Yet, as far I know, there were very few major Soviet airborne operations even during the offensive stages of the war.

First of all, read your own Glantz. He writes (I stole this off of Wikipedia, admittedly)

“After the extensive airborne activity during the winter campaign of 1941–42, [the] airborne forces underwent another major reorganization the following summer. Responding to events in southern Russia, where German troops had opened a major offensive that would culminate in the Stalingrad battles, the ten airborne corps, as part of the Stavka strategic reserves, deployed southward. Furthermore, the Stavka converted all ten airborne corps into guards rifle divisions to bolster Soviet forces in the south. Nine of these divisions participated in the battles around Stalingrad, and one took part in the defense of the northern Caucasus region.”

Someone else in this thread linked Mark Solonin, a Russian historian. Most of his works have not been translated into English, and those that have been seem to have been translated by him, a bit roughly. But he adds to Rezin by making the point that Stalin both planned an aggressive war and over-estimated the capacity – especially morale – of his armed forces to fight.

We will never know exactly, though, what plans Stalin made. Zhukov seems to have clearly lied in some of his memoirs, for example. This was a state built upon deceit for self-preservation and promotion. But luckily, Stalin loved the pretense of bureaucratic form – it was why he demanded confessions – even forged confessions – to back up his killings. So a surprising number of records remain. You just can’t trust any of the participants’ first-hand memoirs. Have to be scrupulous.

Dear Zionist Goof: Why read the Torah when I can read the Bible?

And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

You have no special rights. Your fanatical European Jew ideologue heroes stole that land from the Arabs and conquered them just the same as my ancestors stole this land from the Delaware Indians. No more, no less. But at least my ancestors cultivated the land peacefully afterwards.

P.S. I remember the USS Liberty. You are no one’s ally.

The Harlan County War in the coal company fields of eastern Kentucky ended in a kind of victory for the union strikers.

In the Soviet Union, the miners would have been shot before they sang the first verse of Which Side Are You On?

You, sir, are a damned fool.

If your argument is that the “average” Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the “average” experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process – virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn’t great Comrade Stalin – friend of Russian people – do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: “On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch.”

Jeff Sessions – ROLL TIDE!

I hope you aren’t named after the beer from Oregon. Great beer. I’d hate to think of you when I drink it.

The author is criticizing Hitler for trying to defend the Atlantic Wall. I think the author misses the point. The Germans were never stupid enough in 1943-44 to believe they could permanently hold back a red tide from the East while holding onto the line in France. That wasn’t the point. The point was to slow down the Allies long enough to stabilize some kind of a front in the East, and possibly win a negotiated peace. What other choice did they have?

Before the 1940s, Hitler knew all along he could not win a two front war.

This was a very common thought among all German military theorists. That is why he agreed to the Moscow Pact with Stalin: to take care of his problems with France and Britain, before later turning on the Soviet Union.

The hitch in the plan was two-fold: First, Britain ended up failing to fall. Churchill (correctly) refused to negotiate in 1940. Second, the Italians ended up being terrible at war and Germany had to rescue them in the Mediterranean.

All this meant that Germany was still at war, which meant it needed far more oil than it could get anywhere in its sphere of influence.

When Hitler invaded Russia, so the stock historiography goes, it was largely because he needed the oil of the Caucasian region. And you know what, it almost worked. Depending on the historians you read, some say Hitler wanted to go southwest – towards the oil fields – all along but that Franz Halder revised the attack in 1941 towards Moscow instead. Others suggest Hitler wanted to knock out the Soviet government first. Either way, it almost worked.

But once Fall Blau failed in 1942, the Germans had almost no choice but to continue with the war as it developed.

And Germany’s stubborn defense in both fronts did, in the end, preserve many millions of Germans from Soviet domination.

Of course, if Viktor Suvorov (Vladimur Rezun)) is right, then Stalin was planning on plunging Hitler into a two-front war during 1941-43 anyway.

You – and James Brown – are both wrong. Mr. Buchanan argues that Churchill and the British were wrong to go to war. However, Mr. Buchanan has argued that Churchill was correct to not negotiate with Hitler in 1940.

Mr. Meyer: Having become aware of your commenting presence here, I just want to take the opportunity to thank you for your work on your blog over the years. It was a big influence on me when I was a youth.

Solzhenitsyn, in the Gulag Archipelago, makes two rather thought-provoking suggestions

1) That if the Germans had been less obsessed with their racist ideology as applied to Slavs and more willing to work together with Slavs in an anti-Bolshevik alliance, millions of “zeks” (Soviet slave laborers) and common folks would have been more willing to fight against Stalin. Such a rebellion against Stalin at his most desperate hour would have probably resulted in his destruction. Anecdotes like Vlasov and the war record of Feldataman Helmuth von Pannwitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Pannwitz) seem to imply this view may have been correct.
2) That an American-led invasion may have been welcomed likewise, especially by the “zeks” in their camps. (However, Stalin may have been able to propagandize and whip (literally) enough support from his soldiers to make a fight of it)

This is all true, although it is worth mentioning in our historigraphy that most Soviet tanks designed before WW2 were borrowed or outright stolen from American engineers in the 1930s. #ThanksFDR

Years ago, my late great-grandmother attended a performance of the play Little Orphan Annie

After the performance, the gentleman who played FDR shook my great-grandmother’s hand. She looked at him and proudly said in a stacatto old voice, “I didn’t vote for you.”

The Hank Snow version is superior. 😉

My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative’s manifesto:

10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and mobility. Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with practical programs grounded in fact and reason.

Amazing! There are two parts to this. The “openness and mobility” is a nod towards their status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.

I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.

Wow. At least Rodrigo Duterte is kinda funny.

Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the “old-time” religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and “extreme right wing” ideology, and the failure of what he terms “liberal democracy and equality”.

more so even than any concern for Jewish supremacy or glorification of sodomy or all the other shibboleths oozing out of the gaping orifices of Jewish fudge packers like Kirchick, is a visceral, unearthly animosity (hatred) for the Western world and its (comparatively) beautiful, well-adjusted, happy and prosperous people.

Indeed, it is the ‘happy’ part that drives them insane with stinging malice and seething, rancorous rage.

I remember as a kid celebrating Christmas, and how the Jewish children I knew were not allowed. This is all part of the carefully constructed paradigm that the Jewish elite impose on their people to keep them resentful and envious. Eventually metastasizing into a deep-seated hatred.

They want to see all those ruddy-cheeked Christians pay! for their pain during those terrible years.

Like the boy who was picked last for sports or never ‘got the girl’, they develop a psychological imperium of wrath, which their religion bolsters in spades.

That is why when ever they get the drop on the Gentiles (who tormented them with good-natured hails of ‘Merry Christmas!, which stung to their core, because all that love and happiness was not for them. ) – regardless of the obvious sincerity of the Christians. – [which made it even worse]

Eventually it roils and burns in their ids like an acid. And they want revenge. And that’s why the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese are menaced day and night.

That’s why the Russians and Ukrainians and Estonians and Poles, and so many others…

suffered to monstrously under the cruel Jewish, Bolshevik yoke.

It has nothing to do with fear over a re-ascendant Russia. Hardly. That’s laughable.

Rather, the reason they can’t abide Russians going to church and thriving and prospering, is because it means the Russians have become happy again, and that drives them absolutely bonkers with murderous, Talmudic rage.

And where, dear sir, can we find any “religious fervor” in the likes of that beau ideal of the Southern antebellum statesman, John C. Calhoun? Calhoun began life as a Calvinist (a Presbyterian) and ended it as a kind of Unitarian. This is almost the exact trajectory as the religious life of the Boston Yankee culture. The Old Nullificator was backcountry Scotch-Irish – as opposed to WASP – but Unitarian crap is Unitarian crap no matter where it exists.

Calhoun was, of course, a giant among those of the 1830s and ’40s who pushed the South from the 18th century American conception of slavery – as something that should be contained until its eventual death – to a new conception that exclaimed, vigorously, that slavery was a legitimate part of the American way of life. No, no. I cannot abide this poison. If you all want to condemn Hamilton and Sumner and all, go ahead. I’ll agree. But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right. And he was neither fanatical nor alone in his view. To this day, we tend to conflate Lincoln and the anti-slavery bloc with the radical Republican abolitionist bloc. This is unfair.

General Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was condemned by the radical Republicans in Congress because of their hatred for Lincoln. Some unity there.

The Anti-Federalist Marylander Luther Martin was right to criticize the powerful framers for allowing the slavery problem to go on, for enshrining it in the Constitution. Too many antebellum Southern elites decided that the likes of Martin were wrong.

You will find few “Northerners” more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin. One was even born in Pennsylvania, and fought in his own hometown during Lee’s invasion.

But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. No one in the North forced the Southern elites to accept a conception of black slavery as a “positive good” (i.e. James Henry Hammond). The idea of a “War of Northern Aggression” is convenient and cute, but I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have. And it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.

P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern “Anglo-Saxons” (As General Lee described himself) weren’t so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.

P.S. Check this out for an opinion you may find controversial – but note the person posting his opinion is relying on primary sources: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-non-celtic-confederacy.120973/

I laugh when people suggest Stewart is some kind of “white supremacist” because of his stance on the Confederate battle flag. Stewart is from Minnesota, for crying out loud, and is essentially an exurban “Yankee carpetbagger” living in the territory known as Occupied Northern Virginia.

The Mossad killed JFK because he was trying to stop the Israeli nuclear program.

Michael Collins Piper, in his book ‘Final Judgment,’ explained that all of the “boxes” with parties interested in JFK’s death – the Johnson clique; the Cubans; Jack Ruby, Meyer Lansky, and the mob; etc – fit into a larger “Mossad box.” They were all connected via the Israeli angle

Video Link

There is good reason to believe Lyndon Johnson was involved in some kind of plot to kill John Kennedy.

But he was not the person with the most to gain from JFK’s death. The people with the most to gain from JFK’s death were those governing the state of Israel.

Fact: JFK and RFK were in position to 1) Stop Israeli’s nuclear program and 2) Prevent what became AIPAC from attaining its later power. After JFK’s death, followed by the assassination of RFK, both of these things went into overdrive and Israel has ever since been in a deeply entrenched strong point when it comes to influencing America.

The fact that LBJ was rather deeply compromised by Zionist interests is the proverbial icing on the cake.

Those of us who follow college wrestling know that old American farm boys are the strongest men pound for pound.

Video Link

Michael Collins Piper was from Mifflintown, Pennsylvania – a good old central Pennsylvania boy. One of my people. Glad Mr. Unz has seen the light on this one.

In reference to my previous comment about Piper being from Mifflintown, I should also like to point out for Mr. Unz’s benefit that drinking too much alcohol, while certainly connected to poverty, is as much a PA Yinzer tradition as it is a poverty problem. If some of these folks were rich, they’d still drink too much. That’s the vibe I get whenever I watch videos with Piper. LOL.

Be quiet, suka. UNZ posts lots of articles, with lots of differing opinions. It also includes differing comments, like yours. No one will fall for your attempt to convince us this site is “controlled opposition.”

Oooh, thanks for posting! Very interesting.

Don’t really buy his argument that Oswald’s being a stooge since 1957 was a clear sign that this is an American-dominated plot. The CIA had lots of stooges. Plus, JFK wasn’t a threat to the CIA in 1957.

Nice of Mr. Chamish to say Piper was not an anti-Semite and lacked that kind of bias. Mr. Chamish’s Zionist bias does, inevitably, shine through, though. This sentence, for example:

“But I take the opposite view of Piper: my research says America corrupted Israel and not the other way around.”

Whatever you say, Mr. Chamish!

‘…Still, it’s a sign of how crazy things have gotten that even Podhoretz, a neocon’s neocon, thinks the Godwinization of our public discourse has gone too far…’

You’re optimistic. I think Podhoretz is merely concerned to protect the perfect uniqueness of the Holocaust. Nothing — not even the evil of Donald Trump — can be compared to it and allowed to thus cheapen it.

Mr. Podhoretz, you see, is a monotheist.

I’m from Gettysburg, PA. We have a large fruit industry. The people who pick the apples today are mostly Mexicans. Some are illegal, but many are not. I actually have little problem with the Mexicans I’ve worked with; they’re very hard-working folks. Before the Mexicans became our main migrant laborers, we used a lot of Puerto Ricans, Jamaicans, Haitians, and southern blacks. The Puerto Ricans were not as good as the Mexicans, but they weren’t as violent as the Jamaicans, et al. Take that for what it’s worth.

But the goal of the open borders plan isn’t just about bringing in hard workers. They’re using them as a shield to change our society. And run drugs. And of course a lot of these illegals aren’t even Mexicans, from southern Mexico (where a lot of farm laborers come from), but, as Derbyshire pointed out, people from central American countries south of Mexico.

Anyway, the reality is that at one time the fruit farmers used white workers from in town in Gettysburg. I’d say that was common until the 1960s or ’70s, not really sure. They would bus them in for the day, or a week or two, and they’d go back to whatever else they did. That worked better when people had more seasonal jobs on small farms of their own, but something like that could still be arranged. I also believe that, in a sensible society, more kids from schools would be able to help out and learn something. If you look at the products of our public education system, where they don’t work much at all, it ain’t pretty.

In summary: We have plenty of people in this country who don’t work, but who could work. (At one time, many poor black folks from the South migrated up here to pick fruit; we can’t teach poor blacks in Baltimore to pick apples off a tree today?) I’m totally unconvinced that we could not survive in agriculture without illegal Mexicans.

And you have people like John McCain, who once said Americans “won’t” pick watermelons for $50 an hour. Good grief. I would love to be able to pick watermelons for $50 an hour.

Also, this country would be a lot better if people had their own gardens. This used to be more common, even in cities. That way we wouldn’t rely so much on grocery stores, which apparently rely on chains that involve criminality.

And as for guns, sir, perhaps I can explain a bit from my perspective, which is as a rural American.

Your question is very interesting. Why would anti-war conservatives love guns? I’ll try to answer.

We (or, I) love guns because:

1) We hunt with them …… a lot. We use them as a common tool for all sorts of things, if one lives in the country.

2) Related to #1, the gun is a part of our/my culture as a rural American. It’s a tool my ancestors used to settle this country. I know exactly where my family first began farming in America in the 1700s, and I know the kind of guns they used (the Pennsylvania/Kentucky long rifle, created by German gunsmiths)

3) They feature prominently in some of the best movies of our old culture, elegies on leadership and manhood like ‘The Searchers’ and’Shane.’

Video Link
Although I am rural, most American conservatives grew up in suburbs. Which are a product of industrial life and government overreach. But even suburban people, at heart, have the desire to be country. All Americans, at heart, want to be out mending fences. I’m convinced it’s almost a pathological problem when American men repress their natural desire to be “out on the open range” being all manly and whatnot. So the gun – even a plastic-looking AR-15 – represents to a suburban white man the kind of self-reliance and resiliency that were the hallmarks of his rural and/or industrial working class ancestors. Hopefully this explains why the gun is so important to suburban mainstream American white men in so many numbers.

And guns are fun to shoot! It’s nice recreation.

The movie I referenced, ‘Shane,’ is a wonderful movie based on a great novel. There are many threads to interpret within ‘Shane,’ but one of them explains how an anti-war conservative in America might think: a gun is a tool. A good tool. And it’s a part of our way of life as self-sufficient men protecting our families and communities, who want a simple life of peace and food on the table. But it is something that should only be used for killing when absolutely necessary.

Like a lot of folks, my grandfather taught me to shoot, and that’s basically what he would feel.

“We are moving back home in 14 months.”

Allah be praised!

Also, the hard left in the Democratic Party, oriented more toward the Third World than the West, is increasingly anti-Israel. And while the Jewish vote is small and largely concentrated in blue states, among donors to the Democratic Party the Jewish contingent looms large.

No matter what, Donald Trump and the Republican Party will be slaves to Zionism.

Please.

Anatoly, be glad you’re not “Americanized”

There are two kinds of “Americanism” and neither is perfect. The old one is just a heck of a lot better than the new.

Old Americanism in cinema: ‘Shane,’ basically all John Ford movies, and James Cagney’s movie ‘Angels with Dirty Faces’
New Americanism in cinema: Garbage like that movie they made glorifying the Israelis, ‘Exodus.’

First of all, if you subscribe – as Anatoly does – to a religion that actually believes in apostolic succession (like Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy) then Americanism is almost naturally a bad thing since it tends towards unhealthy egalitarianism and overwrought religious indifferentism disguised as “pluralism.” John Adams valiantly defended the idea of a “natural aristocracy,” and Orestes Brownson tried to make a place for Christendom in America, but neither was really successful in the long run. The Roman Catholic Church condemned it as a heresy for generations. In the 1960s, its bishops implicitly compromised with this heresy. Now look at the RCC. It’s a total mess in America. (I recommend David Carlin (no relation to Anatoly, I suppose) and his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church in America. Although Carlin doesn’t do enough to analyze the role of Jewish social engineering in the form of “urban renewal.”) Once the American Catholics were marginalized and watered down, it was easy for the bankers and Federal Reserve type cabal to take over more thoroughly. That’s why Hollywood’s “golden age” stopped in the mid ’60s; they replaced or hamstrung good plots and wonderful acting with smut.

Second, the idea of being “Americanized” has shifted anyway. Americanism was always a problem; I recommend reading ‘Taxation No Tyranny’ by Dr. Samuel Johnson in which he tears apart the rhetoric of the American Revolution. But, pre-Judaized America wasn’t irredeemable. Before what I call “the invasion” – the migration of eastern European Jewry into this country after the 1890s – America was a place that believed somewhat in self-restraint. Now we are a country with a Ponzi scheme economy.

You know, I’m no linguist, but I believe the Latin word for “land” is often given to us as “patria.” Traditionally, Americans in their rural farming communities and urban ethnic neighborhoods acted accordingly: they treated their homes like it was sacred because their fathers had built life there. But now we move around, atomized, from one ugly and mediocre suburb to the next. Even those of us with some kind of true philosophy in our blood almost have to live this way, this crazy and pell-mell life.

Most Americans these days don’t even know where their grandparents and great-grandparents are buried, if they were lucky enough to know them.

((They)) (you know who I mean) replaced the “American dream” of an honest, simple, self-sufficient, and family life with the post WW2 “American dream” of having a milquetoast house, a bunch of cars, and secular humanism. And it sucks! It is a bad thing!

My understanding is that any real nationalism has to be based on a conception of a shared landscape, and it’s no coincidence that cosmopolitan bankers love highways and subdivisions that destroy our precious farming resources and ruined our inner cities.

It’s a shame the old America died too, because it wasn’t unfriendly with Russia. We were never allies, exactly, but Tsar Alexander got along quite well with the U.S. Govt in the 1860s, both seeing each other as counterweights to the plotting of France and Disraeli, et al.

Not quite. The split began when Jews were allowed to enter America in large numbers.

Would anyone happen to know the name of the American military officer who risked court-martial to keep VENONA safe?

It would have been cash for bribes and whatnot by local political organizations.

I HIGHLY recommend the book ‘Just Good Politics: The Life of Raymond Chafin, Appalachian Boss.’ For one thing, it’s just a fun book. But the man Chafin, a Democrat party “boss” in the coal fields of West Virginia, reveals how votes were bought in the old days – including the 1960 Democrat primary – JFK vs. Humphrey – in West Virginia.

Thank you, sir!

Also, it is ludicrous to think that Patton could have, just like that, change US policy toward Soviet Union simply through his rhetoric.

On the contrary, it is ludicrous to suggest he couldn’t!

Well-timed and well-made rhetoric has frequently changed history. Our country may not have survived the end of the Revolution if General Washington had not broken up a potential insurrection among his underpaid officers with a very moving and famous address in Newburgh, New York*. And one could certainly make the argument that FDR’s rhetoric and use of communications was what made him so sadly successful.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s7b5dMnsiM
Video Link

You’re quite welcome! I always enjoy talking about that book. It’s very colorful. Future Senator “Bobby” Byrd makes an appearance, campaigning with his fiddle.

This is off the top of my head, so bear with me. You should definitely get the book. Things varied from one place to another, and West Virginia had its own special brand of corruption (into the 1970s, it was common for a special pint size bottle of whiskey to appear in West Virginia because it was considered a fair trade for a vote), but it will give you an idea.

Chafin shares a wonderful anecdote of the 1960 campaign in West Virginia that I easily remember.

He decided that his machine would support Kennedy. At that point, Kennedy’s “associates” met the boss at the Huntington, WV airport and queried how much money Chafin’s people would need to run the campaign in WV. Chafin thought it wasn’t really a big operation, so he modestly said, “About thirty-five.” Meaning $3500. The Kennedy’s ended up sending $35,000. The shocked mountaineers knew they were dealing with the big leagues now, and, IIRC, sent a lot of the money back.

Now, let’s do some very, very rough math. Let’s assume Truman and the Dems would need $3,000 for each party machine in each of the 55 counties in West Virginia. That would amount to $165,000. Multiply that by 50 states and you get well over 8 million dollars. So 2 million sounds reasonable.

With that said, even if the Zionists didn’t give Truman money, he still would have had motivation to support Israel because Jewish voters were heavily concentrated in what were then key swing states: Illinois, Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Mass.

Thank you for the response. It’s nice to find someone else who’s even interested in the question of American land use. I think it’s far more fundamental than we realize.

With that said though, I believe you’re risking the conflation of urbanization, period, with modern American-style urbanization

To make myself perfectly clear, although I am obviously a “country boy,” I have no problem with traditional cities. But we stopped building traditional cities in this country. And it was not because of inevitable market place events. It was because of conscious decisions by our public officials and corporations.

The following are facts:
– At the state and federal level, we had government “urban renewal initiatives”
– The state and federal governments subsidize highway construction
– The country uses a property tax system that incentivizes the wasteful use of land; because of our crazy tax system, it makes more fiscal sense to build an ugly, dirty parking lot instead of a nice apartment building
– The country has an inflationary fiat currency

Change any one of these things, but particularly all of them, and you would have what was the norm in western culture for millennia: responsible and moderate urbanization

I will leave you with a true anecdote. Erie County, New York has lost population in every census since the 1970s. Yet Erie County’s housing stock has grown and continues to grow. How does that make sense? People are leaving, yet more houses are being built? Huh? Well, it only explains in light of the above brief facts. Ever since the New Deal and the awful FDR, we have in this country a usurious and inflationary economy.

Cheers.

As a Russian living in Russia, it is categorically a bad thing.

Vatnik refers to a Russian “redneck’s” cotton-padded jacket, if I’m not mistaken

The equivalent of that in rural America for us rednecks (I come from a redneck family but actually got a semblance of education) is or was the red Woolrich hunting jacket, also jokingly called a “Pennsylvania tuxedo.” This is or was the name of a nice beer by Dogfish Head, if you’re into beer.

I’m still trying to figure out the American equivalent of a Cossack, if there even can be one.

We were friends during America’s Civil War, before we stupidly let the Jews into our country. One day we will be friends again.

Or our poisonous elites will nuke us both!

God bless Russia. Happy Independence Day.

A few of us still remember perfidious Albion in Pennsylvania

https://www.citizensvoice.com/news/teacher-offers-history-lesson-during-battle-of-wyoming-ceremony-1.2358136

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

It does have an effect, albeit a subtle one.

Here in Proleville, Pennsylvania, the rural and working class people are mostly Republican, so they naturally distrust the media. Thus they are inclined to support a more even-handed treatment of the Russian Federation. But I have to explain what (relatively little) I know about Russia; otherwise they will express an antipathy for Putin/Russia as though Russia is an enemy of ours.

I think the media’s almost universal condemnation of Putin is why working class people – who should be sympathetic to Russia – are instead vaguely anti-Russian. It doesn’t help that so many congressional Republicans are sissy internationalists like McCain and Lindsey Grahmnesty.

Remember also that the vast majority of prole American Republicans support Israel. On the surface this makes no sense; the Jewish bankers of America are the true enemy of our people, and Israel is extremely cynical towards our goy soldiers. But the narrative is so all-encompassing that it grips the proles like a python, and causes action against their best interests. I’m optimistic, though, that the narrative may be starting to very gradually lose its grip among American proles.

Probably no better and no worse than now. Lincoln had plans to be far more moderate towards the defeated South than the Radical Republicans in Congress, who were effectively his enemies. In reality, limited by precedent to two terms, Lincoln’s presidency after the fall of Confederate forces would have in many ways resembled that of Andrew Johnson: a largely conciliatory administration fighting against fiercer Northern elements in Congress. I think that the early period of Reconstruction would have been little different if under Lincoln instead of Johnson. Congress was much more powerful in those days, and Congress was out for what it considered a hard justice.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatever to suggest that Lincoln’s temporary expansion of the government during the war would have been permanent. For example: remember that much of the labor of prosecuting the conflict was done by the Northern states during the war anyway; almost all Union units were raised (and even armed) by the states, not the federal government.

I, too, am suspicious of certain notions that the Declaration created a new nation based in total human equality. But Lincoln was not as idealistic or as foolish as this (otherwise good) piece would indicate; he never once espoused racial equality, and his historical argument against chattel slavery in the Cooper Union Address is nearly unimpeachable.

Moreover, arguments that Lincoln is responsible for the evil American empire of today ignore 1) That the size of the federal government shrank dramatically after its boom during the period 1861-65, 2) That Lincoln opposed foreign interventions consistently as a congressman (the Mexican War) and as President, and 3) That it took decades and the introduction of tens of thousands of Jews for the central banking cartel to begin its takeover in 1913.

Jefferson’s observations in his Notes on the State of Virginia make quite clear that he did not believe them to be equals with whites in ability or character.

Jefferson never did get to meet Thomas Sowell. But then Thomas Sowell was raised during a very brief period of about 100 or 80 years (roughly 1865-1964) where blacks got the chance to be truly educated without being corrupted by liberalism.

That’s all they’ve ever had in this country. Only about 100 years of real human freedom to succeed or fail. Before 1865, they weren’t allowed to read at all in large parts of the country. After 1964, the new “Great Society” created a new culture of dumbing down.

Perhaps you will find this interesting. These are some comments from an address Lincoln gave in August 1862 to a “committee of colored men” gathered to meet on the subject of American black colonization schemes. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:812?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

You here are freemen I suppose. Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

…

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated…

…

…There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if you could give a start to white people, you would open a wide door for many to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.

Years subsequent, the liberals have “systematically oppressed” the black people with a climate of dependency, which reduces a man to nothing. Of course it’s a two-way street; blacks were only too willing to go along because enough of their leaders accepted the easy way out of welfare statism and cushy “organizer” jobs. Now they are weapons in the Democracy’s war of social engineering against tradition.

Lincoln’s suggestion in this address is that the blacks should go somewhere where they can work for themselves. That’s the difference between him and those who view blacks as victimized and entitled.

Mr. Cathey wrongly conflates the “nation” – as in “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own” (dictionary) – with one type of government for that nation (the system under the U.S. Constitution, introduced in 1787).

The preamble of the Constitution itself implies that a nation is choosing to apply a new constitution; it does not say a new nation is being created. One was already extant!

I did not invent the argument that there was a union, a nation, before 1787. Lincoln did not invent it either. John Jay argues in the second Federalist paper that there was a “union” in 1774!

What happened in 1787 – or, if you prefer, on 3/4/1789 – is that the nation chose a new system of government. But the colonies and (later) states of America together existed as a “nation,” certainly, by that 4th day of July in 1776. Said nation then successfully fought a war that forced Great Britain, and other states, to legally recognize its government as a sovereign state.

For a not-nation, America sure did a lot of things one associates with a nation. Like having a government that levied taxes, raising and fielding a “Continental army,” and engaging in trade and commerce with other nations. A bunch of misfits from Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other regions, all suffered and fought together during the brutal winter of ’76-’77 – sure seems “national” to me.

Lincoln was well within sound history to say a “new nation was conceived” in 1776.

All correct. Thank you. You’ve done a great job, even better than mine, showing the Declaration’s famous phrase does not mean what the Democrats, and unfortunately Cathey, are making it to be.

Another error Cathey makes is saying the Constitution established the United States. Not so. Fourteen Americans served as President of the Continental Congress under the Articles of the Confederation before the Constitution was written.

By the United States, in Congress assembled, September 4th, 1782 : On the report of a grand committee, consisting of a member from each state, resolved, that one million two hundred thousand dollars be quotaed on the states, as absolutely and immediately necessary for payment of the interest of the public debt …
https://www.loc.gov/item/90898072/

Appears to be rather United-Statesey to me, even though pre-Constitutional. Nothing establishes the United States more than spending money! 🙂

You don’t know what you’re talking about if you think Mr. Buchanan hasn’t called out Israel.

https://buchanan.org/blog/israel-first-america-first-126338

If Trump gets too much starch in him, the scenario will be like this:

Trump = JFK
Pence = LBJ

The Mossad has no qualms about anything.

Funny how you missed the parts of the New Testament where 1) The Pharisees are rebuked, decisively, by Jesus and where 2) The leaders of Judaism successfully plot to kill him.

Your claim is that Jesus was loved by the very members of the religion that 1) killed him and 2) has spent centuries trying to destroy the Church which claims to have been established by him.

Funny, I can’t think of too many people for whom I showed my love by attempting to have them brutally tortured and slain…

And if these things were irrelevant, then the Jews would not have spent so much capital in the 1950s and ’60s trying to change the Catholic Church’s traditional teaching that the Jews must convert to be saved.

Go home, son, and try again.

Lancaster County used to have many more non-Amish farmers, but the Amish have taken over a lot because their children are raised to work like hell, whereas easy living mainstream America doesn’t value a hard but decent life in agriculture.

Lancaster County has been invaded by cosmopolitan outsiders. In fact, many Amish have left the area because of increased taxes. Southwestern New York, Indiana, and Missouri have seen a rise in central PA Amish in search of cheaper land.

Much of the center of Lancaster County was made up of farms, but has become despicably exurban. The farming is now concentrated in the south, east, and northeast of the county. Even those more rural areas are under pressure from America’s insatiable desire for cheap housing and lawn mower life.

I am from south-central PA. There are many more “regular folks” farms west of the Susquehanna River. We have less “development pressure” over here than Lancaster, although still too much.

Lancaster County is a good example of what’s wrong with our country, politically and culturally. With a system based around property taxes (as opposed to something like a land value tax), a devalued fiat dollar, and highway subsidies, some of the most precious farm land in the world is wasted in reasons best called “insensible.” Because of property taxes and road subsidies, it is simply cheaper in places like Lancaster County to build a parking lot or grow a monoculture corn field than build a high-employment vegetable farm with lots of out-buildings. It’s stupid, and it’s why we can’t have nice cities like in old Europe.

FDR and his socialist New Deal began the process of destruction of inner cities and haphazard “development” of fringe farm land.

Not coincidentally, the city of Lancaster itself is fairly dumpy American “inner city.”

In places like Lancaster, non-Amish farmers are generally forced by property taxes and incentivized by macroeconomic government planning to grow crops like corn, soy, and hay in large quantities.

Because of their labor factors, the Amish are able to grow more high-labor, high-value specialty crops.

Wendell Berry writes constantly on the foolishness of an economic system that causes farmers in, for instance, the hills of Kentucky to grow high-erosion row crops like corn.

Thanks for another interesting article, Mr. Unz.

Huddleston then spends much of the book discussing the complex French politics of the next few years, as the war unexpectedly continued, with Russia and America eventually joining the Allied cause, greatly raising the odds against a German victory. During this period, the French political and military leadership performed a difficult balancing act, resisting German demands on some points and acquiescing to them on others, while the internal Resistance movement gradually grew, attacking German soldiers and provoking harsh German reprisals. Given my lack of expertise, I cannot really judge the accuracy of his political narrative, but it seems quite realistic and plausible to me, though specialists might surely find fault.

This narrative is essentially in conformity with what I read in Werner Rings’ book, ‘Life With the Enemy: Collaboration and Resistance in Hitler’s Europe, 1939-45′

Rings’ book is probably the best one-volume overview of the subject in question.

Rings was a dissenter from Nazism, and not at all a fringe source.

Wrong. The Phony War is usually regarded as lasting from the end of the Poland campaign until the invasion of the Low Countries on May 10, 1940. Churchill’s Scandinavian campaign is considered part of the Phony War period.

Hackworth was a great soldier!

Anyway, even ‘Band of Brothers’ depicts the killing of German POWs, albeit in a rather circuitous way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcZl32NnIrs
Video Link

And these scum had the nerve to call David Koresh a “cult leader.”

Are you related to the Point Pleasant Mothman?

Indeed, sir. The difference between tidewater Virginia and mountainous western Virginia (West Virginia) is a GULF of a difference. This guy ain’t no hillbilly (e.g. Elkins, Pocahontas, or Mingo) and he ain’t no laid off steel worker (Wheeling) neither. Bet you he don’t even pronounce “it” as “hee-it.”

I’d tell him to sniff some more, if he wants to learn the dialect, but that would probably just increase his Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Your arrogance is totally unjustified. I doubt you know as much about Appalachia as you think you know.

All you have to do is listen to the differences in accent between a resident of southwestern PA and a resident from the coal fields in southern West Virginia. One is a mountain drawl, while the other is a twangier accent. That, plus they use a whole range of different words specific to each dialect. Few (if any) West Virginians say “yinz” or “jagoff.”

West Virginia:

Southwestern PA:

I agree. This game has all the makings of a game like 1990 WG-Argentina, where one team (presumably France) plays an incredibly dull and conservative final.

In the sport of wrestling, we have a penalty for when you crap like that, to slow down your opponent while making no effort of your own to score: it’s called “stalling.”

…but all kinds of people in North America cheer for a football or basketball team that’s similarly African.

That’s true. And is one reason why I don’t watch the NFL often. I’d much rather go on YouTube and watch a football game from the 1960s when the league was more demographically balanced.

However, at least the vast majority of African-American football players actually have a long and established history in this country. They aren’t ideological imports of the 21st century.

Then again, black / mulatto players from Brazil and France seem to be much better in this regard.

Yes.

Sorry, folks, but I think we all spend a bit too much time forgetting that sports like soccer and American football are really not rocket science.

I don’t think England’s disjointed play can be attributed to the number of perceived non-English players. For example, Spain, Brazil, Germany, and many others also lacked much of a spark this World Cup, despite being overwhelmingly Spanish, Brazilian, and German, respectively. Indeed, the 2018 German side is much more German than the World Cup-winning German side of 2014, which was famously diverse by German standards.

The difference you noticed is due to England having a long tradition of playing in a low-technical and low-strategy style, and Croatia having a long history of stylistic elegance, to a great extent modelled on the Italian game.

The English are at a disadvantage because they invented the game. Whereas other countries could approach the sport from a fresh perspective, the English were bound by the social conventions and peculiar baggage and motivations that led them to invent the sport in the first place, and in terms of physicality, it always hovered between rugby and cricket. The English have traditionally considered football to be more similar physically and technically to rugby, and so fell behind when other countries realised that more technical approaches led to superior outcomes over the long run. Intangible cultural elements also enter play here – the typical English working-class father prefers his football-playing son to show grit and win a fair fight, rather than conform well to an abtract blueprint for sporting success. Writ large, this means a chaotic national team who are third-rate, at the international level, not much better than Iceland, and who were very lucky to get to the semis.

I wish you well.

You’re testing my resolve a bit by defending that Sicilian den of thieves known as New Joyzee, but I enjoy your work. 🙂

One time the University of Iowa’s wrestling team was visiting the Rutgers University team in New Jersey. Rutgers’ home crowd consisted almost entirely of greasy-haired Italian men in tight t-shirts. It was unreal how well those Jerseymen fulfilled their stereotypes.

Sad you didn’t get to see the real central Pennsylvania, with all of us good old boys, but at least you got as far as that hipster-Amish colony of Lancaster. 😉

That said, I’d probably rather live in Vietnam than Philly….lol

You specifically used accent – how “Wheeling” is pronounced – as a cultural marker of how West Virginia is supposedly a homogeneous place. You also absurdly lumped in southwestern PA with all of West Virginia, even the two states are actually quite distinct in terms of economy, ethnic background, religion, and more.

Let me use a western PA expression. You are a jagoff.

And I haven’t been to New York City once in my life, which is one reason why I don’t live totally in a bubble. Unlike some people I could mention…

Tom-in-VA’s comment should be more amplified.

It is critical for our future as white Americans to acknowledge that suburbs and exurbs, as practiced since the New Deal, are indeed stupid. We just need to acknowledge the real reasons for their historical existence.

1) Social engineering against whites, especially politically conservative (albeit Democrat) Catholics. The traditionalist Catholic writer E. Michael Jones has written books about this “ethnic cleansing of cities.” He is extreme, but not entirely wrong here. Robert Moses, a Jew, certainly seemed to have a grudge against Catholics and “WASPs.”
2) Tied in with the destruction of solid urban communities, the destruction of solid rural communities.
3) Property taxes! Property taxes, which here in PA go to schools filled with homosexual propaganda, encourage bad use of rural *and* urban land.
4) FDR, whose administration was filled with Soviet spies (including, crucially, the treasury), started the Federal Housing Authority, which was a key part of our ….
5) ….Modern fiat currency, speculative economy, which builds houses to a glut.
6) Highway subsidies. The federal government (and certain state govts like NY) subsidized highways. Meanwhile, for years after WW2, it penalized private railroads by refusing to let them cut unprofitable lines and do other things to modernize.

The suburb was a creation of the liberal agenda for the purpose of destroying vestiges of tradition in America. And, boy, did it ever work!

More Americans should read Jane Jacobs – a prophetess of urban destruction – and Wendell Berry – a voice of rural tradition. The suburb is a partly purposeful assault on rural and urban working class cultures.

P.S. I also recommend that everyone read this, to understand the different types of suburban “development.” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/theres-no-such-thing-as-suburbia/

Adam has an extremely punchable face. Also, nobody mentions—or gives a damn—that working class white neighborhoods were also redlined.

Anatoly (if you are still reading this huge comment section),

Although conditions here in the states are not nearly as bad as things in poor South Africa, Christianity is clearly increasingly frowned upon in America. If American religious “liberty” continues on its downward spiral towards the abyss of SJW chaos (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_(Indiana)) and neo-pagan blasphemy (e.g. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/satanic-mockery-of-mary-only-helps-unite-oklahoma-christians-in-prayer-40335), what are the chances that Russia would be willing to welcome refugees from America who were similar to the Boers? I.e. 1) Not Russian Orthodox (I myself am traditional (Latin Mass) Catholic), 2) Not likely to be Russophones within the first or even second generations, but 3) Talented and valuable, possibly able to teach English, etc, and contribute to Russian society? The question is, of course, highly speculative. And since I love the family tradition and natural beauty of where I personally live (and don’t speak any Russian), I would of course prefer to fight it out (hopefully not literally…) at home.

Ironically, one of my best friends includes among his ancestors a Volga German who had to flee Russia during the Revolution. And now I am seriously wondering if Russia would accept us American Christians as refugees in a hypothetical (?) dystopian America….

Contact any or all of the above-mentioned Senators via the United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 or, if you reside in a State represented by one of them, via email. Thank the Senator for his or her work…

But isn’t it pointless to negotiate with the diabolical Vladimir Putin?

I don’t consider Vladimir Putin to be even half as diabolical as the list of subversives and traitors you just suggested I call and thank.

Hey, man! At least “we” Americans have the V-22! That will really strike fear into the heart of the Russian bear!

Yet another sign that WASPs suck.

Yes, it really is entertaining to watch certain alternative conservatives try to portray “WASP” as though it’s a compliment.

As far as I’m concerned, there is a certain poetry to the fact that WASP England – the home of the self-described “Baptized Jew” Disraeli – is now home to disgraced Russian “oligarchs” like the late Boris Berezovsky. And, of course, the media and economic processes that got them into Crimea in 1853 continue today.

American football is or was a far superior spectator sport to both soccer and rugby. It’s just that the innovation of facemasks (reduced tackling form, increased concussions) and two-platoon football, while making the sport faster on a per-play basis, made it more dangerous and probably unsustainable in the long run. Thus the wages of selling out for more media attention and money.

The best sport in the world today, though not at all the most marketable or popular, is wrestling. Russia, Iran, and (oddly enough for our weakness) America are some of the best countries. African countries are nonexistent in it.

This “WASP” business– is the rule-making the result of Protestantism, or is it vice versa?

When the southern Europeans don’t like the rules, they break them. When the northern Europeans don’t like the rules, they change them. Hence, Protestantism.

That’s more effective in the short run, but deadlier in the long run. The old rules were there for a reason.

Hi Ron,

What courage it took to be true to your principles. Thanks for the article. Just wanted to point out a possible typo, where you wrote Israeli Defense Minister, “Israel Sharon.” I believe it should be “Ariel Sharon.”

Cheers!

My. Well, offhand, I imagine my reaction will lie somewhere midway between the uncritical applause of the anti-semite brigade and the shocked denunciations of the guardians of political orthodxy.

The comments I’m about to post are more or less haphazard. I merely wish to emphasize that I actually agree with most of what I read; I’m listing my points of dissent, not my points of agreement.

First off, it’s an exaggeration — and a self-defeating one — to say that the Russian Communists were ‘overwhelmingly’ Jewish. Disproportionately, certainly, and indeed, heavily, but not ‘overwhelmingly.’ Perhaps a third of the prominent figures were Jewish. Have half. The point is that Communism, while heavily Jewish, was also gentile.

Second, the article gives the impression that there is some some kind of monolithic Judaism. That’s obviously untrue: Jews are some of the most quarrelsome, dissent-prone folks around. The author is actually more representative of the average Jewish intellectual than he may think. Indeed, this compulsion to dissent — rather than some sinister urge to reduce the goyim to misery — may do much to explain the attraction revolutionary creeds hold for Jews.

I’ll also note that the monolithic Judaism paradigm fails in the face of the enormous intermarriage rate among Jewish men. If there is a Jewish plot, a good half of Jewish men are completely failing to do their duty.

So that’s about it. Revisionism — of all kinds — is good and useful. However, it usually goes too far. If the Jew as immaculately innocent and eternal victim paradigm is obviously inaccurate, it doesn’t follow that the exact opposite must be the case.

If it wasn’t for Israel, I’d actually have no problem with Jews. I found myself confronting this when I decided to buy a camera from B&H Camera. I realized the firm is owned by Satmar Jews, who think that when the Messiah comes, all the bad gentiles will go to hell while all the good gentiles will be the slaves of Jews for all eternity.

I thought about that for a bit, and eventually came to the conclusion that while their sentiment is hardly friendly, when the Messiah comes, we’ll find out if they’re right. In the meantime, they offer some excellent prices on cameras.

John D. Rockefeller, a true hero of social engineering and insane NWO liberalism.

“Prayer breakfasts” are a common and (as a non-Protestant Christian myself) hilariously kitschy part of American Protestant right-wing politics. They are usually on the same side as me, though, so I restrain my sarcasm.

Typical Rand Paul. He puts up a good fight for reality, but always keeps that one foot back. Guess it’s politics.

Hopefully he is just keeping his powder dry for a tougher future.

You are right about smarter Europeans avoiding travelling to the US, unless they actually have to. I’ve not been back to America since Bush minor introduced the draconian and invasive airport security laws.
However, you are wrong about the Russian incarceration rates. Average Western Europe rates are about 100 per 100,000 ( 1 per 1000), it is true. America has 655 per 100,000 ( 1 per 153 ). Russia has admittedly a high rate 411 per 100,000 ( 1 per 243 ), but nowhere near the American rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

Also Bear in mind ( ho, ho) that the Russian homicide rate is twice that of the US. Indeed, Russia has the highest homicide rate of any industrialised country ( 10x the average W European country ). The incarceration rate, by comparison, is actually quite niggardly ( very few of them in Russia, either.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I agree with you that less hardened criminals alive is generally a good thing.

With that said, calm down there, chief. Unless you’ve been in a situation where displaying or discharging a firearm is literally a life-and-death situation, it is best to reserve judgment.

But Ms. Butina’s main point – that displaying a firearm is often (usually?) enough to stop a would-be attacker – does seem to be true.

On the other hand, as YouTube gun expert Paul Harrell likes to say, real stats on self-defense gun use are a bit hard to come by here in America.

Anatoly (or other Russians/Russophiles),

I’m not an expert on the history of gun culture in America, but being that I grew up in rural America (where an attitude of frontier self-sufficiency did and does – Thank God – still does exist to degrees), I’ve been around firearms my entire life. The normal rural American’s attitude (which was normal for all before organized anti-gun leftist bulls***) for guns is, “A gun is a tool – no better or worse than the man using it.”

With that said, there is a distinction to be made between the average 19th and early 20th century American’s experience with guns: it’s a much more politicized experience today. Even for those of us who use guns in regular life (I grow my own vegetables, and so the raccoons simply need to be liquidated), it is still tempting to go into like a kind of right-wing “virtue posturing.” That is where the “tacticool” thing starts, in my opinion. Also, guns are still seen (correctly) as one of the last ways for Americans to act like our thoroughly awesome ancestors and not just like a bunch of city boys.

Anyway, here’s my question. Is today’s Russian mainstream anti-gun sentiment a Soviet relic? Or was there also such a problem (revealing my bias with “problem”) before the godless barbarians took over?

I’d be very curious to know about the history of Russian hunting. Hunting was very crucial in giving us a strong tradition with firearms. Here in America, I think we have it very lucky. Game was always seen as a means of survival, and hunting was common, affordable, and widespread. Once industrial living made hunting a bit more of a luxury (though it’s becoming more vital for some of us with today’s cost of living!), we developed the “North American system of wildlife management” which sees hunting as a mostly state-level, user-pay common resource for the residents that generates recreation revenue for the states . I’m not at all egalitarian in most of my outlook, but, by gosh, I do love this country’s hunting tradition. The bastards can’t take that away from me, period.

Yes, unfortunately, I did.

The mendacious nerve of these SOBs would be funny if this situation wasn’t so scary.

To quote that Jew Paul Newman, I’m disgusted with “Mendacity!”

Thank you, sir. Very interesting. We Americans (at least if I’m any indication….) typically have an impression that Europe was always commie towards guns.

But my own home state – PA – proves this wrong in part. The famous “Kentucky long rifle” was originally developed in Pennsylvania by gunsmiths who brought their craft with them, with little interruption, from the German lands. And these people were not particularly rich either. Just average folks. So clearly the use of guns was more widespread in Europe than we sometimes imagine, and not just contained to the powerful landowners and aristocrats.

As for hunting rights, I’m assuming that Tsarist Russia, in comparison to western Europe, might have had more ease of access to hunting for common folks if just because there was so much more available land than there was in Europe. Just a guess, though.

That’s right: BASED Stalin had the same attitude to knives as Sadiq Khan and British bobbies.

Yes, but if Solzhenitsyn is right, at least Stalin was nice enough to let those fine young vory in the camps keep their knives, since those nice young men served a clear purpose for the state: scaring the bejeesus out of the political prisoners.

Your response to this?

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/