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
Lesson of Versailles
🔊 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

A century on, the lesson for our time is that if all the blame for the problems of the past, of the present, and presumably of the future are dumped onto a single group, that besieged group will respond in ways destructive to everyone.

Dangerous phantoms that should not exist are being willed into existence with reckless abandon. It is unlikely this ends well.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Future, History 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anon[379] • Disclaimer says:

    Versailles isn’t the best analogy, while it was a deeply flawed peace settlement, it wasn’t sufficient for the rise of the Nazis (who were a marginal, if steadily growing, movement throughout the 1920s). Much else had to happen for that, especially the terrible economic crisis after 1929 with its unprecedented mass unemployment and the resulting destabilization of the political system. And the French and especially the British did eventually prove willing to revise Versailles at least to some extent.
    For your purposes another argument would be more appropriate which was advanced by the late German historian Ernst Nolte (died in 2016). In Nolte’s view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks – whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved – with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.
    The implications for today’s world are obvious, given the ever escalating demands of open borders ideologues.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    In Nolte’s view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks – whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved – with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.
     
    Was it really extreme? I'm not so sure. My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American's views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they're not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.
  2. “Dangerous phantoms that should not exist are being willed into existence…” – This idea was explored by Umberto Eco in his Foucault’s Pendulum.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Couldn't read it. Too indirect. Lengthy. An abundance of unnecessary words.
  3. Versailles was a single point in a series of back-and-forth exchanges between France and Germany that plays out today with continued ethnic cleansing of a sort in places like Alsace, which was traded between the two for a couple centuries. But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious. Given the roots of the Royals and British nobility, it might be surprising that they’d wish so much ill will on their cousins, but they were clearly no longer running the show by 1918.

    It’s been all downhill for the British Empire since the Parliament Act 1911 effectively neutered the House of Lords and left Commons running the show with regard to all things money.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist

    But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious.
     
    Complete nonsense. It was Britain which had a moderating influence on France, which wanted to break apart Germany. Britain's main interests were only in reparations, which were still much lower than France's demand and which were never repaid anyway, and a brief popular 'Hang the Kaiser' phase for punishment of Germany's leaders, which never happened.
  4. Non-fringe historians who specialize in the years between the World Wars don’t take the Versailles led to Hitler narrative seriously. Read a book from within the past few decade Negro.

    That narrative of being too hard on the Germans with Versailles is an Anglophone one, the French think they weren’t hard enough on the Germans. And well, the Allies terrorized Germany, split Germany apart, and made Germany into impotent puppet states after WW2. This didn’t happen after WW1 from a combo of factors (for one thing, it’d be hard to make Germans pay reparations if the country was dismantled properly with all the burnings and rape, also there was no real drive to “DeKaiser” the country or otherwise root out hostile movements).

  5. Is the single group China? Russia? Or white male? The irony!

  6. I’ve wondered about this as well – despite all the freakouts by the left, Trump is not even remotely close to being a white nationalist, but they paint him as one because he doesn’t criticize whites as a group and sometimes says mean things about non-whites. But assuming we get a Democratic president in 2020 or 2024 that puts some of the anti-white rhetoric that is part of the party’s catechism into action, that opens the door for things to change quite a bit in terms of how whites perceive politics and advocacy, particularly if political figures who are more polished and subtle than Trump emerge.

    That said, it still seems like a fair number of whites who vote Democratic are quite happy to be part of a political coalition where they are supposed to sit at the back of the bus. I am not sure how many of them will change their mind no matter what happens.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    With respect. Methinks the bus is owned by Jews and driven by white liberals. The POC are happy to ride for free.

    White liberals hate Trump because Trump will not condemn Western Civilization. And because, like Deplorables and African Americans, he will not apologize for his skin color.

    ...that opens the door for things to change quite a bit in terms of how whites perceive politics and advocacy...
     
    American whites are no more racist than American blacks. It's not about the POC. It's the Democratic Party that whites increasingly see as their enemy. I myself made the journey from left to right because the left holds me in contempt.
  7. @The Alarmist
    Versailles was a single point in a series of back-and-forth exchanges between France and Germany that plays out today with continued ethnic cleansing of a sort in places like Alsace, which was traded between the two for a couple centuries. But aside from France's seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain's zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious. Given the roots of the Royals and British nobility, it might be surprising that they'd wish so much ill will on their cousins, but they were clearly no longer running the show by 1918.

    It's been all downhill for the British Empire since the Parliament Act 1911 effectively neutered the House of Lords and left Commons running the show with regard to all things money.

    But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious.

    Complete nonsense. It was Britain which had a moderating influence on France, which wanted to break apart Germany. Britain’s main interests were only in reparations, which were still much lower than France’s demand and which were never repaid anyway, and a brief popular ‘Hang the Kaiser’ phase for punishment of Germany’s leaders, which never happened.

    • Agree: El Dato
    • Disagree: byrresheim
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Can we at least agree that Wilson and the US should have stayed the hell out of things?
    , @Curmudgeon
    Given that: there was an armistice, which is merely a cessation of hostilities; that Germany had been offering a "no fault peace since at least 1916; not one shot had been fired on German soil; and that the Triple Entente was, according to Benjamin Freedman, told by the bankers what was going to happen at Versailles, it is odd that one side declared itself the victor. The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    It's difficult to get past "Britain was only interested in reparations" when Britain was itching for a war

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

    and

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-foreign-secretarys-pyrotechnic-display-of-mixed-signals-that-sentenced-800000-british-soldiers-and-9644516.html
    , @Mitleser
    Which means the Brits were wrong.
    If they could not convince the French to reconcile with Germany, they should not have tried to be a moderating influence on France.
    The opposite would have been better.
    , @Carlton Meyer
    "Britain’s main interests were only in reparations"

    This is why peace did not occur in 1916, despite Germany's efforts. Bankers had loaned Great Britain and France more money than they could ever repay. However, if Germany lost, they could demand the Germans pay massive reparations to help pay back these loans. These bankers manipulated American politicians and media to approve American intervention that prolonged the war.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psXYMiBM1JE
  8. @Kent Nationalist

    But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious.
     
    Complete nonsense. It was Britain which had a moderating influence on France, which wanted to break apart Germany. Britain's main interests were only in reparations, which were still much lower than France's demand and which were never repaid anyway, and a brief popular 'Hang the Kaiser' phase for punishment of Germany's leaders, which never happened.

    Can we at least agree that Wilson and the US should have stayed the hell out of things?

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    Amen!
  9. The problem is two fold —-

    If you hold the reins of power then what you claim you control is to your account. You have to own that. And during that time if you makes claims that the fault rests with one group uniquely, it’s a might shrift to complain about blaming.

    Look, I am not moved very much about whites being inundated. Whites have repeatedly managed to manipulate the system to benefit themselves first. The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks. The number of whites in the country number upwards of 256 million plus. Combined with those who are classified as whites against darker populations that number is considerable.

    • Disagree: Cloudbuster
    • Troll: Anonymousse
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    "The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks."

    From Appomattox to the Civil Rights Movement blacks were not allowed to assimilate. The Civil Rights Movement opened the door by granting voting rights and equal protection under law. But at the same time it made blacks a protected minority. So black Americans have never been on an equal footing with white Americans. Who knows what might have happened.

    I doubt that blacks want to assimilate. If they did they would be speaking standard American English by now. But we might have reached some sort of accommodation if the Civil Rights Movement had stopped at civil rights.

    The assassination of JFK threw us off the rails. Johnson's Great Society and Vietnam war was a double whammy from which we never recovered.
    , @MarkinLA
    The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks.


    We have the right of free association. Or at least we did when the Constitution meant something. It is true that there were restrictive covenants. However, they would not have been created or lasted if people didn't want them. Forceing people to assimilate will never work and blacks never showed whites that assimilation would be to their benefit.
  10. @Arclight
    I've wondered about this as well - despite all the freakouts by the left, Trump is not even remotely close to being a white nationalist, but they paint him as one because he doesn't criticize whites as a group and sometimes says mean things about non-whites. But assuming we get a Democratic president in 2020 or 2024 that puts some of the anti-white rhetoric that is part of the party's catechism into action, that opens the door for things to change quite a bit in terms of how whites perceive politics and advocacy, particularly if political figures who are more polished and subtle than Trump emerge.

    That said, it still seems like a fair number of whites who vote Democratic are quite happy to be part of a political coalition where they are supposed to sit at the back of the bus. I am not sure how many of them will change their mind no matter what happens.

    With respect. Methinks the bus is owned by Jews and driven by white liberals. The POC are happy to ride for free.

    White liberals hate Trump because Trump will not condemn Western Civilization. And because, like Deplorables and African Americans, he will not apologize for his skin color.

    …that opens the door for things to change quite a bit in terms of how whites perceive politics and advocacy…

    American whites are no more racist than American blacks. It’s not about the POC. It’s the Democratic Party that whites increasingly see as their enemy. I myself made the journey from left to right because the left holds me in contempt.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    Totally agree with your second line - he is totally immune to white guilt, which has been an effective weapon for the left for decades now.

    As to your last comment, I would say in many cases American blacks are less likely to hold back in showing their dislike of whites than vice versa. I also went from left to right, and a lot of it had to do with the realization that a) much of the left thinks people like myself should have their priorities put dead last behind everyone else, forever, and b) that my only real value to the left is as an ATM - I pay far more in taxes than I will ever consume, and a lot of the money I make that is a result of lots of hours and time away from home is just to be redistributed to people who are supposedly my moral superior because of their ancestry.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Joe Biden's stubbornly high level of support--which comes predominantly from the few remaining white Dems who self-describe as "moderate" and from blacks--is fascinating to me. Undoubtedly many of the former see themselves in the crosshairs when Kamala and company go after Biden for his horrible racism. Your conversion is not a lonely one.
  11. @Kent Nationalist

    But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious.
     
    Complete nonsense. It was Britain which had a moderating influence on France, which wanted to break apart Germany. Britain's main interests were only in reparations, which were still much lower than France's demand and which were never repaid anyway, and a brief popular 'Hang the Kaiser' phase for punishment of Germany's leaders, which never happened.

    Given that: there was an armistice, which is merely a cessation of hostilities; that Germany had been offering a “no fault peace since at least 1916; not one shot had been fired on German soil; and that the Triple Entente was, according to Benjamin Freedman, told by the bankers what was going to happen at Versailles, it is odd that one side declared itself the victor. The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    It’s difficult to get past “Britain was only interested in reparations” when Britain was itching for a war

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

    and

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-foreign-secretarys-pyrotechnic-display-of-mixed-signals-that-sentenced-800000-british-soldiers-and-9644516.html

    • Replies: @songbird

    that Germany had been offering a “no fault peace since at least 1916
     
    Is this really true? I thought Kaiser Wilhelm II was against annexation, but the generals, who basically took power once the war started wanted territory. True "no fault" requires status quo ante bellum.

    In a similar way, perhaps, what German peace plans existed in WW2 were somewhat unattractive from an English perspective, because the German army was unwilling to give up occupation of the territory it had rolled over.

    Not that I in anyway advocate the morality of the continuation of either war.
    , @MarkinLA
    The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    Britain was preparing for war with the US over the US Navy's two ocean expansion plan. It was averted by the Washington Naval Treaty. The Kaiser's High Seas Fleet was nearing the power of Britain's Grand Fleet so I would believe Britain wanted war in order to cut the High Seas Fleet down to size. I don't think economics or finance capital had anything to do with it. Britain was an island dependent on it's navy for its power. Nobody really understood how destructive war had become so it's use as an instrument of foreign policy was more understandable and easily triggered. Britain could never let any navy surpass it's own under those circumstances.
    , @Kent Nationalist
    Except Germany was much more responsible for the start of the war than Britain.
  12. @EliteCommInc.
    The problem is two fold ----

    If you hold the reins of power then what you claim you control is to your account. You have to own that. And during that time if you makes claims that the fault rests with one group uniquely, it's a might shrift to complain about blaming.


    Look, I am not moved very much about whites being inundated. Whites have repeatedly managed to manipulate the system to benefit themselves first. The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks. The number of whites in the country number upwards of 256 million plus. Combined with those who are classified as whites against darker populations that number is considerable.

    “The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks.”

    From Appomattox to the Civil Rights Movement blacks were not allowed to assimilate. The Civil Rights Movement opened the door by granting voting rights and equal protection under law. But at the same time it made blacks a protected minority. So black Americans have never been on an equal footing with white Americans. Who knows what might have happened.

    I doubt that blacks want to assimilate. If they did they would be speaking standard American English by now. But we might have reached some sort of accommodation if the Civil Rights Movement had stopped at civil rights.

    The assassination of JFK threw us off the rails. Johnson’s Great Society and Vietnam war was a double whammy from which we never recovered.

    • Replies: @L Woods

    But we might have reached some sort of accommodation if the Civil Rights Movement had stopped at civil rights.
     
    Yeah, right. The flogged to death 'appeasement of Hitler' metaphor applies here in spades: the "level playing field" was only ever a starting point.
  13. @Curmudgeon
    Given that: there was an armistice, which is merely a cessation of hostilities; that Germany had been offering a "no fault peace since at least 1916; not one shot had been fired on German soil; and that the Triple Entente was, according to Benjamin Freedman, told by the bankers what was going to happen at Versailles, it is odd that one side declared itself the victor. The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    It's difficult to get past "Britain was only interested in reparations" when Britain was itching for a war

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

    and

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-foreign-secretarys-pyrotechnic-display-of-mixed-signals-that-sentenced-800000-british-soldiers-and-9644516.html

    that Germany had been offering a “no fault peace since at least 1916

    Is this really true? I thought Kaiser Wilhelm II was against annexation, but the generals, who basically took power once the war started wanted territory. True “no fault” requires status quo ante bellum.

    In a similar way, perhaps, what German peace plans existed in WW2 were somewhat unattractive from an English perspective, because the German army was unwilling to give up occupation of the territory it had rolled over.

    Not that I in anyway advocate the morality of the continuation of either war.

  14. @EliteCommInc.
    The problem is two fold ----

    If you hold the reins of power then what you claim you control is to your account. You have to own that. And during that time if you makes claims that the fault rests with one group uniquely, it's a might shrift to complain about blaming.


    Look, I am not moved very much about whites being inundated. Whites have repeatedly managed to manipulate the system to benefit themselves first. The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks. The number of whites in the country number upwards of 256 million plus. Combined with those who are classified as whites against darker populations that number is considerable.

    The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks.

    We have the right of free association. Or at least we did when the Constitution meant something. It is true that there were restrictive covenants. However, they would not have been created or lasted if people didn’t want them. Forceing people to assimilate will never work and blacks never showed whites that assimilation would be to their benefit.

  15. @Curmudgeon
    Given that: there was an armistice, which is merely a cessation of hostilities; that Germany had been offering a "no fault peace since at least 1916; not one shot had been fired on German soil; and that the Triple Entente was, according to Benjamin Freedman, told by the bankers what was going to happen at Versailles, it is odd that one side declared itself the victor. The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    It's difficult to get past "Britain was only interested in reparations" when Britain was itching for a war

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

    and

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-foreign-secretarys-pyrotechnic-display-of-mixed-signals-that-sentenced-800000-british-soldiers-and-9644516.html

    The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    Britain was preparing for war with the US over the US Navy’s two ocean expansion plan. It was averted by the Washington Naval Treaty. The Kaiser’s High Seas Fleet was nearing the power of Britain’s Grand Fleet so I would believe Britain wanted war in order to cut the High Seas Fleet down to size. I don’t think economics or finance capital had anything to do with it. Britain was an island dependent on it’s navy for its power. Nobody really understood how destructive war had become so it’s use as an instrument of foreign policy was more understandable and easily triggered. Britain could never let any navy surpass it’s own under those circumstances.

  16. This is not on the main point here (when am I ever?) but, I read recently in the very beginning of a large book on the Vietnam War, that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.

    Ho Chi Min was no Communist of any sort at that point. It just read like he became a Commie out of expediency later on. I think he was able to get some message to the US President at the conference, but he was basically blown off.

    • Replies: @Meneldil
    He was at Versailles but the Japanese at nothing to do with Vietnam a that point in time, it was part of French Indochina, Japan occupied the area only from 1940 to 1945 then the French returned until they lost the Indochina War and Vietnam was partitioned.
    , @iffen
    Duh
    , @Twinkie

    that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.
     
    Vietnam was still a part of French Indochina in 1919. France withdrew from the latter in 1954 after its defeat at Dien Bien Phu.
  17. Even more off-topic, just because it’s about the French Revolution 130 years earlier, but, man, there aren’t many artists in the genre of History Rock, so …

    Here’s Al Stewart on The Lonely Palace of Versailles, pronounced Ver-sales, if you’re in or around Lexington, Kentucky.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Nice to see someone else appreciates Al Stewart! Songs about the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flight of Joseph Mengele, trains, and the German-Russian portion of WWII: he's a creative genius! Hope I can catch a live concert before he retires!
  18. @Achmed E. Newman
    This is not on the main point here (when am I ever?) but, I read recently in the very beginning of a large book on the Vietnam War, that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.

    Ho Chi Min was no Communist of any sort at that point. It just read like he became a Commie out of expediency later on. I think he was able to get some message to the US President at the conference, but he was basically blown off.

    He was at Versailles but the Japanese at nothing to do with Vietnam a that point in time, it was part of French Indochina, Japan occupied the area only from 1940 to 1945 then the French returned until they lost the Indochina War and Vietnam was partitioned.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, I screwed up, as I wrote in a reply to Twinkie. I see your comment took a while, so it's hard to have a conversation that way - GET! TRUSTED! DUDE! ;-}
  19. @Achmed E. Newman
    This is not on the main point here (when am I ever?) but, I read recently in the very beginning of a large book on the Vietnam War, that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.

    Ho Chi Min was no Communist of any sort at that point. It just read like he became a Commie out of expediency later on. I think he was able to get some message to the US President at the conference, but he was basically blown off.

    Duh

  20. @Kent Nationalist

    But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious.
     
    Complete nonsense. It was Britain which had a moderating influence on France, which wanted to break apart Germany. Britain's main interests were only in reparations, which were still much lower than France's demand and which were never repaid anyway, and a brief popular 'Hang the Kaiser' phase for punishment of Germany's leaders, which never happened.

    Which means the Brits were wrong.
    If they could not convince the French to reconcile with Germany, they should not have tried to be a moderating influence on France.
    The opposite would have been better.

  21. @anon
    Versailles isn't the best analogy, while it was a deeply flawed peace settlement, it wasn't sufficient for the rise of the Nazis (who were a marginal, if steadily growing, movement throughout the 1920s). Much else had to happen for that, especially the terrible economic crisis after 1929 with its unprecedented mass unemployment and the resulting destabilization of the political system. And the French and especially the British did eventually prove willing to revise Versailles at least to some extent.
    For your purposes another argument would be more appropriate which was advanced by the late German historian Ernst Nolte (died in 2016). In Nolte's view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks - whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved - with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.
    The implications for today's world are obvious, given the ever escalating demands of open borders ideologues.

    In Nolte’s view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks – whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved – with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.

    Was it really extreme? I’m not so sure. My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American’s views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't know, Rosie. The problem is that the Nazi party is completely associated in our minds with that one madman. In reality, it WAS pretty much completely associated with him, at least in Germany. I could see that the average German of the Nazi era, not necessarily the average Nazi, had the same views on nationhood as your average White American up to 30 years ago.

    Indeed, the Commies were very close to taking over that country. Lenin had spent a decade in Germany honing his craft and talking points, before he went back to Russia to give it a go. The terrible economic times due to Wilson's odious deal in Versailles by the 1920's with the incredible hyper-inflation made Germany fair game for anyone with promises of a new system.

    It's too bad there wasn't a more sane man who would have also defeated the Communists in the streets, but, even with all the resentment of the Allied reparations, just taken a slightly different path to get that nation out of it's misery.
    , @dfordoom

    My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American’s views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.
     
    All of which would have been fine, except for the wanting to overrun eastern Europe and exterminate and/or enslave the existing inhabitants thing.

    What the Nazis did in the 30s wasn't particularly extreme. What they did in the 40s was about as extreme as you could get.

    Much of it came down to the fact that Hitler's ideas were totally batshit crazy. He was a kind of weird proto-hippie. He wanted to empty out the German cities because he thought cities were evil) and settle the German population on small family farms where they would live lives of bucolic bliss, living close to nature. That was going to requite immense amounts of land. Hence the wanting to overrun eastern Europe and exterminate and/or enslave the existing inhabitants thing. He was also a vegetarian.

    It's surprising that so few people notice the uncanny resemblances between Hitler's ideas of utopia and the utopian fantasies of the hippies, and of many modern environmentalists.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    There's a gif we're never going to live down!

    For the record, I very much think they are incorrect--and wrong--to do so. But I had a grandfather who literally fought the Nazis and today I get called a Nazi for believing the same things he did, so I realize the futility in all of this.

  22. @Achmed E. Newman
    This is not on the main point here (when am I ever?) but, I read recently in the very beginning of a large book on the Vietnam War, that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.

    Ho Chi Min was no Communist of any sort at that point. It just read like he became a Commie out of expediency later on. I think he was able to get some message to the US President at the conference, but he was basically blown off.

    that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.

    Vietnam was still a part of French Indochina in 1919. France withdrew from the latter in 1954 after its defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Oh, damn, what an egregious error (no sarc.) - I meant Colonial France, but was thinking of later on during WWII times*. Thanks for the correction, Twinkie.

    .

    * The French came right on back after the Japs were beat, contrary to what Ho Chi Min and others thought and hoped would happen. They thought the US would play a hand in getting the French to give up this colony, when treaties were being made (there was a lot more to it - I read this book > a year back).
  23. @Twinkie

    that Mr. Ho Chi Min was at Versailles, trying to get an audience with President Wilson. He wanted to put in a word for getting the Vietnamese out from under the yoke of Japanese colonialism during all the re-mapping of the world going on.
     
    Vietnam was still a part of French Indochina in 1919. France withdrew from the latter in 1954 after its defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

    Oh, damn, what an egregious error (no sarc.) – I meant Colonial France, but was thinking of later on during WWII times*. Thanks for the correction, Twinkie.

    .

    * The French came right on back after the Japs were beat, contrary to what Ho Chi Min and others thought and hoped would happen. They thought the US would play a hand in getting the French to give up this colony, when treaties were being made (there was a lot more to it – I read this book > a year back).

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The French came right on back after the Japs were beat, contrary to what Ho Chi Min and others thought and hoped would happen. They thought the US would play a hand in getting the French to give up this colony, when treaties were being made (there was a lot more to it – I read this book > a year back).
     
    Japan coerced Vichy France to allow Japan to occupy the French Indochina during World War II. And, yes, during the war, the U.S. sent OSS (the precursor to the CIA) personnel to the French Indochina to aid native anti-Japanese guerillas, including Viet Minh. After the Japanese defeat, Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh proclaimed an independent Vietnamese Republic, but the negotiations between Viet Minh, China, and France broke down and led to the war between France and Viet Minh, which ended in the French disaster at Dien Bien Phu.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    The war in Vietnam was a huge diplomatic blunder for the U.S. It might have been understandable for the U.S. to have supported the French effort to retain Indochina; France had a large and active Communist Party after WWII and the loss of French Indochina might have brought them to power. But after France withdrew, there was no good reason, aside from reflexive anti-communism, not to have acceded to a unified Vietnam under Ho's leadership. Yes, he was a communist, but he was even more an ardent Vietnamese nationalist who would have been a bigger thorn in the side of the Chinese communists than Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist government ever was; he would likely have been an Asian Tito.
  24. @WorkingClass
    "The great mistake if there was one was failing to assimilate newly free blacks."

    From Appomattox to the Civil Rights Movement blacks were not allowed to assimilate. The Civil Rights Movement opened the door by granting voting rights and equal protection under law. But at the same time it made blacks a protected minority. So black Americans have never been on an equal footing with white Americans. Who knows what might have happened.

    I doubt that blacks want to assimilate. If they did they would be speaking standard American English by now. But we might have reached some sort of accommodation if the Civil Rights Movement had stopped at civil rights.

    The assassination of JFK threw us off the rails. Johnson's Great Society and Vietnam war was a double whammy from which we never recovered.

    But we might have reached some sort of accommodation if the Civil Rights Movement had stopped at civil rights.

    Yeah, right. The flogged to death ‘appeasement of Hitler’ metaphor applies here in spades: the “level playing field” was only ever a starting point.

  25. “We have the right of free association.”

    I don’t think you know what assimilate means. Asimilliation does not require association. If i get the article correct, the contend here is that one group is being vilified as soley responsible. And the practice of laying all the blame in one direction unproductive if not unfair.

    I am just making a simple observation. If whiteness is superior as many claim. And that superior nature has been the power brokers and in so being have laid to blame a good deal against any particular group for most of the problems. Then it should come as no surprise that upon looking at failures the previous accused would turn the matter back on those who laid claim to being in power.

    If in fact single blaming is untoward, unreasoned, bad form, unfair and unproductive one has to take responsibility if they have so engaged.

    ——-

    “Forceing people to assimilate will never work and blacks never showed whites that assimilation would be to their benefit.”

    I am positive you don’t know what assimilation means.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Is it helpful to let moral judgments on the past bleed through to the present, or more to the point, to make moral judgments about the past at all? The idea that whites today have to stop enjoying the present since their ancestors enjoyed the past, and that non-whites get luxury in the present because they got the short end of the stick in the past presupposes some past consciousness. Whatever enjoyment my greatx10 grandparents experienced, I wasn't conscious of it so why should I have a huge debit in that account?
    , @MarkinLA
    How does one "assimilate" when one is free to stay away from that other group and overwhelmingly chooses to segregate? But please tell me?
  26. “From Appomattox to the Civil Rights Movement blacks were not allowed to assimilate. The Civil Rights Movement opened the door by granting voting rights and equal protection under law.”

    First of all, you are devastatingly incorrect about asimilation of african americans. And the fact that you mention voting, that has been revisited more than once indicates that in fact, blacks faced barriers to assimilation and that in every state on the union — to include legalized illegalityin every walk of life.

    I hate to admit this detail. But the evidence is just overwhelming. And that is the problem. The country can longer merely dismiss it as imagined, emotional nonsense — we now know that every state engaged in hindering black citizens in important aspect of citizenship

  27. @Rosie

    In Nolte’s view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks – whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved – with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.
     
    Was it really extreme? I'm not so sure. My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American's views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they're not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.

    I don’t know, Rosie. The problem is that the Nazi party is completely associated in our minds with that one madman. In reality, it WAS pretty much completely associated with him, at least in Germany. I could see that the average German of the Nazi era, not necessarily the average Nazi, had the same views on nationhood as your average White American up to 30 years ago.

    Indeed, the Commies were very close to taking over that country. Lenin had spent a decade in Germany honing his craft and talking points, before he went back to Russia to give it a go. The terrible economic times due to Wilson’s odious deal in Versailles by the 1920’s with the incredible hyper-inflation made Germany fair game for anyone with promises of a new system.

    It’s too bad there wasn’t a more sane man who would have also defeated the Communists in the streets, but, even with all the resentment of the Allied reparations, just taken a slightly different path to get that nation out of it’s misery.

  28. @Kent Nationalist

    But aside from France’s seemingly perpetual axe to grind, it was Britain’s zeal to take Germany down a few pegs that made the Versailles Treaty particularly pernicious.
     
    Complete nonsense. It was Britain which had a moderating influence on France, which wanted to break apart Germany. Britain's main interests were only in reparations, which were still much lower than France's demand and which were never repaid anyway, and a brief popular 'Hang the Kaiser' phase for punishment of Germany's leaders, which never happened.

    “Britain’s main interests were only in reparations”

    This is why peace did not occur in 1916, despite Germany’s efforts. Bankers had loaned Great Britain and France more money than they could ever repay. However, if Germany lost, they could demand the Germans pay massive reparations to help pay back these loans. These bankers manipulated American politicians and media to approve American intervention that prolonged the war.

  29. @Achmed E. Newman
    Oh, damn, what an egregious error (no sarc.) - I meant Colonial France, but was thinking of later on during WWII times*. Thanks for the correction, Twinkie.

    .

    * The French came right on back after the Japs were beat, contrary to what Ho Chi Min and others thought and hoped would happen. They thought the US would play a hand in getting the French to give up this colony, when treaties were being made (there was a lot more to it - I read this book > a year back).

    The French came right on back after the Japs were beat, contrary to what Ho Chi Min and others thought and hoped would happen. They thought the US would play a hand in getting the French to give up this colony, when treaties were being made (there was a lot more to it – I read this book > a year back).

    Japan coerced Vichy France to allow Japan to occupy the French Indochina during World War II. And, yes, during the war, the U.S. sent OSS (the precursor to the CIA) personnel to the French Indochina to aid native anti-Japanese guerillas, including Viet Minh. After the Japanese defeat, Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh proclaimed an independent Vietnamese Republic, but the negotiations between Viet Minh, China, and France broke down and led to the war between France and Viet Minh, which ended in the French disaster at Dien Bien Phu.

  30. anon[238] • Disclaimer says:

    “Versailles isn’t the best analogy, while it was a deeply flawed peace settlement, it wasn’t sufficient for the rise of the Nazis (who were a marginal, if steadily growing, movement throughout the 1920s)”

    I don’t agree with that interpretation. Versailles was a necessary but not sufficient condition in and of itself. The humiliation of Versailles played a clear role in the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. The Depression set the conditions for its ascendancy, but it wouldn’t have been in contention in the first place without Versailles. Without that national humiliation, communism would likely have been the alternative.

  31. @Rosie

    In Nolte’s view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks – whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved – with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.
     
    Was it really extreme? I'm not so sure. My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American's views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they're not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.

    My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American’s views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.

    All of which would have been fine, except for the wanting to overrun eastern Europe and exterminate and/or enslave the existing inhabitants thing.

    What the Nazis did in the 30s wasn’t particularly extreme. What they did in the 40s was about as extreme as you could get.

    Much of it came down to the fact that Hitler’s ideas were totally batshit crazy. He was a kind of weird proto-hippie. He wanted to empty out the German cities because he thought cities were evil) and settle the German population on small family farms where they would live lives of bucolic bliss, living close to nature. That was going to requite immense amounts of land. Hence the wanting to overrun eastern Europe and exterminate and/or enslave the existing inhabitants thing. He was also a vegetarian.

    It’s surprising that so few people notice the uncanny resemblances between Hitler’s ideas of utopia and the utopian fantasies of the hippies, and of many modern environmentalists.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    At the same time Hitler was wanting to move the population from the cities to small family farms, Stalin was wanting to go in the opposite direction. Lenin, Stalin and the other early communist leaders were big admirers of the types of huge factories developed by Henry Ford. There was a massive drive towards industrialization in the Soviet Union in the nineteen twenties and thirties with the communists bringing in American engineers to help build giant factories. Most of the rural population was to be moved into the cities with the remainder to be herded together and put on giant collective farms where industrial methods including the extensive use of farm machinery would increase output. This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn't compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet. Eventually the Soviet Union totally collapsed. This utopian fantasy of industrialism without capitalism hasn't vanished, though. You still hear some leftists saying you can combine socialism with large automated factories that will produce enough that everyone will be able to have a high standard of living.
  32. “It’s difficult to get past “Britain was only interested in reparations” when Britain was itching for a war”

    That is not really what is happening here in the articles. British leadership is looking to defend the the Belgians and the french in a war that had already begun by the Germans. I think the crucial reference here is to the honor of Great Britain. They weren’t seeking a war with Germany for wars sake — but out an allegiance with other states.

    Britain was concerned that the penalties on Germany were overwrought.

  33. “It’s surprising that so few people notice the uncanny resemblances between Hitler’s ideas of utopia and the utopian fantasies of the hippies, and of many modern environmentalists.”

    Ah that image . . .

    Heir Hitler with flowers in his Swastika singing . . .”Give Peace a chance.” Don’t mind the tanks, there are just water guns to wet your apple trees.

    Love is all you need. Zich heil.

    I saw The Producers on Broadway — very funny.

  34. @Curmudgeon
    Given that: there was an armistice, which is merely a cessation of hostilities; that Germany had been offering a "no fault peace since at least 1916; not one shot had been fired on German soil; and that the Triple Entente was, according to Benjamin Freedman, told by the bankers what was going to happen at Versailles, it is odd that one side declared itself the victor. The real lesson to be learned is that all wars are economic wars, and more specifically finance capital wars.

    It's difficult to get past "Britain was only interested in reparations" when Britain was itching for a war

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2706589/Find-reason-war-Germany-Shocking-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html

    and

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-foreign-secretarys-pyrotechnic-display-of-mixed-signals-that-sentenced-800000-british-soldiers-and-9644516.html

    Except Germany was much more responsible for the start of the war than Britain.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
    The Empire is gone.

    Get over it.
  35. @dfordoom

    My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American’s views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.
     
    All of which would have been fine, except for the wanting to overrun eastern Europe and exterminate and/or enslave the existing inhabitants thing.

    What the Nazis did in the 30s wasn't particularly extreme. What they did in the 40s was about as extreme as you could get.

    Much of it came down to the fact that Hitler's ideas were totally batshit crazy. He was a kind of weird proto-hippie. He wanted to empty out the German cities because he thought cities were evil) and settle the German population on small family farms where they would live lives of bucolic bliss, living close to nature. That was going to requite immense amounts of land. Hence the wanting to overrun eastern Europe and exterminate and/or enslave the existing inhabitants thing. He was also a vegetarian.

    It's surprising that so few people notice the uncanny resemblances between Hitler's ideas of utopia and the utopian fantasies of the hippies, and of many modern environmentalists.

    At the same time Hitler was wanting to move the population from the cities to small family farms, Stalin was wanting to go in the opposite direction. Lenin, Stalin and the other early communist leaders were big admirers of the types of huge factories developed by Henry Ford. There was a massive drive towards industrialization in the Soviet Union in the nineteen twenties and thirties with the communists bringing in American engineers to help build giant factories. Most of the rural population was to be moved into the cities with the remainder to be herded together and put on giant collective farms where industrial methods including the extensive use of farm machinery would increase output. This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn’t compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet. Eventually the Soviet Union totally collapsed. This utopian fantasy of industrialism without capitalism hasn’t vanished, though. You still hear some leftists saying you can combine socialism with large automated factories that will produce enough that everyone will be able to have a high standard of living.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn’t compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet.
     
    The problem is that industrialisation plus capitalism plus urbanisation seems to lead inevitably to decadence. The United States is now not only the most decadent nation on the planet, it's probably the most decadent society that has ever existed.

    I'm inclined to think that wealth is like alcohol. In moderation it's a good thing. In excess it will eventually kill you.

    Hitler's ideas were lunacy because firstly such ideas could only be workable with a small population and secondly because a de-industrialised agrarian nation will get clobbered by its industrialised neighbours.

    Stalin's idea worked up to a point but the Soviet Union got throttled by the wealthier United States.

    China's approach might be workable, except that the United States believes in crushing potential rivals so they will probably get crushed. The United States also believes in crushing any system that looks like providing a viable alternative.

    So far no-one seems to have come up with a model for society that doesn't have fatal flaws, or that can survive when faced by hostile and ruthless rivals.
  36. @Mark G.
    At the same time Hitler was wanting to move the population from the cities to small family farms, Stalin was wanting to go in the opposite direction. Lenin, Stalin and the other early communist leaders were big admirers of the types of huge factories developed by Henry Ford. There was a massive drive towards industrialization in the Soviet Union in the nineteen twenties and thirties with the communists bringing in American engineers to help build giant factories. Most of the rural population was to be moved into the cities with the remainder to be herded together and put on giant collective farms where industrial methods including the extensive use of farm machinery would increase output. This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn't compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet. Eventually the Soviet Union totally collapsed. This utopian fantasy of industrialism without capitalism hasn't vanished, though. You still hear some leftists saying you can combine socialism with large automated factories that will produce enough that everyone will be able to have a high standard of living.

    This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn’t compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet.

    The problem is that industrialisation plus capitalism plus urbanisation seems to lead inevitably to decadence. The United States is now not only the most decadent nation on the planet, it’s probably the most decadent society that has ever existed.

    I’m inclined to think that wealth is like alcohol. In moderation it’s a good thing. In excess it will eventually kill you.

    Hitler’s ideas were lunacy because firstly such ideas could only be workable with a small population and secondly because a de-industrialised agrarian nation will get clobbered by its industrialised neighbours.

    Stalin’s idea worked up to a point but the Soviet Union got throttled by the wealthier United States.

    China’s approach might be workable, except that the United States believes in crushing potential rivals so they will probably get crushed. The United States also believes in crushing any system that looks like providing a viable alternative.

    So far no-one seems to have come up with a model for society that doesn’t have fatal flaws, or that can survive when faced by hostile and ruthless rivals.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    Wealth does tend to lead to decadence. There is a problem with capitalism in that it creates so much wealth. The increased wealth is a good thing because it leads to a higher standard of living. At the same time, though, when the wealth is passed on and inherited by future generations it undermines the values and habits that enabled the wealth to be generated to begin with. You can see the same thing in families. There is an old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". The lazy decadent son squanders the money left to him by the hardworking self-disciplined father. Countries end up going through cycles of rise and then decline. You can see this all through history. Right now, decadent America is declining and formerly poverty stricken China is on the rise. So do you try to prevent the decadent phase by preventing the country from becoming wealthy in the first place or is there a way to have a wealthy country with a healthy culture, relatively low income equality, and a great deal of social cohesion? The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn't have been prevented from sprouting.
    , @L Woods

    secondly because a de-industrialised agrarian nation will get clobbered by its industrialised neighbours.
     
    Are we sure about that? After all, the contemporary US is, in fact, a largely de-industrialized state with a disproportionately prominent agricultural sector. It is also now quite highly urbanized, but there's little inherent economic need for it to be so -- we have the technology to be teleworking en masse. If America weren't dominated by managerial extroverts, I imagine that we would be.
  37. @utu
    "Dangerous phantoms that should not exist are being willed into existence..." - This idea was explored by Umberto Eco in his Foucault's Pendulum.

    Couldn’t read it. Too indirect. Lengthy. An abundance of unnecessary words.

  38. @Achmed E. Newman
    Even more off-topic, just because it's about the French Revolution 130 years earlier, but, man, there aren't many artists in the genre of History Rock, so ...

    Here's Al Stewart on The Lonely Palace of Versailles, pronounced Ver-sales, if you're in or around Lexington, Kentucky.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-dVSwmzSA

    Nice to see someone else appreciates Al Stewart! Songs about the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flight of Joseph Mengele, trains, and the German-Russian portion of WWII: he’s a creative genius! Hope I can catch a live concert before he retires!

    • Replies: @JackOH
    DH, saw Al at the Kent Stage this May and also the previous year. Excellent. His voice is unchanged from the 1970s, and his opening act and backing band, Empty Pockets, were likewise excellent. He drew nearly a full house.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I've heard 'em all, D.H. Let's see (no looking anything up here), I can't get the 1st, The Running Man< and Roads to Moscow. Since you guys here like him, this one is not exactly a history story, but a story of a man in history that said he could see the future. However, it's probably the best tune of all of his, with that great instrumental - you need to have this one turned up to 11.

    "Man, man, your time is sand, your ways are leaves upon the sea. I am the eyes of Nostradumbass, all your ways our known to me."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa89bt0GZvQ

    .

    Sorry, I had to stick that "Nostradumbass" in there, as that is still the best internet handle I've ever seen! (a Zerohedge commenter, I'm pretty sure)
  39. @Achmed E. Newman
    Oh, damn, what an egregious error (no sarc.) - I meant Colonial France, but was thinking of later on during WWII times*. Thanks for the correction, Twinkie.

    .

    * The French came right on back after the Japs were beat, contrary to what Ho Chi Min and others thought and hoped would happen. They thought the US would play a hand in getting the French to give up this colony, when treaties were being made (there was a lot more to it - I read this book > a year back).

    The war in Vietnam was a huge diplomatic blunder for the U.S. It might have been understandable for the U.S. to have supported the French effort to retain Indochina; France had a large and active Communist Party after WWII and the loss of French Indochina might have brought them to power. But after France withdrew, there was no good reason, aside from reflexive anti-communism, not to have acceded to a unified Vietnam under Ho’s leadership. Yes, he was a communist, but he was even more an ardent Vietnamese nationalist who would have been a bigger thorn in the side of the Chinese communists than Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government ever was; he would likely have been an Asian Tito.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    By the time of the French exit, the US had created the largely worthless SEATO as a quasi copy of NATO. The US made stupid guarantees along those of NATO. We created South Vietnam during the negotiations that ended France's colonial rule. We had to defend them according to the treaty and to make the other nations think SEATO actually meant something.

    US Presidents had to worry about being "soft on communism" during election time. Everybody thought there was some low level force the US could apply to get the north back to the negotiating table, it just didn't work out that way.
  40. @Diversity Heretic
    Nice to see someone else appreciates Al Stewart! Songs about the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flight of Joseph Mengele, trains, and the German-Russian portion of WWII: he's a creative genius! Hope I can catch a live concert before he retires!

    DH, saw Al at the Kent Stage this May and also the previous year. Excellent. His voice is unchanged from the 1970s, and his opening act and backing band, Empty Pockets, were likewise excellent. He drew nearly a full house.

  41. @dfordoom

    This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn’t compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet.
     
    The problem is that industrialisation plus capitalism plus urbanisation seems to lead inevitably to decadence. The United States is now not only the most decadent nation on the planet, it's probably the most decadent society that has ever existed.

    I'm inclined to think that wealth is like alcohol. In moderation it's a good thing. In excess it will eventually kill you.

    Hitler's ideas were lunacy because firstly such ideas could only be workable with a small population and secondly because a de-industrialised agrarian nation will get clobbered by its industrialised neighbours.

    Stalin's idea worked up to a point but the Soviet Union got throttled by the wealthier United States.

    China's approach might be workable, except that the United States believes in crushing potential rivals so they will probably get crushed. The United States also believes in crushing any system that looks like providing a viable alternative.

    So far no-one seems to have come up with a model for society that doesn't have fatal flaws, or that can survive when faced by hostile and ruthless rivals.

    Wealth does tend to lead to decadence. There is a problem with capitalism in that it creates so much wealth. The increased wealth is a good thing because it leads to a higher standard of living. At the same time, though, when the wealth is passed on and inherited by future generations it undermines the values and habits that enabled the wealth to be generated to begin with. You can see the same thing in families. There is an old saying “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”. The lazy decadent son squanders the money left to him by the hardworking self-disciplined father. Countries end up going through cycles of rise and then decline. You can see this all through history. Right now, decadent America is declining and formerly poverty stricken China is on the rise. So do you try to prevent the decadent phase by preventing the country from becoming wealthy in the first place or is there a way to have a wealthy country with a healthy culture, relatively low income equality, and a great deal of social cohesion? The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.
     
    This is an excellent comment, Mr. G. I appreciate the moderate and inquisitive tone.

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid. If the people come to view most labor as beneath them, they are vulnerable to globalist snake oil. Much popular animus against outsourcing was diffused with flattery, appeals to the people's vanity. "You don't really want these jobs, do you? You're too good for this work!"
    , @Twinkie

    The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.
     
    The United States emerged from World War II - the largest-scale war the humanity has ever known - not only the greatest victor, but one which contained 50% (!) of the world economic output (measured by national GNPs of the day). Meanwhile much of the rest of the industrialized world (Europe and East Asia) was in smoking ruins with huge fractions of its working-age men killed and wounded and younger cohorts eviscerated through war and famine.

    To put simply, Americans were unified by the war experience and controlled - within its borders - half of the world's economic activity (and indirectly controlled much of the rest by the virtue of its alliances). That is not a situation that can be replicated easily.

    Most people don't have a good historical sense and tend to equate the peak, the golden age of their civilization as the historical norm for their society and people. That is, unfortunately, not how societies and human beings work. As much as I dearly wish well of my own descendants and those of my fellow American peers, our society like all living organisms will go through the same cycle of birth, growth, rise, decay, and death. I hope it won't die for a very long time and that, when it does, it will contribute to the birth of another great society, but anyone with even a cursory grasp of history must realize that it too, inevitably, will die one day.

    I don't want to die very soon either, but I know I will. That's something every son learns from watching the decline and death of his father, of one who came before he.
    , @dfordoom

    The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.
     
    I think the seeds of decline were well and truly there. You only have to look at Hollywood movies in the late 40s and the 50s - so much strident liberalism, so much determination to remould society. It actually wasn't the commies in Hollywood who were doing the serious subverting, it was the liberals.

    It seemed to be a response to excessive prosperity - there was no perceived need to fight for economic justice so liberals wanted to create a social utopia.

    There was also considerable cultural decadence. At that stage it was mostly affecting "high art" - look at the obscene trash that was modernist art and literature. Much of that was driven by excessive wealth.

    Social decadence was starting to appear. The counter-culture actually started with the Beats in the 50s. Jazz and the emerging counter-culture were also beginning to spread the poison of drug culture. There was also the emergence of "youth culture" which seems like an early indicator of cultural decadence.
  42. @Mark G.
    Wealth does tend to lead to decadence. There is a problem with capitalism in that it creates so much wealth. The increased wealth is a good thing because it leads to a higher standard of living. At the same time, though, when the wealth is passed on and inherited by future generations it undermines the values and habits that enabled the wealth to be generated to begin with. You can see the same thing in families. There is an old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". The lazy decadent son squanders the money left to him by the hardworking self-disciplined father. Countries end up going through cycles of rise and then decline. You can see this all through history. Right now, decadent America is declining and formerly poverty stricken China is on the rise. So do you try to prevent the decadent phase by preventing the country from becoming wealthy in the first place or is there a way to have a wealthy country with a healthy culture, relatively low income equality, and a great deal of social cohesion? The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn't have been prevented from sprouting.

    We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.

    This is an excellent comment, Mr. G. I appreciate the moderate and inquisitive tone.

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid. If the people come to view most labor as beneath them, they are vulnerable to globalist snake oil. Much popular animus against outsourcing was diffused with flattery, appeals to the people’s vanity. “You don’t really want these jobs, do you? You’re too good for this work!”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Social media makes those last two sentences so hard to fight back against, unfortunately. I don't know what the solution is. The problem seems intractable.
    , @Twinkie

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid.
     
    This white nationalist fantasy is both counter-factual/counter-historical and does not pass the human nature test.

    It wasn't the "POCs" who brought Africans as slaves to what is now the United States. The society that did so was overwhelmingly white. Yes, yes, yes, Jews were prominent in the slave trade, but the great bulk of the consumers of slaves were propertied non-Jewish whites. Did their white-only society prevent these men from profiting by exploiting compelled labor of blacks out of concern for their less well-off whites? Of course not. Even back then those in charge made their own rules for themselves - for their own specific posterity, not those of their poorer co-ethnic neighbors... Just as the factory and business owners of the same period did.

    In complex human societies, monoethnic or otherwise, there is always competition for hierarchy and resources. Heck, even pastoral nomadic societies and hunter-gatherer societies that are comparatively much more egalitarian than settled ones still have competition for accolades and honor (from excelling in hunting and war) from fellow tribesmen.

    Those with means try to increase and add to the means they already possess and those with less try to acquire them. That is the nature of human existence. As such, people will always attempt to find ways to increase profits, efficiency, market share of their enterprises and in the process frequently trample under those who lives are negatively affected by those newfangled methods or cheaper labor from elsewhere. Yes, that's terrible, but the alternatives are feudalism and communism, neither of which produces welfare for the general public.

    Ah, but what about the 1940's and 1950's? The country was much whiter back then and it was more united! Yes, but what really united the country was the experience of World War II, a titanic global struggle in which the United States was attacked physically and seriously for the first time since the War of 1812. Threats that are deemed to be existential tend to unify the populace (whatever their internal differences),* but the only problem with that way of life is that a society cannot sustain that level of internal cohesion derived from an outside existential threat without becoming a garrison state, which has its own host of many dire problems.

    *In Sebastian Junger's "Tribe," he reports of former Yugoslavs who wistfully talk of the horrific civil war of the 1990's as "the best time of their lives," precisely because existential threats united communities, townspeople, and denizens of apartment buildings into a classless solidarity impossible in normal civil societies (he reports the same of sentiments of the British people hiding together in bomb shelters during the Blitz during World War II).

    Frankly, I don't have a solution for this problem either, because it is deeply embedded in human nature. Humans compete and strive, which creates dissension and resentment. You can't suppress that drive without creating an Orwellian nightmare (and then you end up with an Orwellian nightmare and competition and striving by other means). But there are some clues as to what can restrain, if not prevent entirely, such tendencies, which Robert Putnam parenthetically discussed in his works - shared military service and religion (Razib Khan often writes of Axial Age religions as mechanisms of melding together different peoples in nascent empires of the time).

    Don't misunderstand me - I am not in any way suggesting that increasing the ethnic Balkanization of the United States is a positive development (it's sad that I have to make that explicit, but some people here are prone to straw men, so...). I am opposed to it, which is why I support immigration restriction and what I call implicit white majoritarianism. But your constant hankering for "racial identity" and ultimately the quest for a white race-state is no panacea and brings with it many problems of its own and harbors risks that may be much more dangerous to ordinary (white) Americans than any posed today.
  43. May the curative fires burn hot.

  44. @WorkingClass
    With respect. Methinks the bus is owned by Jews and driven by white liberals. The POC are happy to ride for free.

    White liberals hate Trump because Trump will not condemn Western Civilization. And because, like Deplorables and African Americans, he will not apologize for his skin color.

    ...that opens the door for things to change quite a bit in terms of how whites perceive politics and advocacy...
     
    American whites are no more racist than American blacks. It's not about the POC. It's the Democratic Party that whites increasingly see as their enemy. I myself made the journey from left to right because the left holds me in contempt.

    Totally agree with your second line – he is totally immune to white guilt, which has been an effective weapon for the left for decades now.

    As to your last comment, I would say in many cases American blacks are less likely to hold back in showing their dislike of whites than vice versa. I also went from left to right, and a lot of it had to do with the realization that a) much of the left thinks people like myself should have their priorities put dead last behind everyone else, forever, and b) that my only real value to the left is as an ATM – I pay far more in taxes than I will ever consume, and a lot of the money I make that is a result of lots of hours and time away from home is just to be redistributed to people who are supposedly my moral superior because of their ancestry.

  45. @dfordoom

    This industrialization without capitalism ultimately failed, though, because it couldn’t compete with the industrialization plus capitalism which made the United States the wealthiest country on the planet.
     
    The problem is that industrialisation plus capitalism plus urbanisation seems to lead inevitably to decadence. The United States is now not only the most decadent nation on the planet, it's probably the most decadent society that has ever existed.

    I'm inclined to think that wealth is like alcohol. In moderation it's a good thing. In excess it will eventually kill you.

    Hitler's ideas were lunacy because firstly such ideas could only be workable with a small population and secondly because a de-industrialised agrarian nation will get clobbered by its industrialised neighbours.

    Stalin's idea worked up to a point but the Soviet Union got throttled by the wealthier United States.

    China's approach might be workable, except that the United States believes in crushing potential rivals so they will probably get crushed. The United States also believes in crushing any system that looks like providing a viable alternative.

    So far no-one seems to have come up with a model for society that doesn't have fatal flaws, or that can survive when faced by hostile and ruthless rivals.

    secondly because a de-industrialised agrarian nation will get clobbered by its industrialised neighbours.

    Are we sure about that? After all, the contemporary US is, in fact, a largely de-industrialized state with a disproportionately prominent agricultural sector. It is also now quite highly urbanized, but there’s little inherent economic need for it to be so — we have the technology to be teleworking en masse. If America weren’t dominated by managerial extroverts, I imagine that we would be.

  46. @WorkingClass
    With respect. Methinks the bus is owned by Jews and driven by white liberals. The POC are happy to ride for free.

    White liberals hate Trump because Trump will not condemn Western Civilization. And because, like Deplorables and African Americans, he will not apologize for his skin color.

    ...that opens the door for things to change quite a bit in terms of how whites perceive politics and advocacy...
     
    American whites are no more racist than American blacks. It's not about the POC. It's the Democratic Party that whites increasingly see as their enemy. I myself made the journey from left to right because the left holds me in contempt.

    Joe Biden’s stubbornly high level of support–which comes predominantly from the few remaining white Dems who self-describe as “moderate” and from blacks–is fascinating to me. Undoubtedly many of the former see themselves in the crosshairs when Kamala and company go after Biden for his horrible racism. Your conversion is not a lonely one.

  47. @Rosie

    In Nolte’s view the Nazis and other fascist movements were essentially a militant reaction to Bolshevism, which countered the universalist pretensions of the Bolsheviks – whose end goal could be seen as the dissolution of all nations and ethnicities once world revolution had been achieved – with extreme particularist doctrines of race-based blood and soil.
     
    Was it really extreme? I'm not so sure. My impression is that Nazi views on nationhood were the same as your average White American's views up until about thirty years ago. When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they're not wrong.

    The point was to strengthen the nation by diffusing class conflict rather than throw the whole national baby out with the oppressive, inegalitarian bathwater as the communist radicals wished to do.

    When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    There’s a gif we’re never going to live down!

    For the record, I very much think they are incorrect–and wrong–to do so. But I had a grandfather who literally fought the Nazis and today I get called a Nazi for believing the same things he did, so I realize the futility in all of this.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    today I get called a Nazi for believing the same things he did, so I realize the futility in all of this.
     
    I was routinely called a Nazi on Ivy League campuses in the late 1980's - early 1990's. My not being white (and probably not believing some of the things your grandfather did) didn't stop the dominant leftists from terming me one and treating me as such (yes, I had a few brushes with the campus police/disciplinary review boards). And let me tell you, being a non-white "Nazi" can seem like the loneliest thing in the world, especially on (white) left-dominated campuses.

    To be quite frank, Rosie and others like her should stop acting like Holocaust-obsessed Jews and think they are the only victims (of the left) in this world.
    , @byrresheim
    Your grandfather fought the Germans.

    The rest is propaganda.
  48. @EliteCommInc.
    "We have the right of free association."


    I don't think you know what assimilate means. Asimilliation does not require association. If i get the article correct, the contend here is that one group is being vilified as soley responsible. And the practice of laying all the blame in one direction unproductive if not unfair.


    I am just making a simple observation. If whiteness is superior as many claim. And that superior nature has been the power brokers and in so being have laid to blame a good deal against any particular group for most of the problems. Then it should come as no surprise that upon looking at failures the previous accused would turn the matter back on those who laid claim to being in power.


    If in fact single blaming is untoward, unreasoned, bad form, unfair and unproductive one has to take responsibility if they have so engaged.

    -------

    "Forceing people to assimilate will never work and blacks never showed whites that assimilation would be to their benefit."


    I am positive you don't know what assimilation means.

    Is it helpful to let moral judgments on the past bleed through to the present, or more to the point, to make moral judgments about the past at all? The idea that whites today have to stop enjoying the present since their ancestors enjoyed the past, and that non-whites get luxury in the present because they got the short end of the stick in the past presupposes some past consciousness. Whatever enjoyment my greatx10 grandparents experienced, I wasn’t conscious of it so why should I have a huge debit in that account?

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    "Is it helpful to let moral judgments on the past bleed through to the present, or more to the point, to make moral judgments about the past at all?"

    Here's the hurdle and it is one that cannot be easily ignored. When I look at the past of the US. The measure is the moral code of the time. And in this case when it to comes to country I look to the declaration and the debates on the issue of slavery -- which much to my surprise were fairly common and intense.


    I don't think anyone should stop enjoying the present. If blacks got the short end of the stick via violations of the moral conduct of that day -- and I reaped the benefits from said violations, then what I have is the consequences. If the holders of the short end of the stick make a case that what i have is the result of moral violations of the past -- then there is a legitimate case for redress. If my father steals a car and gives it to me, I might very well enjoy driving it and the benefits that doing so derives from the same. However, if the owner discovers that I have the car stolen from my father, he has every right to demand either the car or some manner of compensation for the loss and if not him then his descents.

    A response blaming my dad is simply not going to carry very much moral authority. And claims to my hardship won't carry much weight either. And when it is discovered that I knew my father stole the car and I spent time justifying the theft, even going so far as to blaming the victims -- because as people with green hair they didn't deserve the car and didn't make the car because they were too stupid I even applauded the theft, well,



    ---- any cries of discomfort and discomfit may very well get a laugh and a so what.
  49. @Rosie

    We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.
     
    This is an excellent comment, Mr. G. I appreciate the moderate and inquisitive tone.

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid. If the people come to view most labor as beneath them, they are vulnerable to globalist snake oil. Much popular animus against outsourcing was diffused with flattery, appeals to the people's vanity. "You don't really want these jobs, do you? You're too good for this work!"

    Social media makes those last two sentences so hard to fight back against, unfortunately. I don’t know what the solution is. The problem seems intractable.

  50. @Rosie

    We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.
     
    This is an excellent comment, Mr. G. I appreciate the moderate and inquisitive tone.

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid. If the people come to view most labor as beneath them, they are vulnerable to globalist snake oil. Much popular animus against outsourcing was diffused with flattery, appeals to the people's vanity. "You don't really want these jobs, do you? You're too good for this work!"

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid.

    This white nationalist fantasy is both counter-factual/counter-historical and does not pass the human nature test.

    It wasn’t the “POCs” who brought Africans as slaves to what is now the United States. The society that did so was overwhelmingly white. Yes, yes, yes, Jews were prominent in the slave trade, but the great bulk of the consumers of slaves were propertied non-Jewish whites. Did their white-only society prevent these men from profiting by exploiting compelled labor of blacks out of concern for their less well-off whites? Of course not. Even back then those in charge made their own rules for themselves – for their own specific posterity, not those of their poorer co-ethnic neighbors… Just as the factory and business owners of the same period did.

    In complex human societies, monoethnic or otherwise, there is always competition for hierarchy and resources. Heck, even pastoral nomadic societies and hunter-gatherer societies that are comparatively much more egalitarian than settled ones still have competition for accolades and honor (from excelling in hunting and war) from fellow tribesmen.

    Those with means try to increase and add to the means they already possess and those with less try to acquire them. That is the nature of human existence. As such, people will always attempt to find ways to increase profits, efficiency, market share of their enterprises and in the process frequently trample under those who lives are negatively affected by those newfangled methods or cheaper labor from elsewhere. Yes, that’s terrible, but the alternatives are feudalism and communism, neither of which produces welfare for the general public.

    Ah, but what about the 1940’s and 1950’s? The country was much whiter back then and it was more united! Yes, but what really united the country was the experience of World War II, a titanic global struggle in which the United States was attacked physically and seriously for the first time since the War of 1812. Threats that are deemed to be existential tend to unify the populace (whatever their internal differences),* but the only problem with that way of life is that a society cannot sustain that level of internal cohesion derived from an outside existential threat without becoming a garrison state, which has its own host of many dire problems.

    *In Sebastian Junger’s “Tribe,” he reports of former Yugoslavs who wistfully talk of the horrific civil war of the 1990’s as “the best time of their lives,” precisely because existential threats united communities, townspeople, and denizens of apartment buildings into a classless solidarity impossible in normal civil societies (he reports the same of sentiments of the British people hiding together in bomb shelters during the Blitz during World War II).

    Frankly, I don’t have a solution for this problem either, because it is deeply embedded in human nature. Humans compete and strive, which creates dissension and resentment. You can’t suppress that drive without creating an Orwellian nightmare (and then you end up with an Orwellian nightmare and competition and striving by other means). But there are some clues as to what can restrain, if not prevent entirely, such tendencies, which Robert Putnam parenthetically discussed in his works – shared military service and religion (Razib Khan often writes of Axial Age religions as mechanisms of melding together different peoples in nascent empires of the time).

    Don’t misunderstand me – I am not in any way suggesting that increasing the ethnic Balkanization of the United States is a positive development (it’s sad that I have to make that explicit, but some people here are prone to straw men, so…). I am opposed to it, which is why I support immigration restriction and what I call implicit white majoritarianism. But your constant hankering for “racial identity” and ultimately the quest for a white race-state is no panacea and brings with it many problems of its own and harbors risks that may be much more dangerous to ordinary (white) Americans than any posed today.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Yes, that’s terrible, but the alternatives are feudalism and communism, neither of which produces welfare for the general public.
     
    Were living standards in Russia higher under the communists than under the Tsar? Were living standards in China higher under the communists than before the communist takeover?

    Communism does not seem to produce extremely high material standards of living but maybe that's a feature rather than a bug. Maybe it produces material standards of living that are perfectly adequate.

    The Soviet Union would certainly have provided substantially higher material standards of living had they not been forced to spend so much on the military. That's what the Cold War was all about - an attempt to strangle the Soviets economically.
  51. @Mark G.
    Wealth does tend to lead to decadence. There is a problem with capitalism in that it creates so much wealth. The increased wealth is a good thing because it leads to a higher standard of living. At the same time, though, when the wealth is passed on and inherited by future generations it undermines the values and habits that enabled the wealth to be generated to begin with. You can see the same thing in families. There is an old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". The lazy decadent son squanders the money left to him by the hardworking self-disciplined father. Countries end up going through cycles of rise and then decline. You can see this all through history. Right now, decadent America is declining and formerly poverty stricken China is on the rise. So do you try to prevent the decadent phase by preventing the country from becoming wealthy in the first place or is there a way to have a wealthy country with a healthy culture, relatively low income equality, and a great deal of social cohesion? The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn't have been prevented from sprouting.

    The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.

    The United States emerged from World War II – the largest-scale war the humanity has ever known – not only the greatest victor, but one which contained 50% (!) of the world economic output (measured by national GNPs of the day). Meanwhile much of the rest of the industrialized world (Europe and East Asia) was in smoking ruins with huge fractions of its working-age men killed and wounded and younger cohorts eviscerated through war and famine.

    To put simply, Americans were unified by the war experience and controlled – within its borders – half of the world’s economic activity (and indirectly controlled much of the rest by the virtue of its alliances). That is not a situation that can be replicated easily.

    Most people don’t have a good historical sense and tend to equate the peak, the golden age of their civilization as the historical norm for their society and people. That is, unfortunately, not how societies and human beings work. As much as I dearly wish well of my own descendants and those of my fellow American peers, our society like all living organisms will go through the same cycle of birth, growth, rise, decay, and death. I hope it won’t die for a very long time and that, when it does, it will contribute to the birth of another great society, but anyone with even a cursory grasp of history must realize that it too, inevitably, will die one day.

    I don’t want to die very soon either, but I know I will. That’s something every son learns from watching the decline and death of his father, of one who came before he.

  52. @Kent Nationalist
    Except Germany was much more responsible for the start of the war than Britain.

    The Empire is gone.

    Get over it.

    • Replies: @Kent Nationalist
    Not an argument
  53. @Audacious Epigone
    When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    There's a gif we're never going to live down!

    For the record, I very much think they are incorrect--and wrong--to do so. But I had a grandfather who literally fought the Nazis and today I get called a Nazi for believing the same things he did, so I realize the futility in all of this.

    today I get called a Nazi for believing the same things he did, so I realize the futility in all of this.

    I was routinely called a Nazi on Ivy League campuses in the late 1980’s – early 1990’s. My not being white (and probably not believing some of the things your grandfather did) didn’t stop the dominant leftists from terming me one and treating me as such (yes, I had a few brushes with the campus police/disciplinary review boards). And let me tell you, being a non-white “Nazi” can seem like the loneliest thing in the world, especially on (white) left-dominated campuses.

    To be quite frank, Rosie and others like her should stop acting like Holocaust-obsessed Jews and think they are the only victims (of the left) in this world.

  54. @Audacious Epigone
    When certain people call us Nazis (as in all Whites, not just the dissident right), they’re not wrong.

    There's a gif we're never going to live down!

    For the record, I very much think they are incorrect--and wrong--to do so. But I had a grandfather who literally fought the Nazis and today I get called a Nazi for believing the same things he did, so I realize the futility in all of this.

    Your grandfather fought the Germans.

    The rest is propaganda.

  55. @Mark G.
    Wealth does tend to lead to decadence. There is a problem with capitalism in that it creates so much wealth. The increased wealth is a good thing because it leads to a higher standard of living. At the same time, though, when the wealth is passed on and inherited by future generations it undermines the values and habits that enabled the wealth to be generated to begin with. You can see the same thing in families. There is an old saying "from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". The lazy decadent son squanders the money left to him by the hardworking self-disciplined father. Countries end up going through cycles of rise and then decline. You can see this all through history. Right now, decadent America is declining and formerly poverty stricken China is on the rise. So do you try to prevent the decadent phase by preventing the country from becoming wealthy in the first place or is there a way to have a wealthy country with a healthy culture, relatively low income equality, and a great deal of social cohesion? The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn't have been prevented from sprouting.

    The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.

    I think the seeds of decline were well and truly there. You only have to look at Hollywood movies in the late 40s and the 50s – so much strident liberalism, so much determination to remould society. It actually wasn’t the commies in Hollywood who were doing the serious subverting, it was the liberals.

    It seemed to be a response to excessive prosperity – there was no perceived need to fight for economic justice so liberals wanted to create a social utopia.

    There was also considerable cultural decadence. At that stage it was mostly affecting “high art” – look at the obscene trash that was modernist art and literature. Much of that was driven by excessive wealth.

    Social decadence was starting to appear. The counter-culture actually started with the Beats in the 50s. Jazz and the emerging counter-culture were also beginning to spread the poison of drug culture. There was also the emergence of “youth culture” which seems like an early indicator of cultural decadence.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Social decadence was starting to appear. The counter-culture actually started with the Beats in the 50s. Jazz and the emerging counter-culture were also beginning to spread the poison of drug culture. There was also the emergence of “youth culture” which seems like an early indicator of cultural decadence.
     
    Try the roaring '20's.

    There were already cracks to the Victorian culture in the Edwardian era immediately before World War I, but the Great War put the final bullet to the former in the main. War upends cultures and societies. That led to communism and the decadence of the '20's, the depression and radicalism of the '30's, and the most destructive war the humanity has ever known of the 1940's.
  56. @Twinkie

    In any event, I do think it was sustainable, but only with a healthy sense of racial identity. Without a feeling of identity, purpose, and belonging to a real blood nation, people will become hyperambitious strivers, all competing for scarce places at the top of the social pyramid.
     
    This white nationalist fantasy is both counter-factual/counter-historical and does not pass the human nature test.

    It wasn't the "POCs" who brought Africans as slaves to what is now the United States. The society that did so was overwhelmingly white. Yes, yes, yes, Jews were prominent in the slave trade, but the great bulk of the consumers of slaves were propertied non-Jewish whites. Did their white-only society prevent these men from profiting by exploiting compelled labor of blacks out of concern for their less well-off whites? Of course not. Even back then those in charge made their own rules for themselves - for their own specific posterity, not those of their poorer co-ethnic neighbors... Just as the factory and business owners of the same period did.

    In complex human societies, monoethnic or otherwise, there is always competition for hierarchy and resources. Heck, even pastoral nomadic societies and hunter-gatherer societies that are comparatively much more egalitarian than settled ones still have competition for accolades and honor (from excelling in hunting and war) from fellow tribesmen.

    Those with means try to increase and add to the means they already possess and those with less try to acquire them. That is the nature of human existence. As such, people will always attempt to find ways to increase profits, efficiency, market share of their enterprises and in the process frequently trample under those who lives are negatively affected by those newfangled methods or cheaper labor from elsewhere. Yes, that's terrible, but the alternatives are feudalism and communism, neither of which produces welfare for the general public.

    Ah, but what about the 1940's and 1950's? The country was much whiter back then and it was more united! Yes, but what really united the country was the experience of World War II, a titanic global struggle in which the United States was attacked physically and seriously for the first time since the War of 1812. Threats that are deemed to be existential tend to unify the populace (whatever their internal differences),* but the only problem with that way of life is that a society cannot sustain that level of internal cohesion derived from an outside existential threat without becoming a garrison state, which has its own host of many dire problems.

    *In Sebastian Junger's "Tribe," he reports of former Yugoslavs who wistfully talk of the horrific civil war of the 1990's as "the best time of their lives," precisely because existential threats united communities, townspeople, and denizens of apartment buildings into a classless solidarity impossible in normal civil societies (he reports the same of sentiments of the British people hiding together in bomb shelters during the Blitz during World War II).

    Frankly, I don't have a solution for this problem either, because it is deeply embedded in human nature. Humans compete and strive, which creates dissension and resentment. You can't suppress that drive without creating an Orwellian nightmare (and then you end up with an Orwellian nightmare and competition and striving by other means). But there are some clues as to what can restrain, if not prevent entirely, such tendencies, which Robert Putnam parenthetically discussed in his works - shared military service and religion (Razib Khan often writes of Axial Age religions as mechanisms of melding together different peoples in nascent empires of the time).

    Don't misunderstand me - I am not in any way suggesting that increasing the ethnic Balkanization of the United States is a positive development (it's sad that I have to make that explicit, but some people here are prone to straw men, so...). I am opposed to it, which is why I support immigration restriction and what I call implicit white majoritarianism. But your constant hankering for "racial identity" and ultimately the quest for a white race-state is no panacea and brings with it many problems of its own and harbors risks that may be much more dangerous to ordinary (white) Americans than any posed today.

    Yes, that’s terrible, but the alternatives are feudalism and communism, neither of which produces welfare for the general public.

    Were living standards in Russia higher under the communists than under the Tsar? Were living standards in China higher under the communists than before the communist takeover?

    Communism does not seem to produce extremely high material standards of living but maybe that’s a feature rather than a bug. Maybe it produces material standards of living that are perfectly adequate.

    The Soviet Union would certainly have provided substantially higher material standards of living had they not been forced to spend so much on the military. That’s what the Cold War was all about – an attempt to strangle the Soviets economically.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Communism does not seem to produce extremely high material standards of living but maybe that’s a feature rather than a bug. Maybe it produces material standards of living that are perfectly adequate.
     
    Adequate by whose standards?
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c20ef23c537a9640164c7025bce65236

    The Soviet Union would certainly have provided substantially higher material standards of living had they not been forced to spend so much on the military. That’s what the Cold War was all about – an attempt to strangle the Soviets economically.
     
    The Soviet Union spent a FAR greater fraction of its resources on the military than the United States did. And the Soviets had a military geared for offensive action, not defensive as the United States and NATO did.

    Furthermore, the issue was not simply economic - communism requires suppression of all manners of freedom to operate.

    If you want to compare things remotely apples-to-apples, try West vs. East Germany.
  57. @Diversity Heretic
    Nice to see someone else appreciates Al Stewart! Songs about the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the flight of Joseph Mengele, trains, and the German-Russian portion of WWII: he's a creative genius! Hope I can catch a live concert before he retires!

    I’ve heard ’em all, D.H. Let’s see (no looking anything up here), I can’t get the 1st, The Running Man< and Roads to Moscow. Since you guys here like him, this one is not exactly a history story, but a story of a man in history that said he could see the future. However, it’s probably the best tune of all of his, with that great instrumental – you need to have this one turned up to 11.

    “Man, man, your time is sand, your ways are leaves upon the sea. I am the eyes of Nostradumbass, all your ways our known to me.”

    .

    Sorry, I had to stick that “Nostradumbass” in there, as that is still the best internet handle I’ve ever seen! (a Zerohedge commenter, I’m pretty sure)

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    The first song is simply titled Constantinople and it is on his 24 Carrots album. The third one is entitled Trains, A Story of Lost Innocence. You got the other ones correct. I also really like Night Train to Munich ("a rumblin' down the track"). I should relisten to Nostradamus, as it hasn't been one of my favorites, but on your recommendation, I'll reconsider it.
  58. @dfordoom

    Yes, that’s terrible, but the alternatives are feudalism and communism, neither of which produces welfare for the general public.
     
    Were living standards in Russia higher under the communists than under the Tsar? Were living standards in China higher under the communists than before the communist takeover?

    Communism does not seem to produce extremely high material standards of living but maybe that's a feature rather than a bug. Maybe it produces material standards of living that are perfectly adequate.

    The Soviet Union would certainly have provided substantially higher material standards of living had they not been forced to spend so much on the military. That's what the Cold War was all about - an attempt to strangle the Soviets economically.

    Communism does not seem to produce extremely high material standards of living but maybe that’s a feature rather than a bug. Maybe it produces material standards of living that are perfectly adequate.

    Adequate by whose standards?
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c20ef23c537a9640164c7025bce65236

    The Soviet Union would certainly have provided substantially higher material standards of living had they not been forced to spend so much on the military. That’s what the Cold War was all about – an attempt to strangle the Soviets economically.

    The Soviet Union spent a FAR greater fraction of its resources on the military than the United States did. And the Soviets had a military geared for offensive action, not defensive as the United States and NATO did.

    Furthermore, the issue was not simply economic – communism requires suppression of all manners of freedom to operate.

    If you want to compare things remotely apples-to-apples, try West vs. East Germany.

    • Agree: iffen
  59. @dfordoom

    The United States seemed to achieve something close to that in the middle period of the last century. We could look at that era to see if that could have been sustainable or if the seeds of decline were already there and couldn’t have been prevented from sprouting.
     
    I think the seeds of decline were well and truly there. You only have to look at Hollywood movies in the late 40s and the 50s - so much strident liberalism, so much determination to remould society. It actually wasn't the commies in Hollywood who were doing the serious subverting, it was the liberals.

    It seemed to be a response to excessive prosperity - there was no perceived need to fight for economic justice so liberals wanted to create a social utopia.

    There was also considerable cultural decadence. At that stage it was mostly affecting "high art" - look at the obscene trash that was modernist art and literature. Much of that was driven by excessive wealth.

    Social decadence was starting to appear. The counter-culture actually started with the Beats in the 50s. Jazz and the emerging counter-culture were also beginning to spread the poison of drug culture. There was also the emergence of "youth culture" which seems like an early indicator of cultural decadence.

    Social decadence was starting to appear. The counter-culture actually started with the Beats in the 50s. Jazz and the emerging counter-culture were also beginning to spread the poison of drug culture. There was also the emergence of “youth culture” which seems like an early indicator of cultural decadence.

    Try the roaring ’20’s.

    There were already cracks to the Victorian culture in the Edwardian era immediately before World War I, but the Great War put the final bullet to the former in the main. War upends cultures and societies. That led to communism and the decadence of the ’20’s, the depression and radicalism of the ’30’s, and the most destructive war the humanity has ever known of the 1940’s.

  60. @byrresheim
    The Empire is gone.

    Get over it.

    Not an argument

  61. @Achmed E. Newman
    I've heard 'em all, D.H. Let's see (no looking anything up here), I can't get the 1st, The Running Man< and Roads to Moscow. Since you guys here like him, this one is not exactly a history story, but a story of a man in history that said he could see the future. However, it's probably the best tune of all of his, with that great instrumental - you need to have this one turned up to 11.

    "Man, man, your time is sand, your ways are leaves upon the sea. I am the eyes of Nostradumbass, all your ways our known to me."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa89bt0GZvQ

    .

    Sorry, I had to stick that "Nostradumbass" in there, as that is still the best internet handle I've ever seen! (a Zerohedge commenter, I'm pretty sure)

    The first song is simply titled Constantinople and it is on his 24 Carrots album. The third one is entitled Trains, A Story of Lost Innocence. You got the other ones correct. I also really like Night Train to Munich (“a rumblin’ down the track”). I should relisten to Nostradamus, as it hasn’t been one of my favorites, but on your recommendation, I’ll reconsider it.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    There is one live version, D.H. (on a greatest hits album), that has The World Goes to Riyadh inserted in the middle. I don't like that version quite as much. Again, this is most enjoyable only if turned up LOUD.
  62. @Diversity Heretic
    The first song is simply titled Constantinople and it is on his 24 Carrots album. The third one is entitled Trains, A Story of Lost Innocence. You got the other ones correct. I also really like Night Train to Munich ("a rumblin' down the track"). I should relisten to Nostradamus, as it hasn't been one of my favorites, but on your recommendation, I'll reconsider it.

    There is one live version, D.H. (on a greatest hits album), that has The World Goes to Riyadh inserted in the middle. I don’t like that version quite as much. Again, this is most enjoyable only if turned up LOUD.

  63. @Meneldil
    He was at Versailles but the Japanese at nothing to do with Vietnam a that point in time, it was part of French Indochina, Japan occupied the area only from 1940 to 1945 then the French returned until they lost the Indochina War and Vietnam was partitioned.

    Yep, I screwed up, as I wrote in a reply to Twinkie. I see your comment took a while, so it’s hard to have a conversation that way – GET! TRUSTED! DUDE! ;-}

  64. @Cloudbuster
    Can we at least agree that Wilson and the US should have stayed the hell out of things?

    Amen!

  65. @Audacious Epigone
    Is it helpful to let moral judgments on the past bleed through to the present, or more to the point, to make moral judgments about the past at all? The idea that whites today have to stop enjoying the present since their ancestors enjoyed the past, and that non-whites get luxury in the present because they got the short end of the stick in the past presupposes some past consciousness. Whatever enjoyment my greatx10 grandparents experienced, I wasn't conscious of it so why should I have a huge debit in that account?

    “Is it helpful to let moral judgments on the past bleed through to the present, or more to the point, to make moral judgments about the past at all?”

    Here’s the hurdle and it is one that cannot be easily ignored. When I look at the past of the US. The measure is the moral code of the time. And in this case when it to comes to country I look to the declaration and the debates on the issue of slavery — which much to my surprise were fairly common and intense.

    I don’t think anyone should stop enjoying the present. If blacks got the short end of the stick via violations of the moral conduct of that day — and I reaped the benefits from said violations, then what I have is the consequences. If the holders of the short end of the stick make a case that what i have is the result of moral violations of the past — then there is a legitimate case for redress. If my father steals a car and gives it to me, I might very well enjoy driving it and the benefits that doing so derives from the same. However, if the owner discovers that I have the car stolen from my father, he has every right to demand either the car or some manner of compensation for the loss and if not him then his descents.

    A response blaming my dad is simply not going to carry very much moral authority. And claims to my hardship won’t carry much weight either. And when it is discovered that I knew my father stole the car and I spent time justifying the theft, even going so far as to blaming the victims — because as people with green hair they didn’t deserve the car and didn’t make the car because they were too stupid I even applauded the theft, well,

    —- any cries of discomfort and discomfit may very well get a laugh and a so what.

  66. The issue of asimilation does not really require association. The supreme court in my view should actually have ruled,

    that the promise of “separate but equal” was not in play and the states must in all things related to public access equal. That would ended any further discrimination because the financial burden would have been emmense.

    Instead the courts said you have to share. If that means on occasion going to the same schools, voting in the same booths, riding in the same public bus or drinking from the same fountains —

    that’s the price of the democracy we live in.

    I don’t much appreciate teaching in the same schools as people who engage in same sex relations or tell students that their doubts are really manifestations of some misquides soul travel and that what they really are is male and a couple o snips will solve their dysphoria. But I don’t have the right to manufacture lies to get them fired. I don’t have the right to create a hostile environmemnt.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    What you are saying doesn't make sense in the real world. You can pass all the laws you want giving people equal access. The laws are meaningless as long as people can freely segregate themselves and choose overwhelmingly to do so.

    Busing had nothing to do with ending "separate but equal" and eveything to do with white people self segregating themselves into their own neighborhoods in order to keep their schools white.

    You are twisting yourself into a pretzle to pretend there is a distiction.
  67. Just a tad more. If I hearken back to the past as justification for my future. Then I should expect that some of that past might carry some baggage.

  68. “I don’t much appreciate teaching in the same schools as people who engage in same sex relations or tell students that their doubts are really manifestations of some misquides soul travel and that what they really are is male and a couple o snips will solve their dysphoria. But I don’t have the right to manufacture lies to get them fired. I don’t have the right to create a hostile environmemnt.”

    There used to be a time when students in college met a variety of perspectives in which the instructors did not agree — that is healthy critical thinking exposure. But today the demand to conform has made or is making the academic environment a cookie cutter even on the most controversial concepts.

    In fact it was that experience that brought me to the decision to advocate and discuss celibacy openly. Students would come to my lab with some fairly outlandish ideas about males and female biology and relations —- stuff I had no idea was being discussed among “decent folk” in public.

    Laugh.

  69. @EliteCommInc.
    "We have the right of free association."


    I don't think you know what assimilate means. Asimilliation does not require association. If i get the article correct, the contend here is that one group is being vilified as soley responsible. And the practice of laying all the blame in one direction unproductive if not unfair.


    I am just making a simple observation. If whiteness is superior as many claim. And that superior nature has been the power brokers and in so being have laid to blame a good deal against any particular group for most of the problems. Then it should come as no surprise that upon looking at failures the previous accused would turn the matter back on those who laid claim to being in power.


    If in fact single blaming is untoward, unreasoned, bad form, unfair and unproductive one has to take responsibility if they have so engaged.

    -------

    "Forceing people to assimilate will never work and blacks never showed whites that assimilation would be to their benefit."


    I am positive you don't know what assimilation means.

    How does one “assimilate” when one is free to stay away from that other group and overwhelmingly chooses to segregate? But please tell me?

  70. @Diversity Heretic
    The war in Vietnam was a huge diplomatic blunder for the U.S. It might have been understandable for the U.S. to have supported the French effort to retain Indochina; France had a large and active Communist Party after WWII and the loss of French Indochina might have brought them to power. But after France withdrew, there was no good reason, aside from reflexive anti-communism, not to have acceded to a unified Vietnam under Ho's leadership. Yes, he was a communist, but he was even more an ardent Vietnamese nationalist who would have been a bigger thorn in the side of the Chinese communists than Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist government ever was; he would likely have been an Asian Tito.

    By the time of the French exit, the US had created the largely worthless SEATO as a quasi copy of NATO. The US made stupid guarantees along those of NATO. We created South Vietnam during the negotiations that ended France’s colonial rule. We had to defend them according to the treaty and to make the other nations think SEATO actually meant something.

    US Presidents had to worry about being “soft on communism” during election time. Everybody thought there was some low level force the US could apply to get the north back to the negotiating table, it just didn’t work out that way.

  71. @EliteCommInc.
    The issue of asimilation does not really require association. The supreme court in my view should actually have ruled,

    that the promise of "separate but equal" was not in play and the states must in all things related to public access equal. That would ended any further discrimination because the financial burden would have been emmense.

    Instead the courts said you have to share. If that means on occasion going to the same schools, voting in the same booths, riding in the same public bus or drinking from the same fountains ---

    that's the price of the democracy we live in.


    I don't much appreciate teaching in the same schools as people who engage in same sex relations or tell students that their doubts are really manifestations of some misquides soul travel and that what they really are is male and a couple o snips will solve their dysphoria. But I don't have the right to manufacture lies to get them fired. I don't have the right to create a hostile environmemnt.

    What you are saying doesn’t make sense in the real world. You can pass all the laws you want giving people equal access. The laws are meaningless as long as people can freely segregate themselves and choose overwhelmingly to do so.

    Busing had nothing to do with ending “separate but equal” and eveything to do with white people self segregating themselves into their own neighborhoods in order to keep their schools white.

    You are twisting yourself into a pretzle to pretend there is a distiction.

  72. “Busing had nothing to do with ending “separate but equal” and eveything to do with white people self segregating themselves into their own neighborhoods in order to keep their schools white.”

    You are invited to read up on the issues. The process of segregation was determined by the courts to be inherently unequal. Now I am sure there is room for discussion on that point.

    I did not make the law. I did not right the declaration — they are what they are. If you claim that “all men are created equal” launch a war to that end and in the same breath endorse slavery as President Jefferson put it,

    “enslaved a people who did nothing against thee,”

    or words to that effect, the society you build with that internal contradiction is going to have a serious problem. And the more one tries to justify, defend, play down, avoid, exacerbate that hypocrisy the worse one’s position becomes.

    And just to be clear no pretzeling required.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The process of segregation was determined by the courts to be inherently unequal.

    BS. Determined by some self righteous lower court judge, not by the Supreme Court. Ending "separate but equal" was what forced Mississippi to take qualified black students in it's formerly all white flagship college. If some black family made the effort to put their kid in an all white school district, nobody could stop it. Busing went beyond that and FORCED integration on unwilling people, thus negating our right of free association.

    or words to that effect, the society you build with that internal contradiction is going to have a serious problem. And the more one tries to justify, defend, play down, avoid, exacerbate that hypocrisy the worse one’s position becomes.

    That is some seriously deluded virtue signaling there.
  73. “How does one “assimilate” when one is free to stay away from that other group and overwhelmingly chooses to segregate? But please tell me?”

    One doesn’t have to hang out with anyone of any color to be a citizen of the US. To understand its laws, its practices, to access education, employment, etc. I don’t know you from adam, I don’t know what color you are or your income or neighborhood and yet it appears to me that we both have a decent grasp of what it means to be a citizen.

    Assimilation does not require that we share a meal, a table — nothing save what is common to access.

    I don’t think there are any barriers to private clubs or neighborhoods that don’t involve any tax dollars or public services

  74. “assimilation”

    Sociology. the merging of cultural traits from previously distinct cultural groups, not involving biological amalgamation.

    ————————————
    association

    : a major unit in ecological community organization characterized by essential uniformity and usually by two or more dominant species

    —————————————

    In other words, I can learn what citizenship means without sitting down to lunch with anyone as long the information and participation is available. Because what you mean by association, I think is choosing physically who to rub shoulders with. Again the problem with segregation came with an element of unequal treatment, even the military had to abandon the practice as impractical if not internally problematic.

  75. “You are twisting yourself into a pretzle to pretend there is a distiction.”

    To the discussion the author’s position in my view is this,

    I should not be paying a price for what my ancestors engaged. In the general sense, I agree in total. But if my slice of the pie is derived from violating another’s rights, then we have provision in the consitution “petition for redress”. I stopped trying to defend against the evidence many many many many years ago, it’s made my conservative walk much clearer and cleaner, if not perfect and it is not perfect.

  76. @EliteCommInc.
    "Busing had nothing to do with ending “separate but equal” and eveything to do with white people self segregating themselves into their own neighborhoods in order to keep their schools white."


    You are invited to read up on the issues. The process of segregation was determined by the courts to be inherently unequal. Now I am sure there is room for discussion on that point.

    I did not make the law. I did not right the declaration -- they are what they are. If you claim that "all men are created equal" launch a war to that end and in the same breath endorse slavery as President Jefferson put it,

    "enslaved a people who did nothing against thee,"

    or words to that effect, the society you build with that internal contradiction is going to have a serious problem. And the more one tries to justify, defend, play down, avoid, exacerbate that hypocrisy the worse one's position becomes.


    And just to be clear no pretzeling required.

    The process of segregation was determined by the courts to be inherently unequal.

    BS. Determined by some self righteous lower court judge, not by the Supreme Court. Ending “separate but equal” was what forced Mississippi to take qualified black students in it’s formerly all white flagship college. If some black family made the effort to put their kid in an all white school district, nobody could stop it. Busing went beyond that and FORCED integration on unwilling people, thus negating our right of free association.

    or words to that effect, the society you build with that internal contradiction is going to have a serious problem. And the more one tries to justify, defend, play down, avoid, exacerbate that hypocrisy the worse one’s position becomes.

    That is some seriously deluded virtue signaling there.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS