The Germans have never liked freedom of speech.

Freedom is pretty much an English concept. The basis of freedom is the English common law. The Europeans don’t have that tradition. They’re accustomed to authoritarian government. They expect to be told what to do. No European country has ever been a free country in the sense that England used to be a free country, or in the sense that the US used to be a free country.

One thing that needs to be emphasised very strongly is that freedom is not equivalent to democracy. You can have freedom or you can have democracy. You can’t have both.

so no, I don’t believe there’s a strong commitment to free speech in Britain today…that was the old Britain that has been deliberately destroyed.

That was the old pre-Tony Blair Britain. David Cameron is continuing Blair’s work of destruction.

The laws regarding freedom of religion were written for a country composed of Christians, and mostly Protestants at that.

Were they really? Weren’t many of the Founding Fathers into things like Deism? Which basically made them atheists.

I know American universities aren’t projecting the best possible image right now, but don’t you think quality of education also matters? Have you heard of diploma mills? If a PhD gets you in, watch as the numbers soar. And even legitimate holders are constrained by the realities of HBD and the rigors of trusting the signal value of a diploma from a society where one looks out for tribe and clan first and where corruption is a daily occurrence.

PS One should also remember that it is brain rape to take the doctors, technicians and other representatives of the smart fraction from a country, That country invested scarce resources in their training and possibly has a very limited smart fraction. Taking the best ones is tantamount to condemning it to have less potential tomorrow than it had yesterday. Even the ability of the population to produce such smarts is placed in jeopardy. And people notice that the country cannot be rebuilt as before, because something valuable is missing, and then they will all leave.

My own country suffers from an extensive brain drain, which EU freedoms have made inevitable and impossible to curb. Chicken and egg – you have to grow the economy fast enough to keep people in, but it will never grow if all the best move away. My country could grow at 10% a year for 10 years and still not reach German salary levels for doctors. Meanwhile, the doctors are a visible and often discussed part of the brain drain. People might say they will only leave temporarily, but if they have children abroad, if they never gain the facility with the language, if they have social capital built up, friendships etc they will never come back, after having left in the most productive and fertile part of their lives.

Just as an example, Germany has 4 doctors per thousand people (plus auxiliaries, resources etc). Romania has 2.5 (it produces more but exports). Syria has 1.5, and it did not really export until recently. Ghana had 0.1. So a Ghanaian doctor making a life in the West is actually leaving 10,000 of his countrymen without a doctor. It’s good for him, but bad policy for development.

Of course, third world countries replenish their populations and exceed them rapidly. It’s only in Eastern Europe that poverty is associated with low fertility, due to the peculiar European elasticity of fertility in relation to resources.

2. Have lost millions of more men in WWII because there would have been no Manhattan Project without Jewish brains.

Being a much smaller country in terms of population the US might have pursued a sensible foreign policy based on defending your own territory and not starting or getting mixed up in endless foreign wars. You might not have lost any men at all in WWII.

Right, ordering somebody on a kamikaze mission is un-American.

And un-Japanese. Their kamikaze pilots were volunteers.

Steve occasionally mentions how the current US administration will file suit against institutions that lean way left (recently LAUSD) in order to advance a leftist policy agenda. The institution’s response is inevitably to fold and “agree” to the lawsuit’s demands (which are actually preferred by both parties).

I suspect something similar is happening here. Princeton administrators are well to the left of the student body and its alumni base. So 15 kids lodge a ridiculous complaint, and after some token resistance the administrators throw their hands up in mock defeat and do exactly what they wanted to do anyway. It may be a case of activists + admins (and some professors) against the majority of the student body, alumni, and likely the board as well. Granted, it’s difficult to be certain about this type of thing.

Not true. I spent half my life in ‘flyover country’, the other half in big cities. I’ve seen everything.

And most people ARE cardboard characters. Sure, everyone has his or her eccentricities, peculiarities, and oddities, but most people are drones, clones, dogs, puppets, muppets, robots, and tards.
Just look how fast the disease of the homo agenda spread.
Just look at the spread of tattoo culture.
Just look at the rise of PC and all the cowardice.

No, I’ve spoken to ignorami and educated folks, and most of them are programmed robots. Dummies are programmed by Jerry Springer, Family Guy, and Talk Radio. Smarties are programmed by Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, NPR, and homo agenda.

95% of the time when I have conversations, I can predict exactly what the other person is going to say. Not only the same idea but the same familiar phrases they got from media. It’s like listening to parrots.

It may be that you are mischaracterizing most people cuz you went from left to right and because you hang around more free-thinking types. You are different from most folks.

Let me tell you that most people are mindless drones. They are all the more so today since even the educated class read much less than in the past.

————————

DEADWOOD is something true? It’s just a TV western with the F-word in every other sentence. I heard all the high praise, so I gave it a try, and I turned it off after 20 min cuz I couldn’t take these F-words that went forever. It might have even topped Good Will Hunting—another movie I had to turn off—in F-words.

I don’t mind F-words when necessary but gratuitous verbal filth is like unnecessary nudity and violence/gore in movies and TV shows.
Besides, it’s not even daring anymore to use F-words. Every Tarantino movie uses it a 100 times.

Now, Scorsese knows how to use it right, especially with Joe Pesci who cracks me up.

But DEADWOOD, like all these so-called serious TV shows, sucked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-d5yU-aQ34
Video Link

“People all over Sweden are furious at this mess we’ve created, and if we don’t do something drastic right now the Sweden Democrats are going to crush us at the polls in the next election (sob).”

Yep. It’s just a strategy to undermine the Sweden Democrats. The depressing thing is that it will probably work.

Liberals should take the final paragraph to be the olive branch that it is. Join us in seriously defending the West from Islam and other non-liberal foreign elements or be purged alongside them. There’s no point in celebrating trivialities like court-ordered sodomarriage when you bring in people who stone homosexuals.

Extending an olive branch to liberals is a very big mistake.

I sure as hell don’t want to fight immigration in order to defend sodomarriage or feminazis. I’d rather hold out an olive branch to Moslems and join them in crushing the feminists and the LGBTQWERTY crowd.

If there’s going to be a “we” that includes liberals then include me out. Any conservatives silly enough to ally with liberals will find themselves used and then thrown under the bus when the liberals decide they don’t need them any more.

I disagree. We are all quite liberal.

Who is this we you are talking about? I don’t think I belong to the same we that you do. I”m not sure that I belong to any we at all.

One of the difficulties of trying to have political discussions these days is that virtually none of the terms commonly used have any meaning whatsoever. Liberal, progressive, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, fascist – these are words that no longer mean what they used to mean, in fact they no longer mean very much at all.

If you asked the average self-identified liberal to define liberalism you’d get a slew of meaningless slogans and tired cliches that have no connection with what liberalism used to be.

The problem in the US is that our leftists have adopted crazy ideas. But if they can turn against Muslim immigration based on self-preservation and solidarity, they will, by definition, have started to heal themselves.

Your faith is touching. In fact what we are seeing is a tactical retreat. That is certainly unusual, but it will merely be a prelude to another offensive. The war to destroy western civilisation has certainly not been abandoned.

US leftists are not leftist by any sensible definition of the term. They are useful idiots for powerful elites who have no ideology other than power. They are brain-dead nihilists intent only on demonstrating their shining virtue. They understand nothing. They are spoilt children. The “turn against Muslim immigration” has been dictated by the elites. The ordinary “leftist” foot-soldiers lack the ability to make such decisions. They will do as they are told.

Just because governments are doing something you don’t like doesn’t make their actions illegal.

True. Many things that governments do are stupid or immoral or destructive but still perfectly legal.

Of course these actions by governments are often taken without informing the people or asking their consent which makes them dubiously democratic at best. But the voters could toss them out at the next election, and more often than not fail to do so. Many actions taken by voters are also stupid or immoral or destructive.

‘Left-wing’ means identifying with groups perceived as powerless or less powerful–women, gays, brown people, LGBTCBY, etc.

‘Working class’ isn’t really in there anymore, which lets the elites pocket even more money while leftists spend all their time dissecting levels of oppression and chastising trailer park occupants for their privilege instead of organizing unions.

A lot of you probably disagree, but society actually does need a left to deal with problems of excess inequality–indeed, concentration of wealth in too few hands is at least in part responsible for politicians responding only to donor bases, which exacerbates problems with a strong populist-vs-elitist slant like excess immigration and offshoring jobs–what if Republican presidential candidates had to respond to their voters, rather than their donors like Sheldon Adelson? AIPAC would also be a lot less powerful.

But now that the left is preoccupied with race and gender to the exclusion of class–well, the rich can move around a few positions on boards, give them to their daughters and a few token brown people, and keep shipping jobs overseas and cheap labor in (as well as giving themselves tax cuts).

There’s a populist-elitist axis as well as a left-right axis, and the elitists have taken over left and right. That, I think, is the problem (one of them anyway).

Agree with you 100 %. I came to this position from the left. Of those who agree with you how many are left wingers versus right wingers ?

I’m centre-left on economic issues and a social conservative (in fact by today’s standards I’m an arch-reactionary on social issues). I don’t see myself as having moved away from the Left – it was the Left that moved away from me. My views on social issues haven’t changed much. 25 years ago my views on social issues were quite acceptable in leftist circles. 50 years ago they’d have been absolutely mainstream on the Left.

I also found that the leftist party here (the Labor Party) was moving away from me on economic issues. They used to be an actual left-wing party. Now they’re a party of big business but ultra-hard left on social issues.

It was political correctness that disillusioned me with the Left. Particularly the intolerance displayed by feminists.

it’s the journey from conservative to reactionary that is truly transformative.

It’s a journey worth taking.

An excellent, courageous article. The author demonstrates her unwavering commitment to individual rights, including freedom of expression, by criticizing the Federal Republic’s prosecution of an elderly woman for the heinous thought crime of “Holocaust denial.” Such prosecution is a common occurrence in the soft authoritarian regimes of western Europe which the First Amendment has thankfully spared us in America–so far.

Pat Buchanan was the alt-right before we even had a name for it. Read his books sometime. The Unnecessary War is not only not boring, it’s one of the most provocative and stimulating books on WWII there is.

You won’t find many other people who are both welcome guests on mainstream media outlets and who bash the myth of Winston Churchill.

Anyone who bashes Churchill is A-OK in my book. Churchill should have been hanged as a war criminal.

The influence of the King or Queen has undergone more than a century of serious erosion since her day.

Which has been very unfortunate.

Pitbulls are way, way more likely to be euthanized by humans than they are to kill or maim humans,

#PitbullLivesMatter

This would be hellaciously difficult to implement as a functioning admissions systems.

The only way to get liberals to let go of the diversity bone is to make it unpalatable. Canada has implemented a regulation rule which forces old regulations to be discarded every time a new regulation is implemented. The same principle needs to be applied to universities with respect to diversity. Currently it’s fine for white professors and white administrators to pledge to hire more minorities because the cost falls on young white academics just entering the job market. Republicans should be forcing universities to fire white academics to make room for newly hired black academics and let the other job competitions proceed in a race neutral fashion, after all it is the existing academics who are doing the most posturing on the need for more diversity, so let them pay the price.

The same poisoned chalice strategy needs to work with student admissions. Make it socially toxic for universities to overlook inner-city black youth as they favor the black children of Colin Powell and Obama. Liberal academics say that they want diversity, well a black kid from Philips Exeter doesn’t add anything to the environment, so hold universities to their statements, using Alinsky tactics, and make them admit Shiteria from the ghetto. Make “Black Autumn” look like a walk in the park compared to the environment which will develop when true diversity is shoved into the university environment.

The only way to make diversity toxic as an ideal is to make it very unpleasant for all involved. Look at the rise of white student unions as the immediate response to Black Autumn – it can get much, much worse and really undercut the notion that diversity is some benefit to education.

College graduates? Only if the West continues to selectively syphon off Africa’s best and brightest, stripping the continent of its scarce human capital and thus insuring that the billions left behind will be mired in a permanent state of underdevelopment.

I’m surprised progressives and others haven’t seen fit to take up this issue. The West is indeed stripping Africa and other developing nations of its best talent. Just as the evil, old colonialists extracted natural resources, the modern oligarchs are extracting human resources today. Surely there is something in this line of thought that is worthy of a hashtag and a social media following.

The way muslim immigrants defend against SJW anti-natalism is forming concentrated enclaves through slow burn ethnic cleaning so the local schools become 100% muslim and SJW teachers are gradually driven out. Another is by not allowing their kids to watch western tv

Which would seem to indicate that they are a lot smarter than white people. White people willingly expose their kids to the poisons of the education system and the entertainment industry. Another example of the white death wish.

The species that produced the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, is not going to be subjected to Marxist bonds and politically correct shackles forever.

I see this thought expressed now and again. Often it’s paired with the comment that Americans possess some 300 million firearms and the vast majority belong to conservatives. But isn’t the basic instinct of the conservative to conserve? Instigating revolution is not conservative. A conservative sees the disparity in armament between civilian and military and thinks, “I have a family to take care of, I can’t go off and get myself killed by drone strike or cruise missile.” Your .308 with a nice Leupold scope is indeed devastating to the deer or elk population, but as modern revolutionary tool it is of little use when government forces can easily kill you from a thousand miles away. The fanatic who espouses conservative positions is rarer and this fact combined with his fanaticism make it likely he is already known to government which collects and analyzes every bit and byte transmitted. So, if there is zero prospect for a military reset to America’s founding principles (and population), that leaves only the ballot box. And I think we all know the true likelihood of succeeding in a rollback of government size, scope, and spending through popular vote.

The only way we can return to the ideals our Founders intended for us is through the ashes of complete collapse caused by our insanely reckless fiscal policy, suicidal immigration policy, or our equally insane foreign policy. A collapse that may not happen for another century..

Freedom loving conservatives will in the meantime continue buying more hunting rifles and dehydrated food stocks and hiding in their suburban or exurban homes while their nation collapses around them. Their numbers will dwindle until they’re so few that government can set about removing them one-by-one.

The practice of eliminating rival half-brothers was virtually universal among polygamous monarchies.

It may seem unpleasant but it was necessary. If a king didn’t eliminate rival half-brothers (and full brothers) it was an absolute certainty that they would take steps to eliminate him. Strict and properly defined rules of succession are a fairly modern development. Even without polygamy rules of succession were not very clear in the ancient and medieval periods, hence The Wars of the Roses and similar stuff.

If Alexander had his half-brothers killed that simply demonstrates his wisdom. There was no other way to assure stability.

These are fund raising drives directed by the various “studies” departments on campus. Isn’t it odd that the “demands” always mirror those of all those Diversity departments, i.e., more money and power for them?

Yes, very much so.

And it allows leftist professors to push ahead with implementing more crazy leftist stuff that they wanted to do anyway.

On-campus incidents of tape or attempted tape will soon be reaching epidemic proportions.

There’s no way to prevent it unless you eliminate the tape culture.

The nations of Europe were pretty recently overwhelmingly monoethnic.

That was an historical aberration. There’s hardly a single European nation that can claim to have had a long-term existence as a monoethnic state.

Europe was on the other hand, until recently, mostly monoracial. And it was fairly monoreligious, apart from sizeable Jewish minorities, and sizeable Moslem minorities in the Balkans.

What united most European countries was loyalty to a particular monarchy, such as the Hapsburgs. That might have continued to work had it not been for the disaster of the First World War.

I have to admit that it is disorienting to feel like a stranger in your “own” society, which is now so different than the society of our childhood if you are a baby boomer or older. But realistically we are never going to unscramble this omelet and we are going to have to figure out how to live in this world (for the time we have left) and not be the cranky old guy shaking his cane and yelling “get off of my lawn”. It’s a lot easier for kids because they accept the world that they were born into as being “normal”.

Physical secession is not feasible or worthwhile, to say nothing of being treasonable. Purely mental secession, whether individually like what Plato had in mind in his Republic, or familially/locally as in Rod Dreher’s asinine “Benedict Option” is also unworkable. But there is a third option, and it has an impeccably American pedigree in terms of dealing with the kind of multiculturalism you talk about:

Build a “state within the state”. It’s what the American Catholic Church did from the 1870s to just after WW2. It’s what the waves of German immigrants in America did in the seventy years 1848-1918. It’s what the Latter Day Saints do today, and in a sense, so do the Jews. Build a network, not online, but in the real world. Not just of schools and health care providers, but of insurance companies, mutual aid societies, purchasers’ co-ops. And since man does not live by bread alone, include beer gardens, athletics clubs, independent scouting associations, lecture groups, and cultural foundations.

It is no accident that the biggest of the US states-within-the-state, American Catholicism’s inward-looking phase, faded away pretty quickly in the 1950s–the exact time that you posit as the only possible “golden age” of uniculture. That ‘separation’ was no longer seen by most lay Catholics as necessary–their immigrant roots had been pretty much digested and assimilated, and there was nothing else on the domestic horizon (apart from foreign, external things like Communism). So they relaxed, got complacent–and lowered their defenses well before Vatican II.

Yes, the article had a political (SJW) agenda. As I recall, the article said that male and female brains were on a continuum, by which I assume they meant place on a continuum was meaningless. This is the same argument for declaring there is no such thing as race.

If we take this argument seriously, we can also argue that there are no such things as light and dark, hard and soft, hot and cold, babies and old folks, visible light and x-rays, water and ice, vacuums and solids, specific colors, etc. … because they exist on continuums. The point is, place on a continuum does matter. “Place” and the consequences of something having a “place” on a continuum are definable and observable.

White People really do contribute to the destruction of the Black [sic] race and it is because of the white race’s desire to “help” others. A worthy goal, but ultimately destructive.

The psychological solution to the enigma of the harmfulness of much “altruism” is that the desire to appear to help predominates over the desire to help. [Otherwise, bleeding-heart liberals would learn from their experience.]

David Cameron’s party won a rollicking victory this year

His party got 36.9% of the vote. When 63.1% of the voters vote against you you’re not exactly a popular choice.

What Bacevich does not mention is that Eliot A. Cohen is advocating an endless war for the benefit of Israel, not for “Western civilization”.

Not surprising that Cohen, co-founder of PNAC, colleague of Wolfowitz and Perle, and denier of Israel Lobby influence (he accused M. & W. of anti-Semitism for their expose), wants US troops permanently stationed in the MENA. Americans must recognize what a liability Zionist Israel is to US integrity, economy, and security.

One way to understand the liberal ideology of Whites like Linda Stasi is as a branch of Christianity.

Social Justice is essentially a Christian heresy. It’s Christianity without the God stuff and the Jesus stuff (a bit like the Church of England).

Left and Right will work together to repress the National Front: I’d be that next week only Marine and her niece win.

I’d be surprised if the FN wins any regions at all. I’d love to see them win them half a dozen but it’s not going to happen.

Christianity as interpreted and practiced by Europeans and Social Justice resemble each other because they are both, in part, expressions of innate European predilections.

That could well be true. It would be interesting to know if any HBDers have done any work on that subject. Did Christianity mould European civilisation or was it the other way around?

Of course it would be even more interesting to know where such innate European predilections came from. Were they there from the beginning or did they arrive in one of the many waves of immigration? Are these predilections stronger in northern Europeans than southern Europeans? Is there a genetic reason for the relative failure of the Reformation in southern Europe?

Is Social Justice more closely related to Protestantism than Catholicism? Is this due to the nature of Protestantism or is it due to different genetics in the Protestant parts of Europe?

Do eastern Europeans share these predilections? Do slavic peoples share them?

In general, I think some people put too much emphasis on ideas. Ideas are only successful if the soil in which they are planted is suited to them.

That would certainly explain a lot.

The thought that depresses me is that some of the very genetic factors that made European civilisation so successful are the very factors that may doom that civilisation. Which means that avoiding that doom may be difficult if not impossible.

I read a comment made by someone elsewhere that Islam is not only a religion but also a set of political beliefs (I think those were the words he used), so the U.S. could have a moratorium on Muslim immigrants based on their political beliefs, rather than their religious ones.

Denying entry based on political beliefs would be a very interesting precedent. It would make it possible to deny entry to someone who held dangerous extremist beliefs – for example climate change sceptics, anyone opposed to homosexual marriage, anyone who doesn’t believe Caitlyn Jenner is a real woman, anyone opposed to gun control. It’s an idea that would be massively popular with the Left.

The vacuum left by the collapse of the traditional Left in France has been filled, for the time being, by the National Front.

Yep. The rise in nationalism in Europe is almost entirely the rise of nationalist parties of the Left, like the FN.

Mind you, 30% of the vote is a very very poor result for the FN. They’ll be lucky to win two of the 13 regions.

All that trouble they cause wanting to exist.

Wanting to exist is fine. Israel does not want to exist. It wants to conquer. Well actually it wants the US to do its conquering for it.

Marine Le Pen’s National Front came in first with 28 percent of the vote nationally.

Which really is a dismal result. This election may well be the end of the line for the FN. Le Pen has zero chance of winning the presidential election.

The FN is in the same position as UKIP in Britain – their electoral strategy has been a spectacular failure. They are going to have to reinvent themselves in a major way.

When I’m in the mood to entertain a conspiracy theory, I wonder if the rise of the New Left didn’t arise from an elite project to channel social activism in a direction that would divide the working class and not threaten the elite.

I’d say that’s more of an established fact than a conspiracy theory!

I respectfully disagree with Gottfried’s conclusion that Cultural Marxism isn’t actually Marxist anymore.

When it’s funded by billionaires you have to question just how marxist it is.

And neocons push cultural marxism and I don’t think neocons are aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They’re aiming at the establishment of the dictatorship of the rich.

Yeah, I notice that Caitlyn Jenner was also on the “Short List” for Person of the Year.

The fact that she wasn’t chosen just shows how much systemic transphobia we still have to struggle against. Why does Time magazine hate the trans community?

It’s quite possible that George Soros really believes that socialism will actually benefit the people

I wonder what exactly George Soros’s vision of socialism looks like. I’m sure he has a vision but I doubt if it’s anything that even vaguely resembles socialism. His utopia will certainly benefit some people, especially George Soros.

Perhaps in the case of billionaire “socialists” like Soros it’s simply a form of megalomania. When you have billions of dollars money is no longer a motivating force, but power certainly is. Otherwise what’s the point in being a billionaire? What’s another billion dollars to someone like Soros? It’s irrelevant. But being a king sounds like a lot of fun. Being a kingmaker could be even more fun. To such people any political ideology will do if it brings power and influence. And if you’re a megalomaniac you might honestly believe that the world would be a much better place if only you were the person running it.

The 2000s neocon desire for a democratized Middle East, did aim to replace feudal-like dictatorships

Has there ever been a greater delusion than the desire for a democratized Middle East?

A blanket religion-based ban is crazy from a purely selfish perspective.

Once you accept religion-based bans then there’s no reason why a future Administration couldn’t use them to exclude dangerous religious extremists – like Christians for instance.

There have been plenty of religion-based bans in the past, most of them aimed at Jews. I wonder how enthusiastic America’s Jews will be about the revival of such a concept?

The Spanish tried the idea quite some time ago. They set up an organisation to enforce it. It was called the Spanish Inquisition. You might not think that’s likely to happen again, but then no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Another example of how the left are now the conservatives.

The leftists are now the Establishment Pigs.

Define what is meant by religion in a religion based ban?

Whatever religion the government of the day happens to dislike. Today it might be Islam. Tomorrow it might be Christians. Or the wrong sort of Christians. The ones who take Christianity seriously.

Just as an ideology-based ban is a ban on whichever ideology the government of the day happens to dislike. Yesterday it was communism. Tomorrow it might be conservatives. One thing you can be certain of – whichever beliefs the government doesn’t like will be labelled as dangerous and extremist.

The trouble with these kinds of bans is that the people who support them never stop to consider that tomorrow the very same ban might be used against them.

For a nation supposedly based on ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of religion such bans are a fairly bizarre idea, as well as being a very bad idea.

Limiting immigration is fine. Just reduce the overall numbers. Stop immigration altogether if you want to. But banning people based on the fact that you disapprove of them is the sort of thing that can backfire in a very nasty fashion.

Define what is meant by religion in a religion based ban?

Apart from my other misgivings about this idea it is pretty much unworkable. How do you define a person’s religion? Is a lapsed Catholic still a Catholic? Does an Episcopalian who has a very vague belief in God but never goes to church count as an Episcopalian, or maybe a semi-Episcopalian ? Is an atheist Jew a Jew? Is a non-practising Muslim a Muslim? What about messianic Jews – are they Jews or Christians? Are Unitarians Christians? Most Christians would consider them to be heretics. Do heretics count?

You really are going to need to revive the Spanish Inquisition to sort those questions out.

Trump still hasn’t bashed the Jews and homos.

He goes for easy targets: Muslims, Mexicans, Mandarins.

You owe our porcine friends an apology. What did they ever do to merit such a slur?

I humbly apologise for my outburst of porcinophobia. I feel so ashamed.

#PigLivesMatter

isn’t it crazy that all these GOP politicians support pre-emptively bombing the **** out of any country deemed a threat but stopping people immigrating is the sin of all sins.

It’s a symptom of the deep sickness of western civilisation. The hypocrisy and madness and indeed out-and-out evil run deep on both ends of the political spectrum.

Hurting people’s feelings is bad and wrong and may be a crime, but killing women and children is A-OK.

There are so many ways to prove ones religion baptism records, family photos etc.

You could easily dig up my baptism records and discover that I’m a Presbyterian. Except that I haven’t been inside a Presbyterian church since. I don’t have the slightest idea what the Presbyterian faith consists of. So records like that are worthless.

Unless you’re suggesting that once a Presbyterian, always a Presbyterian. “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Presbyterian?” Perhaps you could track down some of my old school chums and ask them if they ever observed any suspiciously Presbyterian-like behaviour on my part. Or whether I ever belonged to any organisations that were known Presbyterian fronts.

To confuse matters further I attended a Methodist Sunday School and I briefly belonged to a Baptist youth group as a kid. And I attended an Anglican church for a while. So am I a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Baptist or an Anglican?

When you enroll a kid at Catholic School they don’t go on your word that the kid is a Catholic.

My mother attended a Catholic school. She never was a Catholic, her parents weren’t Catholics, she never pretended to be a Catholic. As a non-Catholic she was never required to go to Mass. So even in the 1930s you didn’t need to be a Catholic to go to a Catholic school. But she could still have been under suspicion as a secret Papist agent.

The whole idea of religious tests for entering a country seems to me to be silly, unworkable and the sort of thing you might have expected of the old Soviet Union. Or the sort of thing that might
strike an ambitious politician as a vote-grabber, knowing that such an idea could never actually be implemented.

I don’t think it was unfair for those not well informed about the region’s peculiarities, to think that it would follow the “modernization theory” that East Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe had.

That is kind of true, although foreign policy is something that in an ideal world would be conducted by people who made it their business to inform themselves about regions in which they intend to interfere.

Of course in an ideal world countries like the US would avoid interfering altogether in regions in which they have no business interfering. Well-intentioned foreign policies generally do a great deal more harm than cynical opportunistic foreign policies.

First place is never a dismal result.

In the light of recent events in France 72% of French voters are still happy to vote for business as usual. Full speed ahead, damn the icebergs. Just rearrange the deck chairs a bit. The one party that is suggesting that changing course might be a good idea can only get just over a quarter of the vote.

Given the French electoral system and the determination of the established parties to combine against her even if Le Pen could get 40% of the vote nationwide in the presidential election she’d be unlikely to win in the second round. This result suggests that the FN is nowhere near having the slightest chance of real power. I think it’s fair to say that 28% is a very disappointing result.

There was a draft on. They drafted college age men. After the lottery, 1968 05 69, they were even drafting college students. There was a damn good reason for protests on campus and there were serious business.

Yep. The antiwar movement was not driven by opposition to the war – it was driven by privileged young people who would have been quite happy about the war as long as they didn’t have to fight it. Now that there’s no draft there’s no antiwar movement.

I also think it’s a silly meme to suppose that the ‘end goal’ of PC is actual economic equality.

The ‘end goal’ of PC is more economic inequality. More wealth to the wealthy elites. More power to the powerful elites.

It’s driven by hatred of ordinary people (especially the working class) and hatred of everything that ordinary people care about.

Even if you did have a decent platform the people would say what about transgender racism.

If you had a decent platform the media would say what about transgender racism. Most people would go along with the media through fear.

I wonder what her background was to think that Jesus Christ, of all people, was the most evil in history. Why exactly?

Because she’s a lesbian. Homosexuals know deep down that their lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy and self-destructive. It leads to misery and ultimately a bitter lonely old age. Naturally they’re angry. Blaming homophobes is easier than blaming themselves.

It is anonymous posting that has restored free speech. I am shocked the Left has not tried to ban it.

Why do you think Facebook wants people to use their real names? Right from the start that was a useful way of keeping track of anyone who looked like straying off the reservation, and punishing them through public shaming if they did.

Why do you think many newspapers now ban commenting on articles about “controversial” issues. Some have eliminated comments sections altogether.

They’re already aware of the problem and they will act to ban it. They’ve just decided to do it gradually.

The problem with this is that once enough people do so it’s hard to prevent others from speaking up too and then…

That’s where re-education camps come in handy. If they don’t work there’s always the gulags.

Now they can show that they are even more dysfunctional than an abused housewife – they know in their hearts that government isn’t evil and they can fix it.

Spot on.

If people tolerate nonsense then they are to blame not the media.

There is certainly something to that. The difficulty for the average person is – what can they do? They have been presented with few options. In the US they have a choice of only two political parties, both in practice more or less identical. Effectively there is no alternative. Not surprisingly many don’t vote at all, which to be honest is no worse than voting for either of the two parties.

In Australia we have a choice of two major parties, both in practice more or less identical. You can vote for minor parties but there’s no point. Under our preferential voting system your vote still ends up going to one of the two major parties.

In Britain people have a choice of two major parties, both in practice more or less identical. Under their first past the post voting system there is simply no point at all in voting for a minor party.

In France with their voting system an alternative party like the FN will always inevitably be defeated in the second round of voting.

In most western countries there is effectively one-party government. Democracy is an illusion. Most ordinary people are smart enough to figure this out but what can they do about it?

but I really think it is “our” conduct in the ME that is driving this craziness. A million deaths in Iraq alone, goodness me, surely that is going to piss a few people off.

It’s funny how killing millions of people from a particular group tends to annoy that group.

Until the US started interfering in the Middle East Muslims had no dislike whatsoever for Americans.

The US has certainly killed a lot more innocent civilians in the past hundred years than Muslims have. Ever hear of Operation Meetinghouse? The fire-bombing raid on Tokyo that killed at least 80,000 people, the vast majority of them innocent civilians. And that was the death toll from a single air raid. But they were Japanese so they were bad people. It’s OK to kill bad people. Even if they’re women and children. And the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died as the result of US-led sanctions – they must have been bad people too.

In Spain, when these Christian barbarians ran over the last Moorish enclave in 1492, they killed five million Muslims and 170,000 Jews. Some historians have called the first “Jewish Holocaust”.

Those figures are certainly wildly exaggerated.

Instead of calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration,
he should call for a moratorium on Western intervention in the Muslim world.

How about the US returning to isolationism? Seriously. Isolationism was an extremely sound foreign policy.

How large a military establishment does the US need? The US faces no credible military threat whatsoever. None.

“This is crazy,” the caller averred. “We can do better than that and we have done better than that: in World War II we bombed Dresden, killing 300,000 [sic] just to destroy the will of the German people.”

Another proud moment in US history.

the broad US public is now quite comfortable endorsing crimes against humanity and genocide.

They always have been quite comfortable with those things.

They hate us for our values.

What are the core US values these days? Mass murder of innocent civilians, homosexual “marriage,” unlimited porn, transgender rights, hate-fueled feminism. And those values must be imposed on the rest of the world, at gunpoint if necessary. Why would anyone hate the US for its values? It’s a mystery.

Today what we are seeing is a largely racialized brown and black lumpenproletariat storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society

A remarkable number of these brown and black lumpenproletarians seem to be university students. Some of them attending Yale. That’s a strange sort of lumpenproletariat. It looks more like privileged young people (and I don’t care what colour you are, if you’re at Yale you’re privileged) demanding even more privilege.

The actual lumpenproletariat are too busy stealing cars, robbing convenience stores and dealing crack to worry about storming the citadels of capitalist, bourgeois society.

I also suspect that the university students in question are merely being used by the leftist establishment in the universities to further their own ends – more money for silly ideological projects and more cushy jobs for the already privileged.

Personally I’d like my country to ban the entry of Americans. On balance Americans have been responsible for a great deal more misery in the past few decades than Muslims. I realise that not all Americans support the toxic US foreign policies but the safest thing would be to ban them all, and deport those who are already here. I’d especially like to see the deportation of Americans who man US military bases on my country’s soil.

In fact if every country were to follow such a policy the world would be a much safer place.

I don’t have anything against Americans but I’d prefer them to stay in their own country.

It’s not a choice of whether to go with the Jews or the Muslims, but rather of standing up to both.

Maybe Trump could be persuaded to extend his proposed ban on Muslim immigration to Jews as well? If it’s acceptable to target Muslims in this way why not Jews?

Fred does not DO politically correct, never has. This article is classic Fred, slaughtering all sacred cows.

Unless it relates to Mexicans.

So, if we are gonna have PC for social peace and harmony, the Singaporean conservative PC works better than prog PC that prevails in France and US colleges.

The Singapore approach at least makes some sense. Either everyone should have the right not to be offended, or no-one should have the right not to be offended.

wouldn’t it be more effective to argue against immigration–and not just illegal immigration–on economic grounds

Do you think Trump actually wants to end mass immigration?

We saw the same thing in Australia. A “conservative” government cracked down on illegal immigration but they continue to flood the country with legal immigrants.

That’s unfair. There are plenty of homosexuals who sincerely believe in conservatism. Florence King, a paleocon who used to write a column for National Review, was a lesbian who said that before the gay rights movement most homosexuals considered themselves conservative.

Depends how you define conservative.

There were plenty of English homosexuals who liked the aesthetics of traditionalism. They loved the ritual side of the Catholic Church and they loved High Church Anglicanism. They loved the whole Oxbridge thing. They also liked art and the theatre and all that sort of thing. I imagine there were equivalents in other countries.

They veered sharply leftwards when being leftist became more fun. They like to follow the fashion.

Quite a few would have been attracted to fascism/Nazism in the 30s because fascism had style. Can you imagine male homosexuals not loving those wonderfully sharp uniforms? SS uniforms were so butch!

The whole system was specifically designed to keep them out and it will work unless Front National support rises above 50 percent.

And in the incredibly unlikely event that ever happened does anyone imagine the US would not immediately begin destabilising an FN government? The US would impose sanctions. They would destroy the French economy.

As a result of that I expect Ukip to have similar numbers in the UK within a few years: 30-40% almost everywhere but only a few seats

I would expect that UKIP will fail to win a single seat in the next British election. They’re finished. They know they have no chance and they will self-destruct from despair.

There is not the slightest chance of any nationalist party anywhere in the West gaining real political power. Anyone who believes that democracy (or what we laughingly call democracy in the West) is going to save us is living in a dream world.

My advice is to start learning Russian. Eastern Europe (or parts of it) might survive as an intact European civilisation. For western Europe the future is the Ottoman Empire 2.0. That would be the most hopeful outcome. Or it will be like the Balkans in the late 19th/early 20th century. That would be less hopeful.

This is not the same as saying that serfdom was a better deal than what they got after the Revolution.

Wasn’t serfdom abolished long before the Revolution?

Russia under the Czars was industrialising rapidly. Had the First World War been avoided Czarist Russia could have been a very big success story.

In the event of civil war in France would you expect the Western Powers to stay out of it though? Wouldn’t the USA/Britain give French France the same treatment Serbia got over Kosovo?

I’d say that’s an absolute certainty.

People come to see their interests and act on them

You mean the way the working classes refused to fight a capitalist war in 1914 and instead united to overthrow capitalism?

Democracy is popular with the elites because they have absolute confidence that there is no chance that the people will ever come to see their interests and act on them.

People can control capitalism in a liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy is an illusion. What we have in the West ain’t liberalism (in the old sense of the word) and it ain’t democracy.