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
Welcoming the Second Wave of Shutdowns
🔊 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

It’s nothing, stop being racist against the Chinese. Hug them instead.

Wash your hands and sanitize inorganic surfaces to stop the spread.

Don’t wear masks, they don’t help.

The virus is far more deadly than the flu. Not many people have it yet, but it spreads fast so if many get it, millions will die.

Actually, the virus doesn’t hang out for days on inorganic surfaces, it spreads through the air.

So duh, wear masks, they help.

Stay inside. We’re grinding the economy to a halt so there’s no point in going out, anyway.

Actually, the virus spreads inside. Go outside, but don’t be in large groups of close proximity.

Excepting the aged and immunocompromised, the virus actually isn’t very deadly but lots of people have it.

Large groups in close proximity are actually okay if the cause is righteous.

Actually actually, social distancing is crucial. No large groups.

After being lied to, humiliated, and immiserated by the lab coats and their venerable institutions, we’ve surely wised up. When they try to force another cold shutdown of the economy, we’ll scoff. Shame us once, shame on you. But shame us twice… Uh oh (“not sure” responses, constituting 11% of the total, are excluded):

At least people who like working from home get to keep the 60-second commute alive. It’s not like the tech and service companies they work for, after six months of functioning without anyone at the office, will realize if they can function with their employees living the next city over then they can function with their employees living the next hemisphere over. And the employees from other hemispheres are a lot cheaper. Business has slowed down so it’s imperative costs are cut, see.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Science • Tags: Coronavirus, Disease, Polling 
Hide 161 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Daniel H says:

    Congress returns on what, July 20th, so my only concern is whether Congress extends PUA (are you listening Congress?). At this point, this is ALL I care about. We have no country, forget about the future, the current is too bewildering to behold. Just gimmee something and you have my support (at least for a few months). That’s it.

  2. The masks may create a new form of segregation, perhaps a little cheaper than skiing in Aspen. While the cities burn, and non-whites are literally, hit hardest, the rest of the country will go on with life, even with masks and some restrictions–all of which will be mitigated by small, self-supporting areas for sport, pleasure and play. Some retreats are still functioning, and some local sports. People still go to the grocery stores, still watch religious and craft/hobby videos online, still bike ride and hike. The urban areas, full of the wokes (shipped in or not) and non-whites will live in increasing chaos. NYC is going to spread to all such areas.

    The masks will eventually go away in some of these rural areas (to the degree any are requiring it anyhow). Life will go on. The NFL will whither as will the NBA, and a simpler way of life will take over. The states will eventually break up, and things will be better for the white nations.

    Remember: No election will occur in the Fall, at least not as a recognized election; and, the nation will break up by 2025, into 2-6 smaller nations, starting with California, followed by (most of) Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  3. anon[192] • Disclaimer says:

  4. Anonymous[180] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s nothing, stop being racist against the Chinese. Hug them instead.

    Or pray to them. For Catholics the saint we recognize on July 9th is Saint Augustine Zhao Rong.

    ST. AUGUSTINE ZHAO RONG AND COMPANIONS

    St. Augustine Zhao Rong (d. 1815) was a Chinese soldier who was assigned to escort the captive Catholic bishop, John Gabriel Taurin Dufresse, to Beijing where he was to be executed by beheading. The bishop’s faith made a strong impact on Zhao, who then requested baptism. He took the Christian name Augustine, and later entered the seminary and was ordained to the priesthood. During the continuing persecution of Christians in China, Augustine was one of thousands of Chinese Catholics who suffered martyrdom for the faith. He was arrested, tortured, and killed in 1815. St. Augustine Zhao Rong is honored with a group of 120 martyrs who were killed for their Catholic faith in China from 1648-1930. The group was canonized by Pope St. John Paul II in 2000. Of them, 87 were Chinese natives and 33 were Western missionaries. The feast day of St. Augustine Zhao Rong and the Chinese Martyrs is July 9th.

    • Thanks: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @SIMP simp
  5. Another word for “protective sequestration” is “Sortocracy“, but since it works for more than viral pandemics — such as virulent peoples and their virulent social theories — all “our” institutions oppose it like it is From The Politics of Exclusion Hell.

    Remember that on November 4.

  6. @OscarWildeLoveChild

    The states will eventually break up, and things will be better for the white nations.

    You have to love the confidence with which these goofy predictions are made. (The list of failed predictions is long and cringey, needless to say.) The beauty of ones like this is that no one really has to do anything; it all just magically falls into place by unspecified mechanisms. You think America might have to break up into new political territories if whites are to expect any sort of worthwhile future? No problem, just sit back and watch it happen automatically – i.e. the one thing that you believe might actually save your race will happen all by itself.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  7. nebulafox says:

    Update from Disneyland with the Death Penalty: life is back to half normal. People who can work remotely still have to. There are regulations on how long you can stay in libraries or gyms and have to book slots in advance to avoid having too many people confined in one place, but that is it. Same for churches, mosques, and temples (Chinese and Hindu). Bars and hawker centers are open. Not sure about clubs or movie theaters since that is not my scene. You have to scan QR codes everywhere.

    Oh, and traveling across the border to Malaysia is still heavily restricted, which is annoying if you want to do stuff like go shooting on a range.

    Other parts of the world are struggling more. Pakistan has a major issue of clerics insisting that prayers go on like normal, diseases be damned, and the military backs them. The civilian government can do nothing, since the military is basically always in power in Pakistan.

  8. Nodwink says:

    Large groups in close proximity are actually okay if the cause is righteous.

    Here in Australia, the biggest Black Lives Matter protests were in Melbourne. Guess which city now has a big spike in COVID cases, and is shutting down for six weeks?

  9. dfordoom says: • Website
    @silviosilver

    You think America might have to break up into new political territories if whites are to expect any sort of worthwhile future? No problem, just sit back and watch it happen automatically – i.e. the one thing that you believe might actually save your race will happen all by itself.

    Don’t be such a Debbie Downer. Magic works, didn’t you know? We just all need to close our eyes and wish really hard and it will happen.

    And alt-righters mock liberals for living in a Harry Potter fantasy world.

  10. Thomm says:

    Instapundit is a mainstream Republican blog that is uniformly pro-Trump.

    It not just did a lot to make the ‘Karen’ meme go viral, but the commentariat (which is almost entirely white men, like myself) is universally unimpressed with white women. Read the comments :

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/386090/#respond

    Here is how much they have pushed the ‘Karen’ meme :

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=karen

    This is a seminal development, where normal, well-adjusted white guys are finally questioning the role of their own women in perpetuating this lunacy, and seem to have run out of goodwill.

    The vibe here is different, since the WNs here are not functional white men, but losers with no redeeming attributes, as I have elaborated on before. Hence, even though the only women that WNs interact with are fatties (whether ‘Karens’ or feminists), the White Tr**hionalist proclivity to worship white women no matter how undeserving a good chunk of them indicates how small of a percentage of population (made of incels and gays) the WN w*gg*r community is.

    This stands in stark contrast to the comments by functional, heterosexual Republican men on a mainstream Republican pro-Trump website.

    If you are angry about my comment, well, go read the comment thread I linked at Instapundit, as well as how many times they propagated the ‘Karen’ meme. Then go in there and defend the honor of the females you feel have been slighted.

  11. @dfordoom

    It’s like, Preference No 1 would have been to salvage the entirety of America for whites. But that would have required working through the normal political process – campaigning, pressure groups, bureaucratic muscling, and other standard procedures of democratic politics. Alas, demographic realities have taken this option off the table.

    But that’s okay. Although it may be quite the fall all the way down to Preference No 2, this one doesn’t require any work – American “states will eventually break up” just like that!

  12. MattinLA says:

    Completely insane what sheep infest this country. We deserve everything we’re gonna get…

  13. Twinkie says:

    It’s nothing, stop being racist against the Chinese. Hug them instead.

    I don’t know about hugging them, but it turns out the Chinese weren’t the problem. Europeans were. Europe (Italy in particular) is whence the strain that struck NYC originated.

    Remember those South Koreans who beat down the Chinese-originated strain easy-peasy? They are now being hit with the virus from the U.S. and Europe: https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/virus-spreading-south-korea-has-origin-europe-us

    The novel coronavirus spreading in South Korea now has its origin in Europe and the US, health authorities said on Monday, and it is known to be six times as infectious as the original strain that emerged late last year.

    The variant belongs to the GH clade, which has largely been circulated in Europe and the US, according to an analysis by Korea Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) on 526 genome samples diagnosed with Covid-19.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  14. Twinkie says:

    Let me link to this again, as I think it fits this thread better: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6493/860

    Some models for the future contained in the article:

  15. Mussolini rarely gets talked about, but for 13 years, Italy’s youngest prime-minister was very effective and internationally respected. Then he got involved in Ethiopia (and WW2) and his reputation never recovered.

    We tend to think of him as a very brutal leader and an ideologue, but he was neither, until times forced everyone into such positions.

    People would benefit from reading and understanding him far more than the genuinely cartoonish and villainous Hitler.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benito-Mussolini/Rise-to-power

    This is not to endorse him or his positions, as I am a very liberal-minded person, but then liberalism is an outgrowth of good times, and not necessarily a way to reach them. Just as moral behaviour is a result of personal plenitude and not something one can rigidly stick to in order to be “good”.

  16. Twinkie says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    I prefer Franco over Mussolini, because Franco was less theatrical and he and his side won.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    , @dfordoom
  17. neutral says:

    People would benefit from reading and understanding him far more than the genuinely cartoonish and villainous Hitler.

    Hitler was neither cartoonish or villainous, you mistake cheap jew propaganda for historical facts.

    • Replies: @Talha
  18. @Not Only Wrathful

    People would benefit from reading and understanding him far more than the genuinely cartoonish and villainous Hitler.

    Thank you for this nuanced and fact-based approach.

    *eye roll*

    • Replies: @Not Only Wrathful
  19. Dumbo says:
    @Twinkie

    “Won” temporarily, as Spain is now a very liberal country (and likely to separate soon in smaller units, which I am not sure if it’s good or bad). But I guess that’s how it is, the battle against the forces of evil is eternal, you never get to “win forever”, unless it’s Judgement Day.

    If Mussolini had somehow managed to avoid getting mixed into the war, like Franco, things would have been different. Then again, who knows.

  20. vok3 says:

    Continuing your track record of willful dishonesty and mischaracterization about all this, I see. Every single thing you’re picking on was comprehensible by a functional adult.

    >It’s nothing, stop being racist against the Chinese. Hug them instead.

    Obvious ideology-driven wishful thinking which functional adults disregarded immediately.

    >Wash your hands and sanitize inorganic surfaces to stop the spread.

    Still a good idea.

    >Don’t wear masks, they don’t help.

    Advice given at the exact same time as various authorities were admitting extreme shortages of masks for hospital staff and absolute necessity that hospital staff be equipped with them; a necessity which has remained in place the whole time. If masks didn’t help, hospital staff wouldn’t be using them. Functional adults were and are perfectly capable of understanding that they were being lied to with this statement and why: because the authorities did not and do not trust the judgement of the public.

    An estimation of the public’s reasoning ability that you are attempting to validate.

    >The virus is far more deadly than the flu. Not many people have it yet, but it spreads fast so if many get it, millions will die.

    Still accurate. My estimate from the start has been 2 million dead in the USA within one to one-and-a-half years. Without taking into account long-term health effects on survivors. We’re still on track for that.

    >Actually, the virus doesn’t hang out for days on inorganic surfaces, it spreads through the air.

    First part varies based on the nature of the surface and exposure to sunlight. Second part has been known since very early on (the Seattle choral superspreader event being a definitive example). Second part does not invalidate the risk from surface transmission.

    >So duh, wear masks, they help.

    Admission made after the supply to hospitals was secured. Which any functional adult could have understood on their own.

    >Stay inside. We’re grinding the economy to a halt so there’s no point in going out, anyway.

    Autistic retards, which either you are or presume your audience is, would take this literally. Functional human beings understood that spending time in the back yard or going for a walk in a national forest was not a problem; the point was to not go places where lots of other people are. “Stay inside” was the simplest way of communicating that.

    >Actually, the virus spreads inside. Go outside, but don’t be in large groups of close proximity.

    Conclusion based on additional data that doesn’t invalidate most prior observations.

    >Excepting the aged and immunocompromised, the virus actually isn’t very deadly but lots of people have it.

    Mischaracterization and misleading interpretation of data. Disregards long-term health effects of non-fatal serious cases, which was known to be a problem from very early on; misleading conclusion based on highly selective case selection (people at the protests were a selected population, largely young with lower mortality – and engaged in ideology-driven wishful thinking); false conclusion based on imprecise tests, many of which have not been proven to test specifically for COVID but might give positives for any random coronavirus.

    >Large groups in close proximity are actually okay if the cause is righteous.

    Obvious ideology-driven wishful thinking which functional adults disregarded immediately.

    >Actually actually, social distancing is crucial. No large groups.

    Still a good idea.

    >And the employees from other hemispheres are a lot cheaper.

    Would be true regardless of virus or not.

    To all of which can be added: antibody immunity of survivors is currently observed to fade after a few months. If that result holds, and if the long-term health effects on survivors prove as deleterious as currently observed, this thing is going to keep sloshing back and forth through the population for years or decades, crippling people far beyond what any seasonal disease does and shortening lifespans each time, and the worst part is that it won’t outright kill the majority of those who get it so it won’t burn itself out until local governments get serious one by one about controlling it – which they will, because the costs to society of letting it keep going will just keep mounting and become absolutely unbearable. Absolute mortality, although a clear headline number, has never been the most serious problem with this, and that was absolutely clear to functional adults from the start.

    AE, you are a damned liar, engaging in ideology-driven wishful thinking fully as delusional any leftist ideologue.

  21. TG says:

    Indeed, well said.

    I personally think that masks are important, but certainly our government has been feeding us a load of nonsense and I can certainly see anyone being skeptical of anything that is said.

    What really bothers me, is that when I point this out to my well-educated ‘liberal’ friends, they get angry with me. You just can’t say that there are consequences to the government obviously lying (or just making stuff up) in terms of credibility. No, the new idea is to just automatically completely believe the party line. Safer, professionally, I guess.

    And just the other day I read an official release that people should wear masks, but they should only wear home-made masks and save the ones that really work for medical professionals. Really. So, regular folks are just wearing them as a sort of virtue-signaling?

    And why is the government not working to actually bring mask (and testing etc) production back into this country? Why isn’t there a crash program to develop better masks? I mean, it is surely plausible that we could develop a mask that has the protective ability of an N95 but is as comfortable as a regular surgical mask. Such a development could really improve the situation. But nobody important cares.

    Our elites have so little concern for the public, and have spent to long with no accountability, that they’ve forgotten how govern effectively.

    But then, the problem is all systemic racism. Yeah, that’s it. Not masks, that was so June. It’s July now and it’s all systemic racism.

    • Agree: Charlotte
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  22. vok3 says:

    I will add:

    Blood type A has been observed to have significantly higher risks from this virus. Blood type O has been observed to have significantly lower risks. (This is because COVID is in fact a blood infection whose most visible symptoms occur when the blood goes to the alveoli, not a respiratory ailment, contrary to all the flubros and “it’s just a chest cold” liars.) Blood type A makes up about 30-40% of the white population; type O is about 45%. Just based on this one risk factor and disregarding others that may be discovered, it is entirely possible to have blood type O people be the asymptomatic or low-severity reservoir for it, shrugging and saying “it’s no big deal”, while blood type A die in droves from it each year, and this continues until there are no more type A to die from it. Darwin in action.

    Writing off 30%-40% of the population of the nation – which the “just live with it” types are effectively doing – is flat out psychopathic, and anybody advocating that needs to be locked up.

    • Troll: Stan d Mute
  23. Yahya K. says:
    @Dumbo

    “Won” temporarily, as Spain is now a very liberal country (and likely to separate soon in smaller units, which I am not sure if it’s good or bad). But I guess that’s how it is, the battle against the forces of evil is eternal, you never get to “win forever”, unless it’s Judgement Day.

    Some had a good stretch though. Ataturkism lasted 100 years. I would say Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy is also going to last for a while. The PAP is still winning election after election.

    But you’re right that most right-wing movements fail after the death of their leaders. Tito, Bismarck, Piludski etc.

  24. “It’s not like the tech and service companies they work for, after six months of functioning without anyone at the office, will realize if they can function with their employees living the next city over then they can function with their employees living the next hemisphere over. And the employees from other hemispheres are a lot cheaper. Business has slowed down so it’s imperative costs are cut, see.”

    This is the scariest and most prescient thing I’ve read here in a while.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  25. DaninMD says:
    @vok3

    vok3 —

    The post went straight over your head. AE is simply quoting the official narrative over time. He isn’t the ‘speaker’ and isn’t making an argument for you to rebut — he is just reporting on what others said. Who is autistic? Woosh!

    You are frothing at the mouth while completely misunderstanding the post. AE isn’t making an argument. He’s just cataloging stuff that folks like you would rather have memory — holed because it is so clownish.

    For sheer comedy gold, here is Dr. Fauci in March.

    Especially watch from 13 seconds to 46 seconds for great fun.

    The Sixty-Minutes reporter keeps pestering Dr. Fauci about how he thinks masks might be a good idea.

    “Right now people should NOT be wearing masks”, Dr. Fauci declares.

    The Sixty-Minutes reporter is clearly confused by this, so Dr. Fauci doubles down with an extra dollop of smugness and surety that you really should NOT wear masks.

    Cheer up and laugh! It is actually really funny!

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  26. You forgot to say, “Simon Says.”

  27. @Johnny Smoggins

    Meh! The assumption is that your KSAs are readily interchangeable or transferrable. Keep building your talent stack and it quickly becomes more expensive to replace you with cheap labour.

  28. Large groups in close proximity are actually okay if the cause is righteous.

    If not righteous…

    People Protesting Coronavirus Lockdown Orders Are Terrorists

    …when I look at these lockdown protests and their crowds of predominately white, male and … are also brandishing pro-Trump signs

    …endangering countless lives

    …Let’s call it what it is: These lockdown protesters are acting as terrorists.

    …A call to reopen businesses right now is essentially a call for many more people to die

    …putting lives at risk

    …Only a terrorist would risk others’ lives in revolt against government mandates.

    …Only a terrorist would say “What about the economy?” as neighbors die

    …Now is not the time to prioritize profits; it’s a time to prioritize people’s lives. Anyone saying otherwise is committing an act of treason.

  29. @dfordoom

    … We just all need to close our eyes and wish really hard and it will happen.

    You forgot about tapping the ruby slippers.

  30. The experts being not sure what to do is simply proof that the virus is new, and thus the possible dangers are unclear. In fact, this inability to figure out the best measures suggests to me a biological agent specifically engineered to elude analysis and prophylaxis. The fact that contracting the disease does not grant you immunity, like virtually all other such diseases, also suggests, not happenstance, not coincidence, but enemy action. The enemy being the United States.

  31. @Dumbo

    “I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’— though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.” – JRR Tolkien

    “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for?” – Robert Browning

  32. @vok3

    Resistance/“immunity” to other known coronaviruses is based on T cells rather than antibodies.

    Cringe take overall

    A somewhat dangerous but not catastrophic virus, but instead of reasonable governance to deal with the threat, powerful people acted deliberately to hurt their enemies and enrich their friends.

    US death rate is and has been lower than every European country except Germany

    What happened after year zero?

    • Thanks: Anonymousse
  33. 76239 says:

    Why would someone trust a yougov.com poll to tell them anything remotely close to the truth? Just because it supports the author’s contention? Consider the source, “yougov’ whose credibility is close to that of the NY Times.

  34. Don’t wear masks, they don’t help

    So duh, wear masks, they help.

    All this shows is that you do not understand the idea of updating one’s views based on new evidence.

    At least people who like working from home get to keep the 60-second commute alive. It’s not like the tech and service companies they work for, after six months of functioning without anyone at the office, will realize if they can function with their employees living the next city over then they can function with their employees living the next hemisphere over. And the employees from other hemispheres are a lot cheaper. Business has slowed down so it’s imperative costs are cut, see.

    I remember a question on one of these QA sites about the quality of Indian programmers. Answer after answer was a variant of “I’m a liberal and not like those evil racists but yeah, all the stereotypes of Indian programmers are true.” If they weren’t, America’s tech industry would have collapsed a decade ago. While it will lead to some outsourcing, it’ll also lead to a flow of jobs away from silicon valley and into other cities in America such as my own. My commute is unchanged right now, since I’ve replaced it with regular exercise, but I could leave my city and move to an even cheaper one further out. Reduce your commute by 2 hours a day and your rent by 50% and you’d be doing a lot better even with a substantial reduction in your wage. Plus, you don’t have to live around people who annoy you, don’t have to pay taxes to the big city government, or risk the big city “criminal justice reform” nonsense.

    There’s an old saying that the job of liberals is to make mistakes, and the job of conservatives is to make sure those mistakes are not corrected. You typify this with your attitude that all change is always bad, so you get out your sword and shield and march into battle to defend the mistakes the liberals have made.

  35. Talha says:
    @neutral

    historical facts.

    The dude…
    1. Never had a family or any kids.
    2. Finally married his girlfriend; they blew out their brains for their honeymoon.
    3. During his honeymoon, his capital city was overrun and hundreds of German women were raped in the streets.

    And the mustache – c’mon man! THIS is a mustache:

    Forget propaganda; how many ways does one have to be a failure and not achieve one’s stated goals?

    It’s like if Ghengiz Khan started off invading left, right and center and pissed off enough people that a bunch of nations turned on him, chased him and his armies back to Mongolia and he had to burn himself and his wife (no kids because he was too busy with other stuff) alive in his yurt to avoid being captured by pissed-off Chinese that were raping their way through his tribal allies and were going to flay him alive with a metal fork.

    Why do people still feel the need to come to the rescue of such an utter failure in life?

    Peace.

  36. It’s not like the tech and service companies they work for, after six months of functioning without anyone at the office, will realize if they can function with their employees living the next city over then they can function with their employees living the next hemisphere over.

    That’s what protective tariffs and taxes on foreign labor and production are for.

  37. XVO says:

    People who run technology companies realize that low IQ third worlders cant replace American workers. Any company that hasn’t learned this yet will learn it soon enough. I work in software and quality can not be replaced by quantity, these 3rd worlders we hire are close to useless.

  38. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    Even if Hitler were ok, his modern day fanciers would damn him by association.

  39. Pretty good, A.E., but you’re no Adley Stump. In fact, if you’re not careful, she may be on your case for stealing her bit. Don’t worry, you can get sued on Zoom now, so you won’t need to dress up and leave the house. ;-}

    • LOL: Talha
  40. @Thomm

    I think there’d be less of this if weed was odorless, which some people are apparently working on. With alcohol, a kid or group of kids can drink inside and have some hope to avoid their parents catching them. There’s always edible weed, but it takes longer to have an effect and apparently costs more. So kids (and adults who live with their parents) are forced to smoke outside, where they are paranoid about the cops catching them, a paranoia being high only reinforces. This leads to anger at both the police and the “tattle-tales,” often middle-aged white women who want to take a walk in the park without smelling the stuff.

    If these kids are black, they then adopt all that systemic racism stuff in order to rationalize this anger. If they are white, they might adopt it too, or else try to adopt anti-feminist rhetoric. But men who desire to reform the family court system have little in common with men who want to commit crimes and not get tattled on.

    So this has nothing to do with “defending the honor of the females you feel have been slighted.” It’s about defending the honor of those who built this first world civilization I want to continue to inhabit. And that’s why I support men’s rights, the family court system acts to totally screw over many decent, hardworking, family-oriented men. I want that man to be protected from that, I also want him to be protected from illegally parked cars blocking his driveway, from idiots driving 20 miles above the speed limit, and from potheads filling the hiking trail with the smell of weed. This isn’t to say we can’t reform any of the laws. I would support an experiment in which one of a city’s parks is made into a weed and alcohol friendly park, where you could consume it there just as you could in a bar. It’s win-win, most parks are free of weed-smell and discarded beer cans, the potheads get their freedumb, and parents can take their kids to the drug-friendly park, let them take in the scene, and then tell them again that drugs ain’t cool. But thinking up such a compromise is beyond the means of most of the potheads, who are still stuck in the fourth grade, where the way to deal with “unjust” rules is to think up new insults for people who tattle on them.

    This isn’t a white/black issue, or a man/woman issue. It’s a smart/dumb issue. The dumb people want to believe that they can eat junk food, smoke, use drugs, drive 100 miles an hour, have unprotected sex, not social distance, and generally behave in a shortsighted manner and not suffer any consequences. These are the people who squander their money on pyramid schemes, penis-enlargement pills, homeopathic medicines, etc. They do this because these products come with stories of something for nothing, mucho benefit at almost no cost. I wrote more on the question here:

    https://alexanderturok.wordpress.com/2020/07/08/march-of-the-clevons/

  41. Corvinus says:
    @vok3

    Epic takedown. Gold box for your comment.

    “If NYC nursing home induced breakouts were the norm, you’d be correct. But they’re not, and as we’re seeing in Georgia, Florida, and other states that have reopened, it looks like most places don’t experience outbreaks even when people are taking modest, only marginally disruptive precautions. Deadly outbreaks are the exception, not the rule, and it doesn’t look like it requires lockdowns for that to be the case.”

    This is what AE said in mid-May. Is this true anymore given what has been happening?

  42. @Corvinus

    US Coronavirus deaths were far higher in mid-May than they are now.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  43. There are a lot of sarcasm detectors that could use a good tune up…

  44. DaninMD says:
    @vok3

    “Writing off 30%-40% of the population of the nation – which the “just live with it” types are effectively doing – is flat out psychopathic, and anybody advocating that needs to be locked up.”

    For consistency, I assume then that you advocate locking up all the BLM protesters, who are willfully endangering everyone, right?

    Oh they are all wearing masks right? Except that they aren’t wearing them all the time and have clearly spread the virus everywhere.

  45. @Not Only Wrathful

    I’ve had similar thoughts. Mussolini was much more interesting personally than Hitler. He spoke five languages, wrote books, learned to fence and fly an airplane, and played tennis to combat a tendency to corpulence. Unfortunately, he had terrible geopolitical instincts, seeking to recreate some kind of a Roman empire and siding with Germany when Germany generally had no interest in Italian assistance. His life deserves a nuanced treatment.

    • Agree: Not Only Wrathful
  46. Thank you sir! May I have another!

  47. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    “People would benefit from reading and understanding him far more than the genuinely cartoonish and villainous Hitler.”

    Reading about what Mussolini was all about is a good thing but your comments about Hitler reveal someone who’s watched too many Hollywood movies about WW2 and gotten them mixed up with reality.

  48. anon[240] • Disclaimer says:

  49. Jay Fink says:
    @vok3

    I am an essential worker in a hotspot area. I am around hundreds of people a day with minimum or no social distancing. Several of my co-workers did catch this virus and were out sick for weeks. Yet I have remained healthy and I wonder if my type O blood is a reason why?

    While I have read many studies saying that type As have worse outcomes that type Os, nobody explained why. What is the difference between these two blood types and why would type O be protective?

  50. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Forgot to add:
    4. Lost significant amounts of initial pre-war territory
    5. His nation is now on the hook giving out handouts perpetually to only Jewish state until Judgment Day
    “The German government plans to sign a deal on Monday on three submarines for Israel, agreeing not only to the sale of the vessels but also to provide financial support for the purchase as in previous deals…”
    https://www.dw.com/en/germany-approves-deal-on-three-submarines-for-israel/a-41075804
    7. Runs historic German name of Adolf into the ground in flames
    “Adolf was a common name before World War II…The majority of Adolfs still living in Germany are elderly and named before the end of World War II. The name has become rare since then.”
    https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/will-it-ever-be-ok-to-call-your-child-adolf-37164083.html

    Bruh…

    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
  51. Basically, the agenda now is to stop Trump’s rallies. That’s job one. If they can’t do it by scooping up all the online tickets, then Covid shaming/hysteria should do the trick.

    The rallies really, really upset the left. To a degree I didn’t previously appreciate.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
  52. 216 says:

    Macho poseurs are the bane of conservatism

    The Swine Right

    • Agree: Alexander Turok
  53. SafeNow says:

    Recent studies suggest that the MMR vaccine confers partial “bystander” immunity. This might explain why the young, who recently had the MMR vaccine, are not vulnerable to Covid. Similarly, the Navy vaccinates sailors with MMR, and although that aircraft carrier had many cases, they were not serious cases. Other researchers say that the bystander immunity of the flu vaccine confers greater bystander partial immunity. This would explain why children do not get Covid.. because they are in school getting flu viruses all the time. The new flu vaccine arrives in August by the way. Well, I guess I will read these journal articles…back in a few days. Or maybe someone will ask Dr. Fauci, and I will believe his answer, because he has a New York City accent, which is what one needs at a time like this, Cuomo for President.

    • Replies: @anon
  54. 216 says:

  55. @vok3

    Writing off 30%-40% of the population of the nation

    There is nothing in analyses of this virus’s lethality that makes your statement anything more than hysterical hyperbole.

  56. anon[408] • Disclaimer says:
    @SafeNow

    Recent studies suggest

    Links or it didn’t happen / isn’t true.

    that the MMR vaccine confers partial “bystander” immunity.

    Definition needed. I will help with this article about cellular bystander immunity.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896841119303142

    • Replies: @SafeNow
  57. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    I prefer Franco over Mussolini, because Franco was less theatrical and he and his side won.

    If you’re going to try to rehabilitate fascism then obviously either Mussolini or Franco have to be the models to choose. I’d prefer Mussolini, a very much misunderstood figure. But I can see the appeal of Franco.

    Of course in the long term Franco lost and his enemies won. All Franco’s efforts turned out to be for nothing. He won the political struggle but lost the culture war. Spain today arguably faces a grimmer future than countries in which the communists won. History is full of little ironies.

    Right-wingers just don’t seem capable of winning culture wars.

  58. @dfordoom

    Both Franco and Mussolini had great domestic policy. The reason I prefer Franco, in addition to Twinkie’s comment about his more modest persona, is that Mussolini tended to embark on ambitious foreign policy adventures that ultimately backfired (even before WW2). His invasions of Ethiopia were a disaster for his international image and obviously didn’t benefit the average Italian at all. His involvement in Albania is less well known but a similar pointless drain on resources. In many ways he tried to create a US-style pseudo-imperialism in the Med region, though obviously not to the same degree as America’s.

    Franco on the other hand didn’t try to influence foreign affairs too much. He just focused on preserving a traditional, stable, and comfortable Spain–and he did so successfully. The poz wasn’t a big factor until after his death, in contrast to other Western countries where it began in the 60s. His only possible flaw was not making adequate provisions for continuity after his death. But how much responsibility rests on his own decisions is questionable, it’s possible nothing he did could have been enough.

  59. @dfordoom

    Right-wingers just don’t seem capable of winning culture wars.

    Yeah, the pithy way of saying this is “Cthulhu swims slowly, but he always swims left.” As to why: it can’t be that left-wing ideas are “correct,” or always desirable, because if that were the case all successful civilizations would have already been leftist for thousands of years. To the contrary it seems like historically right-wing civilizations have always had more vitality and ability to survive, and overrun or outbreed their leftist neighbors.

    Perhaps that itself is the reason; rightist civilizations always out-compete their leftist neighbors. So the “default” state of human affairs is right-wing traditionalism (I think most people would agree this is empirically true). Therefore the only possible “direction” to go is to the left. Those cultures that do go down that path are later out-competed in their decadent state by those which did not, and the cycle repeats.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Twinkie
  60. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha

    Why do people still feel the need to come to the rescue of such an utter failure in life?

    You have to ask yourself what kind of psychological mechanism can explain the tendency of some people on the Right to idolise losers and lost causes. Look at the right-wingers today (there are quite a few here on UR) rushing to defend the Confederacy.

    I can’t think of a left-wing equivalent, except maybe the Trotskyists.

    Maybe some people find it more comforting to idolise losers rather than winners? Maybe some people who are losers in their own lives simply cannot identify with, or empathise with, winners?

    Twinkie mentioned Franco earlier. Franco did at least win in the short term. But Hitler (history’s biggest loser) attracts more adulation on the far right than Franco. It’s pretty strange.

    • Replies: @neutral
    , @Talha
  61. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    This is quibbling, but I don’t view Franco as a fascist. I am no expert on Spain and will happily defer to anybody who is more knowledgable there, but my understanding is that while Francoist Spain had Italian styled fascists that Franco did incorporate into his regime as a junior partner and had certain fascist aspects, the regime itself was ideologically incompatible with authentic fascism. Fascism was a product of WWI, and it showed in its desire to impart a new revolutionary order in a way that was antithetical to Franco’s explicitly reactionary ideology. He was certainly far-right and dictatorial, but that is not the same thing, any more than equating every left wing dictator to orthodox Communism.

    As far as the culture wars go, these things are cyclical, not linear, and it also depends on what you value. Plenty of young people who still want to leave homosexuals and abortion alone also are pretty tired of 51 genders, trying to treat men like defective versions of women, and a socioeconomic system hostile to family formation and are open to SoCon arguments aimed there.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  62. neutral says:
    @Talha

    Regarding Hitler and his relationships, he explicitly stated that his first love was the state and that relationships cannot come between him and being the leader. He is a good point about this, witness someone like Trump who is constantly under the control of his daughter and her jew husband, a strong leader needs to have strong commitment to his people.

    As for him losing the war, what of it, he already predicted the nightmarish world we are now living in, at least he tried to save the white race. Going down fighting is better than all the other alternatives.

    I must also say that Hitler predicted that the earth would be facing great disasters in the future, if a Third Reich existed it would be been the most capable of all entities to tackle everything from pandemics, global warming (assuming it is happening), killer asteroids etc. Now compare this to the ZOG/planet of the apes world, you think it can?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Talha
  63. @Twinkie

    Remember those South Koreans who beat down the Chinese-originated strain easy-peasy? They are now being hit with the virus from the U.S. and Europe: https://www.phnompenhpost.com/international/virus-spreading-south-korea-has-origin-europe-us

    The novel coronavirus spreading in South Korea now has its origin in Europe and the US, health authorities said on Monday, and it is known to be six times as infectious as the original strain that emerged late last year.

    The variant belongs to the GH clade, which has largely been circulated in Europe and the US, according to an analysis by Korea Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) on 526 genome samples diagnosed with Covid-19.

    The question is how much of this narrative is butt-covering by Moon Jae-in the China-loving commie. It’s possible that this is just the original Wuhan virus that foreign researchers never got a copy of, thanks to Chinese obstruction. By pure luck, Korea may have been infected early on by an attenuated version of the virus, just as, by pure happenstance, Europe was infected by the full Wuhan variant. You can bet the Chinese are spending huge sums of money both covering their tracks and pumping out chaff to divert the heat-/radar-seeking missiles coming their way.

  64. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    This is quibbling, but I don’t view Franco as a fascist.

    Yeah, agreed, he was really an old-fashioned right-wing authoritarian.

    The careers of both Franco and Mussolini are worth studying.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  65. nebulafox says:
    @neutral

    I got the sense when reading the Table Talk that when talking about things like love, pity, and the like, that Hitler did not know what those things really meant. He himself admitted to having “no family feeling” and no friends in the accepted sense of the word. He saw himseld as inhabiting a role full time, and when that role ended, his life was light and easily discarded. He was grateful enough to Eva to marry her…

    This is abnormal even for historical monsters. Stalin, Mussolini, Mao all seemed very “human”, reading about them, no matter what kind of horrific things they ordered, as did other Nazis like Goering. Not so much Hitler. I have my own theories about the man, which I will not bother revealing here, but suffice it to say successfully running the state does not mean having no other relationships. On the contrary, more important than ever to have some to try and pierce the bubble.

  66. After being lied to, humiliated, and immiserated by the lab coats and their venerable institutions, we’ve surely wised up…

    AE’s sarcastic point here is, I guess, that the US bureaucratic response to the Coronavirus was confused, inept, and incompetent. And I totally agree. It has been confused, inept, and totally incompetent.

    But that doesn’t mean the corollary needs to be “so we should just give up and ignore anything anyone says and let Coronavirus kill off 1-2% of the population.” Rather the corollary should be, “where we failed, we should look to others that succeeded and instead try to emulate them.” In this case, there are numerous cases of other countries which have done an extremely good job at limiting the spread. China, Japan, and South Korea have all effectively halted community transmission (in China’s case twice) and as a consequence are already pretty much re-opened. Eastern European governments, under liberal globalist icons like Orban and PiS, also took decisive action and have kept total deaths relatively low.

    It’s pretty clear what they did: some combination of contact tracing, mass testing, early quarantines, and widespread mask wearing (mandatory in EE through at least the end of May.)

    Also, if everyone just wore masks instead of trying to be a contrarian asshole, we probably wouldn’t be thinking about “second-wave lockdowns” right now at all.

    • Agree: Twinkie, dfordoom
  67. SafeNow says:
    @anon

    Too many sources exist to post links. Simply Google “Covid MMR” and you’ll see what I mean. Medical research tip: In general adding ncbi or pubmed to the search terms gets you out of the lay articles and into actual medical journal articles. Btw I spoke with my pharmacist today about this, curious about whether he’s had a run of patients asking for the MMR. He said only a few, but his sense of it is that it’s just beginning. He ordered a supply of MMR, Thank you.

  68. @vok3

    I’m sure whatever it is you wrote is very interesting… but the key question. Doesn’t your tongue ever get tired from how hard you work at polishing boots with it?

  69. @Bragadocious

    In addition to the agree/disagree/troll tags, we really need a “projection” tag.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  70. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    Very much so. I am especially fascinated their polar opposite ideoligical temprement underneath their friendliness. Mussolini was an apostate socialist who came to view class reconciliation and hierarchy as a better route to modernity and progress over class struggle and forced egalitarianism. He was not “made” by the war like Hitler, but this ideological shift was a result of it. He wanted a modern version of the ancient Roman state, before Christianity. Very different from Franco.

    (Mussolini, to his credit, probably saved more Jews from the death camps than the Western Europeans we constantly lionize after the fact did. Italian Fascism wasn’t anti-Semitic at all until 1938, and the German influenced racial laws were something Mussolini clearly regretted later.)

    However, another key difference between Spain and Italy was that the latter did involve modern notions of race. Francoist Spain did flirt with eugenics, but it never approached placing racial ideas at the center of things like fascism did. That is a very modern thing, at its core, not possible before Mendel and Darwin. Franco could have easily embraced this and melded notions of Spanish racial distinctiveness with his state Catholicism, but he did not. Many North African Muslims served the Nationalist cause loyally, often serving personally under Franco, and were free to practice their religion after the war unmolested, if in private. And Salazar’s Portugal was even more explicitly against racial ideology in politics, not least to preserve an empire with Portuguese speaking Goans serving in government.

    Put simply, Franco and Salazar looked back even if they embraced modern methods of statecraft and industrialization, and Mussolini and Hitler looked forward even as they cloaked their regimes in past imagery.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  71. Complete insanity. Terror over a severe flu. Sweden was the only country that got it right!

  72. @Talha

    If the Germans are smart they’ll program a “back door” into the subs’ missile control systems to prevent the Israelis from exercising the “Samson option.”

    • Agree: Talha
  73. Anonymous[228] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    Instapundit is a mainstream Republican blog that is uniformly pro-Trump.

    Take a second to ponder how oxymoronic that would have sounded in the fall of 2015 or even in the summer of 2016. But it makes perfect sense now. Trumpism is just the mainstream Republican agenda of neoliberalism but — and this is the vital aspect — being LOUD about it.

    I stopped reading the Instapundit comments around a year ago because I got tired of arguing with “actually American nationalism is all about tax cuts and having a war with Iran.” If these people are lashing out against white women, they’re probably just looking for a scapegoat for Trump’s failure.

    As to the insults against white trashionalists, consider Hitler. He was a “loser” before WWI, couldn’t get into art school, worked as a casual laborer, dodged the Austro-Hungarian draft,(later volunteering for Germany) no gf, and he spent a lot of time in art cafes fruitlessly trying to get “discovered.” If they had 4chan in 1912 Vienna, he’d have been a regular. Yet this loser took control of Germany.(And since this is UR I have to point out that he was a despicable human being who ran his country into the ground.) I could easily see some white trashionalist 4Channer getting himself elected President someday, when whites feel sufficiently like their backs are to the wall. I could not see the morons on instapundit ever taking power. They’re just sheep, doing whatever Dear Leader tells them to do.

  74. Getaclue says:
    @Not Only Wrathful

    You mighty be interested to know that God sent a warning to Mussolini thru a Nun (who actually predicted his downfall/death) who sent him a letter laying it out and what he should do — it’s an interesting side history few know about and history would have been quite different if he’d listened to her message: “On 22 April 1940 the Lord told her to deliver a message to Benito Mussolini to tell him not to join Adolf Hitler during World War II for that would bring both terrible defeat and divine punishment; this plea was left ignored in the form of a letter she had sent to him on 6 May 1940.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Aiello#:~:text=On%2022%20April%201940%20the,him%20on%206%20May%201940. (There’s much better than this overview out there as there are more details omitted here that are interesting, but this gives you an idea….).

    • Thanks: Not Only Wrathful
  75. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    As to why: it can’t be that left-wing ideas are “correct,” or always desirable, because if that were the case all successful civilizations would have already been leftist for thousands of years.

    I have several objections to that. Firstly, the Industrial Revolution combined with capitalism and all the other social revolutionary changes that occurred in the late 18th century and the 19th century changed everything. Prior to that left-wing ideas simply could not have existed.

    Secondly, what we’re seeing at the moment is not the triumph of left-wing ideas. It’s something quite different. The alliance between Big Government and Big Business is much closer to the classical fascism of the 1920s and 1930s than it is to anything left-wing. In fact what we’re seeing is classical fascism overlaid with social libertarianism. But it’s a weird mutant strain of social libertarianism that actually owes a lot to Puritanism. The idea of social libertarianism being imposed by force seems paradoxical but that’s what’s happening.

    Thirdly, I think you’re too glibly dismissive of ideologies you disapprove of. As much as I disapprove of social liberalism it’s much easier to sell than social conservatism. Social conservatism is too closely associated with Christianity and that alienates non-Christians. Social conservatism sounds dull, oppressive and negative. Social liberalism sounds exciting, glamorous and free.

    And economic leftism is not all bad. Without a welfare state you have social instability and the threat of social chaos. Without some regulation capitalism can be pretty nasty.

  76. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    Mussolini was an apostate socialist who came to view class reconciliation and hierarchy as a better route to modernity and progress over class struggle and forced egalitarianism. He was not “made” by the war like Hitler, but this ideological shift was a result of it. He wanted a modern version of the ancient Roman state, before Christianity. Very different from Franco.

    Mussolini was also interesting in that he was both a visionary and a realist. He did not abandon his youthful idealistic internationalism because he longer liked the theory. He abandoned it because he discovered it to be unworkable – at that time nationalism was much much more popular. So faced with the discovery that the facts were in conflict with the theory he accepted the facts and came up with a new theory that was consistent with reality.

    He did much the same with the Catholic Church. Having discovered that, at that time, the Church was powerful and popular he mended his fences with the Church.

    There haven’t been too many pragmatic ideological theorists but that’s how you’d have to describe Mussolini.

  77. neutral says:
    @dfordoom

    It is the psychological mechanism called loyalty, respecting heroism (no matter its consequences) and honour. I know that these are considered old fashioned ideals and have been twisted into pathologies by the jews, but there are still people in this world who value these things.

    The “winners” of this world are an ever increasing bickering mob of lunacy, they are already tearing down the statues of your older “winners” and they will obviously never stop in their pursuit of ever greater levels of lunacy. You can psychobabble all you want, but it is not people like me that are the ones suffering from ill mental health. The worship of the lowest races, the transgender/gay movement, the SJW/woke movement, the enforcement of open lies on society, these are your real psychological problems.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  78. dfordoom says: • Website
    @neutral

    You can psychobabble all you want, but it is not people like me that are the ones suffering from ill mental health. The worship of the lowest races, the transgender/gay movement, the SJW/woke movement, the enforcement of open lies on society, these are your real psychological problems.

    The problem with the modern world, as I see it, is that it’s increasingly divided into two opposing equally psychologically disturbed camps. With the sane people in the middle increasingly powerless to halt the madness of both extremes.

  79. SIMP simp says:
    @Anonymous

    That art looks orthodox or deliberately archaized, not the kind of depiction I expect for a catholic martyred in 1815 and canonized in 2000.

    • Replies: @SFG
  80. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    Prior to that left-wing ideas simply could not have existed.

    You should look up the Jacquerie revolt in medieval France. It was the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter of the day.

    “peasants killed a knight, put him on a spit, and roasted him with his wife and children looking on. After ten or twelve of them raped the lady, they wished to force feed them the roasted flesh of their father and husband and made them then die by a miserable death”.

    Understandably upset, the gentry put the revolt down with extreme prejudice.

    In fact what we’re seeing is classical fascism overlaid with social libertarianism.

    On what planet has “classical fascism” promoted radical egalitarianism? That is the classical hallmark of leftism.

    Social conservatism is too closely associated with Christianity and that alienates non-Christians. Social conservatism sounds dull, oppressive and negative. Social liberalism sounds exciting, glamorous and free.

    Don’t confuse your own shallow prejudice with what has worked for millennia.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @dfordoom
  81. Twinkie says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Pre-industrial history was a struggle between pastoralists and agriculturalists, in which the latter succumbed to the military might of the former, but outbred and assimilated it.

    So we have inherited both impulses – the egalitarianism, the wanderlust, and the warlike adventurism of the former, and the hierarchy, the desire for order, and the materialism of the latter.

    Most Eurasians are indeed hybrids of hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and agriculturalists in their population genetics.

    • Replies: @SFG
  82. Twinkie says:
    @Dumbo

    But I guess that’s how it is, the battle against the forces of evil is eternal, you never get to “win forever”, unless it’s Judgement Day.

    Indeed and well-said.

    If Mussolini had somehow managed to avoid getting mixed into the war, like Franco, things would have been different.

    If.

    Franco was wiser and left his country in a better position than he found it. Mussolini, well, we know how it turned out.

    • Replies: @SFG
  83. SFG says:
    @SIMP simp

    I’d guess Catholics are big into tradition, though that looks more like an Orthodox icon to my untrained eye.

  84. SFG says:
    @Twinkie

    From what I read he was a good enough judge of character to know Hitler was a megalomaniac and the war wasn’t going to go his way. Spain’s also easier to defend than Italy, though I’ll let the military buffs go here.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  85. SFG says:
    @Twinkie

    I always wondered if China’s long history of agriculturalism led to a tendency toward conformity, etc. in the Chinese gene pool. Only a tendency, of course…

  86. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    On what planet has “classical fascism” promoted radical egalitarianism?

    On what planet is radical egalitarianism being promoted today? What we’re seeing today, what is being promoted today, is exactly the opposite. We’re seeing a concentration of power and wealth in the hands of elites. The elites of today enjoy the privileges that were once enjoyed by feudal aristocracies.

    Radical egalitarianism has not been promoted by anyone since the Old Left was destroyed decades ago.

    Right-wingers need to occasionally look at what is happening in the real world rather than what is happening in their fevered imaginations.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Twinkie
  87. @Alexander Turok

    Says the douchebag who scribbled this:

    If freedumb means having to be infected with corona, I prefer the Chinese system.

    Do you and “Realist” wank off to each other’s posts?

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
  88. @vok3

    You and twinkles should go cuddle together in a safe space. And then you can enthusiastically share and create even more tales of your bravery and derring-do! Just two fearless and intrepid bold warriors battling the evil unmasked deplorables from your mother’s basement..

    “Remember that time when we were the bravest people in the world and our incredibly gallant group of international special operators attacked the evil malefactors who scoff at a cold? Our glorious tales of victory will live on for eternity.”

  89. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    Social conservatism is too closely associated with Christianity and that alienates non-Christians. Social conservatism sounds dull, oppressive and negative. Social liberalism sounds exciting, glamorous and free.

    Don’t confuse your own shallow prejudice with what has worked for millennia.

    Perhaps you could give us an alternative explanation for the observable fact that social conservatives have lost every single battle they have ever fought?

    It’s all very well to talk about what worked for millennia, but clearly people are not buying the product that they’re selling.

    The association with Christianity has damaged the social conservative brand because it has been trivially easy to portray social conservativism as an attempt to impose Christian values on the non-Christian majority.

    I’m not advocating for or against social conservativism here, merely trying to explain why social conservatives have lost and keep on losing.

    Social conservatives are the Washington Generals of politics.

  90. @dfordoom

    I’m not advocating for or against social conservativism here, merely trying to explain why social conservatives have lost and keep on losing.

    “Because the invisible Sky Fairy says so, that’s why!” – Turns out to not be a very compelling argument after the 19th Century. What is it about scientific understanding of the natural world that informs against imaginary Sky Fairies and their (?) edicts?

  91. @Bragadocious

    China’s done better with corona. That’s the truth. I can’t help it if you refuse to accept the truth.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  92. @Alexander Turok

    Yeah, I’m not an authoritarian Sinophile prick like you. So naturally I wouldn’t “get it.”

  93. @Alexander Turok

    Reduce your commute by 2 hours a day and your rent by 50% and you’d be doing a lot better even with a substantial reduction in your wage. Plus, you don’t have to live around people who annoy you

    That’s the only sensible thing you’ve written in threads about the recent orchestrated, manufactured hysteria that was ginned up by, and is being exploited by, the Western political class.

    Now, the Doomers are playing the ClimateCult game – extend and pretend – which is the same game played by Millenarian grifters since the invention of Millenarian grifters.

    Namely:
    ① they predict the End of Days (millions of deaths);
    ② that didn’t eventuate, and is entirely unlikely to;
    ③ they run a new story about some new thing they’ve just pulled out of their asses, and raise on a busted flush.

    So now, there are stitched-together examples of rare conditions that have turned up in slightly disproportionate numbers (Kawasaki’s Disease; ADEM, etc) – always initially presented as if there is a causative relationship between covid19 leadng to the condition… not that the presence of the (undiagnosed) condition perhaps makes the individual more prone to symptomatic (but entirely survivable) covid19. (For example: ever seen any paper that examines how many people who had a stroke and covid 19, had histories of TIA? Nope… because nobody gives a fuck, because it might fuck up the Narrative)

    In reality, anyone who believes the grifters is an infantile retard – which is why Doomers behave like a bunch of mediaeval villagers.

    The key thing that’s readily observable if you’re not a hysterical housewife: the decrease in IFR as testing becomes less convenience-sampled.

    inb4the decrease in IFR is because of government killing the economy, and face-diapers“. That can’t be true – face nappies can change the case count (temporarily), but not the inherent properties of the disease (which, let me remind you, are fuck-all for anyone who is not already sick with something else).

    People who buy into Doomer hysteria show the mental sophistication of mediaeval peasants who believed that priestly incantations helped save their children from demonic possession.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
  94. @dfordoom

    The association with Christianity has damaged the social conservative brand because it has been trivially easy to portray social conservativism as an attempt to impose Christian values on the non-Christian majority.

    I’m not advocating for or against social conservativism here, merely trying to explain why social conservatives have lost and keep on losing.

    So your explanation is that the right always loses because it is associated with Christianity? Even if this were true in the modern context (and I don’t think it is ftr), it’s still an extremely narrow answer and something of a cop-out. Conservatism vs. liberalism is a pattern seen throughout all recorded history. Many of belief systems have seen periods of decay accompanied by libertine behavior. It is most certainly not something specific to Christianity.

    We need an explanation that reconciles two seemingly contradictory historical truths:
    1) Social liberalism is, as you put it, “much easier to sell” than conservatism.
    2) The “default” or most common state of human society is extremely conservative.

    The logical conclusion here would be that humans prefer leftism, but are more successful when in a rightist social structure. Maybe the Industrial Revolution changed that but based on current geopolitical trends, it doesn’t seem so.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  95. @Kratoklastes

    The key thing that’s readily observable if you’re not a hysterical housewife: the decrease in IFR as testing becomes less convenience-sampled.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. The IFR is the deaths to infections ratio, not the deaths to discovered infections.(that’s the CFR)

    That can’t be true – face nappies can change the case count (temporarily), but not the inherent properties of the disease

    It’s entirely possible that masks are reducing IFR through dosage effects. The number of viruses one is originally exposed to has been shown to make a difference for other viruses.

    People who buy into Doomer hysteria show the mental sophistication of mediaeval peasants who believed that priestly incantations helped save their children from demonic possession.

    People who talk like this have the mental sophistication of nine-year-olds who think it’s just a giant conspiracy by the Adult Class that they can’t eat candy for every meal. Sometimes there really is a wolf. But I get that you’d rather eat your junk food, drive 20 miles above the speed limit, get drunk every night, not wear a mask, and generally behave like an immature brat yet call your short-sighted and self-destructive behavior the result of bravery.

  96. @dfordoom

    As much as I disapprove of social liberalism it’s much easier to sell than social conservatism.

    I agree but this point actually forms an integral part of my pet theory. It certainly doesn’t contradict it.

    And economic leftism is not all bad. Without a welfare state you have social instability and the threat of social chaos. Without some regulation capitalism can be pretty nasty.

    Some amount of “economic leftism” is just common sense and has been advocated by right-wing institutions for millennia. Trying to use it has a case for social liberalism is reminiscent of the people who use the existence of unions as a justification for Marxism. Also, extreme libertarianism has historically been associated with the left (e.g. Mill vs Carlyle).

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @dfordoom
  97. nebulafox says:
    @dfordoom

    The thing that radical left wing regimes do is simply replace one elite with a new, usually far nastier one. Radical, total egalitarianism runs into the cold wall of human nature and practical societal management. The one guy I can think of who actually tried to force the issue recently was Mao during the Cultural Revolution, and that led to anarchic brutality that nobody in the modern PRC wants to relive.

    But you are correct: one reason UMC liberals loved Obama was because he epitomized their self-image, including a deep comfort with managerial hierarchy. Unfortunately, America’s elites and current status quo sucks. Deeply, deeply sucks. So populism is needed. Maybe a good dose of whateverism, too. People are sick of ideology and want what works.

    Right wing regimes have their own challenges, but they tend to lie in working against local realities rather than the global ones, if we are talking about human history as a whole. (Just look at Metternich or Nicholas II.) Traditionally, the reason for this is that conservatism is inherently anti-ideological: the US over the last 40 years is the exception, not the rule. In amy case, left or right wing, successful rulers work with both the times and human nature, and prioritize their fights wisely.

  98. nebulafox says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    If you want native birthrates to not collapse and preserve national coherence, having an plutocratic rentier economy is a bad idea.

    The GOP only cares about the rich, foreign and domestic. The Democrats only care about their fetishized demographics and the feelings of bien-pensants. Nobody gives a damn about what might actually be best for America as a whole.

    • Agree: iffen
  99. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    Maybe some people find it more comforting to idolise losers rather than winners?

    I don’t know. I see this from Daesh fanboys as well. OK – let’s put aside any moral compunctions and just look at the results.

    These guys tried to force a caliphate into existence, attacked everyone and pissed off everyone in the region, most of their victims were Muslims of various sorts, they were attacked and collapsed within a couple of years, and have now made the idea of a caliphate into a nightmare whenever someone brings it up. Daesh fanboys will never admit the entire enterprise was a complete SNAFU from the get go and did practically all the opposite of what it wanted to do (Russia is lodged in Syria, US has control of oil fields, etc.). All they do is blame (and takfir) everyone else for not getting “the vision”.

    Incredible.

    Peace.

  100. Talha says:
    @neutral

    if a Third Reich existed

    See my response to dfordoom for the “if the ISIS Caliphate existed” narrative.

    Going down fighting is better than all the other alternatives.

    Killing as many whites/Europeans along the way as you crash and burn…? You realize this was not the Pacific theater – Germans were killing other whites and other whites were killing Germans.

    How many white/European people died for what was attempted and how many more should have died to have made it a reality? Feel free to round up to the nearest ten million.

    I must also say that Hitler predicted that the earth would be facing great disasters in the future

    I could have predicted that. In that industrial meat grinder of a conflict, how many capable and intelligent whites (that would have potentially had a positive impact on our current state of affairs) were killed off by one another?

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  101. nebulafox says:
    @SFG

    Franco’s distrust of Hitler stemmed from many factors, above all Hitler’s contempt for Christianity and fundamentally revolutionary nature, but he was not so sure Hitler wouldn’t win until 1943, like most people. Salazar, on the other hand, predicted the war accurately from the get-go, though he also had the world’s oldest formal alliance with the UK and had a much more stable situation, politically and nationally.

    In the constant debates about Franco’s “real” sympathies, I am surprised that few point out the obvious: Franco inherited a nation that had been absolutely shredded by a nasty civil war and could not really offer anything non-trivial to anybody-or openly court the hostlity of any major power. Churchill understood that and was always careful to respect Franco’s position during the dark years, and Franco always made it clear that Spanish volunteers for the Axis were Eastern Front only.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Colin Wright
  102. nebulafox says:
    @Talha

    If Hitler had his way, he would have ended up killing more Europeans than anybody else in history. He might have anyway. Only thing remotely comparable to Nazi brutality in Russia was the Mongols.

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Thanks: Talha
  103. anon[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    Franco inherited a nation that had been absolutely shredded by a nasty civil war and could not really offer anything non-trivial to anybody

    Yes, exactly so. Spain had essentially already had its piece of WW II on its own soil and recovery was slow going.

    General Franco played both sides well. Allied aviators who got through southern France into Spain were quickly shipped to Gibralter, from there they flew back to England.

    But also Italian underwater saboteurs who set explosives under British ships in the harbor of Gibraltar only had to get to the Spanish beach in order to be flown back to Rome. One team set up in an interned freighter up the coast. Franco clearly put limits on what could be done by either side.

    There were some Spanish hotbloods who wanted to ally with the Nazis. I have long suspected that Franco carefully defused that sentiment by giving such men the opportunity they desired, thereby removing much of the impetus from Spain.

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

    The Blue Division (Spanish: División Azul, German: Blaue Division), officially designated as División Española de Voluntarios by the Spanish Army and as 250. Infanterie-Division in the German Army, was a unit of Spanish volunteers who served in the German Army on the Eastern Front during the Second World War.

    I have not yet found any book on Azul in English.

    • Replies: @res
    , @nebulafox
  104. @Talha

    ‘Why do people still feel the need to come to the rescue of such an utter failure in life?’

    Hitler really was pretty impressive in a lot of ways.

    Ragging on the guy is safe — but it’s not especially accurate.

    Obviously, you may feel there are better uses for your time, but I think August Kubizek’s The Young Hitler I Knew gives an illuminating picture of someone who was inarguably a remarkable individual — if also inarguably someone who ultimately had a catastrophic effect on the world.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Talha
  105. @nebulafox

    ‘Franco’s distrust of Hitler stemmed from many factors, above all Hitler’s contempt for Christianity and fundamentally revolutionary nature…’

    In Franco and Hitler, Payne convincingly argues that Franco fully intended to join Hitler in the war eventually, and almost made the leap on several occasions.

    I’d say it was yes, Franco’s distaste for Nazism’s revolutionary and anti-Christian ideology, but also his fundamentally cautious nature — and Hitler’s lack of any great interest in the the project — that kept Spain on the fence. Among other factors, it kept coming down to Spain being in a state of near famine as it was. If she joined Hitler, the British were going to cut off food imports. If that happened, Franco needed to be assured Germany would make up the shortfall. Germany couldn’t or wouldn’t guarantee that, so…

    As it turned out, Franco really managed to thread the needle between becoming a victim of German aggression or later becoming a victim of the triumphant Allies. Even with Spanish neutrality, Spanish Republicans were actually mounting forays into Spain with the tacit approval of the Allies in late 1944 or thereabouts, while earlier the Germans kept forming plans to overrun the peninsula themselves. It was definitely a close call.

    Equally plausibly, Spain could rather easily wound up joining the Axis in 1940 or 1941 — and have wound up getting methodically stomped over from south to north ala Italy. After all, if Spain is on Team Hitler, then the most plausible scenario is that Britain and America invade her around 1943 and bloodily fight their way right across the peninsula.

    However, curiously, it wasn’t just Franco that kept that from becoming a reality. It was also Hitler. If he’d been more interested or more insistent that Spain come in, he likely could have had his way.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  106. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright

    I’ve never read Payne’s book, so I’ll take your word for it. But whatever Franco’s real sympathies were, he ruled a country that was in no condition to piss off either the UK or Germany unless he was absolutely, totally sure that the war’s conclusion wasn’t in doubt. If Spain had joined the Axis, cutting off Gibraltar would have seriously harmed Britain. I’m not sure it would have made a serious difference in the long run given how Hitler’s ideological thoughts revolved around invading the USSR and how that was the real downfall of Nazi Germany, but cutting off the Mediterranean to the Royal Navy wouldn’t have been trivial at all.

    >However, curiously, it wasn’t just Franco that kept that from becoming a reality. It was also Hitler. If he’d been more interested or more insistent that Spain come in, he likely could have had his way.

    For lack of any better phrasing, Hitler had renounced political methods by 1940. If he hadn’t, he could have easily used the same methods he used before the war to forge a trans-European coalition in the summer of 1940 when, for a few months, fascism really did look like the future. But while Hitler’s tactical brilliance as a politician was basically responsible for him going from one success to the next before the war, he could never fully conceal how antithetical politics was to his nature. Part of why going to war was so liberating for him was that he could revert to his natural, militant self, but that also meant the the deft sham compromises and ambiguities that would have been necessary were something he didn’t even really think about.

    (Worth mentioning that German culture prior to the Nazis was very, very anti-political, and Hitler was no exception: he only went into politics because he largely lacked a choice in 1919, and surprisingly found that it was his real skill. Part of what changed that was the postwar occupation period, but part of that was indeed also the Nazi period. The totalitarian nature of the state, especially during wartime, created a sense of social consciousness in the war generation that didn’t exist before.)

    In the end, the self-destructive needs of Hitler’s own nature were so all-consuming that they submerged the very real gifts that led him to power in the first place. Though sympathy toward the crusade against Judeo-Bolshevism was broadly shared by most of the German elite in 1941 OTL, it’s really hard to see a genocidal war of colonial conquest being launched in a world where Hitler never existed.

    • Replies: @128
    , @Colin Wright
  107. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright

    Denying talents and historical significance in the morally reprehensible is a sign of immaturity, not wisdom, and to confuse Hitler’s obviously inferior personal features for actual stupidity or lack of ability is to make the same mistake that his self-satisfied contemporaries made. Conservative and Marxist intellectuals, right and left-wing opponents alike dismissed Hitler as a replaceable agent for others. Wrong. Totally, utterly wrong, and says more about their own class prejudices than anything

    With that in mind, Hitler, like any other figure, was as much a product of his times as he made them. His own personal circumstances were a highly exaggerated version of the society he inhabited in 1919. You can’t fake that kind of thing, and it showed in his effectiveness as an orator. “Everything I am, I am through you” was not just clever words: it was real. Almost physical. It’s also worth mentioning that Hitler couldn’t have done what he did without the broad collusion of his own society, most especially the elites of that society.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
  108. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright

    I don’t doubt that a man that could convince the Germans to take on the Russians while simultaneously fighting multiple other nations on other multiple other fronts was not impressive in certain ways; ability to employ rhetoric for instance.

    I’m talking from a position of a person starting with stated goals and given resources to end results based on those initial parameters.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
  109. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Note that dfordoom used the word “loser” in describing the man. I personally stick to “failure” due to the reasons I outlined; as measured by yardstick based on stated goals and initial starting point vs end results.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  110. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    So your explanation is that the right always loses because it is associated with Christianity?

    I’m saying that in a post-Christian society being closely associated with Christianity and appearing to be trying to impose Christian moral values on non-Christians are losing strategies.

    We need an explanation that reconciles two seemingly contradictory historical truths:
    1) Social liberalism is, as you put it, “much easier to sell” than conservatism.
    2) The “default” or most common state of human society is extremely conservative.

    Depends on what you mean by extremely conservative. How socially conservative were the Romans? I’d say they were somewhere in the middle – more socially conservative than our current western society but not as socially conservative as Victorian England or 1950s American society.

    How socially conservative was 18th century western Europe? Again I’d say, somewhere in the middle. They were relatively relaxed about things like prostitution for example, and moderately relaxed about adultery.

    Even in Victorian England pre-marital sex was pretty much the norm in most rural areas. In practice Victorian England may have been less socially conservative than 1950s USA.

    I’d say that most historical societies fluctuated between moderate social conservatism and moderate social liberalism. I’m not convinced that extreme social conservatism is necessarily the norm.

    Certainly the extreme social liberalism of today’s western society is a bit of an outlier. But it’s a weird social liberalism because it has some Puritan undertones. For example homosexuals demanding that their lifestyle should be celebrated is social liberalism taken to excess, but what do we make of the obsession with homosexual marriage?

  111. Yahya K. says:
    @nebulafox

    People who talked to Hitler sometimes described him as “muddle headed” and slow to get to the point. So it could have been the case that he was bad at thinking things through strategically. And he did make quite a few strategic blunders. But yes he did have an instinct for the tactical.

    Good at tactics, bad at strategy.

  112. 128 says:
    @nebulafox

    Stop exagerrating, a look at German demographics and the fact that German women were barely at replacement rate would show that there was simply no population for colonization of European Russia with 100 million Germans, or even 1 million Germans, so it would just end up being broken up into puppet states with German advisers, like Manchukuo, especially since Hitler was in poor health by the mid 40s, and would be replaced by the early 50s whatever happens, at best they could colonize Western Poland, but that is pretty much it.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @nebulafox
  113. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    Some amount of “economic leftism” is just common sense and has been advocated by right-wing institutions for millennia. Trying to use it has a case for social liberalism is reminiscent of the people who use the existence of unions as a justification for Marxism.

    I wasn’t intending to suggest that economic leftism provides a case for social libertarianism. I don’t see any necessary connection between the two.

    Also, extreme libertarianism has historically been associated with the left (e.g. Mill vs Carlyle).

    If you mean extreme social libertarianism I don’t agree.

    Extreme economic libertarianism is obviously right-wing.

    Historical analogies are not necessarily useful in understanding what’s happening today. Left and right, whether it’s economic right vs economic left or social left vs social right, just don’t have the same meanings today. Nothing today has the same meaning it had in the mid-20th century today. Today we have people claiming to be Marxists who are bankrolled by Big Business. They’re obviously not the same Marxists we had in the 1950s, and they’re obviously not the same capitalists.

    The alliance between Big Business and Big Government would simply have seemed bizarre in the 19th century or even early 20th century. The fact that this alliance would promote extreme social libertarianism would have seemed even more bizarre.

  114. res says:
    @anon

    There were some Spanish hotbloods who wanted to ally with the Nazis. I have long suspected that Franco carefully defused that sentiment by giving such men the opportunity they desired, thereby removing much of the impetus from Spain.

    Seems reasonable. Sending them to the Eastern front (in addition to not offending Britain) probably did a good job of reducing the number of hotbloods in post-WWII Spain as well.

    Wiki estimates about 4,500 out of 45,000 died.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_during_World_War_II#Spanish_volunteers_in_Axis_service

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  115. nebulafox says:
    @anon

    I will leave the serious analysis to people who actually know Spain better. But my uneducated hunch about the Blue Legion is more along your lines than Colin’s. Just as you had left-wing Spaniards ranging across the whole range of socialist ideological flavors, there were a lot of right-wing Spaniards with genuine fascist leanings, and Franco’s regime-especially in the early days-was a coalition force incorporating everything from traditional Catholics to monarchists to militarists. Franco struck me as the kind of guy happy to work with the fascists, but only as a junior partner in the coalition: with him in complete control.

    So here was a chance to kill two birds with one stone: he could contribute to the crusade (keeping himself in Berlin’s good graces as an add-on) against Bolshevism, which he ideologically sympathized with as much as anybody, while also protecting his regime by letting the true hotheads who he couldn’t dominate vent whatever frustrations they felt in Russia. Franco knew that some of them would not return, after all, and those that did wouldn’t be back until he had a chance to cement the new regime.

    All in all, Franco’s actions struck me as those of a Spain-first realist whose main priority was doing whatever it took to stabilize the new government and begin the rebuilding process. As one of the biggest actors of the civil war, he could not have been unaware of how much destruction it caused and how weak his country was in the 1940s. That meant a delicate balancing act between the Anglo-Americans and the Axis.

    >I have not yet found any book on Azul in English.

    Hitler held the Azul in very high esteem, even as he grew to utterly despise Franco.

    In 1943, he made a very revealing statement in a conversation with Albert Speer about how the real “idealists” in Spain who the Reich would eventually “make use of” one day were the Reds, rather than the democrats or the Falangists. Bizarre right after Stalingrad? Not as much as one might think: Hitler had already done that in Germany many years earlier. It does show something deep about how Hitler was fundamentally *revolutionary*, regardless of how much Marxists would like to think otherwise. Perhaps more importantly, he viewed himself as revolutionary, and he took that very seriously. This was the huge divergent point between Franco and Hitler. Franco was a reactionary who hated the idea of revolution.

    Hitler blamed his loss in the war a couple years later not least because he thought he had not been consistently revolutionary enough.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  116. @Talha

    ‘Note that dfordoom used the word “loser” in describing the man. I personally stick to “failure” due to the reasons I outlined; as measured by yardstick based on stated goals and initial starting point vs end results.’

    I’ve sometimes thought that hell for Hitler must have been his final days — and realizing, deep down inside, the cataclysmic catastrophe he’d inflicted on the German people.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  117. nebulafox says:
    @res

    I wonder if Churchill suspected that this was Franco’s game, too, as someone who himself would have quite sympathetic to the notion of a pan-European mission to crush Bolshevism before Nazism reared its ugly head…

  118. @128

    ‘Stop exagerrating, a look at German demographics and the fact that German women were barely at replacement rate would show that there was simply no population for colonization of European Russia with 100 million Germans, or even 1 million Germans, so it would just end up being broken up into puppet states with German advisers, like Manchukuo, especially since Hitler was in poor health by the mid 40s, and would be replaced by the early 50s whatever happens, at best they could colonize Western Poland, but that is pretty much it.’

    What is true is that — although it proved academic — the great Nazi colonization project in the East was already falling down by 1943 for lack of willing colonists.

    Ironically, Germany probably could have digested about what it had annexed from Poland in 1939: West Prussia and the ‘Warthegau.’ For the rest of it, there simply weren’t enough willing Germans.

    …all of which makes Nazi occupation policy in the East even more perfectly irrational than it was to begin with. No German overlords were going to show up to rule the Slavic serfs; there was no reason not to win the Ukrainians et al over with a massive land redistribution.

  119. @nebulafox

    ‘… But while Hitler’s tactical brilliance as a politician was basically responsible for him going from one success to the next before the war, he could never fully conceal how antithetical politics was to his nature. Part of why going to war was so liberating for him was that he could revert to his natural, militant self, but that also meant the the deft sham compromises and ambiguities that would have been necessary were something he didn’t even really think about…’

    Possibly. It’s certainly an intriguing perspective.

    I will point out, though, that had Hitler pursued building a grand alliance, he would have promptly run into the conflicting agendas of Spain, France, and Italy. It was possible to give any one, or perhaps two, of them what they wanted — but not all three at once.

    Add that one of Hitler’s idee fixes was a grand alliance with Britain. As long as he hoped for that, he could hardly hand over Gibraltar to Spain.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  120. nebulafox says:
    @128

    I’m on record as stating that winning the war against the USSR in the way the Nazis wanted in 1941 was basically impossible, though they could have ended up racking up an even more horrific death toll if certain things went differently. The fundamental issue was simple: Hitler, the high command, most of the German government, and plenty of Anglo-American outsiders failed to understand just how different the Red Army of 1941 was from the Tsarist Army of 1914. Hitler was hardly alone there, and to his credit, he was much quicker to understand that than most people in the Reich’s leadership.

    >especially since Hitler was in poor health by the mid 40s, and would be replaced by the early 50s whatever happens,

    Hypochondria aside, Hitler’s physical health was mostly solid until the last four years of his life: which was stunning, considering his lack of exercise, unhealthy diet, and the ugly presence of Dr. Morell.

    In a world without Barbarossa, there’s no reason to assume his health would have entered the same kind of free-fall. But, of course, the Hitler who doesn’t launch Barbarossa isn’t Hitler.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  121. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright

    I did some necessarily cursory research online before work today, and one interesting thing I’ve come across is not only how intensely many young Spanish officers detested Communism-I guess not that shocking after the experiences of 1930s Spain-but actually held no-kidding pro-fascist leanings. (It’s always the junior officers embracing the “modernist” hard-right ideology of the day, from 1990s Pakistan to 1930s Japan…) Like a lot of young, radical right-wing Europeans in 1940, they saw Hitler as a Napoleon-style Weltgeist who epitomized the wave of the future. These elements were getting increasingly critical of the traditionalist direction Franco was taking by the early 1940s. There were even these kinds of guys high up in government: Franco’s foreign minister and brother-in-law, Suñer, had deeply fascist leanings and was critical of Franco’s empowerment of traditional right-wing elements in Spain, especially the Church.

    This doesn’t confirm this thesis we’ve got, but it would fit nicely into Franco seeing a great opportunity to simultaneously strike a blow against Communism while funneling out disruptive elements of his own coalition, all while not damaging relations too badly with the Western powers. Franco was suppressing any hint of left-wing sentiment violently at home, so there wasn’t really a use for them on that front.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Twinkie
  122. @nebulafox

    ‘… This doesn’t confirm this thesis we’ve got, but it would fit nicely into Franco seeing a great opportunity to simultaneously strike a blow against Communism while funneling out disruptive elements of his own coalition, all while not damaging relations too badly with the Western powers. Franco was suppressing any hint of left-wing sentiment violently at home, so there wasn’t really a use for them on that front.’

    I’d say from Franco’s point of view, allowing a volunteer division to be formed for the Eastern Front was essentially the least he could get away with, given the surge of enthusiasm for the great crusade against Communism and of course Germany’s feeling that they were due some return for their support in the civil war.

  123. @nebulafox

    ‘…I’m on record as stating that winning the war against the USSR in the way the Nazis wanted in 1941 was basically impossible, though they could have ended up racking up an even more horrific death toll if certain things went differently…’

    I feel otherwise. Having thought about it at some length, and read about it fairly extensively, I’m convinced that Germany could well have taken Moscow by the beginning of September 1941 if they had simply driven straight for it, and had they taken the city that early, the Soviet Union would have disintegrated.

    One of Hitler’s failings as a war lord was that he thought in terms of incremental gains. For example, in the French campaign, even after his panzers had reached the Channel and the whole country was his, he was still thinking in terms of securing the iron mines in Eastern France — as if this was just going to be the opening blow in a war of attrition.

    It didn’t matter much then — the German army just overran everything anyway. However, it did matter in Russia, when he threw away his one good chance to win the campaign in favor of completing another colossal encirclement and securing the Ukraine.

    I’d say he failed to realize that if you’ve jumped on a bear, you go for its jugular while you’ve got the chance. You don’t fool around.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @nebulafox
  124. @Colin Wright

    ‘…I’m convinced that Germany could well have taken Moscow by the beginning of September 1941 if they had simply driven straight for it, and had they taken the city that early, the Soviet Union would have disintegrated.’

    What’s actually interesting about this scenario is that implicitly or explicitly, the sequel reads ‘and then Germany wins the war, and that’s the beginning of the Thousand Year Reich.’

    Well, maybe, but it’s not a gimme. For example, not just the Germans, but the British and Americans figured the Russians to collapse; as I recall, our War Department gave them six weeks.

    So had the Russians folded up, we would have shrugged and gotten on with it. It would have been what we expected, and we were planning to eventually field a four hundred division army.

    Obviously, the win would have put Germany in a far better position than she was historically, and it’s perfectly possible she would have eventually forced us to accept German hegemony in Europe, but there’s no reason to assume that would have been the outcome.

  125. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    On what planet is radical egalitarianism being promoted today?

    Are you serious? They are burning down and looting American cities, because blacks don’t have the same outcome as whites. If that’s not radical egalitarianism, I don’t know what is.

    Right-wingers need to occasionally look at what is happening in the real world rather than what is happening in their fevered imaginations.

    You should live in Detroit rather than opining authoritatively about America from Australia.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  126. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    Perhaps you could give us an alternative explanation for the observable fact that social conservatives have lost every single battle they have ever fought?

    Your conclusion is asinine, because your assumptions and presumptions are. Your statement above is completely unlimited and is devoid of the contexts of time and place (for starters).

    Social conservatives have not “lost every single battle they have ever fought.” What you are seeing today is the decay of decadence brought on by an extreme prosperity unequaled in history that is married to declining prospects for the younger generation that are feeding anxiety and discontent. In other words, it is a part of a cycle that every civilization undergoes. You’d be singing a different tune in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s when America was traditional and experienced unparalleled affluence and global power.

    The far more important and relevant question is whether America will or will not recover from this downturn – whether today’s disharmony and discord will lead to a renewal or whether America will gradually weaken and wither away.

    The association with Christianity has damaged the social conservative brand because it has been trivially easy to portray social conservativism as an attempt to impose Christian values on the non-Christian majority.

    America was for a very long time a Christian majority nation and remained far more religious than any other economically developed country. It is, in fact, a country where such a monstrosity as “prosperity Gospel” exists. Even today, 50% of the country identifies as Protestant and 25% as Catholic, and atheists are still viewed suspiciously, not the least by the electorate (hence Trump’s Bible-thumping photo-ops).

    It is indeed you – whose anti-Christian ideology is pretty clear from your past comments – whose fevered imagination of Americans is that of a “non-Christian majority” ready to overthrow fat cats and churches and effect some sort of a leftist revolution. This is on top of the fact that you despise America’s global power and reach, so much so that you see your own country as an embarrassing “America’s bitch.”

    I’m not advocating for or against social conservativism here, merely trying to explain why social conservatives have lost and keep on losing.

    I don’t buy this wholly unconvincing “dispassionate neutral observer” act. Your sympathies are quite clear as do your barely-concealed ill wishes.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  127. Twinkie says:
    @nebulafox

    how intensely many young Spanish officers detested Communism-I guess not that shocking after the experiences of 1930s Spain

    Don’t forget the communists among the Spanish Republican forces in their civil war engaged in an orgy of destruction of churches and murders of priests and nuns in their areas of control at the direction of their Soviet masters.

    If the Republicans had won the war over the Nationalists, the bloodbath in Spain would have been incomparably greater than exacted by the latter in their victory.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  128. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright

    Taking Moscow wouldn’t have won the war, though. It would have done major logistical and psychological damage to the Russians, but Stalin would have just evacuated to Samara. Hitler was forever complaining his generals didn’t get the economic aspects of modern war, and he wasn’t wrong: the only way to win was to destroy the Red Army’s ability to fight as much as possible. Just look at what happened to Napoleon. He took Moscow, but the Russian army remained out there, and he was in the middle of hostile territory with nowhere again.

    The only realistic kind of way for Germany, especially a Germany with a far more fragile domestic situation than in WWI, to win the Eastern Front was to do what they did in WWI and convince them to cut a BL style deal. The genocidal goals of the Nazis largely precluded any chance of that: there were points where Stalin and Hitler individually considered cutting a deal with each other, but they never coincided.

    (The German generals after the war tried to attribute all the Wehrmacht’s success to themselves and all the failures to Hitler. That’s not the reality. Precisely because of his unusual background, Hitler thought in larger contexts than they did and was able to draw the conclusion that the war was no longer conventionally winnable in late 1941. What he was unable to do was to follow through the logical conclusions, at least after Stalingrad, and this had a lot to do with his personality. Hitler was always marked by rigidity, but the second half of the war kicked off a remarkable process of ossification which impacted his decisions. I don’t think Morell’s drugs helped, but I think the reasons behind that were deeper, and relate to my own personal theories about Hitler.)

    >Well, maybe, but it’s not a gimme. For example, not just the Germans, but the British and Americans figured the Russians to collapse; as I recall, our War Department gave them six weeks.

    Exactly. Again: what Hitler got wrong was massively underestimating the USSR. But he was hardly alone on that score, and not just in Germany. Time Magazine and the NYT were busy predicting the collapse of the Red Army within a few months.

    It’s as if nobody paid attention to Khalkin Gol as a counterexample to the Winter War… and I suspect part of that was race.

  129. nebulafox says:
    @Twinkie

    What I also discovered this morning was the serious obstacles to getting any objective analysis on the Spanish Civil War and Francoist Spain, and how much left-wing historiography is still invested in the romantic ideal of the republic for their own domestic political/ideological hobby horses.

    It’s like a European version of Vietnam.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  130. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright

    It probably was. It’s odd to say, but engaging in violence wasn’t second nature for Hitler in the same it was for Stalin, who probably couldn’t have care less about the massive losses of life his people went through: or for Hermann Goering, for that matter, who was similarly indifferent to the sufferings of his people and would be diagnosed at Nuremberg as a very high-functioning sociopath. I think Van Creveld had this aspect to Hitler nailed.

    It’s telling that he had often had to work himself into a psychological frenzy to act and treated the races he targeted as abstract, clinical problems to deal with. I think that’s how he genuinely conceived of them. Note the wording that he uses for Jews: “exterminate”. Not kill: exterminate. Very telling. Very abstract. Very video game like.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  131. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    Are you serious? They are burning down and looting American cities, because blacks don’t have the same outcome as whites. If that’s not radical egalitarianism, I don’t know what is.

    I tend to assume that movements funded and supported by billionaires and mega-corporations are probably not actually about radical egalitarianism, even if some of the dumber foot-soldiers think it is. And I assume that LGBT-dominated movements like BLM are probably not really about radical egalitarianism.

    What matters is the agenda of those controlling the purse-strings.

    • Agree: Talha, iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  132. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    Your statement above is completely unlimited and is devoid of the contexts of time and place (for starters).

    A valid criticism.

    I should have said that social conservatives have lost every single battle they have ever fought for the past 60 years.

    What you are seeing today is the decay of decadence brought on by an extreme prosperity unequaled in history that is married to declining prospects for the younger generation that are feeding anxiety and discontent.

    It may well be that extreme prosperity leads to inevitably to decadence. But the problem with your point about declining prospects for the younger generation is that the modern decadence is a long-term thing. The Decadence of the 1890s never really went away. It lodged itself permanently in western civilisation. The fin-de-siècle Decadance was an elite thing and decadence remained an elite thing until about the late 1950s when it started to go mainstream. I’m not sure there’s a direct link between decadence and declining prospects for the younger generation. Not in economic terms anyway.

    What changed in the 1960s was that there was a crisis of legitimacy that undermined the established order. The Cold War (with the perceived threat of nuclear annihilation) and the Vietnam War destroyed the credibility of the old order. In the ’40s and ’50s the old order was associated with stability, social harmony and growing prosperity. After the ’60s the old order was associated with war and injustice.

  133. dfordoom says: • Website
    @nebulafox

    What I also discovered this morning was the serious obstacles to getting any objective analysis on the Spanish Civil War and Francoist Spain, and how much left-wing historiography is still invested in the romantic ideal of the republic for their own domestic political/ideological hobby horses.

    It’s like a European version of Vietnam.

    That’s true. Although I’d say that, like Vietnam, it’s a case where neither side is capable of objective analysis.

    But then the English still find it difficult to be objective about the English Civil War. It’s possible that objectivity will never be possible when it comes to any war fought on ideological grounds.

  134. @nebulafox

    ‘Taking Moscow wouldn’t have won the war, though. It would have done major logistical and psychological damage to the Russians, but Stalin would have just evacuated to Samara…’

    I think you’re overestimating the solidity and stability of the Soviet regime. Even as it was, cracks showed up. Think if the Germans had roared into Moscow at the beginning of September.

    Obviously, the claim could be debated ad infinitem, but I’d put my money (and I think Hitler should have put his money) on the Soviet state collapsing if the shock is that great and that sudden.

  135. @nebulafox

    ‘It’s telling that he had often had to work himself into a psychological frenzy to act and treated the races he targeted as abstract, clinical problems to deal with. I think that’s how he genuinely conceived of them. Note the wording that he uses for Jews: “exterminate”. Not kill: exterminate. Very telling. Very abstract. Very video game like.’

    As a tentative proposal, I’d say that Hitler could hate alright — but only in the abstract. There is the tendency he had to make exceptions for Jews he actually knew — and he seems to have had to screw himself up to actually confront and condemn Roehm. Then too, he seems to have been haunted by the guilt he felt over how his obsessional protectiveness had driven his niece Geli Raubal to commit suicide.

    A German memoirist — Guderian? — commented that Hitler was unwilling to visit wounded soldiers or bombed-0ut cities, and attributed this to Hitler’s callousness. However, he admitted that another explanation was that Hitler was just too s0ft-hearted; he know he never could continue to pursue such ruthless policies if he faced the suffering that was occurring.

    Hitler was — rather awkwardly — much beloved by his intimates and domestic staff and commanded their continuing loyalty long after he had ceased to have any power over them. Even his mother’s Jewish doctor — whom Hitler allowed to emigrate to the United States in 1941 or something — always refused to say a bad word about him.

    It’s very incorrect to say, but Hitler seems to have been a bit like one’s neighbor — maybe politically a tad wrong-headed but personally, a nice guy.

    Unfortunately, he wound up running a country. The results proved to be regrettable.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @nebulafox
  136. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    What matters is the agenda of those controlling the purse-strings.

    That’s classic Marxist-materialist thinking.

    Ideologies – even those put forth disingenuously – develop lives of their own when given sufficient adoption.

    If we were to follow your logic, then there has never been any leftist or “egalitarian” revolution since all revolutions have created hierarchies (just different people atop the said hierarchies). That the leaders of revolutions harbor a separate agenda (power for themselves) from the proposed one (radical egalitarianism) doesn’t mean the society wouldn’t be ruled by the latter… excepting the new elites, of course.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  137. Twinkie says:
    @Colin Wright

    A German memoirist — Guderian? — commented that Hitler was unwilling to visit wounded soldiers or bombed-0ut cities, and attributed this to Hitler’s callousness. However, he admitted that another explanation was that Hitler was just too s0ft-hearted; he know he never could continue to pursue such ruthless policies if he faced the suffering that was occurring.

    Keep in mind that surviving German generals such as Guderian and von Manstein wanted to sustain the “myth of the untainted shield of the Wehrmacht” and engaged in wholesale lies in their memoirs with the connivance of self-serving and friendly historians such as B. H. Liddell Hart and the post-war Western Allied countries that needed to rearm West Germany to counter the Soviet Union.

    Even his mother’s Jewish doctor — whom Hitler allowed to emigrate to the United States in 1941 or something

    I’ll give you one better. He allowed a Jewish comrade of his to cuckold him with the woman he loved (Geli Raubal, his half-niece) and yet still stayed loyal to him instead of letting Himmler evict him from the SS (or worse): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Maurice

    Hitler was not a “nice guy” – he was just sentimental and weird, and in some ways grotesque. No amount of paying odd attention to a little Jewish girl (https://www.stripes.com/news/europe/the-fuhrer-s-child-how-hitler-came-to-adore-a-girl-with-jewish-roots-1.556597) or showing affection to dogs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blondi) could change that.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  138. nebulafox says:
    @Colin Wright

    >I think you’re overestimating the solidity and stability of the Soviet regime. Even as it was, cracks showed up. Think if the Germans had roared into Moscow at the beginning of September.

    Fighting an enemy that intends to reduce you to serfdom at best and possibly intentionally starve you to death has a way of solidifying your resolve.

    >As a tentative proposal, I’d say that Hitler could hate alright — but only in the abstract.

    No, he was perfectly capable of hating people in the concrete, here and now. Plenty of incidents ranging from casual willingness to kill random Jewish boys he saw in Munich hotels to jokes about starving Leningraders engaging in cannibalism attest to that.

    This isn’t incompatible with not being a psychopath. Quite the contrary: psychopaths genuinely lack the ability to hate based on abstract notions of communal identity, or indeed, for anything other than being in the way of whatever selfish thing the psychopath wants in that moment. They’ll still harm you, because they think it is amusing: and that’s why psychopaths can be dangerous.

    >It’s very incorrect to say, but Hitler seems to have been a bit like one’s neighbor — maybe politically a tad wrong-headed but personally, a nice guy.

    Honestly? I think if Hitler were alive today, he’d be one of those losers passing out his life on his couch with bottles of Mountain Dew and playing Call of Duty. Maybe he’d be a 4chan habitue?

  139. nebulafox says:
    @Twinkie

    I actually had a relative fight on the Ostfront, unlike most American Wehrbaroos: and as a result, I am the last guy here who would deny the Wehrmacht’s intimately ideological role in what was appropriately dubbed the war of annhilation. Additionally, I’ve already commented on the self-serving tendency of the postwar commentary of the generals to attribute all failure to Hitler and all success to themselves: the real, fatal error that Germany made in 1941 was something almost uniformly shared across Germany’s elites, military, political, or otherwise.

    I don’t see why Guderian would have intentionally lied when speculating about that specifically. His agenda had nothing to gain from it. I don’t agree with it, though: I think it was a prosaic mixture of politics and Hitler’s all encompassing, laser like obsession with the Eastern Front. Hitler’s ability to “care” was not nonexistant as befitted a genuine psychopath (there were Nazis who did fit that profile and you can tell the difference), but deeply brittle and aloof, and conditioned on complete domination and what we might call a deep but distanced level of intimacy.

    Put a different way, on a subconscious level, he might have seen his servants sentimentally as glorified pets, even if he convinced himself and others otherwise. Which befits the spoiled teen he once was much better than the tempremental, mercurial warlord who he styled himself as. After all, plenty of people treat their dogs as children while treating humans they disdain as lesser than the dogs.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  140. @nebulafox

    ‘Put a different way, on a subconscious level, he might have seen his servants sentimentally as glorified pets, even if he convinced himself and others otherwise. Which befits the spoiled teen he once was much better than the tempremental, mercurial warlord who he styled himself as. After all, plenty of people treat their dogs as children while treating humans they disdain as lesser than the dogs.’

    This is something we could really do to anyone; all we have to do is describe them in terms that make them seem somehow undesirable. Hitler is liked by his domestic staff; therefore, ‘he sees them as pets.’ Should we make this claim about every popular landlord, small business owner, etc?

    I don’t see the device as inaccurate so much as evasive. The purpose is to avoid saying positive things about Hitler.

    Well, what if there were positive things about Hitler? After all, a whole lot of Germans thought he was pretty cool for about ten years. I think it follows that there must have been positive things, and can’t see any legitimate reason why I should be reluctant to suggest the possibility there were.

    After all, the guy’s been dead for seventy five years; if we’re still frightened of the what happens if we praise him, that’s really interesting.

  141. @nebulafox

    ‘Fighting an enemy that intends to reduce you to serfdom at best and possibly intentionally starve you to death has a way of solidifying your resolve.’

    That sounds nice but it did not in fact happen. Russians surrendered in truly massive numbers well into October and even the next year the vaunted Russian strategy of simply falling back in the face of Fall Blau owed much to the fact that the Russians in question simply would not stand and fight. People often overlook the detail that actually Stalin issued his ‘not one step back’ order at the time (look up the date.) The Russians just kept streaming rearward.

    More to the point, I think the Germans could have taken Moscow by the beginning of September, and I think doing so would have fatally undermined the Soviet State.

    • Replies: @Wielgus
  142. @nebulafox

    ‘Honestly? I think if Hitler were alive today, he’d be one of those losers passing out his life on his couch with bottles of Mountain Dew and playing Call of Duty. Maybe he’d be a 4chan habitue?’

    Possibly. Stonewall Jackson was a rather unsuccessful and cranky professor at a small college until the Civil War, while Grant was an alcoholic bankrupt. No Civil War, no fame.

    Hitler could equally well have screwed up his nerve enough to present the letter of recommendation he’d been given to a famous theatrical producer, become a modestly successful if decidedly crankish set designer, and died in Vienna in 1953 — a footnote in Viennese cultural history, there to be found if it ever occurred to anyone to look for it.

  143. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Prior to the onset of winter, the closest thing to a German defeat in the east in 1941 was the Yelnya fighting, west of Moscow. That may have pushed them in the direction of concentrating on Ukraine instead rather than a thrust at Moscow. The next year the Germans seem to have felt Moscow was beyond reach, hence the thrust at the Caucasus and Stalingrad.
    The somewhat headlong retreats of 1942 meant also that the Germans did not make the POW captures they had done in 1941 – it may also have dawned on Red Army soldiers by then that Soviet POWs in German hands did not have much of a life expectancy. Huge numbers of those captured in 1941 died of starvation or thirst, assuming they were not first killed off as Jews or commissars.

  144. @Wielgus

    ‘…Prior to the onset of winter, the closest thing to a German defeat in the east in 1941 was the Yelnya fighting, west of Moscow. …’

    I’d say that wasn’t a defeat so much as a function of halting the advance. Russian ‘strategy’ — such as it was — consisted of attacking, attacking again, and if you fail, attack yet again. That was actually the pattern throughout the war — it’s somewhat obscured that the Russians spent even the Summer of 1942 banging away at the Rzhev salient, for example. So if the Germans halted, of course the Russians were going to start assaulting the Yelnya Bend — and keep assaulting it, until the Germans went back on the attack.

    The Germans should have simply paused for a couple of weeks, then resumed their advance. Russians lacked the ability to significantly slow a German advance short of complete exhaustion before about 1943.

  145. @Wielgus

    ‘The somewhat headlong retreats of 1942 meant also that the Germans did not make the POW captures they had done in 1941 – it may also have dawned on Red Army soldiers by then that Soviet POWs in German hands did not have much of a life expectancy. Huge numbers of those captured in 1941 died of starvation or thirst, assuming they were not first killed off as Jews or commissars.’

    It’s worth noting that the Germans did continue to take vast numbers of P.O.W’s right into the late Spring of 1942: Second Kharkov and Manstein’s clearing of the Crimea.

    One could also interpret the massive Russian flight in the face of Case Blau as a matter not so much of a new-found awareness of the perils of captivity at the hands of the Germans as of the Red Army no longer being able to terrorize its troops into blind obedience to its insane orders — if the Russians had been willing to obediently sit there and face certain death or captivity as a result in the fall of 1941, perhaps they no longer were by the Summer of 1942.

  146. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Twinkie

    That the leaders of revolutions harbor a separate agenda (power for themselves) from the proposed one (radical egalitarianism) doesn’t mean the society wouldn’t be ruled by the latter… excepting the new elites, of course.

    If it’s radical egalitarianism but it doesn’t apply to the elites (who have most of the money) then it isn’t radical egalitarianism is it?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  147. Twinkie says:
    @dfordoom

    If it’s radical egalitarianism but it doesn’t apply to the elites (who have most of the money) then it isn’t radical egalitarianism is it?

    So by your logic, there has never been a leftist regime in existence, has there?

    For example, communist regimes were extremely egalitarian in ideology and functionally (to a great extent), but they also all had an elite class to whom the ideology did not apply fully.

    So, are you now saying that every society in the world has been conservative/rightist since every society has had elites who enjoyed extra privileges?

  148. @vok3

    I guess the summary is a Rorschach test.

    We’ve seen $3 trillion taken from the middle and lower classes and vacuumed up by the very wealthiest interests in the country. That summary provided cover for what is, up to this point, the largest wealth transfer in American history. Some functional adults realize this. The rest are going to figure it out, to their horror, over the next couple of years.

  149. @TG

    Fauci has putatively been at the head of infectious disease control for several decades, yet governments at every level were woefully unprepared.

  150. @Alexander Turok

    Fauci admitted it was prudent to wear masks all along. It wasn’t an update in information, it was a bald-faced lie. Argue it was a white lie if you want, but let’s not pretend it was honest advice.

  151. @Corvinus

    Yes, it’s true. In fact deadly outbreaks are far less common now even than they were two months ago.

  152. @Audacious Epigone

    Even if Turok saw this comment, I doubt he’d respond.

  153. @dfordoom

    Right-wingers just don’t seem capable of winning culture wars.

    Turkey excepted.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  154. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Audacious Epigone

    Right-wingers just don’t seem capable of winning culture wars.

    Turkey excepted.

    Turkey is a culture war in progress, between Islam and secularism. Nobody knows who is going to win.

  155. @nebulafox

    If you put that theory, or theories, to digital paper, we’ll gladly publish them here.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  156. nebulafox says:
    @Audacious Epigone

    Out elites are really risking the guillotine a decade from now.

    Re, Turkey: Kemalism was always an Ionian elite ideology that revolved around the military ensuring that populist politicians catering to the Anatolian rubes never got a real say in politics. This is the country where the term “deep state” was coined for a reason. Erdogan has made great political capital out of that, because people do not like being given an illusionary choice if what they really want is off the table.

    As for my theories about Hitler, nah, they are not well thought out at all, just pet stuff that I do not like to get too specific about here because it gets too personal.

  157. @Talha

    Hitler shaved his mustache short for the same reason most other men ditched their beards: because it interfered with the gas masks.

    You might know that if you actually read more history of the period.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS