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
The Forever War
🔊 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

Fool us 4,034 times, shame on us:

There are intelligence reports! Those reports contain information from US intelligence agents! That information has been confirmed by Afghan officials!

The Taliban and the Kremlin deny it all, but of course they would. They want us to cut and run, after all, and what better way to do that than to scandalously and saliently bribe militants who’ve been shooting at US troops for the last twenty years to continue shooting at US troops as they’ve done for the last twenty years? Check mate, losers, your plan failed–we’re not going anywhere! We’ll keep the Afghanistan operation going for another two decades so we can funnel trillions more to the military-industrial complex and continue the pincer against the existential threat that wants to wipe Isr-, er, America off the map because of our freedoms.

Sorry Donald, we’re not letting a Putin puppet extract us from the longest conflict in our history at the behest of an American public that elected him to bring the troops home. After that hoodwinking, or gaslighting, or whatever you want to call it, they don’t even want us to leave anymore. Just look at those survey results!

Parenthetically, 40% of respondents answered “not sure” and were excluded from the preceding graph. Perhaps they are cynically disengaged, not inclined to trust agencies where lying to the citizenry is par for the course. If that mattered, maybe it would be something to celebrate. It doesn’t matter, though. The empire isn’t leaving Afghanistan until it collapses–the empire, that is.

 
Hide 154 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The mainstream right, let alone the far-right, is systemically excluded from academia.

    The insanity demonstrated by “white college” and particularly “white postgrad” voters, is the product of an environment where the GOP simply does not exist.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @216

    I missed the high postgrad percentage. You'd hope that those people could see beyond all the previous lies. Nope.

    Did they believe Powell at the UN?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kratoklastes

    , @Realist
    @216


    The insanity demonstrated by “white college” and particularly “white postgrad” voters, is the product of an environment where the GOP simply does not exist.
     
    A Republican score of 68% is sure as hell not commendable.
  2. As if you need to give Afghans any further incentive to kill you other than to show up in their territory without permission. Bringing along a rifle will make them doubly sure in wanting to make you a permanent part of their landscape. Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.

    They’ve been doing this for a verrrry long time.

    US presence in Afghanistan is aimed at containment of China and her trade route initiative; supply routes to forward operating theaters need to be kept in a ready state for future “operations”.

    Peace.

    • Agree: dfordoom, Realist
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Talha

    "US presence in Afghanistan is aimed at containment of China"

    I think it has more to do with access to the Central Asian countries which are the soft underbelly of Russia. Also, control of the heroin trade provides operational funds for CIA and its ally the Pakistani ISI.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Rosie
    @Talha


    Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.
     
    We are certainly entitled to our opinion on that matter, and we are within our rights to consider this issue in deciding what sorts of relationship to have with Afghanistan, but I don't think young White men ought to have to risk death and dismemberment over it.

    As for the Afghans, I'm not impressed. Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand. If you can't stand females of any sort and keep them under house arrest 24/7, what's the next "best thing"? Little dancing boys, I'm afraid.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

  3. Postgradtards are the stupidest mother fuckers in the country at 92%. But with 40% not sure its more like 92% of 60%? Maybe Gradtards are not the most stupid. Maybe they are the most sure.

    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
    @WorkingClass

    As a postgrad who's had to decamp to China in order not to have my studies on robotics attacked by critical theorists -- I can tell you for a fact that all of the postgrads in the hard sciences are absolutely terrified of speaking out against their '68 refusenik bosses. They will agree to the most braindead delusion to keep their place on the ladder, desperately hoping their "mentor" will die and they can get a shot at a tenure.

    Replies: @Jane Plain, @WorkingClass, @nebulafox

    , @follyofwar
    @WorkingClass

    Very interesting that those with high school or less education are "only" 70% compared to 92% for post grads. Shows that the more education you have the more brainwashed you become.

    I really thought that these percentages would be much lower. But, as a 69 year old man, I remember ducking and covering under my desk in elementary school in the 50's out of fear that the Russians were about to nuke us. We've been in a Cold War with Russia since WWII, and only a few of us have the independence of thought to escape the relentless programming.

    , @Thucydides
    @WorkingClass

    Most people, I believe I once read it was 60%, holding a post-grad degree are school teachers who have gotten an MA. It's paid for by their school district, and they get paid extra for having it. They are not exactly high-powered intellects.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @WorkingClass

    Only 26% of postgrads are unsure. Just 6% do not believe the alleged intelligence report(s)!

  4. @WorkingClass
    Postgradtards are the stupidest mother fuckers in the country at 92%. But with 40% not sure its more like 92% of 60%? Maybe Gradtards are not the most stupid. Maybe they are the most sure.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @follyofwar, @Thucydides, @Audacious Epigone

    As a postgrad who’s had to decamp to China in order not to have my studies on robotics attacked by critical theorists — I can tell you for a fact that all of the postgrads in the hard sciences are absolutely terrified of speaking out against their ’68 refusenik bosses. They will agree to the most braindead delusion to keep their place on the ladder, desperately hoping their “mentor” will die and they can get a shot at a tenure.

    • Replies: @Jane Plain
    @Supply and Demand

    In a weird way, you give me hope. So all we have to do is wait until your generation takes over? OK.

    But there may not be a uni system then. At least, not in the US.

    , @WorkingClass
    @Supply and Demand

    Congratulations on having the courage and good sense to get the fuck out of Dodge. I realize that postgrads are not actually stupid. They are indoctrinated which is much worse. And I would not be surprised to learn that "hard science" students might be less indoctrinated if not less intimidated than other students. I wouldn't know. Academia is a foreign country to me.

    The great Texas blues artist, Janis Joplin, sang "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose". Having no status in society and nothing to sell but my labor I have no fear of the Commissars. And living in rural America I have no need to fear my neighbors. I live in a crummy apartment of course and I drive a clunker. And you, my friend, are living in China. The Bard, Bob Dylan, told us "Every form of refuge has it's price".

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Audacious Epigone

    , @nebulafox
    @Supply and Demand

    Yeah, you aren't alone. Opportunities for physics in China have exploded, too.

    In particular, a lot of people from the developing world are choosing to go to China for education. I was going to go to the PRC (Wuhan of all places!) for a lattice QCD conference a couple of years ago until an emergency intervened and destroyed my plans at the last moment. I was looking for people to stay with and ended up discussing things with mostly Indonesian graduate students doing robotics or AI. 20 years ago, mainland Chinese doing STEM in America or Europe would do just about anything to avoid being sent back, but now they are all going back of their own free will because the market and environment for Mandarin speaking hard STEM types is so much better. Not having to deal with a-scientific PC nonsense for certain fields-especially genetics-is just the cherry on top.


    (Anybody who remembers the Suharto days will note the irony of Indonesians-and these are bumis, not ethnic Chinese-going off to study in the PRC.)

  5. I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous – what sane country does that?

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc.
     
    Agreed. And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @silviosilver

    , @follyofwar
    @Twinkie

    Why on earth would we make this country more hated throughout the world than we already are by "retaking the Panama Canal?" Our ships are getting thru, aren't they?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Adam Smith
    @Twinkie


    what sane country does that?
     
    Do you have any evidence that the U.S. is a sane country?

    We must attack them there so they don't attack us here Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets!

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie

    You've got almost complete agreement from me on this one too, Twinkie. I'd say we've got no business ANYWHERE in Asia too, and by Asia I mean Asia, not just the Orient.

    On your Korean thing, you are so on the money. Peak Stupidity discussed this over 3 years back: Border control maintenance vs. defending some Koreans from other Koreans. (This is when I still had high hopes out of President Trump.)

    Think about it - there have been 25,000 troops over there, for 2/3 of a century! - Not the same guys, of course. This is the back-of-envelope calculation from my post:


    Let's say even with 1 24-hr, 2-manned, post every single mile of the border for 2,000 miles, a very conservative estimate, and my 1/2 million bucks a piece yearly for each (2 shifts x 2 guys @ $100,000 including overhead + $100,000 for vehicles/equipment), that's 1 billion bucks to run the show. OK, I gave that number last post - let's just talk personnel. 2 guys x 2 shifts x 2,000 posts x 1.25(to allow for vacation, sickness, affirmative-action-hard-to-fire-guys-that-don't-show-up) we get another nice round number (which I really like, you can see!) of 10,000 guys.
     
    That Billion $ is spent by the Feral Gov't every day, including weekends and holidays, on a normal, NON-COVID year. (Take 4 Trillion and divide by 365 - over a Billion.)

    Oh, and it probably costs 2 or 3 times as much to really support the troops 1/2 way around the world vs. Border Agents living in the continental US.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Twinkie


    Maybe retake the Panama Canal.
     
    https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-we-should-keep-the-panama-canal-after-all-we-stole-it-fair-and-square-s-i-hayakawa-120-67-80.jpg
    , @Barbarossa
    @Twinkie

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich, including the world's largest reserve of Lithium Carbonate, the mineral which goes into those batteries which power just about everything.

    Every administration, Bush, Obama, and Trump has tried to get Western mining interests into the country, but the complete lack of infrastructure and hopeless violence have proved too unpalatable.

    As others have mentioned here, it's also just so well positioned to exert militarily pressure on so many places!

    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.

    Replies: @Talha, @anon

  6. This is something that Russia might do, but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about… anything. Unless some spook wants to give specific information, it’s probably best to ignore this.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Nodwink

    Actually Afghanistan is the playarea of:

    1) Pakistan
    2) India trying to keep Pakistan out
    2) China now beginning to check how to keep Pakistan and India out.

    The Soviets have been there in the 80s. That's, like, 40 years ago?

    This transparently constructed story which is mainly about getting another angle about the Trump-Putin axis of interference in our democracy evil (as if democracy was a fridge where the good stuff is kept) makes as much sense to say that the Brits are paying BLM to get some action going because they are still hurting from the War of Independence.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Corvinus
    @Nodwink

    "but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about… anything."

    No True Scottsman Fallacy employed on your part.

    Should we as Americans have healthy skepticism of the CIA and our intelligence community? Absolutely. Should we as Americans utterly dismiss their findings in every case? Absolutely not.

    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA, @Audacious Epigone

  7. @Twinkie
    I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous - what sane country does that?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @follyofwar, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar, @Barbarossa

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc.

    Agreed. And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.
     
    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Replies: @22pp22, @Daniel H, @dfordoom

    , @silviosilver
    @dfordoom

    What? And tether ourselves to whom?

    Screw that. Bad as they are, America makes more sense than any alternative I can see. I want an enlarged American presence.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  8. But the Taliban burned the poopy fields and stopped grown men f*cking little boys.

    They must be stopped regardless of the cost.

  9. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc.
     
    Agreed. And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @silviosilver

    And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.

    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    • Replies: @22pp22
    @Twinkie

    This Australasian is keen for the US Navy to stick around.

    , @Daniel H
    @Twinkie

    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Wrong answer.

    1) China doesn't threaten Australia or any other foreign nation. Other than contesting some ocean atolls because of possible hydrocarbon reserves China pretty much keeps to herself. Her concern is China and the wellbeing of China.

    2) Even if it were the case that China could become belligerent, the Australians are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

    America is not an effective military power. After WW2, when our military was a colossus, we could only contest a primitive third world country (North Korea) to a draw. We lost in Vietnam. We will lose in Afghanistan. We will lose in Iraq. We were chased out of Lebanon. Who can we beat? Grenada, Panama. American military prowess is a myth, a dangerous myth, for ourselves and the world. Let's mind our business and take care of our own.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Good luck with the Chinese.
     
    You needn't worry. There is no chance that Australia will give up its grovelling subservience to the United States.

    You do realise that Australia is currently gearing up for war with China? We intend to cut our own threats just to prove to America that we're a faithful doggie. Maybe America will give us a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.

    There are times when it really is embarrassing to be an Australian.

    Replies: @silviosilver

  10. Even if it was a true story, one could make a strong argument based on turnabout being fair play. It was funny to see the news, a few years back, of a senior Taliban being whacked in a drone attack, and remembering he was one of the Mujahadeen we trained and paid to attack the Sovs in Afghanistan.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @The Alarmist

    I'm far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve: of course he'd think this is poetic justice for the 1980s and that the US deserves it. He's from the KGB. You don't ever stop being from the KGB. Once upon a time, we had a chance to establish a relatively positive relationship with him, but those days are long gone. His hostility toward the US must be taken for granted. A lot of that is our fault. But it is what it is, and you don't deal with hostility by grovelling.

    But this smells a lot like Assad's supposed chlorine gas attacks a couple of years back. These guys are amoral, they aren't stupid. Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he's on the verge of getting what he wants anyway? And as far as US politics are concerned, however disappointing Trump's been for Putin, Putin has every interest (think about the kind of domestic unrest his re-election will unleash) to see him continue in power. He'd have to be an idiot to think that the American people would ally to his flag concerning him and Russia, and Putin did not get to where he was by being detached from political reality.

    Our real problem on the world stage is China (and even they aren't somebody we should be picking avoidable fights with right now, not when the US is desperately in need of a complete focus on domestic overhaul if we are to avoid going the way of the late Qing), not an oil-based kleptocracy that is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons and will fall to oligarchic infighting the moment Putin dies. Corporate America does not want you to think that, and certainly the wokesters don't. So it is all the more important you believe it. As is the reality that the greatest threat to America stems not from Beijing, or from Moscow, or from Tehran. It stems from the Beltway-and their connections in the Paper Belt.

    Would we be having security concerns with Huawei if plutocrats weren't allowed to place their own profits above national interests? How about the immigration issue: it isn't Jesus Valdez the house painter who blocks E-Verify, it is McConnell and Kushner as much as Pelosi and Schumer. Who hollowed out our economy and rentiered it? Who decided to export our drug industry? Who can't even create a functioning health care system, and who immediately decided to back off on controlling a pandemic the moment they got mass protests?

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don't want you to realize that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain, @Johann Ricke

  11. AE, AE, AE: don’t you know? Those strategic gravel deposits in Herat. The generals made it clear to the President of their integral value to America’s security. Those 19 year olds landing in Bathesda because they can’t afford college are making the sacrifices needed.

    The one thing that nobody bothers to mention is that we increasingly cannot even afford these adventures, regardless of how (ill) conceived they are, and the next decade is going to make that brutally, coldly clear. The jig’s running up.

    I don’t suppose the House Democrats see the irony in working with Liz Cheney to keep us at war, right? Of course they wouldn’t. That’s Who We Are. Our soldiers defending our borders is Racist. Our soldiers defending pedophiles is Enlightened.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @nebulafox

    The country can't afford these adventures but the military industrial complex can't afford the ending of these adventures. Something has to give. We're assured it cannot be the dollar. Sure, sometime in the indefinite future this will break the dollar, but not this, not now!

  12. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.
     
    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Replies: @22pp22, @Daniel H, @dfordoom

    This Australasian is keen for the US Navy to stick around.

  13. @The Alarmist
    Even if it was a true story, one could make a strong argument based on turnabout being fair play. It was funny to see the news, a few years back, of a senior Taliban being whacked in a drone attack, and remembering he was one of the Mujahadeen we trained and paid to attack the Sovs in Afghanistan.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I’m far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve: of course he’d think this is poetic justice for the 1980s and that the US deserves it. He’s from the KGB. You don’t ever stop being from the KGB. Once upon a time, we had a chance to establish a relatively positive relationship with him, but those days are long gone. His hostility toward the US must be taken for granted. A lot of that is our fault. But it is what it is, and you don’t deal with hostility by grovelling.

    But this smells a lot like Assad’s supposed chlorine gas attacks a couple of years back. These guys are amoral, they aren’t stupid. Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he’s on the verge of getting what he wants anyway? And as far as US politics are concerned, however disappointing Trump’s been for Putin, Putin has every interest (think about the kind of domestic unrest his re-election will unleash) to see him continue in power. He’d have to be an idiot to think that the American people would ally to his flag concerning him and Russia, and Putin did not get to where he was by being detached from political reality.

    Our real problem on the world stage is China (and even they aren’t somebody we should be picking avoidable fights with right now, not when the US is desperately in need of a complete focus on domestic overhaul if we are to avoid going the way of the late Qing), not an oil-based kleptocracy that is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons and will fall to oligarchic infighting the moment Putin dies. Corporate America does not want you to think that, and certainly the wokesters don’t. So it is all the more important you believe it. As is the reality that the greatest threat to America stems not from Beijing, or from Moscow, or from Tehran. It stems from the Beltway-and their connections in the Paper Belt.

    Would we be having security concerns with Huawei if plutocrats weren’t allowed to place their own profits above national interests? How about the immigration issue: it isn’t Jesus Valdez the house painter who blocks E-Verify, it is McConnell and Kushner as much as Pelosi and Schumer. Who hollowed out our economy and rentiered it? Who decided to export our drug industry? Who can’t even create a functioning health care system, and who immediately decided to back off on controlling a pandemic the moment they got mass protests?

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @nebulafox


    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.
     
    Do not underestimate the mesmerising power of the foam finger and chants of "We're number one!" Number one circles the bowl pretty much the same way as number two. When America circles the bowl, it's taking the rest of the world with it.
    , @Jane Plain
    @nebulafox


    I’m far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve:

     

    I have tangled with them. They are stupid. There used to be an alt-right fanboy type who combined love of Hitler with love of Russia, not understanding that the two aren't just oil and water, they are lit match and oily rag. It's fair to say that Steve himself is not a Putin groupie, though, and that type has been crowded out by relative normies since the George Floyd rebellion. A lot of normal people with their backs up against the wall comment there now. It's an interesting phenomenon to note.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Jane Plain
    @nebulafox


    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.
     
    At the risk of being labeled "troll" by outraged alt-rightists, blacks (note lower case "b") have a legitimate grievance.

    Antifa whites are, to a non-binary, low-IQ degenerate misfits and rejects and crazies. And maybe most of the BLM blacks are weird or unstable.

    And a lot of black grievances, taken individually, are exaggerated and it's picking a scab, etc.

    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.

    Replies: @Realist, @SunBakedSuburb, @Jim

    , @Johann Ricke
    @nebulafox


    Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he’s on the verge of getting what he wants anyway?
     
    What he wanted was to evict large numbers of Sunni Arabs from Syria, so as to improve his demographic situation. The poison gas was hopefully the last straw for the Sunni Arabs who opposed him - the weapon that terrified his enemies to the extent they finally left Syria altogether. He was carrying out the kind of exemplary massacre that Israelis (at Deir Yassin) and the Palestinian Arabs (at numerous other locales) inflicted upon each other in the run-up to Israel's War of Independence against multiple Arab national armies. Deir Yassin was probably Menachem Begin's most significant contribution to the survival of Israel - the ensuing mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs made Israel's demographic balance far more favorable than if the massacre had not occurred.

    There's a perception that Trump's air strikes were predictable. In reality, they were not. The US failed to intervene in Rwanda despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of dead. It equally failed to intervene in the Congo, despite a death toll estimated to be in the millions. Syria is not a traditional US ally, and not even in the US sphere of influence. And unlike Libya, Syria was backed up by both Iranian and Russian troops stationed there.

    There's also the fact that Trump's decision-making process is very idiosyncratic. Reagan authorized Operation Praying Mantis in response to the damage inflicted upon Gulf shipping by Iranian mines, basically passive weapons. Reagan would likely have attacked Iranian assets in response to ballistic missile attacks launched by Iran against Riyadh from Yemen, let alone the later Iranian missile attacks on Saudi oilfields. And yet Trump has been extremely restrained with respect to attacking Iranian military assets.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  14. @nebulafox
    @The Alarmist

    I'm far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve: of course he'd think this is poetic justice for the 1980s and that the US deserves it. He's from the KGB. You don't ever stop being from the KGB. Once upon a time, we had a chance to establish a relatively positive relationship with him, but those days are long gone. His hostility toward the US must be taken for granted. A lot of that is our fault. But it is what it is, and you don't deal with hostility by grovelling.

    But this smells a lot like Assad's supposed chlorine gas attacks a couple of years back. These guys are amoral, they aren't stupid. Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he's on the verge of getting what he wants anyway? And as far as US politics are concerned, however disappointing Trump's been for Putin, Putin has every interest (think about the kind of domestic unrest his re-election will unleash) to see him continue in power. He'd have to be an idiot to think that the American people would ally to his flag concerning him and Russia, and Putin did not get to where he was by being detached from political reality.

    Our real problem on the world stage is China (and even they aren't somebody we should be picking avoidable fights with right now, not when the US is desperately in need of a complete focus on domestic overhaul if we are to avoid going the way of the late Qing), not an oil-based kleptocracy that is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons and will fall to oligarchic infighting the moment Putin dies. Corporate America does not want you to think that, and certainly the wokesters don't. So it is all the more important you believe it. As is the reality that the greatest threat to America stems not from Beijing, or from Moscow, or from Tehran. It stems from the Beltway-and their connections in the Paper Belt.

    Would we be having security concerns with Huawei if plutocrats weren't allowed to place their own profits above national interests? How about the immigration issue: it isn't Jesus Valdez the house painter who blocks E-Verify, it is McConnell and Kushner as much as Pelosi and Schumer. Who hollowed out our economy and rentiered it? Who decided to export our drug industry? Who can't even create a functioning health care system, and who immediately decided to back off on controlling a pandemic the moment they got mass protests?

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don't want you to realize that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain, @Johann Ricke

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.

    Do not underestimate the mesmerising power of the foam finger and chants of “We’re number one!” Number one circles the bowl pretty much the same way as number two. When America circles the bowl, it’s taking the rest of the world with it.

    • LOL: Realist
  15. @Supply and Demand
    @WorkingClass

    As a postgrad who's had to decamp to China in order not to have my studies on robotics attacked by critical theorists -- I can tell you for a fact that all of the postgrads in the hard sciences are absolutely terrified of speaking out against their '68 refusenik bosses. They will agree to the most braindead delusion to keep their place on the ladder, desperately hoping their "mentor" will die and they can get a shot at a tenure.

    Replies: @Jane Plain, @WorkingClass, @nebulafox

    In a weird way, you give me hope. So all we have to do is wait until your generation takes over? OK.

    But there may not be a uni system then. At least, not in the US.

  16. @nebulafox
    @The Alarmist

    I'm far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve: of course he'd think this is poetic justice for the 1980s and that the US deserves it. He's from the KGB. You don't ever stop being from the KGB. Once upon a time, we had a chance to establish a relatively positive relationship with him, but those days are long gone. His hostility toward the US must be taken for granted. A lot of that is our fault. But it is what it is, and you don't deal with hostility by grovelling.

    But this smells a lot like Assad's supposed chlorine gas attacks a couple of years back. These guys are amoral, they aren't stupid. Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he's on the verge of getting what he wants anyway? And as far as US politics are concerned, however disappointing Trump's been for Putin, Putin has every interest (think about the kind of domestic unrest his re-election will unleash) to see him continue in power. He'd have to be an idiot to think that the American people would ally to his flag concerning him and Russia, and Putin did not get to where he was by being detached from political reality.

    Our real problem on the world stage is China (and even they aren't somebody we should be picking avoidable fights with right now, not when the US is desperately in need of a complete focus on domestic overhaul if we are to avoid going the way of the late Qing), not an oil-based kleptocracy that is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons and will fall to oligarchic infighting the moment Putin dies. Corporate America does not want you to think that, and certainly the wokesters don't. So it is all the more important you believe it. As is the reality that the greatest threat to America stems not from Beijing, or from Moscow, or from Tehran. It stems from the Beltway-and their connections in the Paper Belt.

    Would we be having security concerns with Huawei if plutocrats weren't allowed to place their own profits above national interests? How about the immigration issue: it isn't Jesus Valdez the house painter who blocks E-Verify, it is McConnell and Kushner as much as Pelosi and Schumer. Who hollowed out our economy and rentiered it? Who decided to export our drug industry? Who can't even create a functioning health care system, and who immediately decided to back off on controlling a pandemic the moment they got mass protests?

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don't want you to realize that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain, @Johann Ricke

    I’m far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve:

    I have tangled with them. They are stupid. There used to be an alt-right fanboy type who combined love of Hitler with love of Russia, not understanding that the two aren’t just oil and water, they are lit match and oily rag. It’s fair to say that Steve himself is not a Putin groupie, though, and that type has been crowded out by relative normies since the George Floyd rebellion. A lot of normal people with their backs up against the wall comment there now. It’s an interesting phenomenon to note.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Jane Plain

    Yeah, really. Who could be inclined to have warm feelings about Putler?? Alt-right losers, smh. I mean, just think about it...

    Putler mocks Globohomo


    Putin mocks rainbow flag outside US embassy in Moscow and suggests it reflected on the diplomats' sexual orientation

    • Putin mocked a rainbow LGBT pride flag hung from the US embassy in Moscow
    • He implied the flag was suggestive of the sexual orientation of the staff
    •'Let them celebrate. They've shown a certain something about the people who work there,' he said

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487767/Putin-mocks-rainbow-flag-outside-embassy-Moscow.html
     
    Putler promotes traditional marriage

    “Putin on Friday signed amendments to the constitution backed by a national vote that include a clause on marriage being between a man and a woman, aimed at preventing legalisation of gay unions.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487767/Putin-mocks-rainbow-flag-outside-embassy-Moscow.html
     
    Putler has pledged to help protect Christians in the Middle East

    Putin pledges to 'do everything to protect Christians in the Middle East'

    October 31, 2019

    “Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to protect Christians threatened by the conflict in Syria, appealing to the plight of religious minorities as justification for Russia's involvement.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/putin-pledges-to-do-everything-to-protect-christians-in-the-middle-east
     
    Putler builds massive Christian cathedral to the Russian military

    https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/jo.hEnpQMy5QaZz15aBhKA--~B/aD01MTE7dz03Njg7c209MTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/dad2272d54e5950d0117ea7e825caa8f53f8c0ea.jpg
     
    Putler maintains Russia is Christian country and will remain so

    Putin: Christianity is the Foundation of the Russian State

    MOSCOW (AP) — Vladimir Putin says the adoption of Christianity more than 1,000 years ago in territory that later became Russia marked the starting point for forming the Russian nation itself.

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2018/july/putin-christianity-is-the-foundation-of-the-russian-state
     
    Putler has criticized the West for abandoning Christianity

    Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values

    Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”

    In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.

    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/01/29/vladimir%20putin-america-is-godless-turns-away-from-christian-values/
     
    In this day and age who could possibly support this homophobic, transphobic, racist, white supremacist, xenophobic vision that Putler has?? Probably the same troglodytes decrying the tearing down the statues of dead white Confederate slaveholders like the Apotheosis of St. Louis and Abraham Lincoln!!
  17. @nebulafox
    @The Alarmist

    I'm far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve: of course he'd think this is poetic justice for the 1980s and that the US deserves it. He's from the KGB. You don't ever stop being from the KGB. Once upon a time, we had a chance to establish a relatively positive relationship with him, but those days are long gone. His hostility toward the US must be taken for granted. A lot of that is our fault. But it is what it is, and you don't deal with hostility by grovelling.

    But this smells a lot like Assad's supposed chlorine gas attacks a couple of years back. These guys are amoral, they aren't stupid. Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he's on the verge of getting what he wants anyway? And as far as US politics are concerned, however disappointing Trump's been for Putin, Putin has every interest (think about the kind of domestic unrest his re-election will unleash) to see him continue in power. He'd have to be an idiot to think that the American people would ally to his flag concerning him and Russia, and Putin did not get to where he was by being detached from political reality.

    Our real problem on the world stage is China (and even they aren't somebody we should be picking avoidable fights with right now, not when the US is desperately in need of a complete focus on domestic overhaul if we are to avoid going the way of the late Qing), not an oil-based kleptocracy that is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons and will fall to oligarchic infighting the moment Putin dies. Corporate America does not want you to think that, and certainly the wokesters don't. So it is all the more important you believe it. As is the reality that the greatest threat to America stems not from Beijing, or from Moscow, or from Tehran. It stems from the Beltway-and their connections in the Paper Belt.

    Would we be having security concerns with Huawei if plutocrats weren't allowed to place their own profits above national interests? How about the immigration issue: it isn't Jesus Valdez the house painter who blocks E-Verify, it is McConnell and Kushner as much as Pelosi and Schumer. Who hollowed out our economy and rentiered it? Who decided to export our drug industry? Who can't even create a functioning health care system, and who immediately decided to back off on controlling a pandemic the moment they got mass protests?

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don't want you to realize that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain, @Johann Ricke

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.

    At the risk of being labeled “troll” by outraged alt-rightists, blacks (note lower case “b”) have a legitimate grievance.

    Antifa whites are, to a non-binary, low-IQ degenerate misfits and rejects and crazies. And maybe most of the BLM blacks are weird or unstable.

    And a lot of black grievances, taken individually, are exaggerated and it’s picking a scab, etc.

    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Jane Plain


    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.
     
    American descendents of slaves are the luckiest blacks on the planet.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Jane Plain

    "black Americans do have a grievance"

    Access to capital. The more sober-minded black leadership have stated that access to capital to start businesses and so on is the primary need. Let's give it to them in the form of reparations. They can use the capital to finance their own enterprise zones, or use it to immigrate to countries where the dark shadow of systematic whitey will never again fall across their precious black lives. Reparations should be designed to allow separation between whites and blacks; the divorce that the majority of whites and blacks desire.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    , @Jim
    @Jane Plain

    "But black Americans do have a grievance."

    This question is entirely serious. I have been listening to Kaepernik and others and still have not heard a defined grievance. Can you tell us what the grievance you refer to is?

  18. @216
    The mainstream right, let alone the far-right, is systemically excluded from academia.

    The insanity demonstrated by "white college" and particularly "white postgrad" voters, is the product of an environment where the GOP simply does not exist.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Realist

    I missed the high postgrad percentage. You’d hope that those people could see beyond all the previous lies. Nope.

    Did they believe Powell at the UN?

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @TomSchmidt

    Postgrads are one of the most undereducated classes there are. Very focused on a narrow area and relying on NYT prolefeed for the rest.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @TomSchmidt

    It's an artefact of the composition of US graduate enrolment, because the outright majority of Masters degrees conferred in the US are in bullshit disciplines (education, 'business', allied-health professions) - so the median student is cognitive dross. That's well before we ever get to the full-on woo-woo subject areas.

    To give some flesh to this: in total across the primary STEM disciplines -
    biological and biomedical sciences (17,200);
    mathematics and statistics (10,400)
    engineering (51,700); and
    computer and information sciences (46,500)

        ... there were fewer Masters degrees conferred in 2018 than there were in Education (146,500) - the last academic refuge of the incompetent.

    Average sex ratio in Education and 'Allied-Health': 80% female (i.e., the 'health and related' are nurses, not doctors).

    STEM Masters conferrals are about 15% of all Masters degrees in the US. (The US has led the way in fucking up academia globally, but remains pack leaders for credentialised-halfwit 'grad' programs).

    Let's also stipulate that there are a shitload of 'business' Masters programs that are repackaged undergraduate intro courses - i.e., 95% of MBA programs. And the educational category 'business' includes "business, management, marketing, and related support services, as well as personal and culinary services".

    Nail in the coffin: half of all STEM Masters were to non-resident aliens.

    Little wonder that the survey sounds like it was taken in a day-care centre for relatively-dim mongoloids.

    Replies: @128, @TomSchmidt

  19. @Twinkie
    I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous - what sane country does that?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @follyofwar, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar, @Barbarossa

    Why on earth would we make this country more hated throughout the world than we already are by “retaking the Panama Canal?” Our ships are getting thru, aren’t they?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @follyofwar

    I’d rather that we, not China, controlled the choke points, at least in our hemisphere and in the Straits of Malacca (a little insurance, you could say).

  20. @follyofwar
    @Twinkie

    Why on earth would we make this country more hated throughout the world than we already are by "retaking the Panama Canal?" Our ships are getting thru, aren't they?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I’d rather that we, not China, controlled the choke points, at least in our hemisphere and in the Straits of Malacca (a little insurance, you could say).

  21. @WorkingClass
    Postgradtards are the stupidest mother fuckers in the country at 92%. But with 40% not sure its more like 92% of 60%? Maybe Gradtards are not the most stupid. Maybe they are the most sure.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @follyofwar, @Thucydides, @Audacious Epigone

    Very interesting that those with high school or less education are “only” 70% compared to 92% for post grads. Shows that the more education you have the more brainwashed you become.

    I really thought that these percentages would be much lower. But, as a 69 year old man, I remember ducking and covering under my desk in elementary school in the 50’s out of fear that the Russians were about to nuke us. We’ve been in a Cold War with Russia since WWII, and only a few of us have the independence of thought to escape the relentless programming.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  22. @Twinkie
    I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous - what sane country does that?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @follyofwar, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar, @Barbarossa

    what sane country does that?

    Do you have any evidence that the U.S. is a sane country?

    We must attack them there so they don’t attack us here Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets!

  23. Not one of the groups comported themselves in an intelligent manner. This is exactly why this country is on a shit slide to hell.

  24. There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool us 4,034 times, shame on — shame on you. Fool us — we can’t get fooled again.

    That graph is depressing, even with 40% of respondents excluded.

    But your article is spot on… Brilliant.

    Thanks again Mr. Epigone for yet another wonderful post!

  25. @Jane Plain
    @nebulafox


    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.
     
    At the risk of being labeled "troll" by outraged alt-rightists, blacks (note lower case "b") have a legitimate grievance.

    Antifa whites are, to a non-binary, low-IQ degenerate misfits and rejects and crazies. And maybe most of the BLM blacks are weird or unstable.

    And a lot of black grievances, taken individually, are exaggerated and it's picking a scab, etc.

    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.

    Replies: @Realist, @SunBakedSuburb, @Jim

    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.

    American descendents of slaves are the luckiest blacks on the planet.

  26. @Nodwink
    This is something that Russia might do, but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about... anything. Unless some spook wants to give specific information, it's probably best to ignore this.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Corvinus

    Actually Afghanistan is the playarea of:

    1) Pakistan
    2) India trying to keep Pakistan out
    2) China now beginning to check how to keep Pakistan and India out.

    The Soviets have been there in the 80s. That’s, like, 40 years ago?

    This transparently constructed story which is mainly about getting another angle about the Trump-Putin axis of interference in our democracy evil (as if democracy was a fridge where the good stuff is kept) makes as much sense to say that the Brits are paying BLM to get some action going because they are still hurting from the War of Independence.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @El Dato

    I say let Iran and Pakistan fight over the place. That's what is going to happen if we withdrew tomorrow, and I think the real reason why the top military brass (apart from commercial concerns) wants to stay in Afghanistan is a fear of Iranian influence there. It's irrational: the more they are engaged in Afghanistan, the less time they have to focus elsewhere, and TBH, they are probably the lesser of two evils compared to the ISI if you look at the history of pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

    The general Iran-phobia of the American political class, with memories of 1979 seared into that generation, is preventing any sort of rational long-term thinking in that region. It's a nasty regime, but it is hardly an irrational (or monolithic-things like the nuclear program make a lot more sense if you look at Iran's government as the collection of competing, often corrupt interest groups that it is) one: their foreign policy game has more in common with the Safavids than with Khomeini these days. If we want to disengage, Iran is going to inevitably become the regional power-broker by dint of its population and a degree of national cohesion that nobody else in the region except for Israel has. But nobody has made a convincing case why it is against ours: the Shi'ites are never going to have the demographics to be able to control the whole region, and we have our own energy resources anyway, since we still have aging whining Boomers who pee their pants at the notion of nuclear plants.

    The fundamental interests of Iran and the United States do not conflict. Having a more powerful Iran is against the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, sure, but last time I checked, they weren't the 51st and 52nd states.

  27. @TomSchmidt
    @216

    I missed the high postgrad percentage. You'd hope that those people could see beyond all the previous lies. Nope.

    Did they believe Powell at the UN?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kratoklastes

    Postgrads are one of the most undereducated classes there are. Very focused on a narrow area and relying on NYT prolefeed for the rest.

    • Agree: Realist
  28. @216
    The mainstream right, let alone the far-right, is systemically excluded from academia.

    The insanity demonstrated by "white college" and particularly "white postgrad" voters, is the product of an environment where the GOP simply does not exist.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Realist

    The insanity demonstrated by “white college” and particularly “white postgrad” voters, is the product of an environment where the GOP simply does not exist.

    A Republican score of 68% is sure as hell not commendable.

  29. Well duh. Gotta keep the supply of opium flowing. Where do you think all that off-the-books funding for the deep state is coming from?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    Well duh. Gotta keep the supply of opium flowing.

    Yeah, it's an amazing thing that opium poppies only grow in one country on the entire planet. For example, there are no opium poppies in Mexico or further south. None in China or Burma. And there's no substitute for heroin, oxy and fentanyl aren't. Plus there's no way to synth opiates at all, nope.

    None! None!

    Where do you think all that off-the-books funding for the deep state is coming from?

    The Fed via suitable laundering.

    It's not 1980 anymore.

    See Howard Dean's tweet for details on what's really keeping us in that 'Stan.

    Globalhomo's feminist subsidiary.

  30. This is now the consensus DC swamp position on Afghanistan.

    It’s now a gender equity jihad, backed with howitzers and tanks. Although some think that’s a cover story for the opium poppies.

  31. The US Army takes a 19 year old civilian and in two months turns him into an infantry soldier. He’s green but is deployed to a place like Afghanistan and gains combat experience. After a one year tour of duty he is a veteran soldier.

    That same US Army has been ‘training’ Afghans for 19 years and the ‘soldiers’ produced are still unable to do what US soldiers are expected to do with two months training.

  32. @Talha
    As if you need to give Afghans any further incentive to kill you other than to show up in their territory without permission. Bringing along a rifle will make them doubly sure in wanting to make you a permanent part of their landscape. Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.

    They’ve been doing this for a verrrry long time.

    US presence in Afghanistan is aimed at containment of China and her trade route initiative; supply routes to forward operating theaters need to be kept in a ready state for future “operations”.

    Peace.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Rosie

    “US presence in Afghanistan is aimed at containment of China”

    I think it has more to do with access to the Central Asian countries which are the soft underbelly of Russia. Also, control of the heroin trade provides operational funds for CIA and its ally the Pakistani ISI.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @SunBakedSuburb

    That too. Good points.

    Peace.

  33. @nebulafox
    @The Alarmist

    I'm far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve: of course he'd think this is poetic justice for the 1980s and that the US deserves it. He's from the KGB. You don't ever stop being from the KGB. Once upon a time, we had a chance to establish a relatively positive relationship with him, but those days are long gone. His hostility toward the US must be taken for granted. A lot of that is our fault. But it is what it is, and you don't deal with hostility by grovelling.

    But this smells a lot like Assad's supposed chlorine gas attacks a couple of years back. These guys are amoral, they aren't stupid. Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he's on the verge of getting what he wants anyway? And as far as US politics are concerned, however disappointing Trump's been for Putin, Putin has every interest (think about the kind of domestic unrest his re-election will unleash) to see him continue in power. He'd have to be an idiot to think that the American people would ally to his flag concerning him and Russia, and Putin did not get to where he was by being detached from political reality.

    Our real problem on the world stage is China (and even they aren't somebody we should be picking avoidable fights with right now, not when the US is desperately in need of a complete focus on domestic overhaul if we are to avoid going the way of the late Qing), not an oil-based kleptocracy that is essentially Mexico with nuclear weapons and will fall to oligarchic infighting the moment Putin dies. Corporate America does not want you to think that, and certainly the wokesters don't. So it is all the more important you believe it. As is the reality that the greatest threat to America stems not from Beijing, or from Moscow, or from Tehran. It stems from the Beltway-and their connections in the Paper Belt.

    Would we be having security concerns with Huawei if plutocrats weren't allowed to place their own profits above national interests? How about the immigration issue: it isn't Jesus Valdez the house painter who blocks E-Verify, it is McConnell and Kushner as much as Pelosi and Schumer. Who hollowed out our economy and rentiered it? Who decided to export our drug industry? Who can't even create a functioning health care system, and who immediately decided to back off on controlling a pandemic the moment they got mass protests?

    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don't want you to realize that.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Jane Plain, @Jane Plain, @Johann Ricke

    Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he’s on the verge of getting what he wants anyway?

    What he wanted was to evict large numbers of Sunni Arabs from Syria, so as to improve his demographic situation. The poison gas was hopefully the last straw for the Sunni Arabs who opposed him – the weapon that terrified his enemies to the extent they finally left Syria altogether. He was carrying out the kind of exemplary massacre that Israelis (at Deir Yassin) and the Palestinian Arabs (at numerous other locales) inflicted upon each other in the run-up to Israel’s War of Independence against multiple Arab national armies. Deir Yassin was probably Menachem Begin’s most significant contribution to the survival of Israel – the ensuing mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs made Israel’s demographic balance far more favorable than if the massacre had not occurred.

    There’s a perception that Trump’s air strikes were predictable. In reality, they were not. The US failed to intervene in Rwanda despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of dead. It equally failed to intervene in the Congo, despite a death toll estimated to be in the millions. Syria is not a traditional US ally, and not even in the US sphere of influence. And unlike Libya, Syria was backed up by both Iranian and Russian troops stationed there.

    There’s also the fact that Trump’s decision-making process is very idiosyncratic. Reagan authorized Operation Praying Mantis in response to the damage inflicted upon Gulf shipping by Iranian mines, basically passive weapons. Reagan would likely have attacked Iranian assets in response to ballistic missile attacks launched by Iran against Riyadh from Yemen, let alone the later Iranian missile attacks on Saudi oilfields. And yet Trump has been extremely restrained with respect to attacking Iranian military assets.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Johann Ricke

    >What he wanted was to evict large numbers of Sunni Arabs from Syria, so as to improve his demographic situation. The poison gas was hopefully the last straw for the Sunni Arabs who opposed him – the weapon that terrified his enemies to the extent they finally left Syria altogether.

    Assad Jr. is not as strong, intelligent, or ruthless as his father: if he was, a second Hama would have nipped things in the bud in 2012. But I also do not think he is stupid enough to think he's ever going anything better than his alliance of minorities supporting him, or to misread the propaganda value that his enemies would get out of the "launching gas attacks on kids" story.

    I'm not defending the guy's moral character, but if he were such an idiot to think that the demographic situation could ever change enough to change realities for his regime, he wouldn't have survived in the first place. Tons of Sunnis fled to Lebanon, not Europe: they'll be back once things stabilize.

    >The US failed to intervene in Rwanda despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of dead. It equally failed to intervene in the Congo, despite a death toll estimated to be in the millions.

    At risk of sounding callous, nobody truly cares about millions of deaths in Africa. The ME is very different, especially within the Beltway-unless you have a "trusted ally" causing famines, of course.

    The leadership of both parties were chomping at the bit for intervention as early as 2013, until the public reaction became so negative that they were forced to shelve the idea. This was aided by the reality that Hillary Clinton was very pro-intervention as SecState, one of the reasons her relationship with Obama, never warm in the first place, cooled decidedly as the Arab revolutions went on. Our leadership didn't want just airstrikes: they wanted regime change, and they wanted it from the get-go despite plenty of people in the military warning about what it would take and what it would cost to remove Assad from power. Even in 2018: remember all the media commentary about Trump's refusal to stop disengaging from Syria, even as he launched airstrikes?

  34. A123 says:

    I could believe in a Russian reaction to Obama’s Surge. However, the “bounty” concept does not seem very Russian.

    How would a Taliban prove they had killed an American soldier? Delivering the corpse back to the Russian handler seems rather impractical & highly risky. Anything less and multiple Taliban would show up demanding money for the same kill.

    A “bounty” is operationally troublesome for minimal gain. Russian plans tend to be more sound.

    PEACE 😇

    • Agree: MarkU
    • Replies: @psbindy
    @A123

    It seems to me that Russians or any primary opponent in a proxy war would quite naturally reward their proxies with incentives. What's the big deal? We did it. We do it.

    Ray P (comment #35) solves the problem of proof without the necessity of delivering an entire corpse.

    To answer my own somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, the "big deal" is to put Trump in a political bind.

    Replies: @A123

  35. @Jane Plain
    @nebulafox


    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.
     
    At the risk of being labeled "troll" by outraged alt-rightists, blacks (note lower case "b") have a legitimate grievance.

    Antifa whites are, to a non-binary, low-IQ degenerate misfits and rejects and crazies. And maybe most of the BLM blacks are weird or unstable.

    And a lot of black grievances, taken individually, are exaggerated and it's picking a scab, etc.

    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.

    Replies: @Realist, @SunBakedSuburb, @Jim

    “black Americans do have a grievance”

    Access to capital. The more sober-minded black leadership have stated that access to capital to start businesses and so on is the primary need. Let’s give it to them in the form of reparations. They can use the capital to finance their own enterprise zones, or use it to immigrate to countries where the dark shadow of systematic whitey will never again fall across their precious black lives. Reparations should be designed to allow separation between whites and blacks; the divorce that the majority of whites and blacks desire.

    • Replies: @Jane Plain
    @SunBakedSuburb

    They'll just waste it on garbage because they don't have solid, patriarchal families.

  36. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Talha

    "US presence in Afghanistan is aimed at containment of China"

    I think it has more to do with access to the Central Asian countries which are the soft underbelly of Russia. Also, control of the heroin trade provides operational funds for CIA and its ally the Pakistani ISI.

    Replies: @Talha

    That too. Good points.

    Peace.

  37. Why haven’t we heard a neocon praising Putin’s wise use of financial incentives for improved productivity? Is he, like Lenin with Samuel Taylor and Henry Ford, copying American methods once more? Scalp hunters in the 19th c. Indian wars and the charming collection of ears during the Vietnam fracas.

  38. @Supply and Demand
    @WorkingClass

    As a postgrad who's had to decamp to China in order not to have my studies on robotics attacked by critical theorists -- I can tell you for a fact that all of the postgrads in the hard sciences are absolutely terrified of speaking out against their '68 refusenik bosses. They will agree to the most braindead delusion to keep their place on the ladder, desperately hoping their "mentor" will die and they can get a shot at a tenure.

    Replies: @Jane Plain, @WorkingClass, @nebulafox

    Congratulations on having the courage and good sense to get the fuck out of Dodge. I realize that postgrads are not actually stupid. They are indoctrinated which is much worse. And I would not be surprised to learn that “hard science” students might be less indoctrinated if not less intimidated than other students. I wouldn’t know. Academia is a foreign country to me.

    The great Texas blues artist, Janis Joplin, sang “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose”. Having no status in society and nothing to sell but my labor I have no fear of the Commissars. And living in rural America I have no need to fear my neighbors. I live in a crummy apartment of course and I drive a clunker. And you, my friend, are living in China. The Bard, Bob Dylan, told us “Every form of refuge has it’s price”.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    @WorkingClass

    On second thought - it wasn't Dylan. Who wrote that song? You can't hide your lyin eyes.

    Replies: @MarkU

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @WorkingClass

    That's Don Henley, I think:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RdyYH8cFJc

  39. @WorkingClass
    @Supply and Demand

    Congratulations on having the courage and good sense to get the fuck out of Dodge. I realize that postgrads are not actually stupid. They are indoctrinated which is much worse. And I would not be surprised to learn that "hard science" students might be less indoctrinated if not less intimidated than other students. I wouldn't know. Academia is a foreign country to me.

    The great Texas blues artist, Janis Joplin, sang "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose". Having no status in society and nothing to sell but my labor I have no fear of the Commissars. And living in rural America I have no need to fear my neighbors. I live in a crummy apartment of course and I drive a clunker. And you, my friend, are living in China. The Bard, Bob Dylan, told us "Every form of refuge has it's price".

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Audacious Epigone

    On second thought – it wasn’t Dylan. Who wrote that song? You can’t hide your lyin eyes.

    • Replies: @MarkU
    @WorkingClass

    The Eagles wrote that song.

  40. @WorkingClass
    @WorkingClass

    On second thought - it wasn't Dylan. Who wrote that song? You can't hide your lyin eyes.

    Replies: @MarkU

    The Eagles wrote that song.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  41. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.
     
    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Replies: @22pp22, @Daniel H, @dfordoom

    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Wrong answer.

    1) China doesn’t threaten Australia or any other foreign nation. Other than contesting some ocean atolls because of possible hydrocarbon reserves China pretty much keeps to herself. Her concern is China and the wellbeing of China.

    2) Even if it were the case that China could become belligerent, the Australians are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

    America is not an effective military power. After WW2, when our military was a colossus, we could only contest a primitive third world country (North Korea) to a draw. We lost in Vietnam. We will lose in Afghanistan. We will lose in Iraq. We were chased out of Lebanon. Who can we beat? Grenada, Panama. American military prowess is a myth, a dangerous myth, for ourselves and the world. Let’s mind our business and take care of our own.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Daniel H

    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.

    But if I were the emperor of America, I’d do what I advocated above and good luck to all these countries with their new regional hegemon.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Johann Ricke
    @Daniel H


    China doesn’t threaten Australia or any other foreign nation.
     
    China covets "all under heaven"*.

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

    In the Chinese worldview, peace can only be achieved when the world is ruled by a single sovereign. China has been "peaceful" in the past century for the same reason Sweden was peaceful after its disastrous defeat at Poltava. After centuries of relative decline, it was surrounded by peer or stronger powers. That constraint on Chinese territorial expansion is now near an end, as Chinese economic and military power reverts to its historically outsized advantage relative to its neighbors.

    https://www.timemaps.com/history/china-2500bc/

    * Note that this isn't unique to China. Until the numbered big wars of the 20th century, the West was in constant competition for territory. For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @d dan

  42. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Jane Plain

    "black Americans do have a grievance"

    Access to capital. The more sober-minded black leadership have stated that access to capital to start businesses and so on is the primary need. Let's give it to them in the form of reparations. They can use the capital to finance their own enterprise zones, or use it to immigrate to countries where the dark shadow of systematic whitey will never again fall across their precious black lives. Reparations should be designed to allow separation between whites and blacks; the divorce that the majority of whites and blacks desire.

    Replies: @Jane Plain

    They’ll just waste it on garbage because they don’t have solid, patriarchal families.

  43. Lots of sheep to be sheared in America.

  44. @WorkingClass
    Postgradtards are the stupidest mother fuckers in the country at 92%. But with 40% not sure its more like 92% of 60%? Maybe Gradtards are not the most stupid. Maybe they are the most sure.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @follyofwar, @Thucydides, @Audacious Epigone

    Most people, I believe I once read it was 60%, holding a post-grad degree are school teachers who have gotten an MA. It’s paid for by their school district, and they get paid extra for having it. They are not exactly high-powered intellects.

  45. @A123
    I could believe in a Russian reaction to Obama's Surge. However, the "bounty" concept does not seem very Russian.

    How would a Taliban prove they had killed an American soldier? Delivering the corpse back to the Russian handler seems rather impractical & highly risky. Anything less and multiple Taliban would show up demanding money for the same kill.

    A "bounty" is operationally troublesome for minimal gain. Russian plans tend to be more sound.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @psbindy

    It seems to me that Russians or any primary opponent in a proxy war would quite naturally reward their proxies with incentives. What’s the big deal? We did it. We do it.

    Ray P (comment #35) solves the problem of proof without the necessity of delivering an entire corpse.

    To answer my own somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, the “big deal” is to put Trump in a political bind.

    • Replies: @A123
    @psbindy


    It seems to me that Russians or any primary opponent in a proxy war would quite naturally reward their proxies with incentives. What’s the big deal? We did it. We do it.
     
    Again. Obama's Surge could have drawn a Russian response. However, this "bounty" story is 100% implausible.

    Ray P (comment #35) solves the problem of proof without the necessity of delivering an entire corpse.
     
    Human ears are pretty easy to come by. How would a Russian handler quickly and easily determine if an ear is Anerican?

    Given the unscrupulous nature of war lords in the area, cheating would be rampant.

    To answer my own somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, the “big deal” is to put Trump in a political bind.
     
    By "bind", you mean the SJW Globalists shredding what little remains of their own credibility.

    With "binds" like this, Trump's re-election is assured.

    PEACE 😇
  46. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jane Plain
    @nebulafox


    I’m far more cynical about Vladimir Putin than some of the alt-right fanboys over at iSteve:

     

    I have tangled with them. They are stupid. There used to be an alt-right fanboy type who combined love of Hitler with love of Russia, not understanding that the two aren't just oil and water, they are lit match and oily rag. It's fair to say that Steve himself is not a Putin groupie, though, and that type has been crowded out by relative normies since the George Floyd rebellion. A lot of normal people with their backs up against the wall comment there now. It's an interesting phenomenon to note.

    Replies: @Anon

    Yeah, really. Who could be inclined to have warm feelings about Putler?? Alt-right losers, smh. I mean, just think about it…

    Putler mocks Globohomo

    Putin mocks rainbow flag outside US embassy in Moscow and suggests it reflected on the diplomats’ sexual orientation

    • Putin mocked a rainbow LGBT pride flag hung from the US embassy in Moscow
    • He implied the flag was suggestive of the sexual orientation of the staff
    •’Let them celebrate. They’ve shown a certain something about the people who work there,’ he said

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487767/Putin-mocks-rainbow-flag-outside-embassy-Moscow.html

    Putler promotes traditional marriage

    “Putin on Friday signed amendments to the constitution backed by a national vote that include a clause on marriage being between a man and a woman, aimed at preventing legalisation of gay unions.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8487767/Putin-mocks-rainbow-flag-outside-embassy-Moscow.html

    Putler has pledged to help protect Christians in the Middle East

    Putin pledges to ‘do everything to protect Christians in the Middle East’

    October 31, 2019

    “Russian President Vladimir Putin pledged to protect Christians threatened by the conflict in Syria, appealing to the plight of religious minorities as justification for Russia’s involvement.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/putin-pledges-to-do-everything-to-protect-christians-in-the-middle-east

    Putler builds massive Christian cathedral to the Russian military

    Putler maintains Russia is Christian country and will remain so

    Putin: Christianity is the Foundation of the Russian State

    MOSCOW (AP) — Vladimir Putin says the adoption of Christianity more than 1,000 years ago in territory that later became Russia marked the starting point for forming the Russian nation itself.

    https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2018/july/putin-christianity-is-the-foundation-of-the-russian-state

    Putler has criticized the West for abandoning Christianity

    Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values

    Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”

    In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.

    https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/01/29/vladimir%20putin-america-is-godless-turns-away-from-christian-values/

    In this day and age who could possibly support this homophobic, transphobic, racist, white supremacist, xenophobic vision that Putler has?? Probably the same troglodytes decrying the tearing down the statues of dead white Confederate slaveholders like the Apotheosis of St. Louis and Abraham Lincoln!!

  47. @Jane Plain
    @nebulafox


    Americans are the reason that America is so screwed up right now. And They don’t want you to realize that.
     
    At the risk of being labeled "troll" by outraged alt-rightists, blacks (note lower case "b") have a legitimate grievance.

    Antifa whites are, to a non-binary, low-IQ degenerate misfits and rejects and crazies. And maybe most of the BLM blacks are weird or unstable.

    And a lot of black grievances, taken individually, are exaggerated and it's picking a scab, etc.

    But black Americans do have a grievance. It was never dealt with properly, and look at what we have now.

    Replies: @Realist, @SunBakedSuburb, @Jim

    “But black Americans do have a grievance.”

    This question is entirely serious. I have been listening to Kaepernik and others and still have not heard a defined grievance. Can you tell us what the grievance you refer to is?

  48. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.
     
    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Replies: @22pp22, @Daniel H, @dfordoom

    Good luck with the Chinese.

    You needn’t worry. There is no chance that Australia will give up its grovelling subservience to the United States.

    You do realise that Australia is currently gearing up for war with China? We intend to cut our own threats just to prove to America that we’re a faithful doggie. Maybe America will give us a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.

    There are times when it really is embarrassing to be an Australian.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    You do realise that Australia is currently gearing up for war with China? We intend to cut our own threats just to prove to America that we’re a faithful doggie. Maybe America will give us a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.
     
    Oh please. Being an alliance partner is a two-way street. America's under no obligation to come running to our aid no matter how badly we behave (we're not Israel, after all). Petulance will get us nowhere. There has to be something in it for them too.
  49. @Twinkie
    I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous - what sane country does that?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @follyofwar, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar, @Barbarossa

    You’ve got almost complete agreement from me on this one too, Twinkie. I’d say we’ve got no business ANYWHERE in Asia too, and by Asia I mean Asia, not just the Orient.

    On your Korean thing, you are so on the money. Peak Stupidity discussed this over 3 years back: Border control maintenance vs. defending some Koreans from other Koreans. (This is when I still had high hopes out of President Trump.)

    Think about it – there have been 25,000 troops over there, for 2/3 of a century! – Not the same guys, of course. This is the back-of-envelope calculation from my post:

    Let’s say even with 1 24-hr, 2-manned, post every single mile of the border for 2,000 miles, a very conservative estimate, and my 1/2 million bucks a piece yearly for each (2 shifts x 2 guys @ $100,000 including overhead + $100,000 for vehicles/equipment), that’s 1 billion bucks to run the show. OK, I gave that number last post – let’s just talk personnel. 2 guys x 2 shifts x 2,000 posts x 1.25(to allow for vacation, sickness, affirmative-action-hard-to-fire-guys-that-don’t-show-up) we get another nice round number (which I really like, you can see!) of 10,000 guys.

    That Billion $ is spent by the Feral Gov’t every day, including weekends and holidays, on a normal, NON-COVID year. (Take 4 Trillion and divide by 365 – over a Billion.)

    Oh, and it probably costs 2 or 3 times as much to really support the troops 1/2 way around the world vs. Border Agents living in the continental US.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Achmed E. Newman

    They don't even want us there anyway, or at least the young people don't. South Koreans my age couldn't care less about reunification. If anything, they actively don't want it because they know how horrifically expensive it would be. West Germany is still paying for East Germany to keep up, to the resentment of many Wessies, and those two diverged far less than the two Koreas did.

    Still, if we withdraw from Japan and South Korea, they are almost certain to develop nuclear weapons within less than a year. Now, I'm not disagreeing with dismantling the empire at all, as I hope my comment history makes clear-I don't think we have a choice if the US is to preserve any power, long-term. The ROKA is more than capable of handling the Norks (who, racialist ideology aside, are interested in preservation in the face of a China that has a relationship with them much like ours with Pakistan and mainly just doesn't want US troops with a free pass to the Yalu) themselves anyhow, and has been for a long time. But leaving does have consequences we ought to consider. I don't necessarily think a nuclear armed Japan will lead to war, but it has be timed carefully so that China can't interfere, or we ought to leave a skeletal force so that they don't.

    As far as Europe goes, at least the Japanese and South Koreans take defense seriously and this reflects in their budgets. Most Europeans are under the illusion that they can American style militaries without the costs involved. That's why Russia's able to appear scarier than it actually is. Don't let the media fool you, Trump is far from the first President to complain about European freeloading on military matters.

  50. This is one of my favorite posts of yours, A.E. That was a great simple explanation of how stupid this forever war is. The poll you display indeed shows the stupidity of the American people that lets this thing go on. Along with you, I can only hope that high “not sure” answer was from people like myself who basically are saying “this whole thing is so damn stupid that my answer will make it seem like the question really matters.”

    It doesn’t matter if the answer to that question were yes (which I also highly doubt). Get us the f__k out of there! That is, along with 100 other places.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  51. @Twinkie
    I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous - what sane country does that?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @follyofwar, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar, @Barbarossa

    Maybe retake the Panama Canal.

  52. Educated people are the most susceptible group to propaganda(Orwell understood this). They often like to think of themselves as independent minded and judicious, but they are conformist drones. Many of the less educated and also less intelligent simply don’t care about the sorts of things that educated people get worked up about, so they are less susceptible.

    Educated people are also anti-Trump, and since people in the U.S. are increasingly partisan drones, they believe whatever those on their side tell them to. Right now, if you’re a Democrat or a neo-con, you are supposed to get worked up over Russia.

    • Agree: Ian Smith
    • Replies: @Ian Smith
    @EldnahYm

    Liberals believe it because 1. It makes Trump look bad and 2. Russia is now the big foreign bad for Democrats.
    On foreign policy, the ONLY consistent belief for 80-90% of Americans is to back their own party. The same people who were calling W. Bush Hitler for invading Iraq were cheering Obama on in Libya and Syria. When I’d try to tell liberals ca. 2013-14 that Obama was effectively aiding ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria, I’d get these blank stares, then they’d change the subject.

    , @A123
    @EldnahYm


    Educated people are also anti-Trump
     
    People with an actual education are pro-Trump.

    More recent victims of the college based "indoctrination experience" are virulent #NeverTrumpers infected with TDS. This is largely because over-priced colleges no longer educate.

    if you’re a Democrat or a neo-con, you are supposed to get worked up over Russia.
     
    Bill Kristol, the voice of Neocons is an open enemy of Trump. They do not like their eviction from the GOP.

    https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1279861705594376192?s=20

    Voting for Trump = Voting against the NeoConDemocrats.

    How much more motivation do you need?

    PEACE 😇
  53. @EldnahYm
    Educated people are the most susceptible group to propaganda(Orwell understood this). They often like to think of themselves as independent minded and judicious, but they are conformist drones. Many of the less educated and also less intelligent simply don't care about the sorts of things that educated people get worked up about, so they are less susceptible.

    Educated people are also anti-Trump, and since people in the U.S. are increasingly partisan drones, they believe whatever those on their side tell them to. Right now, if you're a Democrat or a neo-con, you are supposed to get worked up over Russia.

    Replies: @Ian Smith, @A123

    Liberals believe it because 1. It makes Trump look bad and 2. Russia is now the big foreign bad for Democrats.
    On foreign policy, the ONLY consistent belief for 80-90% of Americans is to back their own party. The same people who were calling W. Bush Hitler for invading Iraq were cheering Obama on in Libya and Syria. When I’d try to tell liberals ca. 2013-14 that Obama was effectively aiding ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria, I’d get these blank stares, then they’d change the subject.

  54. @EldnahYm
    Educated people are the most susceptible group to propaganda(Orwell understood this). They often like to think of themselves as independent minded and judicious, but they are conformist drones. Many of the less educated and also less intelligent simply don't care about the sorts of things that educated people get worked up about, so they are less susceptible.

    Educated people are also anti-Trump, and since people in the U.S. are increasingly partisan drones, they believe whatever those on their side tell them to. Right now, if you're a Democrat or a neo-con, you are supposed to get worked up over Russia.

    Replies: @Ian Smith, @A123

    Educated people are also anti-Trump

    People with an actual education are pro-Trump.

    More recent victims of the college based “indoctrination experience” are virulent #NeverTrumpers infected with TDS. This is largely because over-priced colleges no longer educate.

    if you’re a Democrat or a neo-con, you are supposed to get worked up over Russia.

    Bill Kristol, the voice of Neocons is an open enemy of Trump. They do not like their eviction from the GOP.

    Voting for Trump = Voting against the NeoConDemocrats.

    How much more motivation do you need?

    PEACE 😇

  55. Thoughts?

    At best, Biden is a De Klerk-analogue, and President-for-Life Harris comes after.

    • LOL: A123
    • Replies: @A123
    @216

    We posted within minutes of each other. I used a later sequence tweet to the one you provided.

    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @botazefa
    @216

    Kristol seems to be making a threat, no?

    Replies: @A123

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @216

    If you don't want the earnest push for a left-wing cultural revolution to really get under way in the next four years, vote for Biden. Know that when the push comes four years down the line, though, your position to resist it will be even weaker than it is today.

  56. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Twinkie

    You've got almost complete agreement from me on this one too, Twinkie. I'd say we've got no business ANYWHERE in Asia too, and by Asia I mean Asia, not just the Orient.

    On your Korean thing, you are so on the money. Peak Stupidity discussed this over 3 years back: Border control maintenance vs. defending some Koreans from other Koreans. (This is when I still had high hopes out of President Trump.)

    Think about it - there have been 25,000 troops over there, for 2/3 of a century! - Not the same guys, of course. This is the back-of-envelope calculation from my post:


    Let's say even with 1 24-hr, 2-manned, post every single mile of the border for 2,000 miles, a very conservative estimate, and my 1/2 million bucks a piece yearly for each (2 shifts x 2 guys @ $100,000 including overhead + $100,000 for vehicles/equipment), that's 1 billion bucks to run the show. OK, I gave that number last post - let's just talk personnel. 2 guys x 2 shifts x 2,000 posts x 1.25(to allow for vacation, sickness, affirmative-action-hard-to-fire-guys-that-don't-show-up) we get another nice round number (which I really like, you can see!) of 10,000 guys.
     
    That Billion $ is spent by the Feral Gov't every day, including weekends and holidays, on a normal, NON-COVID year. (Take 4 Trillion and divide by 365 - over a Billion.)

    Oh, and it probably costs 2 or 3 times as much to really support the troops 1/2 way around the world vs. Border Agents living in the continental US.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    They don’t even want us there anyway, or at least the young people don’t. South Koreans my age couldn’t care less about reunification. If anything, they actively don’t want it because they know how horrifically expensive it would be. West Germany is still paying for East Germany to keep up, to the resentment of many Wessies, and those two diverged far less than the two Koreas did.

    Still, if we withdraw from Japan and South Korea, they are almost certain to develop nuclear weapons within less than a year. Now, I’m not disagreeing with dismantling the empire at all, as I hope my comment history makes clear-I don’t think we have a choice if the US is to preserve any power, long-term. The ROKA is more than capable of handling the Norks (who, racialist ideology aside, are interested in preservation in the face of a China that has a relationship with them much like ours with Pakistan and mainly just doesn’t want US troops with a free pass to the Yalu) themselves anyhow, and has been for a long time. But leaving does have consequences we ought to consider. I don’t necessarily think a nuclear armed Japan will lead to war, but it has be timed carefully so that China can’t interfere, or we ought to leave a skeletal force so that they don’t.

    As far as Europe goes, at least the Japanese and South Koreans take defense seriously and this reflects in their budgets. Most Europeans are under the illusion that they can American style militaries without the costs involved. That’s why Russia’s able to appear scarier than it actually is. Don’t let the media fool you, Trump is far from the first President to complain about European freeloading on military matters.

  57. @El Dato
    @Nodwink

    Actually Afghanistan is the playarea of:

    1) Pakistan
    2) India trying to keep Pakistan out
    2) China now beginning to check how to keep Pakistan and India out.

    The Soviets have been there in the 80s. That's, like, 40 years ago?

    This transparently constructed story which is mainly about getting another angle about the Trump-Putin axis of interference in our democracy evil (as if democracy was a fridge where the good stuff is kept) makes as much sense to say that the Brits are paying BLM to get some action going because they are still hurting from the War of Independence.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I say let Iran and Pakistan fight over the place. That’s what is going to happen if we withdrew tomorrow, and I think the real reason why the top military brass (apart from commercial concerns) wants to stay in Afghanistan is a fear of Iranian influence there. It’s irrational: the more they are engaged in Afghanistan, the less time they have to focus elsewhere, and TBH, they are probably the lesser of two evils compared to the ISI if you look at the history of pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

    The general Iran-phobia of the American political class, with memories of 1979 seared into that generation, is preventing any sort of rational long-term thinking in that region. It’s a nasty regime, but it is hardly an irrational (or monolithic-things like the nuclear program make a lot more sense if you look at Iran’s government as the collection of competing, often corrupt interest groups that it is) one: their foreign policy game has more in common with the Safavids than with Khomeini these days. If we want to disengage, Iran is going to inevitably become the regional power-broker by dint of its population and a degree of national cohesion that nobody else in the region except for Israel has. But nobody has made a convincing case why it is against ours: the Shi’ites are never going to have the demographics to be able to control the whole region, and we have our own energy resources anyway, since we still have aging whining Boomers who pee their pants at the notion of nuclear plants.

    The fundamental interests of Iran and the United States do not conflict. Having a more powerful Iran is against the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, sure, but last time I checked, they weren’t the 51st and 52nd states.

  58. @Johann Ricke
    @nebulafox


    Why would he, anymore than Assad, pull a stunt that is sure to work against his interests at the moment where he’s on the verge of getting what he wants anyway?
     
    What he wanted was to evict large numbers of Sunni Arabs from Syria, so as to improve his demographic situation. The poison gas was hopefully the last straw for the Sunni Arabs who opposed him - the weapon that terrified his enemies to the extent they finally left Syria altogether. He was carrying out the kind of exemplary massacre that Israelis (at Deir Yassin) and the Palestinian Arabs (at numerous other locales) inflicted upon each other in the run-up to Israel's War of Independence against multiple Arab national armies. Deir Yassin was probably Menachem Begin's most significant contribution to the survival of Israel - the ensuing mass exodus of Palestinian Arabs made Israel's demographic balance far more favorable than if the massacre had not occurred.

    There's a perception that Trump's air strikes were predictable. In reality, they were not. The US failed to intervene in Rwanda despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of dead. It equally failed to intervene in the Congo, despite a death toll estimated to be in the millions. Syria is not a traditional US ally, and not even in the US sphere of influence. And unlike Libya, Syria was backed up by both Iranian and Russian troops stationed there.

    There's also the fact that Trump's decision-making process is very idiosyncratic. Reagan authorized Operation Praying Mantis in response to the damage inflicted upon Gulf shipping by Iranian mines, basically passive weapons. Reagan would likely have attacked Iranian assets in response to ballistic missile attacks launched by Iran against Riyadh from Yemen, let alone the later Iranian missile attacks on Saudi oilfields. And yet Trump has been extremely restrained with respect to attacking Iranian military assets.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >What he wanted was to evict large numbers of Sunni Arabs from Syria, so as to improve his demographic situation. The poison gas was hopefully the last straw for the Sunni Arabs who opposed him – the weapon that terrified his enemies to the extent they finally left Syria altogether.

    Assad Jr. is not as strong, intelligent, or ruthless as his father: if he was, a second Hama would have nipped things in the bud in 2012. But I also do not think he is stupid enough to think he’s ever going anything better than his alliance of minorities supporting him, or to misread the propaganda value that his enemies would get out of the “launching gas attacks on kids” story.

    I’m not defending the guy’s moral character, but if he were such an idiot to think that the demographic situation could ever change enough to change realities for his regime, he wouldn’t have survived in the first place. Tons of Sunnis fled to Lebanon, not Europe: they’ll be back once things stabilize.

    >The US failed to intervene in Rwanda despite the massacre of hundreds of thousands of dead. It equally failed to intervene in the Congo, despite a death toll estimated to be in the millions.

    At risk of sounding callous, nobody truly cares about millions of deaths in Africa. The ME is very different, especially within the Beltway-unless you have a “trusted ally” causing famines, of course.

    The leadership of both parties were chomping at the bit for intervention as early as 2013, until the public reaction became so negative that they were forced to shelve the idea. This was aided by the reality that Hillary Clinton was very pro-intervention as SecState, one of the reasons her relationship with Obama, never warm in the first place, cooled decidedly as the Arab revolutions went on. Our leadership didn’t want just airstrikes: they wanted regime change, and they wanted it from the get-go despite plenty of people in the military warning about what it would take and what it would cost to remove Assad from power. Even in 2018: remember all the media commentary about Trump’s refusal to stop disengaging from Syria, even as he launched airstrikes?

  59. @216
    Thoughts?

    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1279764288509444098

    At best, Biden is a De Klerk-analogue, and President-for-Life Harris comes after.

    Replies: @A123, @botazefa, @Audacious Epigone

    We posted within minutes of each other. I used a later sequence tweet to the one you provided.

    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @A123


    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.
     
    In his own bizarre way Bill Kristol is of course right. If Trump is re-elected the Cultural Revolution will move into top gear. It will get much much more extreme than anything we've seen so far. And we will witness a crushing of dissent, carried out by Woke Capital, that will be breathtaking in its scope and depth.

    Four more years of Trump might well be very unpleasant. It might well be particularly unpleasant for alt-righters who will find themselves ruthlessly purged.

    The fact is that Trump's only achievements have been to energise the SJWs/Wokeists and to trigger a massive escalation of the Cultural Revolution.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MarkinLA

  60. This whole thing is stupid with a capital S. What do they have, some Afghanis SAYING they were paid by Russians. Hey why not bring back Ahmed Chalabi?

    If it was true, there is no doubt to me that NOBODY in the CIA would be able to provide any actual proof. Did the CIA find the canceled check drawn off the FSB account? How does the CIA pay it’s foreign terrorists? There would never be never any direct path and multiple disconnects on the way to the guy doing the killing.

    This is all about pretending Trump in negligent and doesn’t care about the lives of American soldiers.

    • Agree: botazefa
  61. how long until the average european guy, 21 year old enlistee starts to figure out that they aren’t defending jack shit by signing up for the military? it has to happen at some point.

    until then, 62 grain green tips.

  62. The Forever War

    America doesn’t know what real war is. That includes US military. America heard something-something about expeditionary warfare. Real war? Features which define real real are not known in the US.

  63. @A123
    @216

    We posted within minutes of each other. I used a later sequence tweet to the one you provided.

    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.

    In his own bizarre way Bill Kristol is of course right. If Trump is re-elected the Cultural Revolution will move into top gear. It will get much much more extreme than anything we’ve seen so far. And we will witness a crushing of dissent, carried out by Woke Capital, that will be breathtaking in its scope and depth.

    Four more years of Trump might well be very unpleasant. It might well be particularly unpleasant for alt-righters who will find themselves ruthlessly purged.

    The fact is that Trump’s only achievements have been to energise the SJWs/Wokeists and to trigger a massive escalation of the Cultural Revolution.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom

    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov't beast? You gotta be kidding me. It ain't gonna be Dementia Joe running the show.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @MarkinLA
    @dfordoom

    Every pimple or boil eventually comes to a head and needs to be popped - the sooner the better.

  64. @dfordoom
    @A123


    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.
     
    In his own bizarre way Bill Kristol is of course right. If Trump is re-elected the Cultural Revolution will move into top gear. It will get much much more extreme than anything we've seen so far. And we will witness a crushing of dissent, carried out by Woke Capital, that will be breathtaking in its scope and depth.

    Four more years of Trump might well be very unpleasant. It might well be particularly unpleasant for alt-righters who will find themselves ruthlessly purged.

    The fact is that Trump's only achievements have been to energise the SJWs/Wokeists and to trigger a massive escalation of the Cultural Revolution.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MarkinLA

    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov’t beast? You gotta be kidding me. It ain’t gonna be Dementia Joe running the show.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov’t beast? You gotta be kidding me.
     
    It's not a matter of what I want or don't want.

    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November. If Trump loses then antifa and BLM no longer have any reason to exist. Those Cultural Revolutionaries will be back to dealing with real life, instead of being able to imagine themselves as brave noble revolutionaries fighting in the front lines against fascism. A Trump defeat would be a catastrophe for antifa and BLM.

    But a Trump victory would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump wins they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    And a Trump victory will make it much easier for Woke Capital to continue with its program of shutting down every single dissenting voice on the internet.

    So if Trump wins the next four years will be non-stop Cultural Revolution way beyond anything we've seen yet.

    It's not the Feral Govt you need to be worrying about. It's Woke Capital. It's Woke Capital that funds, supports, maintains and to a large extent actually creates the Cultural Revolution. You don't need to worry about the government Thought Police. The real Thought Police are on corporate payrolls.

    Antifa and BLM will be praying for a Trump win in November.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MarkinLA

  65. @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom

    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov't beast? You gotta be kidding me. It ain't gonna be Dementia Joe running the show.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov’t beast? You gotta be kidding me.

    It’s not a matter of what I want or don’t want.

    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November. If Trump loses then antifa and BLM no longer have any reason to exist. Those Cultural Revolutionaries will be back to dealing with real life, instead of being able to imagine themselves as brave noble revolutionaries fighting in the front lines against fascism. A Trump defeat would be a catastrophe for antifa and BLM.

    But a Trump victory would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump wins they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    And a Trump victory will make it much easier for Woke Capital to continue with its program of shutting down every single dissenting voice on the internet.

    So if Trump wins the next four years will be non-stop Cultural Revolution way beyond anything we’ve seen yet.

    It’s not the Feral Govt you need to be worrying about. It’s Woke Capital. It’s Woke Capital that funds, supports, maintains and to a large extent actually creates the Cultural Revolution. You don’t need to worry about the government Thought Police. The real Thought Police are on corporate payrolls.

    Antifa and BLM will be praying for a Trump win in November.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November.
     
    The hell they do. First of all, even if the rest of your comment makes sense (it does to some degree), they aren't smart enough to think like this.

    Woke capital is just made of pussies who don't want to buck the narrative, broadcast from the Media Branch of the US Feral Gov't. The Feds have the force of law.

    A Trump victory, as much as I think the guy has been mostly a failure, will show that the patriotic American public does not approve of the Cultural Revolution that is indeed going on. It's just that in China, as just one example, it didn't matter what a big majority of the people thought. They weren't armed. It's gonna go a bit differently this time. You are too pessimistic on this, DforDoom.

    BTW, I had thought you were an American this whole time. It seems from my reading here you are Australian, is that right?

    Replies: @216

    , @MarkinLA
    @dfordoom

    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  66. @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov’t beast? You gotta be kidding me.
     
    It's not a matter of what I want or don't want.

    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November. If Trump loses then antifa and BLM no longer have any reason to exist. Those Cultural Revolutionaries will be back to dealing with real life, instead of being able to imagine themselves as brave noble revolutionaries fighting in the front lines against fascism. A Trump defeat would be a catastrophe for antifa and BLM.

    But a Trump victory would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump wins they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    And a Trump victory will make it much easier for Woke Capital to continue with its program of shutting down every single dissenting voice on the internet.

    So if Trump wins the next four years will be non-stop Cultural Revolution way beyond anything we've seen yet.

    It's not the Feral Govt you need to be worrying about. It's Woke Capital. It's Woke Capital that funds, supports, maintains and to a large extent actually creates the Cultural Revolution. You don't need to worry about the government Thought Police. The real Thought Police are on corporate payrolls.

    Antifa and BLM will be praying for a Trump win in November.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MarkinLA

    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November.

    The hell they do. First of all, even if the rest of your comment makes sense (it does to some degree), they aren’t smart enough to think like this.

    Woke capital is just made of pussies who don’t want to buck the narrative, broadcast from the Media Branch of the US Feral Gov’t. The Feds have the force of law.

    A Trump victory, as much as I think the guy has been mostly a failure, will show that the patriotic American public does not approve of the Cultural Revolution that is indeed going on. It’s just that in China, as just one example, it didn’t matter what a big majority of the people thought. They weren’t armed. It’s gonna go a bit differently this time. You are too pessimistic on this, DforDoom.

    BTW, I had thought you were an American this whole time. It seems from my reading here you are Australian, is that right?

    • Replies: @216
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The only thing that WokeCapital can't do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees. And even then they can now impose sippenhaft.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity "de facto illegal", where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it "de jure illegal".

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

  67. 216 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @dfordoom


    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November.
     
    The hell they do. First of all, even if the rest of your comment makes sense (it does to some degree), they aren't smart enough to think like this.

    Woke capital is just made of pussies who don't want to buck the narrative, broadcast from the Media Branch of the US Feral Gov't. The Feds have the force of law.

    A Trump victory, as much as I think the guy has been mostly a failure, will show that the patriotic American public does not approve of the Cultural Revolution that is indeed going on. It's just that in China, as just one example, it didn't matter what a big majority of the people thought. They weren't armed. It's gonna go a bit differently this time. You are too pessimistic on this, DforDoom.

    BTW, I had thought you were an American this whole time. It seems from my reading here you are Australian, is that right?

    Replies: @216

    The only thing that WokeCapital can’t do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees. And even then they can now impose sippenhaft.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it “de jure illegal”.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @216


    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.
     
    This. The First Amendment is not equipped to deal with the age of mass media and information technology. The framers didn't foresee ubiquitous media conglomerates and a totally brainwashed (or at least intimidated into silence) populace.

    Isn't the Constitution supposed to be a "living document," flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances? I guess that's so only to the extent that change is desired by TPTB.

    Replies: @216

    , @dfordoom
    @216


    The only thing that WokeCapital can’t do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees.
     
    And being able to destroy someone's livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.
     
    Agreed.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it “de jure illegal”.
     
    I don't think they will. Firstly, because it's unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court). Thirdly, making something illegal gives accused persons actual rights. It gives them the right to defend themselves, the right to a trial, etc. The advantage of the present system is that the accused person has no legal rights whatsoever. And the Woke Capital Thought Police are completely unaccountable. Accusers can remain totally anonymous.

    The current system is perhaps the most effective system of political repression ever devised. It's a system of "soft" totalitarianism which is in practice more draconian, more effective and more difficult to oppose than "hard" totalitarianism.

    And fourthly, the current system gives Woke Capital immense powers which they have no intention of giving up to the government.

    Remember that the people behind this are not communists. They do not want unlimited state power. What they want is unlimited corporate power.

    Replies: @216

  68. anon[306] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    Well duh. Gotta keep the supply of opium flowing. Where do you think all that off-the-books funding for the deep state is coming from?

    Replies: @anon

    Well duh. Gotta keep the supply of opium flowing.

    Yeah, it’s an amazing thing that opium poppies only grow in one country on the entire planet. For example, there are no opium poppies in Mexico or further south. None in China or Burma. And there’s no substitute for heroin, oxy and fentanyl aren’t. Plus there’s no way to synth opiates at all, nope.

    None! None!

    Where do you think all that off-the-books funding for the deep state is coming from?

    The Fed via suitable laundering.

    It’s not 1980 anymore.

    See Howard Dean’s tweet for details on what’s really keeping us in that ‘Stan.

    Globalhomo’s feminist subsidiary.

  69. @Talha
    As if you need to give Afghans any further incentive to kill you other than to show up in their territory without permission. Bringing along a rifle will make them doubly sure in wanting to make you a permanent part of their landscape. Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.

    They’ve been doing this for a verrrry long time.

    US presence in Afghanistan is aimed at containment of China and her trade route initiative; supply routes to forward operating theaters need to be kept in a ready state for future “operations”.

    Peace.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @Rosie

    Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.

    We are certainly entitled to our opinion on that matter, and we are within our rights to consider this issue in deciding what sorts of relationship to have with Afghanistan, but I don’t think young White men ought to have to risk death and dismemberment over it.

    As for the Afghans, I’m not impressed. Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand. If you can’t stand females of any sort and keep them under house arrest 24/7, what’s the next “best thing”? Little dancing boys, I’m afraid.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Rosie


    We are certainly entitled to our opinion on that matter
     
    Of course.

    young White men ought to have to risk death and dismemberment over it.
     
    Well that is the discussion Afghans are willing to have. If you come to them, telling them how to run things, they will kill and or dismember you. Now, there is a way to get them to reform things, and that will require a discussion and it will not come from the US, but from other parts of the Muslim world.

    Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand.
     
    Not necessarily. Other parts of the Muslim world rank up there on the misogyny scale without a concomitant rise in boy buggery.

    If you can’t stand females of any sort
     
    This is not the case. If you have had exposure to Afghan culture - as I have, and one of my best friends having married into it - you notice two things; 1) their treatment of wives can use many upgrades (for instance, domestic violence in endemic) and 2) I cannot think of another culture that treats its mothers with the reverence (almost worshipful regard) that they do.

    Human cultures are interesting how they can sometimes exhibit such seemingly contradictory positions at the same time; you see this in Western countries, but with regard to other subjects.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand.
     
    To a certain extent you're correct, although it has more to do with the nature of male homosexuality than with Islam.

    Feminists (and women in general) have a real blind spot when it comes to this. They just don't comprehend how much male homosexuals despise women.

    And although some old school feminists are starting to figure it out most women and most young feminists don't understand how fundamentally anti-woman the LGBTqwerty agenda is.

    Replies: @A123

  70. @216
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The only thing that WokeCapital can't do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees. And even then they can now impose sippenhaft.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity "de facto illegal", where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it "de jure illegal".

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.

    This. The First Amendment is not equipped to deal with the age of mass media and information technology. The framers didn’t foresee ubiquitous media conglomerates and a totally brainwashed (or at least intimidated into silence) populace.

    Isn’t the Constitution supposed to be a “living document,” flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances? I guess that’s so only to the extent that change is desired by TPTB.

    • Replies: @216
    @Rosie


    totally brainwashed (or at least intimidated into silence) populace.
     
    This is a cope, and our people need to stop saying this. People have agency. They aren't under a lot of social pressure to drink starbucks, wear nike, or watch the nfl. But millions of Trump voters are still doing those three things.

    ---

    The Right hasn't preferred judicial activism since the days of Justice Field, where the Constitution was bent to serve business interests. The Right has usually relied on controlling the Presidency, and having the Supreme Court defer to the executive.
  71. @Daniel H
    @Twinkie

    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Wrong answer.

    1) China doesn't threaten Australia or any other foreign nation. Other than contesting some ocean atolls because of possible hydrocarbon reserves China pretty much keeps to herself. Her concern is China and the wellbeing of China.

    2) Even if it were the case that China could become belligerent, the Australians are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

    America is not an effective military power. After WW2, when our military was a colossus, we could only contest a primitive third world country (North Korea) to a draw. We lost in Vietnam. We will lose in Afghanistan. We will lose in Iraq. We were chased out of Lebanon. Who can we beat? Grenada, Panama. American military prowess is a myth, a dangerous myth, for ourselves and the world. Let's mind our business and take care of our own.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke

    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.

    But if I were the emperor of America, I’d do what I advocated above and good luck to all these countries with their new regional hegemon.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.
     
    The U.S. has been subverting Australia's autonomy for three-quarters of a century.

    Australia will always be a whore. But if you're a whore and your pimp treats you like a piece of dirt then the smart thing is to look for another pimp. Especially if your current pimp is a violent psychopath.

    If it's a choice between being America's bitch or China's bitch I'd prefer to be China's bitch.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @botazefa, @Johann Ricke

  72. 216 says:
    @Rosie
    @216


    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.
     
    This. The First Amendment is not equipped to deal with the age of mass media and information technology. The framers didn't foresee ubiquitous media conglomerates and a totally brainwashed (or at least intimidated into silence) populace.

    Isn't the Constitution supposed to be a "living document," flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances? I guess that's so only to the extent that change is desired by TPTB.

    Replies: @216

    totally brainwashed (or at least intimidated into silence) populace.

    This is a cope, and our people need to stop saying this. People have agency. They aren’t under a lot of social pressure to drink starbucks, wear nike, or watch the nfl. But millions of Trump voters are still doing those three things.

    The Right hasn’t preferred judicial activism since the days of Justice Field, where the Constitution was bent to serve business interests. The Right has usually relied on controlling the Presidency, and having the Supreme Court defer to the executive.

  73. @TomSchmidt
    @216

    I missed the high postgrad percentage. You'd hope that those people could see beyond all the previous lies. Nope.

    Did they believe Powell at the UN?

    Replies: @El Dato, @Kratoklastes

    It’s an artefact of the composition of US graduate enrolment, because the outright majority of Masters degrees conferred in the US are in bullshit disciplines (education, ‘business’, allied-health professions) – so the median student is cognitive dross. That’s well before we ever get to the full-on woo-woo subject areas.

    To give some flesh to this: in total across the primary STEM disciplines –
    biological and biomedical sciences (17,200);
    mathematics and statistics (10,400)
    engineering (51,700); and
    computer and information sciences (46,500)

        … there were fewer Masters degrees conferred in 2018 than there were in Education (146,500) – the last academic refuge of the incompetent.

    Average sex ratio in Education and ‘Allied-Health’: 80% female (i.e., the ‘health and related’ are nurses, not doctors).

    STEM Masters conferrals are about 15% of all Masters degrees in the US. (The US has led the way in fucking up academia globally, but remains pack leaders for credentialised-halfwit ‘grad’ programs).

    Let’s also stipulate that there are a shitload of ‘business’ Masters programs that are repackaged undergraduate intro courses – i.e., 95% of MBA programs. And the educational category ‘business’ includes “business, management, marketing, and related support services, as well as personal and culinary services”.

    Nail in the coffin: half of all STEM Masters were to non-resident aliens.

    Little wonder that the survey sounds like it was taken in a day-care centre for relatively-dim mongoloids.

    • Replies: @128
    @Kratoklastes

    Isn't this a cope? Hasn't there been an article here that right wing and libertarian high IQ and midwit IQ people underperform in terms of verbal IQ relative to left wingers? Hence why right wingers and libertarians would tend to downplay the importance of verbal IQ? Basically verbal IQ is not a relative strenght of right wingers, so they tend to downplay its importance. There has been a study here that right wing athiests and agnostics have lower wordsum scores compared to their left wing versions.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    , @TomSchmidt
    @Kratoklastes

    "Nail in the coffin: half of all STEM Masters were to non-resident aliens."

    That's gonna drop. Trump just clamped down on H1B, but left OPT unchanged, which is the program that allows a STEM masters candidate the right to work in the USA for two years. Still,OPTleads eventually to the holder pursuing an H1B, and if that pipeline is closed, then there will be a lot fewer overseas students borrowing the 50K for a grad CS degree in the hope that an OPT position paying 60-100K will allow them to a) profit, and b) get the right to move here.

  74. @Kratoklastes
    @TomSchmidt

    It's an artefact of the composition of US graduate enrolment, because the outright majority of Masters degrees conferred in the US are in bullshit disciplines (education, 'business', allied-health professions) - so the median student is cognitive dross. That's well before we ever get to the full-on woo-woo subject areas.

    To give some flesh to this: in total across the primary STEM disciplines -
    biological and biomedical sciences (17,200);
    mathematics and statistics (10,400)
    engineering (51,700); and
    computer and information sciences (46,500)

        ... there were fewer Masters degrees conferred in 2018 than there were in Education (146,500) - the last academic refuge of the incompetent.

    Average sex ratio in Education and 'Allied-Health': 80% female (i.e., the 'health and related' are nurses, not doctors).

    STEM Masters conferrals are about 15% of all Masters degrees in the US. (The US has led the way in fucking up academia globally, but remains pack leaders for credentialised-halfwit 'grad' programs).

    Let's also stipulate that there are a shitload of 'business' Masters programs that are repackaged undergraduate intro courses - i.e., 95% of MBA programs. And the educational category 'business' includes "business, management, marketing, and related support services, as well as personal and culinary services".

    Nail in the coffin: half of all STEM Masters were to non-resident aliens.

    Little wonder that the survey sounds like it was taken in a day-care centre for relatively-dim mongoloids.

    Replies: @128, @TomSchmidt

    Isn’t this a cope? Hasn’t there been an article here that right wing and libertarian high IQ and midwit IQ people underperform in terms of verbal IQ relative to left wingers? Hence why right wingers and libertarians would tend to downplay the importance of verbal IQ? Basically verbal IQ is not a relative strenght of right wingers, so they tend to downplay its importance. There has been a study here that right wing athiests and agnostics have lower wordsum scores compared to their left wing versions.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @128

    Even if true, how does that relate to the real world? More useless law degrees versus more engineers?

  75. Anon[250] • Disclaimer says:

    Funny how none of these bullshit polls represent actual soldiers. Maybe some boot with a pogue MOS might believe such foolishness, but not an actual combat soldier. The other side does pay, but not 1000 a head. If our supposed side actually put people to work and stopped supporting corrupt assholes that shake down their own people we might be able to leave with honor. Or at least be able to float the cover story. So they ask the same libtard arts scum that burn the flag… and that still want someone (not them) to stay in Afghan for why?

    The Judenpresse has nothing but contempt for Americans

  76. @216
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The only thing that WokeCapital can't do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees. And even then they can now impose sippenhaft.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity "de facto illegal", where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it "de jure illegal".

    Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom

    The only thing that WokeCapital can’t do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees.

    And being able to destroy someone’s livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.

    Agreed.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it “de jure illegal”.

    I don’t think they will. Firstly, because it’s unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court). Thirdly, making something illegal gives accused persons actual rights. It gives them the right to defend themselves, the right to a trial, etc. The advantage of the present system is that the accused person has no legal rights whatsoever. And the Woke Capital Thought Police are completely unaccountable. Accusers can remain totally anonymous.

    The current system is perhaps the most effective system of political repression ever devised. It’s a system of “soft” totalitarianism which is in practice more draconian, more effective and more difficult to oppose than “hard” totalitarianism.

    And fourthly, the current system gives Woke Capital immense powers which they have no intention of giving up to the government.

    Remember that the people behind this are not communists. They do not want unlimited state power. What they want is unlimited corporate power.

    • Replies: @216
    @dfordoom


    And being able to destroy someone’s livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.
     
    Moreover, it exposes us as feckless. "Rugged Aryan Individualists" proved unable to "build their own" sites. We've been relegated to a weak executive order, delayed DOJ antitrust action, and dim hopes of legislation even if we retake the House.

    I don’t think they will. Firstly, because it’s unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court).
     
    Most countries other than the US have provisions for hate speech convictions, and the left can either blackmail Roberts, or pack the SCOTUS, to get it here.

    At some point, if people like Nick Fuentes are operating from platforms they own and control, and have a secure mechanism for receiving funds; a future leftist Attorney General may decide to throw him in prison as the only way of shutting him up.

    Conceivablty, they could legalize ISPs blocking "hate sites", not sure if any European countries are blocking GAB, but I imagine that will happen soon, and that either Germany or France will demand Torba be extradited.

    Replies: @botazefa, @Audacious Epigone

  77. @Twinkie
    @Daniel H

    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.

    But if I were the emperor of America, I’d do what I advocated above and good luck to all these countries with their new regional hegemon.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.

    The U.S. has been subverting Australia’s autonomy for three-quarters of a century.

    Australia will always be a whore. But if you’re a whore and your pimp treats you like a piece of dirt then the smart thing is to look for another pimp. Especially if your current pimp is a violent psychopath.

    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.
     
    As I wrote earlier, good luck with that.
    , @botazefa
    @dfordoom


    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.
     
    You may be assuming that woke capital doesn't have its sights and tentacles set on China.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @Johann Ricke
    @dfordoom


    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.
     
    Being China's bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state. What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests. Objecting to that means becoming the next objective on the target list. Agreeing to it means becoming the objective following the next one, once your armies are depleted. In the long run, becoming China's vassal means becoming a Chinese province. Good luck with your dream welfare state. Chinese capitalism makes American capitalism look like a bleeding heart liberal's wet dream.

    The Chinese Communist Party calls it socialism with Chinese characteristics. But what is China's economic system, really? It's 19th century American capitalism - capitalism without safety nets coupled with the random threat of expropriation by the government.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  78. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.
     
    The U.S. has been subverting Australia's autonomy for three-quarters of a century.

    Australia will always be a whore. But if you're a whore and your pimp treats you like a piece of dirt then the smart thing is to look for another pimp. Especially if your current pimp is a violent psychopath.

    If it's a choice between being America's bitch or China's bitch I'd prefer to be China's bitch.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @botazefa, @Johann Ricke

    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.

    As I wrote earlier, good luck with that.

  79. @Daniel H
    @Twinkie

    Be happy to. Good luck with the Chinese.

    Wrong answer.

    1) China doesn't threaten Australia or any other foreign nation. Other than contesting some ocean atolls because of possible hydrocarbon reserves China pretty much keeps to herself. Her concern is China and the wellbeing of China.

    2) Even if it were the case that China could become belligerent, the Australians are perfectly capable of defending themselves.

    America is not an effective military power. After WW2, when our military was a colossus, we could only contest a primitive third world country (North Korea) to a draw. We lost in Vietnam. We will lose in Afghanistan. We will lose in Iraq. We were chased out of Lebanon. Who can we beat? Grenada, Panama. American military prowess is a myth, a dangerous myth, for ourselves and the world. Let's mind our business and take care of our own.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Johann Ricke

    China doesn’t threaten Australia or any other foreign nation.

    China covets “all under heaven”*.

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

    In the Chinese worldview, peace can only be achieved when the world is ruled by a single sovereign. China has been “peaceful” in the past century for the same reason Sweden was peaceful after its disastrous defeat at Poltava. After centuries of relative decline, it was surrounded by peer or stronger powers. That constraint on Chinese territorial expansion is now near an end, as Chinese economic and military power reverts to its historically outsized advantage relative to its neighbors.

    https://www.timemaps.com/history/china-2500bc/

    * Note that this isn’t unique to China. Until the numbered big wars of the 20th century, the West was in constant competition for territory. For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Johann Ricke


    For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.
     
    Wars for direct territorial gain are pretty pointless nowadays. Territorial imperialism is no longer necessary. Economic and cultural imperialism are the modern equivalents.

    The U.S. has established itself as a globe-spanning empire without having to make any actual territorial acquisitions. It is an empire based on control of other countries' economies and cultures, and on indirect political control of its vassals.

    Also the West is now more interested in global corporate empire-building than old-fashioned territorial empires.

    Territorial gain is something that made sense at a time when wealth and power was based on ownership of land.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    , @d dan
    @Johann Ricke


    "In the Chinese worldview, peace can only be achieved when the world is ruled by a single sovereign. "
     
    A dumb comment by a commenter who is ignorant of Chinese history, quoting twisted info from wikipedia about ancient Chinese philosophical concepts.

    A easily demonstrable counter example to the above statement would be the well-known Zheng He's naval armada from Ming Dynasty. There was simply no country in South East Asia, India ocean, Africa, or probably in the whole world that could stop China's navy, let alone its army. And yet miraculously, all the nations in those regions retained their sovereigns - not a single colony was established by China.

    I could go on to give 10 more examples from ancient, not-so-ancient or modern Chinese history to show how Chinese treated much weaker nations and conquered peoples - but that would be a waste of my time because I doubt you are seriously interested in *real* Chinese history, other than those superficial and maligned statements on China.

  80. @Johann Ricke
    @Daniel H


    China doesn’t threaten Australia or any other foreign nation.
     
    China covets "all under heaven"*.

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

    In the Chinese worldview, peace can only be achieved when the world is ruled by a single sovereign. China has been "peaceful" in the past century for the same reason Sweden was peaceful after its disastrous defeat at Poltava. After centuries of relative decline, it was surrounded by peer or stronger powers. That constraint on Chinese territorial expansion is now near an end, as Chinese economic and military power reverts to its historically outsized advantage relative to its neighbors.

    https://www.timemaps.com/history/china-2500bc/

    * Note that this isn't unique to China. Until the numbered big wars of the 20th century, the West was in constant competition for territory. For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @d dan

    For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.

    Wars for direct territorial gain are pretty pointless nowadays. Territorial imperialism is no longer necessary. Economic and cultural imperialism are the modern equivalents.

    The U.S. has established itself as a globe-spanning empire without having to make any actual territorial acquisitions. It is an empire based on control of other countries’ economies and cultures, and on indirect political control of its vassals.

    Also the West is now more interested in global corporate empire-building than old-fashioned territorial empires.

    Territorial gain is something that made sense at a time when wealth and power was based on ownership of land.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @dfordoom


    Wars for direct territorial gain are pretty pointless nowadays. Territorial imperialism is no longer necessary. Economic and cultural imperialism are the modern equivalents.
     
    Territorial conquest was almost never about material gain per se. From the dawn of time, it was about personal prestige. The fact that it was almost always accompanied by material gain meant it was possible for the ruler seeking fame to reward those who risked their lives. Rulers routinely risked their thrones to gain that fame, knowing full well that the cost almost always outweighed the gain, as well as the fact that this cost frequently included their deaths as well as the extermination of their kin, as occurred with Alexander.

    In that respect, rulers are no different from people in other lines of work. Above all, they crave recognition. And it's hard to improve upon the recognition that conquerors receive even thousands of years later. Even losers like Marcus Crassus and Publius Varus get more recognition than just about any wealthy person or peacetime leader of their era. They were bested by superior opponents, but they gave their all for Rome.
  81. The idea that someone from outside has to bribe Afghans to shoot Americans is so risible that I’m not surprised that 92% of postgrads appear to believe it. Some ideas are so stupid that only the highly-educated can accept them.
    In South Africa, the Nationalist government used to blame Black discontent on ‘communist agitators’. i remember meeting someone whose son had been shot dead at Sharpeville. She told me that the only reason she was mourning him was because a communist agitator had told her she should. True Black humor!

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  82. @dfordoom
    @Johann Ricke


    For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.
     
    Wars for direct territorial gain are pretty pointless nowadays. Territorial imperialism is no longer necessary. Economic and cultural imperialism are the modern equivalents.

    The U.S. has established itself as a globe-spanning empire without having to make any actual territorial acquisitions. It is an empire based on control of other countries' economies and cultures, and on indirect political control of its vassals.

    Also the West is now more interested in global corporate empire-building than old-fashioned territorial empires.

    Territorial gain is something that made sense at a time when wealth and power was based on ownership of land.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Wars for direct territorial gain are pretty pointless nowadays. Territorial imperialism is no longer necessary. Economic and cultural imperialism are the modern equivalents.

    Territorial conquest was almost never about material gain per se. From the dawn of time, it was about personal prestige. The fact that it was almost always accompanied by material gain meant it was possible for the ruler seeking fame to reward those who risked their lives. Rulers routinely risked their thrones to gain that fame, knowing full well that the cost almost always outweighed the gain, as well as the fact that this cost frequently included their deaths as well as the extermination of their kin, as occurred with Alexander.

    In that respect, rulers are no different from people in other lines of work. Above all, they crave recognition. And it’s hard to improve upon the recognition that conquerors receive even thousands of years later. Even losers like Marcus Crassus and Publius Varus get more recognition than just about any wealthy person or peacetime leader of their era. They were bested by superior opponents, but they gave their all for Rome.

  83. @Kratoklastes
    @TomSchmidt

    It's an artefact of the composition of US graduate enrolment, because the outright majority of Masters degrees conferred in the US are in bullshit disciplines (education, 'business', allied-health professions) - so the median student is cognitive dross. That's well before we ever get to the full-on woo-woo subject areas.

    To give some flesh to this: in total across the primary STEM disciplines -
    biological and biomedical sciences (17,200);
    mathematics and statistics (10,400)
    engineering (51,700); and
    computer and information sciences (46,500)

        ... there were fewer Masters degrees conferred in 2018 than there were in Education (146,500) - the last academic refuge of the incompetent.

    Average sex ratio in Education and 'Allied-Health': 80% female (i.e., the 'health and related' are nurses, not doctors).

    STEM Masters conferrals are about 15% of all Masters degrees in the US. (The US has led the way in fucking up academia globally, but remains pack leaders for credentialised-halfwit 'grad' programs).

    Let's also stipulate that there are a shitload of 'business' Masters programs that are repackaged undergraduate intro courses - i.e., 95% of MBA programs. And the educational category 'business' includes "business, management, marketing, and related support services, as well as personal and culinary services".

    Nail in the coffin: half of all STEM Masters were to non-resident aliens.

    Little wonder that the survey sounds like it was taken in a day-care centre for relatively-dim mongoloids.

    Replies: @128, @TomSchmidt

    “Nail in the coffin: half of all STEM Masters were to non-resident aliens.”

    That’s gonna drop. Trump just clamped down on H1B, but left OPT unchanged, which is the program that allows a STEM masters candidate the right to work in the USA for two years. Still,OPTleads eventually to the holder pursuing an H1B, and if that pipeline is closed, then there will be a lot fewer overseas students borrowing the 50K for a grad CS degree in the hope that an OPT position paying 60-100K will allow them to a) profit, and b) get the right to move here.

  84. A123 says:
    @psbindy
    @A123

    It seems to me that Russians or any primary opponent in a proxy war would quite naturally reward their proxies with incentives. What's the big deal? We did it. We do it.

    Ray P (comment #35) solves the problem of proof without the necessity of delivering an entire corpse.

    To answer my own somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, the "big deal" is to put Trump in a political bind.

    Replies: @A123

    It seems to me that Russians or any primary opponent in a proxy war would quite naturally reward their proxies with incentives. What’s the big deal? We did it. We do it.

    Again. Obama’s Surge could have drawn a Russian response. However, this “bounty” story is 100% implausible.

    Ray P (comment #35) solves the problem of proof without the necessity of delivering an entire corpse.

    Human ears are pretty easy to come by. How would a Russian handler quickly and easily determine if an ear is Anerican?

    Given the unscrupulous nature of war lords in the area, cheating would be rampant.

    To answer my own somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, the “big deal” is to put Trump in a political bind.

    By “bind”, you mean the SJW Globalists shredding what little remains of their own credibility.

    With “binds” like this, Trump’s re-election is assured.

    PEACE 😇

  85. @216
    Thoughts?

    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1279764288509444098

    At best, Biden is a De Klerk-analogue, and President-for-Life Harris comes after.

    Replies: @A123, @botazefa, @Audacious Epigone

    Kristol seems to be making a threat, no?

    • Replies: @A123
    @botazefa

    Not much of a threat. It is hand waving and misdirection.

    His actual motivation is obvious. NeoCon Kristol wants NeoConDemocrat Biden to win so he can have more NeoCon foreign interventions. Fortunately there is no chance of Biden winning.

    PEACE 😇

  86. @dfordoom
    @A123


    The truth is there for all to see. Bill Kristol, voice of the NeoCons, is embracing Biden.
     
    In his own bizarre way Bill Kristol is of course right. If Trump is re-elected the Cultural Revolution will move into top gear. It will get much much more extreme than anything we've seen so far. And we will witness a crushing of dissent, carried out by Woke Capital, that will be breathtaking in its scope and depth.

    Four more years of Trump might well be very unpleasant. It might well be particularly unpleasant for alt-righters who will find themselves ruthlessly purged.

    The fact is that Trump's only achievements have been to energise the SJWs/Wokeists and to trigger a massive escalation of the Cultural Revolution.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MarkinLA

    Every pimple or boil eventually comes to a head and needs to be popped – the sooner the better.

  87. @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Whoa, what, so you want to invite them to run things, with the long arm of the Feral Gov’t beast? You gotta be kidding me.
     
    It's not a matter of what I want or don't want.

    What the Cultural Revolutionaries want, what the antifa crowd and the BLM people want, is a Trump victory in November. If Trump loses then antifa and BLM no longer have any reason to exist. Those Cultural Revolutionaries will be back to dealing with real life, instead of being able to imagine themselves as brave noble revolutionaries fighting in the front lines against fascism. A Trump defeat would be a catastrophe for antifa and BLM.

    But a Trump victory would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump wins they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    And a Trump victory will make it much easier for Woke Capital to continue with its program of shutting down every single dissenting voice on the internet.

    So if Trump wins the next four years will be non-stop Cultural Revolution way beyond anything we've seen yet.

    It's not the Feral Govt you need to be worrying about. It's Woke Capital. It's Woke Capital that funds, supports, maintains and to a large extent actually creates the Cultural Revolution. You don't need to worry about the government Thought Police. The real Thought Police are on corporate payrolls.

    Antifa and BLM will be praying for a Trump win in November.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MarkinLA

    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @MarkinLA


    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.
     
    Except that you're completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they're going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?

    You're failing to understand the psychology of these people. It's the struggle itself that gives their lives meaning. They want the struggle to be ongoing. How can you continue to be a revolutionary once the Evil Fascist on whom all your hatred is focussed is gone?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA

  88. @128
    @Kratoklastes

    Isn't this a cope? Hasn't there been an article here that right wing and libertarian high IQ and midwit IQ people underperform in terms of verbal IQ relative to left wingers? Hence why right wingers and libertarians would tend to downplay the importance of verbal IQ? Basically verbal IQ is not a relative strenght of right wingers, so they tend to downplay its importance. There has been a study here that right wing athiests and agnostics have lower wordsum scores compared to their left wing versions.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    Even if true, how does that relate to the real world? More useless law degrees versus more engineers?

  89. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.
     
    The U.S. has been subverting Australia's autonomy for three-quarters of a century.

    Australia will always be a whore. But if you're a whore and your pimp treats you like a piece of dirt then the smart thing is to look for another pimp. Especially if your current pimp is a violent psychopath.

    If it's a choice between being America's bitch or China's bitch I'd prefer to be China's bitch.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @botazefa, @Johann Ricke

    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.

    You may be assuming that woke capital doesn’t have its sights and tentacles set on China.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @botazefa

    The CCP has shown an impressive ability to put Woke Capital in its place, Google and the NBA to name a couple of recent capitulations.

    Replies: @botazefa

  90. @Rosie
    @Talha


    Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.
     
    We are certainly entitled to our opinion on that matter, and we are within our rights to consider this issue in deciding what sorts of relationship to have with Afghanistan, but I don't think young White men ought to have to risk death and dismemberment over it.

    As for the Afghans, I'm not impressed. Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand. If you can't stand females of any sort and keep them under house arrest 24/7, what's the next "best thing"? Little dancing boys, I'm afraid.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    We are certainly entitled to our opinion on that matter

    Of course.

    young White men ought to have to risk death and dismemberment over it.

    Well that is the discussion Afghans are willing to have. If you come to them, telling them how to run things, they will kill and or dismember you. Now, there is a way to get them to reform things, and that will require a discussion and it will not come from the US, but from other parts of the Muslim world.

    Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand.

    Not necessarily. Other parts of the Muslim world rank up there on the misogyny scale without a concomitant rise in boy buggery.

    If you can’t stand females of any sort

    This is not the case. If you have had exposure to Afghan culture – as I have, and one of my best friends having married into it – you notice two things; 1) their treatment of wives can use many upgrades (for instance, domestic violence in endemic) and 2) I cannot think of another culture that treats its mothers with the reverence (almost worshipful regard) that they do.

    Human cultures are interesting how they can sometimes exhibit such seemingly contradictory positions at the same time; you see this in Western countries, but with regard to other subjects.

    Peace.

  91. @botazefa
    @216

    Kristol seems to be making a threat, no?

    Replies: @A123

    Not much of a threat. It is hand waving and misdirection.

    His actual motivation is obvious. NeoCon Kristol wants NeoConDemocrat Biden to win so he can have more NeoCon foreign interventions. Fortunately there is no chance of Biden winning.

    PEACE 😇

  92. @Nodwink
    This is something that Russia might do, but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about... anything. Unless some spook wants to give specific information, it's probably best to ignore this.

    Replies: @El Dato, @Corvinus

    “but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about… anything.”

    No True Scottsman Fallacy employed on your part.

    Should we as Americans have healthy skepticism of the CIA and our intelligence community? Absolutely. Should we as Americans utterly dismiss their findings in every case? Absolutely not.

    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?

    • Replies: @A123
    @Corvinus


    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?
     
    Everyone is backing off this psyop disinformation.

    President Trump told the TRUTH about not receiving this mythical piece of non-information.

    Given that legislators do not receive the Presidential Daily Brief -- How could lawmakers know & confirm its contents?

    This would be at best hearsay, not proof. What "Leading Republicans Lawmakers" have not recanted or revised their statements?

    PEACE 😇

    , @MarkinLA
    @Corvinus

    NO he wasn't briefed. Just like you holding onto the first Russian hoax long after it was debunked, I guess you will continue to make an ass out of yourself on this one.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/06/30/the-russian-bounties-story-is-the-new-russian-collusion-hoax-heres-why-n592298

    Replies: @anon, @Corvinus

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Corvinus

    Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents? Not even the intelligence agencies confirmed its contents. They label the existence of the report credible, nothing more so far as I'm aware.

  93. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc.
     
    Agreed. And get your military bases the hell out of Australia as well.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @silviosilver

    What? And tether ourselves to whom?

    Screw that. Bad as they are, America makes more sense than any alternative I can see. I want an enlarged American presence.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Screw that. Bad as they are, America makes more sense than any alternative I can see. I want an enlarged American presence.
     
    The problem is that America is getting steadily worse. Their foreign policy is getting increasingly deranged and dangerous. They're getting crazier.

    The question is whether any nation can afford to take the risk of being tethered to the U.S. which is no longer just the schoolyard bully but (in terms of foreign policy) a paranoid psychopath.

    America is (in terms of foreign policy) no longer the lesser of several evils. It is the number one evil.

    I emphasise again that I'm talking about American foreign p0licy, not Americans as individuals (with whom I have no problems at all).

    Replies: @silviosilver

  94. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Good luck with the Chinese.
     
    You needn't worry. There is no chance that Australia will give up its grovelling subservience to the United States.

    You do realise that Australia is currently gearing up for war with China? We intend to cut our own threats just to prove to America that we're a faithful doggie. Maybe America will give us a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.

    There are times when it really is embarrassing to be an Australian.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    You do realise that Australia is currently gearing up for war with China? We intend to cut our own threats just to prove to America that we’re a faithful doggie. Maybe America will give us a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.

    Oh please. Being an alliance partner is a two-way street. America’s under no obligation to come running to our aid no matter how badly we behave (we’re not Israel, after all). Petulance will get us nowhere. There has to be something in it for them too.

  95. A123 says:
    @Corvinus
    @Nodwink

    "but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about… anything."

    No True Scottsman Fallacy employed on your part.

    Should we as Americans have healthy skepticism of the CIA and our intelligence community? Absolutely. Should we as Americans utterly dismiss their findings in every case? Absolutely not.

    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA, @Audacious Epigone

    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?

    Everyone is backing off this psyop disinformation.

    President Trump told the TRUTH about not receiving this mythical piece of non-information.

    Given that legislators do not receive the Presidential Daily Brief — How could lawmakers know & confirm its contents?

    This would be at best hearsay, not proof. What “Leading Republicans Lawmakers” have not recanted or revised their statements?

    PEACE 😇

  96. @Corvinus
    @Nodwink

    "but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about… anything."

    No True Scottsman Fallacy employed on your part.

    Should we as Americans have healthy skepticism of the CIA and our intelligence community? Absolutely. Should we as Americans utterly dismiss their findings in every case? Absolutely not.

    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA, @Audacious Epigone

    NO he wasn’t briefed. Just like you holding onto the first Russian hoax long after it was debunked, I guess you will continue to make an ass out of yourself on this one.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/06/30/the-russian-bounties-story-is-the-new-russian-collusion-hoax-heres-why-n592298

    • Thanks: A123
    • Replies: @anon
    @MarkinLA

    I guess you will continue to make an ass out of yourself on this one.

    Eh, he's just doing what his employers pay him to do. Troll gonna troll.

    , @Corvinus
    @MarkinLA

    "NO he wasn’t briefed."

    Actually, President Donald Trump received a written briefing in February about intelligence regarding potential bounties offered by Russians to Afghan militants to kill American service members.

    "Just like you holding onto the first Russian hoax long after it was debunked..."

    It hasn't been debunked.

  97. @Johann Ricke
    @Daniel H


    China doesn’t threaten Australia or any other foreign nation.
     
    China covets "all under heaven"*.

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

    In the Chinese worldview, peace can only be achieved when the world is ruled by a single sovereign. China has been "peaceful" in the past century for the same reason Sweden was peaceful after its disastrous defeat at Poltava. After centuries of relative decline, it was surrounded by peer or stronger powers. That constraint on Chinese territorial expansion is now near an end, as Chinese economic and military power reverts to its historically outsized advantage relative to its neighbors.

    https://www.timemaps.com/history/china-2500bc/

    * Note that this isn't unique to China. Until the numbered big wars of the 20th century, the West was in constant competition for territory. For some reason, the relatively small % losses (relative to the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War and other prior wars) in population led to a sea change in Western elite and popular opinion about wars for territorial gain.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @d dan

    “In the Chinese worldview, peace can only be achieved when the world is ruled by a single sovereign. “

    A dumb comment by a commenter who is ignorant of Chinese history, quoting twisted info from wikipedia about ancient Chinese philosophical concepts.

    A easily demonstrable counter example to the above statement would be the well-known Zheng He’s naval armada from Ming Dynasty. There was simply no country in South East Asia, India ocean, Africa, or probably in the whole world that could stop China’s navy, let alone its army. And yet miraculously, all the nations in those regions retained their sovereigns – not a single colony was established by China.

    I could go on to give 10 more examples from ancient, not-so-ancient or modern Chinese history to show how Chinese treated much weaker nations and conquered peoples – but that would be a waste of my time because I doubt you are seriously interested in *real* Chinese history, other than those superficial and maligned statements on China.

  98. Pfffshwahahahahahaha!!! Oh man, nailed it with the nasheed humming in the background. Shaykh Donald at-Trumpwisi al-Amreeki nails it!
    https://twitter.com/FeeSabeelAllah1/status/1280190259721048066

    Classic!

    Peace.

    • LOL: Grahamsno(G64)
  99. 216 says:
    @dfordoom
    @216


    The only thing that WokeCapital can’t do is throw dissidents in prison. But it can destroy their livelihood, which wipes out everyone except the independently wealth and retirees.
     
    And being able to destroy someone's livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.

    What they have succeeded in doing is making our activity “de facto illegal”, where we can be subject to assault by Antifa/BLM, and the system will not punish the assaulter for fear of retaliation.
     
    Agreed.

    Once they get power over all three branches, of course they will make it “de jure illegal”.
     
    I don't think they will. Firstly, because it's unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court). Thirdly, making something illegal gives accused persons actual rights. It gives them the right to defend themselves, the right to a trial, etc. The advantage of the present system is that the accused person has no legal rights whatsoever. And the Woke Capital Thought Police are completely unaccountable. Accusers can remain totally anonymous.

    The current system is perhaps the most effective system of political repression ever devised. It's a system of "soft" totalitarianism which is in practice more draconian, more effective and more difficult to oppose than "hard" totalitarianism.

    And fourthly, the current system gives Woke Capital immense powers which they have no intention of giving up to the government.

    Remember that the people behind this are not communists. They do not want unlimited state power. What they want is unlimited corporate power.

    Replies: @216

    And being able to destroy someone’s livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.

    Moreover, it exposes us as feckless. “Rugged Aryan Individualists” proved unable to “build their own” sites. We’ve been relegated to a weak executive order, delayed DOJ antitrust action, and dim hopes of legislation even if we retake the House.

    I don’t think they will. Firstly, because it’s unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court).

    Most countries other than the US have provisions for hate speech convictions, and the left can either blackmail Roberts, or pack the SCOTUS, to get it here.

    At some point, if people like Nick Fuentes are operating from platforms they own and control, and have a secure mechanism for receiving funds; a future leftist Attorney General may decide to throw him in prison as the only way of shutting him up.

    Conceivablty, they could legalize ISPs blocking “hate sites”, not sure if any European countries are blocking GAB, but I imagine that will happen soon, and that either Germany or France will demand Torba be extradited.

    • Replies: @botazefa
    @216

    The Supreme Court has already rules that the FCC can regulate the Internet.

    If Biden wins, expect the new FCC schoolmarm to do exactly what you suggested.

    Replies: @216

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @216

    Gab is huge in India. The dissident right's future in the US is, paradoxically, in falling under the aegis of Asian countries. The CCP has no intention of deferring to Woke Capital. An enemy of an enemy can be a friend.

  100. @216
    @dfordoom


    And being able to destroy someone’s livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.
     
    Moreover, it exposes us as feckless. "Rugged Aryan Individualists" proved unable to "build their own" sites. We've been relegated to a weak executive order, delayed DOJ antitrust action, and dim hopes of legislation even if we retake the House.

    I don’t think they will. Firstly, because it’s unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court).
     
    Most countries other than the US have provisions for hate speech convictions, and the left can either blackmail Roberts, or pack the SCOTUS, to get it here.

    At some point, if people like Nick Fuentes are operating from platforms they own and control, and have a secure mechanism for receiving funds; a future leftist Attorney General may decide to throw him in prison as the only way of shutting him up.

    Conceivablty, they could legalize ISPs blocking "hate sites", not sure if any European countries are blocking GAB, but I imagine that will happen soon, and that either Germany or France will demand Torba be extradited.

    Replies: @botazefa, @Audacious Epigone

    The Supreme Court has already rules that the FCC can regulate the Internet.

    If Biden wins, expect the new FCC schoolmarm to do exactly what you suggested.

    • Replies: @216
    @botazefa

    Perhaps we would be better off under a system where we faced a legal muzzle.

    It's possible that the rage of non-whites would decrease, while younger whites would learn to cope with cultural humiliation.

    Of course, the legal sanctions that would be applied could be a 'two minutes hate' at keeping black rage, red hot.

    ---

    I hesitate to make this argument, but its a possibility of giving liberals what they want: a world where we don't exist (at least mentally).

  101. 216 says:
    @botazefa
    @216

    The Supreme Court has already rules that the FCC can regulate the Internet.

    If Biden wins, expect the new FCC schoolmarm to do exactly what you suggested.

    Replies: @216

    Perhaps we would be better off under a system where we faced a legal muzzle.

    It’s possible that the rage of non-whites would decrease, while younger whites would learn to cope with cultural humiliation.

    Of course, the legal sanctions that would be applied could be a ‘two minutes hate’ at keeping black rage, red hot.

    I hesitate to make this argument, but its a possibility of giving liberals what they want: a world where we don’t exist (at least mentally).

  102. @MarkinLA
    @dfordoom

    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.

    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?

    You’re failing to understand the psychology of these people. It’s the struggle itself that gives their lives meaning. They want the struggle to be ongoing. How can you continue to be a revolutionary once the Evil Fascist on whom all your hatred is focussed is gone?

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom


    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?
     
    Why do you assume the focus must be the President?

    With total control of the Fake Stream Media, anyone can be propagandized as the symbol of Ultimate Evil. Mitch McConnell is the obvious choice as the individual who assisted Trump's judicial picks. His lack of social media savvy makes him a much easier than target than Trump.
    ____

    You misunderstand the fragility of the SJW wokester mind. It has no resilience:

    -- Feed it with victory, and they become hungrier and more dangerous.
    -- Starve it with defeat, and they will slink off to their parents' basements or turn on each other.

    The only sound method for breaking SJW's is defeating them. The more they lose, they more they panic. The more panicked and extreme they become, the more sympathy they lose.
    __

    Destroying Blue neighborhoods, in Blue cities, in Blue States has resulted in the permanent loss of Blue jobs and Blue taxes that pay for Blue handouts to Blue voters. Given 4 months of economic distress and easily blamed Blue Mayors, the DNC is going to be annihilated by low turnout.

    The self destructive feeding frenzy is likely to begin as soon a VP choice is made. Biden's campaign has only one pick and thus cannot make all the factions happy...

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @MarkinLA
    @dfordoom

    You’re failing to understand the psychology of these people. It’s the struggle itself that gives their lives meaning. They want the struggle to be ongoing. How can you continue to be a revolutionary once the Evil Fascist on whom all your hatred is focussed is gone?

    There are always new monsters to slay. You are failing to understand how them getting something will just make them want more power and think they can. Successfully getting rid of Trump will make them think they are power brokers who should always be at the table.

    The only thing that can stop psychotics like this is a good punch in the nose.

  103. @MarkinLA
    @Corvinus

    NO he wasn't briefed. Just like you holding onto the first Russian hoax long after it was debunked, I guess you will continue to make an ass out of yourself on this one.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/06/30/the-russian-bounties-story-is-the-new-russian-collusion-hoax-heres-why-n592298

    Replies: @anon, @Corvinus

    I guess you will continue to make an ass out of yourself on this one.

    Eh, he’s just doing what his employers pay him to do. Troll gonna troll.

  104. A123 says:
    @dfordoom
    @MarkinLA


    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.
     
    Except that you're completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they're going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?

    You're failing to understand the psychology of these people. It's the struggle itself that gives their lives meaning. They want the struggle to be ongoing. How can you continue to be a revolutionary once the Evil Fascist on whom all your hatred is focussed is gone?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA

    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?

    Why do you assume the focus must be the President?

    With total control of the Fake Stream Media, anyone can be propagandized as the symbol of Ultimate Evil. Mitch McConnell is the obvious choice as the individual who assisted Trump’s judicial picks. His lack of social media savvy makes him a much easier than target than Trump.
    ____

    You misunderstand the fragility of the SJW wokester mind. It has no resilience:

    — Feed it with victory, and they become hungrier and more dangerous.
    — Starve it with defeat, and they will slink off to their parents’ basements or turn on each other.

    The only sound method for breaking SJW’s is defeating them. The more they lose, they more they panic. The more panicked and extreme they become, the more sympathy they lose.
    __

    Destroying Blue neighborhoods, in Blue cities, in Blue States has resulted in the permanent loss of Blue jobs and Blue taxes that pay for Blue handouts to Blue voters. Given 4 months of economic distress and easily blamed Blue Mayors, the DNC is going to be annihilated by low turnout.

    The self destructive feeding frenzy is likely to begin as soon a VP choice is made. Biden’s campaign has only one pick and thus cannot make all the factions happy…

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @A123



    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?
     
    Why do you assume the focus must be the President?
     
    Because Trump as president is such a very obvious very visible focus for hate. Nobody cares about Mitch McConnell. Trump as president can be painted as an all-powerful fascist dictator. But how can the Wokesters claim that America is now a fascist dictatorship if there's a Democrat president?

    You misunderstand the fragility of the SJW wokester mind. It has no resilience:

    — Feed it with victory, and they become hungrier and more dangerous.
    — Starve it with defeat, and they will slink off to their parents’ basements or turn on each other.

    The only sound method for breaking SJW’s is defeating them
     
    You're completely misunderstanding how politics works. The SJW Wokesters are winning, and they're winning because they have a focus for their struggle.

    Winning and losing elections is largely irrelevant. Politics is downstream of culture. Win the culture war and you will win the political war.

    What's been happening is that conservatives have been fighting the wrong war against the wrong enemy on the wrong battlefields with the wrong strategies. And that's what the alt-right and the MAGA hat-wearers and the Trumpsters are continuing to do. They're trying to win the kinds of political battles that were fought 50, 60, 70 years ago. Politics just doesn't work that way any more. Short-term conventional political battles such as elections are just not important any more.

    Right-wingers are still gearing up for the Most Important Election Ever. It's 1950s thinking.

    Replies: @A123

  105. @Rosie
    @Talha


    Telling them how to run their culture with regards to their women while pointing that rifle at them will make them triple sure.
     
    We are certainly entitled to our opinion on that matter, and we are within our rights to consider this issue in deciding what sorts of relationship to have with Afghanistan, but I don't think young White men ought to have to risk death and dismemberment over it.

    As for the Afghans, I'm not impressed. Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand. If you can't stand females of any sort and keep them under house arrest 24/7, what's the next "best thing"? Little dancing boys, I'm afraid.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand.

    To a certain extent you’re correct, although it has more to do with the nature of male homosexuality than with Islam.

    Feminists (and women in general) have a real blind spot when it comes to this. They just don’t comprehend how much male homosexuals despise women.

    And although some old school feminists are starting to figure it out most women and most young feminists don’t understand how fundamentally anti-woman the LGBTqwerty agenda is.

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom


    To a certain extent you’re correct, although it has more to do with the nature of male homosexuality than with Islam.
     
    Do not under estimate the issues with Islam and sexual misbehaviour.

    All Muslim men aspire to be like Muhammad who raped Aisha when she was 9 years old. Given the lack of available 9 year old girls, the dogmatic requirement to "Be Like Muhammad" leads the devout followers of Muhammad to other anti-social behaviour such as the boy dancers.

    The sexual deviance problems in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations have little to do with the western LBGT alphabet-soup pick & choose openness. It comes directly from the core predator dogma of the Quran.
    ____

    The U.S. should leave Afghanistan sooner than later. The USSR/Russians could not do anything with this train wreck. The U.S. cannot do anything with this train wreck. If China wants to try, let's roll out the red carpet and give the train wreck to them.

    Do not let the fact that there is a map border between Afghanistan and Iran mislead you. It is hundred of miles of miserable, impassable, valueless mountains between population centers of significant size. The two nations are not connected in any manner that has strategic value.

    PEACE 😇
  106. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom

    What? And tether ourselves to whom?

    Screw that. Bad as they are, America makes more sense than any alternative I can see. I want an enlarged American presence.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Screw that. Bad as they are, America makes more sense than any alternative I can see. I want an enlarged American presence.

    The problem is that America is getting steadily worse. Their foreign policy is getting increasingly deranged and dangerous. They’re getting crazier.

    The question is whether any nation can afford to take the risk of being tethered to the U.S. which is no longer just the schoolyard bully but (in terms of foreign policy) a paranoid psychopath.

    America is (in terms of foreign policy) no longer the lesser of several evils. It is the number one evil.

    I emphasise again that I’m talking about American foreign p0licy, not Americans as individuals (with whom I have no problems at all).

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that America is getting steadily worse. Their foreign policy is getting increasingly deranged and dangerous. They’re getting crazier.
     
    Be specific. It's worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?

    Because as far as I can see, the main change has been that they've (correctly) identified China as a revisionist rival power. That hints at a reduction in (perhaps termination of) foreign policy 'adventurism' based on liberal delusions.

    So I would assess them as becoming saner, not as growing crazier.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  107. @Twinkie
    I don’t want to shed one more drop of precious American blood for a landlocked country full of illiterate goatherds. I don’t want another fellow American die so that Afghan girls can go to school or, worse, so that Afghan homosexuals can dance in the streets. Enough already!

    Although we ought to withdraw from the Middle East as well, at least that region has some strategic value. Afghanistan is utterly valueless except as a fantasy gas pipeline route.

    Bring the troops back home. Leave a skeletal force in the UK (including Diego Garcia) and Japan, continue the current naval repair arrangement with Singapore, and withdraw from Africa, Middle East, continental Europe, South Korea, etc. Maybe retake the Panama Canal. Definitely seal our borders. We are helping to guard the DMZ in South Korea so that not a single infiltrator can cross it, but our border with Mexico is porous - what sane country does that?

    Replies: @dfordoom, @follyofwar, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar, @Barbarossa

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich, including the world’s largest reserve of Lithium Carbonate, the mineral which goes into those batteries which power just about everything.

    Every administration, Bush, Obama, and Trump has tried to get Western mining interests into the country, but the complete lack of infrastructure and hopeless violence have proved too unpalatable.

    As others have mentioned here, it’s also just so well positioned to exert militarily pressure on so many places!

    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Barbarossa


    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.
     
    If only those recalcitrant Afghans would have rolled over for us like the Panamanians did after we invaded them and allowed us to ban their nation’s military in their constitution. Frickin’ ingrates!

    Peace.

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    , @anon
    @Barbarossa

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich

    I was quite skeptical of this claim, however there is at least some truth to it.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mining_in_Afghanistan

    Replies: @A123, @Barbarossa

  108. A123 says:
    @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Extreme misogyny and boy buggery go hand in hand.
     
    To a certain extent you're correct, although it has more to do with the nature of male homosexuality than with Islam.

    Feminists (and women in general) have a real blind spot when it comes to this. They just don't comprehend how much male homosexuals despise women.

    And although some old school feminists are starting to figure it out most women and most young feminists don't understand how fundamentally anti-woman the LGBTqwerty agenda is.

    Replies: @A123

    To a certain extent you’re correct, although it has more to do with the nature of male homosexuality than with Islam.

    Do not under estimate the issues with Islam and sexual misbehaviour.

    All Muslim men aspire to be like Muhammad who raped Aisha when she was 9 years old. Given the lack of available 9 year old girls, the dogmatic requirement to “Be Like Muhammad” leads the devout followers of Muhammad to other anti-social behaviour such as the boy dancers.

    The sexual deviance problems in Afghanistan and other Muslim nations have little to do with the western LBGT alphabet-soup pick & choose openness. It comes directly from the core predator dogma of the Quran.
    ____

    The U.S. should leave Afghanistan sooner than later. The USSR/Russians could not do anything with this train wreck. The U.S. cannot do anything with this train wreck. If China wants to try, let’s roll out the red carpet and give the train wreck to them.

    Do not let the fact that there is a map border between Afghanistan and Iran mislead you. It is hundred of miles of miserable, impassable, valueless mountains between population centers of significant size. The two nations are not connected in any manner that has strategic value.

    PEACE 😇

  109. @dfordoom
    @MarkinLA


    But a Trump LOSS would energise them for another four-year struggle against fascism which is the only thing that gives their lives meaning. If Trump LOSES they will certainly become more radical, more focused, more determined and much more aggressive.

    There fixed it for you.
     
    Except that you're completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they're going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?

    You're failing to understand the psychology of these people. It's the struggle itself that gives their lives meaning. They want the struggle to be ongoing. How can you continue to be a revolutionary once the Evil Fascist on whom all your hatred is focussed is gone?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA

    You’re failing to understand the psychology of these people. It’s the struggle itself that gives their lives meaning. They want the struggle to be ongoing. How can you continue to be a revolutionary once the Evil Fascist on whom all your hatred is focussed is gone?

    There are always new monsters to slay. You are failing to understand how them getting something will just make them want more power and think they can. Successfully getting rid of Trump will make them think they are power brokers who should always be at the table.

    The only thing that can stop psychotics like this is a good punch in the nose.

  110. @MarkinLA
    @Corvinus

    NO he wasn't briefed. Just like you holding onto the first Russian hoax long after it was debunked, I guess you will continue to make an ass out of yourself on this one.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/06/30/the-russian-bounties-story-is-the-new-russian-collusion-hoax-heres-why-n592298

    Replies: @anon, @Corvinus

    “NO he wasn’t briefed.”

    Actually, President Donald Trump received a written briefing in February about intelligence regarding potential bounties offered by Russians to Afghan militants to kill American service members.

    “Just like you holding onto the first Russian hoax long after it was debunked…”

    It hasn’t been debunked.

  111. @A123
    @dfordoom


    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?
     
    Why do you assume the focus must be the President?

    With total control of the Fake Stream Media, anyone can be propagandized as the symbol of Ultimate Evil. Mitch McConnell is the obvious choice as the individual who assisted Trump's judicial picks. His lack of social media savvy makes him a much easier than target than Trump.
    ____

    You misunderstand the fragility of the SJW wokester mind. It has no resilience:

    -- Feed it with victory, and they become hungrier and more dangerous.
    -- Starve it with defeat, and they will slink off to their parents' basements or turn on each other.

    The only sound method for breaking SJW's is defeating them. The more they lose, they more they panic. The more panicked and extreme they become, the more sympathy they lose.
    __

    Destroying Blue neighborhoods, in Blue cities, in Blue States has resulted in the permanent loss of Blue jobs and Blue taxes that pay for Blue handouts to Blue voters. Given 4 months of economic distress and easily blamed Blue Mayors, the DNC is going to be annihilated by low turnout.

    The self destructive feeding frenzy is likely to begin as soon a VP choice is made. Biden's campaign has only one pick and thus cannot make all the factions happy...

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?

    Why do you assume the focus must be the President?

    Because Trump as president is such a very obvious very visible focus for hate. Nobody cares about Mitch McConnell. Trump as president can be painted as an all-powerful fascist dictator. But how can the Wokesters claim that America is now a fascist dictatorship if there’s a Democrat president?

    You misunderstand the fragility of the SJW wokester mind. It has no resilience:

    — Feed it with victory, and they become hungrier and more dangerous.
    — Starve it with defeat, and they will slink off to their parents’ basements or turn on each other.

    The only sound method for breaking SJW’s is defeating them

    You’re completely misunderstanding how politics works. The SJW Wokesters are winning, and they’re winning because they have a focus for their struggle.

    Winning and losing elections is largely irrelevant. Politics is downstream of culture. Win the culture war and you will win the political war.

    What’s been happening is that conservatives have been fighting the wrong war against the wrong enemy on the wrong battlefields with the wrong strategies. And that’s what the alt-right and the MAGA hat-wearers and the Trumpsters are continuing to do. They’re trying to win the kinds of political battles that were fought 50, 60, 70 years ago. Politics just doesn’t work that way any more. Short-term conventional political battles such as elections are just not important any more.

    Right-wingers are still gearing up for the Most Important Election Ever. It’s 1950s thinking.

    • Replies: @A123
    @dfordoom


    But how can the Wokesters claim that America is now a fascist dictatorship if there’s a Democrat president?
     
    -- Did SJW exist under Obama? Yes?
    -- Then, why do you believe SJW will cease to exist under Obama's VP Biden?

    It seems to me that the SJW Globalists can manufacture any needed enemy. Having an ally in the White House makes them more dangerous, not less. Look at the damage done to the country by Obama's SJW administration.


    Winning and losing elections is largely irrelevant. Politics is downstream of culture. Win the culture war and you will win the political war.

     

    I disagree. It is a cycle, not a sequence.

    Culture/Media, Politics/Elections, and Judiciary/Lawsuits. Visualize them as spokes on a wheel. All of them have to rotate in the same direction at the same time to create progress. Focussing on only one guarantees failure.

    Trump moved the "Overton Window". That is the first step towards winning the Culture War. However, he needs support to move it further. It is much easier to be on the winning side, so fixing the judiciary to win legal battles builds momentum for Trump's Populism in the Culture War. These Populist Cultural victories will then feed more political winning.

    PEACE 😇

  112. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    China doesn’t have to covet Australia or be “belligerent” to exert influence on Australia and subvert its autonomy in a world in which America withdraws from the region.
     
    The U.S. has been subverting Australia's autonomy for three-quarters of a century.

    Australia will always be a whore. But if you're a whore and your pimp treats you like a piece of dirt then the smart thing is to look for another pimp. Especially if your current pimp is a violent psychopath.

    If it's a choice between being America's bitch or China's bitch I'd prefer to be China's bitch.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @botazefa, @Johann Ricke

    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.

    Being China’s bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state. What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests. Objecting to that means becoming the next objective on the target list. Agreeing to it means becoming the objective following the next one, once your armies are depleted. In the long run, becoming China’s vassal means becoming a Chinese province. Good luck with your dream welfare state. Chinese capitalism makes American capitalism look like a bleeding heart liberal’s wet dream.

    The Chinese Communist Party calls it socialism with Chinese characteristics. But what is China’s economic system, really? It’s 19th century American capitalism – capitalism without safety nets coupled with the random threat of expropriation by the government.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Johann Ricke


    Being China’s bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state.
     
    Having been a vassal state of the Americans for three-quarters of a century I can assure you that Australia understands what is expected of a vassal state.

    What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests.
     
    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America's imperial wars since 1945?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Twinkie

  113. @Barbarossa
    @Twinkie

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich, including the world's largest reserve of Lithium Carbonate, the mineral which goes into those batteries which power just about everything.

    Every administration, Bush, Obama, and Trump has tried to get Western mining interests into the country, but the complete lack of infrastructure and hopeless violence have proved too unpalatable.

    As others have mentioned here, it's also just so well positioned to exert militarily pressure on so many places!

    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.

    Replies: @Talha, @anon

    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.

    If only those recalcitrant Afghans would have rolled over for us like the Panamanians did after we invaded them and allowed us to ban their nation’s military in their constitution. Frickin’ ingrates!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Barbarossa
    @Talha

    Duecedly rotten of them. Don't they know we're the greatest power on earth!

    I imagine that when and if we pull out, the Chinese will approach the situation in a much more productive way. They will be happy to deal with the Taliban and will trade development aid for resource access.

    The American Neo Cons and Neo Libs have the worst strategy for long term empire stability ever! What a stupid waste all around, especially since 9/11.

  114. @dfordoom
    @A123



    Except that you’re completely wrong. These kinds of people need an Evil Monster as a focus for their hate. With the Democrats in power and Joe Biden in the White House the focus will disappear. You think they’re going to see Joe Biden as an evil fascist racist oppressor?
     
    Why do you assume the focus must be the President?
     
    Because Trump as president is such a very obvious very visible focus for hate. Nobody cares about Mitch McConnell. Trump as president can be painted as an all-powerful fascist dictator. But how can the Wokesters claim that America is now a fascist dictatorship if there's a Democrat president?

    You misunderstand the fragility of the SJW wokester mind. It has no resilience:

    — Feed it with victory, and they become hungrier and more dangerous.
    — Starve it with defeat, and they will slink off to their parents’ basements or turn on each other.

    The only sound method for breaking SJW’s is defeating them
     
    You're completely misunderstanding how politics works. The SJW Wokesters are winning, and they're winning because they have a focus for their struggle.

    Winning and losing elections is largely irrelevant. Politics is downstream of culture. Win the culture war and you will win the political war.

    What's been happening is that conservatives have been fighting the wrong war against the wrong enemy on the wrong battlefields with the wrong strategies. And that's what the alt-right and the MAGA hat-wearers and the Trumpsters are continuing to do. They're trying to win the kinds of political battles that were fought 50, 60, 70 years ago. Politics just doesn't work that way any more. Short-term conventional political battles such as elections are just not important any more.

    Right-wingers are still gearing up for the Most Important Election Ever. It's 1950s thinking.

    Replies: @A123

    But how can the Wokesters claim that America is now a fascist dictatorship if there’s a Democrat president?

    — Did SJW exist under Obama? Yes?
    — Then, why do you believe SJW will cease to exist under Obama’s VP Biden?

    It seems to me that the SJW Globalists can manufacture any needed enemy. Having an ally in the White House makes them more dangerous, not less. Look at the damage done to the country by Obama’s SJW administration.

    Winning and losing elections is largely irrelevant. Politics is downstream of culture. Win the culture war and you will win the political war.

    I disagree. It is a cycle, not a sequence.

    Culture/Media, Politics/Elections, and Judiciary/Lawsuits. Visualize them as spokes on a wheel. All of them have to rotate in the same direction at the same time to create progress. Focussing on only one guarantees failure.

    Trump moved the “Overton Window”. That is the first step towards winning the Culture War. However, he needs support to move it further. It is much easier to be on the winning side, so fixing the judiciary to win legal battles builds momentum for Trump’s Populism in the Culture War. These Populist Cultural victories will then feed more political winning.

    PEACE 😇

  115. @Johann Ricke
    @dfordoom


    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.
     
    Being China's bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state. What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests. Objecting to that means becoming the next objective on the target list. Agreeing to it means becoming the objective following the next one, once your armies are depleted. In the long run, becoming China's vassal means becoming a Chinese province. Good luck with your dream welfare state. Chinese capitalism makes American capitalism look like a bleeding heart liberal's wet dream.

    The Chinese Communist Party calls it socialism with Chinese characteristics. But what is China's economic system, really? It's 19th century American capitalism - capitalism without safety nets coupled with the random threat of expropriation by the government.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Being China’s bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state.

    Having been a vassal state of the Americans for three-quarters of a century I can assure you that Australia understands what is expected of a vassal state.

    What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests.

    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?

    It's not as if we disagreed with the goals of those wars, anyway. (Some of us may have been more skeptical about the likelihood of achieving them though.)

    Again, what alternative was there? Buddy up to our dear Asian neighours? Personally, I wouldn't trust those two-faced fuckers as far as I could throw them. (Although I'm reconciled to Australia becoming an 'Asian nation' at this point.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    Hmmmm, something kinda happened in the neighborhood a few years before that date that made Aussies become very solicitous of Americans...

    Replies: @dfordoom

  116. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Screw that. Bad as they are, America makes more sense than any alternative I can see. I want an enlarged American presence.
     
    The problem is that America is getting steadily worse. Their foreign policy is getting increasingly deranged and dangerous. They're getting crazier.

    The question is whether any nation can afford to take the risk of being tethered to the U.S. which is no longer just the schoolyard bully but (in terms of foreign policy) a paranoid psychopath.

    America is (in terms of foreign policy) no longer the lesser of several evils. It is the number one evil.

    I emphasise again that I'm talking about American foreign p0licy, not Americans as individuals (with whom I have no problems at all).

    Replies: @silviosilver

    The problem is that America is getting steadily worse. Their foreign policy is getting increasingly deranged and dangerous. They’re getting crazier.

    Be specific. It’s worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?

    Because as far as I can see, the main change has been that they’ve (correctly) identified China as a revisionist rival power. That hints at a reduction in (perhaps termination of) foreign policy ‘adventurism’ based on liberal delusions.

    So I would assess them as becoming saner, not as growing crazier.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @silviosilver

    If not saner, then at least more exhausted.

  117. @dfordoom
    @Johann Ricke


    Being China’s bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state.
     
    Having been a vassal state of the Americans for three-quarters of a century I can assure you that Australia understands what is expected of a vassal state.

    What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests.
     
    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America's imperial wars since 1945?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Twinkie

    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?

    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?

    It’s not as if we disagreed with the goals of those wars, anyway. (Some of us may have been more skeptical about the likelihood of achieving them though.)

    Again, what alternative was there? Buddy up to our dear Asian neighours? Personally, I wouldn’t trust those two-faced fuckers as far as I could throw them. (Although I’m reconciled to Australia becoming an ‘Asian nation’ at this point.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @silviosilver



    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?
     
    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. "Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it."

    Be specific. It’s worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?
     
    In 2003 there seemed very little chance that the Americans would be dumb enough to risk war with another nuclear power. The chances of that happening are much higher today. In fact the risk of war with other nuclear powers is greater than it was during the Cold War, when the U.S. was still run mostly run by the grown-ups.

    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he's told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.

    The U.S. attitude towards the Crimea (historically as much a part of Russia as California and Florida are part of the U.S.) is bizarre. The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless - they are openly interfering in China's internal affairs.

    Twenty years ago it was par for the course for the U.S. to try to overthrow governments that failed to toe the U.S. line but it was only done with smaller nations. Now the U.S. appears to have intentions to do this to nuclear powers.

    I have no illusions about China. They're cynical, but they are sane.

    Replies: @Talha, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

  118. @Talha
    @Barbarossa


    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.
     
    If only those recalcitrant Afghans would have rolled over for us like the Panamanians did after we invaded them and allowed us to ban their nation’s military in their constitution. Frickin’ ingrates!

    Peace.

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    Duecedly rotten of them. Don’t they know we’re the greatest power on earth!

    I imagine that when and if we pull out, the Chinese will approach the situation in a much more productive way. They will be happy to deal with the Taliban and will trade development aid for resource access.

    The American Neo Cons and Neo Libs have the worst strategy for long term empire stability ever! What a stupid waste all around, especially since 9/11.

    • Agree: Talha
  119. @dfordoom
    @Johann Ricke


    Being China’s bitch means becoming a vassal state. You may not understand the role of a vassal state.
     
    Having been a vassal state of the Americans for three-quarters of a century I can assure you that Australia understands what is expected of a vassal state.

    What they do is provide armies to assist the hegemon in its conquests.
     
    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America's imperial wars since 1945?

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Twinkie

    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?

    Hmmmm, something kinda happened in the neighborhood a few years before that date that made Aussies become very solicitous of Americans…

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Hmmmm, something kinda happened in the neighborhood a few years before that date that made Aussies become very solicitous of Americans…
     
    Something happened even earlier than that. Japan and the British Empire were allies. The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history). As a result Australia got drawn into an American war against a colonial rival.

    So in fact Australia was fighting American imperialist wars as far back as 1941.

    Thanks for nothing America.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  120. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?

    It's not as if we disagreed with the goals of those wars, anyway. (Some of us may have been more skeptical about the likelihood of achieving them though.)

    Again, what alternative was there? Buddy up to our dear Asian neighours? Personally, I wouldn't trust those two-faced fuckers as far as I could throw them. (Although I'm reconciled to Australia becoming an 'Asian nation' at this point.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?

    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?

    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”

    Be specific. It’s worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?

    In 2003 there seemed very little chance that the Americans would be dumb enough to risk war with another nuclear power. The chances of that happening are much higher today. In fact the risk of war with other nuclear powers is greater than it was during the Cold War, when the U.S. was still run mostly run by the grown-ups.

    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he’s told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.

    The U.S. attitude towards the Crimea (historically as much a part of Russia as California and Florida are part of the U.S.) is bizarre. The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless – they are openly interfering in China’s internal affairs.

    Twenty years ago it was par for the course for the U.S. to try to overthrow governments that failed to toe the U.S. line but it was only done with smaller nations. Now the U.S. appears to have intentions to do this to nuclear powers.

    I have no illusions about China. They’re cynical, but they are sane.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”
     
    LOOOOOOL!!!

    Peace.
    , @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he’s told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.
     
    What is really childish here is the insistence that America is merely sore at China for being "outcompeted" by them. That's not the case. It has simply been accepted by a critical mass of the foreign policy establishment in the US that China is not going to abide by the global liberal order. (Foreign policy 'realists' - eg John Mearsheimer - never expected them to in the first place, but their arguments fell on deaf ears in the wake of liberal triumphalism after the Soviet bloc collapse). That being so, America's under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.

    The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless – they are openly interfering in China’s internal affairs.
     
    It sends a reassuring signal to Asian allies (and would-be allies) that America is willing to challenge China if China attempts to rearrange their political order to better suit CCP interests. That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they're surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history).
     
    Britain's alliance with Japan was premised on the latter's willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America. It was wholly unrealistic to imagine that any alliance could be maintained under those circumstances. It hardly took Americans twisting their arm for the British to see it this way.

    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country's foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America's? (Ie Japan doing what they wanted was fine; China doing what they want is fine; Russia, ditto. But America, ohmygod how dare they!)

    Replies: @A123, @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    , @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”
     
    I forgot to respond to this.

    If I tell you, nice kids, shame if something happened to them, then *I* am threatening your kids myself, so you had better do my bidding.

    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia - as in, invade or something like that? I can't see any other way to interpret that statement.

    (Not surprised to see anti-western Muslim Talha supporting this absurd logic.)

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

  121. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    Hmmmm, something kinda happened in the neighborhood a few years before that date that made Aussies become very solicitous of Americans...

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Hmmmm, something kinda happened in the neighborhood a few years before that date that made Aussies become very solicitous of Americans…

    Something happened even earlier than that. Japan and the British Empire were allies. The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history). As a result Australia got drawn into an American war against a colonial rival.

    So in fact Australia was fighting American imperialist wars as far back as 1941.

    Thanks for nothing America.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    The British took a policy of benevolent neutrality in Japan's war with China until 1940, but calling that an alliance goes a bit too far. An alliance would have meant potential involvement in a war in China that the UK obviously couldn't afford to get involved in.

    What really tipped the scales was Japan's occupation of Northern Indochina in a context where London had to seriously think of potential evacuation. We all know the Royal Navy made any German invasion unfeasible, but just like how the civilians of Constantinople didn't know that their walls would be impregnable for most of the empire's existence during the various early sieges of the capital, we have to ditch historical hindsight. I'm sure consideration of American animus toward the Japanese played a part in British considerations, but nothing I've read convinces me that it was the operative factor. London had its own interests in the region to consider.

    In reality, tensions had been boiling underneath the surface for some time over Japanese blockades of British concessions in China and drift toward Nazi Germany, which seemed to completely contradict the friendly relationship between the British embassy and their civilian opposite numbers. As I've mentioned in previous comments, the real issue was many Western governments failed to appreciate just how little control the civilians in Tokyo had over the military, London included. Japan's always been a place where political power in theory and in reality has been divorced.

    >So in fact Australia was fighting American imperialist wars as far back as 1941. Thanks for nothing America.

    Hey, they started it. And if you think American imperialism was nasty, ask an elderly Filipino what the Japanese were like in comparison. Even today, countries who have historically suffered at the hands of American foreign policy, unlike Australia-Vietnam-are actively currying American favor, in spite of everything. Why? Because, unlike Western businessmen, they *know* the PRC, and more broadly, they know the Chinese and what their domination of the region would be like. People who actually have to live with China nearby are a lot less sanguine about them for a reason.

    (Even the original Communists didn't trust China, a huge part of North Vietnam's eventual pro-Soviet turn and how the war turned out the way it did. Ho's quote about the difference between French and Chinese excrement aside, even at the height of Sino-North Vietnamese cooperation in the mid-1960s, Chinese laborers in North Vietnam were kept under strict segregation from the rest of the populace.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

  122. @Barbarossa
    @Twinkie

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich, including the world's largest reserve of Lithium Carbonate, the mineral which goes into those batteries which power just about everything.

    Every administration, Bush, Obama, and Trump has tried to get Western mining interests into the country, but the complete lack of infrastructure and hopeless violence have proved too unpalatable.

    As others have mentioned here, it's also just so well positioned to exert militarily pressure on so many places!

    Those Afghan girls made a good PR campaign, but it was all just a terribly botched power play from the start.

    Replies: @Talha, @anon

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich

    I was quite skeptical of this claim, however there is at least some truth to it.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mining_in_Afghanistan

    • Replies: @A123
    @anon


    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich
     
    And, it is landlocked and very transportation poor.

    Trying to develop the local mineral resources requires not just mining but also warlord/terrorist vulnerable rail transport.

    Bribes are dangerous; they have a way of growing larger -- Dune, Frank Herbert

    Attempting to payoff they ever changing cast of bandits and Taliban who want a cut is not a viable business model for Western or even Russian firms.

    Perhaps China can pull it off... After all they are willing to put millions of Weigers into camps. Putting millions of Taliban into camps would pacify the area. With sufficient experience and will to ethnicially cleanse the region, the Chinese may be able to create transport links free of natives and their violence.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    , @Barbarossa
    @anon

    I found it out when I was doing some research on Lithium Ion batteries. I came across a mining trade magazine article talking about the massive Lithium Carbonate deposits in Afghanistan (among other notable deposits) and how US attempt to coax mining concerns to set up shop had been a non starter for security and transportation concerns.

    It was a bit of a light bulb moment where US policy motivations suddenly became much clearer.

    Not that any of that makes it into the news. Our government just cares about freedom and stuff so much that they have to militarily occupy the country for a couple decades.

  123. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver



    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?
     
    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. "Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it."

    Be specific. It’s worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?
     
    In 2003 there seemed very little chance that the Americans would be dumb enough to risk war with another nuclear power. The chances of that happening are much higher today. In fact the risk of war with other nuclear powers is greater than it was during the Cold War, when the U.S. was still run mostly run by the grown-ups.

    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he's told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.

    The U.S. attitude towards the Crimea (historically as much a part of Russia as California and Florida are part of the U.S.) is bizarre. The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless - they are openly interfering in China's internal affairs.

    Twenty years ago it was par for the course for the U.S. to try to overthrow governments that failed to toe the U.S. line but it was only done with smaller nations. Now the U.S. appears to have intentions to do this to nuclear powers.

    I have no illusions about China. They're cynical, but they are sane.

    Replies: @Talha, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”

    LOOOOOOL!!!

    Peace.

  124. @anon
    @Barbarossa

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich

    I was quite skeptical of this claim, however there is at least some truth to it.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mining_in_Afghanistan

    Replies: @A123, @Barbarossa

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich

    And, it is landlocked and very transportation poor.

    Trying to develop the local mineral resources requires not just mining but also warlord/terrorist vulnerable rail transport.

    Bribes are dangerous; they have a way of growing larger — Dune, Frank Herbert

    Attempting to payoff they ever changing cast of bandits and Taliban who want a cut is not a viable business model for Western or even Russian firms.

    Perhaps China can pull it off… After all they are willing to put millions of Weigers into camps. Putting millions of Taliban into camps would pacify the area. With sufficient experience and will to ethnicially cleanse the region, the Chinese may be able to create transport links free of natives and their violence.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Barbarossa
    @A123

    The Chinese would probably be just peachy with letting the Taliban run the country, as was the case pre 9/11, and trade development aid for mineral access. That seems to be there MO in other parts of the globe.

    No detention camps necessary. China would have no interest in the Soviet or US approach, I think.

    The Chinese could care less about whether Afghan girls can go to school.

  125. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver



    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?
     
    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. "Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it."

    Be specific. It’s worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?
     
    In 2003 there seemed very little chance that the Americans would be dumb enough to risk war with another nuclear power. The chances of that happening are much higher today. In fact the risk of war with other nuclear powers is greater than it was during the Cold War, when the U.S. was still run mostly run by the grown-ups.

    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he's told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.

    The U.S. attitude towards the Crimea (historically as much a part of Russia as California and Florida are part of the U.S.) is bizarre. The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless - they are openly interfering in China's internal affairs.

    Twenty years ago it was par for the course for the U.S. to try to overthrow governments that failed to toe the U.S. line but it was only done with smaller nations. Now the U.S. appears to have intentions to do this to nuclear powers.

    I have no illusions about China. They're cynical, but they are sane.

    Replies: @Talha, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he’s told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.

    What is really childish here is the insistence that America is merely sore at China for being “outcompeted” by them. That’s not the case. It has simply been accepted by a critical mass of the foreign policy establishment in the US that China is not going to abide by the global liberal order. (Foreign policy ‘realists’ – eg John Mearsheimer – never expected them to in the first place, but their arguments fell on deaf ears in the wake of liberal triumphalism after the Soviet bloc collapse). That being so, America’s under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.

    The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless – they are openly interfering in China’s internal affairs.

    It sends a reassuring signal to Asian allies (and would-be allies) that America is willing to challenge China if China attempts to rearrange their political order to better suit CCP interests. That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history).

    Britain’s alliance with Japan was premised on the latter’s willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America. It was wholly unrealistic to imagine that any alliance could be maintained under those circumstances. It hardly took Americans twisting their arm for the British to see it this way.

    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country’s foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America’s? (Ie Japan doing what they wanted was fine; China doing what they want is fine; Russia, ditto. But America, ohmygod how dare they!)

    • Replies: @A123
    @silviosilver

    I have to split the difference in this one.


    America’s under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.
     
    This is entirely correct.

    China as government policy has manipulated markets to achieve strategic advantage. Dumping rate earth elements to drive non-government subsidized competitors under is particularly egregious, as those are needed for military production.

    State Owned Enterprises [SOE] are officially part of the government, and essentially all large firms are under heavy CCP control.

    It is simple rationality that the U.S. and other nations must have national industrial policy to counter Chinese government actions in this area.

    America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.
     
    The problem is almost entirely economic, not the surface protest issues about rights & democracy.

    There is nothing that the U.S. or any outside force can do to remedy the financial pain the Chinese government intentionally or negligently inflicted on the Chinese workers of HK. With no solution, the U.S. government should stay away from the problem as engagement cannot produce a desirable outcome.

    Pressing Xi for a solution that does not readily exist will cause him to react, and that response is unlikely to align with U.S. interests.
    ____

    For anyone interested -- Below the MORE tag:

    -- I. Background for the HK situation.
    -- II. Xi's options for HK.
    -- III. A peaceful scenario for all involved.

    Apologies for any poor grammar. My spell check does odd things and at the length below there are probably a few serious garbles.

    PEACE 😇



    I. Background for the HK situation

    The pre-handover Hong Kong economy was doomed as soon as UK law ended with the lease. The ability to execute contracts under UK courts & law drove the financial transactions that brought in overseas money. It was inevitable and easily predictable that the financial firms revenue would dry up post handover.

    The CCP Elite leadership should have seen the inevitable consequences. An intellegent plan would have replaced exiting employers with others that would have maintained HK worker income. The CCP's shortsighted approach created this fiasco by diminishing the future of HK residents.
    ____

    II. Options to resolve the HK issue

    There are two core concepts:

    -1- The CCP can fix the underlying economic issue and take steps to bring jobs with pre-handover UK level pay to HK. For example, forcing Shanghai financial firms to move decision makers to HK is possible though difficult. Shanghai locals and interests would object.

    -2- The CCP can "adjust" the expectations of HK workers to a lower standard of living for themselves and their children.

    At this point the CCP Elites are trying #2. As a practical matter, this may be the only choice that Xi has with the mess his predecessors left him. However, convincing a large group of workers to accept a diminished future for their children is a long term slog that will have years of unpleasantness. If Xi can find a way to pull it off, #1 is a much better option.

    As Xi is backed into a corner not of his making, the U.S. government officially pressing him on HK is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.
    ____

    III. What could a larger peace look like?

    The best that can be done is focus on Xi's predecessors' folly in the planning the HK reassimilation. Emphasize that he inherited a mistake. This gives Xi a way forward. It also indirectly points out the problems with acquiring other strong economies, such as Tiawan. If the CCP under Xi understands the extremely high risk issues with taking Taiwan by force, then that issue is pushed off for the duration of Xi's regime and likely longer.

    Instead of a real conflict the U.S., China, and others will Show The Flag for domestic consumption with minimal risk of a real conflict. This appears to be what is taking place. China is grumbling but not reacting to the U.S. double carrier exercise. When those carriers relocate for other missions the Chinese Navy will have its own substantial exercise in region to demonstrate their commitment to the area.

    This is "Not a Loss for Xi". He has real gains to make in Africa as part of "One Belt" investements. Western companies have a history of being burned by African projects. Xi can meet Chinese strategic goals in an area where there is little push back. This is much more effective than a head-to-head conflict in the Pacific region with those that feel (rightly or wrongly) that their vital national interests are at stake.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @nebulafox
    @silviosilver

    I'm honestly not all that anti-PRC, relative to most right-wing Americans: I think they are behaving rationally and I don't think the nature of the Sino-American relationship would be all that different if it were turn into a democracy tomorrow. There's a strong delusional streak in mainstream GOP circles (the kinds that have learned absolutely nothing from the last 25 years) that China can be persuaded or bullied into reverting back to how it behaved when it was a backwater once domestic troubles begin to appear in the PRC. And the Chinese do have weaknesses: too many single men, pollution, massive debt. But that's just not going to happen. We're back to normal in the broad scope of history: China is a major factor in the world.

    (There is an argument to be made that only reason it took so long to reappear was the uniquely troubled circumstances of the Qing's fall, if you have a mystical flair and subscribe to the Mandate of Heaven. That dynasty should have fallen in the 1860s, but it was artificially prolonged-not least by Western powers-for 50 more years. Ito Hirobumi was prescient: he pointed this out more than a century ago.)

    And the degree of domestic problems the US is facing after decades of mismanagement is such that I genuinely believe the only way of preserving the US as a strong power, long-term, is to immediately focus on domestic reform. Think about it through the lens of soft power, our big trump card against the PRC. You have to be something worth imitating, and right now, America's not.

    >That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    Hong Kong is the wrong battle. That's Chinese territory, and even before it was, though Hong Kong's a highly liberal place, it was not a democracy. All we're doing is confirming PRC propaganda.

    I personally we should pick our points carefully and focus on a few selective, deep partnerships rather than focusing on the NATO-esque coalition that fails to account for diverging interests. This isn't 1950. Japan and Vietnam are probably the two countries who have the most reason to fear PRC hegemony, so it'd be better to focus on them rather than trying to fit the ROK-who is more than capable of defending itself against the North-and Japan together.

    >Britain’s alliance with Japan was premised on the latter’s willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America.

    As I mentioned in my own response, the British were happy or at least disinterested enough to let the IJA have at their democidal war in China prior to 1939, at the very earliest.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country’s foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America’s?
     
    I think pretty much all British foreign policy for the past century has been foolish and fuelled by delusions. I think Australia's foreign policy has been fairly disastrous but then we've never dared to have a truly independent foreign policy. The one brief experiment in having an independent foreign policy was under the Whitlam Government (1972-75), and coincidentally the Whitlam Government was overthrown in a coup in 1975.

    Most countries' foreign policies are either foolish, cynical or wrong-headed.

    I just think that objectively Chinese and Russian foreign policy is less toxic and less reckless than American foreign policy.
  126. A123 says:
    @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he’s told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.
     
    What is really childish here is the insistence that America is merely sore at China for being "outcompeted" by them. That's not the case. It has simply been accepted by a critical mass of the foreign policy establishment in the US that China is not going to abide by the global liberal order. (Foreign policy 'realists' - eg John Mearsheimer - never expected them to in the first place, but their arguments fell on deaf ears in the wake of liberal triumphalism after the Soviet bloc collapse). That being so, America's under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.

    The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless – they are openly interfering in China’s internal affairs.
     
    It sends a reassuring signal to Asian allies (and would-be allies) that America is willing to challenge China if China attempts to rearrange their political order to better suit CCP interests. That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they're surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history).
     
    Britain's alliance with Japan was premised on the latter's willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America. It was wholly unrealistic to imagine that any alliance could be maintained under those circumstances. It hardly took Americans twisting their arm for the British to see it this way.

    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country's foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America's? (Ie Japan doing what they wanted was fine; China doing what they want is fine; Russia, ditto. But America, ohmygod how dare they!)

    Replies: @A123, @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    I have to split the difference in this one.

    America’s under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.

    This is entirely correct.

    China as government policy has manipulated markets to achieve strategic advantage. Dumping rate earth elements to drive non-government subsidized competitors under is particularly egregious, as those are needed for military production.

    State Owned Enterprises [SOE] are officially part of the government, and essentially all large firms are under heavy CCP control.

    It is simple rationality that the U.S. and other nations must have national industrial policy to counter Chinese government actions in this area.

    America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    The problem is almost entirely economic, not the surface protest issues about rights & democracy.

    There is nothing that the U.S. or any outside force can do to remedy the financial pain the Chinese government intentionally or negligently inflicted on the Chinese workers of HK. With no solution, the U.S. government should stay away from the problem as engagement cannot produce a desirable outcome.

    Pressing Xi for a solution that does not readily exist will cause him to react, and that response is unlikely to align with U.S. interests.
    ____

    For anyone interested — Below the MORE tag:

    — I. Background for the HK situation.
    — II. Xi’s options for HK.
    — III. A peaceful scenario for all involved.

    Apologies for any poor grammar. My spell check does odd things and at the length below there are probably a few serious garbles.

    PEACE 😇

    [MORE]

    I. Background for the HK situation

    The pre-handover Hong Kong economy was doomed as soon as UK law ended with the lease. The ability to execute contracts under UK courts & law drove the financial transactions that brought in overseas money. It was inevitable and easily predictable that the financial firms revenue would dry up post handover.

    The CCP Elite leadership should have seen the inevitable consequences. An intellegent plan would have replaced exiting employers with others that would have maintained HK worker income. The CCP’s shortsighted approach created this fiasco by diminishing the future of HK residents.
    ____

    II. Options to resolve the HK issue

    There are two core concepts:

    -1- The CCP can fix the underlying economic issue and take steps to bring jobs with pre-handover UK level pay to HK. For example, forcing Shanghai financial firms to move decision makers to HK is possible though difficult. Shanghai locals and interests would object.

    -2- The CCP can “adjust” the expectations of HK workers to a lower standard of living for themselves and their children.

    At this point the CCP Elites are trying #2. As a practical matter, this may be the only choice that Xi has with the mess his predecessors left him. However, convincing a large group of workers to accept a diminished future for their children is a long term slog that will have years of unpleasantness. If Xi can find a way to pull it off, #1 is a much better option.

    As Xi is backed into a corner not of his making, the U.S. government officially pressing him on HK is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.
    ____

    III. What could a larger peace look like?

    The best that can be done is focus on Xi’s predecessors’ folly in the planning the HK reassimilation. Emphasize that he inherited a mistake. This gives Xi a way forward. It also indirectly points out the problems with acquiring other strong economies, such as Tiawan. If the CCP under Xi understands the extremely high risk issues with taking Taiwan by force, then that issue is pushed off for the duration of Xi’s regime and likely longer.

    Instead of a real conflict the U.S., China, and others will Show The Flag for domestic consumption with minimal risk of a real conflict. This appears to be what is taking place. China is grumbling but not reacting to the U.S. double carrier exercise. When those carriers relocate for other missions the Chinese Navy will have its own substantial exercise in region to demonstrate their commitment to the area.

    This is “Not a Loss for Xi“. He has real gains to make in Africa as part of “One Belt” investements. Western companies have a history of being burned by African projects. Xi can meet Chinese strategic goals in an area where there is little push back. This is much more effective than a head-to-head conflict in the Pacific region with those that feel (rightly or wrongly) that their vital national interests are at stake.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @A123

    I didn't mean to ignite a debate about the particulars of American meddling in HK. Briefly, I take it you're of the view that if you thought throwing sand in China's gears over HK would help, America should do it. DforDoom would regard any such meddling as outrageous and unacceptable in principle (and his view is really par for the course among Australian intellectuals, and even among an ungodly number of normies).

    Replies: @A123

  127. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Hmmmm, something kinda happened in the neighborhood a few years before that date that made Aussies become very solicitous of Americans…
     
    Something happened even earlier than that. Japan and the British Empire were allies. The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history). As a result Australia got drawn into an American war against a colonial rival.

    So in fact Australia was fighting American imperialist wars as far back as 1941.

    Thanks for nothing America.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    The British took a policy of benevolent neutrality in Japan’s war with China until 1940, but calling that an alliance goes a bit too far. An alliance would have meant potential involvement in a war in China that the UK obviously couldn’t afford to get involved in.

    What really tipped the scales was Japan’s occupation of Northern Indochina in a context where London had to seriously think of potential evacuation. We all know the Royal Navy made any German invasion unfeasible, but just like how the civilians of Constantinople didn’t know that their walls would be impregnable for most of the empire’s existence during the various early sieges of the capital, we have to ditch historical hindsight. I’m sure consideration of American animus toward the Japanese played a part in British considerations, but nothing I’ve read convinces me that it was the operative factor. London had its own interests in the region to consider.

    In reality, tensions had been boiling underneath the surface for some time over Japanese blockades of British concessions in China and drift toward Nazi Germany, which seemed to completely contradict the friendly relationship between the British embassy and their civilian opposite numbers. As I’ve mentioned in previous comments, the real issue was many Western governments failed to appreciate just how little control the civilians in Tokyo had over the military, London included. Japan’s always been a place where political power in theory and in reality has been divorced.

    >So in fact Australia was fighting American imperialist wars as far back as 1941. Thanks for nothing America.

    Hey, they started it. And if you think American imperialism was nasty, ask an elderly Filipino what the Japanese were like in comparison. Even today, countries who have historically suffered at the hands of American foreign policy, unlike Australia-Vietnam-are actively currying American favor, in spite of everything. Why? Because, unlike Western businessmen, they *know* the PRC, and more broadly, they know the Chinese and what their domination of the region would be like. People who actually have to live with China nearby are a lot less sanguine about them for a reason.

    (Even the original Communists didn’t trust China, a huge part of North Vietnam’s eventual pro-Soviet turn and how the war turned out the way it did. Ho’s quote about the difference between French and Chinese excrement aside, even at the height of Sino-North Vietnamese cooperation in the mid-1960s, Chinese laborers in North Vietnam were kept under strict segregation from the rest of the populace.)

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    The British took a policy of benevolent neutrality in Japan’s war with China until 1940, but calling that an alliance goes a bit too far.
     
    The Anglo-Japanese alliance was ended in the 1920s.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  128. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he’s told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.
     
    What is really childish here is the insistence that America is merely sore at China for being "outcompeted" by them. That's not the case. It has simply been accepted by a critical mass of the foreign policy establishment in the US that China is not going to abide by the global liberal order. (Foreign policy 'realists' - eg John Mearsheimer - never expected them to in the first place, but their arguments fell on deaf ears in the wake of liberal triumphalism after the Soviet bloc collapse). That being so, America's under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.

    The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless – they are openly interfering in China’s internal affairs.
     
    It sends a reassuring signal to Asian allies (and would-be allies) that America is willing to challenge China if China attempts to rearrange their political order to better suit CCP interests. That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they're surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history).
     
    Britain's alliance with Japan was premised on the latter's willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America. It was wholly unrealistic to imagine that any alliance could be maintained under those circumstances. It hardly took Americans twisting their arm for the British to see it this way.

    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country's foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America's? (Ie Japan doing what they wanted was fine; China doing what they want is fine; Russia, ditto. But America, ohmygod how dare they!)

    Replies: @A123, @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    I’m honestly not all that anti-PRC, relative to most right-wing Americans: I think they are behaving rationally and I don’t think the nature of the Sino-American relationship would be all that different if it were turn into a democracy tomorrow. There’s a strong delusional streak in mainstream GOP circles (the kinds that have learned absolutely nothing from the last 25 years) that China can be persuaded or bullied into reverting back to how it behaved when it was a backwater once domestic troubles begin to appear in the PRC. And the Chinese do have weaknesses: too many single men, pollution, massive debt. But that’s just not going to happen. We’re back to normal in the broad scope of history: China is a major factor in the world.

    (There is an argument to be made that only reason it took so long to reappear was the uniquely troubled circumstances of the Qing’s fall, if you have a mystical flair and subscribe to the Mandate of Heaven. That dynasty should have fallen in the 1860s, but it was artificially prolonged-not least by Western powers-for 50 more years. Ito Hirobumi was prescient: he pointed this out more than a century ago.)

    And the degree of domestic problems the US is facing after decades of mismanagement is such that I genuinely believe the only way of preserving the US as a strong power, long-term, is to immediately focus on domestic reform. Think about it through the lens of soft power, our big trump card against the PRC. You have to be something worth imitating, and right now, America’s not.

    >That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    Hong Kong is the wrong battle. That’s Chinese territory, and even before it was, though Hong Kong’s a highly liberal place, it was not a democracy. All we’re doing is confirming PRC propaganda.

    I personally we should pick our points carefully and focus on a few selective, deep partnerships rather than focusing on the NATO-esque coalition that fails to account for diverging interests. This isn’t 1950. Japan and Vietnam are probably the two countries who have the most reason to fear PRC hegemony, so it’d be better to focus on them rather than trying to fit the ROK-who is more than capable of defending itself against the North-and Japan together.

    >Britain’s alliance with Japan was premised on the latter’s willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America.

    As I mentioned in my own response, the British were happy or at least disinterested enough to let the IJA have at their democidal war in China prior to 1939, at the very earliest.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @nebulafox


    There’s a strong delusional streak in mainstream GOP circles (the kinds that have learned absolutely nothing from the last 25 years) that China can be persuaded or bullied into reverting back to how it behaved when it was a backwater once domestic troubles begin to appear in the PRC.
     
    That is a facade. It has long been the practice for Americans to cloak realist policy goals in the language of liberal idealism, simply to sell it to the American public.

    And the Chinese do have weaknesses: too many single men, pollution, massive debt.
     
    People constantly bring up their pollution problem, but I have a hard time seeing that it would be a debilitating weakness rather than minor nuisance.

    We’re back to normal in the broad scope of history: China is a major factor in the world.
     
    It's not a 'normal' that America (or Australia) has any historical memory of though. To me, it's more like uncharted waters.

    Hong Kong is the wrong battle.
     
    I wasn't suggesting America go to war over it. But if speaking out about it adds fuel to the fire of their domestic problems, then why not? (What's the Chinese position on BLM?)
  129. @Supply and Demand
    @WorkingClass

    As a postgrad who's had to decamp to China in order not to have my studies on robotics attacked by critical theorists -- I can tell you for a fact that all of the postgrads in the hard sciences are absolutely terrified of speaking out against their '68 refusenik bosses. They will agree to the most braindead delusion to keep their place on the ladder, desperately hoping their "mentor" will die and they can get a shot at a tenure.

    Replies: @Jane Plain, @WorkingClass, @nebulafox

    Yeah, you aren’t alone. Opportunities for physics in China have exploded, too.

    In particular, a lot of people from the developing world are choosing to go to China for education. I was going to go to the PRC (Wuhan of all places!) for a lattice QCD conference a couple of years ago until an emergency intervened and destroyed my plans at the last moment. I was looking for people to stay with and ended up discussing things with mostly Indonesian graduate students doing robotics or AI. 20 years ago, mainland Chinese doing STEM in America or Europe would do just about anything to avoid being sent back, but now they are all going back of their own free will because the market and environment for Mandarin speaking hard STEM types is so much better. Not having to deal with a-scientific PC nonsense for certain fields-especially genetics-is just the cherry on top.

    (Anybody who remembers the Suharto days will note the irony of Indonesians-and these are bumis, not ethnic Chinese-going off to study in the PRC.)

  130. @A123
    @anon


    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich
     
    And, it is landlocked and very transportation poor.

    Trying to develop the local mineral resources requires not just mining but also warlord/terrorist vulnerable rail transport.

    Bribes are dangerous; they have a way of growing larger -- Dune, Frank Herbert

    Attempting to payoff they ever changing cast of bandits and Taliban who want a cut is not a viable business model for Western or even Russian firms.

    Perhaps China can pull it off... After all they are willing to put millions of Weigers into camps. Putting millions of Taliban into camps would pacify the area. With sufficient experience and will to ethnicially cleanse the region, the Chinese may be able to create transport links free of natives and their violence.

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Barbarossa

    The Chinese would probably be just peachy with letting the Taliban run the country, as was the case pre 9/11, and trade development aid for mineral access. That seems to be there MO in other parts of the globe.

    No detention camps necessary. China would have no interest in the Soviet or US approach, I think.

    The Chinese could care less about whether Afghan girls can go to school.

  131. @anon
    @Barbarossa

    Afghanistan is actually extremely mineral rich

    I was quite skeptical of this claim, however there is at least some truth to it.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mining_in_Afghanistan

    Replies: @A123, @Barbarossa

    I found it out when I was doing some research on Lithium Ion batteries. I came across a mining trade magazine article talking about the massive Lithium Carbonate deposits in Afghanistan (among other notable deposits) and how US attempt to coax mining concerns to set up shop had been a non starter for security and transportation concerns.

    It was a bit of a light bulb moment where US policy motivations suddenly became much clearer.

    Not that any of that makes it into the news. Our government just cares about freedom and stuff so much that they have to militarily occupy the country for a couple decades.

  132. @A123
    @silviosilver

    I have to split the difference in this one.


    America’s under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.
     
    This is entirely correct.

    China as government policy has manipulated markets to achieve strategic advantage. Dumping rate earth elements to drive non-government subsidized competitors under is particularly egregious, as those are needed for military production.

    State Owned Enterprises [SOE] are officially part of the government, and essentially all large firms are under heavy CCP control.

    It is simple rationality that the U.S. and other nations must have national industrial policy to counter Chinese government actions in this area.

    America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.
     
    The problem is almost entirely economic, not the surface protest issues about rights & democracy.

    There is nothing that the U.S. or any outside force can do to remedy the financial pain the Chinese government intentionally or negligently inflicted on the Chinese workers of HK. With no solution, the U.S. government should stay away from the problem as engagement cannot produce a desirable outcome.

    Pressing Xi for a solution that does not readily exist will cause him to react, and that response is unlikely to align with U.S. interests.
    ____

    For anyone interested -- Below the MORE tag:

    -- I. Background for the HK situation.
    -- II. Xi's options for HK.
    -- III. A peaceful scenario for all involved.

    Apologies for any poor grammar. My spell check does odd things and at the length below there are probably a few serious garbles.

    PEACE 😇



    I. Background for the HK situation

    The pre-handover Hong Kong economy was doomed as soon as UK law ended with the lease. The ability to execute contracts under UK courts & law drove the financial transactions that brought in overseas money. It was inevitable and easily predictable that the financial firms revenue would dry up post handover.

    The CCP Elite leadership should have seen the inevitable consequences. An intellegent plan would have replaced exiting employers with others that would have maintained HK worker income. The CCP's shortsighted approach created this fiasco by diminishing the future of HK residents.
    ____

    II. Options to resolve the HK issue

    There are two core concepts:

    -1- The CCP can fix the underlying economic issue and take steps to bring jobs with pre-handover UK level pay to HK. For example, forcing Shanghai financial firms to move decision makers to HK is possible though difficult. Shanghai locals and interests would object.

    -2- The CCP can "adjust" the expectations of HK workers to a lower standard of living for themselves and their children.

    At this point the CCP Elites are trying #2. As a practical matter, this may be the only choice that Xi has with the mess his predecessors left him. However, convincing a large group of workers to accept a diminished future for their children is a long term slog that will have years of unpleasantness. If Xi can find a way to pull it off, #1 is a much better option.

    As Xi is backed into a corner not of his making, the U.S. government officially pressing him on HK is foolish at best and dangerous at worst.
    ____

    III. What could a larger peace look like?

    The best that can be done is focus on Xi's predecessors' folly in the planning the HK reassimilation. Emphasize that he inherited a mistake. This gives Xi a way forward. It also indirectly points out the problems with acquiring other strong economies, such as Tiawan. If the CCP under Xi understands the extremely high risk issues with taking Taiwan by force, then that issue is pushed off for the duration of Xi's regime and likely longer.

    Instead of a real conflict the U.S., China, and others will Show The Flag for domestic consumption with minimal risk of a real conflict. This appears to be what is taking place. China is grumbling but not reacting to the U.S. double carrier exercise. When those carriers relocate for other missions the Chinese Navy will have its own substantial exercise in region to demonstrate their commitment to the area.

    This is "Not a Loss for Xi". He has real gains to make in Africa as part of "One Belt" investements. Western companies have a history of being burned by African projects. Xi can meet Chinese strategic goals in an area where there is little push back. This is much more effective than a head-to-head conflict in the Pacific region with those that feel (rightly or wrongly) that their vital national interests are at stake.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I didn’t mean to ignite a debate about the particulars of American meddling in HK. Briefly, I take it you’re of the view that if you thought throwing sand in China’s gears over HK would help, America should do it. DforDoom would regard any such meddling as outrageous and unacceptable in principle (and his view is really par for the course among Australian intellectuals, and even among an ungodly number of normies).

    • Replies: @A123
    @silviosilver


    I didn’t mean to ignite a debate about the particulars of American meddling in HK. Briefly, I take it you’re of the view that if you thought throwing sand in China’s gears over HK would help, America should do it.
     
    China meddles in American affairs, so I have no objection to meddling theirs. If throwing sand in China's gears would help American interests, then it is a desirable course of action.

    China has been exploiting trade for years. Turn about is fair play, for example USMCA replacing NAFTA. The U.S. Government is also implementing non-tariff rules to prioritize U.S. mining and manufacturing in strategic sectors. This will begin undoing the damage done by Chinese abuses.
    ___

    However, all of the important HK decisions were made years ago by China and the UK. It is far too late for the U.S. or any other nation to intervene. The economic issues are structurally locked in and only China can address the failure.

    Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself. -- Napoleon Bonaparte.

    PEACE 😇
  133. @nebulafox
    @silviosilver

    I'm honestly not all that anti-PRC, relative to most right-wing Americans: I think they are behaving rationally and I don't think the nature of the Sino-American relationship would be all that different if it were turn into a democracy tomorrow. There's a strong delusional streak in mainstream GOP circles (the kinds that have learned absolutely nothing from the last 25 years) that China can be persuaded or bullied into reverting back to how it behaved when it was a backwater once domestic troubles begin to appear in the PRC. And the Chinese do have weaknesses: too many single men, pollution, massive debt. But that's just not going to happen. We're back to normal in the broad scope of history: China is a major factor in the world.

    (There is an argument to be made that only reason it took so long to reappear was the uniquely troubled circumstances of the Qing's fall, if you have a mystical flair and subscribe to the Mandate of Heaven. That dynasty should have fallen in the 1860s, but it was artificially prolonged-not least by Western powers-for 50 more years. Ito Hirobumi was prescient: he pointed this out more than a century ago.)

    And the degree of domestic problems the US is facing after decades of mismanagement is such that I genuinely believe the only way of preserving the US as a strong power, long-term, is to immediately focus on domestic reform. Think about it through the lens of soft power, our big trump card against the PRC. You have to be something worth imitating, and right now, America's not.

    >That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they’re surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    Hong Kong is the wrong battle. That's Chinese territory, and even before it was, though Hong Kong's a highly liberal place, it was not a democracy. All we're doing is confirming PRC propaganda.

    I personally we should pick our points carefully and focus on a few selective, deep partnerships rather than focusing on the NATO-esque coalition that fails to account for diverging interests. This isn't 1950. Japan and Vietnam are probably the two countries who have the most reason to fear PRC hegemony, so it'd be better to focus on them rather than trying to fit the ROK-who is more than capable of defending itself against the North-and Japan together.

    >Britain’s alliance with Japan was premised on the latter’s willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America.

    As I mentioned in my own response, the British were happy or at least disinterested enough to let the IJA have at their democidal war in China prior to 1939, at the very earliest.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    There’s a strong delusional streak in mainstream GOP circles (the kinds that have learned absolutely nothing from the last 25 years) that China can be persuaded or bullied into reverting back to how it behaved when it was a backwater once domestic troubles begin to appear in the PRC.

    That is a facade. It has long been the practice for Americans to cloak realist policy goals in the language of liberal idealism, simply to sell it to the American public.

    And the Chinese do have weaknesses: too many single men, pollution, massive debt.

    People constantly bring up their pollution problem, but I have a hard time seeing that it would be a debilitating weakness rather than minor nuisance.

    We’re back to normal in the broad scope of history: China is a major factor in the world.

    It’s not a ‘normal’ that America (or Australia) has any historical memory of though. To me, it’s more like uncharted waters.

    Hong Kong is the wrong battle.

    I wasn’t suggesting America go to war over it. But if speaking out about it adds fuel to the fire of their domestic problems, then why not? (What’s the Chinese position on BLM?)

  134. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he’s told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.
     
    What is really childish here is the insistence that America is merely sore at China for being "outcompeted" by them. That's not the case. It has simply been accepted by a critical mass of the foreign policy establishment in the US that China is not going to abide by the global liberal order. (Foreign policy 'realists' - eg John Mearsheimer - never expected them to in the first place, but their arguments fell on deaf ears in the wake of liberal triumphalism after the Soviet bloc collapse). That being so, America's under no obligation to sit back and watch China throw her weight around without considering the impact on American interests.

    The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless – they are openly interfering in China’s internal affairs.
     
    It sends a reassuring signal to Asian allies (and would-be allies) that America is willing to challenge China if China attempts to rearrange their political order to better suit CCP interests. That is, if America is willing to challenge China on Hong Kong, they're surely likely to challenge China on the Phillipines, Taiwan, Vietnam etc. Perhaps the effort will fail, it certainly makes sense that America would try.

    The U.S. pressured Britain into abandoning the alliance with Japan (which turned out to be the worst foreign policy mistake in British history).
     
    Britain's alliance with Japan was premised on the latter's willingness to maintain the status quo. But Japan was set on a course of empire building, which was as obvious to Britain as it was to America. It was wholly unrealistic to imagine that any alliance could be maintained under those circumstances. It hardly took Americans twisting their arm for the British to see it this way.

    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country's foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America's? (Ie Japan doing what they wanted was fine; China doing what they want is fine; Russia, ditto. But America, ohmygod how dare they!)

    Replies: @A123, @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    Moreover, is it just my biased impression, or does it really seem that you consider every other country’s foreign policy initiatives to be legitimate except America’s?

    I think pretty much all British foreign policy for the past century has been foolish and fuelled by delusions. I think Australia’s foreign policy has been fairly disastrous but then we’ve never dared to have a truly independent foreign policy. The one brief experiment in having an independent foreign policy was under the Whitlam Government (1972-75), and coincidentally the Whitlam Government was overthrown in a coup in 1975.

    Most countries’ foreign policies are either foolish, cynical or wrong-headed.

    I just think that objectively Chinese and Russian foreign policy is less toxic and less reckless than American foreign policy.

  135. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    The British took a policy of benevolent neutrality in Japan's war with China until 1940, but calling that an alliance goes a bit too far. An alliance would have meant potential involvement in a war in China that the UK obviously couldn't afford to get involved in.

    What really tipped the scales was Japan's occupation of Northern Indochina in a context where London had to seriously think of potential evacuation. We all know the Royal Navy made any German invasion unfeasible, but just like how the civilians of Constantinople didn't know that their walls would be impregnable for most of the empire's existence during the various early sieges of the capital, we have to ditch historical hindsight. I'm sure consideration of American animus toward the Japanese played a part in British considerations, but nothing I've read convinces me that it was the operative factor. London had its own interests in the region to consider.

    In reality, tensions had been boiling underneath the surface for some time over Japanese blockades of British concessions in China and drift toward Nazi Germany, which seemed to completely contradict the friendly relationship between the British embassy and their civilian opposite numbers. As I've mentioned in previous comments, the real issue was many Western governments failed to appreciate just how little control the civilians in Tokyo had over the military, London included. Japan's always been a place where political power in theory and in reality has been divorced.

    >So in fact Australia was fighting American imperialist wars as far back as 1941. Thanks for nothing America.

    Hey, they started it. And if you think American imperialism was nasty, ask an elderly Filipino what the Japanese were like in comparison. Even today, countries who have historically suffered at the hands of American foreign policy, unlike Australia-Vietnam-are actively currying American favor, in spite of everything. Why? Because, unlike Western businessmen, they *know* the PRC, and more broadly, they know the Chinese and what their domination of the region would be like. People who actually have to live with China nearby are a lot less sanguine about them for a reason.

    (Even the original Communists didn't trust China, a huge part of North Vietnam's eventual pro-Soviet turn and how the war turned out the way it did. Ho's quote about the difference between French and Chinese excrement aside, even at the height of Sino-North Vietnamese cooperation in the mid-1960s, Chinese laborers in North Vietnam were kept under strict segregation from the rest of the populace.)

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The British took a policy of benevolent neutrality in Japan’s war with China until 1940, but calling that an alliance goes a bit too far.

    The Anglo-Japanese alliance was ended in the 1920s.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    Oh, you mean the on-paper one. Well, in that case, yeah, if I were British, I'd think that was a huge mistake, from the perspective of maximizing British power. I'm not deeply familiar with Anglo-Japanese relations beyond a very high level (Royal Navy influence on the IJN), but the way I see it, there were two powers that emerged from WWI intact: the United States and Japan. Elementary rule of geopolitics is that you play the weaker off the stronger. It should have been obvious that Japanese industrial capacity and manpower was simply never going to match the United States: even Tokyo was deeply aware of that during the lead up to Pearl.

    So, why did they do it? Honest question. My suspicion is that there was strong Wall Street influence in London at the time that played a role, but if I knew that for sure, I wouldn't be asking the question.

    (A verboten topic in the US media: the integral role that Wall Street played in securing intervention in WWI. They would have been massively out of pocket if the Entente didn't win. And I think it's pretty clear that without American intervention, some kind of compromise deal would have had to occur on the Western Front. Everybody involved was being bled absolutely white, and Russia would have still exited the war.)

  136. @dfordoom
    @nebulafox


    The British took a policy of benevolent neutrality in Japan’s war with China until 1940, but calling that an alliance goes a bit too far.
     
    The Anglo-Japanese alliance was ended in the 1920s.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Oh, you mean the on-paper one. Well, in that case, yeah, if I were British, I’d think that was a huge mistake, from the perspective of maximizing British power. I’m not deeply familiar with Anglo-Japanese relations beyond a very high level (Royal Navy influence on the IJN), but the way I see it, there were two powers that emerged from WWI intact: the United States and Japan. Elementary rule of geopolitics is that you play the weaker off the stronger. It should have been obvious that Japanese industrial capacity and manpower was simply never going to match the United States: even Tokyo was deeply aware of that during the lead up to Pearl.

    So, why did they do it? Honest question. My suspicion is that there was strong Wall Street influence in London at the time that played a role, but if I knew that for sure, I wouldn’t be asking the question.

    (A verboten topic in the US media: the integral role that Wall Street played in securing intervention in WWI. They would have been massively out of pocket if the Entente didn’t win. And I think it’s pretty clear that without American intervention, some kind of compromise deal would have had to occur on the Western Front. Everybody involved was being bled absolutely white, and Russia would have still exited the war.)

  137. @silviosilver
    @A123

    I didn't mean to ignite a debate about the particulars of American meddling in HK. Briefly, I take it you're of the view that if you thought throwing sand in China's gears over HK would help, America should do it. DforDoom would regard any such meddling as outrageous and unacceptable in principle (and his view is really par for the course among Australian intellectuals, and even among an ungodly number of normies).

    Replies: @A123

    I didn’t mean to ignite a debate about the particulars of American meddling in HK. Briefly, I take it you’re of the view that if you thought throwing sand in China’s gears over HK would help, America should do it.

    China meddles in American affairs, so I have no objection to meddling theirs. If throwing sand in China’s gears would help American interests, then it is a desirable course of action.

    China has been exploiting trade for years. Turn about is fair play, for example USMCA replacing NAFTA. The U.S. Government is also implementing non-tariff rules to prioritize U.S. mining and manufacturing in strategic sectors. This will begin undoing the damage done by Chinese abuses.
    ___

    However, all of the important HK decisions were made years ago by China and the UK. It is far too late for the U.S. or any other nation to intervene. The economic issues are structurally locked in and only China can address the failure.

    Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself. — Napoleon Bonaparte.

    PEACE 😇

  138. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver



    You mean like the way Australia has provided troops to fight in all of America’s imperial wars since 1945?
     
    You think there was a lower cost insurance policy on the market?
     
    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. "Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it."

    Be specific. It’s worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?
     
    In 2003 there seemed very little chance that the Americans would be dumb enough to risk war with another nuclear power. The chances of that happening are much higher today. In fact the risk of war with other nuclear powers is greater than it was during the Cold War, when the U.S. was still run mostly run by the grown-ups.

    The U.S. attitude towards Russia and China has become more childish and petulant. How dare Vladimir Putin not hand over his lunch money when he's told to? How dare those nasty yellow Chinese outcompete the USA.

    The U.S. attitude towards the Crimea (historically as much a part of Russia as California and Florida are part of the U.S.) is bizarre. The U.S. attitude towards Hong Kong is extraordinarily reckless - they are openly interfering in China's internal affairs.

    Twenty years ago it was par for the course for the U.S. to try to overthrow governments that failed to toe the U.S. line but it was only done with smaller nations. Now the U.S. appears to have intentions to do this to nuclear powers.

    I have no illusions about China. They're cynical, but they are sane.

    Replies: @Talha, @silviosilver, @silviosilver

    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”

    I forgot to respond to this.

    If I tell you, nice kids, shame if something happened to them, then *I* am threatening your kids myself, so you had better do my bidding.

    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia – as in, invade or something like that? I can’t see any other way to interpret that statement.

    (Not surprised to see anti-western Muslim Talha supporting this absurd logic.)

    • Replies: @Talha
    @silviosilver


    (Not surprised to see anti-western muzzpig Talha supporting this absurd logic.)
     
    I didn't (I honestly don't know enough about that part of the world or its history to formulate an opinion) - I just laughed at it because I love that line. It makes me laugh whenever I hear it.

    "Muzzpig" is new, haven't heard that one before; props for thinking outside the box under highly triggered conditions!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUL28Skt6E

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia – as in, invade or something like that? I can’t see any other way to interpret that statement.
     
    You don't understand how protection rackets work. There's no need for direct threats. The US has on many occasions put political and economic pressure on Australia to toe the American line.

    It's not like the old days in Chicago in the 1920s. Modern gangsters (such as the US Government) are more subtle.

    BTW, the US doesn't have to invade Australia. They already have military bases here. Having foreign military bases on your soil makes you an occupied country.

    Continuing to grovel to the US is simply not in Australia's long term interests. Having good relations with China is very much in Australia's interests. There's always a price. As far as our relationship with the US is concerned the price is no longer worth paying. As far as our relationship with China is concerned the price is worth paying.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @d dan

  139. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”
     
    I forgot to respond to this.

    If I tell you, nice kids, shame if something happened to them, then *I* am threatening your kids myself, so you had better do my bidding.

    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia - as in, invade or something like that? I can't see any other way to interpret that statement.

    (Not surprised to see anti-western Muslim Talha supporting this absurd logic.)

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    (Not surprised to see anti-western muzzpig Talha supporting this absurd logic.)

    I didn’t (I honestly don’t know enough about that part of the world or its history to formulate an opinion) – I just laughed at it because I love that line. It makes me laugh whenever I hear it.

    “Muzzpig” is new, haven’t heard that one before; props for thinking outside the box under highly triggered conditions!

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Talha

    Me and my boys use it around the house for laughs:
    "Nice cookie you got there, it'd be a real shame if someone was to eat it."

    "That's a nice ten dollar bill you've left in your pants pocket in the laundry, it'd be a real shame if it happened to disappear."

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  140. @Talha
    @silviosilver


    (Not surprised to see anti-western muzzpig Talha supporting this absurd logic.)
     
    I didn't (I honestly don't know enough about that part of the world or its history to formulate an opinion) - I just laughed at it because I love that line. It makes me laugh whenever I hear it.

    "Muzzpig" is new, haven't heard that one before; props for thinking outside the box under highly triggered conditions!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUL28Skt6E

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

    Me and my boys use it around the house for laughs:
    “Nice cookie you got there, it’d be a real shame if someone was to eat it.”

    “That’s a nice ten dollar bill you’ve left in your pants pocket in the laundry, it’d be a real shame if it happened to disappear.”

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Talha

    Oh c'mon, you can do better:

    "It'd be a real shame if it were laundered away!"

  141. This was so well done:

    It’s just too bad that Boko Haram operates in the North of Nigeria while all the oil fields are nice and safe in the relatively stable South and coastal areas of the country.

    Peace.

  142. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    More of a protection racket than an insurance policy. “Nice little country you got there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it.”
     
    I forgot to respond to this.

    If I tell you, nice kids, shame if something happened to them, then *I* am threatening your kids myself, so you had better do my bidding.

    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia - as in, invade or something like that? I can't see any other way to interpret that statement.

    (Not surprised to see anti-western Muslim Talha supporting this absurd logic.)

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia – as in, invade or something like that? I can’t see any other way to interpret that statement.

    You don’t understand how protection rackets work. There’s no need for direct threats. The US has on many occasions put political and economic pressure on Australia to toe the American line.

    It’s not like the old days in Chicago in the 1920s. Modern gangsters (such as the US Government) are more subtle.

    BTW, the US doesn’t have to invade Australia. They already have military bases here. Having foreign military bases on your soil makes you an occupied country.

    Continuing to grovel to the US is simply not in Australia’s long term interests. Having good relations with China is very much in Australia’s interests. There’s always a price. As far as our relationship with the US is concerned the price is no longer worth paying. As far as our relationship with China is concerned the price is worth paying.

    • Agree: d dan
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    You don’t understand how protection rackets work.
     
    I guess I don't. You must have confused me with your "nice little country you have there" line.

    The US has on many occasions put political and economic pressure on Australia to toe the American line.
     
    That is just shocking. I mean shocking. Absolutely intolerable. China would never stoop so low.

    As far as our relationship with the US is concerned the price is no longer worth paying. As far as our relationship with China is concerned the price is worth paying.
     
    You are long on rhetoric, but somewhat short on specifics. Would you care to outline what this price is, as you see it?
    , @d dan
    @dfordoom


    "Continuing to grovel to the US is simply not in Australia’s long term interests. Having good relations with China is very much in Australia’s interests. "
     
    US: We have to stop Huawei at all cost.
    Australia: Fine. We will help to stop Huawei. But what is the cost?
    US: You.
  143. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia – as in, invade or something like that? I can’t see any other way to interpret that statement.
     
    You don't understand how protection rackets work. There's no need for direct threats. The US has on many occasions put political and economic pressure on Australia to toe the American line.

    It's not like the old days in Chicago in the 1920s. Modern gangsters (such as the US Government) are more subtle.

    BTW, the US doesn't have to invade Australia. They already have military bases here. Having foreign military bases on your soil makes you an occupied country.

    Continuing to grovel to the US is simply not in Australia's long term interests. Having good relations with China is very much in Australia's interests. There's always a price. As far as our relationship with the US is concerned the price is no longer worth paying. As far as our relationship with China is concerned the price is worth paying.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @d dan

    You don’t understand how protection rackets work.

    I guess I don’t. You must have confused me with your “nice little country you have there” line.

    The US has on many occasions put political and economic pressure on Australia to toe the American line.

    That is just shocking. I mean shocking. Absolutely intolerable. China would never stoop so low.

    As far as our relationship with the US is concerned the price is no longer worth paying. As far as our relationship with China is concerned the price is worth paying.

    You are long on rhetoric, but somewhat short on specifics. Would you care to outline what this price is, as you see it?

    • Troll: d dan
  144. @dfordoom
    @silviosilver


    Are you claiming America threatened to harm Australia – as in, invade or something like that? I can’t see any other way to interpret that statement.
     
    You don't understand how protection rackets work. There's no need for direct threats. The US has on many occasions put political and economic pressure on Australia to toe the American line.

    It's not like the old days in Chicago in the 1920s. Modern gangsters (such as the US Government) are more subtle.

    BTW, the US doesn't have to invade Australia. They already have military bases here. Having foreign military bases on your soil makes you an occupied country.

    Continuing to grovel to the US is simply not in Australia's long term interests. Having good relations with China is very much in Australia's interests. There's always a price. As far as our relationship with the US is concerned the price is no longer worth paying. As far as our relationship with China is concerned the price is worth paying.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @d dan

    “Continuing to grovel to the US is simply not in Australia’s long term interests. Having good relations with China is very much in Australia’s interests. “

    US: We have to stop Huawei at all cost.
    Australia: Fine. We will help to stop Huawei. But what is the cost?
    US: You.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  145. @WorkingClass
    Postgradtards are the stupidest mother fuckers in the country at 92%. But with 40% not sure its more like 92% of 60%? Maybe Gradtards are not the most stupid. Maybe they are the most sure.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @follyofwar, @Thucydides, @Audacious Epigone

    Only 26% of postgrads are unsure. Just 6% do not believe the alleged intelligence report(s)!

  146. @nebulafox
    AE, AE, AE: don't you know? Those strategic gravel deposits in Herat. The generals made it clear to the President of their integral value to America's security. Those 19 year olds landing in Bathesda because they can't afford college are making the sacrifices needed.

    The one thing that nobody bothers to mention is that we increasingly cannot even afford these adventures, regardless of how (ill) conceived they are, and the next decade is going to make that brutally, coldly clear. The jig's running up.

    I don't suppose the House Democrats see the irony in working with Liz Cheney to keep us at war, right? Of course they wouldn't. That's Who We Are. Our soldiers defending our borders is Racist. Our soldiers defending pedophiles is Enlightened.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    The country can’t afford these adventures but the military industrial complex can’t afford the ending of these adventures. Something has to give. We’re assured it cannot be the dollar. Sure, sometime in the indefinite future this will break the dollar, but not this, not now!

  147. @WorkingClass
    @Supply and Demand

    Congratulations on having the courage and good sense to get the fuck out of Dodge. I realize that postgrads are not actually stupid. They are indoctrinated which is much worse. And I would not be surprised to learn that "hard science" students might be less indoctrinated if not less intimidated than other students. I wouldn't know. Academia is a foreign country to me.

    The great Texas blues artist, Janis Joplin, sang "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose". Having no status in society and nothing to sell but my labor I have no fear of the Commissars. And living in rural America I have no need to fear my neighbors. I live in a crummy apartment of course and I drive a clunker. And you, my friend, are living in China. The Bard, Bob Dylan, told us "Every form of refuge has it's price".

    Replies: @WorkingClass, @Audacious Epigone

    That’s Don Henley, I think:

  148. @216
    Thoughts?

    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1279764288509444098

    At best, Biden is a De Klerk-analogue, and President-for-Life Harris comes after.

    Replies: @A123, @botazefa, @Audacious Epigone

    If you don’t want the earnest push for a left-wing cultural revolution to really get under way in the next four years, vote for Biden. Know that when the push comes four years down the line, though, your position to resist it will be even weaker than it is today.

  149. @botazefa
    @dfordoom


    If it’s a choice between being America’s bitch or China’s bitch I’d prefer to be China’s bitch.
     
    You may be assuming that woke capital doesn't have its sights and tentacles set on China.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    The CCP has shown an impressive ability to put Woke Capital in its place, Google and the NBA to name a couple of recent capitulations.

    • Replies: @botazefa
    @Audacious Epigone

    True. Noted.

  150. @Corvinus
    @Nodwink

    "but no serious person would believe what the CIA says about… anything."

    No True Scottsman Fallacy employed on your part.

    Should we as Americans have healthy skepticism of the CIA and our intelligence community? Absolutely. Should we as Americans utterly dismiss their findings in every case? Absolutely not.

    The intelligence was considered significant and credible enough that it was included in the President’s Daily Brief. It is a collection of the most significant analysis on issues affecting national security and foreign policy. Leading Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents. Trump lied about NOT viewing it. Now why would he other than tell the truth here?

    Replies: @A123, @MarkinLA, @Audacious Epigone

    Republican lawmakers confirmed its contents? Not even the intelligence agencies confirmed its contents. They label the existence of the report credible, nothing more so far as I’m aware.

  151. @216
    @dfordoom


    And being able to destroy someone’s livelihood is much more effective. If you dissidents in prison you risk making them into martyrs. Simply destroying their livelihood avoids that risk.
     
    Moreover, it exposes us as feckless. "Rugged Aryan Individualists" proved unable to "build their own" sites. We've been relegated to a weak executive order, delayed DOJ antitrust action, and dim hopes of legislation even if we retake the House.

    I don’t think they will. Firstly, because it’s unnecessary. Woke Capital already has more than sufficient power. Secondly, making things illegal is risky because legal changes can easily be reversed (or set aside by a court).
     
    Most countries other than the US have provisions for hate speech convictions, and the left can either blackmail Roberts, or pack the SCOTUS, to get it here.

    At some point, if people like Nick Fuentes are operating from platforms they own and control, and have a secure mechanism for receiving funds; a future leftist Attorney General may decide to throw him in prison as the only way of shutting him up.

    Conceivablty, they could legalize ISPs blocking "hate sites", not sure if any European countries are blocking GAB, but I imagine that will happen soon, and that either Germany or France will demand Torba be extradited.

    Replies: @botazefa, @Audacious Epigone

    Gab is huge in India. The dissident right’s future in the US is, paradoxically, in falling under the aegis of Asian countries. The CCP has no intention of deferring to Woke Capital. An enemy of an enemy can be a friend.

  152. @silviosilver
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that America is getting steadily worse. Their foreign policy is getting increasingly deranged and dangerous. They’re getting crazier.
     
    Be specific. It's worse today than, say, 2003 how exactly?

    Because as far as I can see, the main change has been that they've (correctly) identified China as a revisionist rival power. That hints at a reduction in (perhaps termination of) foreign policy 'adventurism' based on liberal delusions.

    So I would assess them as becoming saner, not as growing crazier.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    If not saner, then at least more exhausted.

  153. @Audacious Epigone
    @botazefa

    The CCP has shown an impressive ability to put Woke Capital in its place, Google and the NBA to name a couple of recent capitulations.

    Replies: @botazefa

    True. Noted.

  154. @Talha
    @Talha

    Me and my boys use it around the house for laughs:
    "Nice cookie you got there, it'd be a real shame if someone was to eat it."

    "That's a nice ten dollar bill you've left in your pants pocket in the laundry, it'd be a real shame if it happened to disappear."

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Oh c’mon, you can do better:

    “It’d be a real shame if it were laundered away!”

    • LOL: Talha

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS