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
Berning the Party Down
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

The percentages of Democrat primary voters, by selected demographics, who “think the Democratic party is corrupt”. “Not sure” responses, constituting 25% of the total, are excluded. The residual values thus indicate the percentages who say the party is not corrupt:

Young, idealistic progressive white and Hispanic men are storming the gates. The nice old black church ladies are manning the barricades. If Sanders goes into the convention with a solid plurality but not a majority of delegates for the first round of voting, things are going to get very interesting.

 
Hide 113 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Paging AUNT JEMIMA!
    New national poll shows Sanders pulling more support from black people than Biden.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/484611-new-national-poll-shows-sanders-surpassing-biden-with-african

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is - Go Bernie!

    And, please beat Biden in South Carolina. Old Delusional Joe needs to be put out of his misery.

  2. “Whites strike back in the Democratic primary” continues!

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    Bernie's whites have had enough of South Carolina's "low information" blacks:
    https://twitter.com/unhiddenness/status/1233311322156105729
  3. The nice old black church ladies are manning the barricades.

    Only because they have ONE thing in common with WNs (another left-wing group), in that they are not happy about things like this, and turn to the Democratic Party to obstruct it :
    ________________________________________________

    “Ann-O-Mite” :

    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!
    When we boink, it outta sight!

    Cucks think she be on the right,
    Cuz of that, big checks they write
    !

    I is black, and she is white,
    One joins with the other like day and night!


    WN w**g*rs first quake with fright,
    But after a while, just burn with spite.


    Together, we set the stage alight!
    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!

    _________________________________

    • Replies: @anon
    Why is this guy allowed to post here? He's obviously being paid to disrupt the forum with spam (and dehumanizing commentary). I've noticed he doesn't even try making valid points anymore. The last time he tried, he got destroyed. He contributes nothing but vitriol. Please moderate his posts as others have repeatedly asked. I have a suspicion other authors have done exactly that as his posts appear here more regularly than elsewhere.
    , @anon
    Does your kind really get to make fun of others? Average WN IQ: 100. Average "Thomm" IQ: 89.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OOs1l8Fajc

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/aziz-ansari-4.jpg
  4. The black percentage has probably less to do with ignorance and more to do with them not caring if there is corruption, as long as it is corruption that benefits their tribe. This is very much how all of Sub Saharan politics operates.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    E.g.: Adam Clayton Powell
    , @RadicalCenter
    Yes, and those “nice” african church ladies seem to have raised plenty of african men who rape, rob, kill, act indecent and intimidating in public, and generally make life miserable for people of every background every time they step outta they cribs. What ARE they teaching in those “churches”, I wonder.
  5. I was a baby in 1968 so I have no memory of the Democratic convention that year but this should be the most entertaining one since then.

    Interesting that the location of this years convention is Milwaukee, just 90 miles north of Chicago where the 1968 convention took place. If Sanders somehow get’s the nomination (which I still can’t imagine because the Dem establishment hates him so much) Milwaukee is a good place for this to to take place as it has a Socialist heritage. They even had Socialist Mayors at one time. My great grandfather was a very active Milwaukee Socialist. I think he would be really excited about Sanders and how young people passionately support him.
    .

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    It's actually pronounced MEE-lay-wah-KAY, which is Algonquin for "the good land."

    Gratuitous "We're not worthy."

    https://structuretech1.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Were-not-worthy.jpg
    , @Bragadocious
    Difference is Frank Zeidler always distanced himself from Stalinism. Bernie doesn't. Of course his more dimwitted supporters pull the "muh Scandinavia" card constantly, claiming Bernie just wants us to be like Denmark. Absolute piffle. It's like they don't even listen to the guy.
    , @Justvisiting
    1968 video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9TkjL87Rk

    If you can lip read Mayor Daley correctly you get bonus points!
  6. Any group under 75% is completely delusional. Already FDR’s election machinery was a hoot.

    Always remember: If Bernie is voted in, Chris Matthews and his merry companians will be PUBLICLY EXECUTED IN CENTRAL PARK (maybe Che Guevara will rise from the dead to machine-gun the maggots himself with a Uzi-brand Uzi in one hand and a Margaritaa in the other?).

    VOTE FOR THE BERN!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Jimmy Dore is hilarious. He has shown me that progressives can be genuinely funny. Most of the time when you see/hear a progressive 'laugh', it's just spiteful disdain (ie "lmao at X getting kicked off twitter").

    He's pretty courageous, too. A few months ago he riffed on the GQ masculinity issue--which was actually very anti-masculine--in a way I thought might send the Woke morality police after him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b85Eu0D-nxE
  7. @neutral
    The black percentage has probably less to do with ignorance and more to do with them not caring if there is corruption, as long as it is corruption that benefits their tribe. This is very much how all of Sub Saharan politics operates.

    E.g.: Adam Clayton Powell

  8. @Jay Fink
    I was a baby in 1968 so I have no memory of the Democratic convention that year but this should be the most entertaining one since then.

    Interesting that the location of this years convention is Milwaukee, just 90 miles north of Chicago where the 1968 convention took place. If Sanders somehow get's the nomination (which I still can't imagine because the Dem establishment hates him so much) Milwaukee is a good place for this to to take place as it has a Socialist heritage. They even had Socialist Mayors at one time. My great grandfather was a very active Milwaukee Socialist. I think he would be really excited about Sanders and how young people passionately support him.
    .

    It’s actually pronounced MEE-lay-wah-KAY, which is Algonquin for “the good land.”

    Gratuitous “We’re not worthy.”

    • LOL: RadicalCenter
  9. @Jay Fink
    I was a baby in 1968 so I have no memory of the Democratic convention that year but this should be the most entertaining one since then.

    Interesting that the location of this years convention is Milwaukee, just 90 miles north of Chicago where the 1968 convention took place. If Sanders somehow get's the nomination (which I still can't imagine because the Dem establishment hates him so much) Milwaukee is a good place for this to to take place as it has a Socialist heritage. They even had Socialist Mayors at one time. My great grandfather was a very active Milwaukee Socialist. I think he would be really excited about Sanders and how young people passionately support him.
    .

    Difference is Frank Zeidler always distanced himself from Stalinism. Bernie doesn’t. Of course his more dimwitted supporters pull the “muh Scandinavia” card constantly, claiming Bernie just wants us to be like Denmark. Absolute piffle. It’s like they don’t even listen to the guy.

  10. @anon
    Paging AUNT JEMIMA!
    New national poll shows Sanders pulling more support from black people than Biden.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/484611-new-national-poll-shows-sanders-surpassing-biden-with-african

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is – Go Bernie!

    And, please beat Biden in South Carolina. Old Delusional Joe needs to be put out of his misery.

    • Replies: @Talha

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference
     
    Apparently Warren, Buttgieg and Klobacher also stated they would skip AIPAC. Uncle moneybags is going though...
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzH6p_XUAg1rQl.jpg

    Peace.
    , @WorkingClass
    Agreed. Bernie is the Anti Jew. I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel. Alas. He is a Democrat and I am a white man.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is – Go Bernie!
     
    Bernie Sanders eschewing AIPAC is not due to either balls or principles, but to him being a mountebank who does not know how American politics works. The Israelis with their connections and their very deep pockets will now manuever to make his life quite difficult.

    Now, getting the Israeli influence out of American policy is a desirable thing, but it has to be done the right way. Do net let this tactless effort by a dottering, dimwitted old crank cause you to think of him as a hero just because in his wrecklessness he managed to crash into an old, unsightly eyesore that you had long wanted removed anyway. Remember the maxim that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Many an arriviste has in his ascent cut through a Gordian knot that the program-politics of the day was powerless to untangle; that does not mean that the collateral damage was worth it. A bernie presidency would be orders of magnitude more disastrous for America than any Israeli influence; it would, in fact, be the accomplishment of the very thing that Israel's fiercest detractors charge it with trying to affect---namely the impoverishment, imprisonment, and final humiliation of the historical American population.

    By the way, Bernie's backers seem to consist of Silicon Valley snobs and ultra-WASPY enclaves, as the article below details. He appears to be a more thoroughgoing Globohom stooge than anyone we've ever seen before, so it is quite questionable hoe accurately his current grandstanding would reflect his future behavior as president anyway.

    Bernie Sanders is funded by the wealthiest ZIP codes in America
  11. “And, please beat Biden in South Carolina. Old Delusional Joe needs to be put out of his misery.”

    Since there is only one candidate i would support that is derived from more conservative quarters than the Sn Sanders, it doesn’t matter much what goes on among democrats. I don’t think it matters the field of democrats – there are a mess. But in my view Sen Sanders is no less delusional to advance a socialist agenda that would require an overhaul of the constitution and any
    one who understands even barebones socialist thought knows that.

    But I am curious about this one little tiny oddity of socialism as it is known to be practiced, they certainly have a lot pf oligarchs of their own.

  12. It’s been funny watching the DNC morph into the ANC. During my lifetime, the Democrats have always been the party of aggrieved blacks but it used to have to chill the anti-white stuff. Even Bill Clinton adopted the tough-on-crime, welfare reform stance to pander to suburban whites.

    Now the gloves are off. Despite their complexions, the D candidates stumble over each other denigrating whiteness in the name of “Justice”! Economic justice simply means redistribution of white wealth. Social justice simply means removing whites from positions of authority. Criminal justice means legalizing crime.

    Obviously the Democrats are simply a party of racial spoils now. Only as America is very diverse, they have many different groups they need to rally against the white oppressors. Everybody is in on the joke but keep insisting that there’s REAL OPPRESSION out there! In reality, white people have built a nice country and the Othering wants to take it.

    • Replies: @bro3886
    Yep, racism and oppression is being denied access to whites in order to exploit them. Not just other races, but institutions like the political parties, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. I've said it here before, anyone who doesn't like whites can just get away from them. If you won't split, you're full of shit.
  13. Road kill is less corrupt than the DNC. Not knowing this is an example of negative IQ. We need a way to measure the anti knowledge lodged in individual craniums. Sentencing guidelines if you will. Parallel to this we need a way to identify psychopaths in the womb.

    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    Totally OT in relation to Audacious’ post, but relevant to your comment.


    Parallel to this we need a way to identify psychopaths in the womb.
     
    Yes! For some time I have actually had ideas in this direction and it is nice that someone else is seeing it too.

    I have come to the idea that sociopathic individuals are the main explanation for wrongs in the world and that any socioeconomic system is going to go awry once these types manage to get into control.

    Many sociopaths are of the low IQ/violent variety, but most societies have mechanisms for dealing with these creatures. The real problem comes from high IQ sociopaths. These individuals use a combo of intelligence and dark triad personality traits to rise into positions of power and influence. Once there, they become gatekeepers, preventing non-sociopaths (who they can smell like a hound) from moving into the inner circle. After some decades the upper echelons of a society are occupied by these beasts in human form and the road to perdition has been paved.

    First, let me say that there is no bias here towards anyone on the basis of immutable characteristics associated with ethnicity, gender, etc. This is about content of character. However, should some groups be over or underrepresented among the set of sociopaths, I do not have concerns about “disparate impact” or anything like that. This is an equal opportunity/merit-based program.

    Now, I admit I feel pretty ridiculous writing this post, so I’ll pick a ridiculous name for the “solution” to the problem: Operation Eden.

    1) Phase One: Research

    Start with the institutionalized/incarcerated population, violent, nonviolent, white collar. I don’t believe all these people are sociopaths, but sociopaths are definitely overrepresented. Upon entry into the system (people held prior to conviction I think should be excluded), various data points on each person are collected: dna sample, psychological evaluation, fmri brain scan, records of criminal/life history, and a vast database is built, covariates between dna, brain scan, and sociopathic behavior are computed, so as to ID the dna and brain scan patterns that can predict sociopathic behavior and personalities.

    2) Phase Two: Roll-Out

    Perhaps under the guise of some kind of national emergency, a program is implemented to collect dna/brain scan samples of all individuals, dna early in life, and brain scans upon reaching a level of maturity. DNA sampling of parents can also be done, in order to detect strength of the sociopathic genealogy of an individual. This information is run through a statistical covariate analysis and a sociopath “score” is given to each individual.

    3) Phase Three: Implementation

    “Hallejuah! We have discovered a “vaccine” for the epidemic.” All individuals in their late teens, perhaps thru the schools, go in for mandatory “vaccination.” Those who score low to moderate on the sociopath scale are given a placebo. Those who score high or maybe just very high are chemically sterilized and allowed to return to the general population. No incarceration or deprivation of life/liberty.

    At this point it is just a numbers game. The idea is to humanely purge our species of these problem creatures. They can live their lives, have relationships, seduce as many people into bed as they want. What is important is that the sociopathic genes die out.

    There are of course serious problems with the operation: 1) A totalitarian system is needed, even if it doesn’t appear to be one on the surface (but maybe we already have one); 2) Implementation might need to be global: it would horrible to be the one nation on the planet that has done away with its human beasts; that nation would be like a pack of golden retrievers surrounded by pit bulls (then again, the mechanisms for such coordination might already exist.)

    But hey, this is a draft proposal. Details can be worked on.
  14. @follyofwar
    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is - Go Bernie!

    And, please beat Biden in South Carolina. Old Delusional Joe needs to be put out of his misery.

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference

    Apparently Warren, Buttgieg and Klobacher also stated they would skip AIPAC. Uncle moneybags is going though…

    Peace.

    • LOL: Tusk
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    That would be funny if Bloomberg were actually a Boomer, but he is not. Born 1942.
    , @songbird
    I am sure Warren will attend AIPAC after the election.
  15. @Jay Fink
    I was a baby in 1968 so I have no memory of the Democratic convention that year but this should be the most entertaining one since then.

    Interesting that the location of this years convention is Milwaukee, just 90 miles north of Chicago where the 1968 convention took place. If Sanders somehow get's the nomination (which I still can't imagine because the Dem establishment hates him so much) Milwaukee is a good place for this to to take place as it has a Socialist heritage. They even had Socialist Mayors at one time. My great grandfather was a very active Milwaukee Socialist. I think he would be really excited about Sanders and how young people passionately support him.
    .

    1968 video:

    If you can lip read Mayor Daley correctly you get bonus points!

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Well, I heard directly from the lips of Alderman Ed Burke that he did NOT hear what you think Mayor Daley said and he was behind him. (2018 CPL seminar)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqaBSP5exvg
    , @nebulafox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_PQaT-I0zc

    "Report what he means, not what he says!"

    , @Hibernian
    Mayor Daley Sr. said that Sen. Ribicoff was a faker.
  16. @follyofwar
    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is - Go Bernie!

    And, please beat Biden in South Carolina. Old Delusional Joe needs to be put out of his misery.

    Agreed. Bernie is the Anti Jew. I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel. Alas. He is a Democrat and I am a white man.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel.
     
    I have no great love for the Zionist state that has usurped the name Israel. But to suggest that they are solely to blame for all interventionist and aggressive U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it only since 1948 that the U.S. has waged unnecessary wars and indulged in empire-building? Only since 1948 then that the warnings of George Washington and John Qunicy Adams have gone unheeded?

    Aren't there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war? Is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about nothing more than a creation of Zionism?

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    There's no business like show war business...

    , @Dissident

    Bernie is the Anti Jew.
     
    1.) - Zionism does not equal Judaism*
    - Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    2.) Is Bernie Sanders is even anti-Zionist, per se? Is he not merely more a Left-wing Zionist?

    3.) * https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/
    (All emphasis in quoted text below is mine- Dissident)

    When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.
     

    More than half of U.S. Jews say U.S. support for Israel is about right (54%), although a substantial minority says the U.S. is not supportive enough of the Jewish state (31%), and 11% think the U.S. is too supportive. By comparison, 41% of the general public thinks support for Israel is about right, while the rest are nearly evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is not supportive enough (25%) and those who say it is too supportive of the Jewish state (22%). Interestingly, more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).
     
    Note that the questions concerning attachment to Israel in the linked survey do not differentiate between the State of Israel and the The Land of Israel.

    4.) * Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by a near-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis.

    By the time of the establishment of the Zionist State, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated. Since then, there are basically three main groupings that Orthodox Jews fall into with regard to their position on this matter: anti-Zionist; non-Zionist; and Zionist. See below for some elaboration. A brief description of each of these three camps and how they differ from each other follows.

    - Those who are emphatically anti-Zionist. Not recognizing the State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government.

    Only a subset of the subset within the anti-Zionist camp that is generally known as Neturei Karta, is explicitly and actively pro-Arab. There are actually several factions of those who claim the name Neturei Karta. None of them, oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithstanding, support any form of terrorism or violence.

    - Those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. This camp is broadly known as Agudist after the Haredi political party named Agudas Yisrael (Agudath Israel).

    Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values was to work from within the State.

    - Those that are openly, explicitly and fully Zionist.
    This camp, originally known, after the name or their political parties as Mizrahi/Mafdal, and as Religious Zionists*, insists that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. Such a position, according to all of the anti-Zionist and most of the non-Zionist camps, can only be maintained by selective, tendentious treatment of the relevant canonical texts and received oral traditions.

    Within each of these three main groups that I have enumerated above are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. And there are certainly individuals, and even some communities and institutions that straddle the fence either between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps, or between the Zionist and non-Zionist ones.

    Both the anti-Zionist and the non-Zionist camps align almost fully within the broader subset of Orthodoxy that is known as Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox. Whereas the Zionist camp aligns mostly but not entirely with what is known as Modern-Orthodoxy.

    Let me note here, first, that what became known as Orthodox Judaism, from the perspective of those who practice it, is essentially nothing more than that which, up until the time of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), was simply the normative Judaism that nearly all Jews practiced. Back then, there was no concept of a Jewish identity divorced or distinct from the religion of Judaism.

    Second, the term "Ultra-Orthodox" is predicated upon considering as the normative standard that which is known as Modern-Orthodoxy. Such as predication is at least tendentious. Haredi is a preferable term but is not without problems of its own.

    *NOTE: A while back someone had, in a reply to a comment of mine, conflated Likud, the major center-right party led by Netanyahu, with Religious Zionists. That is an error that I had wanted to correct. Likud, while known for being more favorable toward and more likely to form coalitions with the Orthodox religious parties, has nonetheless always been distinct from them as its own, predominately secular entity.
  17. Many, perhaps most Trump voters would gladly have voted for Sanders in the last election. You ideologues don’t understand how politics works. People vote for whomever they consider the best man, regardless of party. Sanders can beat anybody they can trot out because people actually like socialism, because it is good for them, and makes their lives easier, you mooks.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    Except that socialism only works in small homogenous countries where crime is low and people actually like each other. The US has none of these characteristics. It would be a disaster here. Having said that, I'd still like to see what Bernie could do in the Oval Office.
  18. “Many, perhaps most Trump voters would gladly have voted for Sanders in the last election. You ideologues don’t understand how politics works. ”

    It is highly unlikely that the best man would represent ideologically based policies they oppose. Ideology matters to to where and what most people stand for. And some people as the democrats have demonstrated for the past four years – they have no intention of allowing policy, truth, sound rationale get in the way of their agenda.

    ——

  19. “the way of their agenda.”

    And the democratic agenda was anyone other than the current executive — no matter what —-

    The problem is not in having an ideology. The problem is that some many have an ideology that has no frame for any sense of order or fairplay they are willing to shred the founding framework to get their way. Now democrats aren’t the only ones. But the last four years has been a 360 display of law and order, and even decency bonfire of vanity in the name of “sour grapes”. It’s fine to whine about losing , its quite another to engage in subterfuge and mayhem to merely to muck up the other fellows win.

    Even I had to concede that the previous executive had three policy positions that the country should have adopted straight away. And I was rancored enough to knock a hole in the wall.

  20. @obwandiyag
    Many, perhaps most Trump voters would gladly have voted for Sanders in the last election. You ideologues don't understand how politics works. People vote for whomever they consider the best man, regardless of party. Sanders can beat anybody they can trot out because people actually like socialism, because it is good for them, and makes their lives easier, you mooks.

    Except that socialism only works in small homogenous countries where crime is low and people actually like each other. The US has none of these characteristics. It would be a disaster here. Having said that, I’d still like to see what Bernie could do in the Oval Office.

  21. @El Dato
    Any group under 75% is completely delusional. Already FDR's election machinery was a hoot.

    Always remember: If Bernie is voted in, Chris Matthews and his merry companians will be PUBLICLY EXECUTED IN CENTRAL PARK (maybe Che Guevara will rise from the dead to machine-gun the maggots himself with a Uzi-brand Uzi in one hand and a Margaritaa in the other?).

    VOTE FOR THE BERN!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59xWVNIk7cg

    Jimmy Dore is hilarious. He has shown me that progressives can be genuinely funny. Most of the time when you see/hear a progressive ‘laugh’, it’s just spiteful disdain (ie “lmao at X getting kicked off twitter”).

    He’s pretty courageous, too. A few months ago he riffed on the GQ masculinity issue–which was actually very anti-masculine–in a way I thought might send the Woke morality police after him.

    • Agree: Talha
  22. @neutral
    The black percentage has probably less to do with ignorance and more to do with them not caring if there is corruption, as long as it is corruption that benefits their tribe. This is very much how all of Sub Saharan politics operates.

    Yes, and those “nice” african church ladies seem to have raised plenty of african men who rape, rob, kill, act indecent and intimidating in public, and generally make life miserable for people of every background every time they step outta they cribs. What ARE they teaching in those “churches”, I wonder.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    Yes, and those “nice” african church ladies seem to have raised plenty of african men who rape, rob, kill, act indecent and intimidating in public, and generally make life miserable for people of every background every time they step outta they cribs. What ARE they teaching in those “churches”, I wonder.

    It's not the fault of the churches.

    Blacks and especially Black men seem to have problems applying Christianity the other 6 days of the week.

    I read an article where Black muslims complained about the same thing.
  23. @WorkingClass
    Agreed. Bernie is the Anti Jew. I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel. Alas. He is a Democrat and I am a white man.

    I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel.

    I have no great love for the Zionist state that has usurped the name Israel. But to suggest that they are solely to blame for all interventionist and aggressive U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it only since 1948 that the U.S. has waged unnecessary wars and indulged in empire-building? Only since 1948 then that the warnings of George Washington and John Qunicy Adams have gone unheeded?

    Aren’t there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war? Is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about nothing more than a creation of Zionism?

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    There’s no business like show war business…

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.
     
    Agreed. There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It's not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.

    This seems to be very much a thing in both Britain and the United States. And it's no coincidence that in both countries there is massive economic inequality and it's no coincidence that in both countries life for those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum really sucks. For the underclass and for the working class and increasingly for the lower middle class life offers nothing but humiliation and struggle. Naturally those classes cling to anything that makes them feel less miserable and less powerless. Waging wars against countries that can't fight back makes them feel better.

    In the US you also have the peculiarities of American Protestantism, which encourages the idea of moral crusades. And what easier and better way is there to wage a moral crusade than by bombing wicked people in other countries?
    , @dfordoom

    Aren’t there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war?
     
    Clearly yes. A lot of powerful interests made a lot of money from the Cold War and from neocolonialist wars like Korea and Vietnam. None of which had anything to do with Israel or Zionism.

    Zionism (which I strongly dislike) explains some of America's wars but not most of them. Money would seem to be a better explanation.
    , @iffen
    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).
  24. @Dissident

    I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel.
     
    I have no great love for the Zionist state that has usurped the name Israel. But to suggest that they are solely to blame for all interventionist and aggressive U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it only since 1948 that the U.S. has waged unnecessary wars and indulged in empire-building? Only since 1948 then that the warnings of George Washington and John Qunicy Adams have gone unheeded?

    Aren't there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war? Is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about nothing more than a creation of Zionism?

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    There's no business like show war business...

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    Agreed. There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It’s not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.

    This seems to be very much a thing in both Britain and the United States. And it’s no coincidence that in both countries there is massive economic inequality and it’s no coincidence that in both countries life for those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum really sucks. For the underclass and for the working class and increasingly for the lower middle class life offers nothing but humiliation and struggle. Naturally those classes cling to anything that makes them feel less miserable and less powerless. Waging wars against countries that can’t fight back makes them feel better.

    In the US you also have the peculiarities of American Protestantism, which encourages the idea of moral crusades. And what easier and better way is there to wage a moral crusade than by bombing wicked people in other countries?

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It’s not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.
     
    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders (call them the war equivalents of violent soccer fans), there are genuine reasons why some men revel in going to war.

    I suggest you read “Tribe” by Sebastian Junger or at least watch his documentaries “Restrepo” and “Korengal” to get some sense of why people want to be in war, even if they may not actually love war (and may in fact be traumatized by war).

    https://youtu.be/eLMaPOuEA4Q

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families (often with a long history of military service through the generations). Lower class enlisted usually become truck drivers and supply clerks, not SOCOM ninjas.

    Some of the reasons why some men crave going to war are:

    1. A strong sense of camaraderie and cohesion that are not available in the civilian world (except in religious communities and perhaps sports teams). Training, fighting, and suffering hardship together builds an incredible sense of belonging and brotherhood that is unfathomable for those have never experienced it. People under fire truly become brothers whose bonds often exceed that of real families (in fact, it’s not uncommon for men to “abandon” their real families to get back to their units and fight again). Combat units become tribes. I just cannot stress this enough. People who only know of ordinary civilian-life friendships just have no clue about what kind of blood-brotherhood is forged under fire.

    2. A life under a code. There was a time in human life when men lived by a certain code and even died for it. That has given way to a life of lawyers and legalese. Although military life has long been invaded by the latter, it still retains a vestige of this life of a code of a warrior. If you are a man who can be relied upon and who is true to his words and puts out for his team, you are valued by others no matter whether you are poor or rich, an asshole or a sweetheart, or whatever. This is very appealing to those who are turned off by the bubble-wrapped, “we are only responsible for what the contract says” civilian world where money, power, and fame determine a man’s worth. (Outside of the military, another place where this kind of a code exists is a boxing gym or a Judo/Jiujitsu school, where none of the outside world status matters, and the only things that matter are whether you are courageous or not, have good fighting skills or not, and are a good training partner or not - not surprisingly the places where the same dynamic of brotherhood are forged.)

    3. A sense of adventure. Military life is often dull, boring, and full of shit-work, but it is also punctuated by moments of extreme thrill, the exotic, the exciting, and the dangerous, especially for those in high-readiness combat units. Some men are just wired that way - they cannot live by the safe, mundane, and even well-paid life alone. They need adventure.

    4. The greatest game in the world. You get to shoot at people who shoot back at you. You get to hunt the world’s most dangerous prey, who in turn hunts you. All of your faculties and abilities are honed to achieve success, because it is literally a matter of life and death (hopefully your life and your enemy’s death). There is no substitute for this in the civilian world - maybe prize-fighting, but even that is pillow-fighting compared to war, in which the entire spectrum of resources of whole communities are devoted to win. There is no domination - of imposing your will on the defeated - like winning at war.

    5. Sex. Yeah, you read that right. Forget barrack bunnies (though they do exist in abundance, some places and times more than others, enough to become a problem for the JAGs). Put on a uniform and drop by the local bar. You don’t need “game” - the uniform is the ultimate game. Don’t care about meaningless sex with strangers? Go away to war, leave your wife and family behind, then come back and see what kind of adulation, love, affection, and admiration you get from your wife and children. Your wife will, indeed, “love you a long time” (though the nagging will resume not so long after ;) ).
    , @Rosie

    In the US you also have the peculiarities of American Protestantism, which encourages the idea of moral crusades. And what easier and better way is there to wage a moral crusade than by bombing wicked people in other countries?
     
    Yep, I was thinking about this when I read Sailer's post on Afghanistan. I supported that war back in the day, because I genuinely thought liberating the country from the Taliban was a good and heroic deed.
  25. @Justvisiting
    1968 video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9TkjL87Rk

    If you can lip read Mayor Daley correctly you get bonus points!

    Well, I heard directly from the lips of Alderman Ed Burke that he did NOT hear what you think Mayor Daley said and he was behind him. (2018 CPL seminar)

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    I did not put any words in Mayor Daley's mouth.

    You should not put any in mine. ;-)
  26. @RadicalCenter
    Yes, and those “nice” african church ladies seem to have raised plenty of african men who rape, rob, kill, act indecent and intimidating in public, and generally make life miserable for people of every background every time they step outta they cribs. What ARE they teaching in those “churches”, I wonder.

    Yes, and those “nice” african church ladies seem to have raised plenty of african men who rape, rob, kill, act indecent and intimidating in public, and generally make life miserable for people of every background every time they step outta they cribs. What ARE they teaching in those “churches”, I wonder.

    It’s not the fault of the churches.

    Blacks and especially Black men seem to have problems applying Christianity the other 6 days of the week.

    I read an article where Black muslims complained about the same thing.

  27. @Joe Stalin
    Well, I heard directly from the lips of Alderman Ed Burke that he did NOT hear what you think Mayor Daley said and he was behind him. (2018 CPL seminar)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqaBSP5exvg

    I did not put any words in Mayor Daley’s mouth.

    You should not put any in mine. 😉

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    We would never besmirch Hizzoner's reputation by ceasing to vote early and often, dead or alive. And I only mean that half-jokingly. Sleazy alderman so-and-so did shovel the snow, make the trains run on time, and made sure local organized crime kept the petty crooks in line. A much better set-up than Chicago having Baghdad-style death rates in some of the worst ghettos.

    Plus, when the Ribicoff crowd took over the next convention, he did offer to split the votes with the Republican Party for the first and only time in machine history.

  28. @Dissident

    I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel.
     
    I have no great love for the Zionist state that has usurped the name Israel. But to suggest that they are solely to blame for all interventionist and aggressive U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it only since 1948 that the U.S. has waged unnecessary wars and indulged in empire-building? Only since 1948 then that the warnings of George Washington and John Qunicy Adams have gone unheeded?

    Aren't there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war? Is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about nothing more than a creation of Zionism?

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    There's no business like show war business...

    Aren’t there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war?

    Clearly yes. A lot of powerful interests made a lot of money from the Cold War and from neocolonialist wars like Korea and Vietnam. None of which had anything to do with Israel or Zionism.

    Zionism (which I strongly dislike) explains some of America’s wars but not most of them. Money would seem to be a better explanation.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Like Granada and Panama and Kuwait and other interventions (or involvements) I could think of that had little to do with Israel, but along geopolitical hegemony lines.

    Peace.
  29. @Talha

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference
     
    Apparently Warren, Buttgieg and Klobacher also stated they would skip AIPAC. Uncle moneybags is going though...
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzH6p_XUAg1rQl.jpg

    Peace.

    That would be funny if Bloomberg were actually a Boomer, but he is not. Born 1942.

    • Agree: Leopold
  30. @dfordoom

    Aren’t there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war?
     
    Clearly yes. A lot of powerful interests made a lot of money from the Cold War and from neocolonialist wars like Korea and Vietnam. None of which had anything to do with Israel or Zionism.

    Zionism (which I strongly dislike) explains some of America's wars but not most of them. Money would seem to be a better explanation.

    Like Granada and Panama and Kuwait and other interventions (or involvements) I could think of that had little to do with Israel, but along geopolitical hegemony lines.

    Peace.

    • Agree: iffen
  31. @dfordoom

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.
     
    Agreed. There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It's not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.

    This seems to be very much a thing in both Britain and the United States. And it's no coincidence that in both countries there is massive economic inequality and it's no coincidence that in both countries life for those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum really sucks. For the underclass and for the working class and increasingly for the lower middle class life offers nothing but humiliation and struggle. Naturally those classes cling to anything that makes them feel less miserable and less powerless. Waging wars against countries that can't fight back makes them feel better.

    In the US you also have the peculiarities of American Protestantism, which encourages the idea of moral crusades. And what easier and better way is there to wage a moral crusade than by bombing wicked people in other countries?

    There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It’s not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.

    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders (call them the war equivalents of violent soccer fans), there are genuine reasons why some men revel in going to war.

    I suggest you read “Tribe” by Sebastian Junger or at least watch his documentaries “Restrepo” and “Korengal” to get some sense of why people want to be in war, even if they may not actually love war (and may in fact be traumatized by war).

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families (often with a long history of military service through the generations). Lower class enlisted usually become truck drivers and supply clerks, not SOCOM ninjas.

    Some of the reasons why some men crave going to war are:

    1. A strong sense of camaraderie and cohesion that are not available in the civilian world (except in religious communities and perhaps sports teams). Training, fighting, and suffering hardship together builds an incredible sense of belonging and brotherhood that is unfathomable for those have never experienced it. People under fire truly become brothers whose bonds often exceed that of real families (in fact, it’s not uncommon for men to “abandon” their real families to get back to their units and fight again). Combat units become tribes. I just cannot stress this enough. People who only know of ordinary civilian-life friendships just have no clue about what kind of blood-brotherhood is forged under fire.

    2. A life under a code. There was a time in human life when men lived by a certain code and even died for it. That has given way to a life of lawyers and legalese. Although military life has long been invaded by the latter, it still retains a vestige of this life of a code of a warrior. If you are a man who can be relied upon and who is true to his words and puts out for his team, you are valued by others no matter whether you are poor or rich, an asshole or a sweetheart, or whatever. This is very appealing to those who are turned off by the bubble-wrapped, “we are only responsible for what the contract says” civilian world where money, power, and fame determine a man’s worth. (Outside of the military, another place where this kind of a code exists is a boxing gym or a Judo/Jiujitsu school, where none of the outside world status matters, and the only things that matter are whether you are courageous or not, have good fighting skills or not, and are a good training partner or not – not surprisingly the places where the same dynamic of brotherhood are forged.)

    3. A sense of adventure. Military life is often dull, boring, and full of shit-work, but it is also punctuated by moments of extreme thrill, the exotic, the exciting, and the dangerous, especially for those in high-readiness combat units. Some men are just wired that way – they cannot live by the safe, mundane, and even well-paid life alone. They need adventure.

    4. The greatest game in the world. You get to shoot at people who shoot back at you. You get to hunt the world’s most dangerous prey, who in turn hunts you. All of your faculties and abilities are honed to achieve success, because it is literally a matter of life and death (hopefully your life and your enemy’s death). There is no substitute for this in the civilian world – maybe prize-fighting, but even that is pillow-fighting compared to war, in which the entire spectrum of resources of whole communities are devoted to win. There is no domination – of imposing your will on the defeated – like winning at war.

    5. Sex. Yeah, you read that right. Forget barrack bunnies (though they do exist in abundance, some places and times more than others, enough to become a problem for the JAGs). Put on a uniform and drop by the local bar. You don’t need “game” – the uniform is the ultimate game. Don’t care about meaningless sex with strangers? Go away to war, leave your wife and family behind, then come back and see what kind of adulation, love, affection, and admiration you get from your wife and children. Your wife will, indeed, “love you a long time” (though the nagging will resume not so long after 😉 ).

    • Thanks: Talha, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders
     
    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They're the people who make the endless wars possible.
    , @iffen
    I have run out of Unz cookies, so thanks for an informative and interesting post.

    Not that I think you will, but don't make a habit of the crudeness contained in your other comment. You know how obnoxious the demotic can be in the wrong hands.
    , @FB
    Wow...what a farrago of unadulterated WISHCASTING...

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families...
     
    Sure...if you define 'high IQ' as just above idiot level, and 'upper middle class' as owning a double-wide...

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F4MTfSZFUB0/UGGzvYBOMCI/AAAAAAAAJLo/OwZaRN9hWyM/s1600/fat.jpg

    Now this fella is I guess the 'tip' of several spears [or maybe an iceberg]...

    The U.S. military has a huge problem with obesity and it's only getting worse

    Hardly surprising, since every garrison has the obligatory Krisy Kreme donuts and other junk food outlets...

    As for racial composition we see that blacks and Hispanics are over-represented...

    https://i.postimg.cc/Gp2yWyy4/Obesity-Armed-Forces.jpg

    Blacks and Hispanics make up well over 30 percent of the armed forces enlisted personnel, among males...and fully 50 percent among females...well above their general population numbers...

    And that's not to mention illegal immigrants who are promised a green card for signing up...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgOyKBZG-i8

    The real life picture is a little different than your airbrushed hollywood fantasy...troops acting in shameful and cowardly ways [pissing on corpses, posing with dead enemy and civilian 'trophies']...with not unoccasional gusts to outright war crimes, especially against civilians...

    The officer corps is a different matter of course...these are generally intelligent, goal-oriented young folks who see the armed forces as a calling and a profession, instead of the last resort after failing at everything else...

    But thanks for the chuckles, friend...never ceases to amaze how rhapsodic the moron class gets on this website...
  32. @follyofwar
    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is - Go Bernie!

    And, please beat Biden in South Carolina. Old Delusional Joe needs to be put out of his misery.

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is – Go Bernie!

    Bernie Sanders eschewing AIPAC is not due to either balls or principles, but to him being a mountebank who does not know how American politics works. The Israelis with their connections and their very deep pockets will now manuever to make his life quite difficult.

    Now, getting the Israeli influence out of American policy is a desirable thing, but it has to be done the right way. Do net let this tactless effort by a dottering, dimwitted old crank cause you to think of him as a hero just because in his wrecklessness he managed to crash into an old, unsightly eyesore that you had long wanted removed anyway. Remember the maxim that “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Many an arriviste has in his ascent cut through a Gordian knot that the program-politics of the day was powerless to untangle; that does not mean that the collateral damage was worth it. A bernie presidency would be orders of magnitude more disastrous for America than any Israeli influence; it would, in fact, be the accomplishment of the very thing that Israel’s fiercest detractors charge it with trying to affect—namely the impoverishment, imprisonment, and final humiliation of the historical American population.

    By the way, Bernie’s backers seem to consist of Silicon Valley snobs and ultra-WASPY enclaves, as the article below details. He appears to be a more thoroughgoing Globohom stooge than anyone we’ve ever seen before, so it is quite questionable hoe accurately his current grandstanding would reflect his future behavior as president anyway.

    Bernie Sanders is funded by the wealthiest ZIP codes in America

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    I know a very very working class guy, you know, WASP, who does some tile-work when he can get it and then spends most of his time drinking in the bar and grill where his mother is the bar-back.

    His 2 favorites in the last election were Trump and Sanders. If Sanders had run, he'd have chosen Sanders by a hair.

    He is legion. I seldom disagree with you but I am afraid, this time, I believe that you misread the American public. Great numbers, I am pretty sure, of those who voted Trump will vote Sanders given the chance.
  33. @Twinkie

    There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It’s not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.
     
    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders (call them the war equivalents of violent soccer fans), there are genuine reasons why some men revel in going to war.

    I suggest you read “Tribe” by Sebastian Junger or at least watch his documentaries “Restrepo” and “Korengal” to get some sense of why people want to be in war, even if they may not actually love war (and may in fact be traumatized by war).

    https://youtu.be/eLMaPOuEA4Q

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families (often with a long history of military service through the generations). Lower class enlisted usually become truck drivers and supply clerks, not SOCOM ninjas.

    Some of the reasons why some men crave going to war are:

    1. A strong sense of camaraderie and cohesion that are not available in the civilian world (except in religious communities and perhaps sports teams). Training, fighting, and suffering hardship together builds an incredible sense of belonging and brotherhood that is unfathomable for those have never experienced it. People under fire truly become brothers whose bonds often exceed that of real families (in fact, it’s not uncommon for men to “abandon” their real families to get back to their units and fight again). Combat units become tribes. I just cannot stress this enough. People who only know of ordinary civilian-life friendships just have no clue about what kind of blood-brotherhood is forged under fire.

    2. A life under a code. There was a time in human life when men lived by a certain code and even died for it. That has given way to a life of lawyers and legalese. Although military life has long been invaded by the latter, it still retains a vestige of this life of a code of a warrior. If you are a man who can be relied upon and who is true to his words and puts out for his team, you are valued by others no matter whether you are poor or rich, an asshole or a sweetheart, or whatever. This is very appealing to those who are turned off by the bubble-wrapped, “we are only responsible for what the contract says” civilian world where money, power, and fame determine a man’s worth. (Outside of the military, another place where this kind of a code exists is a boxing gym or a Judo/Jiujitsu school, where none of the outside world status matters, and the only things that matter are whether you are courageous or not, have good fighting skills or not, and are a good training partner or not - not surprisingly the places where the same dynamic of brotherhood are forged.)

    3. A sense of adventure. Military life is often dull, boring, and full of shit-work, but it is also punctuated by moments of extreme thrill, the exotic, the exciting, and the dangerous, especially for those in high-readiness combat units. Some men are just wired that way - they cannot live by the safe, mundane, and even well-paid life alone. They need adventure.

    4. The greatest game in the world. You get to shoot at people who shoot back at you. You get to hunt the world’s most dangerous prey, who in turn hunts you. All of your faculties and abilities are honed to achieve success, because it is literally a matter of life and death (hopefully your life and your enemy’s death). There is no substitute for this in the civilian world - maybe prize-fighting, but even that is pillow-fighting compared to war, in which the entire spectrum of resources of whole communities are devoted to win. There is no domination - of imposing your will on the defeated - like winning at war.

    5. Sex. Yeah, you read that right. Forget barrack bunnies (though they do exist in abundance, some places and times more than others, enough to become a problem for the JAGs). Put on a uniform and drop by the local bar. You don’t need “game” - the uniform is the ultimate game. Don’t care about meaningless sex with strangers? Go away to war, leave your wife and family behind, then come back and see what kind of adulation, love, affection, and admiration you get from your wife and children. Your wife will, indeed, “love you a long time” (though the nagging will resume not so long after ;) ).

    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders

    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They’re the people who make the endless wars possible.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They’re the people who make the endless wars possible.
     
    They don't have much say in American military policy. It's the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams "Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!" at his TV screen.

    And, yes, I know you were talking abou them, not the warriors who enjoy being at war.

    And to be fair to the Joe Sixpack (and I am going to be a bit crude here), but who, but a limp-dick, doesn't want his team to kick ass and take down names? The only thing better is actually doing the ass-kicking and taking down names personally.

    Now, a wise person knows to "rule" by the fear of the ass-kicking* rather than the actual ass-kicking itself (which costs time, money/resources, and, in war, lives), but the sentiment is completely understanable for normal men.

    *Hence the saying, "the use of power grows power, but the use of force consumes it." And, of course, nobody just believes someone else's power forever, and there have to be occasional demonstrations of force to reinforce the said power.

    BTW, sorry about the triple tap post - I kept getting errors.
  34. @WorkingClass
    Agreed. Bernie is the Anti Jew. I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel. Alas. He is a Democrat and I am a white man.

    Bernie is the Anti Jew.

    1.) – Zionism does not equal Judaism*
    – Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    2.) Is Bernie Sanders is even anti-Zionist, per se? Is he not merely more a Left-wing Zionist?

    3.) * https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/
    (All emphasis in quoted text below is mine- Dissident)

    When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.

    More than half of U.S. Jews say U.S. support for Israel is about right (54%), although a substantial minority says the U.S. is not supportive enough of the Jewish state (31%), and 11% think the U.S. is too supportive. By comparison, 41% of the general public thinks support for Israel is about right, while the rest are nearly evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is not supportive enough (25%) and those who say it is too supportive of the Jewish state (22%). Interestingly, more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).

    Note that the questions concerning attachment to Israel in the linked survey do not differentiate between the State of Israel and the The Land of Israel.

    4.) * Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by a near-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis.

    By the time of the establishment of the Zionist State, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated. Since then, there are basically three main groupings that Orthodox Jews fall into with regard to their position on this matter: anti-Zionist; non-Zionist; and Zionist. See below for some elaboration.

    [MORE]
    A brief description of each of these three camps and how they differ from each other follows.

    – Those who are emphatically anti-Zionist. Not recognizing the State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government.

    Only a subset of the subset within the anti-Zionist camp that is generally known as Neturei Karta, is explicitly and actively pro-Arab. There are actually several factions of those who claim the name Neturei Karta. None of them, oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithstanding, support any form of terrorism or violence.

    – Those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. This camp is broadly known as Agudist after the Haredi political party named Agudas Yisrael (Agudath Israel).

    Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values was to work from within the State.

    – Those that are openly, explicitly and fully Zionist.
    This camp, originally known, after the name or their political parties as Mizrahi/Mafdal, and as Religious Zionists*, insists that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. Such a position, according to all of the anti-Zionist and most of the non-Zionist camps, can only be maintained by selective, tendentious treatment of the relevant canonical texts and received oral traditions.

    Within each of these three main groups that I have enumerated above are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. And there are certainly individuals, and even some communities and institutions that straddle the fence either between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps, or between the Zionist and non-Zionist ones.

    Both the anti-Zionist and the non-Zionist camps align almost fully within the broader subset of Orthodoxy that is known as Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox. Whereas the Zionist camp aligns mostly but not entirely with what is known as Modern-Orthodoxy.

    Let me note here, first, that what became known as Orthodox Judaism, from the perspective of those who practice it, is essentially nothing more than that which, up until the time of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), was simply the normative Judaism that nearly all Jews practiced. Back then, there was no concept of a Jewish identity divorced or distinct from the religion of Judaism.

    Second, the term “Ultra-Orthodox” is predicated upon considering as the normative standard that which is known as Modern-Orthodoxy. Such as predication is at least tendentious. Haredi is a preferable term but is not without problems of its own.

    *NOTE: A while back someone had, in a reply to a comment of mine, conflated Likud, the major center-right party led by Netanyahu, with Religious Zionists. That is an error that I had wanted to correct. Likud, while known for being more favorable toward and more likely to form coalitions with the Orthodox religious parties, has nonetheless always been distinct from them as its own, predominately secular entity.

    • Thanks: iffen, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Talha
    Great comment! Thanks for the various details, much obliged.

    Peace.
    , @WorkingClass
    I guess it was the last election that Bernie made a point of visiting the Pope. He does seem to honestly oppose the Israeli lobby and the endless Middle East wars. Is Bernie anti Jew? I have no reason to think so. I said he is THE anti Jew meaning in the context of the comment to which I was replying that he was THE candidate who did not bend the knee to the Jewish State.

    My comment was off the cuff and misleading. I stand corrected.
    , @iffen
    Excellent informative comment!

    Perhaps sometime you can give us some clarification by way of numbers when you reference religious Jews as opposed to secular Jews and how they relate to your three categories. Also, you didn't inform us of the distinction between Diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews and how they fit into the three.

    the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated.

    Likud ... its own, predominately secular entity.


    more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).

    My peeps are more devoted to the Old Testament than Jews? :)
    , @Talha

    Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*
     
    “Our grandparents told us that Palestine’s Ottoman era was a golden age for Jews,” Margilit said, adding that, today, devout Jews -- along with Palestinians -- faced oppression at the hands of the Israeli state.
    “We want the Turks to come back,” he said. “We want it to be like it was before Israel was established.”
    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-s-haredi-jews-pine-for-ottoman-era-golden-age-/1108128#

    Them boys are alright! 😎

    Peace.
  35. @Dissident

    Bernie is the Anti Jew.
     
    1.) - Zionism does not equal Judaism*
    - Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    2.) Is Bernie Sanders is even anti-Zionist, per se? Is he not merely more a Left-wing Zionist?

    3.) * https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/
    (All emphasis in quoted text below is mine- Dissident)

    When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.
     

    More than half of U.S. Jews say U.S. support for Israel is about right (54%), although a substantial minority says the U.S. is not supportive enough of the Jewish state (31%), and 11% think the U.S. is too supportive. By comparison, 41% of the general public thinks support for Israel is about right, while the rest are nearly evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is not supportive enough (25%) and those who say it is too supportive of the Jewish state (22%). Interestingly, more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).
     
    Note that the questions concerning attachment to Israel in the linked survey do not differentiate between the State of Israel and the The Land of Israel.

    4.) * Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by a near-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis.

    By the time of the establishment of the Zionist State, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated. Since then, there are basically three main groupings that Orthodox Jews fall into with regard to their position on this matter: anti-Zionist; non-Zionist; and Zionist. See below for some elaboration. A brief description of each of these three camps and how they differ from each other follows.

    - Those who are emphatically anti-Zionist. Not recognizing the State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government.

    Only a subset of the subset within the anti-Zionist camp that is generally known as Neturei Karta, is explicitly and actively pro-Arab. There are actually several factions of those who claim the name Neturei Karta. None of them, oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithstanding, support any form of terrorism or violence.

    - Those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. This camp is broadly known as Agudist after the Haredi political party named Agudas Yisrael (Agudath Israel).

    Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values was to work from within the State.

    - Those that are openly, explicitly and fully Zionist.
    This camp, originally known, after the name or their political parties as Mizrahi/Mafdal, and as Religious Zionists*, insists that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. Such a position, according to all of the anti-Zionist and most of the non-Zionist camps, can only be maintained by selective, tendentious treatment of the relevant canonical texts and received oral traditions.

    Within each of these three main groups that I have enumerated above are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. And there are certainly individuals, and even some communities and institutions that straddle the fence either between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps, or between the Zionist and non-Zionist ones.

    Both the anti-Zionist and the non-Zionist camps align almost fully within the broader subset of Orthodoxy that is known as Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox. Whereas the Zionist camp aligns mostly but not entirely with what is known as Modern-Orthodoxy.

    Let me note here, first, that what became known as Orthodox Judaism, from the perspective of those who practice it, is essentially nothing more than that which, up until the time of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), was simply the normative Judaism that nearly all Jews practiced. Back then, there was no concept of a Jewish identity divorced or distinct from the religion of Judaism.

    Second, the term "Ultra-Orthodox" is predicated upon considering as the normative standard that which is known as Modern-Orthodoxy. Such as predication is at least tendentious. Haredi is a preferable term but is not without problems of its own.

    *NOTE: A while back someone had, in a reply to a comment of mine, conflated Likud, the major center-right party led by Netanyahu, with Religious Zionists. That is an error that I had wanted to correct. Likud, while known for being more favorable toward and more likely to form coalitions with the Orthodox religious parties, has nonetheless always been distinct from them as its own, predominately secular entity.

    Great comment! Thanks for the various details, much obliged.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: Dissident
  36. @dfordoom

    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders
     
    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They're the people who make the endless wars possible.

    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They’re the people who make the endless wars possible.

    They don’t have much say in American military policy. It’s the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams “Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!” at his TV screen.

    And, yes, I know you were talking abou them, not the warriors who enjoy being at war.

    And to be fair to the Joe Sixpack (and I am going to be a bit crude here), but who, but a limp-dick, doesn’t want his team to kick ass and take down names? The only thing better is actually doing the ass-kicking and taking down names personally.

    Now, a wise person knows to “rule” by the fear of the ass-kicking* rather than the actual ass-kicking itself (which costs time, money/resources, and, in war, lives), but the sentiment is completely understanable for normal men.

    *Hence the saying, “the use of power grows power, but the use of force consumes it.” And, of course, nobody just believes someone else’s power forever, and there have to be occasional demonstrations of force to reinforce the said power.

    BTW, sorry about the triple tap post – I kept getting errors.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The letters of WWI diarists are illuminating because of how much it undercuts common wisdom about human nature: for many ordinary men, it was all quite exciting and fun and invigorating. They'd gripe about the dirt and the rats and incompetent superiors, and cynicism could set in about the official motives of the war depending on own's own leanings, but it could not fully eradicate it. The war had a strange pull that eluded definition. Many continued to love their cause and hate the enemy, of course. Beyond all ideological considerations, they loved their brothers in arms enough to die for them. It was a sense of intensity in belonging and purpose that had no analogue in a peacetime world that seemed so petty and sterile by comparison. The dissonance between the desire for these intense bonds and the increased disillusionment as the war went on became pretty apparent: men who belonged to army units that would revolt or frag officers would nevertheless want to continue the war in some form or another. Even within the new Bolshevik government that specifically came about because of a desire to end the conflict, the Civil War pulled many men on both sides who wanted to simply continue on as much as any ideological belief.

    Adolf Hitler, far from being an asocial freak, represented an entirely typical phenomenon. He might have taken it to a higher level given his own idiosyncrasies and the complete lack of anything worth returning to for him, but when he requested to be immediately transferred back not just to the front, but to his specific unit, he was displaying an entirely normal facet of human nature. Why wouldn't you want to go back and be with the men who'd become an adopted, closer family?

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn't think of it that way. I don't think society chooses to remember it because it does not fit in at all with the view of human nature that the 21st Century encourages. There's little room for stick-to-it-until-you-die sort of bonds. Nor for heroism, nor for the unrestrained best and worst of human nature. Nor for genuine hate or anger or happiness, when you think about it. Maybe a false, distilled version of it, at best.

    There's a strange sense of artificiality and ennui hanging over the current age. One can't escape the sense that it can't last forever.

    , @dfordoom

    They don’t have much say in American military policy. It’s the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams “Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!” at his TV screen.
     
    I don't buy that. An aggressive expansionist foreign policy that relies on war to achieve its objectives is only politically practical because the Joe Sixpacks support it. It's a cop-out to blame the elites for everything. The elites get away with the outrageous stuff they do because Joe Sixpack allows them to.

    Joe Sixpack is not an innocent victim. The elites have run riot because ordinary people are either too stupid, too lazy, too greedy or too vicious to do anything about it. As long as Joe Sixpack has his beer and his football and gets to chant USA! USA! every time the elites start another war then things will continue as they are.

    The horrible thing about democracy is that we really do get the governments we deserve.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.
    , @RSDB

    and take down names
     
    This is irrelevant to the discussion, but every time I hear this expression it reminds me of this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YMVPXmaKds
  37. @Twinkie

    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They’re the people who make the endless wars possible.
     
    They don't have much say in American military policy. It's the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams "Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!" at his TV screen.

    And, yes, I know you were talking abou them, not the warriors who enjoy being at war.

    And to be fair to the Joe Sixpack (and I am going to be a bit crude here), but who, but a limp-dick, doesn't want his team to kick ass and take down names? The only thing better is actually doing the ass-kicking and taking down names personally.

    Now, a wise person knows to "rule" by the fear of the ass-kicking* rather than the actual ass-kicking itself (which costs time, money/resources, and, in war, lives), but the sentiment is completely understanable for normal men.

    *Hence the saying, "the use of power grows power, but the use of force consumes it." And, of course, nobody just believes someone else's power forever, and there have to be occasional demonstrations of force to reinforce the said power.

    BTW, sorry about the triple tap post - I kept getting errors.

    The letters of WWI diarists are illuminating because of how much it undercuts common wisdom about human nature: for many ordinary men, it was all quite exciting and fun and invigorating. They’d gripe about the dirt and the rats and incompetent superiors, and cynicism could set in about the official motives of the war depending on own’s own leanings, but it could not fully eradicate it. The war had a strange pull that eluded definition. Many continued to love their cause and hate the enemy, of course. Beyond all ideological considerations, they loved their brothers in arms enough to die for them. It was a sense of intensity in belonging and purpose that had no analogue in a peacetime world that seemed so petty and sterile by comparison. The dissonance between the desire for these intense bonds and the increased disillusionment as the war went on became pretty apparent: men who belonged to army units that would revolt or frag officers would nevertheless want to continue the war in some form or another. Even within the new Bolshevik government that specifically came about because of a desire to end the conflict, the Civil War pulled many men on both sides who wanted to simply continue on as much as any ideological belief.

    Adolf Hitler, far from being an asocial freak, represented an entirely typical phenomenon. He might have taken it to a higher level given his own idiosyncrasies and the complete lack of anything worth returning to for him, but when he requested to be immediately transferred back not just to the front, but to his specific unit, he was displaying an entirely normal facet of human nature. Why wouldn’t you want to go back and be with the men who’d become an adopted, closer family?

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn’t think of it that way. I don’t think society chooses to remember it because it does not fit in at all with the view of human nature that the 21st Century encourages. There’s little room for stick-to-it-until-you-die sort of bonds. Nor for heroism, nor for the unrestrained best and worst of human nature. Nor for genuine hate or anger or happiness, when you think about it. Maybe a false, distilled version of it, at best.

    There’s a strange sense of artificiality and ennui hanging over the current age. One can’t escape the sense that it can’t last forever.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn’t think of it that way.
     
    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose. And relative to the past, modern warfare is actually uniquely low casualty in % terms. The 100 Years War is said to have killed off 1/2 of the population of France.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Historical_significance

    Even in absolute terms, that death toll was triple the combined French casualties in both World Wars. In % terms, the price paid was staggering, literally an order of magnitude higher. The difference today is that Western man is a lot more casualty-averse rather than modern warfare is uniquely bloody.
  38. @Justvisiting
    1968 video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9TkjL87Rk

    If you can lip read Mayor Daley correctly you get bonus points!

    “Report what he means, not what he says!”

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    lol--best Daley quote ever!
  39. @Twinkie

    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They’re the people who make the endless wars possible.
     
    They don't have much say in American military policy. It's the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams "Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!" at his TV screen.

    And, yes, I know you were talking abou them, not the warriors who enjoy being at war.

    And to be fair to the Joe Sixpack (and I am going to be a bit crude here), but who, but a limp-dick, doesn't want his team to kick ass and take down names? The only thing better is actually doing the ass-kicking and taking down names personally.

    Now, a wise person knows to "rule" by the fear of the ass-kicking* rather than the actual ass-kicking itself (which costs time, money/resources, and, in war, lives), but the sentiment is completely understanable for normal men.

    *Hence the saying, "the use of power grows power, but the use of force consumes it." And, of course, nobody just believes someone else's power forever, and there have to be occasional demonstrations of force to reinforce the said power.

    BTW, sorry about the triple tap post - I kept getting errors.

    They don’t have much say in American military policy. It’s the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams “Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!” at his TV screen.

    I don’t buy that. An aggressive expansionist foreign policy that relies on war to achieve its objectives is only politically practical because the Joe Sixpacks support it. It’s a cop-out to blame the elites for everything. The elites get away with the outrageous stuff they do because Joe Sixpack allows them to.

    Joe Sixpack is not an innocent victim. The elites have run riot because ordinary people are either too stupid, too lazy, too greedy or too vicious to do anything about it. As long as Joe Sixpack has his beer and his football and gets to chant USA! USA! every time the elites start another war then things will continue as they are.

    The horrible thing about democracy is that we really do get the governments we deserve.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.
     
    Jeez, you are a snob.
    , @iffen
    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    Greedier than "Jews"? Greedier than the Chinese?

    I don't know where you get your views on human nature, but this baseline stuff like greed and tribalism is a universal. Anglos can't be distinguished genetically from Northern Europeans in general and hardly in important cultural ways.
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you've just bought too far into liberal propaganda. What makes them elites is that they don't have to cater to the tastes of the peasants, they do what they do, and afterwards the peasants get to hear about why it was good from the media.

    By your logic every instance of the elites abusing them is the people's fault, and for what, not storming capital hill and executing congress? It's nice to think about but it's not going to happen.

    Under your model anything that happens to anybody becomes something they're complicit in unless they died trying to resist it.
  40. @Twinkie
    "Whites strike back in the Democratic primary" continues!

    Bernie’s whites have had enough of South Carolina’s “low information” blacks:

  41. @dfordoom

    They don’t have much say in American military policy. It’s the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams “Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!” at his TV screen.
     
    I don't buy that. An aggressive expansionist foreign policy that relies on war to achieve its objectives is only politically practical because the Joe Sixpacks support it. It's a cop-out to blame the elites for everything. The elites get away with the outrageous stuff they do because Joe Sixpack allows them to.

    Joe Sixpack is not an innocent victim. The elites have run riot because ordinary people are either too stupid, too lazy, too greedy or too vicious to do anything about it. As long as Joe Sixpack has his beer and his football and gets to chant USA! USA! every time the elites start another war then things will continue as they are.

    The horrible thing about democracy is that we really do get the governments we deserve.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    Jeez, you are a snob.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Jeez, you are a snob.
     
    I get irritated when people make excuses for voters and make claims that it's all hopeless because the lites control everything or the Jews control everything, or whatever.

    If ordinary people were unhappy with the situation they'd do something. But they don't. They complain incessantly but won't get off their arses so the logical conclusion is that they don't really care. Which allows highly motivated LGBT, feminist, BLM and environmental activists to control the political debate and allows the elite to advance its agenda unopposed. Lots of ordinary people don't like the agenda of these activists or of the elite but they don't care enough to offer any opposition. So they get screwed, and then they complain some more. And then they go back to the TV or to social media and forget about it.

    The epitaph for western civilisation could well be: You just can't help people who don't want to help themselves.
  42. @Twinkie

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.
     
    Jeez, you are a snob.

    Jeez, you are a snob.

    I get irritated when people make excuses for voters and make claims that it’s all hopeless because the lites control everything or the Jews control everything, or whatever.

    If ordinary people were unhappy with the situation they’d do something. But they don’t. They complain incessantly but won’t get off their arses so the logical conclusion is that they don’t really care. Which allows highly motivated LGBT, feminist, BLM and environmental activists to control the political debate and allows the elite to advance its agenda unopposed. Lots of ordinary people don’t like the agenda of these activists or of the elite but they don’t care enough to offer any opposition. So they get screwed, and then they complain some more. And then they go back to the TV or to social media and forget about it.

    The epitaph for western civilisation could well be: You just can’t help people who don’t want to help themselves.

    • Replies: @iffen
    If ordinary people

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little. If you understood HBD you would know this. :) And it is not the freaks calling the shots, it is the elites using celebrities and freaks. Bread and circuses and so on, that hasn't changed. So, yes it is the fault and responsibility of the elites. Complex societies cannot be had any other way.

  43. @dfordoom

    Jeez, you are a snob.
     
    I get irritated when people make excuses for voters and make claims that it's all hopeless because the lites control everything or the Jews control everything, or whatever.

    If ordinary people were unhappy with the situation they'd do something. But they don't. They complain incessantly but won't get off their arses so the logical conclusion is that they don't really care. Which allows highly motivated LGBT, feminist, BLM and environmental activists to control the political debate and allows the elite to advance its agenda unopposed. Lots of ordinary people don't like the agenda of these activists or of the elite but they don't care enough to offer any opposition. So they get screwed, and then they complain some more. And then they go back to the TV or to social media and forget about it.

    The epitaph for western civilisation could well be: You just can't help people who don't want to help themselves.

    If ordinary people

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little. If you understood HBD you would know this. 🙂 And it is not the freaks calling the shots, it is the elites using celebrities and freaks. Bread and circuses and so on, that hasn’t changed. So, yes it is the fault and responsibility of the elites. Complex societies cannot be had any other way.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little.
     
    You need both. You need some elite leadership, but you need ordinary people to be willing to set aside their inherent stupidity, laziness, greed and viciousness and actual follow such leadership.

    And no member of the elite is going to take the risk of providing leadership if people aren't willing to follow.

    There's also the problem that because the masses are stupid, lazy, greedy and vicious they will invariably follow the wrong leaders. The leaders most likely to successfully galvanise the masses are leaders who are dishonest, unscrupulous, ruthless and cynical.
    , @dfordoom

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little.
     
    If you believe that then it must logically follow that the dissident right is an exercise in futility. It has zero elite support and zero prospect of gaining any elite support.

    If you do believe that then I would agree with you.
  44. @Dissident

    I think Bernie would if he could end the wars for Israel.
     
    I have no great love for the Zionist state that has usurped the name Israel. But to suggest that they are solely to blame for all interventionist and aggressive U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it only since 1948 that the U.S. has waged unnecessary wars and indulged in empire-building? Only since 1948 then that the warnings of George Washington and John Qunicy Adams have gone unheeded?

    Aren't there are a lot of powerful interests that benefit from war? Is the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about nothing more than a creation of Zionism?

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    There's no business like show war business...

    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.
     
    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).
     
    All motivations are psychological, and because people are irrational all motivations are irrational.

    That's why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work - they're based on the assumption that people behave rationally. There's no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There's only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.
  45. @Twinkie

    There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It’s not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.
     
    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders (call them the war equivalents of violent soccer fans), there are genuine reasons why some men revel in going to war.

    I suggest you read “Tribe” by Sebastian Junger or at least watch his documentaries “Restrepo” and “Korengal” to get some sense of why people want to be in war, even if they may not actually love war (and may in fact be traumatized by war).

    https://youtu.be/eLMaPOuEA4Q

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families (often with a long history of military service through the generations). Lower class enlisted usually become truck drivers and supply clerks, not SOCOM ninjas.

    Some of the reasons why some men crave going to war are:

    1. A strong sense of camaraderie and cohesion that are not available in the civilian world (except in religious communities and perhaps sports teams). Training, fighting, and suffering hardship together builds an incredible sense of belonging and brotherhood that is unfathomable for those have never experienced it. People under fire truly become brothers whose bonds often exceed that of real families (in fact, it’s not uncommon for men to “abandon” their real families to get back to their units and fight again). Combat units become tribes. I just cannot stress this enough. People who only know of ordinary civilian-life friendships just have no clue about what kind of blood-brotherhood is forged under fire.

    2. A life under a code. There was a time in human life when men lived by a certain code and even died for it. That has given way to a life of lawyers and legalese. Although military life has long been invaded by the latter, it still retains a vestige of this life of a code of a warrior. If you are a man who can be relied upon and who is true to his words and puts out for his team, you are valued by others no matter whether you are poor or rich, an asshole or a sweetheart, or whatever. This is very appealing to those who are turned off by the bubble-wrapped, “we are only responsible for what the contract says” civilian world where money, power, and fame determine a man’s worth. (Outside of the military, another place where this kind of a code exists is a boxing gym or a Judo/Jiujitsu school, where none of the outside world status matters, and the only things that matter are whether you are courageous or not, have good fighting skills or not, and are a good training partner or not - not surprisingly the places where the same dynamic of brotherhood are forged.)

    3. A sense of adventure. Military life is often dull, boring, and full of shit-work, but it is also punctuated by moments of extreme thrill, the exotic, the exciting, and the dangerous, especially for those in high-readiness combat units. Some men are just wired that way - they cannot live by the safe, mundane, and even well-paid life alone. They need adventure.

    4. The greatest game in the world. You get to shoot at people who shoot back at you. You get to hunt the world’s most dangerous prey, who in turn hunts you. All of your faculties and abilities are honed to achieve success, because it is literally a matter of life and death (hopefully your life and your enemy’s death). There is no substitute for this in the civilian world - maybe prize-fighting, but even that is pillow-fighting compared to war, in which the entire spectrum of resources of whole communities are devoted to win. There is no domination - of imposing your will on the defeated - like winning at war.

    5. Sex. Yeah, you read that right. Forget barrack bunnies (though they do exist in abundance, some places and times more than others, enough to become a problem for the JAGs). Put on a uniform and drop by the local bar. You don’t need “game” - the uniform is the ultimate game. Don’t care about meaningless sex with strangers? Go away to war, leave your wife and family behind, then come back and see what kind of adulation, love, affection, and admiration you get from your wife and children. Your wife will, indeed, “love you a long time” (though the nagging will resume not so long after ;) ).

    I have run out of Unz cookies, so thanks for an informative and interesting post.

    Not that I think you will, but don’t make a habit of the crudeness contained in your other comment. You know how obnoxious the demotic can be in the wrong hands.

  46. @iffen
    If ordinary people

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little. If you understood HBD you would know this. :) And it is not the freaks calling the shots, it is the elites using celebrities and freaks. Bread and circuses and so on, that hasn't changed. So, yes it is the fault and responsibility of the elites. Complex societies cannot be had any other way.

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little.

    You need both. You need some elite leadership, but you need ordinary people to be willing to set aside their inherent stupidity, laziness, greed and viciousness and actual follow such leadership.

    And no member of the elite is going to take the risk of providing leadership if people aren’t willing to follow.

    There’s also the problem that because the masses are stupid, lazy, greedy and vicious they will invariably follow the wrong leaders. The leaders most likely to successfully galvanise the masses are leaders who are dishonest, unscrupulous, ruthless and cynical.

  47. @iffen
    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).

    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.

    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).

    All motivations are psychological, and because people are irrational all motivations are irrational.

    That’s why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work – they’re based on the assumption that people behave rationally. There’s no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There’s only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.

    • Replies: @Mark G.

    That’s why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work – they’re based on the assumption that people behave rationally.
     
    Yes, but if you turn over all business decisions to the government you also have to assume that the people working for the government aren't always going to behave rationally either. You mainly want to avoid moral hazard situations where someone can act irrationally and then shift the negative consequences onto someone else rather than suffer the consequences themselves.

    So you want decisions made either by individuals who then have to live with the results or if you have decisions made by government then have the decisions made at the most local level possible. That way anyone who doesn't agree with what the government is doing and think its agents are acting irrationally can easily move. The freedom to leave restrains local governments in the same way the freedom not to buy a product forces businesses to have at least some measure of concern for their customers.
    , @iffen
    There’s no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There’s only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.

    Informed and enlightened self-interest is a good definition of rational.
  48. @dfordoom


    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.
     
    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).
     
    All motivations are psychological, and because people are irrational all motivations are irrational.

    That's why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work - they're based on the assumption that people behave rationally. There's no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There's only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.

    That’s why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work – they’re based on the assumption that people behave rationally.

    Yes, but if you turn over all business decisions to the government you also have to assume that the people working for the government aren’t always going to behave rationally either. You mainly want to avoid moral hazard situations where someone can act irrationally and then shift the negative consequences onto someone else rather than suffer the consequences themselves.

    So you want decisions made either by individuals who then have to live with the results or if you have decisions made by government then have the decisions made at the most local level possible. That way anyone who doesn’t agree with what the government is doing and think its agents are acting irrationally can easily move. The freedom to leave restrains local governments in the same way the freedom not to buy a product forces businesses to have at least some measure of concern for their customers.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Yes, but if you turn over all business decisions to the government you also have to assume that the people working for the government aren’t always going to behave rationally either.

    Good comment, but the poz is just as strong in the business elites, if not stronger, as it is in the politico/academia/cultural elites, so I don't see any salvation there.
  49. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    The nice old black church ladies are manning the barricades.
     
    Only because they have ONE thing in common with WNs (another left-wing group), in that they are not happy about things like this, and turn to the Democratic Party to obstruct it :
    ________________________________________________

    "Ann-O-Mite" :


    https://peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ann-coulter.jpg

    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!
    When we boink, it outta sight!

    Cucks think she be on the right,
    Cuz of that, big checks they write
    !

    I is black, and she is white,
    One joins with the other like day and night!


    WN w**g*rs first quake with fright,
    But after a while, just burn with spite.


    Together, we set the stage alight!
    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!

    _________________________________

    Why is this guy allowed to post here? He’s obviously being paid to disrupt the forum with spam (and dehumanizing commentary). I’ve noticed he doesn’t even try making valid points anymore. The last time he tried, he got destroyed. He contributes nothing but vitriol. Please moderate his posts as others have repeatedly asked. I have a suspicion other authors have done exactly that as his posts appear here more regularly than elsewhere.

  50. @Thomm

    The nice old black church ladies are manning the barricades.
     
    Only because they have ONE thing in common with WNs (another left-wing group), in that they are not happy about things like this, and turn to the Democratic Party to obstruct it :
    ________________________________________________

    "Ann-O-Mite" :


    https://peopledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ann-coulter.jpg

    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!
    When we boink, it outta sight!

    Cucks think she be on the right,
    Cuz of that, big checks they write
    !

    I is black, and she is white,
    One joins with the other like day and night!


    WN w**g*rs first quake with fright,
    But after a while, just burn with spite.


    Together, we set the stage alight!
    She Dy-no-mite, she Dy-no-mite!!

    _________________________________

    Does your kind really get to make fun of others? Average WN IQ: 100. Average “Thomm” IQ: 89.

    • Replies: @BlackFlag
    Why do you think he's Indian? I thought most Indians in the US got on well with Whites. How about East Asians?
  51. @dfordoom

    They don’t have much say in American military policy. It’s the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams “Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!” at his TV screen.
     
    I don't buy that. An aggressive expansionist foreign policy that relies on war to achieve its objectives is only politically practical because the Joe Sixpacks support it. It's a cop-out to blame the elites for everything. The elites get away with the outrageous stuff they do because Joe Sixpack allows them to.

    Joe Sixpack is not an innocent victim. The elites have run riot because ordinary people are either too stupid, too lazy, too greedy or too vicious to do anything about it. As long as Joe Sixpack has his beer and his football and gets to chant USA! USA! every time the elites start another war then things will continue as they are.

    The horrible thing about democracy is that we really do get the governments we deserve.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    Greedier than “Jews”? Greedier than the Chinese?

    I don’t know where you get your views on human nature, but this baseline stuff like greed and tribalism is a universal. Anglos can’t be distinguished genetically from Northern Europeans in general and hardly in important cultural ways.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    but this baseline stuff like greed and tribalism is a universal. Anglos can’t be distinguished genetically from Northern Europeans in general and hardly in important cultural ways.
     
    I was speaking of the Anglosphere because that's what I'm familiar with. The voters of Portugal and Paraguay and South Korea may be just as bad but I know nothing of those countries. Greed, stupidity, laziness and viciousness probably are universal.

    Greedier than the Chinese
     
    The Chinese are just lucky. They've managed to avoid follies like democracy. As soon as they adopt democracy China will go down the toilet. Fortunately for the Chinese their elites seem to be aware just how foolish a notion democracy is. And fortunately for the Chinese their elites seem to be less malevolent and foolhardy than most western elites.
  52. @Mark G.

    That’s why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work – they’re based on the assumption that people behave rationally.
     
    Yes, but if you turn over all business decisions to the government you also have to assume that the people working for the government aren't always going to behave rationally either. You mainly want to avoid moral hazard situations where someone can act irrationally and then shift the negative consequences onto someone else rather than suffer the consequences themselves.

    So you want decisions made either by individuals who then have to live with the results or if you have decisions made by government then have the decisions made at the most local level possible. That way anyone who doesn't agree with what the government is doing and think its agents are acting irrationally can easily move. The freedom to leave restrains local governments in the same way the freedom not to buy a product forces businesses to have at least some measure of concern for their customers.

    Yes, but if you turn over all business decisions to the government you also have to assume that the people working for the government aren’t always going to behave rationally either.

    Good comment, but the poz is just as strong in the business elites, if not stronger, as it is in the politico/academia/cultural elites, so I don’t see any salvation there.

  53. @dfordoom


    motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.
     
    This appears to be applicable to motivations in general, not just peculiar to support for war(s).
     
    All motivations are psychological, and because people are irrational all motivations are irrational.

    That's why libertarianism, free-market economics and democracy can never work - they're based on the assumption that people behave rationally. There's no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There's only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.

    There’s no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There’s only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.

    Informed and enlightened self-interest is a good definition of rational.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Informed and enlightened self-interest is a good definition of rational.
     
    Yes. If you ever discover informed and enlightened self-interest anywhere in the real world let me know.
  54. @iffen
    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    Greedier than "Jews"? Greedier than the Chinese?

    I don't know where you get your views on human nature, but this baseline stuff like greed and tribalism is a universal. Anglos can't be distinguished genetically from Northern Europeans in general and hardly in important cultural ways.

    but this baseline stuff like greed and tribalism is a universal. Anglos can’t be distinguished genetically from Northern Europeans in general and hardly in important cultural ways.

    I was speaking of the Anglosphere because that’s what I’m familiar with. The voters of Portugal and Paraguay and South Korea may be just as bad but I know nothing of those countries. Greed, stupidity, laziness and viciousness probably are universal.

    Greedier than the Chinese

    The Chinese are just lucky. They’ve managed to avoid follies like democracy. As soon as they adopt democracy China will go down the toilet. Fortunately for the Chinese their elites seem to be aware just how foolish a notion democracy is. And fortunately for the Chinese their elites seem to be less malevolent and foolhardy than most western elites.

  55. @iffen
    There’s no such thing as enlightened self-interest. There’s only instinctive self-interest which is always irrational, or at least non-rational.

    Informed and enlightened self-interest is a good definition of rational.

    Informed and enlightened self-interest is a good definition of rational.

    Yes. If you ever discover informed and enlightened self-interest anywhere in the real world let me know.

  56. @Dissident

    Bernie is the Anti Jew.
     
    1.) - Zionism does not equal Judaism*
    - Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    2.) Is Bernie Sanders is even anti-Zionist, per se? Is he not merely more a Left-wing Zionist?

    3.) * https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/
    (All emphasis in quoted text below is mine- Dissident)

    When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.
     

    More than half of U.S. Jews say U.S. support for Israel is about right (54%), although a substantial minority says the U.S. is not supportive enough of the Jewish state (31%), and 11% think the U.S. is too supportive. By comparison, 41% of the general public thinks support for Israel is about right, while the rest are nearly evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is not supportive enough (25%) and those who say it is too supportive of the Jewish state (22%). Interestingly, more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).
     
    Note that the questions concerning attachment to Israel in the linked survey do not differentiate between the State of Israel and the The Land of Israel.

    4.) * Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by a near-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis.

    By the time of the establishment of the Zionist State, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated. Since then, there are basically three main groupings that Orthodox Jews fall into with regard to their position on this matter: anti-Zionist; non-Zionist; and Zionist. See below for some elaboration. A brief description of each of these three camps and how they differ from each other follows.

    - Those who are emphatically anti-Zionist. Not recognizing the State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government.

    Only a subset of the subset within the anti-Zionist camp that is generally known as Neturei Karta, is explicitly and actively pro-Arab. There are actually several factions of those who claim the name Neturei Karta. None of them, oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithstanding, support any form of terrorism or violence.

    - Those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. This camp is broadly known as Agudist after the Haredi political party named Agudas Yisrael (Agudath Israel).

    Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values was to work from within the State.

    - Those that are openly, explicitly and fully Zionist.
    This camp, originally known, after the name or their political parties as Mizrahi/Mafdal, and as Religious Zionists*, insists that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. Such a position, according to all of the anti-Zionist and most of the non-Zionist camps, can only be maintained by selective, tendentious treatment of the relevant canonical texts and received oral traditions.

    Within each of these three main groups that I have enumerated above are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. And there are certainly individuals, and even some communities and institutions that straddle the fence either between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps, or between the Zionist and non-Zionist ones.

    Both the anti-Zionist and the non-Zionist camps align almost fully within the broader subset of Orthodoxy that is known as Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox. Whereas the Zionist camp aligns mostly but not entirely with what is known as Modern-Orthodoxy.

    Let me note here, first, that what became known as Orthodox Judaism, from the perspective of those who practice it, is essentially nothing more than that which, up until the time of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), was simply the normative Judaism that nearly all Jews practiced. Back then, there was no concept of a Jewish identity divorced or distinct from the religion of Judaism.

    Second, the term "Ultra-Orthodox" is predicated upon considering as the normative standard that which is known as Modern-Orthodoxy. Such as predication is at least tendentious. Haredi is a preferable term but is not without problems of its own.

    *NOTE: A while back someone had, in a reply to a comment of mine, conflated Likud, the major center-right party led by Netanyahu, with Religious Zionists. That is an error that I had wanted to correct. Likud, while known for being more favorable toward and more likely to form coalitions with the Orthodox religious parties, has nonetheless always been distinct from them as its own, predominately secular entity.

    I guess it was the last election that Bernie made a point of visiting the Pope. He does seem to honestly oppose the Israeli lobby and the endless Middle East wars. Is Bernie anti Jew? I have no reason to think so. I said he is THE anti Jew meaning in the context of the comment to which I was replying that he was THE candidate who did not bend the knee to the Jewish State.

    My comment was off the cuff and misleading. I stand corrected.

    • Thanks: Dissident
  57. @nebulafox
    The letters of WWI diarists are illuminating because of how much it undercuts common wisdom about human nature: for many ordinary men, it was all quite exciting and fun and invigorating. They'd gripe about the dirt and the rats and incompetent superiors, and cynicism could set in about the official motives of the war depending on own's own leanings, but it could not fully eradicate it. The war had a strange pull that eluded definition. Many continued to love their cause and hate the enemy, of course. Beyond all ideological considerations, they loved their brothers in arms enough to die for them. It was a sense of intensity in belonging and purpose that had no analogue in a peacetime world that seemed so petty and sterile by comparison. The dissonance between the desire for these intense bonds and the increased disillusionment as the war went on became pretty apparent: men who belonged to army units that would revolt or frag officers would nevertheless want to continue the war in some form or another. Even within the new Bolshevik government that specifically came about because of a desire to end the conflict, the Civil War pulled many men on both sides who wanted to simply continue on as much as any ideological belief.

    Adolf Hitler, far from being an asocial freak, represented an entirely typical phenomenon. He might have taken it to a higher level given his own idiosyncrasies and the complete lack of anything worth returning to for him, but when he requested to be immediately transferred back not just to the front, but to his specific unit, he was displaying an entirely normal facet of human nature. Why wouldn't you want to go back and be with the men who'd become an adopted, closer family?

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn't think of it that way. I don't think society chooses to remember it because it does not fit in at all with the view of human nature that the 21st Century encourages. There's little room for stick-to-it-until-you-die sort of bonds. Nor for heroism, nor for the unrestrained best and worst of human nature. Nor for genuine hate or anger or happiness, when you think about it. Maybe a false, distilled version of it, at best.

    There's a strange sense of artificiality and ennui hanging over the current age. One can't escape the sense that it can't last forever.

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn’t think of it that way.

    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose. And relative to the past, modern warfare is actually uniquely low casualty in % terms. The 100 Years War is said to have killed off 1/2 of the population of France.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Historical_significance

    Even in absolute terms, that death toll was triple the combined French casualties in both World Wars. In % terms, the price paid was staggering, literally an order of magnitude higher. The difference today is that Western man is a lot more casualty-averse rather than modern warfare is uniquely bloody.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose.
     
    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.
    , @nebulafox
    >The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose.

    So, the UK and France exited WWI better than they entered it? I don't buy it. They limped along, but their days as major empires were numbered. Old Europe as a whole attempted suicide. It'd take some time to die, but the damage was done.

    There were two countries that did profit from WWI: the United States and Japan. For the latter, the profit was debatable given how Japanese military theory never seemed to evolve from pre-WWI notions of offensive elan. We saw how well that worked in the Pacific Theater during the next conflict. For the former, the turn to empire happened well before 1917, to be absolutely fair. But Wilsonian academic foreign policy notions of how the world worked were just as disastrous then as they are now. We managed to basically make Germany's strategic position stronger in the long term (however many problems Austria had, it served as a vital check on German and Russian ambitions in Central Europe), while simultaneously decisively turning the Germans against any form of European integration, to say nothing of the disastrous results of forcing Kerensky to continue the war and then intervening in a way that got confirmed throwback Whites like Brusilov to support the Bolsheviks.

  58. @iffen
    If ordinary people

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little. If you understood HBD you would know this. :) And it is not the freaks calling the shots, it is the elites using celebrities and freaks. Bread and circuses and so on, that hasn't changed. So, yes it is the fault and responsibility of the elites. Complex societies cannot be had any other way.

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little.

    If you believe that then it must logically follow that the dissident right is an exercise in futility. It has zero elite support and zero prospect of gaining any elite support.

    If you do believe that then I would agree with you.

    • Replies: @iffen
    the dissident right is an exercise in futility.

    We run into definition and grouping problems here.

    Issue by issue, there is a possibility that some changes for the better can be achieved. Take immigration for instance. Although I think that it is likely that the economic free booters will re-assert their control of the Repubican Party, the immigration patriots do have some chance of success.
  59. @Johann Ricke

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn’t think of it that way.
     
    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose. And relative to the past, modern warfare is actually uniquely low casualty in % terms. The 100 Years War is said to have killed off 1/2 of the population of France.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Historical_significance

    Even in absolute terms, that death toll was triple the combined French casualties in both World Wars. In % terms, the price paid was staggering, literally an order of magnitude higher. The difference today is that Western man is a lot more casualty-averse rather than modern warfare is uniquely bloody.

    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose.

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.
     
    As compared to the 100 Years War that killed half of France's population? You're thinking too short term. But that's just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.
    , @Twinkie

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted
     
    Yes, it was a very costly victory, and not just in material terms. The finest of a generation of Britons were lost at Passchendaele. But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.

    The First World War was “futile” to the extent it was unfinished - the interwar years were merely a gap in a long-running conflict from 1911 to 1945. Call it the Second Thirty Years’ War.
  60. @dfordoom

    Ordinary people need a slice of the elites to follow. Otherwise, you just get spasmodic riots, revolts and upheaval that changes little.
     
    If you believe that then it must logically follow that the dissident right is an exercise in futility. It has zero elite support and zero prospect of gaining any elite support.

    If you do believe that then I would agree with you.

    the dissident right is an exercise in futility.

    We run into definition and grouping problems here.

    Issue by issue, there is a possibility that some changes for the better can be achieved. Take immigration for instance. Although I think that it is likely that the economic free booters will re-assert their control of the Repubican Party, the immigration patriots do have some chance of success.

  61. @nebulafox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_PQaT-I0zc

    "Report what he means, not what he says!"

    lol–best Daley quote ever!

  62. @dfordoom

    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose.
     
    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.

    As compared to the 100 Years War that killed half of France’s population? You’re thinking too short term. But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    • Replies: @iffen
    But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    Are we?

    Maybe it's just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
    , @dfordoom

    As compared to the 100 Years War that killed half of France’s population? You’re thinking too short term. But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.
     
    I'm not sure that you understood my comment. I was not talking principally in terms of casualties. The First World, that glorious Anglo-French victory, wrecked both countries economically, socially, psychologically, culturally and politically. The number of casualties was not my main point. Both countries ceased to be great powers although they maintained the illusion of being great powers for a while longer.
  63. @Talha

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference
     
    Apparently Warren, Buttgieg and Klobacher also stated they would skip AIPAC. Uncle moneybags is going though...
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERzH6p_XUAg1rQl.jpg

    Peace.

    I am sure Warren will attend AIPAC after the election.

  64. @Dissident

    Bernie is the Anti Jew.
     
    1.) - Zionism does not equal Judaism*
    - Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    2.) Is Bernie Sanders is even anti-Zionist, per se? Is he not merely more a Left-wing Zionist?

    3.) * https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/
    (All emphasis in quoted text below is mine- Dissident)

    When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.
     

    More than half of U.S. Jews say U.S. support for Israel is about right (54%), although a substantial minority says the U.S. is not supportive enough of the Jewish state (31%), and 11% think the U.S. is too supportive. By comparison, 41% of the general public thinks support for Israel is about right, while the rest are nearly evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is not supportive enough (25%) and those who say it is too supportive of the Jewish state (22%). Interestingly, more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).
     
    Note that the questions concerning attachment to Israel in the linked survey do not differentiate between the State of Israel and the The Land of Israel.

    4.) * Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by a near-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis.

    By the time of the establishment of the Zionist State, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated. Since then, there are basically three main groupings that Orthodox Jews fall into with regard to their position on this matter: anti-Zionist; non-Zionist; and Zionist. See below for some elaboration. A brief description of each of these three camps and how they differ from each other follows.

    - Those who are emphatically anti-Zionist. Not recognizing the State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government.

    Only a subset of the subset within the anti-Zionist camp that is generally known as Neturei Karta, is explicitly and actively pro-Arab. There are actually several factions of those who claim the name Neturei Karta. None of them, oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithstanding, support any form of terrorism or violence.

    - Those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. This camp is broadly known as Agudist after the Haredi political party named Agudas Yisrael (Agudath Israel).

    Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values was to work from within the State.

    - Those that are openly, explicitly and fully Zionist.
    This camp, originally known, after the name or their political parties as Mizrahi/Mafdal, and as Religious Zionists*, insists that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. Such a position, according to all of the anti-Zionist and most of the non-Zionist camps, can only be maintained by selective, tendentious treatment of the relevant canonical texts and received oral traditions.

    Within each of these three main groups that I have enumerated above are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. And there are certainly individuals, and even some communities and institutions that straddle the fence either between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps, or between the Zionist and non-Zionist ones.

    Both the anti-Zionist and the non-Zionist camps align almost fully within the broader subset of Orthodoxy that is known as Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox. Whereas the Zionist camp aligns mostly but not entirely with what is known as Modern-Orthodoxy.

    Let me note here, first, that what became known as Orthodox Judaism, from the perspective of those who practice it, is essentially nothing more than that which, up until the time of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), was simply the normative Judaism that nearly all Jews practiced. Back then, there was no concept of a Jewish identity divorced or distinct from the religion of Judaism.

    Second, the term "Ultra-Orthodox" is predicated upon considering as the normative standard that which is known as Modern-Orthodoxy. Such as predication is at least tendentious. Haredi is a preferable term but is not without problems of its own.

    *NOTE: A while back someone had, in a reply to a comment of mine, conflated Likud, the major center-right party led by Netanyahu, with Religious Zionists. That is an error that I had wanted to correct. Likud, while known for being more favorable toward and more likely to form coalitions with the Orthodox religious parties, has nonetheless always been distinct from them as its own, predominately secular entity.

    Excellent informative comment!

    Perhaps sometime you can give us some clarification by way of numbers when you reference religious Jews as opposed to secular Jews and how they relate to your three categories. Also, you didn’t inform us of the distinction between Diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews and how they fit into the three.

    the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated.

    Likud … its own, predominately secular entity.

    more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).

    My peeps are more devoted to the Old Testament than Jews? 🙂

  65. @Johann Ricke

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.
     
    As compared to the 100 Years War that killed half of France's population? You're thinking too short term. But that's just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    Are we?

    Maybe it’s just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Talha

    effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
     
    A very important question arises - in the context of modern war - whether this is a great idea for a population already having to deal with issues of fertility and replacement as many Western nations are. Modern warfare, when it comes to high rates of mobilization of the populace can have an adverse effect on the kind of society that ends up emerging from the conflict. Who doesn't get sent to fight? Well, those who are physically incapable/unfit, cowards who can somehow figure out how to game the system, well-connected elites (the "Fortunate Son" scenario)...

    "In ancient times a battle may have been an effective sifting out of the weaker, less nimble, more cowardly combatants; but it is not so now. For the elimination is either fortuitous or in the wrong direction. The finest bodies of men are chosen for the most hazardous tasks, often involving terrible mortality, and the conspicuously brave are particularly apt to be cut off. In modern warfare the sifting tends to be dysgenic."
    https://www.nature.com/articles/094686a0

    A country that has a lot of extra young men lying around and high fertility might be in a good position, a country without these may not.

    Here is a very common scenario in modern war...a bunch of guys sitting around on tanks, walking around, etc. (how much energy/effort has been put into raising them, training them, equipping them and putting them in the field) getting snuffed by a button pressed on some console somewhere:
    https://twitter.com/LostWeapons/status/1233287501139210240

    https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1233299362501070851

    Or, you learn to borrow warm bodies and boots. Turkey (since we're on the subject) has been getting more ambitious and enlargening its foot print. I saw some photos of hundreds of Somalis they have been training (both in Somalia and in Turkey). The ones in Turkey have photos of them training in snow; now why would Somalis need to be trained for winter warfare?

    Peace.

    , @Johann Ricke

    Are we?

    Maybe it’s just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
     
    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?
  66. @iffen
    But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    Are we?

    Maybe it's just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.

    effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.

    A very important question arises – in the context of modern war – whether this is a great idea for a population already having to deal with issues of fertility and replacement as many Western nations are. Modern warfare, when it comes to high rates of mobilization of the populace can have an adverse effect on the kind of society that ends up emerging from the conflict. Who doesn’t get sent to fight? Well, those who are physically incapable/unfit, cowards who can somehow figure out how to game the system, well-connected elites (the “Fortunate Son” scenario)…

    “In ancient times a battle may have been an effective sifting out of the weaker, less nimble, more cowardly combatants; but it is not so now. For the elimination is either fortuitous or in the wrong direction. The finest bodies of men are chosen for the most hazardous tasks, often involving terrible mortality, and the conspicuously brave are particularly apt to be cut off. In modern warfare the sifting tends to be dysgenic.”
    https://www.nature.com/articles/094686a0

    A country that has a lot of extra young men lying around and high fertility might be in a good position, a country without these may not.

    Here is a very common scenario in modern war…a bunch of guys sitting around on tanks, walking around, etc. (how much energy/effort has been put into raising them, training them, equipping them and putting them in the field) getting snuffed by a button pressed on some console somewhere:

    Or, you learn to borrow warm bodies and boots. Turkey (since we’re on the subject) has been getting more ambitious and enlargening its foot print. I saw some photos of hundreds of Somalis they have been training (both in Somalia and in Turkey). The ones in Turkey have photos of them training in snow; now why would Somalis need to be trained for winter warfare?

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Russia, Turkey, Syria, bad terrorists and good terrorists in a shooting war. I'm searching for the downside for us.

    Not serious-- I hate to see unecessary death and destruction.
    , @anon
    That vid is a lot like vid from the first Gulf War nearly 28 years ago, except that it was taken from manned aircraft such as F-117's rather than remote piloted vehicles. Sensors of all kinds have only improved since then...

    The world militaries are still learning both the use and countermeasure of remote piloted vehicles. Lots of old and / or ignorant people still think in terms of the 20th century: masses of armored vehicles, masses of aircraft, wheel-to-wheel artillery, etc. That's as gone as Napoleonic shoulder-to-shoulder bayonet charges. Low radar signature, secure communication links, efficient and quiet engines - all adds up to making RPV's very useful machines for war, and no pilots to be taken captive.

    Demographics matter. The PLA had no issue with human wave attacks 60+ years ago in Korea, but didn't even try that stuff with Viet Nam in 1979 for obvious reasons. Now with a couple of generations of one-child families, the PRC leadership knows that sending too many Little Emperors off to war might damage the Mandate of Heaven. Each soldier has two parents and four grandparents and no siblings.

    The primary source of military men in the US remains the Southeast plus the midwest and mountain states. The majority of US combat soldiers - the Marine riflemen, the Army airborne and mech infantry - they are the much despised "white males" who oppress everyone else, according to liberals. The Eastern Roman Empire became doomed when Islamic invaders took over Anatolia, and deprived Constantinople of its primary source of soldiers. Modern retarded white-hating liberals are doing something very similar to the US with their love of endless invasion. Not immigration, invasion.

  67. @iffen
    But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    Are we?

    Maybe it's just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.

    Are we?

    Maybe it’s just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.

    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?

    • Replies: @iffen
    A lot of us were, but more than that, there was little effective resistance to the draft until Vietnam and that was minimal. The chaos and resistance within the military in the lower ranks was a key ingredient that caused the elites to end the war, not draft dodgers.
    , @dfordoom

    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?
     
    All my relatives who fought in both world wars were volunteers. Enthusiastic volunteers.

    What's interesting is that my grandfather who fought for the British in WW1 spent the rest of his life hating the British. He felt no animosity towards the Turks, against whom he fought.

    At least one of my male relatives who fought in WW2 against the Japanese spent the rest of his life hating the Americans.
  68. @Talha

    effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
     
    A very important question arises - in the context of modern war - whether this is a great idea for a population already having to deal with issues of fertility and replacement as many Western nations are. Modern warfare, when it comes to high rates of mobilization of the populace can have an adverse effect on the kind of society that ends up emerging from the conflict. Who doesn't get sent to fight? Well, those who are physically incapable/unfit, cowards who can somehow figure out how to game the system, well-connected elites (the "Fortunate Son" scenario)...

    "In ancient times a battle may have been an effective sifting out of the weaker, less nimble, more cowardly combatants; but it is not so now. For the elimination is either fortuitous or in the wrong direction. The finest bodies of men are chosen for the most hazardous tasks, often involving terrible mortality, and the conspicuously brave are particularly apt to be cut off. In modern warfare the sifting tends to be dysgenic."
    https://www.nature.com/articles/094686a0

    A country that has a lot of extra young men lying around and high fertility might be in a good position, a country without these may not.

    Here is a very common scenario in modern war...a bunch of guys sitting around on tanks, walking around, etc. (how much energy/effort has been put into raising them, training them, equipping them and putting them in the field) getting snuffed by a button pressed on some console somewhere:
    https://twitter.com/LostWeapons/status/1233287501139210240

    https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1233299362501070851

    Or, you learn to borrow warm bodies and boots. Turkey (since we're on the subject) has been getting more ambitious and enlargening its foot print. I saw some photos of hundreds of Somalis they have been training (both in Somalia and in Turkey). The ones in Turkey have photos of them training in snow; now why would Somalis need to be trained for winter warfare?

    Peace.

    Russia, Turkey, Syria, bad terrorists and good terrorists in a shooting war. I’m searching for the downside for us.

    Not serious– I hate to see unecessary death and destruction.

    • Replies: @Talha

    Not serious– I hate to see unecessary death and destruction.
     
    Yup. And when it's your peeps (especially the most able-bodied and capable ones) dying by the tens of thousands in a useless war and you aren't churning out enough to replace them...that turns a tragedy into a nightmare scenario.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    On this - the Turks are pissed. I haven't seen anything like this for a while, Syria has lost hundreds of men, many many tanks, howitzers and even SAM batteries. They are trying to bring this fight to a close fast:
    https://twitter.com/Elizrael/status/1233817103423197184

    Which is good for Europe; the Syrian push into that area resulted in thousands of displaced refugees headed to where...? Guess.

    There are videos of thousands of families at the border of Greece right now. Another person showed that once the spring begins, a whole new fleet of boats is going to come Europe-bound. Russia doesn't care about these refugees, they are headed Northwest, not Northeast - they have zero liability.

    If Turkey can end the situation by basically destroying a tenth of the Syrian military in precision strikes, it'll be well worth it for everyone (minus those guys in the cross hairs). If the region becomes stable, the refugees can start returning ASAP. Sovereignty/border issues (as well as disarmament of militant groups) can be negotiated later.

    Peace.
  69. @Johann Ricke

    Are we?

    Maybe it’s just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
     
    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?

    A lot of us were, but more than that, there was little effective resistance to the draft until Vietnam and that was minimal. The chaos and resistance within the military in the lower ranks was a key ingredient that caused the elites to end the war, not draft dodgers.

  70. @Buck
    It's been funny watching the DNC morph into the ANC. During my lifetime, the Democrats have always been the party of aggrieved blacks but it used to have to chill the anti-white stuff. Even Bill Clinton adopted the tough-on-crime, welfare reform stance to pander to suburban whites.

    Now the gloves are off. Despite their complexions, the D candidates stumble over each other denigrating whiteness in the name of "Justice"! Economic justice simply means redistribution of white wealth. Social justice simply means removing whites from positions of authority. Criminal justice means legalizing crime.

    Obviously the Democrats are simply a party of racial spoils now. Only as America is very diverse, they have many different groups they need to rally against the white oppressors. Everybody is in on the joke but keep insisting that there's REAL OPPRESSION out there! In reality, white people have built a nice country and the Othering wants to take it.

    Yep, racism and oppression is being denied access to whites in order to exploit them. Not just other races, but institutions like the political parties, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. I’ve said it here before, anyone who doesn’t like whites can just get away from them. If you won’t split, you’re full of shit.

  71. @Twinkie

    It was the civilian cheerleaders I was talking about. They’re the people who make the endless wars possible.
     
    They don't have much say in American military policy. It's the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams "Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!" at his TV screen.

    And, yes, I know you were talking abou them, not the warriors who enjoy being at war.

    And to be fair to the Joe Sixpack (and I am going to be a bit crude here), but who, but a limp-dick, doesn't want his team to kick ass and take down names? The only thing better is actually doing the ass-kicking and taking down names personally.

    Now, a wise person knows to "rule" by the fear of the ass-kicking* rather than the actual ass-kicking itself (which costs time, money/resources, and, in war, lives), but the sentiment is completely understanable for normal men.

    *Hence the saying, "the use of power grows power, but the use of force consumes it." And, of course, nobody just believes someone else's power forever, and there have to be occasional demonstrations of force to reinforce the said power.

    BTW, sorry about the triple tap post - I kept getting errors.

    and take down names

    This is irrelevant to the discussion, but every time I hear this expression it reminds me of this:

  72. @iffen
    Russia, Turkey, Syria, bad terrorists and good terrorists in a shooting war. I'm searching for the downside for us.

    Not serious-- I hate to see unecessary death and destruction.

    Not serious– I hate to see unecessary death and destruction.

    Yup. And when it’s your peeps (especially the most able-bodied and capable ones) dying by the tens of thousands in a useless war and you aren’t churning out enough to replace them…that turns a tragedy into a nightmare scenario.

    Peace.

  73. @Intelligent Dasein

    I was not a Bernie fan until he said that Netanyahu is a Racist, he was not going to the AIPAC conference, and he would consider moving the US embassy back to Tel Aviv. Now all I can say is – Go Bernie!
     
    Bernie Sanders eschewing AIPAC is not due to either balls or principles, but to him being a mountebank who does not know how American politics works. The Israelis with their connections and their very deep pockets will now manuever to make his life quite difficult.

    Now, getting the Israeli influence out of American policy is a desirable thing, but it has to be done the right way. Do net let this tactless effort by a dottering, dimwitted old crank cause you to think of him as a hero just because in his wrecklessness he managed to crash into an old, unsightly eyesore that you had long wanted removed anyway. Remember the maxim that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Many an arriviste has in his ascent cut through a Gordian knot that the program-politics of the day was powerless to untangle; that does not mean that the collateral damage was worth it. A bernie presidency would be orders of magnitude more disastrous for America than any Israeli influence; it would, in fact, be the accomplishment of the very thing that Israel's fiercest detractors charge it with trying to affect---namely the impoverishment, imprisonment, and final humiliation of the historical American population.

    By the way, Bernie's backers seem to consist of Silicon Valley snobs and ultra-WASPY enclaves, as the article below details. He appears to be a more thoroughgoing Globohom stooge than anyone we've ever seen before, so it is quite questionable hoe accurately his current grandstanding would reflect his future behavior as president anyway.

    Bernie Sanders is funded by the wealthiest ZIP codes in America

    I know a very very working class guy, you know, WASP, who does some tile-work when he can get it and then spends most of his time drinking in the bar and grill where his mother is the bar-back.

    His 2 favorites in the last election were Trump and Sanders. If Sanders had run, he’d have chosen Sanders by a hair.

    He is legion. I seldom disagree with you but I am afraid, this time, I believe that you misread the American public. Great numbers, I am pretty sure, of those who voted Trump will vote Sanders given the chance.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    I am the same. I like both Trump and Sanders for different reasons. Bloomberg is my least favorite candidate.
  74. @dfordoom

    They don’t have much say in American military policy. It’s the elites and the political class, in particular, who do, not the ordinary Joe Sixpack who screams “Fuck yeah, USA, bomb these ragheads!” at his TV screen.
     
    I don't buy that. An aggressive expansionist foreign policy that relies on war to achieve its objectives is only politically practical because the Joe Sixpacks support it. It's a cop-out to blame the elites for everything. The elites get away with the outrageous stuff they do because Joe Sixpack allows them to.

    Joe Sixpack is not an innocent victim. The elites have run riot because ordinary people are either too stupid, too lazy, too greedy or too vicious to do anything about it. As long as Joe Sixpack has his beer and his football and gets to chant USA! USA! every time the elites start another war then things will continue as they are.

    The horrible thing about democracy is that we really do get the governments we deserve.

    And I should add that voters throughout the Anglophone world are just as dumb, greedy, lazy and vicious as the American voters.

    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you’ve just bought too far into liberal propaganda. What makes them elites is that they don’t have to cater to the tastes of the peasants, they do what they do, and afterwards the peasants get to hear about why it was good from the media.

    By your logic every instance of the elites abusing them is the people’s fault, and for what, not storming capital hill and executing congress? It’s nice to think about but it’s not going to happen.

    Under your model anything that happens to anybody becomes something they’re complicit in unless they died trying to resist it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you’ve just bought too far into liberal propaganda.
     
    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.

    The problem is that because the public is mostly stupid, greedy, lazy and vicious and most importantly irrational it isn't difficult to mould public opinion. All you have to do is present your policies in such a way as to appeal to stupidity, greed, laziness, viciousness and most importantly irrationality. The key is to always remember that the public is irrational.

    Moulding public opinion isn't difficult, but it has to be done. Any regime that does not have public support will fall. Even dictatorships, which survive as long as a majority of the populace supports them.
  75. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:

    No idea why so many commenters at Unz can’t seem to find The Google and use it.

    Whatever.

    If anyone wants to actually learn…as with all wiki articles there are flaws but the overall outline is accurate.

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

    Global view.

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

    You’re welcome.

  76. anon[227] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha

    effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
     
    A very important question arises - in the context of modern war - whether this is a great idea for a population already having to deal with issues of fertility and replacement as many Western nations are. Modern warfare, when it comes to high rates of mobilization of the populace can have an adverse effect on the kind of society that ends up emerging from the conflict. Who doesn't get sent to fight? Well, those who are physically incapable/unfit, cowards who can somehow figure out how to game the system, well-connected elites (the "Fortunate Son" scenario)...

    "In ancient times a battle may have been an effective sifting out of the weaker, less nimble, more cowardly combatants; but it is not so now. For the elimination is either fortuitous or in the wrong direction. The finest bodies of men are chosen for the most hazardous tasks, often involving terrible mortality, and the conspicuously brave are particularly apt to be cut off. In modern warfare the sifting tends to be dysgenic."
    https://www.nature.com/articles/094686a0

    A country that has a lot of extra young men lying around and high fertility might be in a good position, a country without these may not.

    Here is a very common scenario in modern war...a bunch of guys sitting around on tanks, walking around, etc. (how much energy/effort has been put into raising them, training them, equipping them and putting them in the field) getting snuffed by a button pressed on some console somewhere:
    https://twitter.com/LostWeapons/status/1233287501139210240

    https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1233299362501070851

    Or, you learn to borrow warm bodies and boots. Turkey (since we're on the subject) has been getting more ambitious and enlargening its foot print. I saw some photos of hundreds of Somalis they have been training (both in Somalia and in Turkey). The ones in Turkey have photos of them training in snow; now why would Somalis need to be trained for winter warfare?

    Peace.

    That vid is a lot like vid from the first Gulf War nearly 28 years ago, except that it was taken from manned aircraft such as F-117’s rather than remote piloted vehicles. Sensors of all kinds have only improved since then…

    The world militaries are still learning both the use and countermeasure of remote piloted vehicles. Lots of old and / or ignorant people still think in terms of the 20th century: masses of armored vehicles, masses of aircraft, wheel-to-wheel artillery, etc. That’s as gone as Napoleonic shoulder-to-shoulder bayonet charges. Low radar signature, secure communication links, efficient and quiet engines – all adds up to making RPV’s very useful machines for war, and no pilots to be taken captive.

    Demographics matter. The PLA had no issue with human wave attacks 60+ years ago in Korea, but didn’t even try that stuff with Viet Nam in 1979 for obvious reasons. Now with a couple of generations of one-child families, the PRC leadership knows that sending too many Little Emperors off to war might damage the Mandate of Heaven. Each soldier has two parents and four grandparents and no siblings.

    The primary source of military men in the US remains the Southeast plus the midwest and mountain states. The majority of US combat soldiers – the Marine riflemen, the Army airborne and mech infantry – they are the much despised “white males” who oppress everyone else, according to liberals. The Eastern Roman Empire became doomed when Islamic invaders took over Anatolia, and deprived Constantinople of its primary source of soldiers. Modern retarded white-hating liberals are doing something very similar to the US with their love of endless invasion. Not immigration, invasion.

    • Thanks: Talha
  77. @Johann Ricke

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.
     
    As compared to the 100 Years War that killed half of France's population? You're thinking too short term. But that's just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    As compared to the 100 Years War that killed half of France’s population? You’re thinking too short term. But that’s just another symptom of Western man getting extremely casualty-averse.

    I’m not sure that you understood my comment. I was not talking principally in terms of casualties. The First World, that glorious Anglo-French victory, wrecked both countries economically, socially, psychologically, culturally and politically. The number of casualties was not my main point. Both countries ceased to be great powers although they maintained the illusion of being great powers for a while longer.

  78. @Johann Ricke

    Are we?

    Maybe it’s just that our elites are running out of effective ways to get us to volunteer for cannon fodder duty.
     
    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?

    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?

    All my relatives who fought in both world wars were volunteers. Enthusiastic volunteers.

    What’s interesting is that my grandfather who fought for the British in WW1 spent the rest of his life hating the British. He felt no animosity towards the Turks, against whom he fought.

    At least one of my male relatives who fought in WW2 against the Japanese spent the rest of his life hating the Americans.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    The elites control the media who beat the war drums and convince most of the masses that it is heroic and patriotic to go fight in a war.

    The brainwashed young man "volunteers".

    Is it informed consent?

    I would say "no"--he was duped. Those who duped him are war criminals imho.
  79. @dfordoom

    In addition to all those with obvious financial interests in war, there would also appear to be more than a few Americans who cheer-on belligerence and war from motivations that appear to be psychological in nature.
     
    Agreed. There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It's not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.

    This seems to be very much a thing in both Britain and the United States. And it's no coincidence that in both countries there is massive economic inequality and it's no coincidence that in both countries life for those at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum really sucks. For the underclass and for the working class and increasingly for the lower middle class life offers nothing but humiliation and struggle. Naturally those classes cling to anything that makes them feel less miserable and less powerless. Waging wars against countries that can't fight back makes them feel better.

    In the US you also have the peculiarities of American Protestantism, which encourages the idea of moral crusades. And what easier and better way is there to wage a moral crusade than by bombing wicked people in other countries?

    In the US you also have the peculiarities of American Protestantism, which encourages the idea of moral crusades. And what easier and better way is there to wage a moral crusade than by bombing wicked people in other countries?

    Yep, I was thinking about this when I read Sailer’s post on Afghanistan. I supported that war back in the day, because I genuinely thought liberating the country from the Taliban was a good and heroic deed.

  80. @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you've just bought too far into liberal propaganda. What makes them elites is that they don't have to cater to the tastes of the peasants, they do what they do, and afterwards the peasants get to hear about why it was good from the media.

    By your logic every instance of the elites abusing them is the people's fault, and for what, not storming capital hill and executing congress? It's nice to think about but it's not going to happen.

    Under your model anything that happens to anybody becomes something they're complicit in unless they died trying to resist it.

    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you’ve just bought too far into liberal propaganda.

    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.

    The problem is that because the public is mostly stupid, greedy, lazy and vicious and most importantly irrational it isn’t difficult to mould public opinion. All you have to do is present your policies in such a way as to appeal to stupidity, greed, laziness, viciousness and most importantly irrationality. The key is to always remember that the public is irrational.

    Moulding public opinion isn’t difficult, but it has to be done. Any regime that does not have public support will fall. Even dictatorships, which survive as long as a majority of the populace supports them.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.
     
    It's important in the sense that the elites want and need to make the people think that they support whatever it is the elites are going to do without regard to public opinion.
    , @Znzn
    I thought all you need to survive as a dictator is to have a steady supply of hollow point rounds, and to monopolize said supply?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The elites are going to get it in the public. It's easier and better if it's consensual, but if it has to be forced, it'll be forced. The resistance has to be exceptionally strong and focused to stop it, so it is rarely stopped.

    The analogy is crass, but it gets to the point.

  81. @obwandiyag
    I know a very very working class guy, you know, WASP, who does some tile-work when he can get it and then spends most of his time drinking in the bar and grill where his mother is the bar-back.

    His 2 favorites in the last election were Trump and Sanders. If Sanders had run, he'd have chosen Sanders by a hair.

    He is legion. I seldom disagree with you but I am afraid, this time, I believe that you misread the American public. Great numbers, I am pretty sure, of those who voted Trump will vote Sanders given the chance.

    I am the same. I like both Trump and Sanders for different reasons. Bloomberg is my least favorite candidate.

  82. @dfordoom

    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you’ve just bought too far into liberal propaganda.
     
    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.

    The problem is that because the public is mostly stupid, greedy, lazy and vicious and most importantly irrational it isn't difficult to mould public opinion. All you have to do is present your policies in such a way as to appeal to stupidity, greed, laziness, viciousness and most importantly irrationality. The key is to always remember that the public is irrational.

    Moulding public opinion isn't difficult, but it has to be done. Any regime that does not have public support will fall. Even dictatorships, which survive as long as a majority of the populace supports them.

    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.

    It’s important in the sense that the elites want and need to make the people think that they support whatever it is the elites are going to do without regard to public opinion.

  83. @Justvisiting
    1968 video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj9TkjL87Rk

    If you can lip read Mayor Daley correctly you get bonus points!

    Mayor Daley Sr. said that Sen. Ribicoff was a faker.

  84. @dfordoom

    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you’ve just bought too far into liberal propaganda.
     
    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.

    The problem is that because the public is mostly stupid, greedy, lazy and vicious and most importantly irrational it isn't difficult to mould public opinion. All you have to do is present your policies in such a way as to appeal to stupidity, greed, laziness, viciousness and most importantly irrationality. The key is to always remember that the public is irrational.

    Moulding public opinion isn't difficult, but it has to be done. Any regime that does not have public support will fall. Even dictatorships, which survive as long as a majority of the populace supports them.

    I thought all you need to survive as a dictator is to have a steady supply of hollow point rounds, and to monopolize said supply?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I thought all you need to survive as a dictator is to have a steady supply of hollow point rounds, and to monopolize said supply?
     
    In that case you'll soon be a dead dictator.

    The dirty little secret about dictatorships is that they're often extremely popular. The unpopular ones get overthrown. Dictators are often more popular with their own people than democratically elected leaders are with theirs.

    It's also worth pointing out that dictators are usually removed from office by foreign intervention rather than by their own people.
  85. @Znzn
    I thought all you need to survive as a dictator is to have a steady supply of hollow point rounds, and to monopolize said supply?

    I thought all you need to survive as a dictator is to have a steady supply of hollow point rounds, and to monopolize said supply?

    In that case you’ll soon be a dead dictator.

    The dirty little secret about dictatorships is that they’re often extremely popular. The unpopular ones get overthrown. Dictators are often more popular with their own people than democratically elected leaders are with theirs.

    It’s also worth pointing out that dictators are usually removed from office by foreign intervention rather than by their own people.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The dirty little secret about dictatorships is that they’re often extremely popular.

    It's no secret. I learned in Junior High School over 50 years ago that the "best" form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.

  86. @dfordoom

    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose.
     
    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted and became a great power in name only since she would never again be able to afford to fight a major war. In every way Britain was worse off as a result of winning that war. I think that qualifies as futile.

    France was on the winning side as well. The country was bled white and never recovered from that glorious victory. France was finished as a great power. I think that qualifies as futile.

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted

    Yes, it was a very costly victory, and not just in material terms. The finest of a generation of Britons were lost at Passchendaele. But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.

    The First World War was “futile” to the extent it was unfinished – the interwar years were merely a gap in a long-running conflict from 1911 to 1945. Call it the Second Thirty Years’ War.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.
     
    The war was totally unnecessary. Russia would not have mobilised without the assurance of French support. If the French had made it clear they were not going to join a conflict that did not concern them Russia would not have mobilised and there would have been no war. And the French would not have backed Russia without feeling assured of British support. A completely unnecessary and futile war from the point of view of the victors.

    All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.
  87. @Twinkie

    The British won the First World War. As a result Britain was virtually bankrupted
     
    Yes, it was a very costly victory, and not just in material terms. The finest of a generation of Britons were lost at Passchendaele. But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.

    The First World War was “futile” to the extent it was unfinished - the interwar years were merely a gap in a long-running conflict from 1911 to 1945. Call it the Second Thirty Years’ War.

    But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.

    The war was totally unnecessary. Russia would not have mobilised without the assurance of French support. If the French had made it clear they were not going to join a conflict that did not concern them Russia would not have mobilised and there would have been no war. And the French would not have backed Russia without feeling assured of British support. A completely unnecessary and futile war from the point of view of the victors.

    All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Russia would not have mobilised without the assurance of French support.

    Yeah, just like they wouldn't have gotten into WWII if only France had ..., oh, never mind.
    , @nebulafox
    But there probably wouldn't have been British support if Germany didn't invade Belgium. Public opinion in London was decidedly anti-intervention until that happened. The Germans knew the risk they were taking: they wanted to try to get the French to bite first.

    Ohkrana chief Pyotr Durnovo stands out as a guy who really did predict what would happen. In a highly prescient memorandum, he was disturbingly accurate about what the consequences of a war with Germany could be. But he was in the minority. Even people who were lambasting Bloody Nicholas just a few years earlier were in the streets cheering on the Tsar when war was declared. It's doubly tragic because Durnovo and his merry men were on the verge of having the Bolsheviks implode by the 1910s.

    (Durnovo was a pretty interesting guy. He, along with Stolypin, was the main reason the autocracy managed to somehow get out of 1905. His methods were not pretty. By the end in Tsarist Russia, nobody could tell which bombings were leftist radicals and which were Ohkrana operatives launching false flags, some of whom went rogue and did their own thing. But they were working: terrorists tend to be a pretty paranoia-prone bunch that can be easily goaded into doing stupid, self-defeating things if you don't care about the human cost involved. The Bolsheviks were in a state of complete meltdown before the war rescued them. Of course, there's also the fact that Stolypin's assassin also worked for the Ohkrana, and he was probably the last chance to get the autocracy on track...)

    >All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.

    This, I mostly agree with, since a German dominated Europe is what we more or less have today anyway. But if it wasn't the July crisis, it would have been something else. People in European capitals were trying to figure out when "The Day" would be for the great cataclysm, not if. It didn't need to be the massive self-inflicted civilizational mortal wound it turned out to be. But something was going to happen barring deeper changes in the timeline.

    The thing that sticks out about German foreign policy in the 1890s and 1900s was that nobody seemed to know what they were doing and they kept sending out completely schizophrenic messages to the world. It wasn't some plan for world domination: there was no plan at all. They needed another Bismarck, a guy with a coherent foreign policy vision who didn't suffer fools and wasn't afraid to tell fantasists where to stick theirs.
  88. @dfordoom

    But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.
     
    The war was totally unnecessary. Russia would not have mobilised without the assurance of French support. If the French had made it clear they were not going to join a conflict that did not concern them Russia would not have mobilised and there would have been no war. And the French would not have backed Russia without feeling assured of British support. A completely unnecessary and futile war from the point of view of the victors.

    All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.

    Russia would not have mobilised without the assurance of French support.

    Yeah, just like they wouldn’t have gotten into WWII if only France had …, oh, never mind.

  89. @dfordoom

    I thought all you need to survive as a dictator is to have a steady supply of hollow point rounds, and to monopolize said supply?
     
    In that case you'll soon be a dead dictator.

    The dirty little secret about dictatorships is that they're often extremely popular. The unpopular ones get overthrown. Dictators are often more popular with their own people than democratically elected leaders are with theirs.

    It's also worth pointing out that dictators are usually removed from office by foreign intervention rather than by their own people.

    The dirty little secret about dictatorships is that they’re often extremely popular.

    It’s no secret. I learned in Junior High School over 50 years ago that the “best” form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.

  90. @dfordoom

    But the costs, as such, would have been much worse if Britain had lost. And the same goes for France, only doubly so.
     
    The war was totally unnecessary. Russia would not have mobilised without the assurance of French support. If the French had made it clear they were not going to join a conflict that did not concern them Russia would not have mobilised and there would have been no war. And the French would not have backed Russia without feeling assured of British support. A completely unnecessary and futile war from the point of view of the victors.

    All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.

    But there probably wouldn’t have been British support if Germany didn’t invade Belgium. Public opinion in London was decidedly anti-intervention until that happened. The Germans knew the risk they were taking: they wanted to try to get the French to bite first.

    Ohkrana chief Pyotr Durnovo stands out as a guy who really did predict what would happen. In a highly prescient memorandum, he was disturbingly accurate about what the consequences of a war with Germany could be. But he was in the minority. Even people who were lambasting Bloody Nicholas just a few years earlier were in the streets cheering on the Tsar when war was declared. It’s doubly tragic because Durnovo and his merry men were on the verge of having the Bolsheviks implode by the 1910s.

    (Durnovo was a pretty interesting guy. He, along with Stolypin, was the main reason the autocracy managed to somehow get out of 1905. His methods were not pretty. By the end in Tsarist Russia, nobody could tell which bombings were leftist radicals and which were Ohkrana operatives launching false flags, some of whom went rogue and did their own thing. But they were working: terrorists tend to be a pretty paranoia-prone bunch that can be easily goaded into doing stupid, self-defeating things if you don’t care about the human cost involved. The Bolsheviks were in a state of complete meltdown before the war rescued them. Of course, there’s also the fact that Stolypin’s assassin also worked for the Ohkrana, and he was probably the last chance to get the autocracy on track…)

    >All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.

    This, I mostly agree with, since a German dominated Europe is what we more or less have today anyway. But if it wasn’t the July crisis, it would have been something else. People in European capitals were trying to figure out when “The Day” would be for the great cataclysm, not if. It didn’t need to be the massive self-inflicted civilizational mortal wound it turned out to be. But something was going to happen barring deeper changes in the timeline.

    The thing that sticks out about German foreign policy in the 1890s and 1900s was that nobody seemed to know what they were doing and they kept sending out completely schizophrenic messages to the world. It wasn’t some plan for world domination: there was no plan at all. They needed another Bismarck, a guy with a coherent foreign policy vision who didn’t suffer fools and wasn’t afraid to tell fantasists where to stick theirs.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The thing that sticks out about German foreign policy in the 1890s and 1900s was that nobody seemed to know what they were doing and they kept sending out completely schizophrenic messages to the world. It wasn’t some plan for world domination: there was no plan at all.
     
    Agreed. To a certain extent that's true of all the European great powers. The level of incompetence in foreign policy was staggering. No long-term thinking. No awareness at all of the risks of a large-scale war. Most of all they failed to understand that if they destroyed themselves, or seriously damaged themselves, the end result would be domination by the United States. They failed to see that the great threat to Europe was rising American power.

    Even after the First World War Europeans still failed to perceive the American threat. Britain signed the death warrant of its empire when it abrogated the alliance with Japan. The British and Japanese Empires could co-exist. No co-existence was going to be possible wth the American Empire.

    After WW1 the French had no clue what was going on. They still thought they were a Great Power. Germany failed to understand that the United States was not going to tolerate the existence of a strong Germany. And I'm not just talking about Hitler (whose foreign policy was an incoherent mass of daydreams) - no-one in Germany understood that there was going to be no place for a strong Germany in the new American world order.
  91. @Johann Ricke

    The reason I chose this example was because that is a conflict that is most often thought of in retrospect-and for pretty good reason-as epitomizing the bloody futility and destructiveness of modern warfare. But it is crucial to note that many of the people who fought in the war at the time didn’t think of it that way.
     
    The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose. And relative to the past, modern warfare is actually uniquely low casualty in % terms. The 100 Years War is said to have killed off 1/2 of the population of France.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War#Historical_significance

    Even in absolute terms, that death toll was triple the combined French casualties in both World Wars. In % terms, the price paid was staggering, literally an order of magnitude higher. The difference today is that Western man is a lot more casualty-averse rather than modern warfare is uniquely bloody.

    >The only thing futile about modern warfare, as with all other wars in history, is when you lose.

    So, the UK and France exited WWI better than they entered it? I don’t buy it. They limped along, but their days as major empires were numbered. Old Europe as a whole attempted suicide. It’d take some time to die, but the damage was done.

    There were two countries that did profit from WWI: the United States and Japan. For the latter, the profit was debatable given how Japanese military theory never seemed to evolve from pre-WWI notions of offensive elan. We saw how well that worked in the Pacific Theater during the next conflict. For the former, the turn to empire happened well before 1917, to be absolutely fair. But Wilsonian academic foreign policy notions of how the world worked were just as disastrous then as they are now. We managed to basically make Germany’s strategic position stronger in the long term (however many problems Austria had, it served as a vital check on German and Russian ambitions in Central Europe), while simultaneously decisively turning the Germans against any form of European integration, to say nothing of the disastrous results of forcing Kerensky to continue the war and then intervening in a way that got confirmed throwback Whites like Brusilov to support the Bolsheviks.

  92. @Justvisiting
    I did not put any words in Mayor Daley's mouth.

    You should not put any in mine. ;-)

    We would never besmirch Hizzoner’s reputation by ceasing to vote early and often, dead or alive. And I only mean that half-jokingly. Sleazy alderman so-and-so did shovel the snow, make the trains run on time, and made sure local organized crime kept the petty crooks in line. A much better set-up than Chicago having Baghdad-style death rates in some of the worst ghettos.

    Plus, when the Ribicoff crowd took over the next convention, he did offer to split the votes with the Republican Party for the first and only time in machine history.

  93. @Dissident

    Bernie is the Anti Jew.
     
    1.) - Zionism does not equal Judaism*
    - Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    2.) Is Bernie Sanders is even anti-Zionist, per se? Is he not merely more a Left-wing Zionist?

    3.) * https://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/chapter-5-connection-with-and-attitudes-towards-israel/
    (All emphasis in quoted text below is mine- Dissident)

    When asked whether caring about Israel is essential, important but not essential, or not an important part of what being Jewish means to them, 43% of American Jews say it is essential, 44% say it is important but not essential, and 12% say it is not important.
     

    More than half of U.S. Jews say U.S. support for Israel is about right (54%), although a substantial minority says the U.S. is not supportive enough of the Jewish state (31%), and 11% think the U.S. is too supportive. By comparison, 41% of the general public thinks support for Israel is about right, while the rest are nearly evenly divided between those who say the U.S. is not supportive enough (25%) and those who say it is too supportive of the Jewish state (22%). Interestingly, more white evangelical Protestants than Jews think the U.S. currently is not sufficiently supportive of Israel (46% vs. 31%).
     
    Note that the questions concerning attachment to Israel in the linked survey do not differentiate between the State of Israel and the The Land of Israel.

    4.) * Zionism, from its inception and in all of its forms, was unequivocally condemned by a near-unanimous consensus of the foremost rabbis.

    By the time of the establishment of the Zionist State, the relationship between Zionism and religious Jews had become quite complicated. Since then, there are basically three main groupings that Orthodox Jews fall into with regard to their position on this matter: anti-Zionist; non-Zionist; and Zionist. See below for some elaboration. A brief description of each of these three camps and how they differ from each other follows.

    - Those who are emphatically anti-Zionist. Not recognizing the State, they refrain from voting in its elections or serving in its government.

    Only a subset of the subset within the anti-Zionist camp that is generally known as Neturei Karta, is explicitly and actively pro-Arab. There are actually several factions of those who claim the name Neturei Karta. None of them, oft-repeated claims to the contrary notwithstanding, support any form of terrorism or violence.

    - Those who are at least de jure non-Zionist but nonetheless recognize the State and participate quite actively in its politics and government. This camp is broadly known as Agudist after the Haredi political party named Agudas Yisrael (Agudath Israel).

    Such participation was at least initially based on a rationale that once the State was established, the best way to defend and promote traditional religious observance and values was to work from within the State.

    - Those that are openly, explicitly and fully Zionist.
    This camp, originally known, after the name or their political parties as Mizrahi/Mafdal, and as Religious Zionists*, insists that Zionism is not only inherently perfectly compatible with Judaism but actually mandated by it. Such a position, according to all of the anti-Zionist and most of the non-Zionist camps, can only be maintained by selective, tendentious treatment of the relevant canonical texts and received oral traditions.

    Within each of these three main groups that I have enumerated above are many sub-groups with variously differing and nuanced positions. And there are certainly individuals, and even some communities and institutions that straddle the fence either between the anti-Zionist and non-Zionist camps, or between the Zionist and non-Zionist ones.

    Both the anti-Zionist and the non-Zionist camps align almost fully within the broader subset of Orthodoxy that is known as Haredi or Ultra-Orthodox. Whereas the Zionist camp aligns mostly but not entirely with what is known as Modern-Orthodoxy.

    Let me note here, first, that what became known as Orthodox Judaism, from the perspective of those who practice it, is essentially nothing more than that which, up until the time of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), was simply the normative Judaism that nearly all Jews practiced. Back then, there was no concept of a Jewish identity divorced or distinct from the religion of Judaism.

    Second, the term "Ultra-Orthodox" is predicated upon considering as the normative standard that which is known as Modern-Orthodoxy. Such as predication is at least tendentious. Haredi is a preferable term but is not without problems of its own.

    *NOTE: A while back someone had, in a reply to a comment of mine, conflated Likud, the major center-right party led by Netanyahu, with Religious Zionists. That is an error that I had wanted to correct. Likud, while known for being more favorable toward and more likely to form coalitions with the Orthodox religious parties, has nonetheless always been distinct from them as its own, predominately secular entity.

    Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*

    “Our grandparents told us that Palestine’s Ottoman era was a golden age for Jews,” Margilit said, adding that, today, devout Jews — along with Palestinians — faced oppression at the hands of the Israeli state.
    “We want the Turks to come back,” he said. “We want it to be like it was before Israel was established.”
    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-s-haredi-jews-pine-for-ottoman-era-golden-age-/1108128#

    Them boys are alright! 😎

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Many receive subsidies from the state, while the size of their community in Israel increases rapidly as a result of their religious beliefs.

    RE: socialist and secular European Zionists

    Mark 8:36

    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
  94. @Talha

    Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews*
     
    “Our grandparents told us that Palestine’s Ottoman era was a golden age for Jews,” Margilit said, adding that, today, devout Jews -- along with Palestinians -- faced oppression at the hands of the Israeli state.
    “We want the Turks to come back,” he said. “We want it to be like it was before Israel was established.”
    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-s-haredi-jews-pine-for-ottoman-era-golden-age-/1108128#

    Them boys are alright! 😎

    Peace.

    Many receive subsidies from the state, while the size of their community in Israel increases rapidly as a result of their religious beliefs.

    RE: socialist and secular European Zionists

    Mark 8:36

    For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

  95. @dfordoom

    Volunteer? You think those were volunteers back in the day?
     
    All my relatives who fought in both world wars were volunteers. Enthusiastic volunteers.

    What's interesting is that my grandfather who fought for the British in WW1 spent the rest of his life hating the British. He felt no animosity towards the Turks, against whom he fought.

    At least one of my male relatives who fought in WW2 against the Japanese spent the rest of his life hating the Americans.

    The elites control the media who beat the war drums and convince most of the masses that it is heroic and patriotic to go fight in a war.

    The brainwashed young man “volunteers”.

    Is it informed consent?

    I would say “no”–he was duped. Those who duped him are war criminals imho.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The elites control the media who beat the war drums and convince most of the masses that it is heroic and patriotic to go fight in a war.

    The brainwashed young man “volunteers”.

    Is it informed consent?

    I would say “no”–he was duped. Those who duped him are war criminals imho.
     
    Which is a compelling argument against democracy. The masses are always easily duped, and always will be.

    One of the sadder fantasies in history was the idea that if the masses could only be educated they'd be less easily duped. In fact as the masses became more educated they became more easily duped.
  96. @anon
    Does your kind really get to make fun of others? Average WN IQ: 100. Average "Thomm" IQ: 89.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OOs1l8Fajc

    https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/aziz-ansari-4.jpg

    Why do you think he’s Indian? I thought most Indians in the US got on well with Whites. How about East Asians?

  97. First, let me say that my bias is definitely in Bernie’s favor. There is no other candidate that I would even consider tossing a ballot towards now that Tulsi and Yang are out of the circus.

    Ever since Bernie started doing well in national polls and winning early states the leadership of the Blue Team has been repeating ad nauseum the following inner party line: the Blue Team needs to nominate a “moderate” who can beat DJT, and not a “socialist” who is sure to lose!

    Furthermore, this line is repeated as if it should be accepted as obvious and sadly I am increasingly encountering people I have known to be loyal blue team “progressives” all my life who are falling for this idea.

    Now, I am willing to concede that the idea might be right. But I don’t think it is obvious at all. In trying to talk to blue team voters here is what I start with:

    1) I don’t know if Bernie can beat DJT.
    2) I don’t know if any blue team nominee can beat DJT.
    3) But I am not convinced that Bernie has a lower chance than the others, and I think he might have a higher one.

    A few weeks ago I tried to pull some data to back up this claim. I collected binary win/loss data from the 2016 primary and the 2016 general election on a state-by-state basis, along with the number of electoral college (EC) votes in each state. I also categorized each state into one of five categories based on the voting record over the last four presidential elections, including 2016: 4/4 = blue/red wall, 3/4 = blue/red lite, 2/2 = swing.

    Here is a summary of what I learned:

    [MORE]

    1) The blue team has an advantage not just in the popular vote, but an advantage in the electoral college as well. Why? Because 36% of all electoral college votes are in the blue wall and the other 15% are in the blue lite = 51%. Blue team just needs its “base” to win!

    2) Why did HRC lose? Because 86% of her EC votes came from the blue wall and 14% came from blue lite. In other words, HRC only managed to win what any blue candidate with a pulse is sure to, and largely failed to get any votes outside the blue plantation.

    3) DJT, on the hand, made major inroads into blue team territory. Not only did he take all red wall, red lite, and swing, but 15% of his EC votes came from blue lite! That’s a higher percentage of a larger base, i.e. DJT beat la merda out of HRC in her own backyard!

    4) What states did DJT win in the blue lite? Wisconsin and Michigan.

    5) Who won Wisconsin and Michigan in the blue team primary of 2016? Bernie.

    6) Bernie also managed to win the primary in Indiana (red lite).

    7) Hypothetical: if Bernie had been the 2016 nominee, managed to win the blue wall, and got the Wisconsin and Michigan and Indiana, he would have had exactly 270 EC votes, i.e. just the minimum necessary to win.

    8) So, Bernie was not likely to win 2016 (I’m pretty sure Indiana would have gone DJT), but a case can be made that he had a better chance than HRC in 2016, when he was not yet a well-known figure.

    Now, I live in a blue wall state, and when I try to explain this to blue team voters they are, at best, perplexed and want an explanation. Here it is:

    1) The blue team establishment, HRC and the rest, are a party beholden to plutocratic donors and are tied to a hawkish foreign policy. They differentiate themselves from the red team on the basis of social/cultural/identity politics issues that are increasingly bizarre to any “normal” person.

    2) In other words, they offer nothing of substance to those in the rust belt who are anxious about basic bread and butter issues, while turning those very same people off with a hostile attitude towards anything straight, white, male, christian, etc.

    3) Heck, HRC was so out of touch with the pulse of the nation that she thought it was a good idea to give a campaign speech labeling DJT supporters a “basket of deplorable” while defending her husband’s support for NAFTA! Of course she lost!

    4) Bernie, on the other hand, tries his best to avoid ID politics, and sticks to actual issues that matter to people.

    5) Bernie is sure to win the blue wall in a general, especially against an opponent like DJT. A state like Massachusetts might go for a “Romney” against a Bernie, but that is not where we are in 2016/2020.

    6) What the blue team needs to beat DJT is to make sure that the blue lite and swing states go their way, and the way to do that is to dial the cultural BS way down, and focus on actual issues!

    I don’t ever put it this way to normies, but looking back at the 2016 election, I realize that it was a three-way contest, with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd position politics all represented in the forms of HRC, Bernie, and DJT. The blue team cannot win with 1st position against DJT. The only chance the blue team has is to go classic Red.

    Now, in 2020, the blue team establishment is getting increasingly nervous about the insurgency in the party. They have a 2nd position front runner who has a solid base of loyal supporters, where the other “moderate” candidates have only lukewarm support. Any reasonable blue team strategist has to think it is unwise for the blue team establishment media to be constantly bashing the front runner (Bernie), hyping his “unelectibility”, highlighting the “socialist” label (which Bernie does not reject, but does not focus), and screwing up caucus elections to favor small town mayors. What does this do? It provides ammunition to DJT in the general and alienates Bernie supporters from the party making it less likely they turn out for a “moderate.”

    [Another thing: it is claimed that Bernie doesn’t poll well with afro voters. Maybe so. But the blue team needs to realize that while that voting bloc can deny Bernie the nomination, its concentration in the Red Wall states of the deep south substantially diminishes its power in a general.]

    Why they are doing it? Because the party bosses care more about keeping the donor gravy train going for themselves, and as Mr. Dore points out, would rather lose to DJT than win with Bernie.

    Before I write a tome, let me end with this. I am cynical and jaded about the whole state of US politics. Frankly the whole act is disgusting. But as a bad jokester might say, “you get what you deserve.”

    It will be poetic justice for Amerika for the blue team to reject Bernie and nominate a NYC republican billionaire as their candidate, to run against another NYC billionaire who used to be a registered democrat. Any American who doesn’t see the sham that politics in the US has become and is enthusiastic about such a contest, provides testimony to the assertion that this country has become the Sodom and Gomorrah of the 21st century, and sadly, it will deserve a similar fate.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Trump has been great for Dem fundraising and elite leftist corporate institutions like the NYT and MSNBC. There probably is a lot of sentiment, mostly unspoken but still felt, that a Trump reelection wouldn't be the worst outcome for the DNC establishment.
  98. @dfordoom

    Public opinion has basically nothing to do with public policy, you’ve just bought too far into liberal propaganda.
     
    Utter nonsense. Elites expend vast efforts on moulding public opinion. Obviously they think it matters.

    The problem is that because the public is mostly stupid, greedy, lazy and vicious and most importantly irrational it isn't difficult to mould public opinion. All you have to do is present your policies in such a way as to appeal to stupidity, greed, laziness, viciousness and most importantly irrationality. The key is to always remember that the public is irrational.

    Moulding public opinion isn't difficult, but it has to be done. Any regime that does not have public support will fall. Even dictatorships, which survive as long as a majority of the populace supports them.

    The elites are going to get it in the public. It’s easier and better if it’s consensual, but if it has to be forced, it’ll be forced. The resistance has to be exceptionally strong and focused to stop it, so it is rarely stopped.

    The analogy is crass, but it gets to the point.

    • Replies: @iffen
    What?

    The Democratic political establishment is smarter and stronger than the Republican establishment. They will not allow Bernie to be the nominee.
  99. @Mario Partisan
    First, let me say that my bias is definitely in Bernie’s favor. There is no other candidate that I would even consider tossing a ballot towards now that Tulsi and Yang are out of the circus.

    Ever since Bernie started doing well in national polls and winning early states the leadership of the Blue Team has been repeating ad nauseum the following inner party line: the Blue Team needs to nominate a “moderate” who can beat DJT, and not a “socialist” who is sure to lose!

    Furthermore, this line is repeated as if it should be accepted as obvious and sadly I am increasingly encountering people I have known to be loyal blue team “progressives” all my life who are falling for this idea.

    Now, I am willing to concede that the idea might be right. But I don’t think it is obvious at all. In trying to talk to blue team voters here is what I start with:

    1) I don’t know if Bernie can beat DJT.
    2) I don’t know if any blue team nominee can beat DJT.
    3) But I am not convinced that Bernie has a lower chance than the others, and I think he might have a higher one.

    A few weeks ago I tried to pull some data to back up this claim. I collected binary win/loss data from the 2016 primary and the 2016 general election on a state-by-state basis, along with the number of electoral college (EC) votes in each state. I also categorized each state into one of five categories based on the voting record over the last four presidential elections, including 2016: 4/4 = blue/red wall, 3/4 = blue/red lite, 2/2 = swing.

    Here is a summary of what I learned:



    1) The blue team has an advantage not just in the popular vote, but an advantage in the electoral college as well. Why? Because 36% of all electoral college votes are in the blue wall and the other 15% are in the blue lite = 51%. Blue team just needs its “base” to win!

    2) Why did HRC lose? Because 86% of her EC votes came from the blue wall and 14% came from blue lite. In other words, HRC only managed to win what any blue candidate with a pulse is sure to, and largely failed to get any votes outside the blue plantation.

    3) DJT, on the hand, made major inroads into blue team territory. Not only did he take all red wall, red lite, and swing, but 15% of his EC votes came from blue lite! That’s a higher percentage of a larger base, i.e. DJT beat la merda out of HRC in her own backyard!

    4) What states did DJT win in the blue lite? Wisconsin and Michigan.

    5) Who won Wisconsin and Michigan in the blue team primary of 2016? Bernie.

    6) Bernie also managed to win the primary in Indiana (red lite).

    7) Hypothetical: if Bernie had been the 2016 nominee, managed to win the blue wall, and got the Wisconsin and Michigan and Indiana, he would have had exactly 270 EC votes, i.e. just the minimum necessary to win.

    8) So, Bernie was not likely to win 2016 (I’m pretty sure Indiana would have gone DJT), but a case can be made that he had a better chance than HRC in 2016, when he was not yet a well-known figure.

    Now, I live in a blue wall state, and when I try to explain this to blue team voters they are, at best, perplexed and want an explanation. Here it is:

    1) The blue team establishment, HRC and the rest, are a party beholden to plutocratic donors and are tied to a hawkish foreign policy. They differentiate themselves from the red team on the basis of social/cultural/identity politics issues that are increasingly bizarre to any “normal” person.

    2) In other words, they offer nothing of substance to those in the rust belt who are anxious about basic bread and butter issues, while turning those very same people off with a hostile attitude towards anything straight, white, male, christian, etc.

    3) Heck, HRC was so out of touch with the pulse of the nation that she thought it was a good idea to give a campaign speech labeling DJT supporters a “basket of deplorable” while defending her husband’s support for NAFTA! Of course she lost!

    4) Bernie, on the other hand, tries his best to avoid ID politics, and sticks to actual issues that matter to people.

    5) Bernie is sure to win the blue wall in a general, especially against an opponent like DJT. A state like Massachusetts might go for a “Romney” against a Bernie, but that is not where we are in 2016/2020.

    6) What the blue team needs to beat DJT is to make sure that the blue lite and swing states go their way, and the way to do that is to dial the cultural BS way down, and focus on actual issues!

    I don’t ever put it this way to normies, but looking back at the 2016 election, I realize that it was a three-way contest, with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd position politics all represented in the forms of HRC, Bernie, and DJT. The blue team cannot win with 1st position against DJT. The only chance the blue team has is to go classic Red.

    Now, in 2020, the blue team establishment is getting increasingly nervous about the insurgency in the party. They have a 2nd position front runner who has a solid base of loyal supporters, where the other “moderate” candidates have only lukewarm support. Any reasonable blue team strategist has to think it is unwise for the blue team establishment media to be constantly bashing the front runner (Bernie), hyping his “unelectibility”, highlighting the “socialist” label (which Bernie does not reject, but does not focus), and screwing up caucus elections to favor small town mayors. What does this do? It provides ammunition to DJT in the general and alienates Bernie supporters from the party making it less likely they turn out for a “moderate.”

    [Another thing: it is claimed that Bernie doesn’t poll well with afro voters. Maybe so. But the blue team needs to realize that while that voting bloc can deny Bernie the nomination, its concentration in the Red Wall states of the deep south substantially diminishes its power in a general.]

    Why they are doing it? Because the party bosses care more about keeping the donor gravy train going for themselves, and as Mr. Dore points out, would rather lose to DJT than win with Bernie.

    Before I write a tome, let me end with this. I am cynical and jaded about the whole state of US politics. Frankly the whole act is disgusting. But as a bad jokester might say, “you get what you deserve.”

    It will be poetic justice for Amerika for the blue team to reject Bernie and nominate a NYC republican billionaire as their candidate, to run against another NYC billionaire who used to be a registered democrat. Any American who doesn’t see the sham that politics in the US has become and is enthusiastic about such a contest, provides testimony to the assertion that this country has become the Sodom and Gomorrah of the 21st century, and sadly, it will deserve a similar fate.

    Trump has been great for Dem fundraising and elite leftist corporate institutions like the NYT and MSNBC. There probably is a lot of sentiment, mostly unspoken but still felt, that a Trump reelection wouldn’t be the worst outcome for the DNC establishment.

    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    I think you are right.

    I think it was Ted Koppel (?) who told the CNN guy that DJT has been great for them.

    Yes, it is “mostly unspoken,” but it’s hilariously awkward for these clowns when it is stated (like Donny D. did on msnbc) and the host has to shut it down asap.

    This isn’t my idea, but the blue team might have a long-term plan that consists of losing to DJT, using the next 4 years to instill even more rabid hysteria in the SJWs and build up their war chest, waiting until the boomer generation meets its maker (substantially reducing the low melanin population), and turning the US into a de facto single party state.

    Interesting times await.

    (I know you’ve been at UR for a while, but you are a good addition to the site. Whatever your biases, having someone here encouraging data driven discussions is a very good thing.)
  100. @Audacious Epigone
    Trump has been great for Dem fundraising and elite leftist corporate institutions like the NYT and MSNBC. There probably is a lot of sentiment, mostly unspoken but still felt, that a Trump reelection wouldn't be the worst outcome for the DNC establishment.

    I think you are right.

    I think it was Ted Koppel (?) who told the CNN guy that DJT has been great for them.

    Yes, it is “mostly unspoken,” but it’s hilariously awkward for these clowns when it is stated (like Donny D. did on msnbc) and the host has to shut it down asap.

    This isn’t my idea, but the blue team might have a long-term plan that consists of losing to DJT, using the next 4 years to instill even more rabid hysteria in the SJWs and build up their war chest, waiting until the boomer generation meets its maker (substantially reducing the low melanin population), and turning the US into a de facto single party state.

    Interesting times await.

    (I know you’ve been at UR for a while, but you are a good addition to the site. Whatever your biases, having someone here encouraging data driven discussions is a very good thing.)

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  101. @Audacious Epigone
    The elites are going to get it in the public. It's easier and better if it's consensual, but if it has to be forced, it'll be forced. The resistance has to be exceptionally strong and focused to stop it, so it is rarely stopped.

    The analogy is crass, but it gets to the point.

    What?

    The Democratic political establishment is smarter and stronger than the Republican establishment. They will not allow Bernie to be the nominee.

  102. @iffen
    Russia, Turkey, Syria, bad terrorists and good terrorists in a shooting war. I'm searching for the downside for us.

    Not serious-- I hate to see unecessary death and destruction.

    On this – the Turks are pissed. I haven’t seen anything like this for a while, Syria has lost hundreds of men, many many tanks, howitzers and even SAM batteries. They are trying to bring this fight to a close fast:

    Which is good for Europe; the Syrian push into that area resulted in thousands of displaced refugees headed to where…? Guess.

    There are videos of thousands of families at the border of Greece right now. Another person showed that once the spring begins, a whole new fleet of boats is going to come Europe-bound. Russia doesn’t care about these refugees, they are headed Northwest, not Northeast – they have zero liability.

    If Turkey can end the situation by basically destroying a tenth of the Syrian military in precision strikes, it’ll be well worth it for everyone (minus those guys in the cross hairs). If the region becomes stable, the refugees can start returning ASAP. Sovereignty/border issues (as well as disarmament of militant groups) can be negotiated later.

    Peace.

  103. @WorkingClass
    Road kill is less corrupt than the DNC. Not knowing this is an example of negative IQ. We need a way to measure the anti knowledge lodged in individual craniums. Sentencing guidelines if you will. Parallel to this we need a way to identify psychopaths in the womb.

    Totally OT in relation to Audacious’ post, but relevant to your comment.

    Parallel to this we need a way to identify psychopaths in the womb.

    Yes! For some time I have actually had ideas in this direction and it is nice that someone else is seeing it too.

    I have come to the idea that sociopathic individuals are the main explanation for wrongs in the world and that any socioeconomic system is going to go awry once these types manage to get into control.

    Many sociopaths are of the low IQ/violent variety, but most societies have mechanisms for dealing with these creatures. The real problem comes from high IQ sociopaths. These individuals use a combo of intelligence and dark triad personality traits to rise into positions of power and influence. Once there, they become gatekeepers, preventing non-sociopaths (who they can smell like a hound) from moving into the inner circle. After some decades the upper echelons of a society are occupied by these beasts in human form and the road to perdition has been paved.

    First, let me say that there is no bias here towards anyone on the basis of immutable characteristics associated with ethnicity, gender, etc. This is about content of character. However, should some groups be over or underrepresented among the set of sociopaths, I do not have concerns about “disparate impact” or anything like that. This is an equal opportunity/merit-based program.

    Now, I admit I feel pretty ridiculous writing this post, so I’ll pick a ridiculous name for the “solution” to the problem: Operation Eden.

    1) Phase One: Research

    Start with the institutionalized/incarcerated population, violent, nonviolent, white collar. I don’t believe all these people are sociopaths, but sociopaths are definitely overrepresented. Upon entry into the system (people held prior to conviction I think should be excluded), various data points on each person are collected: dna sample, psychological evaluation, fmri brain scan, records of criminal/life history, and a vast database is built, covariates between dna, brain scan, and sociopathic behavior are computed, so as to ID the dna and brain scan patterns that can predict sociopathic behavior and personalities.

    2) Phase Two: Roll-Out

    Perhaps under the guise of some kind of national emergency, a program is implemented to collect dna/brain scan samples of all individuals, dna early in life, and brain scans upon reaching a level of maturity. DNA sampling of parents can also be done, in order to detect strength of the sociopathic genealogy of an individual. This information is run through a statistical covariate analysis and a sociopath “score” is given to each individual.

    3) Phase Three: Implementation

    “Hallejuah! We have discovered a “vaccine” for the epidemic.” All individuals in their late teens, perhaps thru the schools, go in for mandatory “vaccination.” Those who score low to moderate on the sociopath scale are given a placebo. Those who score high or maybe just very high are chemically sterilized and allowed to return to the general population. No incarceration or deprivation of life/liberty.

    At this point it is just a numbers game. The idea is to humanely purge our species of these problem creatures. They can live their lives, have relationships, seduce as many people into bed as they want. What is important is that the sociopathic genes die out.

    There are of course serious problems with the operation: 1) A totalitarian system is needed, even if it doesn’t appear to be one on the surface (but maybe we already have one); 2) Implementation might need to be global: it would horrible to be the one nation on the planet that has done away with its human beasts; that nation would be like a pack of golden retrievers surrounded by pit bulls (then again, the mechanisms for such coordination might already exist.)

    But hey, this is a draft proposal. Details can be worked on.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    A less invasive way to do this will be through embryo selection. The rub will be whether or not psychopaths are desirous of children who are not psychopaths.
  104. @Mario Partisan
    Totally OT in relation to Audacious’ post, but relevant to your comment.


    Parallel to this we need a way to identify psychopaths in the womb.
     
    Yes! For some time I have actually had ideas in this direction and it is nice that someone else is seeing it too.

    I have come to the idea that sociopathic individuals are the main explanation for wrongs in the world and that any socioeconomic system is going to go awry once these types manage to get into control.

    Many sociopaths are of the low IQ/violent variety, but most societies have mechanisms for dealing with these creatures. The real problem comes from high IQ sociopaths. These individuals use a combo of intelligence and dark triad personality traits to rise into positions of power and influence. Once there, they become gatekeepers, preventing non-sociopaths (who they can smell like a hound) from moving into the inner circle. After some decades the upper echelons of a society are occupied by these beasts in human form and the road to perdition has been paved.

    First, let me say that there is no bias here towards anyone on the basis of immutable characteristics associated with ethnicity, gender, etc. This is about content of character. However, should some groups be over or underrepresented among the set of sociopaths, I do not have concerns about “disparate impact” or anything like that. This is an equal opportunity/merit-based program.

    Now, I admit I feel pretty ridiculous writing this post, so I’ll pick a ridiculous name for the “solution” to the problem: Operation Eden.

    1) Phase One: Research

    Start with the institutionalized/incarcerated population, violent, nonviolent, white collar. I don’t believe all these people are sociopaths, but sociopaths are definitely overrepresented. Upon entry into the system (people held prior to conviction I think should be excluded), various data points on each person are collected: dna sample, psychological evaluation, fmri brain scan, records of criminal/life history, and a vast database is built, covariates between dna, brain scan, and sociopathic behavior are computed, so as to ID the dna and brain scan patterns that can predict sociopathic behavior and personalities.

    2) Phase Two: Roll-Out

    Perhaps under the guise of some kind of national emergency, a program is implemented to collect dna/brain scan samples of all individuals, dna early in life, and brain scans upon reaching a level of maturity. DNA sampling of parents can also be done, in order to detect strength of the sociopathic genealogy of an individual. This information is run through a statistical covariate analysis and a sociopath “score” is given to each individual.

    3) Phase Three: Implementation

    “Hallejuah! We have discovered a “vaccine” for the epidemic.” All individuals in their late teens, perhaps thru the schools, go in for mandatory “vaccination.” Those who score low to moderate on the sociopath scale are given a placebo. Those who score high or maybe just very high are chemically sterilized and allowed to return to the general population. No incarceration or deprivation of life/liberty.

    At this point it is just a numbers game. The idea is to humanely purge our species of these problem creatures. They can live their lives, have relationships, seduce as many people into bed as they want. What is important is that the sociopathic genes die out.

    There are of course serious problems with the operation: 1) A totalitarian system is needed, even if it doesn’t appear to be one on the surface (but maybe we already have one); 2) Implementation might need to be global: it would horrible to be the one nation on the planet that has done away with its human beasts; that nation would be like a pack of golden retrievers surrounded by pit bulls (then again, the mechanisms for such coordination might already exist.)

    But hey, this is a draft proposal. Details can be worked on.

    A less invasive way to do this will be through embryo selection. The rub will be whether or not psychopaths are desirous of children who are not psychopaths.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I can already see the problem with this:  it's anti-semitic.
    , @Mario Partisan
    Continuing this discussion in a serious way makes me feel like someone planning to start a multinational corporation while sitting in a homeless encampment. It might be a good business plan; still ridiculous :) .

    Anyway, yes, embryo selection/designer babies would definitely be less invasive. But I think that method has other problems, even outside the question of how to deal with sociopaths.

    Part of the beauty and “genius” of natural selection, which is just indirect embryo selection via mate selection, is that it is sufficiently imprecise that it leads to lots of different combinations that produce genuine diversity in the human gene pool and phenotype. “Diversity is our strength” actually has some truth to it. No, I don’t mean a Tower of Babel of bickering idiots. But a human society worth living in is one with: craftsmen, guardians, intellectuals, scientists, athletes, musicians, poets/artists, cooks, entrepreneurs…and I think this arises through numerous passionate “accidents” where we see in a mate something that we want to be in the future, but don’t really know what it is.

    The problem as I see it with embryo selection is it replaces an imprecise decision located in the limbic system with a precise decision in the frontal cortex, and may in fact lead to a rigid society where too many people are similar in talents, interests, personality types, etc, based on what people in the moment think makes a “good person.” Such a society would not just be dull, but unable to adapt to changes and prone to stagnation. Just think about the China one child policy. Whatever the merits or lack thereof, in combo with the life strategy of Chinese peasants, the policy has led to a gender imbalance. We don’t want that kind of imbalance extending to every conceivable aspect of a human being.

    Operation Eden is an attempt to surgically remove the tumor from the society, while preserving everything else that makes human life nice. I would even be interested to know how certain valuable personality traits, i.e. risk-taking (think business), leadership skills, etc. might co-vary with sociopathic traits, and to the extent that they do, how aggressive the Operation should be or should not be. In other words, we might want to risk having somewhat more near-sociopaths in order to have some of these other tag along traits.

    As strange as it might appear, the only way to ensure a population that is diverse in its talents, and also remove the sociopaths, is to not allow the decision to be made at the individual level, but to socialize it. I think this is particularly true given that we live in a very competitive society right now in which sociopathy puts one at an advantage. In the here and now, it wouldn’t just behoove sociopathic parents to select sociopathic embryos, but nice parents too, who just want their kid to succeed. If I were an economist, I would say that choosing sociopathy is the equilibrium of the competitive game. We need a cooperative game to solve this problem.

    Anyway, good talk. Cheers!
  105. @Audacious Epigone
    A less invasive way to do this will be through embryo selection. The rub will be whether or not psychopaths are desirous of children who are not psychopaths.

    I can already see the problem with this:  it’s anti-semitic.

  106. @nebulafox
    But there probably wouldn't have been British support if Germany didn't invade Belgium. Public opinion in London was decidedly anti-intervention until that happened. The Germans knew the risk they were taking: they wanted to try to get the French to bite first.

    Ohkrana chief Pyotr Durnovo stands out as a guy who really did predict what would happen. In a highly prescient memorandum, he was disturbingly accurate about what the consequences of a war with Germany could be. But he was in the minority. Even people who were lambasting Bloody Nicholas just a few years earlier were in the streets cheering on the Tsar when war was declared. It's doubly tragic because Durnovo and his merry men were on the verge of having the Bolsheviks implode by the 1910s.

    (Durnovo was a pretty interesting guy. He, along with Stolypin, was the main reason the autocracy managed to somehow get out of 1905. His methods were not pretty. By the end in Tsarist Russia, nobody could tell which bombings were leftist radicals and which were Ohkrana operatives launching false flags, some of whom went rogue and did their own thing. But they were working: terrorists tend to be a pretty paranoia-prone bunch that can be easily goaded into doing stupid, self-defeating things if you don't care about the human cost involved. The Bolsheviks were in a state of complete meltdown before the war rescued them. Of course, there's also the fact that Stolypin's assassin also worked for the Ohkrana, and he was probably the last chance to get the autocracy on track...)

    >All the war achieved was to massively destabilise Europe, and begin the process of making Europe itself irrelevant.

    This, I mostly agree with, since a German dominated Europe is what we more or less have today anyway. But if it wasn't the July crisis, it would have been something else. People in European capitals were trying to figure out when "The Day" would be for the great cataclysm, not if. It didn't need to be the massive self-inflicted civilizational mortal wound it turned out to be. But something was going to happen barring deeper changes in the timeline.

    The thing that sticks out about German foreign policy in the 1890s and 1900s was that nobody seemed to know what they were doing and they kept sending out completely schizophrenic messages to the world. It wasn't some plan for world domination: there was no plan at all. They needed another Bismarck, a guy with a coherent foreign policy vision who didn't suffer fools and wasn't afraid to tell fantasists where to stick theirs.

    The thing that sticks out about German foreign policy in the 1890s and 1900s was that nobody seemed to know what they were doing and they kept sending out completely schizophrenic messages to the world. It wasn’t some plan for world domination: there was no plan at all.

    Agreed. To a certain extent that’s true of all the European great powers. The level of incompetence in foreign policy was staggering. No long-term thinking. No awareness at all of the risks of a large-scale war. Most of all they failed to understand that if they destroyed themselves, or seriously damaged themselves, the end result would be domination by the United States. They failed to see that the great threat to Europe was rising American power.

    Even after the First World War Europeans still failed to perceive the American threat. Britain signed the death warrant of its empire when it abrogated the alliance with Japan. The British and Japanese Empires could co-exist. No co-existence was going to be possible wth the American Empire.

    After WW1 the French had no clue what was going on. They still thought they were a Great Power. Germany failed to understand that the United States was not going to tolerate the existence of a strong Germany. And I’m not just talking about Hitler (whose foreign policy was an incoherent mass of daydreams) – no-one in Germany understood that there was going to be no place for a strong Germany in the new American world order.

  107. @Justvisiting
    The elites control the media who beat the war drums and convince most of the masses that it is heroic and patriotic to go fight in a war.

    The brainwashed young man "volunteers".

    Is it informed consent?

    I would say "no"--he was duped. Those who duped him are war criminals imho.

    The elites control the media who beat the war drums and convince most of the masses that it is heroic and patriotic to go fight in a war.

    The brainwashed young man “volunteers”.

    Is it informed consent?

    I would say “no”–he was duped. Those who duped him are war criminals imho.

    Which is a compelling argument against democracy. The masses are always easily duped, and always will be.

    One of the sadder fantasies in history was the idea that if the masses could only be educated they’d be less easily duped. In fact as the masses became more educated they became more easily duped.

  108. @Audacious Epigone
    A less invasive way to do this will be through embryo selection. The rub will be whether or not psychopaths are desirous of children who are not psychopaths.

    Continuing this discussion in a serious way makes me feel like someone planning to start a multinational corporation while sitting in a homeless encampment. It might be a good business plan; still ridiculous 🙂 .

    Anyway, yes, embryo selection/designer babies would definitely be less invasive. But I think that method has other problems, even outside the question of how to deal with sociopaths.

    Part of the beauty and “genius” of natural selection, which is just indirect embryo selection via mate selection, is that it is sufficiently imprecise that it leads to lots of different combinations that produce genuine diversity in the human gene pool and phenotype. “Diversity is our strength” actually has some truth to it. No, I don’t mean a Tower of Babel of bickering idiots. But a human society worth living in is one with: craftsmen, guardians, intellectuals, scientists, athletes, musicians, poets/artists, cooks, entrepreneurs…and I think this arises through numerous passionate “accidents” where we see in a mate something that we want to be in the future, but don’t really know what it is.

    The problem as I see it with embryo selection is it replaces an imprecise decision located in the limbic system with a precise decision in the frontal cortex, and may in fact lead to a rigid society where too many people are similar in talents, interests, personality types, etc, based on what people in the moment think makes a “good person.” Such a society would not just be dull, but unable to adapt to changes and prone to stagnation. Just think about the China one child policy. Whatever the merits or lack thereof, in combo with the life strategy of Chinese peasants, the policy has led to a gender imbalance. We don’t want that kind of imbalance extending to every conceivable aspect of a human being.

    Operation Eden is an attempt to surgically remove the tumor from the society, while preserving everything else that makes human life nice. I would even be interested to know how certain valuable personality traits, i.e. risk-taking (think business), leadership skills, etc. might co-vary with sociopathic traits, and to the extent that they do, how aggressive the Operation should be or should not be. In other words, we might want to risk having somewhat more near-sociopaths in order to have some of these other tag along traits.

    As strange as it might appear, the only way to ensure a population that is diverse in its talents, and also remove the sociopaths, is to not allow the decision to be made at the individual level, but to socialize it. I think this is particularly true given that we live in a very competitive society right now in which sociopathy puts one at an advantage. In the here and now, it wouldn’t just behoove sociopathic parents to select sociopathic embryos, but nice parents too, who just want their kid to succeed. If I were an economist, I would say that choosing sociopathy is the equilibrium of the competitive game. We need a cooperative game to solve this problem.

    Anyway, good talk. Cheers!

  109. FB says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    There are a lot of ordinary apparently decent people who just love war. It’s not hard to understand why. It makes them feel better abut their awful lives. You might have a cruddy job, you might not be able to afford a house, you might not be able to get a girlfriend, but at least you can feel good about yourself because the American military is kicking the ass of some Third World country.
     
    Setting aside civilian cheerleaders (call them the war equivalents of violent soccer fans), there are genuine reasons why some men revel in going to war.

    I suggest you read “Tribe” by Sebastian Junger or at least watch his documentaries “Restrepo” and “Korengal” to get some sense of why people want to be in war, even if they may not actually love war (and may in fact be traumatized by war).

    https://youtu.be/eLMaPOuEA4Q

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families (often with a long history of military service through the generations). Lower class enlisted usually become truck drivers and supply clerks, not SOCOM ninjas.

    Some of the reasons why some men crave going to war are:

    1. A strong sense of camaraderie and cohesion that are not available in the civilian world (except in religious communities and perhaps sports teams). Training, fighting, and suffering hardship together builds an incredible sense of belonging and brotherhood that is unfathomable for those have never experienced it. People under fire truly become brothers whose bonds often exceed that of real families (in fact, it’s not uncommon for men to “abandon” their real families to get back to their units and fight again). Combat units become tribes. I just cannot stress this enough. People who only know of ordinary civilian-life friendships just have no clue about what kind of blood-brotherhood is forged under fire.

    2. A life under a code. There was a time in human life when men lived by a certain code and even died for it. That has given way to a life of lawyers and legalese. Although military life has long been invaded by the latter, it still retains a vestige of this life of a code of a warrior. If you are a man who can be relied upon and who is true to his words and puts out for his team, you are valued by others no matter whether you are poor or rich, an asshole or a sweetheart, or whatever. This is very appealing to those who are turned off by the bubble-wrapped, “we are only responsible for what the contract says” civilian world where money, power, and fame determine a man’s worth. (Outside of the military, another place where this kind of a code exists is a boxing gym or a Judo/Jiujitsu school, where none of the outside world status matters, and the only things that matter are whether you are courageous or not, have good fighting skills or not, and are a good training partner or not - not surprisingly the places where the same dynamic of brotherhood are forged.)

    3. A sense of adventure. Military life is often dull, boring, and full of shit-work, but it is also punctuated by moments of extreme thrill, the exotic, the exciting, and the dangerous, especially for those in high-readiness combat units. Some men are just wired that way - they cannot live by the safe, mundane, and even well-paid life alone. They need adventure.

    4. The greatest game in the world. You get to shoot at people who shoot back at you. You get to hunt the world’s most dangerous prey, who in turn hunts you. All of your faculties and abilities are honed to achieve success, because it is literally a matter of life and death (hopefully your life and your enemy’s death). There is no substitute for this in the civilian world - maybe prize-fighting, but even that is pillow-fighting compared to war, in which the entire spectrum of resources of whole communities are devoted to win. There is no domination - of imposing your will on the defeated - like winning at war.

    5. Sex. Yeah, you read that right. Forget barrack bunnies (though they do exist in abundance, some places and times more than others, enough to become a problem for the JAGs). Put on a uniform and drop by the local bar. You don’t need “game” - the uniform is the ultimate game. Don’t care about meaningless sex with strangers? Go away to war, leave your wife and family behind, then come back and see what kind of adulation, love, affection, and admiration you get from your wife and children. Your wife will, indeed, “love you a long time” (though the nagging will resume not so long after ;) ).

    Wow…what a farrago of unadulterated WISHCASTING…

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families…

    Sure…if you define ‘high IQ’ as just above idiot level, and ‘upper middle class’ as owning a double-wide…

    Now this fella is I guess the ‘tip’ of several spears [or maybe an iceberg]…

    The U.S. military has a huge problem with obesity and it’s only getting worse

    Hardly surprising, since every garrison has the obligatory Krisy Kreme donuts and other junk food outlets…

    As for racial composition we see that blacks and Hispanics are over-represented…

    Blacks and Hispanics make up well over 30 percent of the armed forces enlisted personnel, among males…and fully 50 percent among females…well above their general population numbers…

    And that’s not to mention illegal immigrants who are promised a green card for signing up…

    The real life picture is a little different than your airbrushed hollywood fantasy…troops acting in shameful and cowardly ways [pissing on corpses, posing with dead enemy and civilian ‘trophies’]…with not unoccasional gusts to outright war crimes, especially against civilians…

    The officer corps is a different matter of course…these are generally intelligent, goal-oriented young folks who see the armed forces as a calling and a profession, instead of the last resort after failing at everything else…

    But thanks for the chuckles, friend…never ceases to amaze how rhapsodic the moron class gets on this website…

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The real life picture is a little different than your airbrushed hollywood fantasy…troops acting in shameful and cowardly ways [pissing on corpses, posing with dead enemy and civilian ‘trophies’]…with not unoccasional gusts to outright war crimes, especially against civilians…
     
    If you have a volunteer army then in peacetime it's going to attract the same kinds of people who want to be cops - thugs, bullies, losers, people trying to compensate for feelings of inadequacy. Especially if the only wars they're likely to be involved in are colonial wars. And all America's wars since 1945 have been colonial wars.
    , @Twinkie
    When I wrote “tip of the spear,” I referred to high readiness units that do high tempo of operations. Such units increasingly do bulk of the fighting. They have high standards and don’t have obese people. Maybe you haven’t paid attention to the US military in the last 80 years, but it has an extremely large logistical tail, with comparatively very few men who do the fighting. Obesity is an issue in that general mass of support personnel. And it’s in the latter group that blacks and browns are overrepresented whereas whites are overrepresented in the former.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/

    In general, the military has a much more diverse force than key components such as special operations. African Americans made up 17% of the 1.3 million-member armed forces in 2013, according to a recent Pentagon report. Whites made up slightly more than 69%.

    Diversity erodes with the breakdown from enlisted to officer ranks. Blacks make up 18.5% of the enlisted troops but only 9.4% of the officer corps. The lack of diversity becomes more evident the further up the ranks you climb. USA TODAY has reported that key commands in the Army and Air Force, the traditional stepping stones for senior leadership posts, are largely staffed by white officers.

    Among special operators, the divide is especially stark. Each of the services provided data to USA TODAY.

    For the SEALs, the problem extends beyond the officer corps into the enlisted ranks. Of its enlisted men, 45 SEALs are black, or about 2% of the 2,242 members of its elite force. There are more SEALs — 99, or 4% of the enlisted force — who are Native Americans or Alaska natives.

    Among Army Green Berets, 85% of its 1,494 officers are white and 4.5% are black. Its 5,947 enlisted Green Berets are 86% white and 5.4% black.

    For the Air Force's para-rescue jumpers, highly trained airmen who search for missing troops, only one of 166 is black, or .6% of that force.

    Other commando fields, including the Army's civil affairs and psychological operations fields, the Navy's small boat crews and Air Force loadmasters, have greater percentages of minority participation but are still below their representation in the military as a whole.

    The Marines refused to provide how many special operators they have. Instead, they provided a pie chart showing their racial breakdown. Black officers and enlisted Marines make up about 1% of their special operations forces.
     
  110. @FB
    Wow...what a farrago of unadulterated WISHCASTING...

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families...
     
    Sure...if you define 'high IQ' as just above idiot level, and 'upper middle class' as owning a double-wide...

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F4MTfSZFUB0/UGGzvYBOMCI/AAAAAAAAJLo/OwZaRN9hWyM/s1600/fat.jpg

    Now this fella is I guess the 'tip' of several spears [or maybe an iceberg]...

    The U.S. military has a huge problem with obesity and it's only getting worse

    Hardly surprising, since every garrison has the obligatory Krisy Kreme donuts and other junk food outlets...

    As for racial composition we see that blacks and Hispanics are over-represented...

    https://i.postimg.cc/Gp2yWyy4/Obesity-Armed-Forces.jpg

    Blacks and Hispanics make up well over 30 percent of the armed forces enlisted personnel, among males...and fully 50 percent among females...well above their general population numbers...

    And that's not to mention illegal immigrants who are promised a green card for signing up...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgOyKBZG-i8

    The real life picture is a little different than your airbrushed hollywood fantasy...troops acting in shameful and cowardly ways [pissing on corpses, posing with dead enemy and civilian 'trophies']...with not unoccasional gusts to outright war crimes, especially against civilians...

    The officer corps is a different matter of course...these are generally intelligent, goal-oriented young folks who see the armed forces as a calling and a profession, instead of the last resort after failing at everything else...

    But thanks for the chuckles, friend...never ceases to amaze how rhapsodic the moron class gets on this website...

    The real life picture is a little different than your airbrushed hollywood fantasy…troops acting in shameful and cowardly ways [pissing on corpses, posing with dead enemy and civilian ‘trophies’]…with not unoccasional gusts to outright war crimes, especially against civilians…

    If you have a volunteer army then in peacetime it’s going to attract the same kinds of people who want to be cops – thugs, bullies, losers, people trying to compensate for feelings of inadequacy. Especially if the only wars they’re likely to be involved in are colonial wars. And all America’s wars since 1945 have been colonial wars.

    • Disagree: iffen
    • Troll: Twinkie
  111. @FB
    Wow...what a farrago of unadulterated WISHCASTING...

    Military personnel who are “the tip of the spear” and do bulk of the fighting are preponderantly represented by relatively high IQ, adventurous (mostly white) men who come from middle to upper middle class families...
     
    Sure...if you define 'high IQ' as just above idiot level, and 'upper middle class' as owning a double-wide...

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F4MTfSZFUB0/UGGzvYBOMCI/AAAAAAAAJLo/OwZaRN9hWyM/s1600/fat.jpg

    Now this fella is I guess the 'tip' of several spears [or maybe an iceberg]...

    The U.S. military has a huge problem with obesity and it's only getting worse

    Hardly surprising, since every garrison has the obligatory Krisy Kreme donuts and other junk food outlets...

    As for racial composition we see that blacks and Hispanics are over-represented...

    https://i.postimg.cc/Gp2yWyy4/Obesity-Armed-Forces.jpg

    Blacks and Hispanics make up well over 30 percent of the armed forces enlisted personnel, among males...and fully 50 percent among females...well above their general population numbers...

    And that's not to mention illegal immigrants who are promised a green card for signing up...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgOyKBZG-i8

    The real life picture is a little different than your airbrushed hollywood fantasy...troops acting in shameful and cowardly ways [pissing on corpses, posing with dead enemy and civilian 'trophies']...with not unoccasional gusts to outright war crimes, especially against civilians...

    The officer corps is a different matter of course...these are generally intelligent, goal-oriented young folks who see the armed forces as a calling and a profession, instead of the last resort after failing at everything else...

    But thanks for the chuckles, friend...never ceases to amaze how rhapsodic the moron class gets on this website...

    When I wrote “tip of the spear,” I referred to high readiness units that do high tempo of operations. Such units increasingly do bulk of the fighting. They have high standards and don’t have obese people. Maybe you haven’t paid attention to the US military in the last 80 years, but it has an extremely large logistical tail, with comparatively very few men who do the fighting. Obesity is an issue in that general mass of support personnel. And it’s in the latter group that blacks and browns are overrepresented whereas whites are overrepresented in the former.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/

    In general, the military has a much more diverse force than key components such as special operations. African Americans made up 17% of the 1.3 million-member armed forces in 2013, according to a recent Pentagon report. Whites made up slightly more than 69%.

    Diversity erodes with the breakdown from enlisted to officer ranks. Blacks make up 18.5% of the enlisted troops but only 9.4% of the officer corps. The lack of diversity becomes more evident the further up the ranks you climb. USA TODAY has reported that key commands in the Army and Air Force, the traditional stepping stones for senior leadership posts, are largely staffed by white officers.

    Among special operators, the divide is especially stark. Each of the services provided data to USA TODAY.

    For the SEALs, the problem extends beyond the officer corps into the enlisted ranks. Of its enlisted men, 45 SEALs are black, or about 2% of the 2,242 members of its elite force. There are more SEALs — 99, or 4% of the enlisted force — who are Native Americans or Alaska natives.

    Among Army Green Berets, 85% of its 1,494 officers are white and 4.5% are black. Its 5,947 enlisted Green Berets are 86% white and 5.4% black.

    For the Air Force’s para-rescue jumpers, highly trained airmen who search for missing troops, only one of 166 is black, or .6% of that force.

    Other commando fields, including the Army’s civil affairs and psychological operations fields, the Navy’s small boat crews and Air Force loadmasters, have greater percentages of minority participation but are still below their representation in the military as a whole.

    The Marines refused to provide how many special operators they have. Instead, they provided a pie chart showing their racial breakdown. Black officers and enlisted Marines make up about 1% of their special operations forces.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    When I wrote “tip of the spear,” I referred to high readiness units that do high tempo of operations. Such units increasingly do bulk of the fighting. They have high standards and don’t have obese people.
     
    I read somewhere, from someone who says he was a lifer who spent time in-country during Vietnam, about a huge change in the quality between the army of that time and today's volunteer grunt. He said that today's combat infantry are basically the equivalent of Vietnam-era Green Berets in terms of overall combat ability.
  112. @Twinkie
    When I wrote “tip of the spear,” I referred to high readiness units that do high tempo of operations. Such units increasingly do bulk of the fighting. They have high standards and don’t have obese people. Maybe you haven’t paid attention to the US military in the last 80 years, but it has an extremely large logistical tail, with comparatively very few men who do the fighting. Obesity is an issue in that general mass of support personnel. And it’s in the latter group that blacks and browns are overrepresented whereas whites are overrepresented in the former.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/05/diversity-seals-green-berets/31122851/

    In general, the military has a much more diverse force than key components such as special operations. African Americans made up 17% of the 1.3 million-member armed forces in 2013, according to a recent Pentagon report. Whites made up slightly more than 69%.

    Diversity erodes with the breakdown from enlisted to officer ranks. Blacks make up 18.5% of the enlisted troops but only 9.4% of the officer corps. The lack of diversity becomes more evident the further up the ranks you climb. USA TODAY has reported that key commands in the Army and Air Force, the traditional stepping stones for senior leadership posts, are largely staffed by white officers.

    Among special operators, the divide is especially stark. Each of the services provided data to USA TODAY.

    For the SEALs, the problem extends beyond the officer corps into the enlisted ranks. Of its enlisted men, 45 SEALs are black, or about 2% of the 2,242 members of its elite force. There are more SEALs — 99, or 4% of the enlisted force — who are Native Americans or Alaska natives.

    Among Army Green Berets, 85% of its 1,494 officers are white and 4.5% are black. Its 5,947 enlisted Green Berets are 86% white and 5.4% black.

    For the Air Force's para-rescue jumpers, highly trained airmen who search for missing troops, only one of 166 is black, or .6% of that force.

    Other commando fields, including the Army's civil affairs and psychological operations fields, the Navy's small boat crews and Air Force loadmasters, have greater percentages of minority participation but are still below their representation in the military as a whole.

    The Marines refused to provide how many special operators they have. Instead, they provided a pie chart showing their racial breakdown. Black officers and enlisted Marines make up about 1% of their special operations forces.
     

    When I wrote “tip of the spear,” I referred to high readiness units that do high tempo of operations. Such units increasingly do bulk of the fighting. They have high standards and don’t have obese people.

    I read somewhere, from someone who says he was a lifer who spent time in-country during Vietnam, about a huge change in the quality between the army of that time and today’s volunteer grunt. He said that today’s combat infantry are basically the equivalent of Vietnam-era Green Berets in terms of overall combat ability.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    a huge change in the quality between the army of that time and today’s volunteer grunt. He said that today’s combat infantry are basically the equivalent of Vietnam-era Green Berets in terms of overall combat ability.
     
    I wouldn't quite go that far (I don't even think they can be compared), but today's infantrymen who are, after all, long-service volunteers, are much higher in quality than the reluctant conscripts of the later Vietnam War years. The levels of training, cohesion, combat skills, and combat experience are all very high, which wasn't the case with the Vietnam War conscripts.

    Moreover, because of the incredible improvements in technology and the attendant force-multiplier effect, today's infantrymen are capable of putting out much greater combat power man-for-man. And that goes double for the high tempo units (e.g. units under SOCOM) that do much of the fighting these days.
  113. @Johann Ricke

    When I wrote “tip of the spear,” I referred to high readiness units that do high tempo of operations. Such units increasingly do bulk of the fighting. They have high standards and don’t have obese people.
     
    I read somewhere, from someone who says he was a lifer who spent time in-country during Vietnam, about a huge change in the quality between the army of that time and today's volunteer grunt. He said that today's combat infantry are basically the equivalent of Vietnam-era Green Berets in terms of overall combat ability.

    a huge change in the quality between the army of that time and today’s volunteer grunt. He said that today’s combat infantry are basically the equivalent of Vietnam-era Green Berets in terms of overall combat ability.

    I wouldn’t quite go that far (I don’t even think they can be compared), but today’s infantrymen who are, after all, long-service volunteers, are much higher in quality than the reluctant conscripts of the later Vietnam War years. The levels of training, cohesion, combat skills, and combat experience are all very high, which wasn’t the case with the Vietnam War conscripts.

    Moreover, because of the incredible improvements in technology and the attendant force-multiplier effect, today’s infantrymen are capable of putting out much greater combat power man-for-man. And that goes double for the high tempo units (e.g. units under SOCOM) that do much of the fighting these days.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS