 2..

    Replies: @anon, @AP

    It’s all upside! Petrodollar is a myth — our debts are financed mostly by China and based on the productivity of the US economy. Nearly all states would make themselves MORE credit worthy by dropping the war budgets overnight (the Overton window would also expand a great deal, which may or may not appeal to investors, depending on the state).

    States could easily setup a central bank and fiat currency of their own, peg it to the dollar or not, or allow firms to issue their own scrip as they used to do (and still do). Doesn’t really matter — just get control of some productive property and you are credit worthy and can issue currency.

  46. @MBlanc46
    There is a better way: Separation.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Pop Warner, @Jake

    The federal government didn’t accept it in 1860, and they won’t now. If you want separation don’t expect it to be peaceful in any way and don’t expect them to give up easily.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @Pop Warner

    I wouldn’t expect either of those things. That said, it might not have to be as violent as 1861–65.

  47. @MBlanc46
    There is a better way: Separation.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Pop Warner, @Jake

    Separation is the only way.

  48. @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash."

    The nonsense is you making a preposterous claim in the first place. Had you said "Whites like myself don't want blacks around" or "A good deal of whites I know don't want blacks around", then your statement has more credibility.

    "Maybe you’ll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown."

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood and surrounding environs. No trouble in the least. We did have a murder last year in my neck of the woods, and that was a white dude who killed another white dude over drug money.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Cloudbuster

    Second verse, same as the first…

  49. America should appoint a Nerva figure. He should replace both Trump and Biden via a congress of delegates selected from the American State Congressses as promulgated in the American Constituion. Does such a elder statesman exist? He would have to be of senior position in American politics but not in Federal politics. Someone who resembles FDR in 1933. An establishment Democrat, former popular Governor, a political appointee from the U.S. Navy, famous for achieving practical results. Well known for his charisma but not implicated in a major scandal. Is there in America today such a man of the hour? Ray Mabus springs to my mind. His only liablitiy is the name Mabus in the Nostradamus quatrain who will die at a time of great calamity and end of history. That possibly explains why Ray Mabus has never stood for President or even US Congress. His candidacy under norrmal circumstances would have most likely have made him President.

    • Replies: @anon
    @lloyd

    America should appoint a Nerva figure

    Totally agree.

    https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html

    http://nick-stevens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/mars-nuclear-thermal-ortho-setx.jpg

  50. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:

    This Executive Order from 2018 is still effect.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/

    (b) Within 45 days of receiving the assessment and information described in section 1(a) of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the heads of any other appropriate agencies and, as appropriate, State and local officials, shall deliver to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense a report evaluating, with respect to the United States election that is the subject of the assessment described in section 1(a):

    (i) the extent to which any foreign interference that targeted election infrastructure materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, the tabulation of votes, or the timely transmission of election results; and

    (ii) if any foreign interference involved activities targeting the infrastructure of, or pertaining to, a political organization, campaign, or candidate, the extent to which such activities materially affected the security or integrity of that infrastructure, including by unauthorized access to, disclosure or threatened disclosure of, or alteration or falsification of, information or data.

    Some 23 days have passed since Nov. 3, that means 22 days to go before the report is due.

    No one in the MSM has even tried to explain why machines designed to record votes need have an IP and thus a connection to the Internet. Yet it is obvious that Dominion machines have such a connection. Why did the governor of Pennsylvania issue an order requiring Dominion for all voting places in the state, I wonder? Why was a software update rolled out to every single machine in the state of Georgia only days before the election?

    I wonder…
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

  51. @A123
    @brabantian

    If there is a succession, it will not follow state lines. That would leave too many Red Patriots suffering under Blue SJW Globalist regimes.

    The end result would have to look more like this split by U.S. House seats:
     
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/live_map_house.png
     
    I will not say that succession is impossible. However, it is very hard to believe that the self righteous & arrogant Team SJW Blue will be willing to accept a fair resolution with Team Populist Red.
    ____

    On a side note, Sidney Powell has "Let Loose the Kraken" lawsuit: (1)


    Defense Attorneys Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and others have filed a lawsuit in Georgia demanding that the results of the 2020 election be set aside because of “massive election fraud” and foreign influence in the election. The lawsuit claims that 96,600 mail-in ballots “were fraudulently cast” and that “136,098 ballots were illegally counted as a result of improper manipulation of the Dominion software.”
     
    PEACE 😇

    (1) https://pjmedia.com/election/victoria-taft/2020/11/26/breaking-sidney-powell-releases-the-kraken-in-georgia-with-explosive-new-lawsuit-n1174691
     
    https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/11/126430040_3618069048252727_2497141630209667824_n.jpg

    Replies: @AP

    And the Blue might as well join Canada. It is more like Canada than it is like much of the Red.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @AP

    What about red parts of blue states....which covers a lot of land although is generally less populated. For example where I am in Central WA (a state that borders Canada) people would be horrified to join a coalition of blue states and Canada. Any kind of split would be messy.

    Replies: @AP

  52. @Almost Missouri
    @V. K. Ovelund


    1. ... why won’t the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?
     
    Yes, it will. But then, all of life consists in delaying the inevitable end. So why accept demise now when it can be indefinitely postponed?

    2. [&3] ... Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. ... It’s a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn’t it?
     
    Yes, they will, and yes, it is. That's why it is best not to ask Blues' permission. They will withhold it if they think they can. Better that we just do what we want and tell them, "Come and get us if you think it's worth it!" Μολὼν λαβέ, etc. If it's one state they might just be mad enough to try. If it's ten states, they'll just crap their pants, grind their teeth and pretend it's what they wanted all along.

    But really it's best not accept the left's frame at all. Most counties don't want Globohomo. Let each county decide. Ultimately, it's gonna happen that way anyway. Indeed, it's already happening. I think this also largely solves 3., 9., and to a certain extent 10..

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?...
     
    Who cares? Both the world and the US could benefit from us intervening abroad less.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?
     
    Good question. Hard to predict, yet has potentially big consequences. I can imagine a variety of plausible answers. One way to answer it is with the counter-question of what's going to happen to the petrodollar in the status quo? It may be doomed anyway. Then there is the question of whether its doom is a net good or bad thing in the long term? I will just make the observation that most of what we deplore about Globohomo is directly or indirectly financed out of the dollar's reserve currency status.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?
     
    This seems like a minor question because a) people cross borders and reside outside their home countries routinely so this isn't different, and b) if for whatever reason it matters to someone, they have plenty of time to make appropriate arrangements. Is there anyone stuck in the UK because they didn't know that Brexit was happening?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. ...
     
    "Left" and "Right" are often proxies for something else, e.g., ethno-religious, and I would argue that is the case again today in the US. Reds tend to be old-stock Americans, and practicing or notional Christians. Blues tend to be new-stock/paper-Americans or straight-up illegal, and to practice some unholy syncretion of heathen blood rites and Neolib Theology.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?
     
    I'm not sure Quebec's was really a secessionist movement so much as gambit to extort greater privileges from Canada's central government. As such, it was wildly successful.

    If DC/Globohomo wants to buy us Reds off of secession, I say, "Make us an offer." So far, their only offer is to exterminate us, and they have never once compromised, so I don't foresee a Canadian-style result here.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?
     
    Majority black counties can decide for themselves, as in 2..

    Replies: @anon, @AP

    Speaking of Quebec, any Red-Blue split in the USA would result in a high likelihood of Blue uniting with Canada. At least, geographically isolated Blue parts close to the border, that wouldn’t dominate Canada (i.e., the Northeast might join Canada, but California/Vegas/Arizona/New Mexico wouldn’t).

  53. @dfordoom
    Some fascinating age differences there. The belief that the result was illegitimate seems to be largely a Boomer thing.

    In fact when you factor in political affiliation as well you could go so far as to say it's mostly a boomercon thing.

    When the people who think the system is broken and needs to be replaced are mostly elderly you have a problem.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Dieter Kief, @Dieter Kief, @Jay Fink

    I have a friend, a fellow Gen Xer, who is a diehard Trump supporter, rants all day about how the election was illegitimate yet also has an obsessive hatred of boomers. I keep telling him that it’s the young people who are the problem and that if it wasn’t for boomers Trump would have lost in a landslide. I texted him the graphic of this poll to prove my point. Yet I’m sure he won’t let go of his boomer hatred because it is a big part of who he is.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Jay Fink

    “yet also has an obsessive hatred of boomers.“

    He can be forgiven. It’s Boomers who let themselves be duped into civic nationalism. I even remember feeling proud about guys like Romesh Ponnuru and thinking the Bushes were going to make a positive difference. God what a bunch of dupes we were.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  54. @AP
    @A123

    And the Blue might as well join Canada. It is more like Canada than it is like much of the Red.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    What about red parts of blue states….which covers a lot of land although is generally less populated. For example where I am in Central WA (a state that borders Canada) people would be horrified to join a coalition of blue states and Canada. Any kind of split would be messy.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Jay Fink

    A split would probably be like this:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/live_map_house.png

    So Red parts of Washington State wouldn't join Canada. New England would, which would be ironic given that it was the cradle of the American Revolution. Blue islands in the South and Midwest would get stuck in Red America.

    California/Nevada/Arizona would probably be its own country, rather than join Canada.

  55. @Jay Fink
    @AP

    What about red parts of blue states....which covers a lot of land although is generally less populated. For example where I am in Central WA (a state that borders Canada) people would be horrified to join a coalition of blue states and Canada. Any kind of split would be messy.

    Replies: @AP

    A split would probably be like this:

    So Red parts of Washington State wouldn’t join Canada. New England would, which would be ironic given that it was the cradle of the American Revolution. Blue islands in the South and Midwest would get stuck in Red America.

    California/Nevada/Arizona would probably be its own country, rather than join Canada.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
  56. @RoatanBill
    @Achmed E. Newman

    with restraints upheld by a moral people

    That is a knee slapper if I ever heard one.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I dunno, worked for 15o years or so …

  57. @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    Can you think of any country that doesn’t have democracy but is nonetheless a prosperous functional society whose people seem pretty content? Isn’t there some country in Asia that fits that description?
     
    If you mean China, I would have agreed with you no more than 3 years ago, Mr. Doom. Not anymore. See, when you have autocratic rule, with a head of The Party (and, don't get it wrong, the CCP RUNS the Chinese government) who just inserted himself as lifetime ruler in the "Constitution"*, he may decide to do something that will not be so good for society. Because it's not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain't nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.

    You really ought to read the book We Have Been Harmonized. The author is a Kung Flu Panicker and a TDS sufferer, but that he keeps that to a minimum. This book will scare the beJesus out of you. A Peak Stupidity review will be coming within a week.


    .

    * It's no real constitution if one guy can freaking change the thing at will.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Realist

    Because it’s not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain’t nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.

    The same can be said of the US.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Realist

    True, I was referring to the US in the "restraints upheld by a moral people". We don't seem to have enough of those anymore.

  58. @Realist
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Because it’s not a Constitutional Republic with restraints upheld by a moral people, there ain’t nothing that the Chinese people will be able to do about the upcoming Orwellian world.
     
    The same can be said of the US.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    True, I was referring to the US in the “restraints upheld by a moral people”. We don’t seem to have enough of those anymore.

    • Agree: Realist
  59. @LondonBob
    @dfordoom

    More white people are boomers, race not age.

    Expect if they did jewish it would align more with blacks, always the outliers.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    More white people are boomers, race not age.

    Expect if they did jewish it would align more with blacks, always the outliers.

    Maybe, but that just means that your oppositional force consists of elderly white Boomers. The Boomers were quite happy to take to the streets to try to change things half a century ago. Today they’d have to take their walking frames with them, and the protest marches would have to stop every now and then so they could take a nap.

    I just don’t see the elderly as a revolutionary force (and I’m referring to peaceful revolution).

  60. anon[202] • Disclaimer says:

    To get out of the US kleptocracy you have to make sure state and local officials know the legal requisites of sovereignty. If they don’t, they’re not qualified to run for dogcatcher.

    Sovereignty is responsibility. Responsibility is accession to, at a minimum, the International Bill of Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Rome Statute. Without that, your successor state will get no recognition, and recognition is the ultimate test of sovereignty. So: What does UN Charter Article 2§4 say? What is complementarity in universal jurisdiction law? What does continuity of obligations mean for your civil rights? If a candidate can’t tell you, correctly, tell him to get stuffed. He’s useless as tits on a bull.

    A state that secedes will be bombarded with municipal law prohibitions but they are neither here nor there. International law governs your self-determination. So, What does the ICJ Kosovo advisory judgment say about independence? What are your resource rights as a successor state under the ICESCR? If a candidate doesn’t know, he should adopt this platform that I am making here in my pants, zzzip! and blow me.

    What this means of course, is that virtually all of your local officials are not worth a spoonful of the dump you took this morning… UNLESS you live near a tribal area. Indians know this stuff backwards and forwards. Before you secede, try to join up with a tribal area, so somebody knows what they’re talking about.

    You really want out? Then bone up. This is the only way out.

    https://ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx

  61. @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I have a friend, a fellow Gen Xer, who is a diehard Trump supporter, rants all day about how the election was illegitimate yet also has an obsessive hatred of boomers. I keep telling him that it's the young people who are the problem and that if it wasn't for boomers Trump would have lost in a landslide. I texted him the graphic of this poll to prove my point. Yet I'm sure he won't let go of his boomer hatred because it is a big part of who he is.

    Replies: @Curle

    “yet also has an obsessive hatred of boomers.“

    He can be forgiven. It’s Boomers who let themselves be duped into civic nationalism. I even remember feeling proud about guys like Romesh Ponnuru and thinking the Bushes were going to make a positive difference. God what a bunch of dupes we were.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    It’s Boomers who let themselves be duped into civic nationalism.
     
    The "boomers" of 1861? 1898? 1917? 1942?
  62. This “peaceful separation thing” is just a sign of despair isn’t it? Trump supporters, the dissident right, conservative Christians, etc – what all these groups have in common is that they’re in absolute despair.

    They no longer see any prospect of winning so they’re retreating into fantasy worlds and resorting to magical thinking. “OK, we keep losing, but that’s OK, our enemies will just let us have our own country. And when we have our own country they totally won’t invade us, bomb us, sanction us, prevent us from trading with other countries, destabilise us, sabotage our economy, undermine our new country or organise color revolutions against us. They’ll just let us live in peace. Just like they let other countries live in peace.”

    Everything will be great, because our enemies will behave like reasonable people. Because magic.

    In a fantasy world everything works out just like you want it to. That’s why fantasy worlds are awesome and reality sucks.

  63. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage.

    The point that gets missed is that you cannot have meaningful negotiations when one side (in this case Team Blue) believes it’s on the verge of winning total absolute victory and the other wide believes deep down inside that it’s on the verge of utter defeat. Why would Team Blue even bother entering into negotiations on a separation? They know they hold all the cards (they have on their side the Federal Government, the intelligence agencies, the military-industrial complex, the mega-corporations, the NGOs, the banks, the media, the billionaires) and they know that Team Red holds at best a pair of deuces.

    You don’t get a good deal when one side has no need whatsoever to compromise. Especially when that side wasn’t interested in compromise even when its position was much less strong than it is now. They don’t need a deal.

    In a political struggle you either win, in which case you get everything (control of the whole country), or you lose, in which case you get nothing. So even if you’re losing it makes no sense to try to convince yourself that the other side is going to offer you a decent compromise.

    To me it seems like the talk of separation is like being utterly defeated and just throwing yourself at the conqueror’s feet and asking for mercy, and hoping he’ll say, “OK, we’ll call it a draw.”

    The only option is to fight on, and find a way to start winning. Which means using better strategies and maybe looking for some allies.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  64. anon[168] • Disclaimer says:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/trump-administration-defense-policy-board/index.html

    The tone of this article is a bit strange. Perhaps fearful?

    (CNN)Several high profile members of the Defense Policy Board were removed on Wednesday by the Trump administration, in yet another purge of longstanding foreign policy experts and national security establishment figures in the final days of the Trump era, according to three defense officials.

    Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two of the officials said.

    Kissinger? Albright? What were they doing on any kind of Defense policy board? I didn’t even know they were still alive.

    It is interesting to see a little puddle of the swamp suddenly drained.

    • Replies: @PhilK
    @anon

    Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two of the officials said.

    LOL. Defenders of the US, for sure!

  65. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    1. That’s as valid a question as asking: “Why should I vote for another Republican when eventually a Democrat will hold the office?’

    2. The Blues, like their forebears the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, will not peacefully agree to any separation because they intend to force us all to bow to Wokism.

    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.

    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.

    4. The great Neocon argument, which is also an argument of Western Leftism for Liberal Imperialism.

    5. What becomes of the Euro and the Yen?

    6. As many as are stupid enough to have such a thing happen accidentally.

    7. The French State remains because the Revolution won and spread terror to all corners – the pro-Revolutionists have retained full control ever since.

    8. Why? I think it says most that elite Quebecois were easily bribed.

    9. If the Left would ever agree to anything, then the division would start with states as a whole and then split some because there are geographic areas areas of a state that are one color while the sate as a whole is the other color. For example, southern western IL are Red, while Chicago and its environs are Blue. Southern and western IL go with KY, while Chicagoland goes with Detroit and Milwaukee and Madison.

    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jake


    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.
     
    Not me. I am a Gentile. To peddle convenient hopelessness is not my style.

    I neither oppose nor promote separation, but merely ask questions. Your answers are appreciated.


    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.
     
    Wouldn't that be nice? That should be at least partly achievable.

    Regarding Jews, though: Jews have a long, impressive history of ingratiating themselves into every state. Personally, I have come to distrust Jews as a people, but even I (as is awkward to admit) have several U.S. Jewish friends and associates in real life.

    Few in Red America are even yet aware of the Jewish Question (though misbehaving Jews are rapidly educating us).

    When I asked, I had in mind problems that can be solved, not problems that can't. Separation from U.S. Jews seems unlikely to me. (But would it desirable? Having given little thought to events I deem unlikely to occur, I do not know.) Maybe you have a different estimation of the prospects.

    Meanwhile, much of the harm Jews do seems to be mitigated when Gentiles express a mild awareness that Jews are doing it. Jews are remarkably sensitive to such. They retreat when named. Moreover, they are productive, useful and even helpful when not naughty.

    But Jewish organized crime, Jewish media, Jewish politicians, Jewish judges, Jewish financiers, etc., right?

    Believe me, I get it.

    For now, my chief tack is to question the received Holocaust narrative. I do not know how much of that narrative is false (probably the majority of it, maybe almost all of it, but I am not sure); yet it is clear that Jewish media have been egregiously lying to us about the Holocaust for at least the past 60 years. It is laughable that Jews believe that making Holocaust denial a crime would build public trust in their narrative: the criminalization of Holocaust denial is what converted me into an anti-Semite, and I am not the only one. If merely questioning the Holocaust suffices to mitigate much or most of the harm Jews do, then I will question.

    The Jewish problem stretches back a thousand years, however. You and I are unlikely to solve it.


    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.
     
    I cannot think of a better likely outcome.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jake


    2. The Blues, like their forebears the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, will not peacefully agree to any separation because they intend to force us all to bow to Wokism.

     

    All except themselves. The best way to end "wokism" may be to shove it down the throats of its adherents. Portland could be Ground Zero. Indeed, they may have started the process all by themselves.

    DC is about to go white-majority. Perfect excuse to repeal the 23rd Amendment. A small step, but it's a start. As well as is pushing Puerto Rico onto the road to independence. Perhaps along with Hawaii.
  66. @anon
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/26/politics/trump-administration-defense-policy-board/index.html

    The tone of this article is a bit strange. Perhaps fearful?

    (CNN)Several high profile members of the Defense Policy Board were removed on Wednesday by the Trump administration, in yet another purge of longstanding foreign policy experts and national security establishment figures in the final days of the Trump era, according to three defense officials.
     

    Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two of the officials said.
     
    Kissinger? Albright? What were they doing on any kind of Defense policy board? I didn't even know they were still alive.

    It is interesting to see a little puddle of the swamp suddenly drained.

    Replies: @PhilK

    Members who were suddenly removed include former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, former ranking member of the House Intelligence committee Jane Harman and former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, two of the officials said.

    LOL. Defenders of the US, for sure!

  67. this easy to fix.

    abolish elections and replace them with lotteries, i.e. the legislative body is chosen at random.

    this immediately removes the incentive of sociopaths to become politicians, as they would no longer see politics as a viable path towards manipulation and corruption.

    for example, every american over the age of 12 would have a chance to be randomly drawn to form a 300 person council from whom, after talking amongst themselves over some good bar-b-que, gumbo and baked alaska (with live show featuring kate smith hologram/nicki minaj duet), a really smart and nice person is elected chief face.

    it couldn’t be worse.

  68. @lloyd
    America should appoint a Nerva figure. He should replace both Trump and Biden via a congress of delegates selected from the American State Congressses as promulgated in the American Constituion. Does such a elder statesman exist? He would have to be of senior position in American politics but not in Federal politics. Someone who resembles FDR in 1933. An establishment Democrat, former popular Governor, a political appointee from the U.S. Navy, famous for achieving practical results. Well known for his charisma but not implicated in a major scandal. Is there in America today such a man of the hour? Ray Mabus springs to my mind. His only liablitiy is the name Mabus in the Nostradamus quatrain who will die at a time of great calamity and end of history. That possibly explains why Ray Mabus has never stood for President or even US Congress. His candidacy under norrmal circumstances would have most likely have made him President.

    Replies: @anon

    America should appoint a Nerva figure

    Totally agree.

    https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html

  69. “ 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people ”

    Given that an elite of about 0.2% actually rule, a system that lets 51% “feel like they’re ruling” is actually great.

    The problem with new American “civil war” scenarios is there’s just no group with numbers, resources, and competence that’s violently unhappy with the USA. We’re just a lot better than Czarist Russia, the French ancient regime, nationalist China, Stuart England etc.

    It’s also a big country and easy to move away from enemies and live among comrades.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Lot


    The problem with new American “civil war” scenarios is there’s just no group with numbers, resources, and competence that’s violently unhappy with the USA. We’re just a lot better than Czarist Russia, the French ancient regime, nationalist China, Stuart England etc.
     
    Yes, and (more importantly) ordinary people are much much richer and have much more access to the things that really matter to people. If ordinary people in Czarist Russia or Louis XVI's France or Nationalist China had been able to buy shiny consumer goods from WalMart, if they'd had home delivery pizza, Prozac, prescription opioids, social media, unlimited porn, professional football, access to cute kitten pictures online, celebrity culture for the masses, super-hero movies, smartphones, cars etc they would never have been interested in revolution.

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    That's why there will never be revolution in any western country unless there is economic collapse on a scale which seems so unlikely as to be for all practical purposes impossible. That's also why the Chinese Communist Party is in danger of being overthrown.

    People generally speaking don't care what sort of government they have as long as it delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security. They certainly don't care about freedom or democracy if their government delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

  70. @Lot
    “ 160 million people get to feel like they’re ruling over the other 160 million people ”

    Given that an elite of about 0.2% actually rule, a system that lets 51% “feel like they’re ruling” is actually great.

    The problem with new American “civil war” scenarios is there’s just no group with numbers, resources, and competence that’s violently unhappy with the USA. We’re just a lot better than Czarist Russia, the French ancient regime, nationalist China, Stuart England etc.

    It’s also a big country and easy to move away from enemies and live among comrades.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The problem with new American “civil war” scenarios is there’s just no group with numbers, resources, and competence that’s violently unhappy with the USA. We’re just a lot better than Czarist Russia, the French ancient regime, nationalist China, Stuart England etc.

    Yes, and (more importantly) ordinary people are much much richer and have much more access to the things that really matter to people. If ordinary people in Czarist Russia or Louis XVI’s France or Nationalist China had been able to buy shiny consumer goods from WalMart, if they’d had home delivery pizza, Prozac, prescription opioids, social media, unlimited porn, professional football, access to cute kitten pictures online, celebrity culture for the masses, super-hero movies, smartphones, cars etc they would never have been interested in revolution.

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    That’s why there will never be revolution in any western country unless there is economic collapse on a scale which seems so unlikely as to be for all practical purposes impossible. That’s also why the Chinese Communist Party is in danger of being overthrown.

    People generally speaking don’t care what sort of government they have as long as it delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security. They certainly don’t care about freedom or democracy if their government delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    If ordinary people in Czarist Russia or Louis XVI’s France or Nationalist China had been able to buy shiny consumer goods from WalMart, if they’d had home delivery pizza, Prozac, prescription opioids, social media, unlimited porn, professional football, access to cute kitten pictures online, celebrity culture for the masses, super-hero movies, smartphones, cars etc they would never have been interested in revolution.
     
    That forced a laugh out of me. Classic.
    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    "badda bing, badda boom"

    Replies: @Talha

  71. @Jake
    @V. K. Ovelund

    1. That's as valid a question as asking: "Why should I vote for another Republican when eventually a Democrat will hold the office?'

    2. The Blues, like their forebears the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, will not peacefully agree to any separation because they intend to force us all to bow to Wokism.

    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.

    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.

    4. The great Neocon argument, which is also an argument of Western Leftism for Liberal Imperialism.

    5. What becomes of the Euro and the Yen?

    6. As many as are stupid enough to have such a thing happen accidentally.

    7. The French State remains because the Revolution won and spread terror to all corners - the pro-Revolutionists have retained full control ever since.

    8. Why? I think it says most that elite Quebecois were easily bribed.

    9. If the Left would ever agree to anything, then the division would start with states as a whole and then split some because there are geographic areas areas of a state that are one color while the sate as a whole is the other color. For example, southern western IL are Red, while Chicago and its environs are Blue. Southern and western IL go with KY, while Chicagoland goes with Detroit and Milwaukee and Madison.

    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Reg Cæsar

    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.

    Not me. I am a Gentile. To peddle convenient hopelessness is not my style.

    I neither oppose nor promote separation, but merely ask questions. Your answers are appreciated.

    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.

    Wouldn’t that be nice? That should be at least partly achievable.

    Regarding Jews, though: Jews have a long, impressive history of ingratiating themselves into every state. Personally, I have come to distrust Jews as a people, but even I (as is awkward to admit) have several U.S. Jewish friends and associates in real life.

    Few in Red America are even yet aware of the Jewish Question (though misbehaving Jews are rapidly educating us).

    When I asked, I had in mind problems that can be solved, not problems that can’t. Separation from U.S. Jews seems unlikely to me. (But would it desirable? Having given little thought to events I deem unlikely to occur, I do not know.) Maybe you have a different estimation of the prospects.

    [MORE]

    Meanwhile, much of the harm Jews do seems to be mitigated when Gentiles express a mild awareness that Jews are doing it. Jews are remarkably sensitive to such. They retreat when named. Moreover, they are productive, useful and even helpful when not naughty.

    But Jewish organized crime, Jewish media, Jewish politicians, Jewish judges, Jewish financiers, etc., right?

    Believe me, I get it.

    For now, my chief tack is to question the received Holocaust narrative. I do not know how much of that narrative is false (probably the majority of it, maybe almost all of it, but I am not sure); yet it is clear that Jewish media have been egregiously lying to us about the Holocaust for at least the past 60 years. It is laughable that Jews believe that making Holocaust denial a crime would build public trust in their narrative: the criminalization of Holocaust denial is what converted me into an anti-Semite, and I am not the only one. If merely questioning the Holocaust suffices to mitigate much or most of the harm Jews do, then I will question.

    The Jewish problem stretches back a thousand years, however. You and I are unlikely to solve it.

    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.

    I cannot think of a better likely outcome.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It is laughable that Jews believe that making Holocaust denial a crime would build public trust in their narrative

    Needless to say, I am no expert on the JQ, but I seriously doubt that anybody thinks that making Holocaust denial a crime is intended to build public trust. I take it at face value and accept that it is intended to combat anti-Semitism by nipping it in the bud. As far as I know, most Holocaust deniers do appear to be anti-Semites, so their actions (both sides) seem rational to me. The "problem" is not Holocaust denial per se; the problem is anti-Semitism, and denial has become a marker or indicator for such.

    Replies: @Curle

  72. @dfordoom
    @Lot


    The problem with new American “civil war” scenarios is there’s just no group with numbers, resources, and competence that’s violently unhappy with the USA. We’re just a lot better than Czarist Russia, the French ancient regime, nationalist China, Stuart England etc.
     
    Yes, and (more importantly) ordinary people are much much richer and have much more access to the things that really matter to people. If ordinary people in Czarist Russia or Louis XVI's France or Nationalist China had been able to buy shiny consumer goods from WalMart, if they'd had home delivery pizza, Prozac, prescription opioids, social media, unlimited porn, professional football, access to cute kitten pictures online, celebrity culture for the masses, super-hero movies, smartphones, cars etc they would never have been interested in revolution.

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    That's why there will never be revolution in any western country unless there is economic collapse on a scale which seems so unlikely as to be for all practical purposes impossible. That's also why the Chinese Communist Party is in danger of being overthrown.

    People generally speaking don't care what sort of government they have as long as it delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security. They certainly don't care about freedom or democracy if their government delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    If ordinary people in Czarist Russia or Louis XVI’s France or Nationalist China had been able to buy shiny consumer goods from WalMart, if they’d had home delivery pizza, Prozac, prescription opioids, social media, unlimited porn, professional football, access to cute kitten pictures online, celebrity culture for the masses, super-hero movies, smartphones, cars etc they would never have been interested in revolution.

    That forced a laugh out of me. Classic.

  73. Oh F!!! The Trump admin destroyed its own chances to have a vaccine before the election because DIVERSITY. The head of Operation Warp Speed slowed things down massively because there weren’t enough blacks and Hispanics in Moderna trial.

    https://gulfnews.com/amp/world/americas/science-politics-and-the-remarkable-race-for-covid-19-vaccine-1.75429047

    (From the NYT, but this link is not paywalled).

    “Washington: The call was tense, the message discouraging. Moncef Slaoui, the head of the Trump administration’s effort to quickly produce a vaccine for the coronavirus, was on the phone at 6pm on August 25 to tell upstart biotech firm Moderna that it had to slow the final stage of testing its vaccine in humans.

    Moderna’s chief executive, Stephane Bancel, a French biochemical engineer, recognised the implication. In the race to quell the pandemic, he said, “every day mattered.” Now his company, which had yet to bring a single product to market, faced a delay of up to three weeks. Pfizer, the global pharmaceutical giant that was busy testing a similar vaccine candidate and promising initial results by October, would take the obvious lead.

    ‘Hardest decision’
    “It was the hardest decision I made this year,” Bancel said.

    Moderna’s problem seemed fitting for late summer 2020, when the United States was reeling from not just a pandemic but unrest over racial injustice. Slaoui informed Bancel that Moderna had not recruited enough minority candidates into its vaccine trials. If it could not prove its vaccine worked well for Black and Hispanic Americans, who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic, it would not make it over the finish line.”

    And

    “When Slaoui from Operation Warp Speed called Moderna’s chief executive to say Moderna had to recruit more minorities, it came as a body blow. Slaoui told a colleague afterward: “I just burned all our relationship” with Moderna.”

    What the F.

    • Thanks: Lot
  74. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Everything is political now
     
    Although people in both the right and left are political about everything now (heck, *I* am political about everything now), the origin of this cultural total war squarely rests on the left.

    For all their talk of theocracy doom masturbation, right-leaning administrations over the years never imposed anything even resembling a hint of theocracy or oppression. No homosexuals were put in prisons, women weren't prevented from becoming a majority of medical school students, and institutional preferences for blacks and Hispanics became ever stronger.

    Meanwhile, wherever the left dominated the levers of society, they engaged in scorched earth policies of personal destruction against their political opponents. Oppose government-sanctioned racial discrimination, aka affirmative action? You must lose your job, you evil racist, you! Oppose homosexual "marriage"? You must lose your business and be run out of a company you built, you bigot! Oppose men wearing women's clothes and beating up women in sports? You must be driven off polite society, you hateful sexist, you!

    Theirs is basically a policy of triumphal eliminationism. That rightists have also become political "about everything" is regrettable (and not terribly in keeping with our natural tendencies), but is merely, and belated, self-defense.

    At this point, I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about solutions other than civil strife or peaceful separation. I vote for the latter. I will not have my children reach adulthood and be stranded in a society, in which they must hide their moral convictions or risk becoming persona non grata in their own country.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Anon

    Meanwhile, wherever the left dominated the levers of society, they engaged in scorched earth policies of personal destruction against their political opponents. Oppose government-sanctioned racial discrimination, aka affirmative action? You must lose your job, you evil racist, you! Oppose homosexual “marriage”? You must lose your business and be run out of a company you built, you bigot! Oppose men wearing women’s clothes and beating up women in sports? You must be driven off polite society, you hateful sexist, you!

    Fortunately we’re a nation of laws. Unfortunately run by Deep State.

    https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-lawyer-argues-us-can-kill-its-own-citizens-without-review-when-state-secrets-are-involved

    US can kill its own citizens without review when state secrets are involved, DOJ lawyer argues
    By Debra Cassens Weiss
    November 18, 2020

    A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer argued Monday that the United States can kill its own citizens without judicial review when litigation would reveal state secrets.

    The argument drew alarm among judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Courthouse News Service reports.

    Judge Patricia Millett characterized the DOJ’s argument as giving the government the ability to “unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens,” according to coverage of the argument by Courthouse News Service. “Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is?”

    The government’s brief in the case supplies details of the lawsuit. The plaintiff, Bilal Abdul Kareem, is a U.S. citizen who works as a journalist in Syria for the “On the Ground Network” news channel, which provides access to the views of rebel fighters. The militants are linked to al-Qaida, according to Courthouse Service…

    • Replies: @anon
    @Anon

    Meh, the authority of the US Gov to kill citizens with impunity was established back in the 1990's.

    National security's got nuttin' to do with it, either.

    http://themillenniumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17089.32840.jpg

  75. @Twinkie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver
     
    You don't have nearly enough dogs or guns. And how much ammo do you have? Ammo consumption is very low during peacetime and skyrockets once firing commences (and guns also wear out much faster than expected if used heavily and not gingerly cleaned and cared for as in peacetime). And don't forget lots of 22LR ammo for small game.

    On a far more serious note, do you have a reliable clean water supply and what kind of wilderness medical skills do you have? Have you at least some basic field medicine supplies, including Israeli bandages (for the said "commence firing" situations)?

    Replies: @unit472, @Buzz Mohawk, @Anonymous

    The purpose of my comment was to establish the fact that I no longer have a country except this little piece of land my wife and I maintain. We have no illusions or fantasies of fighting some battle against the powers that be. I am only making it clear that we no longer expect any help, protection, service or respect from what used to be our government — and we no longer consider its elections valid.

    To be clear, we will continue to keep our heads down, obey the laws of, and pay our monetary tributes to, what used to be our government.

    Furthermore, I have no desire to hold out in a Hollywood post-apocalyptic world. Nor will I work to pass anything along for some future of humanity; it doesn’t deserve it.

    As for the practical advice you gave, our tap water comes from three nearby reservoirs that serve the whole county. The closest one feeds the trout stream I mentioned, where I occasionally walk and go fly fishing. Even if everything shuts down, I, an old backpacker, would have no trouble hauling gallons of fresh water home on foot daily if necessary, from the same source that feeds out faucets. And yes, I know how to purify it.

    As for the medical contingencies to which you alluded, one of our neighbors is a doctor. He lives right down the road, in fact. If he is not available, I have first aid training. However, if I described this training, which I received in the US Forest Service forty years ago, you might find it lacking. Remember what I stated in my previous comment, though: I don’t give a fuck what you think.

    Go away.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    Furthermore, I have no desire to hold out in a Hollywood post-apocalyptic world. Nor will I work to pass anything along for some future of humanity; it doesn’t deserve it.
     
    Do you not care about your children? Or do you not have any?

    I don’t give a fuck what you think.

    Go away.
     
    Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
  76. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Jake


    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.
     
    Not me. I am a Gentile. To peddle convenient hopelessness is not my style.

    I neither oppose nor promote separation, but merely ask questions. Your answers are appreciated.


    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.
     
    Wouldn't that be nice? That should be at least partly achievable.

    Regarding Jews, though: Jews have a long, impressive history of ingratiating themselves into every state. Personally, I have come to distrust Jews as a people, but even I (as is awkward to admit) have several U.S. Jewish friends and associates in real life.

    Few in Red America are even yet aware of the Jewish Question (though misbehaving Jews are rapidly educating us).

    When I asked, I had in mind problems that can be solved, not problems that can't. Separation from U.S. Jews seems unlikely to me. (But would it desirable? Having given little thought to events I deem unlikely to occur, I do not know.) Maybe you have a different estimation of the prospects.

    Meanwhile, much of the harm Jews do seems to be mitigated when Gentiles express a mild awareness that Jews are doing it. Jews are remarkably sensitive to such. They retreat when named. Moreover, they are productive, useful and even helpful when not naughty.

    But Jewish organized crime, Jewish media, Jewish politicians, Jewish judges, Jewish financiers, etc., right?

    Believe me, I get it.

    For now, my chief tack is to question the received Holocaust narrative. I do not know how much of that narrative is false (probably the majority of it, maybe almost all of it, but I am not sure); yet it is clear that Jewish media have been egregiously lying to us about the Holocaust for at least the past 60 years. It is laughable that Jews believe that making Holocaust denial a crime would build public trust in their narrative: the criminalization of Holocaust denial is what converted me into an anti-Semite, and I am not the only one. If merely questioning the Holocaust suffices to mitigate much or most of the harm Jews do, then I will question.

    The Jewish problem stretches back a thousand years, however. You and I are unlikely to solve it.


    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.
     
    I cannot think of a better likely outcome.

    Replies: @iffen

    It is laughable that Jews believe that making Holocaust denial a crime would build public trust in their narrative

    Needless to say, I am no expert on the JQ, but I seriously doubt that anybody thinks that making Holocaust denial a crime is intended to build public trust. I take it at face value and accept that it is intended to combat anti-Semitism by nipping it in the bud. As far as I know, most Holocaust deniers do appear to be anti-Semites, so their actions (both sides) seem rational to me. The “problem” is not Holocaust denial per se; the problem is anti-Semitism, and denial has become a marker or indicator for such.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @iffen

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders. No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

  77. @dfordoom
    @Lot


    The problem with new American “civil war” scenarios is there’s just no group with numbers, resources, and competence that’s violently unhappy with the USA. We’re just a lot better than Czarist Russia, the French ancient regime, nationalist China, Stuart England etc.
     
    Yes, and (more importantly) ordinary people are much much richer and have much more access to the things that really matter to people. If ordinary people in Czarist Russia or Louis XVI's France or Nationalist China had been able to buy shiny consumer goods from WalMart, if they'd had home delivery pizza, Prozac, prescription opioids, social media, unlimited porn, professional football, access to cute kitten pictures online, celebrity culture for the masses, super-hero movies, smartphones, cars etc they would never have been interested in revolution.

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    That's why there will never be revolution in any western country unless there is economic collapse on a scale which seems so unlikely as to be for all practical purposes impossible. That's also why the Chinese Communist Party is in danger of being overthrown.

    People generally speaking don't care what sort of government they have as long as it delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security. They certainly don't care about freedom or democracy if their government delivers material prosperity and a reasonable degree of security.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    “badda bing, badda boom”

    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    This was a cornerstone behind Huxley's "orgy-porgy" vision of the future, which, though Orwell's gets a lot more attention, was far more precise, especially given the dawn of genetic modification.

    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole "no sex" thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @iffen

  78. @Anon
    @Twinkie


    Meanwhile, wherever the left dominated the levers of society, they engaged in scorched earth policies of personal destruction against their political opponents. Oppose government-sanctioned racial discrimination, aka affirmative action? You must lose your job, you evil racist, you! Oppose homosexual “marriage”? You must lose your business and be run out of a company you built, you bigot! Oppose men wearing women’s clothes and beating up women in sports? You must be driven off polite society, you hateful sexist, you!
     
    Fortunately we’re a nation of laws. Unfortunately run by Deep State.

    https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/doj-lawyer-argues-us-can-kill-its-own-citizens-without-review-when-state-secrets-are-involved

    US can kill its own citizens without review when state secrets are involved, DOJ lawyer argues
    By Debra Cassens Weiss
    November 18, 2020

    A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer argued Monday that the United States can kill its own citizens without judicial review when litigation would reveal state secrets.

    The argument drew alarm among judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Courthouse News Service reports.

    Judge Patricia Millett characterized the DOJ’s argument as giving the government the ability to “unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens,” according to coverage of the argument by Courthouse News Service. “Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is?”

    The government’s brief in the case supplies details of the lawsuit. The plaintiff, Bilal Abdul Kareem, is a U.S. citizen who works as a journalist in Syria for the “On the Ground Network” news channel, which provides access to the views of rebel fighters. The militants are linked to al-Qaida, according to Courthouse Service...
     

    Replies: @anon

    Meh, the authority of the US Gov to kill citizens with impunity was established back in the 1990’s.

    National security’s got nuttin’ to do with it, either.

  79. @unit472
    @Twinkie

    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won't. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.

    A .22 is useful however, a decent air rifle can bring down game and is much quieter. Bow hunting has the same advantage and can down large game.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke

    The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.

    “On a far more serious note” that followed should reveal what I was trying to convey about “more dogs and more ammo!”

    I have repeated numerous times that people should fixate less on guns and such and instead secure reliable supply of fresh water and get some basic training in field medicine. Even though you can buy Israeli bandages for a few dollars online, I would venture to guess that they care carried by a miniscule, almost nonexistent, fraction of people who carry guns.

    And it doesn’t require any significant training to use and can be a lifesaver:

  80. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    The purpose of my comment was to establish the fact that I no longer have a country except this little piece of land my wife and I maintain. We have no illusions or fantasies of fighting some battle against the powers that be. I am only making it clear that we no longer expect any help, protection, service or respect from what used to be our government -- and we no longer consider its elections valid.

    To be clear, we will continue to keep our heads down, obey the laws of, and pay our monetary tributes to, what used to be our government.

    Furthermore, I have no desire to hold out in a Hollywood post-apocalyptic world. Nor will I work to pass anything along for some future of humanity; it doesn't deserve it.

    As for the practical advice you gave, our tap water comes from three nearby reservoirs that serve the whole county. The closest one feeds the trout stream I mentioned, where I occasionally walk and go fly fishing. Even if everything shuts down, I, an old backpacker, would have no trouble hauling gallons of fresh water home on foot daily if necessary, from the same source that feeds out faucets. And yes, I know how to purify it.

    As for the medical contingencies to which you alluded, one of our neighbors is a doctor. He lives right down the road, in fact. If he is not available, I have first aid training. However, if I described this training, which I received in the US Forest Service forty years ago, you might find it lacking. Remember what I stated in my previous comment, though: I don't give a fuck what you think.

    Go away.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Furthermore, I have no desire to hold out in a Hollywood post-apocalyptic world. Nor will I work to pass anything along for some future of humanity; it doesn’t deserve it.

    Do you not care about your children? Or do you not have any?

    I don’t give a fuck what you think.

    Go away.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

  81. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    I have given your questions some thought and here are my responses:

    [MORE]

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America.. Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    Perhaps. But I’d rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn’t you? Perhaps we could make the future degradation not so easy to achieve by codifying the “Red America” constitution far more explicitly.

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines…

    I don’t think “Red America” as such should accept that. I think a regional breakup into several republics is more preferable. Also, another possible scenario is separating between a series of “Blue” city states and the rest. Frankly, I don’t think we can anticipate what kind of split or splits there would be.

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    Please see above.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?

    I am happy with our country no longer being the world policeman.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    There is no need to assume that the resulting borders will be another Iron Curtain. We tried to invade Canada and get along fine – more or less – with the latter.

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind?

    I suppose not. But the American Revolution was a rather unique type of revolution too.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    I agree with another commenter who wrote of Quebec’s “independence” movement as an attempt at improving its lot within Canada rather than a serious separatist movement.

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    People could vote by counties.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I will have to insist that polities abide by their stated (and not revealed) preferences. Blacks will find out very soon what their erstwhile white allies really think of them. This seems like a win-win to me.

    By the way, I would like to make it clear that separation is not my preference. My top preference is reform. However, I think reform is becoming increasingly near-impossible due to the triumphal eliminiationism of the left, which I think is likely to lead to civil strife. What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Perhaps. But I’d rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn’t you?
     
    Yes, I would, now that you mention it.

    Winston Churchill is admittedly not my favorite person to quote, but he was correct when he said (I give this from memory), “Fifty years is the horizon.”

    In most instances, to plan for longer than 50 years is futile. You are right.

    I have read the rest of your answers and can add nothing to them. Others may prognosticate, but the future is murky to me. I can hardly guess what might happen next.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines…
     
    I don’t think “Red America” as such should accept that.
     
    The problem is that Red America is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining position. When one side holds all the aces and the other side holds no cards at all guess which side will get the best deal?

    What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.
     
    Of course civil separation would be preferable, although civil separation might well lead to a worse outcome. It would be a huge gamble. I don't imagine many people would want to take that gamble. How many people would seriously be willing to take the risks involved? 5% of the population? People will tell opinion pollsters that they like the idea of separation but when you explain the risks and the costs to them they'll lose interest real fast.


    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?
     
    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.
     
    The Red State Dollar might very quickly become about as valuable as Confederate Dollars. Remember that your enemies are not reasonable people. They will certainly try to destroy the value of your new currency, just as they will try to destroy your new economy.

    Also, who gets the nukes? I can really see Bluestan allowing Redstan to have nukes. Without nukes you do not have actual sovereignty.

    Replies: @AP

  82. @unit472
    @Twinkie

    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won't. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.

    A .22 is useful however, a decent air rifle can bring down game and is much quieter. Bow hunting has the same advantage and can down large game.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke

    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won’t. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.

    The thing about gunfights is distance, which spoils your aim and cover, which conceals and potentially blocks the ordnance flying around. The following gunfight occurred at point-blank range, during a traffic stop:

    https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoob-files/the-lessons-of-tim-gramins/

    In less than 1 minute, about a hundred rounds were exchanged. At greater distances, the likelihood is that the both defender and attacker miss, and the attacker goes off looking for easier prey, much as predators in the wild will skirmish, then go their separate ways. Nature doesn’t host animal clinics at predictable intervals. Similarly, where anarchy rules, readily available critical care doctors will be as scarce as hen’s teeth. Even if an attacker wins, rubs out all the defenders, but is wounded himself, he might end up dead. And a victorious defender will likely shoot, shovel and shtum rather than take a wounded attacker to a doctor.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Johann Ricke

    You are absolutely correct that in a serious firefight, many many rounds are usually expended with very few actual hits - even with trained shooters. And, again, as you point out, the ratio of misses goes up with distance enormously, almost exponentially. Relatively small, moving objects are quite difficult to hit even in the best of circumstances, when you add stress, adrenaline, blurred vision, heavy breathing, your own movements, etc. etc., accuracy drops substantially.

    I think what the other commenter might be thinking is a typical close-distance armed civilian encounter in the U.S. (including police officers), which, on average, ends with a handful of rounds fired, if that.

    But when you start thinking in terms of a "battle," that is, group violence, even a minor one, that calculation changes drastically.

  83. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have given your questions some thought and here are my responses:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America.. Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    Perhaps. But I'd rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn't you? Perhaps we could make the future degradation not so easy to achieve by codifying the "Red America" constitution far more explicitly.

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines...

    I don't think "Red America" as such should accept that. I think a regional breakup into several republics is more preferable. Also, another possible scenario is separating between a series of "Blue" city states and the rest. Frankly, I don't think we can anticipate what kind of split or splits there would be.

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    Please see above.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?

    I am happy with our country no longer being the world policeman.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    There is no need to assume that the resulting borders will be another Iron Curtain. We tried to invade Canada and get along fine - more or less - with the latter.

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind?

    I suppose not. But the American Revolution was a rather unique type of revolution too.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    I agree with another commenter who wrote of Quebec's "independence" movement as an attempt at improving its lot within Canada rather than a serious separatist movement.

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    People could vote by counties.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I will have to insist that polities abide by their stated (and not revealed) preferences. Blacks will find out very soon what their erstwhile white allies really think of them. This seems like a win-win to me.

    By the way, I would like to make it clear that separation is not my preference. My top preference is reform. However, I think reform is becoming increasingly near-impossible due to the triumphal eliminiationism of the left, which I think is likely to lead to civil strife. What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    Perhaps. But I’d rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn’t you?

    Yes, I would, now that you mention it.

    Winston Churchill is admittedly not my favorite person to quote, but he was correct when he said (I give this from memory), “Fifty years is the horizon.”

    In most instances, to plan for longer than 50 years is futile. You are right.

    I have read the rest of your answers and can add nothing to them. Others may prognosticate, but the future is murky to me. I can hardly guess what might happen next.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I can hardly guess what might happen next.
     
    What will happen next is that Biden will be president. People will go back to watching football and comic-book movies, downloading porn, discussing celebrity gossip, uploading cute kitten pictures and worrying about paying the mortgage and wondering whether they remembered to feed the dog.

    As another commenter said recently, things just aren't anywhere near bad enough for people to be seriously contemplating drastic solutions (like secession).
    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    In most instances, to plan for longer than 50 years is futile... Others may prognosticate, but the future is murky to me. I can hardly guess what might happen next.
     
    Agreed!

    You'll often find me on AE's blog cautioning others that only God knows the future. I go even as far to say (repeatedly) that people who claim to be able to predict the future are crazy or are fools or are selling something (or some combination thereof - people can be complex and have mixed motives).

    History is quite stochastic in my view and historical developments are contingent on many different, at times seemingly insignificant, variables. So my motto is, "Hope for the best and prepare for the worst."

    Also, I think we all expect (or at least hope) most people to care about the world they will leave to their children and grandchildren, but beyond that horizon is too much to ask of ordinary people. I think only the most extraordinary think beyond those years, and such people are more likely to be, well, "a little off." ;)
  84. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It is laughable that Jews believe that making Holocaust denial a crime would build public trust in their narrative

    Needless to say, I am no expert on the JQ, but I seriously doubt that anybody thinks that making Holocaust denial a crime is intended to build public trust. I take it at face value and accept that it is intended to combat anti-Semitism by nipping it in the bud. As far as I know, most Holocaust deniers do appear to be anti-Semites, so their actions (both sides) seem rational to me. The "problem" is not Holocaust denial per se; the problem is anti-Semitism, and denial has become a marker or indicator for such.

    Replies: @Curle

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders. No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Curle

    Is anybody in the presumptive Biden administration not Jewish?

    I am glad that powerless, oppressed, vulnerable Holocaust survivors like the incoming U.S. secretaries of state, treasury and homeland security—not to mention the incoming White House chief of staff—will be adequately protected from vicious, dangerous persons like me who ask questions they don't like.

    Fortunately, the presumptive incoming vice president at least is a Gentile. She's only married to a Jew.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @iffen
    @Curle

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders.

    No, anti is usually the problem.

    As far as ingroup/outgroup, that is not the problem per se, the question (problem) is how one defines the groups and the importance attached to the various group memberships.

    No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    Only if you are unaware of the history of Jews. Also, if your group identification precludes seeing your country go neo-Nazi, then one is concerned with overt anti-Semitism.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  85. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I have given your questions some thought and here are my responses:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America.. Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    Perhaps. But I'd rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn't you? Perhaps we could make the future degradation not so easy to achieve by codifying the "Red America" constitution far more explicitly.

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines...

    I don't think "Red America" as such should accept that. I think a regional breakup into several republics is more preferable. Also, another possible scenario is separating between a series of "Blue" city states and the rest. Frankly, I don't think we can anticipate what kind of split or splits there would be.

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    Please see above.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation?

    I am happy with our country no longer being the world policeman.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    There is no need to assume that the resulting borders will be another Iron Curtain. We tried to invade Canada and get along fine - more or less - with the latter.

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind?

    I suppose not. But the American Revolution was a rather unique type of revolution too.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    I agree with another commenter who wrote of Quebec's "independence" movement as an attempt at improving its lot within Canada rather than a serious separatist movement.

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    People could vote by counties.

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I will have to insist that polities abide by their stated (and not revealed) preferences. Blacks will find out very soon what their erstwhile white allies really think of them. This seems like a win-win to me.

    By the way, I would like to make it clear that separation is not my preference. My top preference is reform. However, I think reform is becoming increasingly near-impossible due to the triumphal eliminiationism of the left, which I think is likely to lead to civil strife. What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines…

    I don’t think “Red America” as such should accept that.

    The problem is that Red America is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining position. When one side holds all the aces and the other side holds no cards at all guess which side will get the best deal?

    What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.

    Of course civil separation would be preferable, although civil separation might well lead to a worse outcome. It would be a huge gamble. I don’t imagine many people would want to take that gamble. How many people would seriously be willing to take the risks involved? 5% of the population? People will tell opinion pollsters that they like the idea of separation but when you explain the risks and the costs to them they’ll lose interest real fast.

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.

    The Red State Dollar might very quickly become about as valuable as Confederate Dollars. Remember that your enemies are not reasonable people. They will certainly try to destroy the value of your new currency, just as they will try to destroy your new economy.

    Also, who gets the nukes? I can really see Bluestan allowing Redstan to have nukes. Without nukes you do not have actual sovereignty.

    • Replies: @AP
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that Red America is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining position. When one side holds all the aces and the other side holds no cards at all guess which side will get the best deal?
     
    Really? Red America has the land mass, the armed people, the police, the soldiers, the manufacturing and natural resources. Blue America has the money and arts,, bureaucrats and people like spies, FBI, etc. Perhaps like the Shah's government in Iran, though I'm not an expert on Iranian history and its nuances.

    But, to be clear - chance of civil war is almost zero.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  86. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines…
     
    I don’t think “Red America” as such should accept that.
     
    The problem is that Red America is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining position. When one side holds all the aces and the other side holds no cards at all guess which side will get the best deal?

    What I wrote was that I prefer a civil separation to a civil strife.
     
    Of course civil separation would be preferable, although civil separation might well lead to a worse outcome. It would be a huge gamble. I don't imagine many people would want to take that gamble. How many people would seriously be willing to take the risks involved? 5% of the population? People will tell opinion pollsters that they like the idea of separation but when you explain the risks and the costs to them they'll lose interest real fast.


    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?
     
    They can be exchanged to one or more of the successor currencies. Obviously that will have to be worked out in the divorce, as in any divorce.
     
    The Red State Dollar might very quickly become about as valuable as Confederate Dollars. Remember that your enemies are not reasonable people. They will certainly try to destroy the value of your new currency, just as they will try to destroy your new economy.

    Also, who gets the nukes? I can really see Bluestan allowing Redstan to have nukes. Without nukes you do not have actual sovereignty.

    Replies: @AP

    The problem is that Red America is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining position. When one side holds all the aces and the other side holds no cards at all guess which side will get the best deal?

    Really? Red America has the land mass, the armed people, the police, the soldiers, the manufacturing and natural resources. Blue America has the money and arts,, bureaucrats and people like spies, FBI, etc. Perhaps like the Shah’s government in Iran, though I’m not an expert on Iranian history and its nuances.

    But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @AP


    Really? Red America has the land mass, the armed people, the police, the soldiers, the manufacturing and natural resources.
     
    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They're on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that's going to be the Blue side.

    But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero.
     
    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.

    Replies: @AP

  87. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Perhaps. But I’d rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn’t you?
     
    Yes, I would, now that you mention it.

    Winston Churchill is admittedly not my favorite person to quote, but he was correct when he said (I give this from memory), “Fifty years is the horizon.”

    In most instances, to plan for longer than 50 years is futile. You are right.

    I have read the rest of your answers and can add nothing to them. Others may prognosticate, but the future is murky to me. I can hardly guess what might happen next.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    I can hardly guess what might happen next.

    What will happen next is that Biden will be president. People will go back to watching football and comic-book movies, downloading porn, discussing celebrity gossip, uploading cute kitten pictures and worrying about paying the mortgage and wondering whether they remembered to feed the dog.

    As another commenter said recently, things just aren’t anywhere near bad enough for people to be seriously contemplating drastic solutions (like secession).

  88. @AP
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that Red America is unlikely to be in a strong bargaining position. When one side holds all the aces and the other side holds no cards at all guess which side will get the best deal?
     
    Really? Red America has the land mass, the armed people, the police, the soldiers, the manufacturing and natural resources. Blue America has the money and arts,, bureaucrats and people like spies, FBI, etc. Perhaps like the Shah's government in Iran, though I'm not an expert on Iranian history and its nuances.

    But, to be clear - chance of civil war is almost zero.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Really? Red America has the land mass, the armed people, the police, the soldiers, the manufacturing and natural resources.

    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They’re on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that’s going to be the Blue side.

    But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero.

    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.

    • Replies: @AP
    @dfordoom


    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They’re on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that’s going to be the Blue side.
     
    Such cynicism makes for good movie plots but it isn't realistic. Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors because they are financed by the side of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley.* Support for Trump is a decent indicator of who is on the side of the "Red" - and cops and soldiers are strongly on this side. Now FBI, CIA, Pentagon brass and other bureaucrats might be a different story. Per google, there are 680,000 police personnel in the USA but only 35,000 FBI agents. Troops aren't going to kill their own citizens. If it came down to civil war between the coastal bigwigs and the Feds they control versus the people, the former would end up on lampposts if they made orders and attempted to violently crush the regular people.

    "But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero."

    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.
     
    Also agree. Americans are not that desperate and there won't be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.

    *Also, it's not like the Red side is impoverished with no economic prospects. Iowa wouldn't pay as well as Wall Street but it isn't going to descend to a bankrupt dystopia simply because it's not in the same nation as Wall Street.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

  89. @Curle
    @iffen

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders. No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    Is anybody in the presumptive Biden administration not Jewish?

    I am glad that powerless, oppressed, vulnerable Holocaust survivors like the incoming U.S. secretaries of state, treasury and homeland security—not to mention the incoming White House chief of staff—will be adequately protected from vicious, dangerous persons like me who ask questions they don’t like.

    Fortunately, the presumptive incoming vice president at least is a Gentile. She’s only married to a Jew.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  90. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Giving people bread and circuses really does work.

    "badda bing, badda boom"

    Replies: @Talha

    This was a cornerstone behind Huxley’s “orgy-porgy” vision of the future, which, though Orwell’s gets a lot more attention, was far more precise, especially given the dawn of genetic modification.

    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole “no sex” thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Talha

    We will all be free as we let the chains of our desires pull us in whichever direction they wish...

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/En4b1rQXcAAN2WV.jpg

    , @dfordoom
    @Talha


    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole “no sex” thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.
     
    Agreed. Huxley's great insight was that soft totalitarianism would be infinitely more effective than hard totalitarianism.

    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children. And if we behave we'll be allowed to go to the orgy.

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @iffen
    @Talha

    Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    I have an expansive view of what qualifies as a circus.

  91. @Talha
    @iffen

    This was a cornerstone behind Huxley's "orgy-porgy" vision of the future, which, though Orwell's gets a lot more attention, was far more precise, especially given the dawn of genetic modification.

    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole "no sex" thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @iffen

    We will all be free as we let the chains of our desires pull us in whichever direction they wish…

    [MORE]

  92. @Twinkie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    It consists of one German Shepherd, two rifles and a revolver
     
    You don't have nearly enough dogs or guns. And how much ammo do you have? Ammo consumption is very low during peacetime and skyrockets once firing commences (and guns also wear out much faster than expected if used heavily and not gingerly cleaned and cared for as in peacetime). And don't forget lots of 22LR ammo for small game.

    On a far more serious note, do you have a reliable clean water supply and what kind of wilderness medical skills do you have? Have you at least some basic field medicine supplies, including Israeli bandages (for the said "commence firing" situations)?

    Replies: @unit472, @Buzz Mohawk, @Anonymous

    Oh, so NOW you know about Israeli bandages! SMDH 負け犬

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Anonymous


    Oh, so NOW you know about Israeli bandages!
     
    I’ve known about them for years: https://www.unz.com/isteve/never-say-diversity-is-good-for-nothing/#comment-2512461

    I have long guns, body armor, and a trauma kit (with lots of Israeli bandages) in my car
     
    This was a comment of mine from a couple of years ago.
  93. @dfordoom
    @AP


    Really? Red America has the land mass, the armed people, the police, the soldiers, the manufacturing and natural resources.
     
    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They're on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that's going to be the Blue side.

    But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero.
     
    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.

    Replies: @AP

    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They’re on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that’s going to be the Blue side.

    Such cynicism makes for good movie plots but it isn’t realistic. Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors because they are financed by the side of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley.* Support for Trump is a decent indicator of who is on the side of the “Red” – and cops and soldiers are strongly on this side. Now FBI, CIA, Pentagon brass and other bureaucrats might be a different story. Per google, there are 680,000 police personnel in the USA but only 35,000 FBI agents. Troops aren’t going to kill their own citizens. If it came down to civil war between the coastal bigwigs and the Feds they control versus the people, the former would end up on lampposts if they made orders and attempted to violently crush the regular people.

    “But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero.”

    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.

    Also agree. Americans are not that desperate and there won’t be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.

    *Also, it’s not like the Red side is impoverished with no economic prospects. Iowa wouldn’t pay as well as Wall Street but it isn’t going to descend to a bankrupt dystopia simply because it’s not in the same nation as Wall Street.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @AP

    I agree with much of what you wrote, but...


    Americans are not that desperate and there won’t be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.
     
    A catastrophe is not required for civil strife. In my view, civil disturbances and even strife, including armed resistance, become more likely, not so much when things are bad, but when there is a wide gap between a given population's expectations and the actual conditions.

    See Davies, James. C., "Toward a Theory of Revolution" (1962)

    See here a brief synopsis of Davies' idea of the J-curve: https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis


    The J-curve hypothesis was introduced in 1962 by American sociologist James C. Davies, who believed that social and political unrest was precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic development after a prolonged period of economic growth and improvement.

    According to Davies’s hypothesis, persistent economic growth and advance lead to the development of psychological expectations that conditions will continue to improve. When such expectations are suddenly thwarted, individuals experience an intolerable gap between what they have come to expect and the realities of their circumstances. At this point, individuals are most likely to engage in collective revolutionary activity.
     

    Here is another good summary: https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/16810-the-j-curve-understanding-revolution/

    In 1962, Davies presented his J-curve theory. He stated that revolutions are most likely to occur when periods of prolonged improvements concerning economic and social development are supplanted by a period of sharp reversal. He used evidence from the Dorr’s rebellion, the Russian revolution, and the Egyptian revolution to support his argument. According to Davies, the sharp reversal of development creates an intolerable gap between what people want and what they get.

    After a reversal of fortunes, people will subjectively fear that what they have earned will be lost, and thus their mood becomes revolutionary. Davies claims that political stability and instability are dependent on the mood of the society. In other words, poor people who are satisfied will not revolt, and rich people who are dissatisfied may revolt. What is important is their state of mind rather than how much goods they possess.

    Revolutions do not usually occur in impoverished societies. The reason is that when people are preoccupied with their physical survival, the community-sense and consensus on joint political actions goes down and thus also the likelihood for revolutions to occur. Even though physical deprivation is to some extent present at the onset of revolutions, it is seldom the primary cause.

    The main factor is rather the fear that ground gained over a time period will be quickly lost. Davies found evidence for this when studying three revolutions using John Stuart Mill’s method of difference. When employing this method the researcher collects cases of a particular phenomenon in an attempt to find common factors in these cases that are otherwise quite different.

    He thus chose three different cases, where revolts had occurred, and found the common explanatory variable to be the presence of a sharp reversal of fortunes after a period of prolonged growth. [Boldfaces mine.]
     

    Replies: @AP, @Audacious Epigone

    , @dfordoom
    @AP


    Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors
     
    If you do ever get a civil war then history teaches us that soldiers will and do turn their guns on their own people.

    And the soldiers and cops will be told that the people they are shooting are not fellow citizens but dangerous terrorists and Nazis who are threatening their families and the American Way Of Life.

    Whether soldiers actually will shoot their own people is always unpredictable. Depends on how effectively they're indoctrinated. But the lessons of history suggest that it would be very unwise to assume that they won't. A volunteer military is probably going to be much more willing to shoot its own citizens than a conscript army. Volunteer armies (and cops) develop an Us vs Them mentality. They don't see the people they're killing as being quite human. And soldiers are trained to overcome their inhibitions about shooting people.

    The problem is that cops and soldiers don't see themselves as coming from among the people. They see themselves as a breed apart. Maybe if you live in a small town you can rely on the local sheriff's deputies not to gun you down but don't count on it with state cops, city cops or the FBI.

    Replies: @AP

  94. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Perhaps. But I’d rather have 50 more years (hopefully longer than that) for my children and grandchildren. Wouldn’t you?
     
    Yes, I would, now that you mention it.

    Winston Churchill is admittedly not my favorite person to quote, but he was correct when he said (I give this from memory), “Fifty years is the horizon.”

    In most instances, to plan for longer than 50 years is futile. You are right.

    I have read the rest of your answers and can add nothing to them. Others may prognosticate, but the future is murky to me. I can hardly guess what might happen next.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    In most instances, to plan for longer than 50 years is futile… Others may prognosticate, but the future is murky to me. I can hardly guess what might happen next.

    Agreed!

    You’ll often find me on AE’s blog cautioning others that only God knows the future. I go even as far to say (repeatedly) that people who claim to be able to predict the future are crazy or are fools or are selling something (or some combination thereof – people can be complex and have mixed motives).

    History is quite stochastic in my view and historical developments are contingent on many different, at times seemingly insignificant, variables. So my motto is, “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.”

    Also, I think we all expect (or at least hope) most people to care about the world they will leave to their children and grandchildren, but beyond that horizon is too much to ask of ordinary people. I think only the most extraordinary think beyond those years, and such people are more likely to be, well, “a little off.” 😉

  95. @Johann Ricke
    @unit472


    Unless you have an organized military force, ammo requirements are minimal. Any exchange of gunfire is going to be short and you will prevail or you won’t. Most likely the latter unless you are the aggressor since they get to determine the time and terms of the engagement. The idea that you and yours are going to be in a sustained combat situation where hundreds of rounds are exchanged is fantasy.
     
    The thing about gunfights is distance, which spoils your aim and cover, which conceals and potentially blocks the ordnance flying around. The following gunfight occurred at point-blank range, during a traffic stop:

    https://americanhandgunner.com/the-ayoob-files/the-lessons-of-tim-gramins/

    In less than 1 minute, about a hundred rounds were exchanged. At greater distances, the likelihood is that the both defender and attacker miss, and the attacker goes off looking for easier prey, much as predators in the wild will skirmish, then go their separate ways. Nature doesn't host animal clinics at predictable intervals. Similarly, where anarchy rules, readily available critical care doctors will be as scarce as hen's teeth. Even if an attacker wins, rubs out all the defenders, but is wounded himself, he might end up dead. And a victorious defender will likely shoot, shovel and shtum rather than take a wounded attacker to a doctor.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You are absolutely correct that in a serious firefight, many many rounds are usually expended with very few actual hits – even with trained shooters. And, again, as you point out, the ratio of misses goes up with distance enormously, almost exponentially. Relatively small, moving objects are quite difficult to hit even in the best of circumstances, when you add stress, adrenaline, blurred vision, heavy breathing, your own movements, etc. etc., accuracy drops substantially.

    I think what the other commenter might be thinking is a typical close-distance armed civilian encounter in the U.S. (including police officers), which, on average, ends with a handful of rounds fired, if that.

    But when you start thinking in terms of a “battle,” that is, group violence, even a minor one, that calculation changes drastically.

  96. @AP
    @dfordoom


    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They’re on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that’s going to be the Blue side.
     
    Such cynicism makes for good movie plots but it isn't realistic. Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors because they are financed by the side of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley.* Support for Trump is a decent indicator of who is on the side of the "Red" - and cops and soldiers are strongly on this side. Now FBI, CIA, Pentagon brass and other bureaucrats might be a different story. Per google, there are 680,000 police personnel in the USA but only 35,000 FBI agents. Troops aren't going to kill their own citizens. If it came down to civil war between the coastal bigwigs and the Feds they control versus the people, the former would end up on lampposts if they made orders and attempted to violently crush the regular people.

    "But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero."

    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.
     
    Also agree. Americans are not that desperate and there won't be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.

    *Also, it's not like the Red side is impoverished with no economic prospects. Iowa wouldn't pay as well as Wall Street but it isn't going to descend to a bankrupt dystopia simply because it's not in the same nation as Wall Street.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    I agree with much of what you wrote, but…

    Americans are not that desperate and there won’t be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.

    A catastrophe is not required for civil strife. In my view, civil disturbances and even strife, including armed resistance, become more likely, not so much when things are bad, but when there is a wide gap between a given population’s expectations and the actual conditions.

    See Davies, James. C., “Toward a Theory of Revolution” (1962)

    See here a brief synopsis of Davies’ idea of the J-curve: https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis

    The J-curve hypothesis was introduced in 1962 by American sociologist James C. Davies, who believed that social and political unrest was precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic development after a prolonged period of economic growth and improvement.

    According to Davies’s hypothesis, persistent economic growth and advance lead to the development of psychological expectations that conditions will continue to improve. When such expectations are suddenly thwarted, individuals experience an intolerable gap between what they have come to expect and the realities of their circumstances. At this point, individuals are most likely to engage in collective revolutionary activity.

    Here is another good summary: https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/16810-the-j-curve-understanding-revolution/

    In 1962, Davies presented his J-curve theory. He stated that revolutions are most likely to occur when periods of prolonged improvements concerning economic and social development are supplanted by a period of sharp reversal. He used evidence from the Dorr’s rebellion, the Russian revolution, and the Egyptian revolution to support his argument. According to Davies, the sharp reversal of development creates an intolerable gap between what people want and what they get.

    After a reversal of fortunes, people will subjectively fear that what they have earned will be lost, and thus their mood becomes revolutionary. Davies claims that political stability and instability are dependent on the mood of the society. In other words, poor people who are satisfied will not revolt, and rich people who are dissatisfied may revolt. What is important is their state of mind rather than how much goods they possess.

    Revolutions do not usually occur in impoverished societies. The reason is that when people are preoccupied with their physical survival, the community-sense and consensus on joint political actions goes down and thus also the likelihood for revolutions to occur. Even though physical deprivation is to some extent present at the onset of revolutions, it is seldom the primary cause.

    The main factor is rather the fear that ground gained over a time period will be quickly lost. Davies found evidence for this when studying three revolutions using John Stuart Mill’s method of difference. When employing this method the researcher collects cases of a particular phenomenon in an attempt to find common factors in these cases that are otherwise quite different.

    He thus chose three different cases, where revolts had occurred, and found the common explanatory variable to be the presence of a sharp reversal of fortunes after a period of prolonged growth. [Boldfaces mine.]

    • Thanks: AP
    • Replies: @AP
    @Twinkie

    Good points. Indeed, the race riots in American cities occurred in the late sixties, after significant civil rights gains. So decline and disappointment could lead to unrest. OTOH, a factor I did not mention is gage - typically there need to be a lot of frustrated young people. Frustrated old or late middle-aged people don't seem to drive many riots.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Thanks. That provides a great buttressing of my intuition that a severe drop in the value of the dollar will be the impetus for political dissolution. It will lead to a sharp decline in the American standard of living.

  97. @Talha
    @iffen

    This was a cornerstone behind Huxley's "orgy-porgy" vision of the future, which, though Orwell's gets a lot more attention, was far more precise, especially given the dawn of genetic modification.

    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole "no sex" thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @iffen

    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole “no sex” thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    Agreed. Huxley’s great insight was that soft totalitarianism would be infinitely more effective than hard totalitarianism.

    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children. And if we behave we’ll be allowed to go to the orgy.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom

    What I also found interesting is that Huxley’s vision seemed far more stable; I don’t recall mentions of wars or strife nor do I recall soldiers either.

    What’s more, it doesn’t try to control everyone necessarily. There are “human reservations” where marginalized human beings that live and procreate normally are isolated from the rest of functional society that the urbanized elites visit almost like we visit zoos. They are not a threat because they have been made irrelevant and obsolete and left alone.

    Peace.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children.
     
    Right as usual, but wrong about the forever.

    Few novel institutions and practices last even 30 years, much less 100; and those that do last usually change beyond recognition. @Twinkie advises us that history is stochastic. In this, I believe that @Twinkie is right.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  98. @AP
    @dfordoom


    You really think the police and the military will be the side of Red America? They’re on the side that is most likely to pay their pensions, and that’s going to be the Blue side.
     
    Such cynicism makes for good movie plots but it isn't realistic. Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors because they are financed by the side of Goldman Sachs and Silicon Valley.* Support for Trump is a decent indicator of who is on the side of the "Red" - and cops and soldiers are strongly on this side. Now FBI, CIA, Pentagon brass and other bureaucrats might be a different story. Per google, there are 680,000 police personnel in the USA but only 35,000 FBI agents. Troops aren't going to kill their own citizens. If it came down to civil war between the coastal bigwigs and the Feds they control versus the people, the former would end up on lampposts if they made orders and attempted to violently crush the regular people.

    "But, to be clear – chance of civil war is almost zero."

    Agreed. And the chance of secession is almost zero.
     
    Also agree. Americans are not that desperate and there won't be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.

    *Also, it's not like the Red side is impoverished with no economic prospects. Iowa wouldn't pay as well as Wall Street but it isn't going to descend to a bankrupt dystopia simply because it's not in the same nation as Wall Street.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors

    If you do ever get a civil war then history teaches us that soldiers will and do turn their guns on their own people.

    And the soldiers and cops will be told that the people they are shooting are not fellow citizens but dangerous terrorists and Nazis who are threatening their families and the American Way Of Life.

    Whether soldiers actually will shoot their own people is always unpredictable. Depends on how effectively they’re indoctrinated. But the lessons of history suggest that it would be very unwise to assume that they won’t. A volunteer military is probably going to be much more willing to shoot its own citizens than a conscript army. Volunteer armies (and cops) develop an Us vs Them mentality. They don’t see the people they’re killing as being quite human. And soldiers are trained to overcome their inhibitions about shooting people.

    The problem is that cops and soldiers don’t see themselves as coming from among the people. They see themselves as a breed apart. Maybe if you live in a small town you can rely on the local sheriff’s deputies not to gun you down but don’t count on it with state cops, city cops or the FBI.

    • Replies: @AP
    @dfordoom


    If you do ever get a civil war then history teaches us that soldiers will and do turn their guns on their own people.
     
    Not really. Southern soldiers weren’t shooting southerners and union soldiers weren’t killing their own people either. In the Russian Civil war, a crucial role was played by Latvians against Russians. Among Russians, it was urban factory workers (generally coerced) versus rural folks and aristocrats.

    American soldiers and police for the most part come from Red America. They aren’t going to turn their guns on Red America.


    And the soldiers and cops will be told that the people they are shooting are not fellow citizens but dangerous terrorists and Nazis who are threatening their families and the American Way Of Life.
     
    Most of these people, like the rest of Red America, have learned to tune out leftist media lies. As evidenced by voting patterns in this election.

    The problem is that cops and soldiers don’t see themselves as coming from among the people. They see themselves as a breed apart. Maybe if you live in a small town you can rely on the local sheriff’s deputies not to gun you down but don’t count on it with state cops, city cops or the FBI
     
    If this were true, cops and soldiers would have supported Biden. It seems the FBI did given its pervasive anti-Trump shenanigans , but not most of the others. Team Blue was strongly pro-Trump. The Army and Marines donated to Trump. Navy seems to have supported Biden more. So coastal elites supported by 35,000 FBI, and sailors - vs. the inhabitants of the vast land mass supported by 680,000 cops, and the country’s soldiers. A lopsided battle if it came down to it.

    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different - they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  99. @Talha
    @iffen

    This was a cornerstone behind Huxley's "orgy-porgy" vision of the future, which, though Orwell's gets a lot more attention, was far more precise, especially given the dawn of genetic modification.

    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole "no sex" thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @iffen

    Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.

    I have an expansive view of what qualifies as a circus.

  100. @Curle
    @iffen

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders. No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @iffen

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders.

    No, anti is usually the problem.

    As far as ingroup/outgroup, that is not the problem per se, the question (problem) is how one defines the groups and the importance attached to the various group memberships.

    No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    Only if you are unaware of the history of Jews. Also, if your group identification precludes seeing your country go neo-Nazi, then one is concerned with overt anti-Semitism.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Only if you are unaware of the history of Jews. Also, if your group identification precludes seeing your country go neo-Nazi, then one is concerned with overt anti-Semitism.
     
    I don't know why people are so outraged that Jews react badly to Holocaust Denial. How do they think American blacks would react to claims that slavery was just a hoax and that it never happened? How do they think Americans would react if people started claiming that Pearl Harbor was just a hoax and that the Americans sank the USS Arizona themselves?

    Jews have certainly used the Holocaust to advance their interests (and in particular to justify outrageous behaviour by Israel), and blacks have used slavery to advance their interests. But Jews do have valid reasons to fear antisemitism. Sometimes that fear tips over into paranoia but the fear itself is understandable (especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd). Just as blacks would have valid reason to be worried if there were people suggesting that maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to revive slavery.

    Christians in Rome would probably have been pretty outraged if the pagans had started claiming that persecution of Christians never happened.

    Certain groups of people do have certain issues that, quite understandably, do provoke strong reactions.

    Replies: @iffen

  101. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Curle

    Is anybody in the presumptive Biden administration not Jewish?

    I am glad that powerless, oppressed, vulnerable Holocaust survivors like the incoming U.S. secretaries of state, treasury and homeland security—not to mention the incoming White House chief of staff—will be adequately protected from vicious, dangerous persons like me who ask questions they don't like.

    Fortunately, the presumptive incoming vice president at least is a Gentile. She's only married to a Jew.

    Replies: @iffen

    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?
     
    Come to think of it, probably not. Élite Jews do have their uses.

    However, Jewry are not just some arbitrary ethny like, say, Cubans, Koreans or Amish, each of which has their pros and cons and whom one just takes as they come. Jews are different.

    The more that Jews

       * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,
       * dominate U.S. communications and media,
       * produce and promote pornography,
       * pollute and pervert my children's public-school curricula,
       * infiltrate and abuse district attorneys' and attorney generals' posts nationwide,
       * slander Germans,
       * attribute their own mob history to Sicilians,
       * pose alternately as white or as effectively nonwhite as suits their interests or harms ours,
       * take over and ruin once-great American institutions live Harvard University,
       * loot the U.S. treasury,
       * derange U.S. jurisprudence,
       * protect blacks who prey on white Gentiles,
       * prosecute blacks who prey on Jews,
       * agitate, cajole and maneuver to send my brave son to die in some godforsaken war for Israel, and
       * persecute Gentiles for questioning Jewish narratives,

    the more determined I shall be to name the Jew as a Jew—for I can't really do anything else.

    (Please note that I have never said that no Gentiles are guilty of any of the aforementioned crimes. However, the pattern is clear and overwhelming if one just looks.)

    I was a philo-Semite most of my life, but didn't take kindly to the destruction of David Irving or the outrageous abuse of criminal and civil law at Charlottesville, so I have changed. In my opinion, you should change, too.

    Replies: @iffen, @Talha, @dfordoom

  102. @Corvinus
    @V. K. Ovelund

    "Nonsense. Typical, politically correct balderdash."

    The nonsense is you making a preposterous claim in the first place. Had you said "Whites like myself don't want blacks around" or "A good deal of whites I know don't want blacks around", then your statement has more credibility.

    "Maybe you’ll even decide to live in the same ZIP code with them for once. They should appreciate you for that. Good luck, and remember to deadbolt your apartment after sundown."

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood and surrounding environs. No trouble in the least. We did have a murder last year in my neck of the woods, and that was a white dude who killed another white dude over drug money.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Cloudbuster

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood

    Seven? Out of how many? Dare I guess that your neighborhood does not resemble a typical inner city black neighborhood? If you can actually count the black families, it doesn’t

    My guess is that you follow John Derbyshire’s advice in The Talk: Nonblack Version both in general and in the specific entry:

    (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Cloudbuster

    I’ve already had “the talk” back in my youth. The fact is that blacks aren’t as bad as he or you say they are.

  103. @dfordoom
    @AP


    Cops and soldiers come from among the people and are not going to crush their families and neighbors
     
    If you do ever get a civil war then history teaches us that soldiers will and do turn their guns on their own people.

    And the soldiers and cops will be told that the people they are shooting are not fellow citizens but dangerous terrorists and Nazis who are threatening their families and the American Way Of Life.

    Whether soldiers actually will shoot their own people is always unpredictable. Depends on how effectively they're indoctrinated. But the lessons of history suggest that it would be very unwise to assume that they won't. A volunteer military is probably going to be much more willing to shoot its own citizens than a conscript army. Volunteer armies (and cops) develop an Us vs Them mentality. They don't see the people they're killing as being quite human. And soldiers are trained to overcome their inhibitions about shooting people.

    The problem is that cops and soldiers don't see themselves as coming from among the people. They see themselves as a breed apart. Maybe if you live in a small town you can rely on the local sheriff's deputies not to gun you down but don't count on it with state cops, city cops or the FBI.

    Replies: @AP

    If you do ever get a civil war then history teaches us that soldiers will and do turn their guns on their own people.

    Not really. Southern soldiers weren’t shooting southerners and union soldiers weren’t killing their own people either. In the Russian Civil war, a crucial role was played by Latvians against Russians. Among Russians, it was urban factory workers (generally coerced) versus rural folks and aristocrats.

    American soldiers and police for the most part come from Red America. They aren’t going to turn their guns on Red America.

    And the soldiers and cops will be told that the people they are shooting are not fellow citizens but dangerous terrorists and Nazis who are threatening their families and the American Way Of Life.

    Most of these people, like the rest of Red America, have learned to tune out leftist media lies. As evidenced by voting patterns in this election.

    The problem is that cops and soldiers don’t see themselves as coming from among the people. They see themselves as a breed apart. Maybe if you live in a small town you can rely on the local sheriff’s deputies not to gun you down but don’t count on it with state cops, city cops or the FBI

    If this were true, cops and soldiers would have supported Biden. It seems the FBI did given its pervasive anti-Trump shenanigans , but not most of the others. Team Blue was strongly pro-Trump. The Army and Marines donated to Trump. Navy seems to have supported Biden more. So coastal elites supported by 35,000 FBI, and sailors – vs. the inhabitants of the vast land mass supported by 680,000 cops, and the country’s soldiers. A lopsided battle if it came down to it.

    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different – they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @AP


    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different – they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.
     
    I want to believe this, but what happened at Charlottesville?

    Replies: @AP, @Audacious Epigone

  104. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole “no sex” thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.
     
    Agreed. Huxley's great insight was that soft totalitarianism would be infinitely more effective than hard totalitarianism.

    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children. And if we behave we'll be allowed to go to the orgy.

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    What I also found interesting is that Huxley’s vision seemed far more stable; I don’t recall mentions of wars or strife nor do I recall soldiers either.

    What’s more, it doesn’t try to control everyone necessarily. There are “human reservations” where marginalized human beings that live and procreate normally are isolated from the rest of functional society that the urbanized elites visit almost like we visit zoos. They are not a threat because they have been made irrelevant and obsolete and left alone.

    Peace.

  105. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?

    Come to think of it, probably not. Élite Jews do have their uses.

    However, Jewry are not just some arbitrary ethny like, say, Cubans, Koreans or Amish, each of which has their pros and cons and whom one just takes as they come. Jews are different.

    The more that Jews

       * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,
       * dominate U.S. communications and media,
       * produce and promote pornography,
       * pollute and pervert my children’s public-school curricula,
       * infiltrate and abuse district attorneys’ and attorney generals’ posts nationwide,
       * slander Germans,
       * attribute their own mob history to Sicilians,
       * pose alternately as white or as effectively nonwhite as suits their interests or harms ours,
       * take over and ruin once-great American institutions live Harvard University,
       * loot the U.S. treasury,
       * derange U.S. jurisprudence,
       * protect blacks who prey on white Gentiles,
       * prosecute blacks who prey on Jews,
       * agitate, cajole and maneuver to send my brave son to die in some godforsaken war for Israel, and
       * persecute Gentiles for questioning Jewish narratives,

    the more determined I shall be to name the Jew as a Jew—for I can’t really do anything else.

    (Please note that I have never said that no Gentiles are guilty of any of the aforementioned crimes. However, the pattern is clear and overwhelming if one just looks.)

    I was a philo-Semite most of my life, but didn’t take kindly to the destruction of David Irving or the outrageous abuse of criminal and civil law at Charlottesville, so I have changed. In my opinion, you should change, too.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In my opinion, you should change, too.

    We should agree to disagree.

    I could go point by point, but I don't see the point of that endeavor.

    I just note some obvious and easy ones.

    David Irving self-destructed. He brought the suit against Lipstadt.

    * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,

    This is double edged.

    If you are not a victim these days, you are a nobody so they are just playing a card.

    Secondly, building and pushing the Holocaust industry gives employment to mediocrities like Lipstadt and it signals that the Jews are not afraid to push their own interests.


    * dominate U.S. communications and media,

    How's the destruction that they wield worse than that imposed by the woke Gentile media?

    * produce and promote pornography,

    This just naturally flows to whomever is dominate in the media per your previous assertion.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund


    produce and promote pornography
     
    For this particular problem in society, I would recommend Cap’n Crunch Berries as a solution.

    I don’t consume porn, but I do consume Cap’n Crunch Berries...I can only assume there is a correlation.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    dominate U.S. communications and media,
     
    The problem with the media is not Jews. The problem with the media is the very nature of mass media itself. It's inherently dangerous and destructive regardless of who is running it. That's even more the case with social media which is inherently evil.

    The media is also heavily dominated by the LGBT crowd. They're arguably a much bigger danger than Jews.

    The problem with the elites in general is again not Jews. The problem is the very nature of elites. Elite Jews are not a problem because they're Jewish, they'e a problem because they're elites. The real problem of tribalism is the tribalism of the elites. The elites see themselves as the Chosen People, whether they happen to be Jew or gentile and regardless of colour or race.

    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism. It's one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual. It's far better to focus on mobilising hostility to the elites in general.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  106. @AP
    @dfordoom


    If you do ever get a civil war then history teaches us that soldiers will and do turn their guns on their own people.
     
    Not really. Southern soldiers weren’t shooting southerners and union soldiers weren’t killing their own people either. In the Russian Civil war, a crucial role was played by Latvians against Russians. Among Russians, it was urban factory workers (generally coerced) versus rural folks and aristocrats.

    American soldiers and police for the most part come from Red America. They aren’t going to turn their guns on Red America.


    And the soldiers and cops will be told that the people they are shooting are not fellow citizens but dangerous terrorists and Nazis who are threatening their families and the American Way Of Life.
     
    Most of these people, like the rest of Red America, have learned to tune out leftist media lies. As evidenced by voting patterns in this election.

    The problem is that cops and soldiers don’t see themselves as coming from among the people. They see themselves as a breed apart. Maybe if you live in a small town you can rely on the local sheriff’s deputies not to gun you down but don’t count on it with state cops, city cops or the FBI
     
    If this were true, cops and soldiers would have supported Biden. It seems the FBI did given its pervasive anti-Trump shenanigans , but not most of the others. Team Blue was strongly pro-Trump. The Army and Marines donated to Trump. Navy seems to have supported Biden more. So coastal elites supported by 35,000 FBI, and sailors - vs. the inhabitants of the vast land mass supported by 680,000 cops, and the country’s soldiers. A lopsided battle if it came down to it.

    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different - they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different – they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.

    I want to believe this, but what happened at Charlottesville?

    • Replies: @AP
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Could you elaborate please?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    The police in leftwing areas may be less leftist than the average denizen of those places, but they are not nationally representative. Rightwing public protests in leftwing strongholds is a bad idea. Do leftists ever protest in rightwing areas? The one place that comes to mind is Lancashire PA, and the civil unrest there was shutdown immediately when the county came down like a ton of bricks on the rioters.

  107. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    While Orwell had some good insights, the whole “no sex” thing seemed preposterous to me. Letting people distract themselves with sex and making it the yardstick by which freedom is measured is a far, far more brilliant and efficient scheme.
     
    Agreed. Huxley's great insight was that soft totalitarianism would be infinitely more effective than hard totalitarianism.

    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children. And if we behave we'll be allowed to go to the orgy.

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children.

    Right as usual, but wrong about the forever.

    Few novel institutions and practices last even 30 years, much less 100; and those that do last usually change beyond recognition. advises us that history is stochastic. In this, I believe that is right.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Few novel institutions and practices last even 30 years, much less 100; and those that do last usually change beyond recognition. @Twinkie advises us that history is stochastic. In this, I believe that @Twinkie is right.
     
    That's true enough. Politics and society do not remain static. Sometimes things get better. Sometimes things get worse. Sometimes things fall apart.

    The only real hope for positive change would be a complete collapse, either economic or political, of the US. That might happen but it would take decades.

    Of course it depends on how many wars Joe Biden starts. I'm expecting that the answer to that will be - lots. Stand by for lots of regime change projects. Regime change in Russia and China will be on the agenda.

    Within a couple of years we'll all start getting nostalgic for the Obama Era!
  108. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?
     
    Come to think of it, probably not. Élite Jews do have their uses.

    However, Jewry are not just some arbitrary ethny like, say, Cubans, Koreans or Amish, each of which has their pros and cons and whom one just takes as they come. Jews are different.

    The more that Jews

       * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,
       * dominate U.S. communications and media,
       * produce and promote pornography,
       * pollute and pervert my children's public-school curricula,
       * infiltrate and abuse district attorneys' and attorney generals' posts nationwide,
       * slander Germans,
       * attribute their own mob history to Sicilians,
       * pose alternately as white or as effectively nonwhite as suits their interests or harms ours,
       * take over and ruin once-great American institutions live Harvard University,
       * loot the U.S. treasury,
       * derange U.S. jurisprudence,
       * protect blacks who prey on white Gentiles,
       * prosecute blacks who prey on Jews,
       * agitate, cajole and maneuver to send my brave son to die in some godforsaken war for Israel, and
       * persecute Gentiles for questioning Jewish narratives,

    the more determined I shall be to name the Jew as a Jew—for I can't really do anything else.

    (Please note that I have never said that no Gentiles are guilty of any of the aforementioned crimes. However, the pattern is clear and overwhelming if one just looks.)

    I was a philo-Semite most of my life, but didn't take kindly to the destruction of David Irving or the outrageous abuse of criminal and civil law at Charlottesville, so I have changed. In my opinion, you should change, too.

    Replies: @iffen, @Talha, @dfordoom

    In my opinion, you should change, too.

    We should agree to disagree.

    I could go point by point, but I don’t see the point of that endeavor.

    I just note some obvious and easy ones.

    David Irving self-destructed. He brought the suit against Lipstadt.

    * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,

    This is double edged.

    If you are not a victim these days, you are a nobody so they are just playing a card.

    Secondly, building and pushing the Holocaust industry gives employment to mediocrities like Lipstadt and it signals that the Jews are not afraid to push their own interests.


    * dominate U.S. communications and media,

    How’s the destruction that they wield worse than that imposed by the woke Gentile media?

    * produce and promote pornography,

    This just naturally flows to whomever is dominate in the media per your previous assertion.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    I could go point by point, but I don’t see the point of that endeavor.
     
    Your brevity sets a better example than mine.

    I notice that you have bolded this:


    David Irving self-destructed. He brought the suit against Lipstadt.
     
    To ask you to watch an hourlong video of Irving's rebuttal would be unreasonable, nor is the Irving in the video wholly unimpeachable. Nonetheless, I can give no better response than the response Irving himself has given: for reference, here it is.

    Even if you lack time to watch the video, please observe that the video has been cancelled by Jewish-operated Youtube, restricting its circulation, as one assumes, by a factor of 20 or 50. Meanwhile, anti-Irving videos remain easy to find.

    This is not fair play and it indicates the flavor of the whole affair.

    Anyway, even if Irving did self-destruct in England as you say, he did not self-arrest in Austria; nor have I heard an adequate response to Irving's complaint that English police raided his home, seized his files (files representing many years of work, from which he had meant to write more books), and accidentally let the files be destroyed.

    No matter how the facts are arranged, what was done to Irving is wrong.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  109. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?
     
    Come to think of it, probably not. Élite Jews do have their uses.

    However, Jewry are not just some arbitrary ethny like, say, Cubans, Koreans or Amish, each of which has their pros and cons and whom one just takes as they come. Jews are different.

    The more that Jews

       * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,
       * dominate U.S. communications and media,
       * produce and promote pornography,
       * pollute and pervert my children's public-school curricula,
       * infiltrate and abuse district attorneys' and attorney generals' posts nationwide,
       * slander Germans,
       * attribute their own mob history to Sicilians,
       * pose alternately as white or as effectively nonwhite as suits their interests or harms ours,
       * take over and ruin once-great American institutions live Harvard University,
       * loot the U.S. treasury,
       * derange U.S. jurisprudence,
       * protect blacks who prey on white Gentiles,
       * prosecute blacks who prey on Jews,
       * agitate, cajole and maneuver to send my brave son to die in some godforsaken war for Israel, and
       * persecute Gentiles for questioning Jewish narratives,

    the more determined I shall be to name the Jew as a Jew—for I can't really do anything else.

    (Please note that I have never said that no Gentiles are guilty of any of the aforementioned crimes. However, the pattern is clear and overwhelming if one just looks.)

    I was a philo-Semite most of my life, but didn't take kindly to the destruction of David Irving or the outrageous abuse of criminal and civil law at Charlottesville, so I have changed. In my opinion, you should change, too.

    Replies: @iffen, @Talha, @dfordoom

    produce and promote pornography

    For this particular problem in society, I would recommend Cap’n Crunch Berries as a solution.

    I don’t consume porn, but I do consume Cap’n Crunch Berries…I can only assume there is a correlation.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    High sugar diets create ED issues, too. Be careful!

    Replies: @Talha

  110. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    In my opinion, you should change, too.

    We should agree to disagree.

    I could go point by point, but I don't see the point of that endeavor.

    I just note some obvious and easy ones.

    David Irving self-destructed. He brought the suit against Lipstadt.

    * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,

    This is double edged.

    If you are not a victim these days, you are a nobody so they are just playing a card.

    Secondly, building and pushing the Holocaust industry gives employment to mediocrities like Lipstadt and it signals that the Jews are not afraid to push their own interests.


    * dominate U.S. communications and media,

    How's the destruction that they wield worse than that imposed by the woke Gentile media?

    * produce and promote pornography,

    This just naturally flows to whomever is dominate in the media per your previous assertion.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I could go point by point, but I don’t see the point of that endeavor.

    Your brevity sets a better example than mine.

    I notice that you have bolded this:

    David Irving self-destructed. He brought the suit against Lipstadt.

    To ask you to watch an hourlong video of Irving’s rebuttal would be unreasonable, nor is the Irving in the video wholly unimpeachable. Nonetheless, I can give no better response than the response Irving himself has given: for reference, here it is.

    Even if you lack time to watch the video, please observe that the video has been cancelled by Jewish-operated Youtube, restricting its circulation, as one assumes, by a factor of 20 or 50. Meanwhile, anti-Irving videos remain easy to find.

    This is not fair play and it indicates the flavor of the whole affair.

    Anyway, even if Irving did self-destruct in England as you say, he did not self-arrest in Austria; nor have I heard an adequate response to Irving’s complaint that English police raided his home, seized his files (files representing many years of work, from which he had meant to write more books), and accidentally let the files be destroyed.

    No matter how the facts are arranged, what was done to Irving is wrong.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    As I had a relative live near one of the extermination camps during WWII-you couldn't not know that something was up because the stench of the burning bodies extended for miles-I tend to have a dim opinion of Holocaust denial, but one of the side effects of 2020 has been to make me into a hardcore 1A (and 2A) fanatic.

    It's the difference between contempt and fear, I guess.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  111. @Twinkie
    @AP

    I agree with much of what you wrote, but...


    Americans are not that desperate and there won’t be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.
     
    A catastrophe is not required for civil strife. In my view, civil disturbances and even strife, including armed resistance, become more likely, not so much when things are bad, but when there is a wide gap between a given population's expectations and the actual conditions.

    See Davies, James. C., "Toward a Theory of Revolution" (1962)

    See here a brief synopsis of Davies' idea of the J-curve: https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis


    The J-curve hypothesis was introduced in 1962 by American sociologist James C. Davies, who believed that social and political unrest was precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic development after a prolonged period of economic growth and improvement.

    According to Davies’s hypothesis, persistent economic growth and advance lead to the development of psychological expectations that conditions will continue to improve. When such expectations are suddenly thwarted, individuals experience an intolerable gap between what they have come to expect and the realities of their circumstances. At this point, individuals are most likely to engage in collective revolutionary activity.
     

    Here is another good summary: https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/16810-the-j-curve-understanding-revolution/

    In 1962, Davies presented his J-curve theory. He stated that revolutions are most likely to occur when periods of prolonged improvements concerning economic and social development are supplanted by a period of sharp reversal. He used evidence from the Dorr’s rebellion, the Russian revolution, and the Egyptian revolution to support his argument. According to Davies, the sharp reversal of development creates an intolerable gap between what people want and what they get.

    After a reversal of fortunes, people will subjectively fear that what they have earned will be lost, and thus their mood becomes revolutionary. Davies claims that political stability and instability are dependent on the mood of the society. In other words, poor people who are satisfied will not revolt, and rich people who are dissatisfied may revolt. What is important is their state of mind rather than how much goods they possess.

    Revolutions do not usually occur in impoverished societies. The reason is that when people are preoccupied with their physical survival, the community-sense and consensus on joint political actions goes down and thus also the likelihood for revolutions to occur. Even though physical deprivation is to some extent present at the onset of revolutions, it is seldom the primary cause.

    The main factor is rather the fear that ground gained over a time period will be quickly lost. Davies found evidence for this when studying three revolutions using John Stuart Mill’s method of difference. When employing this method the researcher collects cases of a particular phenomenon in an attempt to find common factors in these cases that are otherwise quite different.

    He thus chose three different cases, where revolts had occurred, and found the common explanatory variable to be the presence of a sharp reversal of fortunes after a period of prolonged growth. [Boldfaces mine.]
     

    Replies: @AP, @Audacious Epigone

    Good points. Indeed, the race riots in American cities occurred in the late sixties, after significant civil rights gains. So decline and disappointment could lead to unrest. OTOH, a factor I did not mention is gage – typically there need to be a lot of frustrated young people. Frustrated old or late middle-aged people don’t seem to drive many riots.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @AP

    Radical politics is the refuge of the unsuccessful merchant: and the church of the unsuccessful intellectual.

  112. @V. K. Ovelund
    @AP


    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different – they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.
     
    I want to believe this, but what happened at Charlottesville?

    Replies: @AP, @Audacious Epigone

    Could you elaborate please?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @AP


    Could you elaborate please?
     
    Regrettably, I was not present at the Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, Va., August 11 and 12, 2017. Fake news media heavily, though incredibly mendaciously, covered the event at the time, so you undoubtedly heard about it then.

    The pseudonymous Charlottesville Survivor (who is not fake news media but just a regular guy who was there) explains as well as anyone does. Here is the brief report he filed August 12, 2017. From the report one can, if desired, further navigate to his later articles about the event and its aftermath.

    From time to time a reader at Unz will memorialize the name of James Alex Fields, Jr., still serving a life sentence in Virginia for a crime many here (including me) believe the court knew he did not commit. That has to do with the Unite the Right rally.

    Replies: @AaronB, @V. K. Ovelund

  113. @AP
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Could you elaborate please?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Could you elaborate please?

    Regrettably, I was not present at the Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, Va., August 11 and 12, 2017. Fake news media heavily, though incredibly mendaciously, covered the event at the time, so you undoubtedly heard about it then.

    The pseudonymous Charlottesville Survivor (who is not fake news media but just a regular guy who was there) explains as well as anyone does. Here is the brief report he filed August 12, 2017. From the report one can, if desired, further navigate to his later articles about the event and its aftermath.

    From time to time a reader at Unz will memorialize the name of James Alex Fields, Jr., still serving a life sentence in Virginia for a crime many here (including me) believe the court knew he did not commit. That has to do with the Unite the Right rally.

    • Troll: AaronB
    • Replies: @AaronB
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Troll button was pushed accidentally.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The pseudonymous Charlottesville Survivor (who is not fake news media but just a regular guy who was there) explains as well as anyone does....

    Troll: AaronB
     

    Aha! I hit close to home there, didn't I, @AaronB?

    Your tribe can't have it all its own way any longer. We're on to you now.

  114. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The future will not be a boot stamping on a human face forever. The future will be Nanny hovering over us forever, telling us to be good children.
     
    Right as usual, but wrong about the forever.

    Few novel institutions and practices last even 30 years, much less 100; and those that do last usually change beyond recognition. @Twinkie advises us that history is stochastic. In this, I believe that @Twinkie is right.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Few novel institutions and practices last even 30 years, much less 100; and those that do last usually change beyond recognition. advises us that history is stochastic. In this, I believe that is right.

    That’s true enough. Politics and society do not remain static. Sometimes things get better. Sometimes things get worse. Sometimes things fall apart.

    The only real hope for positive change would be a complete collapse, either economic or political, of the US. That might happen but it would take decades.

    Of course it depends on how many wars Joe Biden starts. I’m expecting that the answer to that will be – lots. Stand by for lots of regime change projects. Regime change in Russia and China will be on the agenda.

    Within a couple of years we’ll all start getting nostalgic for the Obama Era!

  115. @AP
    @Twinkie

    Good points. Indeed, the race riots in American cities occurred in the late sixties, after significant civil rights gains. So decline and disappointment could lead to unrest. OTOH, a factor I did not mention is gage - typically there need to be a lot of frustrated young people. Frustrated old or late middle-aged people don't seem to drive many riots.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Radical politics is the refuge of the unsuccessful merchant: and the church of the unsuccessful intellectual.

  116. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    Maybe you would like to have a Gypsy as Secretary of Treasury instead of a Jew?
     
    Come to think of it, probably not. Élite Jews do have their uses.

    However, Jewry are not just some arbitrary ethny like, say, Cubans, Koreans or Amish, each of which has their pros and cons and whom one just takes as they come. Jews are different.

    The more that Jews

       * portray themselves as helpless, aggrieved, innocent Holocaust survivors,
       * dominate U.S. communications and media,
       * produce and promote pornography,
       * pollute and pervert my children's public-school curricula,
       * infiltrate and abuse district attorneys' and attorney generals' posts nationwide,
       * slander Germans,
       * attribute their own mob history to Sicilians,
       * pose alternately as white or as effectively nonwhite as suits their interests or harms ours,
       * take over and ruin once-great American institutions live Harvard University,
       * loot the U.S. treasury,
       * derange U.S. jurisprudence,
       * protect blacks who prey on white Gentiles,
       * prosecute blacks who prey on Jews,
       * agitate, cajole and maneuver to send my brave son to die in some godforsaken war for Israel, and
       * persecute Gentiles for questioning Jewish narratives,

    the more determined I shall be to name the Jew as a Jew—for I can't really do anything else.

    (Please note that I have never said that no Gentiles are guilty of any of the aforementioned crimes. However, the pattern is clear and overwhelming if one just looks.)

    I was a philo-Semite most of my life, but didn't take kindly to the destruction of David Irving or the outrageous abuse of criminal and civil law at Charlottesville, so I have changed. In my opinion, you should change, too.

    Replies: @iffen, @Talha, @dfordoom

    dominate U.S. communications and media,

    The problem with the media is not Jews. The problem with the media is the very nature of mass media itself. It’s inherently dangerous and destructive regardless of who is running it. That’s even more the case with social media which is inherently evil.

    The media is also heavily dominated by the LGBT crowd. They’re arguably a much bigger danger than Jews.

    The problem with the elites in general is again not Jews. The problem is the very nature of elites. Elite Jews are not a problem because they’re Jewish, they’e a problem because they’re elites. The real problem of tribalism is the tribalism of the elites. The elites see themselves as the Chosen People, whether they happen to be Jew or gentile and regardless of colour or race.

    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism. It’s one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual. It’s far better to focus on mobilising hostility to the elites in general.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism.
     
    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution. I can say whatever I want, all day long, about “élites,” and no one cares. It's when I identify an élite as Jewish that the Eye of Sauron falls on me. There is a reason for that.

    Don't believe me? Then let X be an ethny's adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    There isn't a single value of X that would attract notice, but for its eccentricity, if you painted it on a ten-foot-tall sign—except one. Which one? Why is that?

    To the extent to which the élites do not consist of Jewish billionaires and their shabbos goyim, they are an ephemeral, incohesive abstraction. As a class, they don't exist.


    It’s one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual.
     
    I think that it's the nondissident right that has been ineffectual. They have taken your advice. I recommend a different approach.

    But I'll make you a deal: persuade the élites to let Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis out of prison, to clear their criminal records, to drop the Charlottesville lawsuits, and to give David Irving his house back, and I'll never mention Jews in public again.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  117. @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen


    I could go point by point, but I don’t see the point of that endeavor.
     
    Your brevity sets a better example than mine.

    I notice that you have bolded this:


    David Irving self-destructed. He brought the suit against Lipstadt.
     
    To ask you to watch an hourlong video of Irving's rebuttal would be unreasonable, nor is the Irving in the video wholly unimpeachable. Nonetheless, I can give no better response than the response Irving himself has given: for reference, here it is.

    Even if you lack time to watch the video, please observe that the video has been cancelled by Jewish-operated Youtube, restricting its circulation, as one assumes, by a factor of 20 or 50. Meanwhile, anti-Irving videos remain easy to find.

    This is not fair play and it indicates the flavor of the whole affair.

    Anyway, even if Irving did self-destruct in England as you say, he did not self-arrest in Austria; nor have I heard an adequate response to Irving's complaint that English police raided his home, seized his files (files representing many years of work, from which he had meant to write more books), and accidentally let the files be destroyed.

    No matter how the facts are arranged, what was done to Irving is wrong.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    As I had a relative live near one of the extermination camps during WWII-you couldn’t not know that something was up because the stench of the burning bodies extended for miles-I tend to have a dim opinion of Holocaust denial, but one of the side effects of 2020 has been to make me into a hardcore 1A (and 2A) fanatic.

    It’s the difference between contempt and fear, I guess.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox

    I have no reason to cast doubt on your tale.

    For what it's worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that's their problem). Rather, I have expressed a belief that you and I have been pervasively lied to about and viciously manipulated by the Holocaust; and I have said that I know numerous Germans, used to speak their language pretty well, and have even lived in their country for a couple of years—and have never witnessed a single German to behave as the Krauts do in the movies.

    I also believe that a lot of persons died as a result of the war, not only Jews.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

  118. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    dominate U.S. communications and media,
     
    The problem with the media is not Jews. The problem with the media is the very nature of mass media itself. It's inherently dangerous and destructive regardless of who is running it. That's even more the case with social media which is inherently evil.

    The media is also heavily dominated by the LGBT crowd. They're arguably a much bigger danger than Jews.

    The problem with the elites in general is again not Jews. The problem is the very nature of elites. Elite Jews are not a problem because they're Jewish, they'e a problem because they're elites. The real problem of tribalism is the tribalism of the elites. The elites see themselves as the Chosen People, whether they happen to be Jew or gentile and regardless of colour or race.

    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism. It's one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual. It's far better to focus on mobilising hostility to the elites in general.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism.

    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution. I can say whatever I want, all day long, about “élites,” and no one cares. It’s when I identify an élite as Jewish that the Eye of Sauron falls on me. There is a reason for that.

    Don’t believe me? Then let X be an ethny’s adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    There isn’t a single value of X that would attract notice, but for its eccentricity, if you painted it on a ten-foot-tall sign—except one. Which one? Why is that?

    [MORE]

    To the extent to which the élites do not consist of Jewish billionaires and their shabbos goyim, they are an ephemeral, incohesive abstraction. As a class, they don’t exist.

    It’s one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual.

    I think that it’s the nondissident right that has been ineffectual. They have taken your advice. I recommend a different approach.

    But I’ll make you a deal: persuade the élites to let Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis out of prison, to clear their criminal records, to drop the Charlottesville lawsuits, and to give David Irving his house back, and I’ll never mention Jews in public again.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @V. K. Ovelund

    I wrote:


    But I’ll make you a deal: persuade the élites to let Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis out of prison, to clear their criminal records, to drop the Charlottesville lawsuits, and to give David Irving his house back ...
     
    ... and to refrain from sending my sons to die in foreign wars ...

    ... and I’ll never mention Jews in public again.
     
    They can even keep the hundreds of billions of dollars they have looted from the U.S. treasury under cover of national emergency, with my compliments. I won't breathe a word.
    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution.
     
    Try saying something even vaguely unfavourable about homosexuals. And homosexuals wield immense power and influence.

    Don’t believe me? Then let X be an ethny’s adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”
     
    OK, try these sentences: “Homosexual élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  119. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism.
     
    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution. I can say whatever I want, all day long, about “élites,” and no one cares. It's when I identify an élite as Jewish that the Eye of Sauron falls on me. There is a reason for that.

    Don't believe me? Then let X be an ethny's adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    There isn't a single value of X that would attract notice, but for its eccentricity, if you painted it on a ten-foot-tall sign—except one. Which one? Why is that?

    To the extent to which the élites do not consist of Jewish billionaires and their shabbos goyim, they are an ephemeral, incohesive abstraction. As a class, they don't exist.


    It’s one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual.
     
    I think that it's the nondissident right that has been ineffectual. They have taken your advice. I recommend a different approach.

    But I'll make you a deal: persuade the élites to let Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis out of prison, to clear their criminal records, to drop the Charlottesville lawsuits, and to give David Irving his house back, and I'll never mention Jews in public again.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    I wrote:

    But I’ll make you a deal: persuade the élites to let Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis out of prison, to clear their criminal records, to drop the Charlottesville lawsuits, and to give David Irving his house back …

    … and to refrain from sending my sons to die in foreign wars …

    … and I’ll never mention Jews in public again.

    They can even keep the hundreds of billions of dollars they have looted from the U.S. treasury under cover of national emergency, with my compliments. I won’t breathe a word.

  120. @Anonymous
    @Twinkie

    Oh, so NOW you know about Israeli bandages! SMDH 負け犬

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Oh, so NOW you know about Israeli bandages!

    I’ve known about them for years: https://www.unz.com/isteve/never-say-diversity-is-good-for-nothing/#comment-2512461

    I have long guns, body armor, and a trauma kit (with lots of Israeli bandages) in my car

    This was a comment of mine from a couple of years ago.

  121. @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    As I had a relative live near one of the extermination camps during WWII-you couldn't not know that something was up because the stench of the burning bodies extended for miles-I tend to have a dim opinion of Holocaust denial, but one of the side effects of 2020 has been to make me into a hardcore 1A (and 2A) fanatic.

    It's the difference between contempt and fear, I guess.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I have no reason to cast doubt on your tale.

    For what it’s worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that’s their problem). Rather, I have expressed a belief that you and I have been pervasively lied to about and viciously manipulated by the Holocaust; and I have said that I know numerous Germans, used to speak their language pretty well, and have even lived in their country for a couple of years—and have never witnessed a single German to behave as the Krauts do in the movies.

    I also believe that a lot of persons died as a result of the war, not only Jews.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I also believe that a lot of persons died as a result of the war, not only Jews.
     
    Agreed. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of non-Jews as well as millions of Jews. In fact the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of non-Jewish Germans. The Nazis were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of white people.
    , @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    For what it’s worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that’s their problem).


    For now, my chief tack is to question the received Holocaust narrative. I do not know how much of that narrative is false (probably the majority of it, maybe almost all of it, but I am not sure);
     
    "What we've got here is failure to communicate" hat tip to Cool Hand Luke.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  122. @V. K. Ovelund
    @AP


    Could you elaborate please?
     
    Regrettably, I was not present at the Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, Va., August 11 and 12, 2017. Fake news media heavily, though incredibly mendaciously, covered the event at the time, so you undoubtedly heard about it then.

    The pseudonymous Charlottesville Survivor (who is not fake news media but just a regular guy who was there) explains as well as anyone does. Here is the brief report he filed August 12, 2017. From the report one can, if desired, further navigate to his later articles about the event and its aftermath.

    From time to time a reader at Unz will memorialize the name of James Alex Fields, Jr., still serving a life sentence in Virginia for a crime many here (including me) believe the court knew he did not commit. That has to do with the Unite the Right rally.

    Replies: @AaronB, @V. K. Ovelund

    Troll button was pushed accidentally.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @AaronB


    Troll button was pushed accidentally.
     
    I see.

    Notwithstanding, I overheated yesterday. Several respected commenters gently said so. It probably won't be the last time, for blog debates can be exciting; but yesterday I pushed it too far.

    At my age, I should know better, but apparently I don't.

    Replies: @AaronB

  123. @V. K. Ovelund
    @AP


    Could you elaborate please?
     
    Regrettably, I was not present at the Unite the Right rally, Charlottesville, Va., August 11 and 12, 2017. Fake news media heavily, though incredibly mendaciously, covered the event at the time, so you undoubtedly heard about it then.

    The pseudonymous Charlottesville Survivor (who is not fake news media but just a regular guy who was there) explains as well as anyone does. Here is the brief report he filed August 12, 2017. From the report one can, if desired, further navigate to his later articles about the event and its aftermath.

    From time to time a reader at Unz will memorialize the name of James Alex Fields, Jr., still serving a life sentence in Virginia for a crime many here (including me) believe the court knew he did not commit. That has to do with the Unite the Right rally.

    Replies: @AaronB, @V. K. Ovelund

    The pseudonymous Charlottesville Survivor (who is not fake news media but just a regular guy who was there) explains as well as anyone does….

    Troll: AaronB

    Aha! I hit close to home there, didn’t I, ?

    Your tribe can’t have it all its own way any longer. We’re on to you now.

  124. @Cloudbuster
    @Corvinus

    I have a decent number (7) of black families in my neighborhood

    Seven? Out of how many? Dare I guess that your neighborhood does not resemble a typical inner city black neighborhood? If you can actually count the black families, it doesn't

    My guess is that you follow John Derbyshire's advice in The Talk: Nonblack Version both in general and in the specific entry:

    (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    I’ve already had “the talk” back in my youth. The fact is that blacks aren’t as bad as he or you say they are.

  125. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Obsessing about the Jews just makes it easy for your arguments to be dismissed as antisemitism.
     
    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution. I can say whatever I want, all day long, about “élites,” and no one cares. It's when I identify an élite as Jewish that the Eye of Sauron falls on me. There is a reason for that.

    Don't believe me? Then let X be an ethny's adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    There isn't a single value of X that would attract notice, but for its eccentricity, if you painted it on a ten-foot-tall sign—except one. Which one? Why is that?

    To the extent to which the élites do not consist of Jewish billionaires and their shabbos goyim, they are an ephemeral, incohesive abstraction. As a class, they don't exist.


    It’s one of the reasons the dissident right has been so ineffectual.
     
    I think that it's the nondissident right that has been ineffectual. They have taken your advice. I recommend a different approach.

    But I'll make you a deal: persuade the élites to let Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis out of prison, to clear their criminal records, to drop the Charlottesville lawsuits, and to give David Irving his house back, and I'll never mention Jews in public again.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution.

    Try saying something even vaguely unfavourable about homosexuals. And homosexuals wield immense power and influence.

    Don’t believe me? Then let X be an ethny’s adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    OK, try these sentences: “Homosexual élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    OK, try these sentences: “Homosexual élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”
     
    I seem to have pressed my point too far. Your point is taken.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  126. @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox

    I have no reason to cast doubt on your tale.

    For what it's worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that's their problem). Rather, I have expressed a belief that you and I have been pervasively lied to about and viciously manipulated by the Holocaust; and I have said that I know numerous Germans, used to speak their language pretty well, and have even lived in their country for a couple of years—and have never witnessed a single German to behave as the Krauts do in the movies.

    I also believe that a lot of persons died as a result of the war, not only Jews.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    I also believe that a lot of persons died as a result of the war, not only Jews.

    Agreed. Hitler was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of non-Jews as well as millions of Jews. In fact the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of millions of non-Jewish Germans. The Nazis were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of white people.

  127. anonymous[598] • Disclaimer says:

    Strictly speaking, the US government’s legitimacy is crisis is not perpetual, just terminal. No state can recover from proof to a moral certainty of systematic interstate electoral fraud.

    And here’s your moral certainty:

    https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020

    A 1% chance that Biden’s freakish lumps of votes really came in without fraud. That near-miracle reinforces the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that CIA rigged the vote with exact knowledge of the numbers Biden needed.

    https://www.madcowprod.com/2020/11/15/short-history-election-fraud/

    If this were a Paki mourning Dad at his funeral, they would already be pink mist, double-tapped by CIA drone cowards under the ‘near-certainty’ criterion. But the perp is the Gina Haspel, DCI. She stole your election, overthrew your government just like you’re some banana republic peon.

    She’s sneering at you now, saying, Whadda you gonna do about it?

  128. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The Jews are the one real, identifiable, influential class about which one cannot speak, even in general terms, without suffering retribution.
     
    Try saying something even vaguely unfavourable about homosexuals. And homosexuals wield immense power and influence.

    Don’t believe me? Then let X be an ethny’s adjectival: French, Japanese, Bantu, whatever. Try these sentences: “Billionaire X élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”
     
    OK, try these sentences: “Homosexual élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    OK, try these sentences: “Homosexual élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”

    I seem to have pressed my point too far. Your point is taken.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You didn’t - at least not about pointing out the outsized influence of Jews in US politics, media, etc. That whole “What about the homosexuals?” is a diversion.

    Now, I don’t believe in Jewish conspiracies. I don’t see a Jew behind every wrong. I don’t believe there is a Jewish cabal behind things going wrong in this country. I do think, however, that Jews have overwhelmingly supported policies that have led to the current state of things in the US (clearly not for the better), and they certainly are extremely powerful. Don’t believe me? Just read the Jerusalem Post’s triumphal article: https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774


    when bearing in mind that Jews comprise just 2 percent of the US electorate.

    The reason for such intense scrutiny is the outsize contributions of Jewish donors to US political campaigns, with Jewish donors contributing a whopping 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party, Troy says.

    He also says the “megaphone effect” of the US’s Electoral College election system is particularly pronounced in some key swing states with large Jewish populations, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
     

    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.

    By the way, despite my best effort to retain some vestige of my own earlier philo-Semitism, Jews - including our very own resident “rightist” Jewish commenter, Jack D - seem determined to alienate me and turn me against them, with their arguments invariably ending with “racist” and “anti-Semite” thrown at me anytime I’m critical of Jews.

    See: https://www.unz.com/isteve/2020-in-a-nutmeg/#comment-4283671

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Yahya K.

  129. @Curle
    @Jay Fink

    “yet also has an obsessive hatred of boomers.“

    He can be forgiven. It’s Boomers who let themselves be duped into civic nationalism. I even remember feeling proud about guys like Romesh Ponnuru and thinking the Bushes were going to make a positive difference. God what a bunch of dupes we were.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It’s Boomers who let themselves be duped into civic nationalism.

    The “boomers” of 1861? 1898? 1917? 1942?

    • LOL: Twinkie
  130. @Jake
    @V. K. Ovelund

    1. That's as valid a question as asking: "Why should I vote for another Republican when eventually a Democrat will hold the office?'

    2. The Blues, like their forebears the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, will not peacefully agree to any separation because they intend to force us all to bow to Wokism.

    The general point at which you are getting is to lead us to see any separation as hopeless anyway, so accept Woke totalitariansim.

    3. Austin minus the craziest blacks and Jews and post-Christian WASPs and gays will lose nothing of value and gain a great deal in common sense.

    4. The great Neocon argument, which is also an argument of Western Leftism for Liberal Imperialism.

    5. What becomes of the Euro and the Yen?

    6. As many as are stupid enough to have such a thing happen accidentally.

    7. The French State remains because the Revolution won and spread terror to all corners - the pro-Revolutionists have retained full control ever since.

    8. Why? I think it says most that elite Quebecois were easily bribed.

    9. If the Left would ever agree to anything, then the division would start with states as a whole and then split some because there are geographic areas areas of a state that are one color while the sate as a whole is the other color. For example, southern western IL are Red, while Chicago and its environs are Blue. Southern and western IL go with KY, while Chicagoland goes with Detroit and Milwaukee and Madison.

    10. Liberal blacks will go Blue and conservative blacks will go Red.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Reg Cæsar

    2. The Blues, like their forebears the Jacobins and Bolsheviks, will not peacefully agree to any separation because they intend to force us all to bow to Wokism.

    All except themselves. The best way to end “wokism” may be to shove it down the throats of its adherents. Portland could be Ground Zero. Indeed, they may have started the process all by themselves.

    DC is about to go white-majority. Perfect excuse to repeal the 23rd Amendment. A small step, but it’s a start. As well as is pushing Puerto Rico onto the road to independence. Perhaps along with Hawaii.

  131. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    OK, try these sentences: “Homosexual élites are evil. They mean to enslave us all.”
     
    I seem to have pressed my point too far. Your point is taken.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You didn’t – at least not about pointing out the outsized influence of Jews in US politics, media, etc. That whole “What about the homosexuals?” is a diversion.

    Now, I don’t believe in Jewish conspiracies. I don’t see a Jew behind every wrong. I don’t believe there is a Jewish cabal behind things going wrong in this country. I do think, however, that Jews have overwhelmingly supported policies that have led to the current state of things in the US (clearly not for the better), and they certainly are extremely powerful. Don’t believe me? Just read the Jerusalem Post’s triumphal article: https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774

    when bearing in mind that Jews comprise just 2 percent of the US electorate.

    The reason for such intense scrutiny is the outsize contributions of Jewish donors to US political campaigns, with Jewish donors contributing a whopping 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party, Troy says.

    He also says the “megaphone effect” of the US’s Electoral College election system is particularly pronounced in some key swing states with large Jewish populations, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.

    By the way, despite my best effort to retain some vestige of my own earlier philo-Semitism, Jews – including our very own resident “rightist” Jewish commenter, Jack D – seem determined to alienate me and turn me against them, with their arguments invariably ending with “racist” and “anti-Semite” thrown at me anytime I’m critical of Jews.

    See: https://www.unz.com/isteve/2020-in-a-nutmeg/#comment-4283671

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.
     
    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks). Try saying something even mildly critical of homosexuals and you'll get stomped every bit as hard as if you'd said something mildly critical of Jews or blacks.

    That suggests to me that homosexuals have a lot of power. How they have achieved such power is a more controversial topic. They seem to exercise much of their power through their ability to influence or even control the culture (music, Hollywood, TV, the arts establishment, social media, etc).

    Also, political power isn't necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.

    And I'm not denying that Jews have plenty of power. I'm just pointing out that there are other groups with just as much power (even if the sources of that power are not the same).

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Yahya K.
    @Twinkie


    I got news for you. When I was growing up I was a philo-Semite. I bought into Jewish propaganda about themselves as “a light unto other nations.” Not only did my own study of history wake me up to the grotesque falseness of the said propaganda, so have behaviors of many Jews I have encountered since. Jews always told me that I should fear and loathe non-Jewish whites for their supposed racism, but in reality, what racism I have experienced in this country has been from the sacred blacks and Jews while non-Jewish whites I have encountered in my life have been decent, accepting, and guileless, by and large.
     
    My only experience with racism in the US was from (somewhat ironically but also somewhat unsurprising) a Jew. I have experienced xenophobia in other ways in the US, like being stopped at the airport for additional screening, but that was more impersonal and bureaucratic in nature.

    The first Jew I talked to in America was a proselytizing Orthodox Jew standing outside the university i'm attending. When I walked by his stall, he called on me and asked "where are you from" in a rather good-natured way (most people can't tell where i'm from as I have a somewhat unusual mixed-ancestry). When I told him I was from Egypt, his face quickly turned sour and he said in a hostile tone "Why are you here? Aern't there any good universities in Egypt?" (The AUDACITY!) Unfortunately, I did not have a ready comeback for that a-hole so I just turned around and left.

    But that negative experience was more of an outlier. My other experiences with Jews have mostly been positive/neutral. I have met maybe 7 Jews during my time here, about 6 of them were more secular - basically undistinguishable from gentile white - types who were friendly and interested when I told them I was Egyptian, and 1 is an orthodox Jew (he doesn't work during Jewish holidays, goes to an all-Jewish frat, and hangs an Israeli flag on the wall). Incidentally, the orthodox dude is currently in my group and we have been working on a project for the past 2 months, so I have gotten to know him well. We get along pretty well.

    As for blacks and whites and Asians, I have not experienced any racism from them. Whites and Asians tend to be indifferent when I tell them i'm from Egypt. Blacks get very excited and chummy for some reason.*

    *I was once eating at McDonalds in Fenway when a homeless black dude came to my table. He pointed to the pyramid-shaped Citgo sign outside the window and said "you see dat - that's power", then he walked away. (Lol!)

    http://www.smartsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Kenmore.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  132. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You didn’t - at least not about pointing out the outsized influence of Jews in US politics, media, etc. That whole “What about the homosexuals?” is a diversion.

    Now, I don’t believe in Jewish conspiracies. I don’t see a Jew behind every wrong. I don’t believe there is a Jewish cabal behind things going wrong in this country. I do think, however, that Jews have overwhelmingly supported policies that have led to the current state of things in the US (clearly not for the better), and they certainly are extremely powerful. Don’t believe me? Just read the Jerusalem Post’s triumphal article: https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774


    when bearing in mind that Jews comprise just 2 percent of the US electorate.

    The reason for such intense scrutiny is the outsize contributions of Jewish donors to US political campaigns, with Jewish donors contributing a whopping 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party, Troy says.

    He also says the “megaphone effect” of the US’s Electoral College election system is particularly pronounced in some key swing states with large Jewish populations, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
     

    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.

    By the way, despite my best effort to retain some vestige of my own earlier philo-Semitism, Jews - including our very own resident “rightist” Jewish commenter, Jack D - seem determined to alienate me and turn me against them, with their arguments invariably ending with “racist” and “anti-Semite” thrown at me anytime I’m critical of Jews.

    See: https://www.unz.com/isteve/2020-in-a-nutmeg/#comment-4283671

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Yahya K.

    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.

    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks). Try saying something even mildly critical of homosexuals and you’ll get stomped every bit as hard as if you’d said something mildly critical of Jews or blacks.

    That suggests to me that homosexuals have a lot of power. How they have achieved such power is a more controversial topic. They seem to exercise much of their power through their ability to influence or even control the culture (music, Hollywood, TV, the arts establishment, social media, etc).

    Also, political power isn’t necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.

    And I’m not denying that Jews have plenty of power. I’m just pointing out that there are other groups with just as much power (even if the sources of that power are not the same).

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).
     
    What is your evidence for that comparison?

    Also, political power isn’t necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.
     
    What do you mean by "plenty"?

    Although money sometimes can't buy votes (e.g. see the last US Senate election for Maine), it always buys a tremendous amount of political influence.

    Blacks have political power to the extent that they exert an outsized role in determining Democratic presidential candidates, in part due to the primary schedule. But when it comes down to it, they don't have nearly the same kind of influence and power as Jews do. How many Jewish members are there in the U.S. Senate currently? Eight. How many blacks? Two and a half, and soon to be two. And remember that blacks outnumber Jews by more than six-to-one in population in the U.S. And what about homosexual senators? Two (one lesbian and one female bi-sexual). This means that Jews are more than 24 times better represented, per capita, in that august body of the country that is supposed to be the ruling patricians of the nation.

    And among the donor class? You saw the numbers I quoted earlier: 50% of donations to the Democratic Party and 25% of donations to the Republican Party. That's a lot of money and a lot of influence - dollar for dollar and man-for-man, unmatched by any demographic slice in the U.S.

    Is it any wonder that we have this giant Holocaust Museum in the center* of the capital of the country when Americans didn't perpetrate the Holocaust and Americans weren't victims of it either and none of it happened on American soil (all we did was to defeat the perpetrators and liberate the victims, an effort for which there is already a museum... in New Orleans, far far away from the center of the nation)? And that's only one of dozens of Holocaust museums in the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums_in_the_United_States). That alone should tell you who the really important people are in the country - not the millions who served this nation in that titanic war, not the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in it, but the people whose suffering was neither perpetrated by Americans, nor suffered by the same, nor even occurred in America, the people whose co-ethnics are only two percent of the population here.

    *Adjacent to the National Mall. And where is the U.S. National Slavery Museum? Right, it was an "unfunded proposal" that "went nowhere": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Slavery_Museum

    And those poor, poor Armenians... still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

  133. @brabantian
    Regarding that 'better way' AE suggest above, one of the US secession strategy maps around, focusing on 19 more-certainly 'red' states whose voters reliably support 'traditional' America

    https://i.ibb.co/z8xfKQF/US-secession-strategy-map.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Neuday, @Achmed E. Newman, @anon, @A123, @Hibernian

    Iowa belongs in the blue category. Indiana is redder than Iowa. Missouri might be a little questionable too; they came close to going for Obama in’08.

  134. @AaronB
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Troll button was pushed accidentally.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Troll button was pushed accidentally.

    I see.

    Notwithstanding, I overheated yesterday. Several respected commenters gently said so. It probably won’t be the last time, for blog debates can be exciting; but yesterday I pushed it too far.

    At my age, I should know better, but apparently I don’t.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @V. K. Ovelund

    No worries. I enjoy your comments and spirited debate is good.

  135. @V. K. Ovelund
    @nebulafox

    I have no reason to cast doubt on your tale.

    For what it's worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that's their problem). Rather, I have expressed a belief that you and I have been pervasively lied to about and viciously manipulated by the Holocaust; and I have said that I know numerous Germans, used to speak their language pretty well, and have even lived in their country for a couple of years—and have never witnessed a single German to behave as the Krauts do in the movies.

    I also believe that a lot of persons died as a result of the war, not only Jews.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    For what it’s worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that’s their problem).

    For now, my chief tack is to question the received Holocaust narrative. I do not know how much of that narrative is false (probably the majority of it, maybe almost all of it, but I am not sure);

    “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate” hat tip to Cool Hand Luke.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @iffen

    I have raised the temperature too high. Blog debates are fun up to a point, but beyond that point they become personal. I may have strayed past that point yesterday.

    If there is a specific question you wish me to answer, I will try to answer it, but otherwise I should let the matter rest.

  136. @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    For what it’s worth, I have not denied the Holocaust (though if someone thinks that I have, that’s their problem).


    For now, my chief tack is to question the received Holocaust narrative. I do not know how much of that narrative is false (probably the majority of it, maybe almost all of it, but I am not sure);
     
    "What we've got here is failure to communicate" hat tip to Cool Hand Luke.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I have raised the temperature too high. Blog debates are fun up to a point, but beyond that point they become personal. I may have strayed past that point yesterday.

    If there is a specific question you wish me to answer, I will try to answer it, but otherwise I should let the matter rest.

  137. @iffen
    @Curle

    Anti-anythingism isn’t a problem per se as every group is likely to favor insiders to outsiders to the disadvantage to the outsiders.

    No, anti is usually the problem.

    As far as ingroup/outgroup, that is not the problem per se, the question (problem) is how one defines the groups and the importance attached to the various group memberships.

    No reason the system should protect Jews more than others.

    Only if you are unaware of the history of Jews. Also, if your group identification precludes seeing your country go neo-Nazi, then one is concerned with overt anti-Semitism.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Only if you are unaware of the history of Jews. Also, if your group identification precludes seeing your country go neo-Nazi, then one is concerned with overt anti-Semitism.

    I don’t know why people are so outraged that Jews react badly to Holocaust Denial. How do they think American blacks would react to claims that slavery was just a hoax and that it never happened? How do they think Americans would react if people started claiming that Pearl Harbor was just a hoax and that the Americans sank the USS Arizona themselves?

    Jews have certainly used the Holocaust to advance their interests (and in particular to justify outrageous behaviour by Israel), and blacks have used slavery to advance their interests. But Jews do have valid reasons to fear antisemitism. Sometimes that fear tips over into paranoia but the fear itself is understandable (especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd). Just as blacks would have valid reason to be worried if there were people suggesting that maybe it wouldn’t be a bad thing to revive slavery.

    Christians in Rome would probably have been pretty outraged if the pagans had started claiming that persecution of Christians never happened.

    Certain groups of people do have certain issues that, quite understandably, do provoke strong reactions.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    It is a bit confusing to me to see commenters here, who are obviously not dummies, being sucked up into that bubble.

    Replies: @Talha

  138. @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Only if you are unaware of the history of Jews. Also, if your group identification precludes seeing your country go neo-Nazi, then one is concerned with overt anti-Semitism.
     
    I don't know why people are so outraged that Jews react badly to Holocaust Denial. How do they think American blacks would react to claims that slavery was just a hoax and that it never happened? How do they think Americans would react if people started claiming that Pearl Harbor was just a hoax and that the Americans sank the USS Arizona themselves?

    Jews have certainly used the Holocaust to advance their interests (and in particular to justify outrageous behaviour by Israel), and blacks have used slavery to advance their interests. But Jews do have valid reasons to fear antisemitism. Sometimes that fear tips over into paranoia but the fear itself is understandable (especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd). Just as blacks would have valid reason to be worried if there were people suggesting that maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to revive slavery.

    Christians in Rome would probably have been pretty outraged if the pagans had started claiming that persecution of Christians never happened.

    Certain groups of people do have certain issues that, quite understandably, do provoke strong reactions.

    Replies: @iffen

    It is a bit confusing to me to see commenters here, who are obviously not dummies, being sucked up into that bubble.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    It's the internet...hang around here long enough and maybe you start talking about lizard people and stuff.


    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd
     
    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those - or go spelunking down the rabbit hole to see where Daesh hangs out. I am even careful not to click on just any link that some people post here on UNZ when the target location looks to be funky. If you want to end up on a list of "citizens of concern" - one of the easiest ways is to frequent those sites.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

  139. @V. K. Ovelund
    @AaronB


    Troll button was pushed accidentally.
     
    I see.

    Notwithstanding, I overheated yesterday. Several respected commenters gently said so. It probably won't be the last time, for blog debates can be exciting; but yesterday I pushed it too far.

    At my age, I should know better, but apparently I don't.

    Replies: @AaronB

    No worries. I enjoy your comments and spirited debate is good.

  140. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    It is a bit confusing to me to see commenters here, who are obviously not dummies, being sucked up into that bubble.

    Replies: @Talha

    It’s the internet…hang around here long enough and maybe you start talking about lizard people and stuff.

    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd

    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those – or go spelunking down the rabbit hole to see where Daesh hangs out. I am even careful not to click on just any link that some people post here on UNZ when the target location looks to be funky. If you want to end up on a list of “citizens of concern” – one of the easiest ways is to frequent those sites.

    Peace.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Talha

    hang around here long enough

    And you might even buy into the paranoia and get afraid of using a mouse.

    , @dfordoom
    @Talha



    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd
     
    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those
     
    If you venture outside the handful of moderated blogs on UR (AE's, Sailer's, Karlin's) you'll find lots of them right here at UR. Not just Holocaust Deniers but genuine unreconstructed Hitler fanboys.

    If you go to any dissident right site, unless comments are strictly moderated you'll find that the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd has a significant presence.

    One of the weaknesses of the dissident right is its unwillingness to admit that it really does attract some actual Nazis. And some actual hate-filled antisemites. It also attracts some people who really are knuckle-dragging racists, and some people who really do hate women, and some people who would like to deport all non-whites (even those whose families have been in the US for generations). And it attracts a proportion of people who appear to be unmedicated schizophrenics. These people might be a small minority of the dissident right but they are noisy and they attract attention and there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    Of course this is a problem for any political movement. The Left back in the 60s and 70s attracted a proportion of Trotskyists, Maoists and would-be (and even actual) urban terrorists. And those people did the Left a lot of damage.

    Denying that the problem exists doesn't really help.

    I don't consider myself to be a philosemite. I'm quite hostile to Israel and I'm quite strongly pro-Palestinian. I agree with those who think that some Jews wield the Holocaust as a weapon to advance their interests and to justify some ghastly Israeli policies. But the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd (including those who comment regularly at UR) really does appal me and some of the rabid antisemites (including those who comment regularly at UR) really do appal me.

    And it amazes me that so many people here cannot understand that Jews do have reason to be sensitive about antisemitism. Just as it amazes me when some people here suggest that everything is the fault of women and that women should have the right to vote taken away from them and then get all surprised when people like Rosie react negatively to those suggestions.

    Replies: @iffen

  141. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.
     
    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks). Try saying something even mildly critical of homosexuals and you'll get stomped every bit as hard as if you'd said something mildly critical of Jews or blacks.

    That suggests to me that homosexuals have a lot of power. How they have achieved such power is a more controversial topic. They seem to exercise much of their power through their ability to influence or even control the culture (music, Hollywood, TV, the arts establishment, social media, etc).

    Also, political power isn't necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.

    And I'm not denying that Jews have plenty of power. I'm just pointing out that there are other groups with just as much power (even if the sources of that power are not the same).

    Replies: @Twinkie

    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).

    What is your evidence for that comparison?

    Also, political power isn’t necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.

    What do you mean by “plenty”?

    Although money sometimes can’t buy votes (e.g. see the last US Senate election for Maine), it always buys a tremendous amount of political influence.

    Blacks have political power to the extent that they exert an outsized role in determining Democratic presidential candidates, in part due to the primary schedule. But when it comes down to it, they don’t have nearly the same kind of influence and power as Jews do. How many Jewish members are there in the U.S. Senate currently? Eight. How many blacks? Two and a half, and soon to be two. And remember that blacks outnumber Jews by more than six-to-one in population in the U.S. And what about homosexual senators? Two (one lesbian and one female bi-sexual). This means that Jews are more than 24 times better represented, per capita, in that august body of the country that is supposed to be the ruling patricians of the nation.

    And among the donor class? You saw the numbers I quoted earlier: 50% of donations to the Democratic Party and 25% of donations to the Republican Party. That’s a lot of money and a lot of influence – dollar for dollar and man-for-man, unmatched by any demographic slice in the U.S.

    Is it any wonder that we have this giant Holocaust Museum in the center* of the capital of the country when Americans didn’t perpetrate the Holocaust and Americans weren’t victims of it either and none of it happened on American soil (all we did was to defeat the perpetrators and liberate the victims, an effort for which there is already a museum… in New Orleans, far far away from the center of the nation)? And that’s only one of dozens of Holocaust museums in the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums_in_the_United_States). That alone should tell you who the really important people are in the country – not the millions who served this nation in that titanic war, not the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in it, but the people whose suffering was neither perpetrated by Americans, nor suffered by the same, nor even occurred in America, the people whose co-ethnics are only two percent of the population here.

    *Adjacent to the National Mall. And where is the U.S. National Slavery Museum? Right, it was an “unfunded proposal” that “went nowhere”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Slavery_Museum

    And those poor, poor Armenians… still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    And those poor, poor Armenians… still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    It's that damn all powerful Turkish lobby (with a little help from the Azeris) that keep blocking it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).
     
    What is your evidence for that comparison?
     
    Point me to some stories in the mainstream media that are even mildly critical of homosexuality. Point me to some public figures who have voiced opinions even mildly critical of homosexuality without having their careers trashed, or at least without finding themselves marginalised.

    Try organising a Heterosexual Pride March and see what the reaction will be.

    I don't disagree with you about the disproportionate power and influence of Jews in the US. I just think that homosexuals are, in effective terms, at least as much of a protected class as Jews or blacks. Maybe even more so.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  142. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).
     
    What is your evidence for that comparison?

    Also, political power isn’t necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.
     
    What do you mean by "plenty"?

    Although money sometimes can't buy votes (e.g. see the last US Senate election for Maine), it always buys a tremendous amount of political influence.

    Blacks have political power to the extent that they exert an outsized role in determining Democratic presidential candidates, in part due to the primary schedule. But when it comes down to it, they don't have nearly the same kind of influence and power as Jews do. How many Jewish members are there in the U.S. Senate currently? Eight. How many blacks? Two and a half, and soon to be two. And remember that blacks outnumber Jews by more than six-to-one in population in the U.S. And what about homosexual senators? Two (one lesbian and one female bi-sexual). This means that Jews are more than 24 times better represented, per capita, in that august body of the country that is supposed to be the ruling patricians of the nation.

    And among the donor class? You saw the numbers I quoted earlier: 50% of donations to the Democratic Party and 25% of donations to the Republican Party. That's a lot of money and a lot of influence - dollar for dollar and man-for-man, unmatched by any demographic slice in the U.S.

    Is it any wonder that we have this giant Holocaust Museum in the center* of the capital of the country when Americans didn't perpetrate the Holocaust and Americans weren't victims of it either and none of it happened on American soil (all we did was to defeat the perpetrators and liberate the victims, an effort for which there is already a museum... in New Orleans, far far away from the center of the nation)? And that's only one of dozens of Holocaust museums in the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums_in_the_United_States). That alone should tell you who the really important people are in the country - not the millions who served this nation in that titanic war, not the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in it, but the people whose suffering was neither perpetrated by Americans, nor suffered by the same, nor even occurred in America, the people whose co-ethnics are only two percent of the population here.

    *Adjacent to the National Mall. And where is the U.S. National Slavery Museum? Right, it was an "unfunded proposal" that "went nowhere": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Slavery_Museum

    And those poor, poor Armenians... still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    And those poor, poor Armenians… still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    It’s that damn all powerful Turkish lobby (with a little help from the Azeris) that keep blocking it.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @iffen


    It’s that damn all powerful Turkish lobby (with a little help from the Azeris) that keep blocking it.
     
    Funny enough, Turkey was a de facto ally of Israel until about 10 years or so ago, and Israel did considerable military-industrial business with Turkey. (Turkey has recognized Israel since 1949.)

    Replies: @iffen

  143. @Talha
    @iffen

    It's the internet...hang around here long enough and maybe you start talking about lizard people and stuff.


    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd
     
    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those - or go spelunking down the rabbit hole to see where Daesh hangs out. I am even careful not to click on just any link that some people post here on UNZ when the target location looks to be funky. If you want to end up on a list of "citizens of concern" - one of the easiest ways is to frequent those sites.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    hang around here long enough

    And you might even buy into the paranoia and get afraid of using a mouse.

    • LOL: Talha
  144. Yahya K. says:
    @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    You didn’t - at least not about pointing out the outsized influence of Jews in US politics, media, etc. That whole “What about the homosexuals?” is a diversion.

    Now, I don’t believe in Jewish conspiracies. I don’t see a Jew behind every wrong. I don’t believe there is a Jewish cabal behind things going wrong in this country. I do think, however, that Jews have overwhelmingly supported policies that have led to the current state of things in the US (clearly not for the better), and they certainly are extremely powerful. Don’t believe me? Just read the Jerusalem Post’s triumphal article: https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-of-all-donations-to-the-Democratic-party-468774


    when bearing in mind that Jews comprise just 2 percent of the US electorate.

    The reason for such intense scrutiny is the outsize contributions of Jewish donors to US political campaigns, with Jewish donors contributing a whopping 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party, Troy says.

    He also says the “megaphone effect” of the US’s Electoral College election system is particularly pronounced in some key swing states with large Jewish populations, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
     

    I seriously doubt homosexuals (esp. when excluding Jewish ones) provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party.

    By the way, despite my best effort to retain some vestige of my own earlier philo-Semitism, Jews - including our very own resident “rightist” Jewish commenter, Jack D - seem determined to alienate me and turn me against them, with their arguments invariably ending with “racist” and “anti-Semite” thrown at me anytime I’m critical of Jews.

    See: https://www.unz.com/isteve/2020-in-a-nutmeg/#comment-4283671

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Yahya K.

    I got news for you. When I was growing up I was a philo-Semite. I bought into Jewish propaganda about themselves as “a light unto other nations.” Not only did my own study of history wake me up to the grotesque falseness of the said propaganda, so have behaviors of many Jews I have encountered since. Jews always told me that I should fear and loathe non-Jewish whites for their supposed racism, but in reality, what racism I have experienced in this country has been from the sacred blacks and Jews while non-Jewish whites I have encountered in my life have been decent, accepting, and guileless, by and large.

    My only experience with racism in the US was from (somewhat ironically but also somewhat unsurprising) a Jew. I have experienced xenophobia in other ways in the US, like being stopped at the airport for additional screening, but that was more impersonal and bureaucratic in nature.

    The first Jew I talked to in America was a proselytizing Orthodox Jew standing outside the university i’m attending. When I walked by his stall, he called on me and asked “where are you from” in a rather good-natured way (most people can’t tell where i’m from as I have a somewhat unusual mixed-ancestry). When I told him I was from Egypt, his face quickly turned sour and he said in a hostile tone “Why are you here? Aern’t there any good universities in Egypt?” (The AUDACITY!) Unfortunately, I did not have a ready comeback for that a-hole so I just turned around and left.

    But that negative experience was more of an outlier. My other experiences with Jews have mostly been positive/neutral. I have met maybe 7 Jews during my time here, about 6 of them were more secular – basically undistinguishable from gentile white – types who were friendly and interested when I told them I was Egyptian, and 1 is an orthodox Jew (he doesn’t work during Jewish holidays, goes to an all-Jewish frat, and hangs an Israeli flag on the wall). Incidentally, the orthodox dude is currently in my group and we have been working on a project for the past 2 months, so I have gotten to know him well. We get along pretty well.

    As for blacks and whites and Asians, I have not experienced any racism from them. Whites and Asians tend to be indifferent when I tell them i’m from Egypt. Blacks get very excited and chummy for some reason.*

    *I was once eating at McDonalds in Fenway when a homeless black dude came to my table. He pointed to the pyramid-shaped Citgo sign outside the window and said “you see dat – that’s power”, then he walked away. (Lol!)

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Yahya K.


    But that negative experience was more of an outlier. My other experiences with Jews have mostly been positive/neutral. I have met maybe 7 Jews during my time here, about 6 of them were more secular – basically undistinguishable from gentile white – types who were friendly and interested when I told them I was Egyptian, and 1 is an orthodox Jew (he doesn’t work during Jewish holidays, goes to an all-Jewish frat, and hangs an Israeli flag on the wall). Incidentally, the orthodox dude is currently in my group and we have been working on a project for the past 2 months, so I have gotten to know him well. We get along pretty well.
     
    My experience resembles yours, except that I have met many more than 7 Jews. At one time or another, to one degree or another, I have made the acquaintance of hundreds, mostly with good results. In a few cases, with markedly good results.

    A couple of days ago, I got caught beating the proverbial dead horse here, so I shall avoid repeating that mistake for now; but even I can acknowledge a positive side to Jewish-Gentile relations—not because that fits my abstract concept of the world but because it accords with everyday experience.

    By the way, that I should have met so many more Jews than you have is not unusual, nor does it make me worldlier or wiser. It just depends on where one lives.

    Replies: @iffen

  145. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    And those poor, poor Armenians… still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    It's that damn all powerful Turkish lobby (with a little help from the Azeris) that keep blocking it.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    It’s that damn all powerful Turkish lobby (with a little help from the Azeris) that keep blocking it.

    Funny enough, Turkey was a de facto ally of Israel until about 10 years or so ago, and Israel did considerable military-industrial business with Turkey. (Turkey has recognized Israel since 1949.)

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Twinkie

    I assume that most Jews would be in a protective mode concerning the "brand name" of genocide. Much like blacks and the woke make the nonsensical claim that only whites can be racist. It's pure who/whom politics; nothing complicated.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  146. @Yahya K.
    @Twinkie


    I got news for you. When I was growing up I was a philo-Semite. I bought into Jewish propaganda about themselves as “a light unto other nations.” Not only did my own study of history wake me up to the grotesque falseness of the said propaganda, so have behaviors of many Jews I have encountered since. Jews always told me that I should fear and loathe non-Jewish whites for their supposed racism, but in reality, what racism I have experienced in this country has been from the sacred blacks and Jews while non-Jewish whites I have encountered in my life have been decent, accepting, and guileless, by and large.
     
    My only experience with racism in the US was from (somewhat ironically but also somewhat unsurprising) a Jew. I have experienced xenophobia in other ways in the US, like being stopped at the airport for additional screening, but that was more impersonal and bureaucratic in nature.

    The first Jew I talked to in America was a proselytizing Orthodox Jew standing outside the university i'm attending. When I walked by his stall, he called on me and asked "where are you from" in a rather good-natured way (most people can't tell where i'm from as I have a somewhat unusual mixed-ancestry). When I told him I was from Egypt, his face quickly turned sour and he said in a hostile tone "Why are you here? Aern't there any good universities in Egypt?" (The AUDACITY!) Unfortunately, I did not have a ready comeback for that a-hole so I just turned around and left.

    But that negative experience was more of an outlier. My other experiences with Jews have mostly been positive/neutral. I have met maybe 7 Jews during my time here, about 6 of them were more secular - basically undistinguishable from gentile white - types who were friendly and interested when I told them I was Egyptian, and 1 is an orthodox Jew (he doesn't work during Jewish holidays, goes to an all-Jewish frat, and hangs an Israeli flag on the wall). Incidentally, the orthodox dude is currently in my group and we have been working on a project for the past 2 months, so I have gotten to know him well. We get along pretty well.

    As for blacks and whites and Asians, I have not experienced any racism from them. Whites and Asians tend to be indifferent when I tell them i'm from Egypt. Blacks get very excited and chummy for some reason.*

    *I was once eating at McDonalds in Fenway when a homeless black dude came to my table. He pointed to the pyramid-shaped Citgo sign outside the window and said "you see dat - that's power", then he walked away. (Lol!)

    http://www.smartsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Kenmore.jpg

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    But that negative experience was more of an outlier. My other experiences with Jews have mostly been positive/neutral. I have met maybe 7 Jews during my time here, about 6 of them were more secular – basically undistinguishable from gentile white – types who were friendly and interested when I told them I was Egyptian, and 1 is an orthodox Jew (he doesn’t work during Jewish holidays, goes to an all-Jewish frat, and hangs an Israeli flag on the wall). Incidentally, the orthodox dude is currently in my group and we have been working on a project for the past 2 months, so I have gotten to know him well. We get along pretty well.

    My experience resembles yours, except that I have met many more than 7 Jews. At one time or another, to one degree or another, I have made the acquaintance of hundreds, mostly with good results. In a few cases, with markedly good results.

    A couple of days ago, I got caught beating the proverbial dead horse here, so I shall avoid repeating that mistake for now; but even I can acknowledge a positive side to Jewish-Gentile relations—not because that fits my abstract concept of the world but because it accords with everyday experience.

    By the way, that I should have met so many more Jews than you have is not unusual, nor does it make me worldlier or wiser. It just depends on where one lives.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @V. K. Ovelund

    It just depends on where one lives.

    I have only talked to one Jew in my life; 40 years ago in the military. If it wasn't for TUR I wouldn't even know such people exist.

  147. @Twinkie
    @iffen


    It’s that damn all powerful Turkish lobby (with a little help from the Azeris) that keep blocking it.
     
    Funny enough, Turkey was a de facto ally of Israel until about 10 years or so ago, and Israel did considerable military-industrial business with Turkey. (Turkey has recognized Israel since 1949.)

    Replies: @iffen

    I assume that most Jews would be in a protective mode concerning the “brand name” of genocide. Much like blacks and the woke make the nonsensical claim that only whites can be racist. It’s pure who/whom politics; nothing complicated.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @iffen

    Other genocides have happened. But those people *move on*. They get understandably irritated if people deny they happened for political reasons, like the Turkish government does with the Armenian genocide, and they have their memorials if they can get away with it. But that's it. Present day concerns are what motivates people. It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    Even the Israelis, whose state is in large part a direct outcome of the Holocaust, don't seem to have it on their minds as much as their American co-ethnics. They understand that the world has changed beyond recognition and behave accordingly. In fact, with the brief exception of the Eichmann trial in the early 1960s and maybe some latent motivation over stuff like the nuclear project in the 1950s or the argument over West German money or Nasser threatening to drive them into the sea, it rarely seems to have been a factor in political consciousness at all, certainly not nowadays when the WWII generation is dying off.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

  148. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Yahya K.


    But that negative experience was more of an outlier. My other experiences with Jews have mostly been positive/neutral. I have met maybe 7 Jews during my time here, about 6 of them were more secular – basically undistinguishable from gentile white – types who were friendly and interested when I told them I was Egyptian, and 1 is an orthodox Jew (he doesn’t work during Jewish holidays, goes to an all-Jewish frat, and hangs an Israeli flag on the wall). Incidentally, the orthodox dude is currently in my group and we have been working on a project for the past 2 months, so I have gotten to know him well. We get along pretty well.
     
    My experience resembles yours, except that I have met many more than 7 Jews. At one time or another, to one degree or another, I have made the acquaintance of hundreds, mostly with good results. In a few cases, with markedly good results.

    A couple of days ago, I got caught beating the proverbial dead horse here, so I shall avoid repeating that mistake for now; but even I can acknowledge a positive side to Jewish-Gentile relations—not because that fits my abstract concept of the world but because it accords with everyday experience.

    By the way, that I should have met so many more Jews than you have is not unusual, nor does it make me worldlier or wiser. It just depends on where one lives.

    Replies: @iffen

    It just depends on where one lives.

    I have only talked to one Jew in my life; 40 years ago in the military. If it wasn’t for TUR I wouldn’t even know such people exist.

    • LOL: Talha
  149. Regarding the crisis of legitimacy, I think that it is a good thing given that many of the institutions are detrimental to the polity’s well-being. This is a major change in my thinking from some years ago. I would have reflexively said that trust in our institutions was a good thing and should be encouraged.

  150. @iffen
    @Twinkie

    I assume that most Jews would be in a protective mode concerning the "brand name" of genocide. Much like blacks and the woke make the nonsensical claim that only whites can be racist. It's pure who/whom politics; nothing complicated.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Other genocides have happened. But those people *move on*. They get understandably irritated if people deny they happened for political reasons, like the Turkish government does with the Armenian genocide, and they have their memorials if they can get away with it. But that’s it. Present day concerns are what motivates people. It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    Even the Israelis, whose state is in large part a direct outcome of the Holocaust, don’t seem to have it on their minds as much as their American co-ethnics. They understand that the world has changed beyond recognition and behave accordingly. In fact, with the brief exception of the Eichmann trial in the early 1960s and maybe some latent motivation over stuff like the nuclear project in the 1950s or the argument over West German money or Nasser threatening to drive them into the sea, it rarely seems to have been a factor in political consciousness at all, certainly not nowadays when the WWII generation is dying off.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    Other genocides have happened. But those people *move on*.
     
    Eventually. I used to know a Scottish-Australian guy. If you mentioned Culloden to him it was like a red rag to a bull. He was born more than two hundred years after Culloden. And the events that followed Culluden were bad but not exactly in the same league as the Holocaust.

    My own Scottish ancestry is pretty distant but even I would derive a certain amount of pleasure from seeing the Scots break free of the damned Sassenachs.
    , @iffen
    @nebulafox

    It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    It is key to their "victim" status, otherwise what have they got in that card game? It is quite interesting to read from time to time when American Jews are left speechless by anti-Semitic blacks. A recent occurrence being in BLM.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  151. @Talha
    @iffen

    It's the internet...hang around here long enough and maybe you start talking about lizard people and stuff.


    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd
     
    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those - or go spelunking down the rabbit hole to see where Daesh hangs out. I am even careful not to click on just any link that some people post here on UNZ when the target location looks to be funky. If you want to end up on a list of "citizens of concern" - one of the easiest ways is to frequent those sites.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd

    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those

    If you venture outside the handful of moderated blogs on UR (AE’s, Sailer’s, Karlin’s) you’ll find lots of them right here at UR. Not just Holocaust Deniers but genuine unreconstructed Hitler fanboys.

    If you go to any dissident right site, unless comments are strictly moderated you’ll find that the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd has a significant presence.

    One of the weaknesses of the dissident right is its unwillingness to admit that it really does attract some actual Nazis. And some actual hate-filled antisemites. It also attracts some people who really are knuckle-dragging racists, and some people who really do hate women, and some people who would like to deport all non-whites (even those whose families have been in the US for generations). And it attracts a proportion of people who appear to be unmedicated schizophrenics. These people might be a small minority of the dissident right but they are noisy and they attract attention and there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    Of course this is a problem for any political movement. The Left back in the 60s and 70s attracted a proportion of Trotskyists, Maoists and would-be (and even actual) urban terrorists. And those people did the Left a lot of damage.

    Denying that the problem exists doesn’t really help.

    I don’t consider myself to be a philosemite. I’m quite hostile to Israel and I’m quite strongly pro-Palestinian. I agree with those who think that some Jews wield the Holocaust as a weapon to advance their interests and to justify some ghastly Israeli policies. But the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd (including those who comment regularly at UR) really does appal me and some of the rabid antisemites (including those who comment regularly at UR) really do appal me.

    And it amazes me that so many people here cannot understand that Jews do have reason to be sensitive about antisemitism. Just as it amazes me when some people here suggest that everything is the fault of women and that women should have the right to vote taken away from them and then get all surprised when people like Rosie react negatively to those suggestions.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    How many are provocateurs? 10%, 20%, 50% or more?

    Replies: @dfordoom

  152. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).
     
    What is your evidence for that comparison?

    Also, political power isn’t necessarily directly linked to political donations. Blacks have plenty of political power. I seriously doubt that blacks provide anything close to 50% of donations to the Democratic Party either but they have political clout.
     
    What do you mean by "plenty"?

    Although money sometimes can't buy votes (e.g. see the last US Senate election for Maine), it always buys a tremendous amount of political influence.

    Blacks have political power to the extent that they exert an outsized role in determining Democratic presidential candidates, in part due to the primary schedule. But when it comes down to it, they don't have nearly the same kind of influence and power as Jews do. How many Jewish members are there in the U.S. Senate currently? Eight. How many blacks? Two and a half, and soon to be two. And remember that blacks outnumber Jews by more than six-to-one in population in the U.S. And what about homosexual senators? Two (one lesbian and one female bi-sexual). This means that Jews are more than 24 times better represented, per capita, in that august body of the country that is supposed to be the ruling patricians of the nation.

    And among the donor class? You saw the numbers I quoted earlier: 50% of donations to the Democratic Party and 25% of donations to the Republican Party. That's a lot of money and a lot of influence - dollar for dollar and man-for-man, unmatched by any demographic slice in the U.S.

    Is it any wonder that we have this giant Holocaust Museum in the center* of the capital of the country when Americans didn't perpetrate the Holocaust and Americans weren't victims of it either and none of it happened on American soil (all we did was to defeat the perpetrators and liberate the victims, an effort for which there is already a museum... in New Orleans, far far away from the center of the nation)? And that's only one of dozens of Holocaust museums in the U.S. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums_in_the_United_States). That alone should tell you who the really important people are in the country - not the millions who served this nation in that titanic war, not the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in it, but the people whose suffering was neither perpetrated by Americans, nor suffered by the same, nor even occurred in America, the people whose co-ethnics are only two percent of the population here.

    *Adjacent to the National Mall. And where is the U.S. National Slavery Museum? Right, it was an "unfunded proposal" that "went nowhere": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Slavery_Museum

    And those poor, poor Armenians... still trying for ten years to have one dedicated to the Armenian Genocide, and no dice.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).

    What is your evidence for that comparison?

    Point me to some stories in the mainstream media that are even mildly critical of homosexuality. Point me to some public figures who have voiced opinions even mildly critical of homosexuality without having their careers trashed, or at least without finding themselves marginalised.

    Try organising a Heterosexual Pride March and see what the reaction will be.

    I don’t disagree with you about the disproportionate power and influence of Jews in the US. I just think that homosexuals are, in effective terms, at least as much of a protected class as Jews or blacks. Maybe even more so.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Point me to some stories in the mainstream media that are even mildly critical of homosexuality.
     
    Can you point me to some stories in the mainstream media these days that are even mildly critical of any PoC, LGBTQ+, Coalition of the Fringe member? Who in the mainstream media is stupid enough to disavow PC pieties?

    That doesn’t mean all those sacralized fringes are equally powerful, and you asserting so is just that - an assertion without evidence. Responding to someone who points out the outsized political power of Jews with “homosexuals are powerful too!” is a diversion.

    Politicians all stripes - right and left - grovel to AIPAC for approval. How many “conservative Republican” candidates grovel to the so-called Human Rights Campaign?

    https://youtu.be/S5mjbVaaq78

    Replies: @dfordoom

  153. @nebulafox
    @iffen

    Other genocides have happened. But those people *move on*. They get understandably irritated if people deny they happened for political reasons, like the Turkish government does with the Armenian genocide, and they have their memorials if they can get away with it. But that's it. Present day concerns are what motivates people. It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    Even the Israelis, whose state is in large part a direct outcome of the Holocaust, don't seem to have it on their minds as much as their American co-ethnics. They understand that the world has changed beyond recognition and behave accordingly. In fact, with the brief exception of the Eichmann trial in the early 1960s and maybe some latent motivation over stuff like the nuclear project in the 1950s or the argument over West German money or Nasser threatening to drive them into the sea, it rarely seems to have been a factor in political consciousness at all, certainly not nowadays when the WWII generation is dying off.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    Other genocides have happened. But those people *move on*.

    Eventually. I used to know a Scottish-Australian guy. If you mentioned Culloden to him it was like a red rag to a bull. He was born more than two hundred years after Culloden. And the events that followed Culluden were bad but not exactly in the same league as the Holocaust.

    My own Scottish ancestry is pretty distant but even I would derive a certain amount of pleasure from seeing the Scots break free of the damned Sassenachs.

  154. @Pop Warner
    @MBlanc46

    The federal government didn't accept it in 1860, and they won't now. If you want separation don't expect it to be peaceful in any way and don't expect them to give up easily.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    I wouldn’t expect either of those things. That said, it might not have to be as violent as 1861–65.

  155. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie



    My point was that homosexuals are even more of a protected class than Jews (or blacks).
     
    What is your evidence for that comparison?
     
    Point me to some stories in the mainstream media that are even mildly critical of homosexuality. Point me to some public figures who have voiced opinions even mildly critical of homosexuality without having their careers trashed, or at least without finding themselves marginalised.

    Try organising a Heterosexual Pride March and see what the reaction will be.

    I don't disagree with you about the disproportionate power and influence of Jews in the US. I just think that homosexuals are, in effective terms, at least as much of a protected class as Jews or blacks. Maybe even more so.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Point me to some stories in the mainstream media that are even mildly critical of homosexuality.

    Can you point me to some stories in the mainstream media these days that are even mildly critical of any PoC, LGBTQ+, Coalition of the Fringe member? Who in the mainstream media is stupid enough to disavow PC pieties?

    That doesn’t mean all those sacralized fringes are equally powerful, and you asserting so is just that – an assertion without evidence. Responding to someone who points out the outsized political power of Jews with “homosexuals are powerful too!” is a diversion.

    Politicians all stripes – right and left – grovel to AIPAC for approval. How many “conservative Republican” candidates grovel to the so-called Human Rights Campaign?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Can you point me to some stories in the mainstream media these days that are even mildly critical of any PoC, LGBTQ+, Coalition of the Fringe member? Who in the mainstream media is stupid enough to disavow PC pieties?
     
    There are hierarchies within the Coalition of the Fringes. Trannies and male homosexuals are at the top, with Jews and blacks close below. Blacks can and do get attacked for homophobia. Israel can be attacked but you have to be careful. Blacks can be attacked if they're Christians.

    It's open season on lesbians if they're TERFS. If a lesbian is white as well as a TERF she's in trouble.

    It's also open season on Chinese people as long as you pretend that you hate them for being evil commies although in reality most such attacks come down to pure racism. East Asians who are Christians can be attacked. Being a Christian pretty much cancels your protected class status. Trannies and male homosexuals cannot be criticised under any circumstances. Even if they're lily-white they are immune to criticism.

    That doesn’t mean all those sacralized fringes are equally powerful, and you asserting so is just that – an assertion without evidence.
     
    I'm not sure that I did assert that. I did assert that homosexuals (I should have clarified my point by saying male homosexuals) have as much effective power as Jews). I stand by that.

    Responding to someone who points out the outsized political power of Jews with “homosexuals are powerful too!” is a diversion.
     
    The outsized power and influence of male homosexuals is too obvious to ignore and it was not a diversion. Someone had asserted that Jews were the only group immune to criticism. I pointed out that that was incorrect. Male homosexuals are also immune to criticism (as are trannies).

    What I was trying to point out was that focusing exclusively on Jews means ignoring another group that cannot under any circumstances be criticised (and immunity to criticism is a pretty strong indicator of effective political power). The subject under discussion was elite groups immune from criticism. You diverted it into a discussion on Jewish political power.

    My impression is that the power of Jews is fading a bit. The sacredness of Jews is more of a Silent Generation/Boomer thing. My impression is that Millennials/Zoomers are starting to see Jews as beneficiaries of White Privilege. In fact there may be a trend towards seeing Jews as representing White Privilege on steroids. The power of Jews is largely dependent on very rich old Jews.

    The Coalition of the Fringes is unstable. The balance of power shifts. It's shifted heavily against white heterosexual feminists and it's shifted quite a bit against lesbians (unless they're trans or black). It's shifted dramatically against Chinese since China is now seen as an obstacle to globohomo and neo-liberalism.

    What's been evident in recent times is that male homosexuals have maintained their dominant position while trannies have gone from nowhere to suddenly having immense power.

    You can't ask really interesting questions about power if you focus obsessively on Jews.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  156. @dfordoom
    @Talha



    especially if you visit a few extreme right sites and encounter the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd
     
    I honestly would not go anywhere near anything like those
     
    If you venture outside the handful of moderated blogs on UR (AE's, Sailer's, Karlin's) you'll find lots of them right here at UR. Not just Holocaust Deniers but genuine unreconstructed Hitler fanboys.

    If you go to any dissident right site, unless comments are strictly moderated you'll find that the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd has a significant presence.

    One of the weaknesses of the dissident right is its unwillingness to admit that it really does attract some actual Nazis. And some actual hate-filled antisemites. It also attracts some people who really are knuckle-dragging racists, and some people who really do hate women, and some people who would like to deport all non-whites (even those whose families have been in the US for generations). And it attracts a proportion of people who appear to be unmedicated schizophrenics. These people might be a small minority of the dissident right but they are noisy and they attract attention and there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    Of course this is a problem for any political movement. The Left back in the 60s and 70s attracted a proportion of Trotskyists, Maoists and would-be (and even actual) urban terrorists. And those people did the Left a lot of damage.

    Denying that the problem exists doesn't really help.

    I don't consider myself to be a philosemite. I'm quite hostile to Israel and I'm quite strongly pro-Palestinian. I agree with those who think that some Jews wield the Holocaust as a weapon to advance their interests and to justify some ghastly Israeli policies. But the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong crowd (including those who comment regularly at UR) really does appal me and some of the rabid antisemites (including those who comment regularly at UR) really do appal me.

    And it amazes me that so many people here cannot understand that Jews do have reason to be sensitive about antisemitism. Just as it amazes me when some people here suggest that everything is the fault of women and that women should have the right to vote taken away from them and then get all surprised when people like Rosie react negatively to those suggestions.

    Replies: @iffen

    there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    How many are provocateurs? 10%, 20%, 50% or more?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.
     
    How many are provocateurs? 10%, 20%, 50% or more?
     
    Probably quite a few. I imagine we have quite a number of Feds among our commentariat here at UR.

    Which is all the more reason to shun the Hitler fanboys and the knuckle-dragging racists.

    I suspect that an even higher proportion are sad mentally ill people. Many are clearly showing symptoms of clinical paranoia. Of course it's quite possible that some are both mentally ill and Feds.

    But they still very effectively discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people. When you have a movement that is vulnerable to accusations of Nazism and white supremacism (because that's the discrediting tactic that the establishment favours) then it's wise to shun anyone who shows up promoting Nazis or white supremacism, whether they're Feds or not and whether they're schizophrenics or not.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  157. @nebulafox
    @iffen

    Other genocides have happened. But those people *move on*. They get understandably irritated if people deny they happened for political reasons, like the Turkish government does with the Armenian genocide, and they have their memorials if they can get away with it. But that's it. Present day concerns are what motivates people. It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    Even the Israelis, whose state is in large part a direct outcome of the Holocaust, don't seem to have it on their minds as much as their American co-ethnics. They understand that the world has changed beyond recognition and behave accordingly. In fact, with the brief exception of the Eichmann trial in the early 1960s and maybe some latent motivation over stuff like the nuclear project in the 1950s or the argument over West German money or Nasser threatening to drive them into the sea, it rarely seems to have been a factor in political consciousness at all, certainly not nowadays when the WWII generation is dying off.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @iffen

    It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    It is key to their “victim” status, otherwise what have they got in that card game? It is quite interesting to read from time to time when American Jews are left speechless by anti-Semitic blacks. A recent occurrence being in BLM.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @iffen



    It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.
     
    It is key to their “victim” status, otherwise what have they got in that card game?
     
    If you hold an incredibly powerful card it's hard to resist the temptation to play it. Just as blacks play the slavery card because it's a high-value card. And as you say, if it's the one high-value card that Jews hold they're naturally going to play it. Especially when they're vulnerable to having the But What About Israeli Persecution Of Palestinians card payed against them. They're also increasingly vulnerable to having the But You're Really Just Rich White People card played against them.

    Male homosexuals also continually play the We Were Ruthlessly Persecuted card, even though for most of history they actually weren't particularly persecuted.

    When you're playing the game of power you use whatever cards you happen to hold.
  158. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Point me to some stories in the mainstream media that are even mildly critical of homosexuality.
     
    Can you point me to some stories in the mainstream media these days that are even mildly critical of any PoC, LGBTQ+, Coalition of the Fringe member? Who in the mainstream media is stupid enough to disavow PC pieties?

    That doesn’t mean all those sacralized fringes are equally powerful, and you asserting so is just that - an assertion without evidence. Responding to someone who points out the outsized political power of Jews with “homosexuals are powerful too!” is a diversion.

    Politicians all stripes - right and left - grovel to AIPAC for approval. How many “conservative Republican” candidates grovel to the so-called Human Rights Campaign?

    https://youtu.be/S5mjbVaaq78

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Can you point me to some stories in the mainstream media these days that are even mildly critical of any PoC, LGBTQ+, Coalition of the Fringe member? Who in the mainstream media is stupid enough to disavow PC pieties?

    There are hierarchies within the Coalition of the Fringes. Trannies and male homosexuals are at the top, with Jews and blacks close below. Blacks can and do get attacked for homophobia. Israel can be attacked but you have to be careful. Blacks can be attacked if they’re Christians.

    It’s open season on lesbians if they’re TERFS. If a lesbian is white as well as a TERF she’s in trouble.

    It’s also open season on Chinese people as long as you pretend that you hate them for being evil commies although in reality most such attacks come down to pure racism. East Asians who are Christians can be attacked. Being a Christian pretty much cancels your protected class status. Trannies and male homosexuals cannot be criticised under any circumstances. Even if they’re lily-white they are immune to criticism.

    That doesn’t mean all those sacralized fringes are equally powerful, and you asserting so is just that – an assertion without evidence.

    I’m not sure that I did assert that. I did assert that homosexuals (I should have clarified my point by saying male homosexuals) have as much effective power as Jews). I stand by that.

    Responding to someone who points out the outsized political power of Jews with “homosexuals are powerful too!” is a diversion.

    The outsized power and influence of male homosexuals is too obvious to ignore and it was not a diversion. Someone had asserted that Jews were the only group immune to criticism. I pointed out that that was incorrect. Male homosexuals are also immune to criticism (as are trannies).

    What I was trying to point out was that focusing exclusively on Jews means ignoring another group that cannot under any circumstances be criticised (and immunity to criticism is a pretty strong indicator of effective political power). The subject under discussion was elite groups immune from criticism. You diverted it into a discussion on Jewish political power.

    My impression is that the power of Jews is fading a bit. The sacredness of Jews is more of a Silent Generation/Boomer thing. My impression is that Millennials/Zoomers are starting to see Jews as beneficiaries of White Privilege. In fact there may be a trend towards seeing Jews as representing White Privilege on steroids. The power of Jews is largely dependent on very rich old Jews.

    The Coalition of the Fringes is unstable. The balance of power shifts. It’s shifted heavily against white heterosexual feminists and it’s shifted quite a bit against lesbians (unless they’re trans or black). It’s shifted dramatically against Chinese since China is now seen as an obstacle to globohomo and neo-liberalism.

    What’s been evident in recent times is that male homosexuals have maintained their dominant position while trannies have gone from nowhere to suddenly having immense power.

    You can’t ask really interesting questions about power if you focus obsessively on Jews.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The outsized power and influence of male homosexuals is too obvious to ignore
     
    Number of openly homosexual male US senator = 0

    You can’t ask really interesting questions about power if you focus obsessively on Jews.
     
    That’s just ad hominem. I don’t “obsessively focus” - I’m literally following the money.

    You have offered nothing in the way of evidence - your comment is just one unsupported assertion after another.
  159. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    How many are provocateurs? 10%, 20%, 50% or more?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.

    How many are provocateurs? 10%, 20%, 50% or more?

    Probably quite a few. I imagine we have quite a number of Feds among our commentariat here at UR.

    Which is all the more reason to shun the Hitler fanboys and the knuckle-dragging racists.

    I suspect that an even higher proportion are sad mentally ill people. Many are clearly showing symptoms of clinical paranoia. Of course it’s quite possible that some are both mentally ill and Feds.

    But they still very effectively discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people. When you have a movement that is vulnerable to accusations of Nazism and white supremacism (because that’s the discrediting tactic that the establishment favours) then it’s wise to shun anyone who shows up promoting Nazis or white supremacism, whether they’re Feds or not and whether they’re schizophrenics or not.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    When you have a movement that is vulnerable to accusations of Nazism and white supremacism (because that’s the discrediting tactic that the establishment favours) then it’s wise to shun anyone who shows up promoting Nazis or white supremacism....
     
    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition. It's not that the proposition is true or false; it's that it is irrelevant to present troubles.

    I recommend breaking free of the mindset.


    ... whether they’re schizophrenics or not.
     
    My life and career do suggest a certain degree of instability, unfortunately (though I have managed to stay married for 25+ years and to raise five children, so I'll let you judge), but I don't label persons that disagree with me “Churchill fanboys” or question their mental acuity. Yours is not an argument.

    Hitler lost. This is not in dispute. If you don't want a Hitler to come again, then I think that it might be worthwhile to examine more closely why Hitler rose in the first place.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  160. @iffen
    @nebulafox

    It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    It is key to their "victim" status, otherwise what have they got in that card game? It is quite interesting to read from time to time when American Jews are left speechless by anti-Semitic blacks. A recent occurrence being in BLM.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    It does not dictate their political existence like the Holocaust seems to with American Jews.

    It is key to their “victim” status, otherwise what have they got in that card game?

    If you hold an incredibly powerful card it’s hard to resist the temptation to play it. Just as blacks play the slavery card because it’s a high-value card. And as you say, if it’s the one high-value card that Jews hold they’re naturally going to play it. Especially when they’re vulnerable to having the But What About Israeli Persecution Of Palestinians card payed against them. They’re also increasingly vulnerable to having the But You’re Really Just Rich White People card played against them.

    Male homosexuals also continually play the We Were Ruthlessly Persecuted card, even though for most of history they actually weren’t particularly persecuted.

    When you’re playing the game of power you use whatever cards you happen to hold.

  161. @dfordoom
    @iffen



    there are enough of them to totally discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people.
     
    How many are provocateurs? 10%, 20%, 50% or more?
     
    Probably quite a few. I imagine we have quite a number of Feds among our commentariat here at UR.

    Which is all the more reason to shun the Hitler fanboys and the knuckle-dragging racists.

    I suspect that an even higher proportion are sad mentally ill people. Many are clearly showing symptoms of clinical paranoia. Of course it's quite possible that some are both mentally ill and Feds.

    But they still very effectively discredit the dissident right in the eyes of most normal people. When you have a movement that is vulnerable to accusations of Nazism and white supremacism (because that's the discrediting tactic that the establishment favours) then it's wise to shun anyone who shows up promoting Nazis or white supremacism, whether they're Feds or not and whether they're schizophrenics or not.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    When you have a movement that is vulnerable to accusations of Nazism and white supremacism (because that’s the discrediting tactic that the establishment favours) then it’s wise to shun anyone who shows up promoting Nazis or white supremacism….

    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition. It’s not that the proposition is true or false; it’s that it is irrelevant to present troubles.

    I recommend breaking free of the mindset.

    … whether they’re schizophrenics or not.

    My life and career do suggest a certain degree of instability, unfortunately (though I have managed to stay married for 25+ years and to raise five children, so I’ll let you judge), but I don’t label persons that disagree with me “Churchill fanboys” or question their mental acuity. Yours is not an argument.

    Hitler lost. This is not in dispute. If you don’t want a Hitler to come again, then I think that it might be worthwhile to examine more closely why Hitler rose in the first place.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition.
     
    There are two problems with the Nazis. Firstly, the evidence for their evil is just too overwhelming to ignore. Secondly, even without taking the overwhelming evidence into account it's just not possible to rehabilitate their reputation. It's just not going to get you anywhere. Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn't going to work. There's no point in trying. It's a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.

    If you want to try to rehabilitate fascism you're much better off choosing Mussolini. People don't have the same emotional response to Mussolini. He was a more interesting political thinker than Hitler. And the Italian fascists were genuinely non-evil. Even their colonial policies were no worse than those of all the other colonial powers. Mussolini did save Italy from the communists.

    Mussolini's attempt to find an alternative to both liberal capitalism and communism is genuinely worth studying. Maybe in the long term it would have failed, maybe not. But it had actual potential. I'm not saying that Mussolini's fascism was a good thing, but it wasn't self-evidently evil. Mussolini was a much more attractive personality than Hitler. Mussolini had a solid track record as a socialist before abandoning socialism in favour of fascism, so you have a chance of disarming knee-jerk reactions against him from the Left.

    There is at least a slight chance of rehabilitating Mussolini's reputation and getting people to at least consider the possibility that his brand of fascism had something going for it (while admitting that it had its downsides and its weaknesses). You might have a chance of getting people to listen to you. Mussolini was also a non-evil populist.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

  162. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    When you have a movement that is vulnerable to accusations of Nazism and white supremacism (because that’s the discrediting tactic that the establishment favours) then it’s wise to shun anyone who shows up promoting Nazis or white supremacism....
     
    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition. It's not that the proposition is true or false; it's that it is irrelevant to present troubles.

    I recommend breaking free of the mindset.


    ... whether they’re schizophrenics or not.
     
    My life and career do suggest a certain degree of instability, unfortunately (though I have managed to stay married for 25+ years and to raise five children, so I'll let you judge), but I don't label persons that disagree with me “Churchill fanboys” or question their mental acuity. Yours is not an argument.

    Hitler lost. This is not in dispute. If you don't want a Hitler to come again, then I think that it might be worthwhile to examine more closely why Hitler rose in the first place.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition.

    There are two problems with the Nazis. Firstly, the evidence for their evil is just too overwhelming to ignore. Secondly, even without taking the overwhelming evidence into account it’s just not possible to rehabilitate their reputation. It’s just not going to get you anywhere. Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn’t going to work. There’s no point in trying. It’s a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.

    If you want to try to rehabilitate fascism you’re much better off choosing Mussolini. People don’t have the same emotional response to Mussolini. He was a more interesting political thinker than Hitler. And the Italian fascists were genuinely non-evil. Even their colonial policies were no worse than those of all the other colonial powers. Mussolini did save Italy from the communists.

    Mussolini’s attempt to find an alternative to both liberal capitalism and communism is genuinely worth studying. Maybe in the long term it would have failed, maybe not. But it had actual potential. I’m not saying that Mussolini’s fascism was a good thing, but it wasn’t self-evidently evil. Mussolini was a much more attractive personality than Hitler. Mussolini had a solid track record as a socialist before abandoning socialism in favour of fascism, so you have a chance of disarming knee-jerk reactions against him from the Left.

    There is at least a slight chance of rehabilitating Mussolini’s reputation and getting people to at least consider the possibility that his brand of fascism had something going for it (while admitting that it had its downsides and its weaknesses). You might have a chance of getting people to listen to you. Mussolini was also a non-evil populist.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn’t going to work. There’s no point in trying. It’s a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.
     
    I wasn't especially trying—not very hard, at any rate. Hitler is not really my topic. Somewhere, this fact has gotten lost.

    However, there is no matter in which I diverge from you more than optics, whereas you and I otherwise often align. Our social foes manifestly believe that trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler would indeed work. They believe it and they are plainly in terror of it. If they didn't and weren't, then Holocaust denial would neither be a crime (as in most of Europe) nor effectively a crime (as in the Anglosphere); frank discussion of Hitler would hardly be banned from Twitter; and Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis would not be serving hard prison time in the commonwealth of Virginia for trivialities that would hardly have attracted police attention had they transpired during a bar fight.

    One can smell the fear on the Left. Thus, when you judge, "There’s no point," why, I think that there just might be.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    My last comment neglected to acknowledge your concise review of Mussolini. I have nothing to add, but the review is appreciated.

  163. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition.
     
    There are two problems with the Nazis. Firstly, the evidence for their evil is just too overwhelming to ignore. Secondly, even without taking the overwhelming evidence into account it's just not possible to rehabilitate their reputation. It's just not going to get you anywhere. Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn't going to work. There's no point in trying. It's a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.

    If you want to try to rehabilitate fascism you're much better off choosing Mussolini. People don't have the same emotional response to Mussolini. He was a more interesting political thinker than Hitler. And the Italian fascists were genuinely non-evil. Even their colonial policies were no worse than those of all the other colonial powers. Mussolini did save Italy from the communists.

    Mussolini's attempt to find an alternative to both liberal capitalism and communism is genuinely worth studying. Maybe in the long term it would have failed, maybe not. But it had actual potential. I'm not saying that Mussolini's fascism was a good thing, but it wasn't self-evidently evil. Mussolini was a much more attractive personality than Hitler. Mussolini had a solid track record as a socialist before abandoning socialism in favour of fascism, so you have a chance of disarming knee-jerk reactions against him from the Left.

    There is at least a slight chance of rehabilitating Mussolini's reputation and getting people to at least consider the possibility that his brand of fascism had something going for it (while admitting that it had its downsides and its weaknesses). You might have a chance of getting people to listen to you. Mussolini was also a non-evil populist.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn’t going to work. There’s no point in trying. It’s a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.

    I wasn’t especially trying—not very hard, at any rate. Hitler is not really my topic. Somewhere, this fact has gotten lost.

    However, there is no matter in which I diverge from you more than optics, whereas you and I otherwise often align. Our social foes manifestly believe that trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler would indeed work. They believe it and they are plainly in terror of it. If they didn’t and weren’t, then Holocaust denial would neither be a crime (as in most of Europe) nor effectively a crime (as in the Anglosphere); frank discussion of Hitler would hardly be banned from Twitter; and Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis would not be serving hard prison time in the commonwealth of Virginia for trivialities that would hardly have attracted police attention had they transpired during a bar fight.

    One can smell the fear on the Left. Thus, when you judge, “There’s no point,” why, I think that there just might be.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    However, there is no matter in which I diverge from you more than optics, whereas you and I otherwise often align. Our social foes manifestly believe that trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler would indeed work. They believe it and they are plainly in terror of it.
     
    I don't agree. I don't think anyone really believes there's the slightest chance of rehabilitating the Nazis. I think our social foes do believe that it would be to their immense advantage if they could make it appear that there are significant numbers of people on the Right who want to rehabilitate the Nazis.

    The Nazi card is one of the most powerful and most useful cards that our social foes hold. But they can only play that card as long as it has some credibility. The fact that there really is a small minority on the far right who are sympathetic to the Nazis gives that card credibility. Every time a Hitler fanboy on some obscure right-wing site starts saying Hitler wasn't really such a bad guy and that really the Nazis had some good ideas that card gains power and potency.

    What our social foes are afraid of is that the Nazi card will lose some of its potency nd that they will no longer be able to use it to discredit their enemies. They are delighted (not afraid) every time a right-winger says something vaguely sympathetic to the Nazis.

    Just as feminists are delighted every time some manosphere type says that the vote should be taken away from women. That allows the feminists to keep on playing the Misogynist Right-Wing Men Want To Deprive Women Of Their Political Rights card.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  164. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    That Nazis are bad has become a self-affirming proposition.
     
    There are two problems with the Nazis. Firstly, the evidence for their evil is just too overwhelming to ignore. Secondly, even without taking the overwhelming evidence into account it's just not possible to rehabilitate their reputation. It's just not going to get you anywhere. Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn't going to work. There's no point in trying. It's a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.

    If you want to try to rehabilitate fascism you're much better off choosing Mussolini. People don't have the same emotional response to Mussolini. He was a more interesting political thinker than Hitler. And the Italian fascists were genuinely non-evil. Even their colonial policies were no worse than those of all the other colonial powers. Mussolini did save Italy from the communists.

    Mussolini's attempt to find an alternative to both liberal capitalism and communism is genuinely worth studying. Maybe in the long term it would have failed, maybe not. But it had actual potential. I'm not saying that Mussolini's fascism was a good thing, but it wasn't self-evidently evil. Mussolini was a much more attractive personality than Hitler. Mussolini had a solid track record as a socialist before abandoning socialism in favour of fascism, so you have a chance of disarming knee-jerk reactions against him from the Left.

    There is at least a slight chance of rehabilitating Mussolini's reputation and getting people to at least consider the possibility that his brand of fascism had something going for it (while admitting that it had its downsides and its weaknesses). You might have a chance of getting people to listen to you. Mussolini was also a non-evil populist.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @V. K. Ovelund

    My last comment neglected to acknowledge your concise review of Mussolini. I have nothing to add, but the review is appreciated.

  165. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    Even trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler isn’t going to work. There’s no point in trying. It’s a dead end. You just end up marginalising yourself and politically neutering yourself.
     
    I wasn't especially trying—not very hard, at any rate. Hitler is not really my topic. Somewhere, this fact has gotten lost.

    However, there is no matter in which I diverge from you more than optics, whereas you and I otherwise often align. Our social foes manifestly believe that trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler would indeed work. They believe it and they are plainly in terror of it. If they didn't and weren't, then Holocaust denial would neither be a crime (as in most of Europe) nor effectively a crime (as in the Anglosphere); frank discussion of Hitler would hardly be banned from Twitter; and Fields, Borden, Ramos, Goodwin and Davis would not be serving hard prison time in the commonwealth of Virginia for trivialities that would hardly have attracted police attention had they transpired during a bar fight.

    One can smell the fear on the Left. Thus, when you judge, "There’s no point," why, I think that there just might be.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    However, there is no matter in which I diverge from you more than optics, whereas you and I otherwise often align. Our social foes manifestly believe that trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler would indeed work. They believe it and they are plainly in terror of it.

    I don’t agree. I don’t think anyone really believes there’s the slightest chance of rehabilitating the Nazis. I think our social foes do believe that it would be to their immense advantage if they could make it appear that there are significant numbers of people on the Right who want to rehabilitate the Nazis.

    The Nazi card is one of the most powerful and most useful cards that our social foes hold. But they can only play that card as long as it has some credibility. The fact that there really is a small minority on the far right who are sympathetic to the Nazis gives that card credibility. Every time a Hitler fanboy on some obscure right-wing site starts saying Hitler wasn’t really such a bad guy and that really the Nazis had some good ideas that card gains power and potency.

    What our social foes are afraid of is that the Nazi card will lose some of its potency nd that they will no longer be able to use it to discredit their enemies. They are delighted (not afraid) every time a right-winger says something vaguely sympathetic to the Nazis.

    Just as feminists are delighted every time some manosphere type says that the vote should be taken away from women. That allows the feminists to keep on playing the Misogynist Right-Wing Men Want To Deprive Women Of Their Political Rights card.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    You are one of the most reasonable men of my online acquaintance. I take what you say seriously. You are right that there is a price to be paid for praising Nazis. Even if one likes the Nazis (for whatever reason), one should at least consider whether steering clear of them is a smarter tactic than praising them.

    All this is true even before one considers how evil the Nazis were (or may have been). The Nazis have a lot of corpses on their conscience.

    Besides, the Nazis lost, bringing catastrophe upon the very Germany they had meant to exalt. Losing matters. Excuses for losing are hollow. Catastrophe matters, too.

    Have I grasped your position?

    I believe that you have grasped my position, at any rate, so we need not review that again; but may I draw attention to one, isolated point?


    What our social foes are afraid of is that the Nazi card will lose some of its potency nd that they will no longer be able to use it to discredit their enemies. They are delighted (not afraid) every time a right-winger says something vaguely sympathetic to the Nazis.
     
    Then why can't he say it on Twitter? And, in Europe, why will the law apply police power to shut him up?

    The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  166. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    However, there is no matter in which I diverge from you more than optics, whereas you and I otherwise often align. Our social foes manifestly believe that trying to take a more nuanced view of Hitler would indeed work. They believe it and they are plainly in terror of it.
     
    I don't agree. I don't think anyone really believes there's the slightest chance of rehabilitating the Nazis. I think our social foes do believe that it would be to their immense advantage if they could make it appear that there are significant numbers of people on the Right who want to rehabilitate the Nazis.

    The Nazi card is one of the most powerful and most useful cards that our social foes hold. But they can only play that card as long as it has some credibility. The fact that there really is a small minority on the far right who are sympathetic to the Nazis gives that card credibility. Every time a Hitler fanboy on some obscure right-wing site starts saying Hitler wasn't really such a bad guy and that really the Nazis had some good ideas that card gains power and potency.

    What our social foes are afraid of is that the Nazi card will lose some of its potency nd that they will no longer be able to use it to discredit their enemies. They are delighted (not afraid) every time a right-winger says something vaguely sympathetic to the Nazis.

    Just as feminists are delighted every time some manosphere type says that the vote should be taken away from women. That allows the feminists to keep on playing the Misogynist Right-Wing Men Want To Deprive Women Of Their Political Rights card.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    You are one of the most reasonable men of my online acquaintance. I take what you say seriously. You are right that there is a price to be paid for praising Nazis. Even if one likes the Nazis (for whatever reason), one should at least consider whether steering clear of them is a smarter tactic than praising them.

    All this is true even before one considers how evil the Nazis were (or may have been). The Nazis have a lot of corpses on their conscience.

    Besides, the Nazis lost, bringing catastrophe upon the very Germany they had meant to exalt. Losing matters. Excuses for losing are hollow. Catastrophe matters, too.

    Have I grasped your position?

    I believe that you have grasped my position, at any rate, so we need not review that again; but may I draw attention to one, isolated point?

    What our social foes are afraid of is that the Nazi card will lose some of its potency nd that they will no longer be able to use it to discredit their enemies. They are delighted (not afraid) every time a right-winger says something vaguely sympathetic to the Nazis.

    Then why can’t he say it on Twitter? And, in Europe, why will the law apply police power to shut him up?

    The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Have I grasped your position?
     
    Yep. Completely.

    The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.
     
    Charlottesville.
  167. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom

    You are one of the most reasonable men of my online acquaintance. I take what you say seriously. You are right that there is a price to be paid for praising Nazis. Even if one likes the Nazis (for whatever reason), one should at least consider whether steering clear of them is a smarter tactic than praising them.

    All this is true even before one considers how evil the Nazis were (or may have been). The Nazis have a lot of corpses on their conscience.

    Besides, the Nazis lost, bringing catastrophe upon the very Germany they had meant to exalt. Losing matters. Excuses for losing are hollow. Catastrophe matters, too.

    Have I grasped your position?

    I believe that you have grasped my position, at any rate, so we need not review that again; but may I draw attention to one, isolated point?


    What our social foes are afraid of is that the Nazi card will lose some of its potency nd that they will no longer be able to use it to discredit their enemies. They are delighted (not afraid) every time a right-winger says something vaguely sympathetic to the Nazis.
     
    Then why can't he say it on Twitter? And, in Europe, why will the law apply police power to shut him up?

    The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Have I grasped your position?

    Yep. Completely.

    The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.

    Charlottesville.

  168. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Can you point me to some stories in the mainstream media these days that are even mildly critical of any PoC, LGBTQ+, Coalition of the Fringe member? Who in the mainstream media is stupid enough to disavow PC pieties?
     
    There are hierarchies within the Coalition of the Fringes. Trannies and male homosexuals are at the top, with Jews and blacks close below. Blacks can and do get attacked for homophobia. Israel can be attacked but you have to be careful. Blacks can be attacked if they're Christians.

    It's open season on lesbians if they're TERFS. If a lesbian is white as well as a TERF she's in trouble.

    It's also open season on Chinese people as long as you pretend that you hate them for being evil commies although in reality most such attacks come down to pure racism. East Asians who are Christians can be attacked. Being a Christian pretty much cancels your protected class status. Trannies and male homosexuals cannot be criticised under any circumstances. Even if they're lily-white they are immune to criticism.

    That doesn’t mean all those sacralized fringes are equally powerful, and you asserting so is just that – an assertion without evidence.
     
    I'm not sure that I did assert that. I did assert that homosexuals (I should have clarified my point by saying male homosexuals) have as much effective power as Jews). I stand by that.

    Responding to someone who points out the outsized political power of Jews with “homosexuals are powerful too!” is a diversion.
     
    The outsized power and influence of male homosexuals is too obvious to ignore and it was not a diversion. Someone had asserted that Jews were the only group immune to criticism. I pointed out that that was incorrect. Male homosexuals are also immune to criticism (as are trannies).

    What I was trying to point out was that focusing exclusively on Jews means ignoring another group that cannot under any circumstances be criticised (and immunity to criticism is a pretty strong indicator of effective political power). The subject under discussion was elite groups immune from criticism. You diverted it into a discussion on Jewish political power.

    My impression is that the power of Jews is fading a bit. The sacredness of Jews is more of a Silent Generation/Boomer thing. My impression is that Millennials/Zoomers are starting to see Jews as beneficiaries of White Privilege. In fact there may be a trend towards seeing Jews as representing White Privilege on steroids. The power of Jews is largely dependent on very rich old Jews.

    The Coalition of the Fringes is unstable. The balance of power shifts. It's shifted heavily against white heterosexual feminists and it's shifted quite a bit against lesbians (unless they're trans or black). It's shifted dramatically against Chinese since China is now seen as an obstacle to globohomo and neo-liberalism.

    What's been evident in recent times is that male homosexuals have maintained their dominant position while trannies have gone from nowhere to suddenly having immense power.

    You can't ask really interesting questions about power if you focus obsessively on Jews.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    The outsized power and influence of male homosexuals is too obvious to ignore

    Number of openly homosexual male US senator = 0

    You can’t ask really interesting questions about power if you focus obsessively on Jews.

    That’s just ad hominem. I don’t “obsessively focus” – I’m literally following the money.

    You have offered nothing in the way of evidence – your comment is just one unsupported assertion after another.

  169. The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.

    Charlottesville.

    And I took the bait, did I?

    You might be right. Yours is an entirely different path of reasoning than the one I have been following, and it reaches a different conclusion. I bear a peculiar grudge that has been mentioned here before: the grudge makes it hard for me to be objective in the matter. Let me think about it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    You might be right. Yours is an entirely different path of reasoning than the one I have been following, and it reaches a different conclusion.
     
    I've been influenced quite a lot by Steve Sailer's idea of Pokemon Victim Points.

    I think political power depends not just on the value of the cards you hold, but the combination of cards. If you're a woman you hold a very very weak card. If you're homosexual as well you hold two cards that when combined are much more powerful. If you're black as well you hold a hand that is difficult to beat.

    But there are negative value cards as well. The Black card is powerful but if you're unlucky enough to be a Christian as well that pretty much negates the value of the Black card.

    Mostly your chance of winning depends on the hand you're dealt. But the game does involve some skill. You can weaken your playing position by indicating even vague sympathy for the Nazis or the Confederacy. That means that if the Nazi or Slavery cards are played against you they become much more powerful. The Woman card is a very weak card but if you start saying things like women should be deprived of the vote then even the Woman card becomes powerful if played against you.

    The dissident right has shown very little skill at the game. Trying to play the White Genocide card doesn't work. It's a card that has only negative value. The Jews Are All-Powerful And Are Trying to Destroy Us card also has only a negative value. A better tactic is to play the Evil Elites card (which is quite powerful as long as you emphasise that you're talking about all elites whether Jew or Gentile).

    If you're on the right then the Nazi card will be played against you but there's no need to make that card more powerful. You can largely neutralise it by defensive play (by playing the Of Course The Nazis Were Mad And Evil card). If you don't use that defensive tactic you will lose the game.

    There's no point in playing the OMG You're A Commie! card. That card was powerful once, but not any longer.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  170. @V. K. Ovelund


    The Left are not usually in the habit of unleashing police power against targets that delight them, as far as I know.
     
    Charlottesville.
     
    And I took the bait, did I?

    You might be right. Yours is an entirely different path of reasoning than the one I have been following, and it reaches a different conclusion. I bear a peculiar grudge that has been mentioned here before: the grudge makes it hard for me to be objective in the matter. Let me think about it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You might be right. Yours is an entirely different path of reasoning than the one I have been following, and it reaches a different conclusion.

    I’ve been influenced quite a lot by Steve Sailer’s idea of Pokemon Victim Points.

    I think political power depends not just on the value of the cards you hold, but the combination of cards. If you’re a woman you hold a very very weak card. If you’re homosexual as well you hold two cards that when combined are much more powerful. If you’re black as well you hold a hand that is difficult to beat.

    But there are negative value cards as well. The Black card is powerful but if you’re unlucky enough to be a Christian as well that pretty much negates the value of the Black card.

    Mostly your chance of winning depends on the hand you’re dealt. But the game does involve some skill. You can weaken your playing position by indicating even vague sympathy for the Nazis or the Confederacy. That means that if the Nazi or Slavery cards are played against you they become much more powerful. The Woman card is a very weak card but if you start saying things like women should be deprived of the vote then even the Woman card becomes powerful if played against you.

    The dissident right has shown very little skill at the game. Trying to play the White Genocide card doesn’t work. It’s a card that has only negative value. The Jews Are All-Powerful And Are Trying to Destroy Us card also has only a negative value. A better tactic is to play the Evil Elites card (which is quite powerful as long as you emphasise that you’re talking about all elites whether Jew or Gentile).

    If you’re on the right then the Nazi card will be played against you but there’s no need to make that card more powerful. You can largely neutralise it by defensive play (by playing the Of Course The Nazis Were Mad And Evil card). If you don’t use that defensive tactic you will lose the game.

    There’s no point in playing the OMG You’re A Commie! card. That card was powerful once, but not any longer.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @dfordoom

    The other mistake the dissident right makes is in not recognising that there's no point in preaching to the choir and there's no point in trying to convert SJWs to your point of view. You have to focus on trying to reach people who don't agree with you but who are capable of being reached.

    Focus on people who think they disagree with you but with whom there is in fact some common ground. People such as disillusioned leftists. Many disillusioned leftists hold views that are not dissimilar to popular dissident right views (distrust of the elites, distrust of globalism, scepticism about free trade, concerns about affordable family formation, discomfort with attacks on the family).

    And even moderate liberals are worth engaging - many moderate liberals think SJWs and Wokeness have gone way too far.

    Normies who are disillusioned but haven't quite figured out why things are going wrong with society are also worth trying to reach.

    If you're trying to reach these people you have to remember that they're been told that the dissident right consists entirely of Nazis, misogynists and white supremacists. The first step is to convince them that you're not a Nazi, a misogynist or a white supremacist.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Anonymous

  171. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    You might be right. Yours is an entirely different path of reasoning than the one I have been following, and it reaches a different conclusion.
     
    I've been influenced quite a lot by Steve Sailer's idea of Pokemon Victim Points.

    I think political power depends not just on the value of the cards you hold, but the combination of cards. If you're a woman you hold a very very weak card. If you're homosexual as well you hold two cards that when combined are much more powerful. If you're black as well you hold a hand that is difficult to beat.

    But there are negative value cards as well. The Black card is powerful but if you're unlucky enough to be a Christian as well that pretty much negates the value of the Black card.

    Mostly your chance of winning depends on the hand you're dealt. But the game does involve some skill. You can weaken your playing position by indicating even vague sympathy for the Nazis or the Confederacy. That means that if the Nazi or Slavery cards are played against you they become much more powerful. The Woman card is a very weak card but if you start saying things like women should be deprived of the vote then even the Woman card becomes powerful if played against you.

    The dissident right has shown very little skill at the game. Trying to play the White Genocide card doesn't work. It's a card that has only negative value. The Jews Are All-Powerful And Are Trying to Destroy Us card also has only a negative value. A better tactic is to play the Evil Elites card (which is quite powerful as long as you emphasise that you're talking about all elites whether Jew or Gentile).

    If you're on the right then the Nazi card will be played against you but there's no need to make that card more powerful. You can largely neutralise it by defensive play (by playing the Of Course The Nazis Were Mad And Evil card). If you don't use that defensive tactic you will lose the game.

    There's no point in playing the OMG You're A Commie! card. That card was powerful once, but not any longer.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The other mistake the dissident right makes is in not recognising that there’s no point in preaching to the choir and there’s no point in trying to convert SJWs to your point of view. You have to focus on trying to reach people who don’t agree with you but who are capable of being reached.

    Focus on people who think they disagree with you but with whom there is in fact some common ground. People such as disillusioned leftists. Many disillusioned leftists hold views that are not dissimilar to popular dissident right views (distrust of the elites, distrust of globalism, scepticism about free trade, concerns about affordable family formation, discomfort with attacks on the family).

    And even moderate liberals are worth engaging – many moderate liberals think SJWs and Wokeness have gone way too far.

    Normies who are disillusioned but haven’t quite figured out why things are going wrong with society are also worth trying to reach.

    If you’re trying to reach these people you have to remember that they’re been told that the dissident right consists entirely of Nazis, misogynists and white supremacists. The first step is to convince them that you’re not a Nazi, a misogynist or a white supremacist.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The first step is to convince them that you’re not a Nazi, a misogynist or a white supremacist.
     
    It might be hard to convince them except by lying, which is not my usual style. Setting aside questionable terminology like misogynist, maybe I am all those things.

    Yet even if I were, this would hardly render your insights invalid.

    Thank you for the thoughtful answers to my questions.

    , @Anonymous
    @dfordoom

    The right -- dissident, alt...whatever... is chock-a-block with misogynists, many so hostile you wonder how many bodies they have on them. Just browsing through Unz Review comments, never mind the so-called "man-o-sphere" (is that like a really fat Michelin man?) sites, reveals appalling women-hatred. To be a female on the right you have to ignore a lot -- a lot -- and sometimes it's just not possible. This results in, among other things, so few women commenters at Unz and the two or three regulars being so angry and aggressive. Normies peek in, shudder, and depart.
    That's not to say that the left is not also misogynistic. It is, but in different ways, and probably more influential ones, because the left has real power and uses it while the right merely whines and retreats.
    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom's underpants be declared women and allowed to use women's lavatories and take over women's sports, and use female locker rooms. But this is not seen as misogyny because the left knows how to use language to manipulate and obscure, while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies -- and feels smug about doing so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

  172. @dfordoom
    @dfordoom

    The other mistake the dissident right makes is in not recognising that there's no point in preaching to the choir and there's no point in trying to convert SJWs to your point of view. You have to focus on trying to reach people who don't agree with you but who are capable of being reached.

    Focus on people who think they disagree with you but with whom there is in fact some common ground. People such as disillusioned leftists. Many disillusioned leftists hold views that are not dissimilar to popular dissident right views (distrust of the elites, distrust of globalism, scepticism about free trade, concerns about affordable family formation, discomfort with attacks on the family).

    And even moderate liberals are worth engaging - many moderate liberals think SJWs and Wokeness have gone way too far.

    Normies who are disillusioned but haven't quite figured out why things are going wrong with society are also worth trying to reach.

    If you're trying to reach these people you have to remember that they're been told that the dissident right consists entirely of Nazis, misogynists and white supremacists. The first step is to convince them that you're not a Nazi, a misogynist or a white supremacist.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Anonymous

    The first step is to convince them that you’re not a Nazi, a misogynist or a white supremacist.

    It might be hard to convince them except by lying, which is not my usual style. Setting aside questionable terminology like misogynist, maybe I am all those things.

    Yet even if I were, this would hardly render your insights invalid.

    Thank you for the thoughtful answers to my questions.

  173. Anonymous[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @dfordoom

    The other mistake the dissident right makes is in not recognising that there's no point in preaching to the choir and there's no point in trying to convert SJWs to your point of view. You have to focus on trying to reach people who don't agree with you but who are capable of being reached.

    Focus on people who think they disagree with you but with whom there is in fact some common ground. People such as disillusioned leftists. Many disillusioned leftists hold views that are not dissimilar to popular dissident right views (distrust of the elites, distrust of globalism, scepticism about free trade, concerns about affordable family formation, discomfort with attacks on the family).

    And even moderate liberals are worth engaging - many moderate liberals think SJWs and Wokeness have gone way too far.

    Normies who are disillusioned but haven't quite figured out why things are going wrong with society are also worth trying to reach.

    If you're trying to reach these people you have to remember that they're been told that the dissident right consists entirely of Nazis, misogynists and white supremacists. The first step is to convince them that you're not a Nazi, a misogynist or a white supremacist.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @Anonymous

    The right — dissident, alt…whatever… is chock-a-block with misogynists, many so hostile you wonder how many bodies they have on them. Just browsing through Unz Review comments, never mind the so-called “man-o-sphere” (is that like a really fat Michelin man?) sites, reveals appalling women-hatred. To be a female on the right you have to ignore a lot — a lot — and sometimes it’s just not possible. This results in, among other things, so few women commenters at Unz and the two or three regulars being so angry and aggressive. Normies peek in, shudder, and depart.
    That’s not to say that the left is not also misogynistic. It is, but in different ways, and probably more influential ones, because the left has real power and uses it while the right merely whines and retreats.
    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom’s underpants be declared women and allowed to use women’s lavatories and take over women’s sports, and use female locker rooms. But this is not seen as misogyny because the left knows how to use language to manipulate and obscure, while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies — and feels smug about doing so.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Anonymous


    while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies — and feels smug about doing so.
     
    Unfortunately that's all too true.

    My theory is that the dissident right likes losing. It appeals to the paranoid mindset that they have. When they lose they think it proves that their crazy conspiracy theories really are true.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Anonymous


    The right — dissident, alt…whatever… is chock-a-block with misogynists....
     
    Depends on what you mean by misogynist. (I do not criticize. Clarify if you wish.)

    I have no right to tell you specifically about (doxx) the ones I know personally, of course; but just looking around online, after the age of 30, most would seem to be married with children. They do not seem particularly likely to divorce, either, Richard B. Spencer's notorious counterexample notwithstanding. Have you noticed otherwise?

    Or do you refer to a different class of men than the class to which I refer?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @Anonymous


    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom’s underpants be declared women and allowed to use women’s lavatories and take over women’s sports, and use female locker rooms.
     
    Yep. If the Right had any sense that's the line they would be taking - that the trans thing is an attack on women, that it's an insult to women and that it's driven by a deep contempt for women. All of which is pretty much true. It's an opportunity for the dissident right to acquire some female allies (which they desperately need).

    But of course the dissident right has allowed this opportunity to slip by.
  174. @Anonymous
    @dfordoom

    The right -- dissident, alt...whatever... is chock-a-block with misogynists, many so hostile you wonder how many bodies they have on them. Just browsing through Unz Review comments, never mind the so-called "man-o-sphere" (is that like a really fat Michelin man?) sites, reveals appalling women-hatred. To be a female on the right you have to ignore a lot -- a lot -- and sometimes it's just not possible. This results in, among other things, so few women commenters at Unz and the two or three regulars being so angry and aggressive. Normies peek in, shudder, and depart.
    That's not to say that the left is not also misogynistic. It is, but in different ways, and probably more influential ones, because the left has real power and uses it while the right merely whines and retreats.
    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom's underpants be declared women and allowed to use women's lavatories and take over women's sports, and use female locker rooms. But this is not seen as misogyny because the left knows how to use language to manipulate and obscure, while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies -- and feels smug about doing so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies — and feels smug about doing so.

    Unfortunately that’s all too true.

    My theory is that the dissident right likes losing. It appeals to the paranoid mindset that they have. When they lose they think it proves that their crazy conspiracy theories really are true.

  175. @Anonymous
    @dfordoom

    The right -- dissident, alt...whatever... is chock-a-block with misogynists, many so hostile you wonder how many bodies they have on them. Just browsing through Unz Review comments, never mind the so-called "man-o-sphere" (is that like a really fat Michelin man?) sites, reveals appalling women-hatred. To be a female on the right you have to ignore a lot -- a lot -- and sometimes it's just not possible. This results in, among other things, so few women commenters at Unz and the two or three regulars being so angry and aggressive. Normies peek in, shudder, and depart.
    That's not to say that the left is not also misogynistic. It is, but in different ways, and probably more influential ones, because the left has real power and uses it while the right merely whines and retreats.
    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom's underpants be declared women and allowed to use women's lavatories and take over women's sports, and use female locker rooms. But this is not seen as misogyny because the left knows how to use language to manipulate and obscure, while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies -- and feels smug about doing so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    The right — dissident, alt…whatever… is chock-a-block with misogynists….

    Depends on what you mean by misogynist. (I do not criticize. Clarify if you wish.)

    I have no right to tell you specifically about (doxx) the ones I know personally, of course; but just looking around online, after the age of 30, most would seem to be married with children. They do not seem particularly likely to divorce, either, Richard B. Spencer’s notorious counterexample notwithstanding. Have you noticed otherwise?

    Or do you refer to a different class of men than the class to which I refer?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    but just looking around online, after the age of 30, most would seem to be married with children.
     
    It's possibly another example of the crazy minority managing to discredit the entire movement.

    Replies: @iffen

  176. @Anonymous
    @dfordoom

    The right -- dissident, alt...whatever... is chock-a-block with misogynists, many so hostile you wonder how many bodies they have on them. Just browsing through Unz Review comments, never mind the so-called "man-o-sphere" (is that like a really fat Michelin man?) sites, reveals appalling women-hatred. To be a female on the right you have to ignore a lot -- a lot -- and sometimes it's just not possible. This results in, among other things, so few women commenters at Unz and the two or three regulars being so angry and aggressive. Normies peek in, shudder, and depart.
    That's not to say that the left is not also misogynistic. It is, but in different ways, and probably more influential ones, because the left has real power and uses it while the right merely whines and retreats.
    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom's underpants be declared women and allowed to use women's lavatories and take over women's sports, and use female locker rooms. But this is not seen as misogyny because the left knows how to use language to manipulate and obscure, while the right, the stupid right, just blurts out its prejudices, chases away potential allies -- and feels smug about doing so.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @dfordoom

    Leftist misogyny evinces itself in things like advocating male sex pervs who don dresses and their mom’s underpants be declared women and allowed to use women’s lavatories and take over women’s sports, and use female locker rooms.

    Yep. If the Right had any sense that’s the line they would be taking – that the trans thing is an attack on women, that it’s an insult to women and that it’s driven by a deep contempt for women. All of which is pretty much true. It’s an opportunity for the dissident right to acquire some female allies (which they desperately need).

    But of course the dissident right has allowed this opportunity to slip by.

    • Agree: iffen
  177. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Anonymous


    The right — dissident, alt…whatever… is chock-a-block with misogynists....
     
    Depends on what you mean by misogynist. (I do not criticize. Clarify if you wish.)

    I have no right to tell you specifically about (doxx) the ones I know personally, of course; but just looking around online, after the age of 30, most would seem to be married with children. They do not seem particularly likely to divorce, either, Richard B. Spencer's notorious counterexample notwithstanding. Have you noticed otherwise?

    Or do you refer to a different class of men than the class to which I refer?

    Replies: @dfordoom

    but just looking around online, after the age of 30, most would seem to be married with children.

    It’s possibly another example of the crazy minority managing to discredit the entire movement.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @dfordoom

    There's a movement?

  178. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    but just looking around online, after the age of 30, most would seem to be married with children.
     
    It's possibly another example of the crazy minority managing to discredit the entire movement.

    Replies: @iffen

    There’s a movement?

  179. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your comment is excellent as usual. It has said what I would have liked to say, only better. Readers that have skipped your comment are encouraged to return to read it.

    I have some questions regarding separation, though:

    1. After separation into Blue America and Red America, after I have sold or abandoned my house if necessary to move to Red America, why won't the same centrifugal force that has torn apart the United States of America begin to act within Red America? Is Red America not likely to end up with similar problems internally, within a smaller country, again in 50 years?

    2. Blue America is (in my opinion) mad but not stupid. I assume that the Blues will insist on splitting the United States along existing state lines, not for any principled reason but because that is to their advantage. So Red farmers from upstate New York flee to Ohio, where the price of farmland consequently skyrockets. The Blues notice that the Reds had been growing most of their food, but with cheap farmland newly available upstate, they can fix that in any of a variety of ways. It's a bad deal for the Reds, though, isn't it?

    My scenario can be turned in any of a number of ways, but do you not see the general point at which I am getting?

    3. Conversely, Red America retains cities like, for example, Austin, Texas, from which Blues have fled. Converse problems arise.

    4. Who fills the power vacuum left abroad by the separation? (I more or less wish that the United States would leave a power vacuum abroad, anyway, so this is not really a question of my own; but others will ask it so I include it here.)

    5. What becomes of the petrodollar?

    6. How many Red parents with Blue college-aged children will accidentally be separated from their progeny?

    7. Are there many historical precedents for a separation of this kind? I mean, a separation not based on religion, language or ethnicity but based on Left and Right. Was, say, France any less socially divided during the late eighteenth century than we are now? Yet the French state remains.

    8. Does the nearby failure of Quebec to leave Canada not caution us that separation is more problematical than either of us might imagine?

    9. Blue and Red will presumably disagree as to which gets Pennsylvania and which, Florida, among other examples. I find the idea of ceding Minnesota to Blue America distasteful. Blues may feel similarly about ceding Texas. How do you imagine an agreement on the boundary being hammered out?

    10. Neither side really wants blacks. Who gets them?

    I am not arguing against you and AE. I like the idea of separation but you fellows seem serious about it, so if there are questions to ask then I am asking.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Intelligent Dasein, @Corvinus, @Almost Missouri, @dfordoom, @Jake, @Twinkie, @Audacious Epigone

    1) Good needn’t be the enemy of the perfect.

    2) Maybe it’ll be what southern Illinois counties signaled this election first. They voted overwhelmingly to leave the state. We could get more sensible state boundaries from that first, and then those states separate.

    3) People living in states whose politics they disagree with live in those states now. Some will move if political power moves more strongly to the state level. Some will stay.

    4) Feature rather than a bug. Seceding states will want to have some nuclear weapons.

    5) My suspicion is the breaking of the petrodollar will precipitate political dissolution.

    6) When Americans go to Canadian universities or Canadians go to American universities, it isn’t the end of the family.

    7) Brexit was largely political in nature, though it’s of course hard to disentangle all of those things.

    8) Scottish independence, too. South Sudan and East Timor were born this century, though.

    9) If a large red/blue state or a bloc of them secede together, it will create a cascading effect. If the West Coast seceded, remaining blue states would be looking at being perpetually locked out of power. Same thing if “Alberta South” did so–Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas–for remaining red states. Political considerations will start to change once this happens.

    10) Neither side–or none of the sides–will say they don’t want blacks.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  180. @Twinkie
    @AP

    I agree with much of what you wrote, but...


    Americans are not that desperate and there won’t be a catastrophe. At worst, a downward slide as occurred in Britain in the last 100 years. Bad, but not civil-war bad.
     
    A catastrophe is not required for civil strife. In my view, civil disturbances and even strife, including armed resistance, become more likely, not so much when things are bad, but when there is a wide gap between a given population's expectations and the actual conditions.

    See Davies, James. C., "Toward a Theory of Revolution" (1962)

    See here a brief synopsis of Davies' idea of the J-curve: https://www.britannica.com/topic/J-curve-hypothesis


    The J-curve hypothesis was introduced in 1962 by American sociologist James C. Davies, who believed that social and political unrest was precipitated by a brief period of sharp decline in economic development after a prolonged period of economic growth and improvement.

    According to Davies’s hypothesis, persistent economic growth and advance lead to the development of psychological expectations that conditions will continue to improve. When such expectations are suddenly thwarted, individuals experience an intolerable gap between what they have come to expect and the realities of their circumstances. At this point, individuals are most likely to engage in collective revolutionary activity.
     

    Here is another good summary: https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/topic/16810-the-j-curve-understanding-revolution/

    In 1962, Davies presented his J-curve theory. He stated that revolutions are most likely to occur when periods of prolonged improvements concerning economic and social development are supplanted by a period of sharp reversal. He used evidence from the Dorr’s rebellion, the Russian revolution, and the Egyptian revolution to support his argument. According to Davies, the sharp reversal of development creates an intolerable gap between what people want and what they get.

    After a reversal of fortunes, people will subjectively fear that what they have earned will be lost, and thus their mood becomes revolutionary. Davies claims that political stability and instability are dependent on the mood of the society. In other words, poor people who are satisfied will not revolt, and rich people who are dissatisfied may revolt. What is important is their state of mind rather than how much goods they possess.

    Revolutions do not usually occur in impoverished societies. The reason is that when people are preoccupied with their physical survival, the community-sense and consensus on joint political actions goes down and thus also the likelihood for revolutions to occur. Even though physical deprivation is to some extent present at the onset of revolutions, it is seldom the primary cause.

    The main factor is rather the fear that ground gained over a time period will be quickly lost. Davies found evidence for this when studying three revolutions using John Stuart Mill’s method of difference. When employing this method the researcher collects cases of a particular phenomenon in an attempt to find common factors in these cases that are otherwise quite different.

    He thus chose three different cases, where revolts had occurred, and found the common explanatory variable to be the presence of a sharp reversal of fortunes after a period of prolonged growth. [Boldfaces mine.]
     

    Replies: @AP, @Audacious Epigone

    Thanks. That provides a great buttressing of my intuition that a severe drop in the value of the dollar will be the impetus for political dissolution. It will lead to a sharp decline in the American standard of living.

  181. @V. K. Ovelund
    @AP


    My anecdotal experiences support the figures concerning police loyalty. All of the small number of cops I know are regular folks. Their wives are nurses or such, they have siblings in the communities. To the extent that they see themselves as different – they are like sheepdogs, protecting the flock.
     
    I want to believe this, but what happened at Charlottesville?

    Replies: @AP, @Audacious Epigone

    The police in leftwing areas may be less leftist than the average denizen of those places, but they are not nationally representative. Rightwing public protests in leftwing strongholds is a bad idea. Do leftists ever protest in rightwing areas? The one place that comes to mind is Lancashire PA, and the civil unrest there was shutdown immediately when the county came down like a ton of bricks on the rioters.

  182. @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund


    produce and promote pornography
     
    For this particular problem in society, I would recommend Cap’n Crunch Berries as a solution.

    I don’t consume porn, but I do consume Cap’n Crunch Berries...I can only assume there is a correlation.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    High sugar diets create ED issues, too. Be careful!

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Audacious Epigone

    Mutiny, eh?! The Cap’n will hear about this!!!

    Peace.

  183. @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    High sugar diets create ED issues, too. Be careful!

    Replies: @Talha

    Mutiny, eh?! The Cap’n will hear about this!!!

    Peace.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS