The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
David Brooks Calls for Preparations for a Color Revolution Coup to Overthrow Trump
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times opinion page:

What Will You Do if Trump Doesn’t Leave?
Playing out the nightmare scenario.

By David Brooks
Opinion Columnist

Sept. 3, 2020, 7:46 p.m. ET

… But a new force looms into view. For the whole Trump era a certain sort of conservative has been cowering from the Trump onslaught. Certain sorts of moderates and liberals have also been keeping their heads down, so they won’t get bitten off by the woke mobs. But now the very existence of the Republic is at stake.

It turns out, amid the existential crisis, there really is a group of sober people who are militant about America, who can see reality unblinkered by the lens of partisanship, and who are finally compelled to organize.

Who are the “sober people who are militant about America” that David is dog-whistling to? Could he the militant patriots he be referring to be … the military?

They understand that, like so many American tragedies, this is largely about race. It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

Brooks says, it’s not a Color Revolution, it’s a Revolution of Color!

If Trump claims a victory that is not rightly his, a few marches in the streets will not be an adequate response. There may have to be a sustained campaign of civic action, as in Hong Kong and Belarus, to rally the majority that wants to preserve democracy, that isolates those who would undo it.

Two themes would have to feature in such civic action. The first is ardent patriotism. The country survives such a crisis only if most people’s love of nation overwhelms the partisan fury that will threaten to envelop us.

The second is the preservation of constitutional order. Through epic acts of self-discipline, the nonviolent civil rights marchers in the 1960s forced their foes to reveal that if there were to be any violence and anarchy, it would come from the foes. …

Yeah, sure, Dave, lotsa luck with that as we’ve seen since Memorial Day with all your Peaceful Protests.

The process of mobilizing for an accurate election outcome, before it is too late, would be a struggle to preserve the order of our civic structure against the myriad foes who talk blithely about tearing down systems, disorder and disruption. It may be how we rediscover our nation again.

It’s time to start thinking about what you would do.

Similarly, the press has been making a huge hoopla today about Trump once implying that World War One (not Two, One) was pointless:

Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

People, can we calm down and back off?

 
Hide 239 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. #1 Article on Reddit and other sites as well tonight.

    Note the ‘quotes’ at the bottom. Then read the actual article where it says:

    These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Reddit won’t permit you to post that quote.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    , @Polynikes
    @Mr McKenna

    Reddit is essentially Chinese propaganda.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Tlotsi

    , @Paul Jolliffe
    @Mr McKenna

    I think Brooks believes that the “siege of the White House” beginning September 17 may not necessarily drive Trump from office before the election, but it will add to the pressure, and if military leaders fall for it, then look out . . .

    https://www.eagleobserver.com/news/2020/aug/26/the-white-house-siege-occupation-starts-sept-17/

  2. People, can we calm down and back off?

    Yes. We can. All we need to do is sort proponents of social theories into governments that test them as a higher priority than anything else.

  3. What a coquette he is —
    David Brooks is goosing-inciting his NY Times readers in a gentle and digestible way. What he is obliquely referring to is that Trump vs Biden on Nov 3rd will be a total mess due to mail in ballots. Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days. Same as 2016 in Broward County but done in many more “urban” districts. Don’t leave out boxes of Democrat ballots found in black church basements and in trunks of Dem owned automobiles.

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Clyde

    There a trial run of “a total mess due to mail in ballots” ongoing right now in Massachusetts:

    Massachusetts 4th Congressional District: Thousands of ballots found in Franklin, Jesse Mermell’s campaign solicits recount signatures

    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John

    , @TTSSYF
    @Clyde

    I fear you are correct. The likelihood that it actually comes to a vote in the House is questionable, but no doubt, it's their plan.

    , @El Dato
    @Clyde

    Contested election inevitable? Data firm predicts Trump lead on election night will turn into Biden victory as mail votes counted


    Data and analytics firm Hawkfish told the Axios news site that President Donald Trump will likely enjoy what appears to be a landslide victory on November 3. Hawkfish, a firm funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg and employed by the Democratic National Committee, claimed that Trump could hold a lead of 408-130 electoral votes on election night.
     
    It's like foreshadowing, ya know.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Clyde


    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.
     
    Yes, and they are open about it. Hillary Clinton has already declared that the Dems will "not concede under any circumstances" [emphasis in original].

    Now the Democrat Media Complex is openly preparing the public not to accept the election results on November 4th so they can print as many ballots as they need to claim victory, while they will blame the delay on Trump.

    And they are now openly courting the military to side with them.

    They think they've got this sewn up: if they don't win on the normal ballot, they'll win on the mail-in "votes", if they don't win on the mail-in "voting", they'll win the military coup, which will be presented not as a coup but as "defending The Republic from usurper Trump".

    The one thing they do not have is any plan to concede, even if it means burning the whole place down.

    As has been said, "it will come to [even more] blood."

    Prepare accordingly.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @The Wild Geese Howard

    , @bomag
    @Clyde


    Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days.
     
    Days? I'd say decades.

    But the Dems are going to want to force the issue, or else Trump and company stays on until a decision. Maybe get one of their pet federal judges to declare the usual emergency and declare Biden the winner, and the cuck-prone Roberts, Gorsuch, or Cavenaugh gives them what they want, "for the children."

  4. >Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    I believe that American intervention in WWI was a mistake, but that hardly means our fallen soldiers were “losers”, Steve. And while I’m obviously going to need something far more credible than an anonymous State Department source for The Atlantic and the Washington Post of 2020 to believe this story, I also don’t put it beyond Trump to blurt out something like that. The dude is crass and cynical enough to say it and vapidly self-absorbed enough to say it unguarded. I’m saying this as someone who tends to be very cynical of how the American political establishment uses the military.

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long. Vietnam-era anti-military sentiment was squashed during the party’s Clintonian rehaul as part of the broader trend of embracing more muscular foreign policy, but there’s never been anything like this. What’s the deal? TDS? A military that is more to the Left’s liking demographically?

    >“sober people who are militant about America”

    Are smart enough to not listen to the cheerleaders for Year 19 of Afghanistan, for starters.

    > It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package. What did you think was going to happen? “Identity politics for me but not for thee” never works, least of all for a country facing massive structural and socioeconomic rot.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
    @nebulafox

    "Identity politics for me but not for thee." All the diversity the left championed for the last 60 years sowed the seeds of identity politics, even for whites.

    I liked civic nationalism. I grew up with civic nationalism. But that dog doesn't hunt any more, and in the tribal world of the new America, which the left created, you find your tribe and you stick with its members. The two biggest groups among whites now are those who recognize the new reality and those who will later.

    , @Redman
    @nebulafox

    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?

    Psyop 2020. Get ready for the deep state blitz. They see the ship sinking even after russiagate, impeachment, coronahoax and summer of George. Wiley Coyote is pulling out his best Acme tricks for one last go at that damned orange bird.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Not Raul, @sayless

    , @Goddard
    @nebulafox


    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package.
     
    Sad that white identity will resurface only after we whites have given away the country.
    , @Jack D
    @nebulafox


    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long.
     
    No need to worry - they don't really love the military - they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry "reporting for duty"? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there - they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    , @Mike1
    @nebulafox

    Yeah Trump hates the military is credible. Give me a break. Does he also wander around spouting off about police officers in his spare time?!

    This is a sanity test. Giving it any credence at all is failing it.

  5. … But a new force looms into view. For the whole Trump era a certain sort of conservative has been cowering from the Trump onslaught.

    No, a certain sort of “conservative” is just not very popular. They lost because they are not conservative and they suck.

    And the Trump “onslaught” is Bad, but white people getting eclipsed by an onslaught of the non-white population of the world is Good because “diversity.”

    Certain sorts of moderates and liberals have also been keeping their heads down, so they won’t get bitten off by the woke mobs. But now the very existence of the Republic is at stake.

    Good God what planet do these people reside on?

    Those people leaving the White House, or just eating lunch on the sidewalk, or trying to pass out literature on a college campus, they also kept their heads down, and got assaulted, as in real assaults. Oh, and the looting, mayhem, and burning buildings down.

    Political violence like this is not a threat to our Republic but some fantasy about Trump not accepting the election result is?

  6. People, can we calm down and back off?

    As coronavirus has taught you, there’s more money in pandering to baser instincts.

  7. Anon[157] • Disclaimer says:

    Wow…lots of self-pity and naivety in this article from the New York Times Conservative.

    It would be excusably pathetic at the individual level, but as a nationwide syndicated columnist, talk about trying to create the exact thing you fear.

    When you call out for Sulla, he may decide he doesn’t really like you.

    • Thanks: Muggles
  8. This is the same Andrea Mitchell who claimed Juanita Broaddrick was “discredited”, when she wasn’t.

  9. Apparently, the killer of the Trump supporter in Portland last weekend is doing press now. He’s still free five days later.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-had-no-choice-i-mean-i-had-choice-portland-suspect-murder-trump-supporter-claims-self

    If the Big Luau is on its way, we seem to be in the Bleeding Kansas preliminaries.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Thomas

    If it makes you feel any better, apparently he got killed by the cops.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1301724215553323009

    Wonder if we'll see any riots for him.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @D. K.
    @Thomas

    Not anymore, he’s not:

    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1301725054095351808

    Replies: @danand

    , @Thomas
    @Thomas

    Of course, the best opportunity to find out whether he was part of an organized kill team as has been suggested just went to the same place Jeffrey Epstein went.

  10. @Mr McKenna
    #1 Article on Reddit and other sites as well tonight.

    https://external-preview.redd.it/vni-UZpXnvPC_1FwvOEwSKK15RJRX8ARXmRpZE3vUYU.jpg

    Note the 'quotes' at the bottom. Then read the actual article where it says:

    These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.
     
    Reddit won't permit you to post that quote.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Polynikes, @Paul Jolliffe

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    Anyway, Goldberg is “New Journalism” at its finest: “These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.”

    • Replies: @Charon
    @Mr McKenna

    Idk about you but I trust everything they tell me.


    Why you might not know that Trump is threatening your Social Security Sept. 3, 2020

    One way U.S. voters are being played during this presidential election campaign is the deceitful manner in which key issues are being framed for their consumption. Arguably the biggest and most important of these concerns the so-called “third rail” of American politics: Social Security.

    President Donald Trump has vowed to kill funding for this critical, gargantuan program that nearly 70 million Americans depend on.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-might-not-know-that-trump-is-threatening-your-social-security-2020-09-02


     

    Journalist also has this to say about covid:

    Yet as of this writing, the U.S., with about 4% of the world’s population, has more than six million cases — one of every four on the planet.


     

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Mr McKenna


    Anyway, Goldberg is “New Journalism” at its finest: “These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.”
     
    Impossible at The Atlantic before when? - 2016, when Goldberg became editor in chief? Or earlier?

    A public sphere needs decency. It thrives on it. In a democracy al least. That's what The Atlantic stood for. - Then came postmodernism, opening the floodgates of a strategic approach to truth, honor, decency etc. . Thus those once fundamental normative ideas became mere means to win an intellectual fight.

    The latest turn was the racial one, declaring the traditional set of values a democracy rests on to be - - white (this is still happening in the postmodern/deconstructivist framework).

    , @anon
    @Mr McKenna

    Sources speaking on condition of anonymity inform me Jeffrey Goldberg eats kittens for breakfast and puppies for lunch. Other anonymous sources have discussed his after-hours activities. Something to do with pizza.

    It's good that we can always trust our anonymous sources who speak on condition of anonymity, isn't it? It's a good thing!

    , @Arlo L. Ramsbottom
    @Mr McKenna

    The battle of Belleau Woods was an extraordinary display of Marine fighting ferocity. The Germans labeled them "Devil Dogs" for their spirit.
    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,"Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?"
    He was recommended for the Medal of Honor for his actions,but was awarded the Navy Cross. Having won two previous Medals of Honor,it seems pretty clear he was denied the MOH because he was Irish. It wouldn't look good that the only American with three MOHs was Irish,especially given that some Irish had spoken out against joining the War to bail out the Brits. That's my theory anyway.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Tlotsi

    , @Anon
    @Mr McKenna

    New journalism that goes hand in hand with new Academia. From the inestimable Daily Mail:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8696547/GWU-professor-pretended-black-went-fee-paying-school-planned-flag-burning.html#comments

    , @MEH 0910
    @Mr McKenna

    David Pinsen Retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1301954003148902404

    Replies: @Charon, @Corvinus

    , @Corvinus
    @Mr McKenna

    It's not "New Journalism", it's simply journalism. The fact of the matter is that anyone associated with the Trump White House who dares to openly question Trump will get their b----/cli----- cut out. The level of detail provided by these sources, as well as the level of consistency in their accounts, demonstrates Trump's actual position regarding our military personnel.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  11. I think a lot of Americans would agree that our fighting in WWI was wrong, but that is no slur on the soldiers, sailors, and (a few) airmen of 103 years ago. However, the make-up of the current military is such that a big share of them don’t have any ancestors that were in this country during WWI, near as many in WWII and Korea, and still plenty in the Vietnam era.

    This David Brookes is just being silly thinking that a Trump tweet about the politics of American fighting in WWI means a damn thing to the regular army. They couldn’t name the timeframe within 1/2 a century and don’t give a damn to. They are in the military because there aren’t good jobs, it’s a leg-up in life, free college money, etc… that’s all.

    • Replies: @CAL2
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Trump didn't tweet that. An anonymous source said he said it. In other words, it is made up.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  12. anon[135] • Disclaimer says:

    I wonder if Brooks has the notion that if Trump wins, but its reasonably close, the media is just going to lie and declare Biden the winner? This could be in anticipation of that outcome, hoping the military leaders be willing to “believe the lie” the media feeds them, and removes Trump if he wont leave while there is a lawsuit over it, et cetera?

    • Replies: @Forbes
    @anon

    Trump won in 2016, and the media declared itself the opposition and conducted itself as the resistance. Why should 2020's outcome be any different...

    By the looks of it, the media and the Democrats are already planning more disruption and confusion, as in 2016 they were caught off-guard, assuming as they did the Hillary had it in the bag. Still they executed their Russian collusion hoax and attempted coup. Expect their efforts to be re-doubled this year.

  13. David Brooks sets up the scenario.

    Within weeks there are lawsuits and challenges everywhere. It’s like Florida in 2000, but the chaos is happening in many states at once. Ballots are getting tossed because of problems with signatures, or not getting tossed, amid national frenzy.

    Trump says he won’t let Democrats steal the election and declares himself re-elected. It’s an outrage, but as when he used the White House for a campaign prop during his convention, who’s going to stop him?

    (…) It’s time to start thinking about what you would do.

    As a propagandist, David Brooks is well situated. And he goes for very cheap.

  14. @nebulafox
    >Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    I believe that American intervention in WWI was a mistake, but that hardly means our fallen soldiers were "losers", Steve. And while I'm obviously going to need something far more credible than an anonymous State Department source for The Atlantic and the Washington Post of 2020 to believe this story, I also don't put it beyond Trump to blurt out something like that. The dude is crass and cynical enough to say it and vapidly self-absorbed enough to say it unguarded. I'm saying this as someone who tends to be very cynical of how the American political establishment uses the military.

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long. Vietnam-era anti-military sentiment was squashed during the party's Clintonian rehaul as part of the broader trend of embracing more muscular foreign policy, but there's never been anything like this. What's the deal? TDS? A military that is more to the Left's liking demographically?

    >“sober people who are militant about America”

    Are smart enough to not listen to the cheerleaders for Year 19 of Afghanistan, for starters.

    > It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package. What did you think was going to happen? "Identity politics for me but not for thee" never works, least of all for a country facing massive structural and socioeconomic rot.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @Redman, @Goddard, @Jack D, @Mike1

    “Identity politics for me but not for thee.” All the diversity the left championed for the last 60 years sowed the seeds of identity politics, even for whites.

    I liked civic nationalism. I grew up with civic nationalism. But that dog doesn’t hunt any more, and in the tribal world of the new America, which the left created, you find your tribe and you stick with its members. The two biggest groups among whites now are those who recognize the new reality and those who will later.

  15. @Thomas
    Apparently, the killer of the Trump supporter in Portland last weekend is doing press now. He's still free five days later.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-had-no-choice-i-mean-i-had-choice-portland-suspect-murder-trump-supporter-claims-self

    If the Big Luau is on its way, we seem to be in the Bleeding Kansas preliminaries.

    Replies: @anon, @D. K., @Thomas

    If it makes you feel any better, apparently he got killed by the cops.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1301724215553323009

    Wonder if we’ll see any riots for him.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @anon

    Here's a hint - the name of the movement is BLACK lives matter.

  16. @nebulafox
    >Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    I believe that American intervention in WWI was a mistake, but that hardly means our fallen soldiers were "losers", Steve. And while I'm obviously going to need something far more credible than an anonymous State Department source for The Atlantic and the Washington Post of 2020 to believe this story, I also don't put it beyond Trump to blurt out something like that. The dude is crass and cynical enough to say it and vapidly self-absorbed enough to say it unguarded. I'm saying this as someone who tends to be very cynical of how the American political establishment uses the military.

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long. Vietnam-era anti-military sentiment was squashed during the party's Clintonian rehaul as part of the broader trend of embracing more muscular foreign policy, but there's never been anything like this. What's the deal? TDS? A military that is more to the Left's liking demographically?

    >“sober people who are militant about America”

    Are smart enough to not listen to the cheerleaders for Year 19 of Afghanistan, for starters.

    > It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package. What did you think was going to happen? "Identity politics for me but not for thee" never works, least of all for a country facing massive structural and socioeconomic rot.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @Redman, @Goddard, @Jack D, @Mike1

    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?

    Psyop 2020. Get ready for the deep state blitz. They see the ship sinking even after russiagate, impeachment, coronahoax and summer of George. Wiley Coyote is pulling out his best Acme tricks for one last go at that damned orange bird.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    @Redman

    Allow me to sum up the first four years of the Trump administration versus all challengers:

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

    , @Not Raul
    @Redman


    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?
     
    No, it isn't out of character.

    Trump has a history of disrespecting veterans.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-insults-american-veterans-families-2019-10#in-october-2017-trump-forgot-the-name-of-slain-us-army-sgt-la-david-johnson-while-he-was-on-the-phone-with-his-widow-johnson-was-killed-in-an-ambush-in-niger-while-in-active-service-myeshia-johnson-said-the-call-with-trump-made-her-cry-and-that-trump-told-her-that-her-husband-knew-what-he-had-signed-up-for-6

    Replies: @The Real Jon, @Cloudbuster, @Joseph Doaks

    , @sayless
    @Redman

    After the 2016 election The Times published an assassination fantasy. Trump hadn't even assaulted anyone yet.

    That appeal to patriotism is hypocritical coming from anyone who writes for The Times which has been attacking the country's past and present relentlessly, and its white population.

    On another site, I read that the election can only be stolen if it's close, like three percentage points difference, and that this one won't be close. That the internal polling data of both parties shows Trump winning in a landslide. So maybe Dave will have to leave the country.

    Still don't understand Biden/Harris. He's ill and she's not presentable. What are the Democrats thinking?

    The Atlantic made that quote up.

  17. This Atlantic article will just reaffirm a lot of moderate support for Trump. *Gasp* With his view on WWI Trump has something in common with great historical menaces like Tolkien and F. Scott Fitzgerald!

  18. Apparently the Atlantic thought WWI was futile back in 2014, too. Hah.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/375103/

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @S. Anonyia

    >But the deeper causes?

    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @sayless

  19. Who has time to waste reading the musings of a loser like David Brooks?

    • Agree: Bugg, Not Raul
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    @Ret. Army Colonel

    Millions, unfortunately. Which is the problem.

    , @Dale Gribble
    @Ret. Army Colonel

    Sir, I remember hearing a version of what Brooks and "senior officials" accuse Trump of saying about war casualties every day from my Drill Sergeants and Ranger Instructors. Am I wrong?

  20. It was cynical yet predictable for a globalist like (((Mr. Brooks))) to appeal to “ardent patriotism” or “love of nation.” For one thing, I’ve fallen OUT of love with this country, but, unlike in (((Mr. Brooks’))) case, it’s the only one I’ve got–Dunkerque, Memel or Hungnam without the rescue flotilla. And I’ll be damned if I’ll be shunted aside or marginalized into dhimmitude by a coalition of global capitalists, neo-communists, Alphabet Nation weirdos and Third World flotsam and jetsam demanding to live lives of subsidized and entitled exile in this country. Not that it matters to me, but if (((Mr. Brooks))) prefers the diaspora life, he should hope that Flyover Nation prevails in 2020 and in subsequent elections,

    • Replies: @Bugg
    @36 ulster

    And like his son, he can always get a one way ticket form JFK to Israel.

  21. People, can we calm down and back off?

    Sorry Steve, no use arguing with the “I’m With Her” zombie Karens (and beta male liberals.) If there’s an “accidental” lithium-drug shortage this election stuff will get even crazier.

  22. @Thomas
    Apparently, the killer of the Trump supporter in Portland last weekend is doing press now. He's still free five days later.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-had-no-choice-i-mean-i-had-choice-portland-suspect-murder-trump-supporter-claims-self

    If the Big Luau is on its way, we seem to be in the Bleeding Kansas preliminaries.

    Replies: @anon, @D. K., @Thomas

    Not anymore, he’s not:

    • LOL: Thomas
    • Replies: @danand
    @D. K.

    NYT:


    By Mike Baker, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner
    Published Sept. 3, 2020
Updated Sept. 4, 2020, 12:29 a.m. ET

    SEATTLE — An antifa activist being investigated in the fatal shooting of a right-wing counterprotester who was part of a pro-Trump caravan in Portland, Ore., was killed on Thursday night when authorities moved to arrest him, according to four law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

    The officials said the suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was shot by officers from a federal fugitive task force during the encounter in Lacey, Wash., southwest of Seattle.

    An arrest warrant had been issued by the Portland police earlier Thursday, on the same day that Vice News published an interview with Mr. Reinoehl in which he appeared to admit to the shooting, saying, “I had no choice.”
     

    Reinoehl left behind 2 teenage daughters.

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @Pericles, @Anon

  23. Well yes. What was the point of the US going into WWI, President Wilson? So you could strut and fret your hour upon the stage, pal?

    Much better would be for the Euro powers to bleed themselves to a standstill. And then go home.

    Then no Hitler, no Holocaust. Imagine.

    • Replies: @Skylark Thibedeau
    @Christopher Chantrill

    The point was to save the investment of U.S. Banks and Financiers who had loaned tons of money to Britain and France.

    , @Neuday
    @Christopher Chantrill


    Well yes. What was the point of the US going into WWI, President Wilson? So you could strut and fret your hour upon the stage, pal?
     
    With the Balfour Declaration Britain promised Lord Rothschild that Britain supported a Palestinian state for the Jews. Wilson's financial backers were heavily Jewish. Wilson also appointed the first Jewish judge on the Supreme Court, the first of many. Then there's the establishment of the Fed, and Wilson's support of the 19th Amendment, and establishment of the Federal income tax. Also, the entirely unreasonable reparations Germany had to pay were handled, with significant complexity, by a certain group of people who seem to be drawn toward large, complex financial transactions. Wilson originally opposed the extent of the German reparations but one of his senior advisors of a certain background was adamantly in favor and Wilson signed off on the treaty.

    Anyway, the point of us going into WWI was because the perfidious Jews wanted us there, and Wilson was a pawn of the tribe.

    Replies: @LondonBob

  24. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to David Brooks that, with the Democrats having implicitly given their approval of “fighting in the streets” tactics, DJT may be on his way to reelection — and not by a hair, or a hanging chad, either. Polls notoriously undercount likely Trump voters, who know by now not to tell anyone (sometimes not even their spouse) how they intend to vote.

    Brooks makes much of “the preservation of constitutional order.” Is he prepared to lecture all good patriots that, if Trump again wins a majority in the Electoral College yet loses the popular vote by several million (most of which will be the margins of victory for Biden in California and New York), they must accept this result as constitutionally legitimate, and stop all attempts to reverse the electoral outcome by other means?

    Nah, didn’t think so. David: shut up and eat your shiksa.

  25. The decision of the US to intervene in the First World War was the proximate cause of all the rest of the horrors of the twentieth century. Perhaps the Spanish Civil War would still have been fought.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @JMcG

    The decision of Germany to start WWI, refuse all peace offers and then sponsor Lenin is the source of all evils in that century, America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  26. Steve, 4 anonymous sources to support an anti-Trump article by a #NeverTrumper writing for the communist Atlantic that celebrated the “genius” of Tennessee Coates isn’t going to convince anyone rational to stop supporting Trump or to support a coup that previously they didn’t support.

    It’s laughable this is even trending now. Biden or one of their BLM-Antifa goons must’ve done something really senile they’re trying to cover for at the moment.

    • Replies: @Patrick Sullivan
    @R.G. Camara

    If you don't believe my four anonymous sources then surely you'll believe eight anonymous sources. If not, I can give you 16, 32, or 512. Just tell me how much skepticism you have and I'll tell you how many anonymous sources have confirmed my story!

    See also: Tell us how many votes the Republicans got in that state and then we'll back up our truck full of Democrat votes.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  27. @Thomas
    Apparently, the killer of the Trump supporter in Portland last weekend is doing press now. He's still free five days later.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-had-no-choice-i-mean-i-had-choice-portland-suspect-murder-trump-supporter-claims-self

    If the Big Luau is on its way, we seem to be in the Bleeding Kansas preliminaries.

    Replies: @anon, @D. K., @Thomas

    Of course, the best opportunity to find out whether he was part of an organized kill team as has been suggested just went to the same place Jeffrey Epstein went.

  28. Anon[735] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: This is great. “George Washington University professor says she lied about being black.”

    “Jessica Krug, an associate professor at George Washington University, admitted that she was in fact a white Jewish woman from Kansas City. Jessica Krug said she had falsely assumed identities “that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54008495

    It must have been the Jewfro hair that helped her out.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @Anon


    Jessica Krug said she had falsely assumed identities “that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness.”
     
    I've seen all of these attributed to Kamala Harris. Where's her apology?
  29. I see that David Brooks and Jeffrey Goldberg, among others, are Ready For Some Football™. Outstanding. Are they also prepped for emergency aliyah?

    • Agree: Gordo
    • LOL: Svigor
  30. I wish that Donald Trump was half as ruthless, competent and determined a warrior for the interests of the historic American nation as these neurotic pundits think he is.

  31. As far as the OP and David Brooks are concerned, I’ll just note that, technically, the Smith Act is still on the books.

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

    • Thanks: sayless
  32. @Ret. Army Colonel
    Who has time to waste reading the musings of a loser like David Brooks?

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Dale Gribble

    Millions, unfortunately. Which is the problem.

  33. Anon[735] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: About fake (flake?) black Jessica Krug from Rate My Professors: She has a 2.5 out of 5.

    “If you are looking to learn World History then AVOID this class. Krug’s lectures are a jumble of extremely specific and irrelevant facts that follow absolutely no chronological order. She is also very bad at giving directions for assignments and there is a clear disconnect between her and the TAs (who I feel are at times as confused as the students.”

    “Straight up bad. She’s an awful professor. I went to every lecture and will probably end up with an A because I do what’s asked of me, but I can say that I haven’t learned one thing in this class all semester and I’m upset about it.”

    “Krug’s lectures are very off topic and hard to pay attention to. By the end of the semester, barely half of the class showed up for lecture, as it was a waste of time. ”

    It seems she wouldn’t have a career if it weren’t for her claim to be black.

    • LOL: El Dato
  34. Brooks really really likes his NYT job so he’s pedalling furiously to make sure he doesn’t go the way of Bari Weiss.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @International Jew

    Bari Weiss wasn't fired.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @International Jew

    , @Bill
    @International Jew

    It's interesting to think about the fact that David Brooks replaced William Safire. Both mouthpieces for their faction of the deep state, but what a difference in talent. It can't be fun being David Brooks. I mean, he certainly knows how poorly he fills Safire's shoes.

  35. I told you told you told you.

    I called that when the chair of the Joint Chiefs apologized for standing with Trump and threatened privately to Trump to remove him.

    Even if Trump ekes out a victory, Dems will riot, stage assassination via anti fa: likely Tucker, Coulter, Barr, Buchanon, and Cruz. Then the Joint Chiefs will remove Trump by force. Biden of course will claim victory regardless. And the election will be close: White women hate Trump and most White men and love BLM.

    We are already in a civil war. We have been since 2016. Time to recognize reality.

    They via anti fa can kill you any time and will. You cannot defend yourself even in your own home even if you are lucky enough to be black. See Mr. Jacki Lacey.

    This is reality. the deep state wants trump gone and Deplorable s crushed. He’s one man. They control pretty much everything.

    And yes this is the inevitable results if Civil Rights. Civil Rights requires destroying Deplorable s.

    • Replies: @OilcanFloyf
    @Whiskey


    And the election will be close: White women hate Trump and most White men and love BLM.
     
    How could the election be close if most white women hate Trump and most white men love BLM? Who would be left to vote for Trump?
  36. Now I’m really hoping for a Trump win. Bring it! Let’s have it out once and for all.

  37. Interesting how (((NY))) keystone kops pull one right out of a (((Law & Order))) headline at the perfect time to drive the heroics of Rittenhouse and the assassination from ambush of Aaron Danielson by antifa off the front page.

    Apparently, the killer of the Trump supporter in Portland last weekend is doing press now. He’s still free five days later.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-had-no-choice-i-mean-i-had-choice-portland-suspect-murder-trump-supporter-claims-self

    If the Big Luau is on its way, we seem to be in the Bleeding Kansas preliminaries.

    They immediately charged Rittenhouse for unquestionable textbook self-defense but this guy’s still free on the street after unquestionable murder from ambush.

    USA. USA. USA.

  38. Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    Yes. That line came from a propaganda piece in the Atlantic (is there any other kind?) by Jeffrey Goldberg – a man who views the American military as nothing more than cannon fodder for the country to which he actually owes allegiance. The hypocrisy of a lot of these people in the media is disgusting.

    If Trump should win, and admittedly it the changes of that don’t look good, all those Republicans who are coming out in support of Biden need to be expelled from the Party. Whitman, Weld, Flake, Kasich – all of these useless, corrupt, establishment stooges. They never conserved anything. They never wanted to.

  39. Or not. Reinoehl retired while resisting arrest. Hey, gotta give credit where due – he didn’t go quietly. Probably thought something really delusional, like the “evil huwhite injustice system” would railroad his rebel self, or something.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arrest-portland-shooting.html

    This lunatic had a daughter to raise, and he just goes out and murders some poor random Trump-supporting sap in cold blood from ambush just because he’s mad that Rittenhouse dropped 3 total lowlifes in an absolutely textbook case of self-defense. Then as icing on the cake he commits suicide by cop. Oy.

    US Marshalls went to arrest him

    Feds, but not FBI. Yeah, that makes sense; locals are under thumb of Democrats and FBI are under thumb of ADL/antifa. Surprised Trump had the gonads. Guess even he knows a hundred polls can’t be wrong.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Svigor

    "3000 miles to Antifaland"

  40. @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    Idk about you but I trust everything they tell me.

    Why you might not know that Trump is threatening your Social Security Sept. 3, 2020

    One way U.S. voters are being played during this presidential election campaign is the deceitful manner in which key issues are being framed for their consumption. Arguably the biggest and most important of these concerns the so-called “third rail” of American politics: Social Security.

    President Donald Trump has vowed to kill funding for this critical, gargantuan program that nearly 70 million Americans depend on.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-might-not-know-that-trump-is-threatening-your-social-security-2020-09-02

    [MORE]

    Journalist also has this to say about covid:

    Yet as of this writing, the U.S., with about 4% of the world’s population, has more than six million cases — one of every four on the planet.

  41. @D. K.
    @Thomas

    Not anymore, he’s not:

    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1301725054095351808

    Replies: @danand

    NYT:

    By Mike Baker, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner
    Published Sept. 3, 2020
Updated Sept. 4, 2020, 12:29 a.m. ET

    SEATTLE — An antifa activist being investigated in the fatal shooting of a right-wing counterprotester who was part of a pro-Trump caravan in Portland, Ore., was killed on Thursday night when authorities moved to arrest him, according to four law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

    The officials said the suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was shot by officers from a federal fugitive task force during the encounter in Lacey, Wash., southwest of Seattle.

    An arrest warrant had been issued by the Portland police earlier Thursday, on the same day that Vice News published an interview with Mr. Reinoehl in which he appeared to admit to the shooting, saying, “I had no choice.”

    Reinoehl left behind 2 teenage daughters.

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    @danand

    It's a tragedy that this idiot devoted himself to a nihilistic cause and reaped what he had sowed. I feel bad for his daughters. It definitely sounds like the guy had checked out being a parent for some time.

    I also feel bad for the marshals who had to shoot this jamoke dead. It's not easy to have a person's life on your conscience, even when it's self-defense.

    , @Pericles
    @danand

    From the Vice interview (ick, I feel dirty):

    The antifa hitman confesses.



    Bystander video from multiple angles show a man who resembles Reinoehl and appears to have the same neck tattoo fire two shots at Danielson and then walk away. “I was confident that I did not hit anyone innocent and I made my exit,” he said.

     

    The killer afterwards seemed to suffer from paranoia.

    Since the shooting, Reinoehl said he’s gone into hiding, and moved his children to a safe place after shots were fired into his house just hours after the incident. “They're out hunting me,” he said. “There's nightly posts of the hunt and where they're going to be hunting. They made a post saying the deer are going to feel lucky this year because it's open season on Michael right now.”
    He has not turned himself in, he said, because he believes right-wing protesters are collaborating with police, who will not protect him or his family.

     

    The anarchist complained about the lack of an active police presence.


    He said at the time of the confrontation and the shooting, there were no police present to help. “There was definitely nobody in sight, no police officer, nobody at all that could intervene. It was a free-for-all. And the police were letting it happen,” he said.

     

    and finally

    “Honestly, I hate to say it, but I see a civil war right around the corner,” he said. “That that shot felt like the beginning of a war.”

     

    You might not have been wrong there but in all honesty yours was just the second shot, at best. Rest in pieces.
    , @Anon
    @danand

    His daughters are lucky to be free of the crazy leftist nutjob of a father. With him gone, they can start returning to a life of sanity. He was the sort of guy who was already pushing his daughters into crazy confrontations that might have gotten them killed. There's a photo of one of his daughters with a gun at one of the riots. He was a lousy father and a very demented man.

  42. Well, the race war seems to be sputtering. What other conflict can the Dems stir up? A constitutional crisis, perhaps? A military takeover? Ketchup on hot dogs?

    Based on what I’ve seen in the last four years, everything that the Dems and media can say along the lines of “Orange Man Bad” will entirely dominate our public discourse.

    • Replies: @Anon7
    @Anon7

    Would you believe a two year-old story about Trump, disrespecting WWI vets and his hair?

    Seems like a low-energy hoax to me. Will this one last the news cycle?

  43. @Redman
    @nebulafox

    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?

    Psyop 2020. Get ready for the deep state blitz. They see the ship sinking even after russiagate, impeachment, coronahoax and summer of George. Wiley Coyote is pulling out his best Acme tricks for one last go at that damned orange bird.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Not Raul, @sayless

    Allow me to sum up the first four years of the Trump administration versus all challengers:

  44. (Oh, so 2 daughters. JFC.)

    It doesn’t seem to have occurred to David Brooks that, with the Democrats having implicitly given their approval of “fighting in the streets” tactics, DJT may be on his way to reelection — and not by a hair, or a hanging chad, either. Polls notoriously undercount likely Trump voters, who know by now not to tell anyone (sometimes not even their spouse) how they intend to vote.

    GOPers smug in their predictions of certain victory for Trump and their assumption that (((TPTB))) cannot and did not fix this systemic error in the polling data seem a bit naive to me – like Democrats on a certain night in November.

    That said, it does seem to have occurred to the Democrats. They seem to be in the process of correcting. And, I mean, let’s face it, a perspicacity index of Democrats/Republicans>Brooks wouldn’t be a yuge surprise. Also, consider the idea that some people will probably be less reticent to admit their Trump support in 2020 than they were in 2018; the type less embarrassed by flouting (((respectable))) opinion than they are at the prospect of making risky prognostications – everybody saw in 2018 that a Trump win is more than possible.

    shut up and eat your shiksa.

    Oy gevalt! 😀

  45. They really are starting to believe their own bull shat.

  46. The most insane thing in the world must be to talk yourself into a civil war against people who just want to be left alone.

    And yet here we are.

    • Replies: @Grey Ghost
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Oh, but it happened back in 1861 when Lincoln convinced the USA to invade the seceding Southern states who just wanted to be left alone

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  47. Do most enlisted think WWI was totes great?

    Do most lib elites think these diffuse/outlier red-diaper-ZIP riots with 45-year-old “students,” skatepunks, and summer-stock licensed activists (plus smartphone-guided shoplifters) resemble 1960s/1970s riots?

  48. @Redman
    @nebulafox

    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?

    Psyop 2020. Get ready for the deep state blitz. They see the ship sinking even after russiagate, impeachment, coronahoax and summer of George. Wiley Coyote is pulling out his best Acme tricks for one last go at that damned orange bird.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Not Raul, @sayless

    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?

    No, it isn’t out of character.

    Trump has a history of disrespecting veterans.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-insults-american-veterans-families-2019-10#in-october-2017-trump-forgot-the-name-of-slain-us-army-sgt-la-david-johnson-while-he-was-on-the-phone-with-his-widow-johnson-was-killed-in-an-ambush-in-niger-while-in-active-service-myeshia-johnson-said-the-call-with-trump-made-her-cry-and-that-trump-told-her-that-her-husband-knew-what-he-had-signed-up-for-6

    • Disagree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @The Real Jon
    @Not Raul

    There is really no bottom to the dishonor and degeneracy of the "Myeshia Johnsons" of the world and to the fellow white people who elicit and repeat their garbage.

    , @Cloudbuster
    @Not Raul

    The question that never gets dealt with is "What business do we have sending US soldiers to Niger?"

    The Business Insider article you quote is simply an anti-Trump hit piece that itself uses contested and out-of-context accusations by people who have an axe to grind with Trump. The mainstream media is poison.

    The method: Construct poorly-supported accusations against Trump, then use those accusations later when details are fuzzier as support for future accusations. It's a twist on The Big Lie.

    , @Joseph Doaks
    @Not Raul

    No, the media has a history of accusing Trump of disrespecting veterans.

  49. @International Jew
    Brooks really really likes his NYT job so he's pedalling furiously to make sure he doesn't go the way of Bari Weiss.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Bill

    Bari Weiss wasn’t fired.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    @Not Raul

    She was drummed out.

    , @International Jew
    @Not Raul

    I didn't say she was. She left after her colleagues made life miserable for her.

    Replies: @Not Raul

  50. Brooks’s entire premise is a mess. Suggesting that all that’s been going on is “a few
    Marches in the streets;” that somehow this is all about a rainbow coalition against white supremacy; taking it for granted both that Trump will rightfully lose and refuse to give up power. It’s a hodgepodge of all the half digested ideals of woke America wrapped up in a paranoid fever dream. And unfortunately this insanity has gone mainline.

    • Replies: @S
    @John Milton’s Ghost


    It’s a hodgepodge of all the half digested ideals of woke America wrapped up in a paranoid fever dream. And unfortunately this insanity has gone mainline.
     
    If a person wants insight into the delusion and paranoia driving the 'woke' mentality, study Jonestown, the forerunner and mother of all 'automomous zones', and the events there. Bear in mind, unlike the treatment afforded to most cult leaders and cults, ie rejection, the progressive left establishment embraced the People's Temple, Jones, and Jonestown, right up to the very end, the late US Democratic Congressman Leo Ryan being an example.

    Had this Michael Reinoehl been around in 1978, he would of found a place right at home with Jones' 'Red Brigrade' security, and drank the kool aid.

    In line with that, I'll post a few excerpts from Annie Moore's suicide note. She was Jones 24 year old nurse at Jonestown, and the very last to suicide there.

    "I am at a point right now so embittered against the world that I don’t know why I am writing this. Someone who finds it will believe I am crazy or believe in the barbed wire that does NOT exist in Jonestown."

    "It seems that everything good that happens to the world is under constant attack. When I write this, I can expect some mentally deranged fascist person to find it and decide it should be thrown in the trash before anyone gets a chance to hear the truth — which is what I am now writing about."

    "His [Jones] hatred of racism, sexism, elitism, and mainly classism, is what prompted him to make a new world for the people — a paradise in the jungle. The children loved it. So did everyone else."

    "There were no ugly, mean police waiting to beat our heads in, no more racist stares from whites and others who thought they were better. No one was made fun of for their appearance — something each one had no control over."

    "Meanness and making fun were not allowed. Maybe this is why all the lies were started – besides the fact that no one was allowed to live higher than anyone else. The United States allows classism, the problem being this and not all the side tracks of black power, woman power, Indian power, gay power."
     

    "Jim Jones showed us all this — that we could live together with our differences, that we are all the same – human beings. Luckily, we were more fortunate than the starving babies of Ethiopia and the starving babies in the United States."

    "What a beautiful place this was. The children loved the jungle, learned about animals and plants. There were no cars to run over them; no child-molesters to molest them; nobody to hurt them. They were the freest, most intelligent children I had ever known."

    "Seniors had dignity. They had whatever they wanted — a plot of land for a garden. Seniors were treated with respect — something they never had in the United States. A rare few were sick, and when they were, they were given the best medical care."

    “We died because you would not let us live in peace!" [Signed] Annie Moore.”
     
    https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=13939
  51. The main message being sent here is to the rest of the national media: start preparing the public for either a military coup or a civil war in case Trump wins the election.

    • Replies: @Dube
    @DextersLabRat

    The main message being sent here is to the rest of the national media: start preparing the public for either a military coup or a civil war in case Trump wins the election.

    Quite so. Brooks' piece is a directive.

  52. Jeffery Goldberg is a bald-faced liar.

    • Replies: @Voltarde
    @anonymous

    Mickey Kaus reminds us of Goldberg's credibility.
    http://www.kausfiles.com/


    Aflatoxin
    By JEFFREY GOLDBERG
    OCT 03, 2002
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/10/aflatoxin.html

    David Plotz has offered a not-unconvincing argument for Saddam’s removal, but let me offer a better one: aflatoxin.
     
    , @Jack D
    @anonymous

    All the people kvetching now about Trump not going would have been delighted if he had gotten into that helicopter and done a Kobe Bryant. Then they would have kvetched about how he had been given advice not to go but insisted on going anyway. If he had made it to the cemetery that day and given a patriotic speech that day about our fallen soldiers, they would have written about how WWI was a pointless war in which America should never have been involved. In case you haven't noticed, whatever Trump does is wrong.

    , @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Their 'sources' are what they pulled out of their rectum.

    Replies: @Patrick in SC

  53. Brooks…

    There may have to be a sustained campaign of civic action, as in Hong Kong…

    So that would be the campaign that used months of street demonstrations to persuade the wise Communist Party Chairman Xi to intervene in Hong Kong, in a paternal fashion, reluctantly but firmly, to preserve Chinese democracy there against sedition and terrorism by local traitors doing the bidding of hostile foreign powers… right, Mr. Brooks?

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Veracitor

    Washington Post outlines bizarrely detailed post-election apocalypse...unless Biden scores a landslide victory


    To those wondering how the TIP could predict the actions of the Trump administration on election night and beyond, they simply asked anti-Trump pundit Bill Kristol and former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele to play as the president.
     
    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1301517664465158145

    [[[Revolutionary Colors Intensifiying; Dying in Darkness Promised]]]

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  54. @danand
    @D. K.

    NYT:


    By Mike Baker, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner
    Published Sept. 3, 2020
Updated Sept. 4, 2020, 12:29 a.m. ET

    SEATTLE — An antifa activist being investigated in the fatal shooting of a right-wing counterprotester who was part of a pro-Trump caravan in Portland, Ore., was killed on Thursday night when authorities moved to arrest him, according to four law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

    The officials said the suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was shot by officers from a federal fugitive task force during the encounter in Lacey, Wash., southwest of Seattle.

    An arrest warrant had been issued by the Portland police earlier Thursday, on the same day that Vice News published an interview with Mr. Reinoehl in which he appeared to admit to the shooting, saying, “I had no choice.”
     

    Reinoehl left behind 2 teenage daughters.

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @Pericles, @Anon

    It’s a tragedy that this idiot devoted himself to a nihilistic cause and reaped what he had sowed. I feel bad for his daughters. It definitely sounds like the guy had checked out being a parent for some time.

    I also feel bad for the marshals who had to shoot this jamoke dead. It’s not easy to have a person’s life on your conscience, even when it’s self-defense.

  55. From 2019:

    Spare Me Your Moralizing, David Brooks

    In an August 1st opinion piece for the New York Times, David Brooks once again demonstrates that his grasp on basic American principles is shockingly weak. Mr. Brooks has built an entire career writing smooth words to draw adulation from the Manhattan cocktail set, while reciprocally assuring them that their modern liberal values — vacillating and untethered though they may be — are morally superior to any known alternatives.

    In Marianne Williamson Knows How to Beat Trump: We need an uprising of decency. Brooks, in his signature fashion, simply assumes the moral high ground — not through the measured steps of rational argument — but through haughty admonition. The problem, he insists, is Donald Trump: “we are all subtly corrupted while this guy is our leader.”

    Though it is tempting to think that Brooks is driven more by a desire to give his fawning readers a steady diet of pabulum than he is with tackling these serious questions, I will take him at face-value. I will accept that he sincerely believes the erosion of our basic rights and freedoms is a fair price to pay for our nation’s ‘moral redemption’. I will also take Brooks at his word when, at the conclusion of his article, he puts a positive spin on the piece by sharing his notion of American values. What follows, according to Brooks, are the basic values we, as Americans, all share: Unity, Honesty, Pluralism, Sympathy, and Opportunity. (Uh… come again?)

    Forgive me, but I cannot keep from chuckling at the thought of the well-educated David Brooks struggling to flush out these five words from the recesses of his mind: “Come on, David, you can do this! What words should you declare as the five, fundamental American values?” (I dare say that this is the sort of thing that can result when coastal elites have patted you on the back one too many times; the inflated sense of your intelligence prohibits you from either questioning your gut instincts, or from tapping in to the existent intelligence of others.)

    For what it’s worth, none of the five words Brooks has anointed are mentioned in our ultimate ‘shared-values’ document: the Constitution. This begs the obvious question: why would anyone expend energy restating our American values when they are already on full display? The Constitution, which contains all its amendments, is eminently flexible; Mr. Brooks can campaign to change its wording at any time. But the basic values that undergird the most intelligent and ideologically sound blueprint of governance ever conceived are immutable. We are, and always should be, a nation designed to promote the equal application of liberty, law, and justice.

    David Brooks Today:

    The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once argued that sin is buried so deep in the human soul that sweet words are insufficient to get people to give up their unjust power. “Instead of assured progress in wisdom and decency,” he wrote, “man faces the ever-present possibility of a swift relapse not merely to animalism, but into such calculated cruelty as no other animal can practice.”

    But the realist militants who walk in King’s shadow [where are those?] also know that it is the U.S. Constitution that keeps us from slipping into chaos, along with all the norms and values built around it over the centuries. They know, too, that this crisis is not just about race, but also the greatness of American institutions, so scorned and derided of late, so neglected and abused.

    Random words for the NYT sermon, really.

  56. @Veracitor
    Brooks...

    There may have to be a sustained campaign of civic action, as in Hong Kong…
     
    So that would be the campaign that used months of street demonstrations to persuade the wise Communist Party Chairman Xi to intervene in Hong Kong, in a paternal fashion, reluctantly but firmly, to preserve Chinese democracy there against sedition and terrorism by local traitors doing the bidding of hostile foreign powers... right, Mr. Brooks?

    Replies: @El Dato

    Washington Post outlines bizarrely detailed post-election apocalypse…unless Biden scores a landslide victory

    To those wondering how the TIP could predict the actions of the Trump administration on election night and beyond, they simply asked anti-Trump pundit Bill Kristol and former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele to play as the president.

    [[[Revolutionary Colors Intensifiying; Dying in Darkness Promised]]]

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @El Dato


    In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically.
     
    Besides that their scenario is based on the word of people who hate Trump, keep in mind that "catastrophically" for them can include "triumphantly" for us.

    If you look at the actual article, you can see that it is constructed mostly from inversions of reality:

    In each scenario, Team Trump ... was ruthless and unconstrained right out of the gate,
     
    —so, exactly the opposite of the last four years—

    and Team Biden struggled to get out of reaction mode. ... Over and over, Team Biden urged calm,
     
    —that must be a new thing they plan to roll out later—

    national unity and a fair vote count, while Team Trump issued barely disguised calls for violence and intimidation against ballot-counting officials and Biden electors. In every exercise, both teams sought to mobilize their supporters to take to the streets.
     
    Dem supporters are already on the streets in enormous force.

    Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests,
     
    —if so, it would have to be in the "mostly peaceful [wink, wink] protest" format—

    while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence,
     
    —as has never happened—

    then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to “restore order,” leading to still more violence.
     
    —aka, the standard Dem playbook.

    Etc.
  57. That Army Times poll was pushed hard a few days ago, and it really feels like fake news to me. If it is battlespace preparation for what happens after the mail in fraud election, 2021 is gonna suck even more than 2020.

  58. Isn’t WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    I’m not saying it’s right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened. The end of the Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, rise of communism in Russia, checking of the power of a unified Germany and potential invasion of France were all quite important things.

    But the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere is that it was a horrible, pointless waste due to none of those countries ever being threatened with invasion and due to the image of the ‘pointless’ meat-grinder trench warfare of the Western front.

    Indeed, this is the normal totally uncontroversial opinion in Britain of the war. Somebody opining the opposite would be likely to get the side-eye from the media and if they were a Tory, to get pilloried by the progressive press.

    It’s actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    • Agree: Servant of Gla'aki
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Altai

    >Isn’t WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    Most Americans are not that historically literate, which is ironic considering that the Meuse-Argonne Offensive remains to this day the deadliest campaign in American military history. I remember walking through the memorial at Antietam, but that was only a single day, the MA offensive was a whole month.

    >I’m not saying it’s right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened.

    What's fascinating is that all the leading actors in the July Crisis framed things completely from a defensive perspective. None of the high-flying offensive fantasies that were common in antebellum European capitals (Germany's December 1912 cabinet meeting, Russian ambitions for the Dardanelles, Načertanije in Belgrade, etc) were on anybody's mind: everybody was scared, defensive, engrossed by their own domestic issues, in some cases trying to preserve their careers, and often genuinely believed things about the other actors that were completely false. The Russians weren't *lying* about seeing the hand of Berlin through everything Vienna did that month, for example, they genuinely believed that. But they were completely wrong.

    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.

    >It’s actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Bipartisan elite arguments about how the world works would not have been all that out of place in progressive pro-war arguments in 1916, down to the un-nuanced moralizing and pseudo-scientific "right side of history" thinking. You can even go further back to the Yugoslav wars.

    If you can't necessarily forgive the statesmen of Europe for making the choices they did in July of 1914, then at least we can understand that they would have never made those choices if they saw what it would lead to. But the US knew already what the war was about...

    Replies: @Gordo, @Altai

    , @Bill
    @Altai

    This is nothing new for them. Neocons consider WWI and especially America's participation in it a very good thing. Wilson is one of their heroes. They are an utter freak show.

    Replies: @Tlotsi

    , @anon
    @Altai

    The bright side to WWI is that few of the people living today would be ever have been born. Not in the nations affected by the war, anyway. Great grandfather Harry might never have met great grandmother Sally. Or if they did meet, the ripples of time changed by the wars caused temporal dislocations that might have meant that another Harry the spermatozoa met another Sally the egg. And thus producing a different person. An alternate timeline sibling.

    A whole lot of other people would have been born if not for WWI. But they of course are not around to complain or comment about not ever being born.

    And of course, for all we know, WWI might have saved humanity from total extinction in a nuclear holocaust sometime later in the 20th century.

    Replies: @Gabe Ruth

  59. They understand that, like so many American tragedies, this is largely about race. It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    In other words: Some gentiles aren’t completely on board with the Jewish program of population replacement and would like to keep their nation. The horror, the horror!

    You’d sort of think this is a highly legitimate point of view. One that would be … the default view!

    In fact, population replacement is something that naturally only happens when you lose a war–are invaded and defeated. It’s not even something that a free republic in free, open, honest discussion and debate would ever do to itself. It’s self-abnegation.

    ~

    I think “white-dominated America” is America. I.e. America is part of the West–Western Christian civilization. And i’m pretty sure that that is why America is nice–peaceful (once upon a time), prosperous and free. And yeah, i like it that way and am opposed to changing that to a new “diverse”–i.e. highly Latinized–nation. And it seems my preferences aren’t exactly unique. In fact, my preference for a white America seems to be shared by Latinos themselves as they’ve gone to the trouble of dumping their Latino homelands to come up to white America … presumably because it is better!

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @AnotherDad


    In fact, population replacement is something that naturally only happens when you lose a war–are invaded and defeated.
     
    But a momentous change happened in the 20th century. People who want to destroy nations discovered it's easier to sleepwalk them into extinction by opening the borders than to launch a military invasion. Once people know they're at war, it galvanises them into action, but they can be lulled into complacency about immigration.

    Replies: @Rob

  60. Ironic that Jeffrey Goldberg is pushing reverence for veterans of the US military, seeing as how he enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces, the army of a foreign nation, his own ethnic kin, instead of the US Armed Forces. Goldberg was born and bred in Brooklyn, NY, a citizen of the USA, not of Israel. Were white gentiles to dedicate military careers to defending THEIR ethnic kin, I have a feeling Goldberg would be quite uncharitable in his condemnation.

    David Brooks also has an American born and raised son serving in the Israeli military.

    Maybe these two individuals should keep their mouths shut on this delicate topic, lest some blowback drift in their direction? I see the Appelbaums, Ornsteins, Kristols are Rubins all braying the same tune under Goldberg’s baton. Does America still listen to these people, is the question.

    • Thanks: Gordo
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Ted Plank

    Neurotic neoliberals/neocons listen to these people. My sister is one. My best "friend" (whose TDS has reached nuclear levels) is another.

    As for the risk of blowback, it's 2020. The power of their tribe is so entrenched that very few dare criticize them (except as "white people"), and the daring ones who do are discredited (or worse) with virtually no effort.

    Remember, Eric Trump, the son of the "evil Nazi" these people incessantly kvetch about, publically called for David Duke to be murdered for the sin of criticizing Eric's favorite Levantine tribe. Did Bad Orange Man punish Eric in any way for that horrifying statement? It sure doesn't seem like it.

    , @anonymous
    @Ted Plank


    Ironic that Jeffrey Goldberg is pushing reverence for veterans of the US military, seeing as how he enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces, the army of a foreign nation, his own ethnic kin, instead of the US Armed Forces. Goldberg was born and bred in Brooklyn, NY, a citizen of the USA, not of Israel. Were white gentiles to dedicate military careers to defending THEIR ethnic kin, I have a feeling Goldberg would be quite uncharitable in his condemnation.
     
    Jeffrey Goldberg is a classic negative Jewish stereotype. The manifest of character that Hitler attempted to warn the world about. I certainly hope that old saying, "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" pans out in his case.

    He's truly an old-timey Jewish piece of shit.
  61. This is really infuriating. If the AP can confirm the accuracy of the Atlantic article they need to prove it now or shut up.

    I don’t know enough about libel and slander laws, but this level of BS seems to cross the threshold even for public figures.

    However, maybe it will end up energizing Trump even more. He seems to draw power out of these kinds of things.

  62. @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    Anyway, Goldberg is “New Journalism” at its finest: “These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.”

    Impossible at The Atlantic before when? – 2016, when Goldberg became editor in chief? Or earlier?

    A public sphere needs decency. It thrives on it. In a democracy al least. That’s what The Atlantic stood for. – Then came postmodernism, opening the floodgates of a strategic approach to truth, honor, decency etc. . Thus those once fundamental normative ideas became mere means to win an intellectual fight.

    The latest turn was the racial one, declaring the traditional set of values a democracy rests on to be – – white (this is still happening in the postmodern/deconstructivist framework).

  63. Holy shit.

    Has any group of people ever been as dangerous as the neocons? Other cabals didn’t have access to the most powerful military in the world, a defacto global hegemon and thermo nuclear weapons.

  64. anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    Sources speaking on condition of anonymity inform me Jeffrey Goldberg eats kittens for breakfast and puppies for lunch. Other anonymous sources have discussed his after-hours activities. Something to do with pizza.

    It’s good that we can always trust our anonymous sources who speak on condition of anonymity, isn’t it? It’s a good thing!

  65. Anon[208] • Disclaimer says:

    I have to laugh at people who almost four years into Trump’s administration, where the most radical thing he’s done when challenged is to appeal court decisions (and abide by the results), still have this fever dream of Hitler taking over.

    For a brief period there were progressives who had transitioned to, “Well, he would be Hitler if he weren’t so lazy and incompetent.” But now we’re back to, “He is Hitler.”

  66. People, can we calm down and back off?

    Support Biden and America will go back to normal.

  67. @S. Anonyia
    Apparently the Atlantic thought WWI was futile back in 2014, too. Hah.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/375103/

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >But the deeper causes?

    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks, sayless
    • Disagree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @nebulafox


    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.
     
    There is a deep lesson to be learned from WW I, IMHO. Here it is:
    The "collection of individuals" (good description) made what turned out to be the worst foreign policy decisions in human history (I'd say since the start of the 30 Year's War, but close enough that we're in agreement). Here's the problem: The decisions they made were exactly like those of the entire post-Napoleonic period. The thought they were going to get another Franco-Prussian war, straighten out the pecking order a bit, and have another national achievement (on both sides) to solidify a society that was starting to lose cohesion. Also get a boost in popularity, all countries involved being at least semi-democratic. Wildly enthusiastic crowds gathered in each combatant country to celebrate the start of the war.

    What they got was entirely different from the Franco-Prussian war, as we all know. Everybody was surprised at how obsolete the old tactics had become. Nitrogen based explosives, cheap steel that allowed for massive artillery concentrations, bolt action rifles and machine guns firing non-fouling powder, barbed wire entanglements, the medical support that allowed masses of humans to remain relatively free of disease and insects (such as typhus from lice) -- all new developments, all obvious progress combining to make one of the larger catastrophes in Western European history. Surprise! (*) The new stuff could be a meat grinder for an entire generation of young men. And the politicians were afraid to stop the war because admitting to mistakes and cutting losses would have thrown them out of office, so they held on and hoped. Ain't democracy wonderful?

    And the lesson is, essentially, that of Burke: Be damned careful what you do, it's trickier than you think, and, yes, even given very stable societies, everything can be lost with one bad decision.

    And the consequences of the decision of the Democrats to go for broke by changing procedure for the American Presidential elections could be just as bad.

    So could any of the various national decisions being made now that the US stabilization of the world is receding. Many of them have nuclear weapons, and many of them have pecking order disputes.


    *) And, yes, there were predecessor events that showed what WW I would be like. One was the storming of Port Arthur by Japanese forces using mass assault tactics. The Port Arthur storming demonstrated that use of mass assault tactics would result in a very large number of casualties given WW I era defenses. Apparently the Japanese forces involved thought the slaughter had done more damage to Japan than the objective gained was worth. The European military establishment shrugged the lesson off.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    , @sayless
    @nebulafox

    Have never understood why, after 50,000 men died on one day, the generals didn't all say, stop this thing, and then resign their commands. How could they not see what this was going to be.

  68. @danand
    @D. K.

    NYT:


    By Mike Baker, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner
    Published Sept. 3, 2020
Updated Sept. 4, 2020, 12:29 a.m. ET

    SEATTLE — An antifa activist being investigated in the fatal shooting of a right-wing counterprotester who was part of a pro-Trump caravan in Portland, Ore., was killed on Thursday night when authorities moved to arrest him, according to four law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

    The officials said the suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was shot by officers from a federal fugitive task force during the encounter in Lacey, Wash., southwest of Seattle.

    An arrest warrant had been issued by the Portland police earlier Thursday, on the same day that Vice News published an interview with Mr. Reinoehl in which he appeared to admit to the shooting, saying, “I had no choice.”
     

    Reinoehl left behind 2 teenage daughters.

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @Pericles, @Anon

    From the Vice interview (ick, I feel dirty):

    The antifa hitman confesses.

    Bystander video from multiple angles show a man who resembles Reinoehl and appears to have the same neck tattoo fire two shots at Danielson and then walk away. “I was confident that I did not hit anyone innocent and I made my exit,” he said.

    The killer afterwards seemed to suffer from paranoia.

    Since the shooting, Reinoehl said he’s gone into hiding, and moved his children to a safe place after shots were fired into his house just hours after the incident. “They’re out hunting me,” he said. “There’s nightly posts of the hunt and where they’re going to be hunting. They made a post saying the deer are going to feel lucky this year because it’s open season on Michael right now.”
    He has not turned himself in, he said, because he believes right-wing protesters are collaborating with police, who will not protect him or his family.

    The anarchist complained about the lack of an active police presence.

    He said at the time of the confrontation and the shooting, there were no police present to help. “There was definitely nobody in sight, no police officer, nobody at all that could intervene. It was a free-for-all. And the police were letting it happen,” he said.

    and finally

    “Honestly, I hate to say it, but I see a civil war right around the corner,” he said. “That that shot felt like the beginning of a war.”

    You might not have been wrong there but in all honesty yours was just the second shot, at best. Rest in pieces.

  69. @Altai
    Isn't WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    I'm not saying it's right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened. The end of the Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, rise of communism in Russia, checking of the power of a unified Germany and potential invasion of France were all quite important things.

    But the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere is that it was a horrible, pointless waste due to none of those countries ever being threatened with invasion and due to the image of the 'pointless' meat-grinder trench warfare of the Western front.

    Indeed, this is the normal totally uncontroversial opinion in Britain of the war. Somebody opining the opposite would be likely to get the side-eye from the media and if they were a Tory, to get pilloried by the progressive press.

    It's actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Bill, @anon

    >Isn’t WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    Most Americans are not that historically literate, which is ironic considering that the Meuse-Argonne Offensive remains to this day the deadliest campaign in American military history. I remember walking through the memorial at Antietam, but that was only a single day, the MA offensive was a whole month.

    >I’m not saying it’s right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened.

    What’s fascinating is that all the leading actors in the July Crisis framed things completely from a defensive perspective. None of the high-flying offensive fantasies that were common in antebellum European capitals (Germany’s December 1912 cabinet meeting, Russian ambitions for the Dardanelles, Načertanije in Belgrade, etc) were on anybody’s mind: everybody was scared, defensive, engrossed by their own domestic issues, in some cases trying to preserve their careers, and often genuinely believed things about the other actors that were completely false. The Russians weren’t *lying* about seeing the hand of Berlin through everything Vienna did that month, for example, they genuinely believed that. But they were completely wrong.

    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.

    >It’s actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Bipartisan elite arguments about how the world works would not have been all that out of place in progressive pro-war arguments in 1916, down to the un-nuanced moralizing and pseudo-scientific “right side of history” thinking. You can even go further back to the Yugoslav wars.

    If you can’t necessarily forgive the statesmen of Europe for making the choices they did in July of 1914, then at least we can understand that they would have never made those choices if they saw what it would lead to. But the US knew already what the war was about…

    • Replies: @Gordo
    @nebulafox

    This pretty much encapsulates the present British view on WWI:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00USBM9EQ/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i8

    There may be people out there however who feel that they gained from it?

    , @Altai
    @nebulafox


    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.
     
    Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    Nobody believed this war wasn't going to happen, the date and scope were the only things up for debate. The paranoia was fueled by very real conflicts and motivations for war which made sides wary of each other.

    A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable. That it came to involve France and Britain was also inevitable since neither was prepared to tolerate Germany becoming so powerful, perhaps the most powerful (Militarily) country in Europe and if history is any guide, possibly the most technologically advanced nation too.

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn't involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @nebulafox

  70. @nebulafox
    @Altai

    >Isn’t WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    Most Americans are not that historically literate, which is ironic considering that the Meuse-Argonne Offensive remains to this day the deadliest campaign in American military history. I remember walking through the memorial at Antietam, but that was only a single day, the MA offensive was a whole month.

    >I’m not saying it’s right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened.

    What's fascinating is that all the leading actors in the July Crisis framed things completely from a defensive perspective. None of the high-flying offensive fantasies that were common in antebellum European capitals (Germany's December 1912 cabinet meeting, Russian ambitions for the Dardanelles, Načertanije in Belgrade, etc) were on anybody's mind: everybody was scared, defensive, engrossed by their own domestic issues, in some cases trying to preserve their careers, and often genuinely believed things about the other actors that were completely false. The Russians weren't *lying* about seeing the hand of Berlin through everything Vienna did that month, for example, they genuinely believed that. But they were completely wrong.

    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.

    >It’s actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Bipartisan elite arguments about how the world works would not have been all that out of place in progressive pro-war arguments in 1916, down to the un-nuanced moralizing and pseudo-scientific "right side of history" thinking. You can even go further back to the Yugoslav wars.

    If you can't necessarily forgive the statesmen of Europe for making the choices they did in July of 1914, then at least we can understand that they would have never made those choices if they saw what it would lead to. But the US knew already what the war was about...

    Replies: @Gordo, @Altai

    This pretty much encapsulates the present British view on WWI:

    There may be people out there however who feel that they gained from it?

  71. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:

    Jesus you are pathetic. If Trump did say that (and you don’t even pretend to doubt the accuracy of this report), how dishonest and/or stupid do you have to be to spin it as him simply saying “World War One (not Two, One) was pointless”?

    It wouldn’t kill you to admit that Trump is a terrible person, that this report seems more than plausible, and that, if he did say it, then it was undeniably disrespectful to the American soldiers who died in the Great War. Are you so afraid of helping Trump’s admittedly-demonic foes like David Brooks that you will say anything to spite them?

    I have been reading you for years and cannot recall you even implicitly criticizing Good Orange Man. You’re like a poor man’s version (literally) of Scott Adams: 60-something year old nerd who hates the left so much that you’re willing to unconditionally shill for Donald Trump, who isn’t even paying you and probably wouldn’t even spit on you if you were on fire. Instead of your constant fundraiser posts maybe you could at least try to send the White House an invoice for the dedicated propaganda you’ve spent years writing for Trump.

    • Agree: Corvinus
    • Disagree: TTSSYF, Voltarde
    • Replies: @CajunSmiff
    @Anon

    It's nice that you are still reading though.

    , @Anonymous
    @Anon


    this report seems more than plausible
     
    No, in fact, it does not seem even remotely plausible. It sounds far more like something that 'The Atlantic' retrieved from it's posterior orifice, and I must insist they return it from whence it came.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    , @vinteuil
    @Anon


    If Trump did say that (and you don’t even pretend to doubt the accuracy of this report), how dishonest and/or stupid do you have to be to spin it as him simply saying “World War One (not Two, One) was pointless”?
     
    As usual, I find myself doubting that Trump said anything close to what's being reported, while wishing that he had.

    The Americans who died in WWI were, in fact, suckered into a conflict in which they and their people had nothing at stake. And they lost their lives fighting for Wilson's lies.

    Suckers and Losers, all.
  72. @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    The battle of Belleau Woods was an extraordinary display of Marine fighting ferocity. The Germans labeled them “Devil Dogs” for their spirit.
    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,”Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?”
    He was recommended for the Medal of Honor for his actions,but was awarded the Navy Cross. Having won two previous Medals of Honor,it seems pretty clear he was denied the MOH because he was Irish. It wouldn’t look good that the only American with three MOHs was Irish,especially given that some Irish had spoken out against joining the War to bail out the Brits. That’s my theory anyway.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Arlo L. Ramsbottom


    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,”Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?”
     
    Plagiarist of Frederick the Great.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @anon

    , @Tlotsi
    @Arlo L. Ramsbottom

    He stole that from Frederick the Great.

    Replies: @anon

  73. @Clyde
    What a coquette he is --
    David Brooks is goosing-inciting his NY Times readers in a gentle and digestible way. What he is obliquely referring to is that Trump vs Biden on Nov 3rd will be a total mess due to mail in ballots. Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days. Same as 2016 in Broward County but done in many more "urban" districts. Don't leave out boxes of Democrat ballots found in black church basements and in trunks of Dem owned automobiles.

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @TTSSYF, @El Dato, @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    There a trial run of “a total mess due to mail in ballots” ongoing right now in Massachusetts:

    Massachusetts 4th Congressional District: Thousands of ballots found in Franklin, Jesse Mermell’s campaign solicits recount signatures

    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Coemgen


    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.
     
    “Blue collar favorite”. Wut? He has a background almost identical to Mayor Pete (Harvard, worked in military intelligence, consultant, local city politics, et al.). The perfect and typical credentials for a loyal servant of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Except unlike Pete, Jake will be accepted into the inner circle:

    From The Jewish Insider:

    ...Auchincloss said his Jewish upbringing has impacted his political priorities...

    “I think being a Jew does make me appreciate, as well, the imperative to create a welcoming and inclusive body politic and society,” he continued. “Jews are always going to be subject to discrimination. And we as a people know that when society at large looks for a scapegoat, it’s oftentimes Jews who get picked. And so it’s made me acutely aware that all marginalized communities deserve to have their voices heard and deserve to feel fully welcomed and included in our civil processes.”

    https://village14.com/2020/08/23/jewish-insider-as-some-rivals-consolidate-jake-auchincloss-embraces-frontrunner-status/
     

    “...the imperative to create a welcoming and inclusive body politic and society”

    Got that you blue collar supporters? Jake’s gonna tikkun olam all you gentile muthaf*ckers!

    Replies: @Coemgen

    , @Prester John
    @Coemgen

    Can't help but remark on the irony of someone named "Auchincloss"-- a name redolent of Greenwich Yacht Club, Skull and Bones, white shoes and guys who talk with their teeth clenched--as a "blue collar favorite."

    Replies: @Art Deco

  74. @Mr McKenna
    #1 Article on Reddit and other sites as well tonight.

    https://external-preview.redd.it/vni-UZpXnvPC_1FwvOEwSKK15RJRX8ARXmRpZE3vUYU.jpg

    Note the 'quotes' at the bottom. Then read the actual article where it says:

    These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.
     
    Reddit won't permit you to post that quote.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Polynikes, @Paul Jolliffe

    Reddit is essentially Chinese propaganda.

    • Thanks: Coemgen
    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    @Polynikes

    On its better days, if you ask me. Though I haven't spent much time there, it seems to be a conclave of overweight, unemployed females who spend way too much time watching what they call 'must-see TV'. It's so weird to me that people brag about 'Netflix binges' as though it's a great way to spend your life.

    The other thing they do is repeat (ad nauseam) how toxic white supremacy is just everywhere--including all over Reddit, they claim.

    , @Tlotsi
    @Polynikes

    So is much of the Unz Review.

  75. @nebulafox
    @Altai

    >Isn’t WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    Most Americans are not that historically literate, which is ironic considering that the Meuse-Argonne Offensive remains to this day the deadliest campaign in American military history. I remember walking through the memorial at Antietam, but that was only a single day, the MA offensive was a whole month.

    >I’m not saying it’s right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened.

    What's fascinating is that all the leading actors in the July Crisis framed things completely from a defensive perspective. None of the high-flying offensive fantasies that were common in antebellum European capitals (Germany's December 1912 cabinet meeting, Russian ambitions for the Dardanelles, Načertanije in Belgrade, etc) were on anybody's mind: everybody was scared, defensive, engrossed by their own domestic issues, in some cases trying to preserve their careers, and often genuinely believed things about the other actors that were completely false. The Russians weren't *lying* about seeing the hand of Berlin through everything Vienna did that month, for example, they genuinely believed that. But they were completely wrong.

    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.

    >It’s actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Bipartisan elite arguments about how the world works would not have been all that out of place in progressive pro-war arguments in 1916, down to the un-nuanced moralizing and pseudo-scientific "right side of history" thinking. You can even go further back to the Yugoslav wars.

    If you can't necessarily forgive the statesmen of Europe for making the choices they did in July of 1914, then at least we can understand that they would have never made those choices if they saw what it would lead to. But the US knew already what the war was about...

    Replies: @Gordo, @Altai

    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.

    Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    Nobody believed this war wasn’t going to happen, the date and scope were the only things up for debate. The paranoia was fueled by very real conflicts and motivations for war which made sides wary of each other.

    A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable. That it came to involve France and Britain was also inevitable since neither was prepared to tolerate Germany becoming so powerful, perhaps the most powerful (Militarily) country in Europe and if history is any guide, possibly the most technologically advanced nation too.

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Altai

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    The Maddison project has historical data out. If you're comparing the domestic product of the metropole in 1913, that of the U.S. was 1.7x that of Russia, 2.2x that of Germany, 2.9x that of Britain, and 3.6x that of France. Britain and France had a large portfolio of overseas dependencies. Doubt you could have made a business case for holding them.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @nebulafox
    @Altai

    >Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    I think that's based off outdated evidence. The general war situation for the Central Powers in the summer of 1914 was completely unfavorable and only just beginning to improve with the start of Anglo-German detente. It would have gotten better over the following years, since it was common knowledge that France's rate of conscription under the 1913 law was unsustainable in the long term.

    To be sure, there was a preemptive war party in Berlin (just as there was in every European capital), and they were influential. But Wilhelmine Germany wasn't Imperial Japan, or to use a contemporary example, Serbia, where the civilians had no control over the military. They were under the control of two civilians who Moltke contemptuously and tellingly dubbed "the two old women", Wilhelm and Bethmann-Hollweg. Neither of them wanted a full scale war that they knew Germany had only a small chance of winning outright in 1914 with France's conscription policy at its peak. That's not to say they had moral objections to aggressive war or anything: both of them were in favor of Austria *immediately* crushing Serbia. But that was precisely so that the assassination would remain a legitimate excuse and so that nobody would have time to interfere-it was quite a different story a month later. They should have known their ally better: Austria would bumble its way through July and then declare war two weeks before the army could even return from harvest!

    >A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable.

    Why? The fundamental interests of Germany and Russia did not conflict in the way that they did with Austria (and Austria and Russia managed to divide their interests in the region quite peacefully until the last few years before the war). Germany was not a direct Balkan power like Austria. Germany was not competing for influence in Asia like the British did. Germany did not harbor revolutionaries and shared an interest in keeping the Poles quiet. It's critical to remember that of the three Entente powers, only France saw the real point of the understanding as containing Germany: right up until the end, the UK saw Russia as the main problem it faced. That's not to say that Russia and the UK weren't worried about Germany at all, particularly in Russia where ethnic Germans were increasingly viewed similarly to how ethnic Chinese were viewed in late Suharto-era Indonesia, but they still saw the main foreign policy problem they faced as each other. The only flash point was Turkey, and though elements within the Russian government did want to dismember the Ottoman Empire, they no more controlled the state than Moltke did in Berlin. Indeed, seemed as though the problem in Tsarist Russia by that point was that nobody knew who controlled things, thanks to Nicholas II...

    A war between Germany and Russia inevitably would have become a two-front war with France. Berlin knew that. And as I just mentioned, the German military footing in 1914 was at a relative nadir. The Austrians were even worse off, with war hawk in chief von Hoetzendorf mumbling about how the empire needed to die gloriously when it became clear the Russians would be getting involved. The Schlieffen Plan relied off such a rigid timetable because Germany's war planners knew the only chance of success was if everything went completely right, and nowhere was this more true than in 1914. Why launch a war when in a few years, one of your enemy's would inevitably have to declare war themselves or discontinue the conscription policy? It speaks to German diplomatic incompetence-which would be on full display throughout WWI-that they ended up going to war anyway in early August. For the Russians, the real problem was that mobilization would inevitably involve rail centers in Congress Poland near the German frontier, which is probably part of why they kept the mobilization order of July 25th secret.


    >If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    But that's the thing: German war planners never counted on such a scenario, at least with the French. The British were completely different: Moltke's absurd insistence that the Schlieffen Plan be followed to the letter led to the invasion of Belgium, which brought Britain into the war.

    Germany probably would have decisively won a war against Russia or France individually, because they still had the best single army in the world by a long shot. But the chances of winning against both simultaneously were grim in 1914 with France at the height of military capability and German foreign policy plans with potential Balkan allies and England still in their infancy: not impossible, but unlikely. The Septemberprogramm reflected German surprise that they looked like they were going to win quickly anyway.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  76. Don’t worry, it’s all been confirmed by a ‘senior Defense Department official’ that James LaPorta spoke to.

    You can trust both the unnamed Defense Department official (As none of those people have ever lied about anything) and LaPorta since according to his Twitter bio ‘Former Marine infantryman (some intelligence work)‘.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    @Altai

    Since when does anyone care what's being said about John McCain? That's most unlikely Holy Man about which you Must Not Speak Wrong you can imagine. Was as it the Rommel-tier funeral? Is he a father figure to fatherless lefties? Wasn't he Darth Vader when going up against Obama?

    I know, I know. No principles, just rhetoric.

  77. @Clyde
    What a coquette he is --
    David Brooks is goosing-inciting his NY Times readers in a gentle and digestible way. What he is obliquely referring to is that Trump vs Biden on Nov 3rd will be a total mess due to mail in ballots. Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days. Same as 2016 in Broward County but done in many more "urban" districts. Don't leave out boxes of Democrat ballots found in black church basements and in trunks of Dem owned automobiles.

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @TTSSYF, @El Dato, @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    I fear you are correct. The likelihood that it actually comes to a vote in the House is questionable, but no doubt, it’s their plan.

  78. Forget preparations … I want my reparations !!!

  79. @Anon
    Jesus you are pathetic. If Trump did say that (and you don't even pretend to doubt the accuracy of this report), how dishonest and/or stupid do you have to be to spin it as him simply saying "World War One (not Two, One) was pointless"?

    It wouldn't kill you to admit that Trump is a terrible person, that this report seems more than plausible, and that, if he did say it, then it was undeniably disrespectful to the American soldiers who died in the Great War. Are you so afraid of helping Trump's admittedly-demonic foes like David Brooks that you will say anything to spite them?

    I have been reading you for years and cannot recall you even implicitly criticizing Good Orange Man. You're like a poor man's version (literally) of Scott Adams: 60-something year old nerd who hates the left so much that you're willing to unconditionally shill for Donald Trump, who isn't even paying you and probably wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire. Instead of your constant fundraiser posts maybe you could at least try to send the White House an invoice for the dedicated propaganda you've spent years writing for Trump.

    Replies: @CajunSmiff, @Anonymous, @vinteuil

    It’s nice that you are still reading though.

  80. Anon[183] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ted Plank
    Ironic that Jeffrey Goldberg is pushing reverence for veterans of the US military, seeing as how he enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces, the army of a foreign nation, his own ethnic kin, instead of the US Armed Forces. Goldberg was born and bred in Brooklyn, NY, a citizen of the USA, not of Israel. Were white gentiles to dedicate military careers to defending THEIR ethnic kin, I have a feeling Goldberg would be quite uncharitable in his condemnation.

    David Brooks also has an American born and raised son serving in the Israeli military.

    Maybe these two individuals should keep their mouths shut on this delicate topic, lest some blowback drift in their direction? I see the Appelbaums, Ornsteins, Kristols are Rubins all braying the same tune under Goldberg's baton. Does America still listen to these people, is the question.

    Replies: @Anon, @anonymous

    Neurotic neoliberals/neocons listen to these people. My sister is one. My best “friend” (whose TDS has reached nuclear levels) is another.

    As for the risk of blowback, it’s 2020. The power of their tribe is so entrenched that very few dare criticize them (except as “white people”), and the daring ones who do are discredited (or worse) with virtually no effort.

    Remember, Eric Trump, the son of the “evil Nazi” these people incessantly kvetch about, publically called for David Duke to be murdered for the sin of criticizing Eric’s favorite Levantine tribe. Did Bad Orange Man punish Eric in any way for that horrifying statement? It sure doesn’t seem like it.

  81. @Not Raul
    @International Jew

    Bari Weiss wasn't fired.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @International Jew

    She was drummed out.

  82. Mr “My Son is in the IDF” must have not remembered or seen George C Scotts soliloquy that opens Patton.
    I was never in combat but during any of my military training the NCO instructors drove Trumps point home about the heroism of casualties every day.

    • LOL: GazaPlanet
  83. So we all know that David Brooks’s wife is being schtupped by this black guy, right?

    • LOL: Bugg, JimDandy
    • Replies: @Anon
    @duncsbaby

    She could do worse: like shtupp David Brooks

  84. @Whiskey
    I told you told you told you.

    I called that when the chair of the Joint Chiefs apologized for standing with Trump and threatened privately to Trump to remove him.

    Even if Trump ekes out a victory, Dems will riot, stage assassination via anti fa: likely Tucker, Coulter, Barr, Buchanon, and Cruz. Then the Joint Chiefs will remove Trump by force. Biden of course will claim victory regardless. And the election will be close: White women hate Trump and most White men and love BLM.

    We are already in a civil war. We have been since 2016. Time to recognize reality.

    They via anti fa can kill you any time and will. You cannot defend yourself even in your own home even if you are lucky enough to be black. See Mr. Jacki Lacey.

    This is reality. the deep state wants trump gone and Deplorable s crushed. He's one man. They control pretty much everything.

    And yes this is the inevitable results if Civil Rights. Civil Rights requires destroying Deplorable s.

    Replies: @OilcanFloyf

    And the election will be close: White women hate Trump and most White men and love BLM.

    How could the election be close if most white women hate Trump and most white men love BLM? Who would be left to vote for Trump?

  85. @anonymous
    Jeffery Goldberg is a bald-faced liar.
    https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1301741080577298437?s=20

    Replies: @Voltarde, @Jack D, @Art Deco

    Mickey Kaus reminds us of Goldberg’s credibility.
    http://www.kausfiles.com/

    Aflatoxin
    By JEFFREY GOLDBERG
    OCT 03, 2002
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/10/aflatoxin.html

    David Plotz has offered a not-unconvincing argument for Saddam’s removal, but let me offer a better one: aflatoxin.

  86. @nebulafox
    >Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    I believe that American intervention in WWI was a mistake, but that hardly means our fallen soldiers were "losers", Steve. And while I'm obviously going to need something far more credible than an anonymous State Department source for The Atlantic and the Washington Post of 2020 to believe this story, I also don't put it beyond Trump to blurt out something like that. The dude is crass and cynical enough to say it and vapidly self-absorbed enough to say it unguarded. I'm saying this as someone who tends to be very cynical of how the American political establishment uses the military.

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long. Vietnam-era anti-military sentiment was squashed during the party's Clintonian rehaul as part of the broader trend of embracing more muscular foreign policy, but there's never been anything like this. What's the deal? TDS? A military that is more to the Left's liking demographically?

    >“sober people who are militant about America”

    Are smart enough to not listen to the cheerleaders for Year 19 of Afghanistan, for starters.

    > It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package. What did you think was going to happen? "Identity politics for me but not for thee" never works, least of all for a country facing massive structural and socioeconomic rot.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @Redman, @Goddard, @Jack D, @Mike1

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package.

    Sad that white identity will resurface only after we whites have given away the country.

  87. ” If Trump claims a victory that is not rightly his…”

    Since Trump is not entitled to any victory as every smart person like DB understands,

    “… a few marches in the streets will not be an adequate response.”

    Yes, that was so 2017. Now it’s time to get serious and hand the country over to the BLM leaders who will henceforth be known as the “Black giants upon whose shoulders we dwindling white midgets will be standing.”

  88. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @S. Anonyia

    >But the deeper causes?

    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @sayless

    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.

    There is a deep lesson to be learned from WW I, IMHO. Here it is:
    The “collection of individuals” (good description) made what turned out to be the worst foreign policy decisions in human history (I’d say since the start of the 30 Year’s War, but close enough that we’re in agreement). Here’s the problem: The decisions they made were exactly like those of the entire post-Napoleonic period. The thought they were going to get another Franco-Prussian war, straighten out the pecking order a bit, and have another national achievement (on both sides) to solidify a society that was starting to lose cohesion. Also get a boost in popularity, all countries involved being at least semi-democratic. Wildly enthusiastic crowds gathered in each combatant country to celebrate the start of the war.

    What they got was entirely different from the Franco-Prussian war, as we all know. Everybody was surprised at how obsolete the old tactics had become. Nitrogen based explosives, cheap steel that allowed for massive artillery concentrations, bolt action rifles and machine guns firing non-fouling powder, barbed wire entanglements, the medical support that allowed masses of humans to remain relatively free of disease and insects (such as typhus from lice) — all new developments, all obvious progress combining to make one of the larger catastrophes in Western European history. Surprise! (*) The new stuff could be a meat grinder for an entire generation of young men. And the politicians were afraid to stop the war because admitting to mistakes and cutting losses would have thrown them out of office, so they held on and hoped. Ain’t democracy wonderful?

    And the lesson is, essentially, that of Burke: Be damned careful what you do, it’s trickier than you think, and, yes, even given very stable societies, everything can be lost with one bad decision.

    And the consequences of the decision of the Democrats to go for broke by changing procedure for the American Presidential elections could be just as bad.

    So could any of the various national decisions being made now that the US stabilization of the world is receding. Many of them have nuclear weapons, and many of them have pecking order disputes.

    *) And, yes, there were predecessor events that showed what WW I would be like. One was the storming of Port Arthur by Japanese forces using mass assault tactics. The Port Arthur storming demonstrated that use of mass assault tactics would result in a very large number of casualties given WW I era defenses. Apparently the Japanese forces involved thought the slaughter had done more damage to Japan than the objective gained was worth. The European military establishment shrugged the lesson off.

    • Thanks: Gabe Ruth
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Anonymous

    I would add the railways, breakthroughs happened but the issue was reserves could be rapidly moved to plug the gap, Brusilov got around this by having a wide front offensive and JFC Fuller by deploying new technology and combined arms so that a breakthrough would continue until the control centre of the enemy destroyed.

  89. @Christopher Chantrill
    Well yes. What was the point of the US going into WWI, President Wilson? So you could strut and fret your hour upon the stage, pal?

    Much better would be for the Euro powers to bleed themselves to a standstill. And then go home.

    Then no Hitler, no Holocaust. Imagine.

    Replies: @Skylark Thibedeau, @Neuday

    The point was to save the investment of U.S. Banks and Financiers who had loaned tons of money to Britain and France.

    • Agree: BB753, bruce county
  90. @Achmed E. Newman
    I think a lot of Americans would agree that our fighting in WWI was wrong, but that is no slur on the soldiers, sailors, and (a few) airmen of 103 years ago. However, the make-up of the current military is such that a big share of them don't have any ancestors that were in this country during WWI, near as many in WWII and Korea, and still plenty in the Vietnam era.

    This David Brookes is just being silly thinking that a Trump tweet about the politics of American fighting in WWI means a damn thing to the regular army. They couldn't name the timeframe within 1/2 a century and don't give a damn to. They are in the military because there aren't good jobs, it's a leg-up in life, free college money, etc... that's all.

    Replies: @CAL2

    Trump didn’t tweet that. An anonymous source said he said it. In other words, it is made up.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @CAL2

    I believe you, CAL. Trump can shoot off his mouth a lot, but this is not something he'd say for any reason. It'd just be stupid, because, even if the President did agree that we shouldn't have been in WWI (he doesn't think that hard anyway), there'd be no reason to call these soldiers "losers".

    I just assumed that the President's non-attendance at the cemetery in '18 was the issue and in some other tweet (which I shouldn't have assumed because it's not up there). My point was that there are almost no memories of ancestors or attachments of any kind to the American doughboys of 100 years ago in most of the military.

    Sorry for the confusion (my own here).

  91. @R.G. Camara
    Steve, 4 anonymous sources to support an anti-Trump article by a #NeverTrumper writing for the communist Atlantic that celebrated the "genius" of Tennessee Coates isn't going to convince anyone rational to stop supporting Trump or to support a coup that previously they didn't support.

    It's laughable this is even trending now. Biden or one of their BLM-Antifa goons must've done something really senile they're trying to cover for at the moment.

    Replies: @Patrick Sullivan

    If you don’t believe my four anonymous sources then surely you’ll believe eight anonymous sources. If not, I can give you 16, 32, or 512. Just tell me how much skepticism you have and I’ll tell you how many anonymous sources have confirmed my story!

    See also: Tell us how many votes the Republicans got in that state and then we’ll back up our truck full of Democrat votes.

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Patrick Sullivan

    Anonymous sources have zero credibility. Five times zero equals fifty times zero equals one hundred times zero equals zero.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  92. @Clyde
    What a coquette he is --
    David Brooks is goosing-inciting his NY Times readers in a gentle and digestible way. What he is obliquely referring to is that Trump vs Biden on Nov 3rd will be a total mess due to mail in ballots. Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days. Same as 2016 in Broward County but done in many more "urban" districts. Don't leave out boxes of Democrat ballots found in black church basements and in trunks of Dem owned automobiles.

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @TTSSYF, @El Dato, @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    Contested election inevitable? Data firm predicts Trump lead on election night will turn into Biden victory as mail votes counted

    Data and analytics firm Hawkfish told the Axios news site that President Donald Trump will likely enjoy what appears to be a landslide victory on November 3. Hawkfish, a firm funded by Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg and employed by the Democratic National Committee, claimed that Trump could hold a lead of 408-130 electoral votes on election night.

    It’s like foreshadowing, ya know.

    • Agree: TontoBubbaGoldstein
  93. @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    New journalism that goes hand in hand with new Academia. From the inestimable Daily Mail:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8696547/GWU-professor-pretended-black-went-fee-paying-school-planned-flag-burning.html#comments

  94. America’s worst president (sorry, Barack) had the nerve to run for reelection on the slogan “He kept us out of war” in 1916 even though he had been beating the war drums since 1914. He finally got his wish in 1917. I can’t blame Wilson 100% for that. The Germans certainly had it coming.

    Wilson’s main goal seems to have been inflicting his student government model on the world in the post-war era. I don’t think he even would have cared too much who won the war itself as long as he got his post-war way. That’s why instead of being the voice of moderation at Versailles, as he should have been given how much less the US had suffered than France, the UK, and Italy had, he let Clemenceau, Orlando, and Lloyd George have their vindictive way and set up the inevitability of WW2 in exchange for their tepid support for the League of Nations. Which a still non-globalist US Senate rejected America even joining, sucker.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Patrick Sullivan

    Wilson could have gotten US membership in the League if he had been willing to compromise on reservations to the treaty.

  95. @Not Raul
    @Redman


    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?
     
    No, it isn't out of character.

    Trump has a history of disrespecting veterans.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-insults-american-veterans-families-2019-10#in-october-2017-trump-forgot-the-name-of-slain-us-army-sgt-la-david-johnson-while-he-was-on-the-phone-with-his-widow-johnson-was-killed-in-an-ambush-in-niger-while-in-active-service-myeshia-johnson-said-the-call-with-trump-made-her-cry-and-that-trump-told-her-that-her-husband-knew-what-he-had-signed-up-for-6

    Replies: @The Real Jon, @Cloudbuster, @Joseph Doaks

    There is really no bottom to the dishonor and degeneracy of the “Myeshia Johnsons” of the world and to the fellow white people who elicit and repeat their garbage.

  96. @Svigor
    Or not. Reinoehl retired while resisting arrest. Hey, gotta give credit where due - he didn't go quietly. Probably thought something really delusional, like the "evil huwhite injustice system" would railroad his rebel self, or something.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/michael-reinoehl-arrest-portland-shooting.html

    This lunatic had a daughter to raise, and he just goes out and murders some poor random Trump-supporting sap in cold blood from ambush just because he's mad that Rittenhouse dropped 3 total lowlifes in an absolutely textbook case of self-defense. Then as icing on the cake he commits suicide by cop. Oy.


    US Marshalls went to arrest him
     
    Feds, but not FBI. Yeah, that makes sense; locals are under thumb of Democrats and FBI are under thumb of ADL/antifa. Surprised Trump had the gonads. Guess even he knows a hundred polls can't be wrong.

    Replies: @El Dato

    “3000 miles to Antifaland”

  97. @AnotherDad

    They understand that, like so many American tragedies, this is largely about race. It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …
     
    In other words: Some gentiles aren't completely on board with the Jewish program of population replacement and would like to keep their nation. The horror, the horror!

    You'd sort of think this is a highly legitimate point of view. One that would be ... the default view!

    In fact, population replacement is something that naturally only happens when you lose a war--are invaded and defeated. It's not even something that a free republic in free, open, honest discussion and debate would ever do to itself. It's self-abnegation.

    ~

    I think "white-dominated America" is America. I.e. America is part of the West--Western Christian civilization. And i'm pretty sure that that is why America is nice--peaceful (once upon a time), prosperous and free. And yeah, i like it that way and am opposed to changing that to a new "diverse"--i.e. highly Latinized--nation. And it seems my preferences aren't exactly unique. In fact, my preference for a white America seems to be shared by Latinos themselves as they've gone to the trouble of dumping their Latino homelands to come up to white America ... presumably because it is better!

    Replies: @Rob McX

    In fact, population replacement is something that naturally only happens when you lose a war–are invaded and defeated.

    But a momentous change happened in the 20th century. People who want to destroy nations discovered it’s easier to sleepwalk them into extinction by opening the borders than to launch a military invasion. Once people know they’re at war, it galvanises them into action, but they can be lulled into complacency about immigration.

    • Replies: @Rob
    @Rob McX

    Yeah,

    A big problem with immigration is that there were earlier waves with only moderately bad results that were strongly opposed by American patriots. I sometimes worry I am wrong to be so against immigration, but I think I am right.

    The first is affirmative action, a concept that would have seemed laughable to Americans in the 1839’s, but is actually flows directly from the Constitution, they were just too dumb to realize it. Another concept they would have found laughable is that higher education would be the only pathway to avoid poverty. Virtually all immigrants come from populations entitled to affirmative action, and those that don’t still don’t have their race and ethnicity as a black mark like gentile whites. As very few NAMs would be in middle class jobs without AA, it is politically untouchable. In the past, even when the (white) people voted against AA, goodwhite administrators in education got around it as best they could. Today’s educated classes in business are all in on diversity, so making AA/non-discrimination optional would take a long time to have an effect. It would have a huge effect in the long run, as companies that did not have the deadweight (at best) minorities would outcompetes others. Even though Asians don’t get AA in college, their businesses benefit from minority set-asides and loans, and who knows how many government programs for non-whites that they don’t make an effort to the general public well-informed about,

    One reason patriots opposed immigration earlier was that immigrants depressed wages, and that was and is true. People were against Chinese immigrants for economic and social reasons. The economic reasons still hold, and are even worse today, when Asians at elite colleges outnumber founding stock whites. They ain’t building new universities today, and Harvard


    et al
     
    don’t seem interested in increasing enrollment by the 50% of their 1965 enrollment they should have already, and they should be something like 250% their 1965 size to keep up with the fraction of students capable of benefitting from an elite education. That is if you go by The SAT, Asians don’t seem particularly smart outside of math and visualization-heavy STEM subjects. They have such large personality differences from whites that it is hard to tell if they are smart outside of spatial ability. Rushton and Jensen said they were, and they do seem to have low rates of social disfunction which indicates an absence of the lowest IQ segment, but it could be personality difference there, again. Not to mention, I don’t want whites driven out of the upper middle class, even by smarter people, so I think there are still good educational;economic reasons to oppose Asian immigration, and Latino immigrants are only a factor in elite education to the extent that they get affirmative action, but they take up slots that go to students who would benefit from the education/acknowledgement of intelligence that an elite education provides.

    Latino immigrants compete with Americans who don’t have lots of occupational options, are not very smart, and the immigrants we’re getting seem to be even worse than refuse that washed up in the eighties and nineties. They make some gains in the second generation, then stall out, maybe because of ability, but maybe because the middle-class jobs that don’t require a degree are almost done disappearing. If the establishment stays ice course, they aren’t coming back, and without the middle rungs, Latinos can’t climb the ladder.

    The ability to integrate to our political system was a big concern to earlier Americans. That is not given as a reason very much now. Whether Catholics could ever integrate politically, But the Catholic Church was a bit different 200 years ago, much more political, and immigrant machine districts did little to convince anyone that even European immigrants were a boon to democracy. It is true that eventually European immigrants learned our ways. Non-European immigrants will always be visibly foriegners, and even nth generation Chinese in this country aren’t fully accepted as American, so non-White immigrants will always see themselves as Nationality-Americans, and not Americans. They will always look out for the interests of their people, not Americans as a whole. Maybe Mexican-Americans, for example, will consider themselves Hispanic, not Mexican, and vote for American interests over Mexican ones, but their visible difference means they can only blend in by inter-population reproduction (it seems un-inclusive of unwed mothers, and factually inaccurate to equate marriage with reproduction), which will take at least two generations for Hispanics, and four or more for Asians and Africans. The US is not stable enough to wait a hundred years for integration. That is assuming you consider mixing on a large scale to be a positive. I don’t, but a little is good, it injects some genetic diversity, so worthwhile genes can spread through the population evolutionarily, without changing the character of the population, and I like white Americans, and don’t want us to become a lot like blacks, Asians, or Hispanics.

    The above is even assuming you consider the earlier waves of immigrants to be politically neutral. Their arrival did not improve the American system, rotten burroughs, and cost WASP control of many cities, paving the way for the black takeover of cities, through the WASP reaction if you buy The Slaugher of Cities narrative, or through WASPs losing control and interest in saving cities from blacks. The earlier immigrants gaining citizenship themselves and having citizen children coincided with the decline of America’s low regulation, highly decentralized government, but it’s arguable that it would have happened anyway, an industrial, largely urban civilization Just requires more government than an agricultural one.

    Another difference between early and current immigration is racial/IQ. Compared to racial differences, the genetic difference between neighboring European ethnicities are rather small. Even the least industrial Westen European nations were heirs to Western Civilization, and likely had similar potential. In the years since heavy Italian immigration, Italy has industrialized. The same number of years have passed in Mexico, India, and Nigeria, yet these are still not first world nations. Well, their far away from the industrialized West? Mexico is close by, North Africa is right next to Europe, and far away Japan managed to develop economically, so even distance from the West is not an absolute barrier to development. One is tempted to think that third world nations are instantiationx of their peopke’s natures. A few Mexicans can rely on Americans ability to maintain civilization and do the thinly work, but maybe we cab’t do it for 100 million of them? Especially when businesses and government have to hire in proportion to the areas demographics (it’s coming).

    Earlier immigrants were a strain on ibfrastructure, and over a relatively short timeframe, we built more infrastructure, later on, the car greatly changed the character of the nation. There are a lot of reasons why we don’t build more infrastructure. The litigation society is a big reason, cost disease is another, and finally, the real cost of infrastructure is greater than the productivity of immigrants can support, a nation of minimarts and street vendors maybe cannot support first world infrastructure. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2015/04/01/this-is-no-april-fool-japan-is-beating-the-pants-off-the-united-states/#358beec5b882 is an interesting article on Japan that mentions Japanese infrastructure that been built as America’s declines.

    The last reason to stop immigration now that did not apply then is environmental. We don’t have enough water in a lot of low population density areas. The Colorado River does not reach the ocean today. The population using it will be hard-pressed to increase without lowering per capital water consumption. That’s one limiting factor one place, you say. But Liebig's law of the minimum applies everywhere. An economic one could be formulated relating living standards or production to the the availability of the most limiting factor, Some places, it’s just going to be space. If the economy (not per capita) grows 10%, but you have a four hour commute, are you truly better off? Finally, the world cannot afford America producing 50& more carbon dioxide than we do today. The world cannot afford the US producing 50 less carbon. Millions of third worlders will die if webdon’t cut our output drastically. Sure, a few third worlderx will have highe standards of living here, but surely the other third worlders matter, even if they aren’t their former compatriots who were a
    Americans all this time.

    Finally, the restaurant rationale is often cited as as an argument for immigration, but does it not work in reverse? If liking ethnoracial diversity is a legitimate reason for supporting immigration, then disliking it is a legitimate reason to oppose it. You like Mexican food? Well, I don’t like seeing squat brown women, If you love Indian food, and that’s a reason to bring in 10+ million of them, isn’t hating the smell of curry also a great reason to keep them out?

    Finally finally, the precautionary principle, while it should not be followed blindly, should always be considered when it comes to making big changes. If we lowered capital gains tax, tax we can always raise it later, no great harm done. If this Fifty-five year (so far) wave of immigration turns out badly, that is a huge problem that is hard to fix, The alternative to repatriation would be accepting the US as a not-quite developed country. Has any country lost every industry before? We are close to that. I don’t think the US would survive a large devaluation of the dollar, The changes required to repatriate 100 millions immigrants to plus progeny is huge. Realistically, it would take a civil war. If you don’t think we’re close...I am not sure one is coming, but I am also not sure it’s not, but I would not get the country on it.

    Look at how close we are to a civil war now. The only reason there isn’t more blood in the streets is that Trump is worthless from a patriotic perspective, so the right isn’t showing up to fight. Imagine if there’s a crackup of the Republican Party, the establishment zigs and the base zags, and it breaks apart, then the base forms a party without the money men corrupting it , and the free marketers running herd. If a Candidate Trump, but smart, energetic and charismatic ran for president, and appealed to all those women that Trump has turned off vote for him, we could win in 2024, maybe even 2028. So imagine how the left would react to a Candidate Trump as President who actually pushed America first. The left is hysterical about a President who occasionally tweets patriotic things. We would have a civil war, That is a huge reason to oppose immigration that applies now but didn’t back then,
  98. Is it any wonder that Trump has expressed interest in revisiting libel law as it regards public figures? Of course the press characterized that as “an attack on the first amendment.”

    It is pretty obvious that the Dems are planning to contest the election if Trump unexpectedly wins and to generate however many “discovered” ballots are necessary in battleground states to ensure a Biden victory, and are pre-seeding the field of public opinion with the idea that any Trump pushback is illegitimate.

    The ludicrous stories that went around last week that Trump was undermining the post office are part of it.

    They are trying to generate “heads we win, tails you lose” in the court of public opinion, or at least a large enough portion of that to throw the nation into chaos. The irresponsibility is breathtaking.

  99. @Altai
    https://twitter.com/JimLaPorta/status/1301655895852670978

    Don't worry, it's all been confirmed by a 'senior Defense Department official' that James LaPorta spoke to.

    You can trust both the unnamed Defense Department official (As none of those people have ever lied about anything) and LaPorta since according to his Twitter bio 'Former Marine infantryman (some intelligence work)'.

    Replies: @El Dato

    Since when does anyone care what’s being said about John McCain? That’s most unlikely Holy Man about which you Must Not Speak Wrong you can imagine. Was as it the Rommel-tier funeral? Is he a father figure to fatherless lefties? Wasn’t he Darth Vader when going up against Obama?

    I know, I know. No principles, just rhetoric.

  100. @International Jew
    Brooks really really likes his NYT job so he's pedalling furiously to make sure he doesn't go the way of Bari Weiss.

    Replies: @Not Raul, @Bill

    It’s interesting to think about the fact that David Brooks replaced William Safire. Both mouthpieces for their faction of the deep state, but what a difference in talent. It can’t be fun being David Brooks. I mean, he certainly knows how poorly he fills Safire’s shoes.

  101. @Not Raul
    @Redman


    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?
     
    No, it isn't out of character.

    Trump has a history of disrespecting veterans.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-insults-american-veterans-families-2019-10#in-october-2017-trump-forgot-the-name-of-slain-us-army-sgt-la-david-johnson-while-he-was-on-the-phone-with-his-widow-johnson-was-killed-in-an-ambush-in-niger-while-in-active-service-myeshia-johnson-said-the-call-with-trump-made-her-cry-and-that-trump-told-her-that-her-husband-knew-what-he-had-signed-up-for-6

    Replies: @The Real Jon, @Cloudbuster, @Joseph Doaks

    The question that never gets dealt with is “What business do we have sending US soldiers to Niger?”

    The Business Insider article you quote is simply an anti-Trump hit piece that itself uses contested and out-of-context accusations by people who have an axe to grind with Trump. The mainstream media is poison.

    The method: Construct poorly-supported accusations against Trump, then use those accusations later when details are fuzzier as support for future accusations. It’s a twist on The Big Lie.

    • Thanks: Joseph Doaks
  102. @Not Raul
    @International Jew

    Bari Weiss wasn't fired.

    Replies: @TTSSYF, @International Jew

    I didn’t say she was. She left after her colleagues made life miserable for her.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    @International Jew

    That's her story. I don't believe it.

    More likely, she was making life miserable for her colleagues.

    She first gained notoriety by trying to get academics cancelled for their opinions.

    https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/

    She goes around trying to get people canceled, and when she faces criticism herself, she claims that people are trying to cancel her. That's projection.

  103. @Redman
    @nebulafox

    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?

    Psyop 2020. Get ready for the deep state blitz. They see the ship sinking even after russiagate, impeachment, coronahoax and summer of George. Wiley Coyote is pulling out his best Acme tricks for one last go at that damned orange bird.

    Replies: @Anon7, @Not Raul, @sayless

    After the 2016 election The Times published an assassination fantasy. Trump hadn’t even assaulted anyone yet.

    That appeal to patriotism is hypocritical coming from anyone who writes for The Times which has been attacking the country’s past and present relentlessly, and its white population.

    On another site, I read that the election can only be stolen if it’s close, like three percentage points difference, and that this one won’t be close. That the internal polling data of both parties shows Trump winning in a landslide. So maybe Dave will have to leave the country.

    Still don’t understand Biden/Harris. He’s ill and she’s not presentable. What are the Democrats thinking?

    The Atlantic made that quote up.

  104. @Altai
    Isn't WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    I'm not saying it's right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened. The end of the Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, rise of communism in Russia, checking of the power of a unified Germany and potential invasion of France were all quite important things.

    But the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere is that it was a horrible, pointless waste due to none of those countries ever being threatened with invasion and due to the image of the 'pointless' meat-grinder trench warfare of the Western front.

    Indeed, this is the normal totally uncontroversial opinion in Britain of the war. Somebody opining the opposite would be likely to get the side-eye from the media and if they were a Tory, to get pilloried by the progressive press.

    It's actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Bill, @anon

    This is nothing new for them. Neocons consider WWI and especially America’s participation in it a very good thing. Wilson is one of their heroes. They are an utter freak show.

    • Replies: @Tlotsi
    @Bill

    It's weird that a bunch of Jews should support a series of events that led to the rise of Hitler, but I guess it also led to Israel, so who knows?

  105. @36 ulster
    It was cynical yet predictable for a globalist like (((Mr. Brooks))) to appeal to "ardent patriotism" or "love of nation." For one thing, I've fallen OUT of love with this country, but, unlike in (((Mr. Brooks'))) case, it's the only one I've got--Dunkerque, Memel or Hungnam without the rescue flotilla. And I'll be damned if I'll be shunted aside or marginalized into dhimmitude by a coalition of global capitalists, neo-communists, Alphabet Nation weirdos and Third World flotsam and jetsam demanding to live lives of subsidized and entitled exile in this country. Not that it matters to me, but if (((Mr. Brooks))) prefers the diaspora life, he should hope that Flyover Nation prevails in 2020 and in subsequent elections,

    Replies: @Bugg

    And like his son, he can always get a one way ticket form JFK to Israel.

  106. File this one under far-perceptive by Unz contributor Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco

    Hernan Pizzaro del Blanco says:
    August 12, 2020 at 3:43 am GMT • 100 Words ⇑
    @OscarWildeLoveChild
    Biden will not make it to the inauguration….If Trump does not win in November then the electoral college will elect Harris , Biden will step aside prior to the actual electoral college vote in December. He is no longer capable of reading a speech , probably had another stroke over the last few months. Biden had his first stroke in 1988 , which required brain surgery. He then had another brain surgery to repair an aneurysm.

  107. Brooks took one look at those razor creases in the pants of the generals, saw the blinding gleam of their shoes and he just knew.

  108. The nightmare scenario for Brooks is that Trump wins fair and square, as he did in 2016. If that happens, liberals will be foaming at the mouth and wanting an immediate coup.

    Of course, they daren’t talk openly about this, and so the preparations are being made on the pretext that Trump will lose but refuse to concede – an unlikely scenario that in any case would be handled by SCOTUS before inauguration day.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @James N. Kennett

    A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They'll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @Colin Wright

  109. @Clyde
    What a coquette he is --
    David Brooks is goosing-inciting his NY Times readers in a gentle and digestible way. What he is obliquely referring to is that Trump vs Biden on Nov 3rd will be a total mess due to mail in ballots. Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days. Same as 2016 in Broward County but done in many more "urban" districts. Don't leave out boxes of Democrat ballots found in black church basements and in trunks of Dem owned automobiles.

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @TTSSYF, @El Dato, @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    Yes, and they are open about it. Hillary Clinton has already declared that the Dems will “not concede under any circumstances” [emphasis in original].

    Now the Democrat Media Complex is openly preparing the public not to accept the election results on November 4th so they can print as many ballots as they need to claim victory, while they will blame the delay on Trump.

    And they are now openly courting the military to side with them.

    They think they’ve got this sewn up: if they don’t win on the normal ballot, they’ll win on the mail-in “votes”, if they don’t win on the mail-in “voting”, they’ll win the military coup, which will be presented not as a coup but as “defending The Republic from usurper Trump”.

    The one thing they do not have is any plan to concede, even if it means burning the whole place down.

    As has been said, “it will come to [even more] blood.”

    Prepare accordingly.

    • Agree: Patrick in SC
    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Almost Missouri

    No matter what, at all costs, the goyim must be prevented from ever regaining control of their country.

    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Almost Missouri


    Prepare accordingly.
     
    The only positive I can take from this is that they are announcing their plan, much like the villain in a bad 007 film.

    If I were Trump I'd have people putting out discreet feelers to the field officers and senior NCOs in the military, particularly the Army and Marine's.

    Replies: @Anon

  110. @Not Raul
    @Redman


    Trump says things in a crass manner and off the cuff. But I have to say I’ve never 100% disagreed with anything he’s said. And it usually has a purpose. This quote sounds apocryphal and out of character. What point does it serve, and what does it even mean?
     
    No, it isn't out of character.

    Trump has a history of disrespecting veterans.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-insults-american-veterans-families-2019-10#in-october-2017-trump-forgot-the-name-of-slain-us-army-sgt-la-david-johnson-while-he-was-on-the-phone-with-his-widow-johnson-was-killed-in-an-ambush-in-niger-while-in-active-service-myeshia-johnson-said-the-call-with-trump-made-her-cry-and-that-trump-told-her-that-her-husband-knew-what-he-had-signed-up-for-6

    Replies: @The Real Jon, @Cloudbuster, @Joseph Doaks

    No, the media has a history of accusing Trump of disrespecting veterans.

  111. @Arlo L. Ramsbottom
    @Mr McKenna

    The battle of Belleau Woods was an extraordinary display of Marine fighting ferocity. The Germans labeled them "Devil Dogs" for their spirit.
    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,"Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?"
    He was recommended for the Medal of Honor for his actions,but was awarded the Navy Cross. Having won two previous Medals of Honor,it seems pretty clear he was denied the MOH because he was Irish. It wouldn't look good that the only American with three MOHs was Irish,especially given that some Irish had spoken out against joining the War to bail out the Brits. That's my theory anyway.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Tlotsi

    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,”Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?”

    Plagiarist of Frederick the Great.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Plagiarised much better in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three: “Screw the passengers! What do they expect for their 35 cents — to live forever?!”

    , @anon
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Plagiarist of Frederick the Great.

    Freddie did not lead from the front.

  112. @nebulafox
    @S. Anonyia

    >But the deeper causes?

    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @sayless

    Have never understood why, after 50,000 men died on one day, the generals didn’t all say, stop this thing, and then resign their commands. How could they not see what this was going to be.

  113. @Ret. Army Colonel
    Who has time to waste reading the musings of a loser like David Brooks?

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Dale Gribble

    Sir, I remember hearing a version of what Brooks and “senior officials” accuse Trump of saying about war casualties every day from my Drill Sergeants and Ranger Instructors. Am I wrong?

  114. So journos who hate the military are claiming Trump dissed the military. They’re already desperately reaching into their October Surprise bag and it’s barely September.

  115. The question is, what will we do if David Brooks doesn’t leave?

  116. Anonymous[149] • Disclaimer says:
    @Coemgen
    @Clyde

    There a trial run of “a total mess due to mail in ballots” ongoing right now in Massachusetts:

    Massachusetts 4th Congressional District: Thousands of ballots found in Franklin, Jesse Mermell’s campaign solicits recount signatures

    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John

    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.

    “Blue collar favorite”. Wut? He has a background almost identical to Mayor Pete (Harvard, worked in military intelligence, consultant, local city politics, et al.). The perfect and typical credentials for a loyal servant of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Except unlike Pete, Jake will be accepted into the inner circle:

    From The Jewish Insider:

    …Auchincloss said his Jewish upbringing has impacted his political priorities…

    “I think being a Jew does make me appreciate, as well, the imperative to create a welcoming and inclusive body politic and society,” he continued. “Jews are always going to be subject to discrimination. And we as a people know that when society at large looks for a scapegoat, it’s oftentimes Jews who get picked. And so it’s made me acutely aware that all marginalized communities deserve to have their voices heard and deserve to feel fully welcomed and included in our civil processes.”

    https://village14.com/2020/08/23/jewish-insider-as-some-rivals-consolidate-jake-auchincloss-embraces-frontrunner-status/

    “…the imperative to create a welcoming and inclusive body politic and society”

    Got that you blue collar supporters? Jake’s gonna tikkun olam all you gentile muthaf*ckers!

    • LOL: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Anonymous

    Yes, Metropolitan Boston is a strange place politically.

    This is the text of a locally played attack ad against Auchincloss: In 2017, Auchincloss voted against supporting Donald Trump's impeachment. He defended flying a confederate flag at our schools and actually compared it to Black Lives Matter. And during this campaign, Auchincloss signed a pledge not to take Fossil Fuel money, but took the money anyway. [link is currently dead].

    By Metropolitan Boston standards, he's a monster which made him the favorite of the blue collar towns in the Congressional District.

  117. The AP is, if any, less trustworthy than Jeffrey Goldberg.

    NB in re Brooks: your tax dollars support PBS, who employ this man as their house ‘conservative commentator’. Every aspect of our public life seems suffused with humbug.

    As for Brooks, condign punishment for him would be for the counter-coup to chain him to the salad bar at the nearest Applebee’s.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Art Deco

    +1 for 'condign.'

  118. @Almost Missouri
    @Clyde


    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.
     
    Yes, and they are open about it. Hillary Clinton has already declared that the Dems will "not concede under any circumstances" [emphasis in original].

    Now the Democrat Media Complex is openly preparing the public not to accept the election results on November 4th so they can print as many ballots as they need to claim victory, while they will blame the delay on Trump.

    And they are now openly courting the military to side with them.

    They think they've got this sewn up: if they don't win on the normal ballot, they'll win on the mail-in "votes", if they don't win on the mail-in "voting", they'll win the military coup, which will be presented not as a coup but as "defending The Republic from usurper Trump".

    The one thing they do not have is any plan to concede, even if it means burning the whole place down.

    As has been said, "it will come to [even more] blood."

    Prepare accordingly.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @The Wild Geese Howard

    No matter what, at all costs, the goyim must be prevented from ever regaining control of their country.

    • Agree: Richard B
  119. anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ted Plank
    Ironic that Jeffrey Goldberg is pushing reverence for veterans of the US military, seeing as how he enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces, the army of a foreign nation, his own ethnic kin, instead of the US Armed Forces. Goldberg was born and bred in Brooklyn, NY, a citizen of the USA, not of Israel. Were white gentiles to dedicate military careers to defending THEIR ethnic kin, I have a feeling Goldberg would be quite uncharitable in his condemnation.

    David Brooks also has an American born and raised son serving in the Israeli military.

    Maybe these two individuals should keep their mouths shut on this delicate topic, lest some blowback drift in their direction? I see the Appelbaums, Ornsteins, Kristols are Rubins all braying the same tune under Goldberg's baton. Does America still listen to these people, is the question.

    Replies: @Anon, @anonymous

    Ironic that Jeffrey Goldberg is pushing reverence for veterans of the US military, seeing as how he enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces, the army of a foreign nation, his own ethnic kin, instead of the US Armed Forces. Goldberg was born and bred in Brooklyn, NY, a citizen of the USA, not of Israel. Were white gentiles to dedicate military careers to defending THEIR ethnic kin, I have a feeling Goldberg would be quite uncharitable in his condemnation.

    Jeffrey Goldberg is a classic negative Jewish stereotype. The manifest of character that Hitler attempted to warn the world about. I certainly hope that old saying, “those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it” pans out in his case.

    He’s truly an old-timey Jewish piece of shit.

  120. Expect 60 days of “bombshells!” and “game changing” revelations from “inside” or “anonymous” sources. And don’t be shocked if they produce a living, breathing organism, another “whistle blower,” who will supposedly corroborate the bombshell.

    I can already read the NPR and MSNBC copy: “For years, the President’s die hard supporters and the far right internet have claimed there was a lack of corroboration for these disturbing reports coming out of the White House, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, but this is truly a “game changer,” a “smoking gun” moment which will define whether this Republic will continue as a Democracy or as an authoritarian regime, blah, blah, blah.”

    Of course, said whistle blower won’t testify under oath or even sign an affidavit; he or she will be kept in solitary confinement in the same basement as Joe Biden, and any attempt to question him or her will be reported as witness tampering or witness intimidation.

    This is the world we live in:

    Riots are peaceful protests.

    Riots by far left anarchists and BLM are in fact riots by “far right” extremists.

    Honoring the results of an election is the end of Democracy unless the right person wins.

  121. All the different media outlets and public figures talking about the possibility (certainty?) that Trump will refuse to leave the White House if the election result is not to his liking. Why, it’s almost as if they all talk to each other off the record and a consensus develops over what the week’s messaging will be. Bill Clinton is the latest one to jump into the fray.

    Nixon lost to Kennedy by 120,000 votes. There was substantial evidence that voter fraud had put Kennedy over the top, but Nixon decided not to contest the result because it would divide the country, and make it next to impossible for him to govern if he were able to successfully challenge the result. In the event Biden loses I don’t see him doing anything like that; his party and (especially) the media won’t let him.

    On the other hand, suppose Trump does manage a win, and it’s apparently a solid and legitimate one. Be ready for the the left to demand that Trump be removed from office, only this time it won’t be by way of the 25th amendment or impeachment. The left will openly endorse the sort of political violence ordinarily associated with Soviet supported Latin American revolutionary movements.

    If Trump loses and accepts the result graciously, even then the mob will not leave him alone. There are Democrats who are openly talking about all the “crimes” Trump has committed, and how they’re going to “prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.” If there is another GOP president (doubtful), I think this will become commonplace: violent riots, investigations, serial impeachments, and criminal prosecutions of minor associates while in office, and non-stop harassment up to and including death threats once out of office.

  122. @nebulafox
    >Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    I believe that American intervention in WWI was a mistake, but that hardly means our fallen soldiers were "losers", Steve. And while I'm obviously going to need something far more credible than an anonymous State Department source for The Atlantic and the Washington Post of 2020 to believe this story, I also don't put it beyond Trump to blurt out something like that. The dude is crass and cynical enough to say it and vapidly self-absorbed enough to say it unguarded. I'm saying this as someone who tends to be very cynical of how the American political establishment uses the military.

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long. Vietnam-era anti-military sentiment was squashed during the party's Clintonian rehaul as part of the broader trend of embracing more muscular foreign policy, but there's never been anything like this. What's the deal? TDS? A military that is more to the Left's liking demographically?

    >“sober people who are militant about America”

    Are smart enough to not listen to the cheerleaders for Year 19 of Afghanistan, for starters.

    > It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package. What did you think was going to happen? "Identity politics for me but not for thee" never works, least of all for a country facing massive structural and socioeconomic rot.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @Redman, @Goddard, @Jack D, @Mike1

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long.

    No need to worry – they don’t really love the military – they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry “reporting for duty”? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there – they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    No need to worry – they don’t really love the military – they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry “reporting for duty”? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there – they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.
     
    Even the Russia stuff is BS. Not that the Russians (pace what they've been doing since the Rurikids threw off the Mongol yoke) have decided they don't want to conquer the world. No - it's Democrats who think the world is composed of friends who haven't gotten acquainted yet (except for American conservatives and Republicans - to the Dems, that's the only pool of incorrigibles remaining). Democrats don't actually have an issue with the Russians, or any other foreign threat - that's why their default posture is to push for defense spending reductions until the military has to hold bake sales to get funding.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Coemgen

  123. @anon
    @Thomas

    If it makes you feel any better, apparently he got killed by the cops.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1301724215553323009

    Wonder if we'll see any riots for him.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Here’s a hint – the name of the movement is BLACK lives matter.

  124. @Altai
    @nebulafox


    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.
     
    Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    Nobody believed this war wasn't going to happen, the date and scope were the only things up for debate. The paranoia was fueled by very real conflicts and motivations for war which made sides wary of each other.

    A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable. That it came to involve France and Britain was also inevitable since neither was prepared to tolerate Germany becoming so powerful, perhaps the most powerful (Militarily) country in Europe and if history is any guide, possibly the most technologically advanced nation too.

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn't involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @nebulafox

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    The Maddison project has historical data out. If you’re comparing the domestic product of the metropole in 1913, that of the U.S. was 1.7x that of Russia, 2.2x that of Germany, 2.9x that of Britain, and 3.6x that of France. Britain and France had a large portfolio of overseas dependencies. Doubt you could have made a business case for holding them.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Art Deco

    The US was a net debtor to the UK before WW1, a net creditor after.

  125. @anonymous
    Jeffery Goldberg is a bald-faced liar.
    https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1301741080577298437?s=20

    Replies: @Voltarde, @Jack D, @Art Deco

    All the people kvetching now about Trump not going would have been delighted if he had gotten into that helicopter and done a Kobe Bryant. Then they would have kvetched about how he had been given advice not to go but insisted on going anyway. If he had made it to the cemetery that day and given a patriotic speech that day about our fallen soldiers, they would have written about how WWI was a pointless war in which America should never have been involved. In case you haven’t noticed, whatever Trump does is wrong.

    • Agree: fish
    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  126. @Clyde
    What a coquette he is --
    David Brooks is goosing-inciting his NY Times readers in a gentle and digestible way. What he is obliquely referring to is that Trump vs Biden on Nov 3rd will be a total mess due to mail in ballots. Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days. Same as 2016 in Broward County but done in many more "urban" districts. Don't leave out boxes of Democrat ballots found in black church basements and in trunks of Dem owned automobiles.

    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @TTSSYF, @El Dato, @Almost Missouri, @bomag

    Neither candidate will concede as the platoons of lawyers step in along with fraudulent vote counts going on for days.

    Days? I’d say decades.

    But the Dems are going to want to force the issue, or else Trump and company stays on until a decision. Maybe get one of their pet federal judges to declare the usual emergency and declare Biden the winner, and the cuck-prone Roberts, Gorsuch, or Cavenaugh gives them what they want, “for the children.”

  127. @John Milton’s Ghost
    Brooks’s entire premise is a mess. Suggesting that all that’s been going on is “a few
    Marches in the streets;” that somehow this is all about a rainbow coalition against white supremacy; taking it for granted both that Trump will rightfully lose and refuse to give up power. It’s a hodgepodge of all the half digested ideals of woke America wrapped up in a paranoid fever dream. And unfortunately this insanity has gone mainline.

    Replies: @S

    It’s a hodgepodge of all the half digested ideals of woke America wrapped up in a paranoid fever dream. And unfortunately this insanity has gone mainline.

    If a person wants insight into the delusion and paranoia driving the ‘woke’ mentality, study Jonestown, the forerunner and mother of all ‘automomous zones’, and the events there. Bear in mind, unlike the treatment afforded to most cult leaders and cults, ie rejection, the progressive left establishment embraced the People’s Temple, Jones, and Jonestown, right up to the very end, the late US Democratic Congressman Leo Ryan being an example.

    Had this Michael Reinoehl been around in 1978, he would of found a place right at home with Jones’ ‘Red Brigrade’ security, and drank the kool aid.

    In line with that, I’ll post a few excerpts from Annie Moore’s suicide note. She was Jones 24 year old nurse at Jonestown, and the very last to suicide there.

    “I am at a point right now so embittered against the world that I don’t know why I am writing this. Someone who finds it will believe I am crazy or believe in the barbed wire that does NOT exist in Jonestown.”

    “It seems that everything good that happens to the world is under constant attack. When I write this, I can expect some mentally deranged fascist person to find it and decide it should be thrown in the trash before anyone gets a chance to hear the truth — which is what I am now writing about.”

    “His [Jones] hatred of racism, sexism, elitism, and mainly classism, is what prompted him to make a new world for the people — a paradise in the jungle. The children loved it. So did everyone else.”

    “There were no ugly, mean police waiting to beat our heads in, no more racist stares from whites and others who thought they were better. No one was made fun of for their appearance — something each one had no control over.”

    “Meanness and making fun were not allowed. Maybe this is why all the lies were started – besides the fact that no one was allowed to live higher than anyone else. The United States allows classism, the problem being this and not all the side tracks of black power, woman power, Indian power, gay power.”

    “Jim Jones showed us all this — that we could live together with our differences, that we are all the same – human beings. Luckily, we were more fortunate than the starving babies of Ethiopia and the starving babies in the United States.”

    “What a beautiful place this was. The children loved the jungle, learned about animals and plants. There were no cars to run over them; no child-molesters to molest them; nobody to hurt them. They were the freest, most intelligent children I had ever known.”

    “Seniors had dignity. They had whatever they wanted — a plot of land for a garden. Seniors were treated with respect — something they never had in the United States. A rare few were sick, and when they were, they were given the best medical care.”

    “We died because you would not let us live in peace!” [Signed] Annie Moore.”

    https://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=13939

  128. @Jack D
    @nebulafox


    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long.
     
    No need to worry - they don't really love the military - they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry "reporting for duty"? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there - they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    No need to worry – they don’t really love the military – they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry “reporting for duty”? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there – they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.

    Even the Russia stuff is BS. Not that the Russians (pace what they’ve been doing since the Rurikids threw off the Mongol yoke) have decided they don’t want to conquer the world. No – it’s Democrats who think the world is composed of friends who haven’t gotten acquainted yet (except for American conservatives and Republicans – to the Dems, that’s the only pool of incorrigibles remaining). Democrats don’t actually have an issue with the Russians, or any other foreign threat – that’s why their default posture is to push for defense spending reductions until the military has to hold bake sales to get funding.

    • Agree: Jack D, TTSSYF
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years? Has any politician aside from Bernie or AOC actually called for this. I’m baffled by the idea that the Pentagon is starving for funds because of the Democrats. What a bizarre position. And I don’t even like those looks. I think you work for the military industrial complex in some capacity, “Johann Ricke.”

    And yes, the leftists regard foreigners as fascists just as much as they do their domestic enemies. Prestige media have written plenty of hit pieces on Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi, Duterte, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mr McKenna, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    , @Coemgen
    @Johann Ricke

    Russia, with a GDP less than that of the State of New York, is not a likely world conqueror. I don’t know the FSB’s yearly budget but I assume it would be equivalent to a rounding error for the CIA/NSA/et al. budget. The Democrats’ moral panic regarding Russia is just another example of the Democrats’ “two plus two equals five-ism.”

    Replies: @Cortes

  129. The demo-riots and the hapless Biden are a means to the end of reversing Trump’s victory by having Biden elected then declared unfit after the shortest possible decent interval, so that Harris becomes the US’s first woman president in 2021. Firstly, Brooks is appealing to the military to not object when Biden is declared unfit.

    Secondly, far from being about what Trump might do if he loses the election, Brooks’s piece in relation to the Donald is really getting at what Trump might do if he wins the election, because the demo riots will keep going in the hope of Trump quitting, but Trump might call out the regular army to quell the rioting. So Brooks is appealing to the army to do nothing, no matter what happens and whatever the sitting or elect white male President (Biden or Trump) asks.

    Having father and son and narrowly missing a wife getting to be President was a sign that the US had turned into a banana republic. The coming coup under the guise of a medical disqualification of President Biden should surprise no one. It might even be done before he actually is sworn in and takes office, as he is not going to go willingly and it may be thought too dangerous to let him become Commander in Chief in case the army take their oath seriously.

  130. @El Dato
    @Veracitor

    Washington Post outlines bizarrely detailed post-election apocalypse...unless Biden scores a landslide victory


    To those wondering how the TIP could predict the actions of the Trump administration on election night and beyond, they simply asked anti-Trump pundit Bill Kristol and former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele to play as the president.
     
    https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1301517664465158145

    [[[Revolutionary Colors Intensifiying; Dying in Darkness Promised]]]

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    In every scenario except a Biden landslide, our simulation ended catastrophically.

    Besides that their scenario is based on the word of people who hate Trump, keep in mind that “catastrophically” for them can include “triumphantly” for us.

    If you look at the actual article, you can see that it is constructed mostly from inversions of reality:

    In each scenario, Team Trump … was ruthless and unconstrained right out of the gate,

    —so, exactly the opposite of the last four years—

    and Team Biden struggled to get out of reaction mode. … Over and over, Team Biden urged calm,

    —that must be a new thing they plan to roll out later—

    national unity and a fair vote count, while Team Trump issued barely disguised calls for violence and intimidation against ballot-counting officials and Biden electors. In every exercise, both teams sought to mobilize their supporters to take to the streets.

    Dem supporters are already on the streets in enormous force.

    Team Biden repeatedly called for peaceful protests,

    —if so, it would have to be in the “mostly peaceful [wink, wink] protest” format—

    while Team Trump encouraged provocateurs to incite violence,

    —as has never happened—

    then used the resulting chaos to justify sending federalized Guard units or active-duty military personnel into American cities to “restore order,” leading to still more violence.

    —aka, the standard Dem playbook.

    Etc.

  131. @anonymous
    Jeffery Goldberg is a bald-faced liar.
    https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1301741080577298437?s=20

    Replies: @Voltarde, @Jack D, @Art Deco

    Their ‘sources’ are what they pulled out of their rectum.

    • Replies: @Patrick in SC
    @Art Deco

    There's a general whiff of implausibility in the whole thing.

    "Trump really, really dislikes military veterans, especially veterans of WWI, a conflict with which he is intimately familiar, and he considers the men who fought and died in that conflict 'losers'." Because everyone knows the United States "lost" the First World War.

    Even if Trump was being lazy and didn't want to take another helicopter trip for a photo-op, which I find implausible, I highly doubt he's thought enough about WWI to come to the conclusion that the dead of that conflict are "losers."

  132. @Art Deco
    @anonymous

    Their 'sources' are what they pulled out of their rectum.

    Replies: @Patrick in SC

    There’s a general whiff of implausibility in the whole thing.

    “Trump really, really dislikes military veterans, especially veterans of WWI, a conflict with which he is intimately familiar, and he considers the men who fought and died in that conflict ‘losers’.” Because everyone knows the United States “lost” the First World War.

    Even if Trump was being lazy and didn’t want to take another helicopter trip for a photo-op, which I find implausible, I highly doubt he’s thought enough about WWI to come to the conclusion that the dead of that conflict are “losers.”

  133. @anon
    I wonder if Brooks has the notion that if Trump wins, but its reasonably close, the media is just going to lie and declare Biden the winner? This could be in anticipation of that outcome, hoping the military leaders be willing to "believe the lie" the media feeds them, and removes Trump if he wont leave while there is a lawsuit over it, et cetera?

    Replies: @Forbes

    Trump won in 2016, and the media declared itself the opposition and conducted itself as the resistance. Why should 2020’s outcome be any different…

    By the looks of it, the media and the Democrats are already planning more disruption and confusion, as in 2016 they were caught off-guard, assuming as they did the Hillary had it in the bag. Still they executed their Russian collusion hoax and attempted coup. Expect their efforts to be re-doubled this year.

  134. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @danand
    @D. K.

    NYT:


    By Mike Baker, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner
    Published Sept. 3, 2020
Updated Sept. 4, 2020, 12:29 a.m. ET

    SEATTLE — An antifa activist being investigated in the fatal shooting of a right-wing counterprotester who was part of a pro-Trump caravan in Portland, Ore., was killed on Thursday night when authorities moved to arrest him, according to four law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

    The officials said the suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was shot by officers from a federal fugitive task force during the encounter in Lacey, Wash., southwest of Seattle.

    An arrest warrant had been issued by the Portland police earlier Thursday, on the same day that Vice News published an interview with Mr. Reinoehl in which he appeared to admit to the shooting, saying, “I had no choice.”
     

    Reinoehl left behind 2 teenage daughters.

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @Pericles, @Anon

    His daughters are lucky to be free of the crazy leftist nutjob of a father. With him gone, they can start returning to a life of sanity. He was the sort of guy who was already pushing his daughters into crazy confrontations that might have gotten them killed. There’s a photo of one of his daughters with a gun at one of the riots. He was a lousy father and a very demented man.

  135. @Christopher Chantrill
    Well yes. What was the point of the US going into WWI, President Wilson? So you could strut and fret your hour upon the stage, pal?

    Much better would be for the Euro powers to bleed themselves to a standstill. And then go home.

    Then no Hitler, no Holocaust. Imagine.

    Replies: @Skylark Thibedeau, @Neuday

    Well yes. What was the point of the US going into WWI, President Wilson? So you could strut and fret your hour upon the stage, pal?

    With the Balfour Declaration Britain promised Lord Rothschild that Britain supported a Palestinian state for the Jews. Wilson’s financial backers were heavily Jewish. Wilson also appointed the first Jewish judge on the Supreme Court, the first of many. Then there’s the establishment of the Fed, and Wilson’s support of the 19th Amendment, and establishment of the Federal income tax. Also, the entirely unreasonable reparations Germany had to pay were handled, with significant complexity, by a certain group of people who seem to be drawn toward large, complex financial transactions. Wilson originally opposed the extent of the German reparations but one of his senior advisors of a certain background was adamantly in favor and Wilson signed off on the treaty.

    Anyway, the point of us going into WWI was because the perfidious Jews wanted us there, and Wilson was a pawn of the tribe.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Neuday

    The US joined WWI after the Tsar had been overthrown, the British ambassador, and author of the lyrics to the hymn 'I vow to the my country', identified the Jewish press and lobby as the principle opponent of US involvement in WWI, due to the fact Tsarist Russia was involved.

  136. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:

    I think the main issue here is that recent polling has indicated that Trump is going to get enough of the black and Hispanic vote to cause the Dems a major problem. Whites are already on Trump’s side. But Biden’s Hispanic support is lagging Hillary’s all over the place. A case in point:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/joe-biden-florida-hispanic-voters-poll-408711

    Black voters supporting Trump:

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/31/trumps-approval-rating-black-voters-soars-60-durin/

  137. Only a coup, by the white-racist military removing a white-racist president duly re-elected by the support of a majority of white-racist citizens, can save the democracy of our irredeemably racist country that we superior woke people all love so well.

  138. @International Jew
    @Not Raul

    I didn't say she was. She left after her colleagues made life miserable for her.

    Replies: @Not Raul

    That’s her story. I don’t believe it.

    More likely, she was making life miserable for her colleagues.

    She first gained notoriety by trying to get academics cancelled for their opinions.

    https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/

    She goes around trying to get people canceled, and when she faces criticism herself, she claims that people are trying to cancel her. That’s projection.

  139. @Almost Missouri
    @Clyde


    I hear the ultimate Democrat strategy is to make such a months on end mess that the Presidency gets decided in the House of Representatives on January 6th. That this is provided in The Constitution.
     
    Yes, and they are open about it. Hillary Clinton has already declared that the Dems will "not concede under any circumstances" [emphasis in original].

    Now the Democrat Media Complex is openly preparing the public not to accept the election results on November 4th so they can print as many ballots as they need to claim victory, while they will blame the delay on Trump.

    And they are now openly courting the military to side with them.

    They think they've got this sewn up: if they don't win on the normal ballot, they'll win on the mail-in "votes", if they don't win on the mail-in "voting", they'll win the military coup, which will be presented not as a coup but as "defending The Republic from usurper Trump".

    The one thing they do not have is any plan to concede, even if it means burning the whole place down.

    As has been said, "it will come to [even more] blood."

    Prepare accordingly.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease, @The Wild Geese Howard

    Prepare accordingly.

    The only positive I can take from this is that they are announcing their plan, much like the villain in a bad 007 film.

    If I were Trump I’d have people putting out discreet feelers to the field officers and senior NCOs in the military, particularly the Army and Marine’s.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Ah yes the countercoup will definitely be led by some fat chief petty officer

    Replies: @BB753

  140. @Art Deco
    @Altai

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    The Maddison project has historical data out. If you're comparing the domestic product of the metropole in 1913, that of the U.S. was 1.7x that of Russia, 2.2x that of Germany, 2.9x that of Britain, and 3.6x that of France. Britain and France had a large portfolio of overseas dependencies. Doubt you could have made a business case for holding them.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The US was a net debtor to the UK before WW1, a net creditor after.

  141. The coup is in place. Drudge has retired Generals blasting Trump and of course Deplorables and White people.

    Trump might not even make it to Election Day. The Joint Chiefs could remove him in the planned color revolution on Sep 17.

    It’s clear Trump is toast. No way military let’s him be re-elected.

    What is not clear is who takes over. Generals in a Woke Pinochet? Helicopter rides for us? Nancy Pelosi? Harris? Or say a Soros puppet? Obama again? Hillary?

    None of that is known. But it is guaranteed that Trump is toast. The military hates him and wants wokeness 100%

  142. @Stebbing Heuer
    The most insane thing in the world must be to talk yourself into a civil war against people who just want to be left alone.

    And yet here we are.

    Replies: @Grey Ghost

    Oh, but it happened back in 1861 when Lincoln convinced the USA to invade the seceding Southern states who just wanted to be left alone

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Grey Ghost


    Oh, but it happened back in 1861 when Lincoln convinced the USA to invade the seceding Southern states who just wanted to be left alone.
     
    Thomas Sims, Anthony Burns, and their Bostonian neighbors just wanted to be left alone, too, in the previous decade, when their city was invaded by feds multiple times-- at the urging of desperate Southerners.

    Be careful of the precedents you set. You might end up paying that income tax you foist upon the Yankees. Or registering your gun with the Prohibitionist ATF you folks midwived.


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/19190117_Prohibition_-_Eighteenth_Amendment_-_The_New_York_Times.jpg/640px-19190117_Prohibition_-_Eighteenth_Amendment_-_The_New_York_Times.jpg

  143. People, can we calm down and back off?

    As much as I agree with iSteve’s noble and peaceful sentiment, I have a different thought about Mr. Brooks and his post Trump re-election behavior.

    Of course Dugout Dave wants others to do the heavy lifting in “ousting” Trump when re-elected.

    “Hey, you working class guys in uniform go and arrest this bad Orange Man! The Russian postal workers stole the election from Biden! Don’t worry, we’ll all write about how military coups are just part of our normal democratic process! Will Duranty won prizes, so can we!”

    No, I want Mr. Brooks to charge, dangerous looking “assault weapon” in hand, right at the main gate to the White House on November 4. Screaming profanities no doubt. One of which will be cursing his rifle because he doesn’t know about the need to pull the charging handle first before it loads.

    After those heroics, we can all calmly pass by his bier which will lie in State in the NYT cafeteria. RIP Mr. Brooks. We here at Unz will all miss your memorable scribblings. “Hey look, free donuts!”

  144. @Art Deco
    The AP is, if any, less trustworthy than Jeffrey Goldberg.


    NB in re Brooks: your tax dollars support PBS, who employ this man as their house 'conservative commentator'. Every aspect of our public life seems suffused with humbug.


    As for Brooks, condign punishment for him would be for the counter-coup to chain him to the salad bar at the nearest Applebee's.

    Replies: @anon

    +1 for ‘condign.’

  145. @Coemgen
    @Clyde

    There a trial run of “a total mess due to mail in ballots” ongoing right now in Massachusetts:

    Massachusetts 4th Congressional District: Thousands of ballots found in Franklin, Jesse Mermell’s campaign solicits recount signatures

    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Prester John

    Can’t help but remark on the irony of someone named “Auchincloss”– a name redolent of Greenwich Yacht Club, Skull and Bones, white shoes and guys who talk with their teeth clenched–as a “blue collar favorite.”

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Prester John

    They're collateral relatives of Jackie Onassis' step-father. The family recycles the name 'Hugh' over and over and people misspell their surname with abandon, so it can be a puzzle as to just which 'Hugh Auchincloss' (or Anchincloss, or Auchincoude) is which. This fellow 'Jake Auchincloss' is the issue of a line of doctors. His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all physicians / surgeons.

    Replies: @HammerJack

  146. @Anon7
    Well, the race war seems to be sputtering. What other conflict can the Dems stir up? A constitutional crisis, perhaps? A military takeover? Ketchup on hot dogs?

    Based on what I've seen in the last four years, everything that the Dems and media can say along the lines of "Orange Man Bad" will entirely dominate our public discourse.

    Replies: @Anon7

    Would you believe a two year-old story about Trump, disrespecting WWI vets and his hair?

    Seems like a low-energy hoax to me. Will this one last the news cycle?

  147. Dovid Shlomo Brooks and ilk can only fart.

  148. I’ve decided to vote for Trump with hopes we bring current color revolution to its glorious conclusion. Funny thing is it increasingly looks Jewish rather than blackish. I’m here to help my kosher friends, stop claiming Antifa as yours and tell the NY Times to shut up.

  149. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Arlo L. Ramsbottom


    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,”Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?”
     
    Plagiarist of Frederick the Great.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @anon

    Plagiarised much better in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three: “Screw the passengers! What do they expect for their 35 cents — to live forever?!”

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  150. They understand that, like so many American tragedies, this is largely about race. It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    If you don’t like that David Brooks is trying to destroy America, you can do something easy to fight back. Start sympathizing with the Palestinians. They are in the same situation white Americans are — we both are having our nation taken from us by Jews. Support BDS — Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions on Israel. Support other actors that are in conflict with Israel. Support Iran. Support Russia. Support Syria. Talk to anyone you know who is pro-white about the importance of supporting the Palestinians and BDS. This is the best way we can fight back against anti-white Zionists like David Brooks. Almost all Zionists oppose white people having our own nations and that includes fake nationalists like Yoram Hazony. Fight back against anti-white Zionist Jews. Free Palestine.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  151. It’s funny that a just a few short years ago, Cabela’s (https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en) was advertising on Chicago radio station (WIND-AM 560) as the place to get your “tactical gear.”

    Cabela’s is for the ordinary Joe & Jane US citizen and is NOT a “Cop Shop.”

    So they were telling the radio listener to arm up as MILITIA during PEACE TIME.

    I’d say get your magazines, web gear, medical IFAK, ammo (you can NEVER have too much), FRS walky-talkies, armor plates, whatever you think you might need.

    Bring a friend when shopping and help out the economy while you’re at it.

  152. If Trump claims a victory that is not rightly his….

    This is a part of a pre-emptive strike by the media against the correctly anticipated reaction to the (probably equally correctly) anticipated election fraud that could be perpetrated by the left in the spirit of what I call The Divine Right of the Morally Superior. This Divine Right has been alarmingly effective against very constitutional immigration laws and laws against rioting, which have been rendered unenforceable through the activism of progressive judges, mayors and governors for the purpose, at least in part, of dethroning Adolf Trump. Why not election laws, too?

    In the simplistic battle of good against evil that the left creates as a pretext to achieve this goal, the “good” (in the tradition of radicalism) can only ever be good and can never ever be corrupted into something approximating evil. That’s a precept that pretty easily morphs into the common radical leftist phrase: “By Any Means Necessary.” It’s quite possible that election fraud, in their minds, is as legitimate as any other means. Why shouldn’t reasonable and rational people in a free and open society be vigilant against this?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @J1234

    Michael Anton is good as usual: https://americanmind.org/essays/the-coming-coup/

    I just got his new book today.

  153. @Grey Ghost
    @Stebbing Heuer

    Oh, but it happened back in 1861 when Lincoln convinced the USA to invade the seceding Southern states who just wanted to be left alone

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Oh, but it happened back in 1861 when Lincoln convinced the USA to invade the seceding Southern states who just wanted to be left alone.

    Thomas Sims, Anthony Burns, and their Bostonian neighbors just wanted to be left alone, too, in the previous decade, when their city was invaded by feds multiple times– at the urging of desperate Southerners.

    Be careful of the precedents you set. You might end up paying that income tax you foist upon the Yankees. Or registering your gun with the Prohibitionist ATF you folks midwived.

  154. @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Almost Missouri


    Prepare accordingly.
     
    The only positive I can take from this is that they are announcing their plan, much like the villain in a bad 007 film.

    If I were Trump I'd have people putting out discreet feelers to the field officers and senior NCOs in the military, particularly the Army and Marine's.

    Replies: @Anon

    Ah yes the countercoup will definitely be led by some fat chief petty officer

    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @BB753
    @Anon

    The US military has become mostly an inefficient gigantic job program for unemployed high-school drop-outs. Their allegiance is to who(m)ever sends their checks.

  155. @Anon
    OT: This is great. "George Washington University professor says she lied about being black."

    "Jessica Krug, an associate professor at George Washington University, admitted that she was in fact a white Jewish woman from Kansas City. Jessica Krug said she had falsely assumed identities "that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54008495

    It must have been the Jewfro hair that helped her out.

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    Jessica Krug said she had falsely assumed identities “that I had no right to claim: first North African Blackness, then US rooted Blackness, then Caribbean rooted Bronx Blackness.”

    I’ve seen all of these attributed to Kamala Harris. Where’s her apology?

  156. @Polynikes
    @Mr McKenna

    Reddit is essentially Chinese propaganda.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Tlotsi

    On its better days, if you ask me. Though I haven’t spent much time there, it seems to be a conclave of overweight, unemployed females who spend way too much time watching what they call ‘must-see TV’. It’s so weird to me that people brag about ‘Netflix binges’ as though it’s a great way to spend your life.

    The other thing they do is repeat (ad nauseam) how toxic white supremacy is just everywhere–including all over Reddit, they claim.

  157. @James N. Kennett
    The nightmare scenario for Brooks is that Trump wins fair and square, as he did in 2016. If that happens, liberals will be foaming at the mouth and wanting an immediate coup.

    Of course, they daren't talk openly about this, and so the preparations are being made on the pretext that Trump will lose but refuse to concede - an unlikely scenario that in any case would be handled by SCOTUS before inauguration day.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They’ll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.

    • Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki
    @William Badwhite


    A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They’ll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.
     
    Fortunately, it takes a 2/3rds majority to convict in the Senate.

    So that won't work either.
    , @Colin Wright
    @William Badwhite

    'A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They’ll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.'

    Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Unless Trump pisses off Israel, ain't gonna happen.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

  158. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Arlo L. Ramsbottom


    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,”Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?”
     
    Plagiarist of Frederick the Great.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @anon

    Plagiarist of Frederick the Great.

    Freddie did not lead from the front.

  159. @CAL2
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Trump didn't tweet that. An anonymous source said he said it. In other words, it is made up.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I believe you, CAL. Trump can shoot off his mouth a lot, but this is not something he’d say for any reason. It’d just be stupid, because, even if the President did agree that we shouldn’t have been in WWI (he doesn’t think that hard anyway), there’d be no reason to call these soldiers “losers”.

    I just assumed that the President’s non-attendance at the cemetery in ’18 was the issue and in some other tweet (which I shouldn’t have assumed because it’s not up there). My point was that there are almost no memories of ancestors or attachments of any kind to the American doughboys of 100 years ago in most of the military.

    Sorry for the confusion (my own here).

  160. @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    David Pinsen Retweeted:

    • Thanks: Mr McKenna, Gabe Ruth
    • Replies: @Charon
    @MEH 0910

    Norman Ornstein says no one is more credible!

    Well that settles it for me!

    , @Corvinus
    @MEH 0910

    Here is Fox News supporting what was written in the Atlantic piece.

    https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1301993408219684865

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @nebulafox

  161. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1301968873487564802

  162. @Anonymous
    @Coemgen


    The blue collar favorite, Auchincloss, is ahead by about 1500 votes but around 3000 previously uncounted mail in ballots have been discovered.
     
    “Blue collar favorite”. Wut? He has a background almost identical to Mayor Pete (Harvard, worked in military intelligence, consultant, local city politics, et al.). The perfect and typical credentials for a loyal servant of the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Except unlike Pete, Jake will be accepted into the inner circle:

    From The Jewish Insider:

    ...Auchincloss said his Jewish upbringing has impacted his political priorities...

    “I think being a Jew does make me appreciate, as well, the imperative to create a welcoming and inclusive body politic and society,” he continued. “Jews are always going to be subject to discrimination. And we as a people know that when society at large looks for a scapegoat, it’s oftentimes Jews who get picked. And so it’s made me acutely aware that all marginalized communities deserve to have their voices heard and deserve to feel fully welcomed and included in our civil processes.”

    https://village14.com/2020/08/23/jewish-insider-as-some-rivals-consolidate-jake-auchincloss-embraces-frontrunner-status/
     

    “...the imperative to create a welcoming and inclusive body politic and society”

    Got that you blue collar supporters? Jake’s gonna tikkun olam all you gentile muthaf*ckers!

    Replies: @Coemgen

    Yes, Metropolitan Boston is a strange place politically.

    This is the text of a locally played attack ad against Auchincloss: In 2017, Auchincloss voted against supporting Donald Trump’s impeachment. He defended flying a confederate flag at our schools and actually compared it to Black Lives Matter. And during this campaign, Auchincloss signed a pledge not to take Fossil Fuel money, but took the money anyway. [link is currently dead].

    By Metropolitan Boston standards, he’s a monster which made him the favorite of the blue collar towns in the Congressional District.

  163. @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    No need to worry – they don’t really love the military – they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry “reporting for duty”? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there – they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.
     
    Even the Russia stuff is BS. Not that the Russians (pace what they've been doing since the Rurikids threw off the Mongol yoke) have decided they don't want to conquer the world. No - it's Democrats who think the world is composed of friends who haven't gotten acquainted yet (except for American conservatives and Republicans - to the Dems, that's the only pool of incorrigibles remaining). Democrats don't actually have an issue with the Russians, or any other foreign threat - that's why their default posture is to push for defense spending reductions until the military has to hold bake sales to get funding.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Coemgen

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years? Has any politician aside from Bernie or AOC actually called for this. I’m baffled by the idea that the Pentagon is starving for funds because of the Democrats. What a bizarre position. And I don’t even like those looks. I think you work for the military industrial complex in some capacity, “Johann Ricke.”

    And yes, the leftists regard foreigners as fascists just as much as they do their domestic enemies. Prestige media have written plenty of hit pieces on Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi, Duterte, etc.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @S. Anonyia

    When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years?

    1992, under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @Mr McKenna
    @S. Anonyia

    Please to exhibit your bona fides by referring to it as military spending, not defense spending.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

    , @Johann Ricke
    @S. Anonyia


    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years?
     
    Repeatedly, and frequently.

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart2p31.png

    The reality of inflation is that any spending that falls as a % of the economy is a reduction. Note that non-defense spending hasn't fallen in that respect.

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp03t.png

    Note, for instance, that K-12 education costs have gone up as a % of the economy even though no one is actively working to thwart the efforts of children to pick up basic skills. Whereas military spending always has to contend with the efforts of foreign adversaries to thwart both current and future weapon systems.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

    , @nebulafox
    @S. Anonyia

    Carter actually started the trend of increased military spending in 1979.

  164. @nebulafox
    >Is the point of this giant whoop-tee-doo in the media today over Trump disrespecting WWI dough-boys is to lay the groundwork for a military coup in case that proves needful?

    I believe that American intervention in WWI was a mistake, but that hardly means our fallen soldiers were "losers", Steve. And while I'm obviously going to need something far more credible than an anonymous State Department source for The Atlantic and the Washington Post of 2020 to believe this story, I also don't put it beyond Trump to blurt out something like that. The dude is crass and cynical enough to say it and vapidly self-absorbed enough to say it unguarded. I'm saying this as someone who tends to be very cynical of how the American political establishment uses the military.

    What I do find disturbing and telling is how the MSM and the Democrats suddenly are trying to have the same, disturbing cult-like attitude toward the military that was normative in the GOP for so long. Vietnam-era anti-military sentiment was squashed during the party's Clintonian rehaul as part of the broader trend of embracing more muscular foreign policy, but there's never been anything like this. What's the deal? TDS? A military that is more to the Left's liking demographically?

    >“sober people who are militant about America”

    Are smart enough to not listen to the cheerleaders for Year 19 of Afghanistan, for starters.

    > It’s about the transition from a certain kind of white-dominated America to a diverse America — and the people who will do anything to stop it. …

    Transition has already happened, Dave, but white identity politics was always going to be part of your precious multicultural package. What did you think was going to happen? "Identity politics for me but not for thee" never works, least of all for a country facing massive structural and socioeconomic rot.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @Redman, @Goddard, @Jack D, @Mike1

    Yeah Trump hates the military is credible. Give me a break. Does he also wander around spouting off about police officers in his spare time?!

    This is a sanity test. Giving it any credence at all is failing it.

    • Agree: sayless, Johann Ricke
  165. @Anon
    @The Wild Geese Howard

    Ah yes the countercoup will definitely be led by some fat chief petty officer

    Replies: @BB753

    The US military has become mostly an inefficient gigantic job program for unemployed high-school drop-outs. Their allegiance is to who(m)ever sends their checks.

  166. @DextersLabRat
    The main message being sent here is to the rest of the national media: start preparing the public for either a military coup or a civil war in case Trump wins the election.

    Replies: @Dube

    The main message being sent here is to the rest of the national media: start preparing the public for either a military coup or a civil war in case Trump wins the election.

    Quite so. Brooks’ piece is a directive.

  167. @William Badwhite
    @James N. Kennett

    A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They'll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @Colin Wright

    A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They’ll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.

    Fortunately, it takes a 2/3rds majority to convict in the Senate.

    So that won’t work either.

  168. @William Badwhite
    @James N. Kennett

    A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They'll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.

    Replies: @Servant of Gla'aki, @Colin Wright

    ‘A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They’ll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.’

    Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Unless Trump pisses off Israel, ain’t gonna happen.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Colin Wright

    Oh jeez I knew that. My mistake, sorry all.

  169. @Anon
    Jesus you are pathetic. If Trump did say that (and you don't even pretend to doubt the accuracy of this report), how dishonest and/or stupid do you have to be to spin it as him simply saying "World War One (not Two, One) was pointless"?

    It wouldn't kill you to admit that Trump is a terrible person, that this report seems more than plausible, and that, if he did say it, then it was undeniably disrespectful to the American soldiers who died in the Great War. Are you so afraid of helping Trump's admittedly-demonic foes like David Brooks that you will say anything to spite them?

    I have been reading you for years and cannot recall you even implicitly criticizing Good Orange Man. You're like a poor man's version (literally) of Scott Adams: 60-something year old nerd who hates the left so much that you're willing to unconditionally shill for Donald Trump, who isn't even paying you and probably wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire. Instead of your constant fundraiser posts maybe you could at least try to send the White House an invoice for the dedicated propaganda you've spent years writing for Trump.

    Replies: @CajunSmiff, @Anonymous, @vinteuil

    this report seems more than plausible

    No, in fact, it does not seem even remotely plausible. It sounds far more like something that ‘The Atlantic’ retrieved from it’s posterior orifice, and I must insist they return it from whence it came.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Wielgus
    @Anonymous

    It seems a somewhat Leona Helmsley type of remark to make, but he moves in those circles.

  170. @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years? Has any politician aside from Bernie or AOC actually called for this. I’m baffled by the idea that the Pentagon is starving for funds because of the Democrats. What a bizarre position. And I don’t even like those looks. I think you work for the military industrial complex in some capacity, “Johann Ricke.”

    And yes, the leftists regard foreigners as fascists just as much as they do their domestic enemies. Prestige media have written plenty of hit pieces on Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi, Duterte, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mr McKenna, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years?

    1992, under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

    • Thanks: S. Anonyia
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Steve Sailer

    End of the Cold War. I can't imagine any politician saying nowadays that Russia will be less of a threat in future.

  171. @Steve Sailer
    @S. Anonyia

    When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years?

    1992, under Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    End of the Cold War. I can’t imagine any politician saying nowadays that Russia will be less of a threat in future.

  172. @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years? Has any politician aside from Bernie or AOC actually called for this. I’m baffled by the idea that the Pentagon is starving for funds because of the Democrats. What a bizarre position. And I don’t even like those looks. I think you work for the military industrial complex in some capacity, “Johann Ricke.”

    And yes, the leftists regard foreigners as fascists just as much as they do their domestic enemies. Prestige media have written plenty of hit pieces on Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi, Duterte, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mr McKenna, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    Please to exhibit your bona fides by referring to it as military spending, not defense spending.

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @Mr McKenna

    Never said I was a bona fide. But it doesn't take an expert to determine that our military is NOT underfunded. And that rarely are either military or defense spending cut. Also spending on the military falls under the umbrella of defense spending, do we really need to differentiate the two all that much?

  173. @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years? Has any politician aside from Bernie or AOC actually called for this. I’m baffled by the idea that the Pentagon is starving for funds because of the Democrats. What a bizarre position. And I don’t even like those looks. I think you work for the military industrial complex in some capacity, “Johann Ricke.”

    And yes, the leftists regard foreigners as fascists just as much as they do their domestic enemies. Prestige media have written plenty of hit pieces on Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi, Duterte, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mr McKenna, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years?

    Repeatedly, and frequently.

    The reality of inflation is that any spending that falls as a % of the economy is a reduction. Note that non-defense spending hasn’t fallen in that respect.

    Note, for instance, that K-12 education costs have gone up as a % of the economy even though no one is actively working to thwart the efforts of children to pick up basic skills. Whereas military spending always has to contend with the efforts of foreign adversaries to thwart both current and future weapon systems.

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    Your chart for defense spending looks fairly level. Huge upticks during WWI, WWII, and then a more moderate one at the start of cold war and during the height of nuclear paranoia. No huge fluctuations or dips since then. Are you really surprised that defense spending is lower than it was during WWII? hah!

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  174. I could care less whether it’s a globalist-aligned Deep State lie or exaggeration or if Trump called the dead and maimed off every 20th Century war a loser.

    But: If a knock-on consequence of this line of attack is that the prestige and status of the military and veterans is taken down a few pegs, to pre-9/11 levels if not more so, that’s a win for Trump in my book.

    Our obsequiousness toward the military has been stoked and exploited by globalists and Zionists. It’s out of step with the culture necessary for true republicanism and not in the American character.

  175. @duncsbaby
    So we all know that David Brooks's wife is being schtupped by this black guy, right?

    https://dailyentertainmentnews.com/wpgo/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/david-brooks-anne-snyder-5.jpg

    https://dailyentertainmentnews.com/wpgo/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/david-brooks-anne-snyder-3.jpg

    Replies: @Anon

    She could do worse: like shtupp David Brooks

  176. @Altai
    @nebulafox


    WWI was perhaps the greatest example of the consequences of miscommunication and paranoia in human history, fueled by rampant dishonesty.
     
    Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    Nobody believed this war wasn't going to happen, the date and scope were the only things up for debate. The paranoia was fueled by very real conflicts and motivations for war which made sides wary of each other.

    A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable. That it came to involve France and Britain was also inevitable since neither was prepared to tolerate Germany becoming so powerful, perhaps the most powerful (Militarily) country in Europe and if history is any guide, possibly the most technologically advanced nation too.

    Remember the shift of industrial and economic supremacy to the US happened in two phases, both the direct results of the fighting of WWI and WWII. If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn't involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @nebulafox

    >Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    I think that’s based off outdated evidence. The general war situation for the Central Powers in the summer of 1914 was completely unfavorable and only just beginning to improve with the start of Anglo-German detente. It would have gotten better over the following years, since it was common knowledge that France’s rate of conscription under the 1913 law was unsustainable in the long term.

    To be sure, there was a preemptive war party in Berlin (just as there was in every European capital), and they were influential. But Wilhelmine Germany wasn’t Imperial Japan, or to use a contemporary example, Serbia, where the civilians had no control over the military. They were under the control of two civilians who Moltke contemptuously and tellingly dubbed “the two old women”, Wilhelm and Bethmann-Hollweg. Neither of them wanted a full scale war that they knew Germany had only a small chance of winning outright in 1914 with France’s conscription policy at its peak. That’s not to say they had moral objections to aggressive war or anything: both of them were in favor of Austria *immediately* crushing Serbia. But that was precisely so that the assassination would remain a legitimate excuse and so that nobody would have time to interfere-it was quite a different story a month later. They should have known their ally better: Austria would bumble its way through July and then declare war two weeks before the army could even return from harvest!

    >A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable.

    Why? The fundamental interests of Germany and Russia did not conflict in the way that they did with Austria (and Austria and Russia managed to divide their interests in the region quite peacefully until the last few years before the war). Germany was not a direct Balkan power like Austria. Germany was not competing for influence in Asia like the British did. Germany did not harbor revolutionaries and shared an interest in keeping the Poles quiet. It’s critical to remember that of the three Entente powers, only France saw the real point of the understanding as containing Germany: right up until the end, the UK saw Russia as the main problem it faced. That’s not to say that Russia and the UK weren’t worried about Germany at all, particularly in Russia where ethnic Germans were increasingly viewed similarly to how ethnic Chinese were viewed in late Suharto-era Indonesia, but they still saw the main foreign policy problem they faced as each other. The only flash point was Turkey, and though elements within the Russian government did want to dismember the Ottoman Empire, they no more controlled the state than Moltke did in Berlin. Indeed, seemed as though the problem in Tsarist Russia by that point was that nobody knew who controlled things, thanks to Nicholas II…

    A war between Germany and Russia inevitably would have become a two-front war with France. Berlin knew that. And as I just mentioned, the German military footing in 1914 was at a relative nadir. The Austrians were even worse off, with war hawk in chief von Hoetzendorf mumbling about how the empire needed to die gloriously when it became clear the Russians would be getting involved. The Schlieffen Plan relied off such a rigid timetable because Germany’s war planners knew the only chance of success was if everything went completely right, and nowhere was this more true than in 1914. Why launch a war when in a few years, one of your enemy’s would inevitably have to declare war themselves or discontinue the conscription policy? It speaks to German diplomatic incompetence-which would be on full display throughout WWI-that they ended up going to war anyway in early August. For the Russians, the real problem was that mobilization would inevitably involve rail centers in Congress Poland near the German frontier, which is probably part of why they kept the mobilization order of July 25th secret.

    >If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    But that’s the thing: German war planners never counted on such a scenario, at least with the French. The British were completely different: Moltke’s absurd insistence that the Schlieffen Plan be followed to the letter led to the invasion of Belgium, which brought Britain into the war.

    Germany probably would have decisively won a war against Russia or France individually, because they still had the best single army in the world by a long shot. But the chances of winning against both simultaneously were grim in 1914 with France at the height of military capability and German foreign policy plans with potential Balkan allies and England still in their infancy: not impossible, but unlikely. The Septemberprogramm reflected German surprise that they looked like they were going to win quickly anyway.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @nebulafox

    Thanks.

    In July 1914, the Kaiser was kind of the good guy who didn't want to fight his cousins.

    Did the British not make clear to the Germans that they were friends with the French? Is it a little bit like when the always polite Dr. Strangelove gets mad at the Russian ambassador: "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!"

    Replies: @nebulafox

  177. @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years? Has any politician aside from Bernie or AOC actually called for this. I’m baffled by the idea that the Pentagon is starving for funds because of the Democrats. What a bizarre position. And I don’t even like those looks. I think you work for the military industrial complex in some capacity, “Johann Ricke.”

    And yes, the leftists regard foreigners as fascists just as much as they do their domestic enemies. Prestige media have written plenty of hit pieces on Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi, Duterte, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Mr McKenna, @Johann Ricke, @nebulafox

    Carter actually started the trend of increased military spending in 1979.

  178. @nebulafox
    @Altai

    >Perhaps, but Germany desired a decisive war to cement their new place in the order of things and lots of pre-existing conflicts came to a head. There were lots of reasons for a war or rather, many wars which became entangled into one.

    I think that's based off outdated evidence. The general war situation for the Central Powers in the summer of 1914 was completely unfavorable and only just beginning to improve with the start of Anglo-German detente. It would have gotten better over the following years, since it was common knowledge that France's rate of conscription under the 1913 law was unsustainable in the long term.

    To be sure, there was a preemptive war party in Berlin (just as there was in every European capital), and they were influential. But Wilhelmine Germany wasn't Imperial Japan, or to use a contemporary example, Serbia, where the civilians had no control over the military. They were under the control of two civilians who Moltke contemptuously and tellingly dubbed "the two old women", Wilhelm and Bethmann-Hollweg. Neither of them wanted a full scale war that they knew Germany had only a small chance of winning outright in 1914 with France's conscription policy at its peak. That's not to say they had moral objections to aggressive war or anything: both of them were in favor of Austria *immediately* crushing Serbia. But that was precisely so that the assassination would remain a legitimate excuse and so that nobody would have time to interfere-it was quite a different story a month later. They should have known their ally better: Austria would bumble its way through July and then declare war two weeks before the army could even return from harvest!

    >A war between Germany and Russia was inevitable.

    Why? The fundamental interests of Germany and Russia did not conflict in the way that they did with Austria (and Austria and Russia managed to divide their interests in the region quite peacefully until the last few years before the war). Germany was not a direct Balkan power like Austria. Germany was not competing for influence in Asia like the British did. Germany did not harbor revolutionaries and shared an interest in keeping the Poles quiet. It's critical to remember that of the three Entente powers, only France saw the real point of the understanding as containing Germany: right up until the end, the UK saw Russia as the main problem it faced. That's not to say that Russia and the UK weren't worried about Germany at all, particularly in Russia where ethnic Germans were increasingly viewed similarly to how ethnic Chinese were viewed in late Suharto-era Indonesia, but they still saw the main foreign policy problem they faced as each other. The only flash point was Turkey, and though elements within the Russian government did want to dismember the Ottoman Empire, they no more controlled the state than Moltke did in Berlin. Indeed, seemed as though the problem in Tsarist Russia by that point was that nobody knew who controlled things, thanks to Nicholas II...

    A war between Germany and Russia inevitably would have become a two-front war with France. Berlin knew that. And as I just mentioned, the German military footing in 1914 was at a relative nadir. The Austrians were even worse off, with war hawk in chief von Hoetzendorf mumbling about how the empire needed to die gloriously when it became clear the Russians would be getting involved. The Schlieffen Plan relied off such a rigid timetable because Germany's war planners knew the only chance of success was if everything went completely right, and nowhere was this more true than in 1914. Why launch a war when in a few years, one of your enemy's would inevitably have to declare war themselves or discontinue the conscription policy? It speaks to German diplomatic incompetence-which would be on full display throughout WWI-that they ended up going to war anyway in early August. For the Russians, the real problem was that mobilization would inevitably involve rail centers in Congress Poland near the German frontier, which is probably part of why they kept the mobilization order of July 25th secret.


    >If Germany had beaten Russia in a war in which France and Britain didn’t involve themselves, Germany would have been incredibly powerful.

    But that's the thing: German war planners never counted on such a scenario, at least with the French. The British were completely different: Moltke's absurd insistence that the Schlieffen Plan be followed to the letter led to the invasion of Belgium, which brought Britain into the war.

    Germany probably would have decisively won a war against Russia or France individually, because they still had the best single army in the world by a long shot. But the chances of winning against both simultaneously were grim in 1914 with France at the height of military capability and German foreign policy plans with potential Balkan allies and England still in their infancy: not impossible, but unlikely. The Septemberprogramm reflected German surprise that they looked like they were going to win quickly anyway.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Thanks.

    In July 1914, the Kaiser was kind of the good guy who didn’t want to fight his cousins.

    Did the British not make clear to the Germans that they were friends with the French? Is it a little bit like when the always polite Dr. Strangelove gets mad at the Russian ambassador: “The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost… if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?!”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Steve Sailer

    Honest, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

    I don't think the Kaiser was a "good guy", exactly: he could and should have done more to prevent what was coming, and by this point his erratic personality was such common knowledge that the Austrians set out to take advantage of that. Nevertheless, it is true that neither he or Bethmann-Hollweg wanted a continent-wide, two front war in July of 1914 (which is not the same as being anti-war in general, they were perfectly fine with Vienna going in to smash Belgrade), particularly if the British would get involved against Germany. By 1914, the much ballyhooed naval race was over. The Germans lost and they knew it: which was part of why they were receptive to better relations with London. Why would Bethmann-Hollweg, for all his legalistic utter incompetence in the summer of 1914, have been enthusiastic about sabotaging his life's work?

    Part of the problem was that Franz Ferdinand was one of the very few people Willy could call "friend", and news of his assassination sent him into one of his infamous mood swings. The German ambassador to Vienna got absolutely grilled by his sovereign as a result when he initially urged caution, which led to his own complete volte face when talking to the Austrians the next day. However, it is important to emphasize that German support was strictly for a localized war with Serbia, with the assumption that Vienna would get going and get the job done before anybody could do anything. Again: Berlin really should have known its bumbling ally better.

    (He was far from alone: both the Austrian and Russian foreign ministers were considered far too soft by the war hawks in their respective governments. So, to some extent, their behavior was partly to placate those guys and save their own jobs. The sheer degree of petty, self-serving incompetence on display in July of 1914 across Europe would be hilarious, if it didn't lead to what it did..)

    >Did the British not make clear to the Germans that they were friends with the French?

    The Germans thought the only chance they stood was if everything went according to plan. Unfortunately for them, that meant that Moltke's arguments that an invasion of Belgium was utterly necessary won the day.

    Often forgotten is that the British in 1914 were on the verge of their own domestic civil conflict over Ireland and were primarily concerned with that. Certainly nobody expected to be drawn into a continent wide civil war. I still blame German diplomatic incompetence and military rigidity to the point of absurdity for the most part. But to be fair, Lord Grey's performance in office in July 1914 was subpar at best. He was consistently behind events and, by listening almost solely to Franco-Russian sources, inevitably got a rather biased picture of events (the fact that Russia mobilized first secretly was naturally left out) on the crisis.

    Bottom line is that nobody involved comes out of that summer looking good, down to the Austrians putting out perhaps the most complete combination of foreign policy incompetence and bullying in human history that month, and the Serbians being both unwilling and unable to reign in terrorist movements inspired by their top intelligence officers.

  179. @JMcG
    The decision of the US to intervene in the First World War was the proximate cause of all the rest of the horrors of the twentieth century. Perhaps the Spanish Civil War would still have been fought.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    The decision of Germany to start WWI, refuse all peace offers and then sponsor Lenin is the source of all evils in that century, America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @LondonBob

    >America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    When I say I think America's intervention in WWI was a mistake, I don't necessarily mean because it ended the conflict with a Franco-British victory, but because of how the leading pro-war zeitgeist in the US viewed Europe and what to do with the peace. These guys held a very specific set of ideological views. For example, Wilson held all the typically "progressive" views on the Hapsburg monarchy as backwards and primitive, which lead to the fateful Point 10 in the Fourteen Points.

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That's exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France's military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright

  180. @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    No need to worry – they don’t really love the military – they are just posturing in order to try to insulate themselves from the (true) charge of being not patriotic. The Dems have been doing that for a long time. Remember John Kerry “reporting for duty”? Half of what LBJ did in Vietnam was due to his fear of being outflanked on the right by the Republicans. But there is no sincere patriotism there – they are just making political maneuvers because they know that this is a weakness for them.
     
    Even the Russia stuff is BS. Not that the Russians (pace what they've been doing since the Rurikids threw off the Mongol yoke) have decided they don't want to conquer the world. No - it's Democrats who think the world is composed of friends who haven't gotten acquainted yet (except for American conservatives and Republicans - to the Dems, that's the only pool of incorrigibles remaining). Democrats don't actually have an issue with the Russians, or any other foreign threat - that's why their default posture is to push for defense spending reductions until the military has to hold bake sales to get funding.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Coemgen

    Russia, with a GDP less than that of the State of New York, is not a likely world conqueror. I don’t know the FSB’s yearly budget but I assume it would be equivalent to a rounding error for the CIA/NSA/et al. budget. The Democrats’ moral panic regarding Russia is just another example of the Democrats’ “two plus two equals five-ism.”

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @Coemgen

    Just as well that the puny Russian Federation doesn’t have a whole suite of hypersonic weapons systems to counteract the ultimate power of collateralised obligations, hedging strategies and offshoring of industrial capacity, then

    Replies: @Coemgen

  181. @Anonymous
    @nebulafox


    A collection of individuals across several European capitals made the worst foreign policy decisions in human history. What makes WWI truly sad is how avoidable it was.
     
    There is a deep lesson to be learned from WW I, IMHO. Here it is:
    The "collection of individuals" (good description) made what turned out to be the worst foreign policy decisions in human history (I'd say since the start of the 30 Year's War, but close enough that we're in agreement). Here's the problem: The decisions they made were exactly like those of the entire post-Napoleonic period. The thought they were going to get another Franco-Prussian war, straighten out the pecking order a bit, and have another national achievement (on both sides) to solidify a society that was starting to lose cohesion. Also get a boost in popularity, all countries involved being at least semi-democratic. Wildly enthusiastic crowds gathered in each combatant country to celebrate the start of the war.

    What they got was entirely different from the Franco-Prussian war, as we all know. Everybody was surprised at how obsolete the old tactics had become. Nitrogen based explosives, cheap steel that allowed for massive artillery concentrations, bolt action rifles and machine guns firing non-fouling powder, barbed wire entanglements, the medical support that allowed masses of humans to remain relatively free of disease and insects (such as typhus from lice) -- all new developments, all obvious progress combining to make one of the larger catastrophes in Western European history. Surprise! (*) The new stuff could be a meat grinder for an entire generation of young men. And the politicians were afraid to stop the war because admitting to mistakes and cutting losses would have thrown them out of office, so they held on and hoped. Ain't democracy wonderful?

    And the lesson is, essentially, that of Burke: Be damned careful what you do, it's trickier than you think, and, yes, even given very stable societies, everything can be lost with one bad decision.

    And the consequences of the decision of the Democrats to go for broke by changing procedure for the American Presidential elections could be just as bad.

    So could any of the various national decisions being made now that the US stabilization of the world is receding. Many of them have nuclear weapons, and many of them have pecking order disputes.


    *) And, yes, there were predecessor events that showed what WW I would be like. One was the storming of Port Arthur by Japanese forces using mass assault tactics. The Port Arthur storming demonstrated that use of mass assault tactics would result in a very large number of casualties given WW I era defenses. Apparently the Japanese forces involved thought the slaughter had done more damage to Japan than the objective gained was worth. The European military establishment shrugged the lesson off.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    I would add the railways, breakthroughs happened but the issue was reserves could be rapidly moved to plug the gap, Brusilov got around this by having a wide front offensive and JFC Fuller by deploying new technology and combined arms so that a breakthrough would continue until the control centre of the enemy destroyed.

  182. @Neuday
    @Christopher Chantrill


    Well yes. What was the point of the US going into WWI, President Wilson? So you could strut and fret your hour upon the stage, pal?
     
    With the Balfour Declaration Britain promised Lord Rothschild that Britain supported a Palestinian state for the Jews. Wilson's financial backers were heavily Jewish. Wilson also appointed the first Jewish judge on the Supreme Court, the first of many. Then there's the establishment of the Fed, and Wilson's support of the 19th Amendment, and establishment of the Federal income tax. Also, the entirely unreasonable reparations Germany had to pay were handled, with significant complexity, by a certain group of people who seem to be drawn toward large, complex financial transactions. Wilson originally opposed the extent of the German reparations but one of his senior advisors of a certain background was adamantly in favor and Wilson signed off on the treaty.

    Anyway, the point of us going into WWI was because the perfidious Jews wanted us there, and Wilson was a pawn of the tribe.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    The US joined WWI after the Tsar had been overthrown, the British ambassador, and author of the lyrics to the hymn ‘I vow to the my country’, identified the Jewish press and lobby as the principle opponent of US involvement in WWI, due to the fact Tsarist Russia was involved.

  183. @Steve Sailer
    @nebulafox

    Thanks.

    In July 1914, the Kaiser was kind of the good guy who didn't want to fight his cousins.

    Did the British not make clear to the Germans that they were friends with the French? Is it a little bit like when the always polite Dr. Strangelove gets mad at the Russian ambassador: "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!"

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Honest, I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

    I don’t think the Kaiser was a “good guy”, exactly: he could and should have done more to prevent what was coming, and by this point his erratic personality was such common knowledge that the Austrians set out to take advantage of that. Nevertheless, it is true that neither he or Bethmann-Hollweg wanted a continent-wide, two front war in July of 1914 (which is not the same as being anti-war in general, they were perfectly fine with Vienna going in to smash Belgrade), particularly if the British would get involved against Germany. By 1914, the much ballyhooed naval race was over. The Germans lost and they knew it: which was part of why they were receptive to better relations with London. Why would Bethmann-Hollweg, for all his legalistic utter incompetence in the summer of 1914, have been enthusiastic about sabotaging his life’s work?

    Part of the problem was that Franz Ferdinand was one of the very few people Willy could call “friend”, and news of his assassination sent him into one of his infamous mood swings. The German ambassador to Vienna got absolutely grilled by his sovereign as a result when he initially urged caution, which led to his own complete volte face when talking to the Austrians the next day. However, it is important to emphasize that German support was strictly for a localized war with Serbia, with the assumption that Vienna would get going and get the job done before anybody could do anything. Again: Berlin really should have known its bumbling ally better.

    (He was far from alone: both the Austrian and Russian foreign ministers were considered far too soft by the war hawks in their respective governments. So, to some extent, their behavior was partly to placate those guys and save their own jobs. The sheer degree of petty, self-serving incompetence on display in July of 1914 across Europe would be hilarious, if it didn’t lead to what it did..)

    >Did the British not make clear to the Germans that they were friends with the French?

    The Germans thought the only chance they stood was if everything went according to plan. Unfortunately for them, that meant that Moltke’s arguments that an invasion of Belgium was utterly necessary won the day.

    Often forgotten is that the British in 1914 were on the verge of their own domestic civil conflict over Ireland and were primarily concerned with that. Certainly nobody expected to be drawn into a continent wide civil war. I still blame German diplomatic incompetence and military rigidity to the point of absurdity for the most part. But to be fair, Lord Grey’s performance in office in July 1914 was subpar at best. He was consistently behind events and, by listening almost solely to Franco-Russian sources, inevitably got a rather biased picture of events (the fact that Russia mobilized first secretly was naturally left out) on the crisis.

    Bottom line is that nobody involved comes out of that summer looking good, down to the Austrians putting out perhaps the most complete combination of foreign policy incompetence and bullying in human history that month, and the Serbians being both unwilling and unable to reign in terrorist movements inspired by their top intelligence officers.

    • Disagree: GazaPlanet
  184. @MEH 0910
    @Mr McKenna

    David Pinsen Retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1301954003148902404

    Replies: @Charon, @Corvinus

    Norman Ornstein says no one is more credible!

    Well that settles it for me!

  185. @LondonBob
    @JMcG

    The decision of Germany to start WWI, refuse all peace offers and then sponsor Lenin is the source of all evils in that century, America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    When I say I think America’s intervention in WWI was a mistake, I don’t necessarily mean because it ended the conflict with a Franco-British victory, but because of how the leading pro-war zeitgeist in the US viewed Europe and what to do with the peace. These guys held a very specific set of ideological views. For example, Wilson held all the typically “progressive” views on the Hapsburg monarchy as backwards and primitive, which lead to the fateful Point 10 in the Fourteen Points.

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That’s exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France’s military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That’s exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    Only if you define 'imperium' so broadly that it encompasses any variation in influence between states. Neither the inter-war period nor the period since 1990 have seen any sort of German or Russian imperium, the wartime German 'imperium' lasted all of three years, and Russia faced multiple rebellions during the period running from 1948 to 1982.

    NB, the Hapsburg dominions fell apart in a manner of weeks in 1918 in a bottom-up rebellion by local political chieftains. You propose to avoid that how?

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Anonymous
    @nebulafox

    You have just said that the rise of Hitler was due to the US intervention in WW1, not due to the Versailles treaty or some such. First time I've heard that one.

    Now I expect that you would respond that Versailles would not have happened without the United States' involvement. Either way you trace everything back to the USA. Which wasn't even a major player in the first war.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Colin Wright
    @nebulafox

    [i]'...If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France’s military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.'[/i]

    If the US does not intervene...

    Russia is still forced out of the war, undergoes a catastrophic revolution, and accedes to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany.

    The Kaiserschlacht still fails, but Britain and France find themselves unable to whip their troops forward into a decisive counteroffensive.

    There's a status quo ante peace in the West. Best case otherwise is Germany presumably crushes the Bolshevik state -- but is forced to make drastic concessions to the Social Democrats to keep them on side, leading to kind of a giant version of socialist Sweden. Britain and France both find themselves swinging violently left as well

    On the other hand, it's also possible -- particularly if Germany isn't able to keep revolution from breaking out at home -- that the Bolsheviks manage to set off global -- or at least Europe-wide -- revolution after all.

  186. @Prester John
    @Coemgen

    Can't help but remark on the irony of someone named "Auchincloss"-- a name redolent of Greenwich Yacht Club, Skull and Bones, white shoes and guys who talk with their teeth clenched--as a "blue collar favorite."

    Replies: @Art Deco

    They’re collateral relatives of Jackie Onassis’ step-father. The family recycles the name ‘Hugh’ over and over and people misspell their surname with abandon, so it can be a puzzle as to just which ‘Hugh Auchincloss’ (or Anchincloss, or Auchincoude) is which. This fellow ‘Jake Auchincloss’ is the issue of a line of doctors. His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all physicians / surgeons.

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Art Deco

    Do you happen to know about Luke?

    Replies: @Art Deco

  187. @Mr McKenna
    #1 Article on Reddit and other sites as well tonight.

    https://external-preview.redd.it/vni-UZpXnvPC_1FwvOEwSKK15RJRX8ARXmRpZE3vUYU.jpg

    Note the 'quotes' at the bottom. Then read the actual article where it says:

    These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity.
     
    Reddit won't permit you to post that quote.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Polynikes, @Paul Jolliffe

    I think Brooks believes that the “siege of the White House” beginning September 17 may not necessarily drive Trump from office before the election, but it will add to the pressure, and if military leaders fall for it, then look out . . .

    https://www.eagleobserver.com/news/2020/aug/26/the-white-house-siege-occupation-starts-sept-17/

  188. Anonymous[361] • Disclaimer says:

    The ‘entente cordiale’ wasn’t a military alliance. It had nothing to do with Europe and Germany.

    An unconditional British statement of support for France would have (1) emboldened the French to become more belligerent, possibly even encouraging them to attack the Germans themselves, and (2) would have been very controversial domestically, where many people still believed in ‘splendid isolation’ and staying out of foreign alliances.

    Instead Britain maintained a deliberately ambiguous stance in the run up to the war, for example neither confirming nor denying that it would defend Belgium from German attack.

    The assumption was that neither Germany or France would start a war unless they were certain of British neutrality/support.

    Of course, this was a huge miscalculation. It ignored the fact that, although the Germans didn’t want to fight the British, they had a very low opinion of the British army (because of the Boer War) and so weren’t overly concerned about the prospect of British military intervention.

  189. @Mr McKenna
    @S. Anonyia

    Please to exhibit your bona fides by referring to it as military spending, not defense spending.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

    Never said I was a bona fide. But it doesn’t take an expert to determine that our military is NOT underfunded. And that rarely are either military or defense spending cut. Also spending on the military falls under the umbrella of defense spending, do we really need to differentiate the two all that much?

  190. @Johann Ricke
    @S. Anonyia


    When has a Democrat cut defense spending (who Carter- lol)? When has defense spending ever been cut in the past 50 years?
     
    Repeatedly, and frequently.

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart2p31.png

    The reality of inflation is that any spending that falls as a % of the economy is a reduction. Note that non-defense spending hasn't fallen in that respect.

    https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chartSp03t.png

    Note, for instance, that K-12 education costs have gone up as a % of the economy even though no one is actively working to thwart the efforts of children to pick up basic skills. Whereas military spending always has to contend with the efforts of foreign adversaries to thwart both current and future weapon systems.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

    Your chart for defense spending looks fairly level. Huge upticks during WWI, WWII, and then a more moderate one at the start of cold war and during the height of nuclear paranoia. No huge fluctuations or dips since then. Are you really surprised that defense spending is lower than it was during WWII? hah!

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @S. Anonyia


    Your chart for defense spending looks fairly level.
     
    A drop from 10% at the end of Eisenhower's 2nd term, during which he talked about the need for a military-industrial complex, to about 4% today, is not level.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    Perhaps you'd consider a 60% drop in your wages or savings level. I wouldn't.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

  191. @nebulafox
    @LondonBob

    >America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    When I say I think America's intervention in WWI was a mistake, I don't necessarily mean because it ended the conflict with a Franco-British victory, but because of how the leading pro-war zeitgeist in the US viewed Europe and what to do with the peace. These guys held a very specific set of ideological views. For example, Wilson held all the typically "progressive" views on the Hapsburg monarchy as backwards and primitive, which lead to the fateful Point 10 in the Fourteen Points.

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That's exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France's military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That’s exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    Only if you define ‘imperium’ so broadly that it encompasses any variation in influence between states. Neither the inter-war period nor the period since 1990 have seen any sort of German or Russian imperium, the wartime German ‘imperium’ lasted all of three years, and Russia faced multiple rebellions during the period running from 1948 to 1982.

    NB, the Hapsburg dominions fell apart in a manner of weeks in 1918 in a bottom-up rebellion by local political chieftains. You propose to avoid that how?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    The interbellum period allowed Central Europe to enjoy something of an extended adolescence that inevitably was going to come to an end when those two powers recovered their strength. In particular, Versailles failed to permanently cripple Germany in any meaningful long-term way, despite the severe degree of economic and social turmoil the Weimar Republic faced.

    As far as the latter goes, considering what Europe went through to finally get to 1990...

    >NB, the Hapsburg dominions fell apart in a manner of weeks in 1918 in a bottom-up rebellion by local political chieftains.

    I think Austria's collapse took two things: starvation conditions and the announcement of the Fourteen Points. One was already a reality by 1917, but the other was not, and presumably would not have been had America never entered the war. That didn't mean Austria was in good shape in the slightest: definitely not! Karl's backdoor attempts to negotiate happened for a reason. But all the same, if nationalist sentiment really motivated the populace as much as postwar hindsight claimed, it would have come earlier, especially after Franz Josef died.

    One of the big points I took away from "Ring of Steel" by Alexander Watson was the degree of long-term postwar social degradation the war caused within Germany (ultimately leading to the kind of morose, grey environment that Hitler's skills as a politician were nightmarishly suited for) and, in particular, Austria-Hungary. That colors a lot of our historical hindsight about both powers. But reading sources contemporary to the age, very few, even observers critical of the monarchy, thought the latter was bound to collapse in 1913. The place did not even experience the endemic levels of political violence that Tsarist Russia did during its contemporary drive to modernity. It did take the war to lay the conditions for the collapse of the state... but if that were true, why did it take until 1918? Starvation conditions had been commonplace in Austria for years at that point. It took the publication of Wilson's Points to give the local nationalists the opening they needed. If the collapse were bound to occur due to the monarchy's ethnic problems, considering how deeply entrenched they were, I find it very hard to believe it wouldn't have come sooner given the degree of economic and military trouble the Central Powers were in already.

    The military side of things does reflect this to some extent. Though the Russians obliterated Hapsburg army after army to the point that it was reduced to Berlin's satellite, on other fronts (noticeably the Italian, where none of the conflicted feelings about fighting fellow Slavs existed and many Croats and Slovenes in particular were highly motivated) the army remained coherent enough to launch things like the Caporetto Offensive, with German aid of course. Even against the Russians, though the Czechs remained the most alienated minority, heavy-handed Tsarist governance turns all but the most avidly Slavophile Galicians against their self-proclaimed big brothers.

    >You propose to avoid that how?

    Given the degree of Habsburg reliance on Germany by 1917, the following might have done the trick:

    1) America doesn't enter the war, needless to say. I don't know, for this you might need to dispose of Arthur Zimmermann and dump his body into the Spree.

    2) Max Hoffmann is listened to during the negotiations at Brest and the Russians are allowed to leave the war with minimal territory losses. As a result, Berlin doesn't-yet again-confirm Allied propaganda about the lawless Hun and negotiations without an American presence that doomed Berlin would be more feasible. Austro-German war planners hoped to resolve their food situation with the conquered territories, but that was a pipe dream given the ravages of war and reflected the inability of the German leadership to understand the soft aspects of the war, be they propaganda or economic or diplomatic. In a weird way, Wilson was right here: they couldn't keep up with the modern age.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  192. anon[930] • Disclaimer says:
    @Altai
    Isn't WWI being considered a horrific waste the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere?

    I'm not saying it's right, the other combatants had a lot of skin in the game and many countries gained their independence from it or had it threatened. The end of the Ottoman empire, Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, rise of communism in Russia, checking of the power of a unified Germany and potential invasion of France were all quite important things.

    But the cannon opinion in the Anglosphere is that it was a horrible, pointless waste due to none of those countries ever being threatened with invasion and due to the image of the 'pointless' meat-grinder trench warfare of the Western front.

    Indeed, this is the normal totally uncontroversial opinion in Britain of the war. Somebody opining the opposite would be likely to get the side-eye from the media and if they were a Tory, to get pilloried by the progressive press.

    It's actually scary that the neocons are jumping on this like this.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Bill, @anon

    The bright side to WWI is that few of the people living today would be ever have been born. Not in the nations affected by the war, anyway. Great grandfather Harry might never have met great grandmother Sally. Or if they did meet, the ripples of time changed by the wars caused temporal dislocations that might have meant that another Harry the spermatozoa met another Sally the egg. And thus producing a different person. An alternate timeline sibling.

    A whole lot of other people would have been born if not for WWI. But they of course are not around to complain or comment about not ever being born.

    And of course, for all we know, WWI might have saved humanity from total extinction in a nuclear holocaust sometime later in the 20th century.

    • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
    @anon

    GTF back to plebbit.

  193. @S. Anonyia
    @Johann Ricke

    Your chart for defense spending looks fairly level. Huge upticks during WWI, WWII, and then a more moderate one at the start of cold war and during the height of nuclear paranoia. No huge fluctuations or dips since then. Are you really surprised that defense spending is lower than it was during WWII? hah!

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Your chart for defense spending looks fairly level.

    A drop from 10% at the end of Eisenhower’s 2nd term, during which he talked about the need for a military-industrial complex, to about 4% today, is not level.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    Perhaps you’d consider a 60% drop in your wages or savings level. I wouldn’t.

    • Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Johann Ricke


    the end of Eisenhower’s 2nd term, during which he talked about the need for a military-industrial complex
     
    Wow, you have wildly misunderstood Eisenhower's speech.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  194. @J1234

    If Trump claims a victory that is not rightly his....
     
    This is a part of a pre-emptive strike by the media against the correctly anticipated reaction to the (probably equally correctly) anticipated election fraud that could be perpetrated by the left in the spirit of what I call The Divine Right of the Morally Superior. This Divine Right has been alarmingly effective against very constitutional immigration laws and laws against rioting, which have been rendered unenforceable through the activism of progressive judges, mayors and governors for the purpose, at least in part, of dethroning Adolf Trump. Why not election laws, too?

    In the simplistic battle of good against evil that the left creates as a pretext to achieve this goal, the "good" (in the tradition of radicalism) can only ever be good and can never ever be corrupted into something approximating evil. That's a precept that pretty easily morphs into the common radical leftist phrase: "By Any Means Necessary." It's quite possible that election fraud, in their minds, is as legitimate as any other means. Why shouldn't reasonable and rational people in a free and open society be vigilant against this?

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Michael Anton is good as usual: https://americanmind.org/essays/the-coming-coup/

    I just got his new book today.

  195. Soros is organizing a color revolution in America:

    DEEP STATE COUP: Soros-Backed ‘Election Integrity’ Group Sets Stage to Oust President Trump Regardless of Voting Results

    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/coup-soros-backed-election-integrity-group-sets-stage-to-oust-president-trump-regardless-of-voting-results/

    A (((Soros)))-backed “election integrity” group is setting the stage for a revolution against President Donald Trump after November’s election.

    The Transition Integrity Project, an organization featuring a bipartisan group of Trump haters, is claiming that President Donald Trump will cause violence if he disputes the upcoming election results. They are running simulations that they claim indicate that Trump and his supporters will create mayhem.

    “All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse,” said (((Rosa Brooks))), a professor of law and policy at Georgetown University, who set up the TIP. “The law is essentially … it’s almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it,” she added.

    Two of the Republicans who participated in (((Brooks)))’ study are neocons (((Bill Kristol))) and (((David Frum))).

    This article mentions four names of people leading this project and they are all Jewish. Coincidence detected.

  196. “People, can we calm down and back off?”

    Hell, no, Mr. Sailer. It’s kind of a big deal when the commander-in-chief show off his true colors about the military. Perhaps if you did some NOTICING…

  197. @Mr McKenna
    @Mr McKenna

    Sorry, I can never tell which images unz.com will display

    https://i.imgur.com/PXPvMVi.jpg

    Anyway, Goldberg is "New Journalism" at its finest: "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

    Replies: @Charon, @Dieter Kief, @anon, @Arlo L. Ramsbottom, @Anon, @MEH 0910, @Corvinus

    It’s not “New Journalism”, it’s simply journalism. The fact of the matter is that anyone associated with the Trump White House who dares to openly question Trump will get their b—-/cli—– cut out. The level of detail provided by these sources, as well as the level of consistency in their accounts, demonstrates Trump’s actual position regarding our military personnel.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus


    The level of detail provided by these sources, as well as the level of consistency in their accounts, demonstrates Trump’s actual position regarding our military personnel.
     
    Or perhaps the level of consistency is far better exemplified in the following accounting of Trump's respect and allegiance to our nation's veterans, and you’re a dumb cunt who could never measure up to Trump's achievements in 50 lifetimes.

    What do you think?

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/09/trump-honors-war-dead-with-his-heart.html
  198. @MEH 0910
    @Mr McKenna

    David Pinsen Retweeted:
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1301954003148902404

    Replies: @Charon, @Corvinus

    Here is Fox News supporting what was written in the Atlantic piece.

    https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1301993408219684865

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @Corvinus

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1302087414031290368

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @nebulafox
    @Corvinus

    Well, again: I don't put it beyond Trump to call ordinary soldiers losers and suckers. But anonymous disgruntled former officials presented by the media of 2020 simply aren't gonna cut it anymore. And on this particular issue, the legacy GOP is probably going to be even more hostile to Trump than the Democrats considering the cachet that the military still holds in the party.

    Moreover:

    https://twitter.com/danielchaitin7/status/1301880528480673793

    https://twitter.com/TheAgeofShoddy/status/1301926628654608385

    It's almost as if gross, visible hypocrisy does things to your credibility.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  199. @Corvinus
    @MEH 0910

    Here is Fox News supporting what was written in the Atlantic piece.

    https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1301993408219684865

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @nebulafox

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @MEH 0910

    It is other than surprising that this news publication would come to the defense of Trump. The author of the piece, Joel Pollack, is an Orthodox Jew. I thought we cannot trust ANYTHING that comes out of the tribe's mouth. Now, the claim he makes is that there are a number of Trump officials who refute the findings of the author by...wait for it...stating it was a "coordinated attack" without evidence. Of course his close associates in the Oval Office will offer up a defense. However, the use of anonymous sources, along with fact checking and corroborating their accounts, is standard in journalism. Pollack, as part of the media, also employs this strategy.

    Furthermore, the author claims that John Bolton, who again I thought we are not to trust, disputed the Atlantic story. To the contrary, in a recent interview with Bloomberg, he said "I have not heard anybody say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t sound like the Donald Trump I know...These comments are despicable. If he made them, they are despicable".

    On top of it all, Fox News Channel's--which is a trusted outlet among conservatives, right?--Jen Griffen stands by her reporting on Trump repeatedly insulting U.S. military heroes. She circled back with one source, who firmly said “this was not a one-off”. Her source says Trump repeatedly called John McCain and veterans “suckers".

  200. @Coemgen
    @Johann Ricke

    Russia, with a GDP less than that of the State of New York, is not a likely world conqueror. I don’t know the FSB’s yearly budget but I assume it would be equivalent to a rounding error for the CIA/NSA/et al. budget. The Democrats’ moral panic regarding Russia is just another example of the Democrats’ “two plus two equals five-ism.”

    Replies: @Cortes

    Just as well that the puny Russian Federation doesn’t have a whole suite of hypersonic weapons systems to counteract the ultimate power of collateralised obligations, hedging strategies and offshoring of industrial capacity, then

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Cortes


    Just as well that the puny Russian Federation doesn’t have a whole suite of hypersonic weapons systems to counteract the ultimate power of collateralised obligations, hedging strategies and offshoring of industrial capacity, then
     
    The Russians could sell some of their weapons of mass destruction. Then use the proceeds to buy some political influence.

    How much would it cost the Russians to get CNN to start pushing pro-Russian propaganda? How much for Google ... or NYT ... or a premium subscription to SecureDrop?

  201. @Patrick Sullivan
    @R.G. Camara

    If you don't believe my four anonymous sources then surely you'll believe eight anonymous sources. If not, I can give you 16, 32, or 512. Just tell me how much skepticism you have and I'll tell you how many anonymous sources have confirmed my story!

    See also: Tell us how many votes the Republicans got in that state and then we'll back up our truck full of Democrat votes.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Anonymous sources have zero credibility. Five times zero equals fifty times zero equals one hundred times zero equals zero.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Hibernian

    "Anonymous sources have zero credibility."

    Actually, it comes down to verifying the information. Assume a reporter has four sources who wish to remain anonymous, with each source not knowing that he/she talked to each one of them. He/she will seek to verify the information each one provided to them. It is also general practice for the reporter disclose the identity of their anonymous sources to their editors.

    It is important to understand a source’s motivation for speaking and determine their agenda. Thus, reporters tell their sources he/she will verify everything they tell him/her, and balance the information they provided with other relevant information, or challenge their information with other facts to build a story that includes multiple points of view.

    Replies: @anon

  202. @Patrick Sullivan
    America's worst president (sorry, Barack) had the nerve to run for reelection on the slogan "He kept us out of war" in 1916 even though he had been beating the war drums since 1914. He finally got his wish in 1917. I can't blame Wilson 100% for that. The Germans certainly had it coming.

    Wilson's main goal seems to have been inflicting his student government model on the world in the post-war era. I don't think he even would have cared too much who won the war itself as long as he got his post-war way. That's why instead of being the voice of moderation at Versailles, as he should have been given how much less the US had suffered than France, the UK, and Italy had, he let Clemenceau, Orlando, and Lloyd George have their vindictive way and set up the inevitability of WW2 in exchange for their tepid support for the League of Nations. Which a still non-globalist US Senate rejected America even joining, sucker.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Wilson could have gotten US membership in the League if he had been willing to compromise on reservations to the treaty.

  203. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    People, can we calm down and back off?

    Since you asked:

    Short answer: no.

    After WW II, the WW II coalition (Solid South, Labor Unions, Big City Political Machines, Major corporations) was whittled down to Big City Political Machines. The cities went bankrupt in the 1960s, and the 1960’s Hippie Revolution succeeded in having the Federal Government make up urban deficits under the excuse of social welfare payments.

    I say “excuse” because the welfare payments did not go directly to the poor, nor did the payments help the poor in any way. What the payments did was stop the historic increase in Black income, flatten out that income, destroy Black families, and introduce massive competition for traditionally Black jobs (e.g. building janitor). But the payments did fund the cities (the money went to city government, not to the welfare recipients). So did indirect subsidies, such as ensuring that the financial institutions remained in cities.

    In any case, the cities never got enough income. To keep their political power had to import foreigners who had to remain living in the cities because they couldn’t work productively in an industrial society, and could not support themselves elsewhere. Cities infrastructure deteriorated and cities simultaneously became less governable. Today, the big cities are shutting down their police forces because they can’t afford a police force, and have started cultivating homeless encampments as welfare revenue sources. They are being evacuated by anybody who can evacuate, and Pres. Trump [1] is shutting down subsidies to cities that make no effort to control riots that, given their foreign settlements and their loss of influence over their Black inhabitants, they probably could not control anyway. Pres. Trump is not encouraging cities to stop riots, Pres. Trump cutting his budget by abandoning cities, and will continue to do so. It’s his only winning move. NYC stands to lose 7,000,000,000 (7E9, seven billion) dollars/year. These funding reductions are just the start, the beginning of the end you might say, and the cities know this — they could see it when Trump won in 2016 on a platform of attriting the cities’ vote farms by ending immigration.

    The big cities have two choices: they can win the 2020 election or they can go under.

    If the big cities win, they will make DC a State, make Puerto Rico a State, increase immigration, and use the resulting domination of all three Branches of the Federal Government to institute the totalitarian state that they are advocating now. At any rate, that’s what Biden promises. This, the big cities think, will give them the money they must have to keep going.

    On the other side, if the countryside loses the 2020/11 election, it will be mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. Today’s White Death will look like a cultural efflorescence in comparison.

    So: no. Nobody is going to calm down and back off. It would hurt too many people for that to happen.

    And, no, I don’t like it, the more so since I’m a prime target to get splashed by the overkill. However, my opinions and actions so far have not influenced events — I can’t change it.

    I’m interested in substantive corrections to my analysis. Please omit pilpul and trash talk.

    “and while the future’s there for anyone to change,
    still you know it seems,
    it would be easier sometimes to change the past.”

    1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-orders-review-to-redirect-federal-funds-from-cities-that-permit-anarchy

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "If the big cities win, they will make DC a State, make Puerto Rico a State, increase immigration, and use the resulting domination of all three Branches of the Federal Government to institute the totalitarian state that they are advocating now...On the other side, if the countryside loses the 2020/11 election, it will be mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. Today’s White Death will look like a cultural efflorescence in comparison".

    You will making progress with your points until these statements, which are false generalizations.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Rob

  204. @Rob McX
    @AnotherDad


    In fact, population replacement is something that naturally only happens when you lose a war–are invaded and defeated.
     
    But a momentous change happened in the 20th century. People who want to destroy nations discovered it's easier to sleepwalk them into extinction by opening the borders than to launch a military invasion. Once people know they're at war, it galvanises them into action, but they can be lulled into complacency about immigration.

    Replies: @Rob

    Yeah,

    A big problem with immigration is that there were earlier waves with only moderately bad results that were strongly opposed by American patriots. I sometimes worry I am wrong to be so against immigration, but I think I am right.

    [MORE]

    The first is affirmative action, a concept that would have seemed laughable to Americans in the 1839’s, but is actually flows directly from the Constitution, they were just too dumb to realize it. Another concept they would have found laughable is that higher education would be the only pathway to avoid poverty. Virtually all immigrants come from populations entitled to affirmative action, and those that don’t still don’t have their race and ethnicity as a black mark like gentile whites. As very few NAMs would be in middle class jobs without AA, it is politically untouchable. In the past, even when the (white) people voted against AA, goodwhite administrators in education got around it as best they could. Today’s educated classes in business are all in on diversity, so making AA/non-discrimination optional would take a long time to have an effect. It would have a huge effect in the long run, as companies that did not have the deadweight (at best) minorities would outcompetes others. Even though Asians don’t get AA in college, their businesses benefit from minority set-asides and loans, and who knows how many government programs for non-whites that they don’t make an effort to the general public well-informed about,

    One reason patriots opposed immigration earlier was that immigrants depressed wages, and that was and is true. People were against Chinese immigrants for economic and social reasons. The economic reasons still hold, and are even worse today, when Asians at elite colleges outnumber founding stock whites. They ain’t building new universities today, and Harvard

    et al

    don’t seem interested in increasing enrollment by the 50% of their 1965 enrollment they should have already, and they should be something like 250% their 1965 size to keep up with the fraction of students capable of benefitting from an elite education. That is if you go by The SAT, Asians don’t seem particularly smart outside of math and visualization-heavy STEM subjects. They have such large personality differences from whites that it is hard to tell if they are smart outside of spatial ability. Rushton and Jensen said they were, and they do seem to have low rates of social disfunction which indicates an absence of the lowest IQ segment, but it could be personality difference there, again. Not to mention, I don’t want whites driven out of the upper middle class, even by smarter people, so I think there are still good educational;economic reasons to oppose Asian immigration, and Latino immigrants are only a factor in elite education to the extent that they get affirmative action, but they take up slots that go to students who would benefit from the education/acknowledgement of intelligence that an elite education provides.

    Latino immigrants compete with Americans who don’t have lots of occupational options, are not very smart, and the immigrants we’re getting seem to be even worse than refuse that washed up in the eighties and nineties. They make some gains in the second generation, then stall out, maybe because of ability, but maybe because the middle-class jobs that don’t require a degree are almost done disappearing. If the establishment stays ice course, they aren’t coming back, and without the middle rungs, Latinos can’t climb the ladder.

    The ability to integrate to our political system was a big concern to earlier Americans. That is not given as a reason very much now. Whether Catholics could ever integrate politically, But the Catholic Church was a bit different 200 years ago, much more political, and immigrant machine districts did little to convince anyone that even European immigrants were a boon to democracy. It is true that eventually European immigrants learned our ways. Non-European immigrants will always be visibly foriegners, and even nth generation Chinese in this country aren’t fully accepted as American, so non-White immigrants will always see themselves as Nationality-Americans, and not Americans. They will always look out for the interests of their people, not Americans as a whole. Maybe Mexican-Americans, for example, will consider themselves Hispanic, not Mexican, and vote for American interests over Mexican ones, but their visible difference means they can only blend in by inter-population reproduction (it seems un-inclusive of unwed mothers, and factually inaccurate to equate marriage with reproduction), which will take at least two generations for Hispanics, and four or more for Asians and Africans. The US is not stable enough to wait a hundred years for integration. That is assuming you consider mixing on a large scale to be a positive. I don’t, but a little is good, it injects some genetic diversity, so worthwhile genes can spread through the population evolutionarily, without changing the character of the population, and I like white Americans, and don’t want us to become a lot like blacks, Asians, or Hispanics.

    The above is even assuming you consider the earlier waves of immigrants to be politically neutral. Their arrival did not improve the American system, rotten burroughs, and cost WASP control of many cities, paving the way for the black takeover of cities, through the WASP reaction if you buy The Slaugher of Cities narrative, or through WASPs losing control and interest in saving cities from blacks. The earlier immigrants gaining citizenship themselves and having citizen children coincided with the decline of America’s low regulation, highly decentralized government, but it’s arguable that it would have happened anyway, an industrial, largely urban civilization Just requires more government than an agricultural one.

    Another difference between early and current immigration is racial/IQ. Compared to racial differences, the genetic difference between neighboring European ethnicities are rather small. Even the least industrial Westen European nations were heirs to Western Civilization, and likely had similar potential. In the years since heavy Italian immigration, Italy has industrialized. The same number of years have passed in Mexico, India, and Nigeria, yet these are still not first world nations. Well, their far away from the industrialized West? Mexico is close by, North Africa is right next to Europe, and far away Japan managed to develop economically, so even distance from the West is not an absolute barrier to development. One is tempted to think that third world nations are instantiationx of their peopke’s natures. A few Mexicans can rely on Americans ability to maintain civilization and do the thinly work, but maybe we cab’t do it for 100 million of them? Especially when businesses and government have to hire in proportion to the areas demographics (it’s coming).

    Earlier immigrants were a strain on ibfrastructure, and over a relatively short timeframe, we built more infrastructure, later on, the car greatly changed the character of the nation. There are a lot of reasons why we don’t build more infrastructure. The litigation society is a big reason, cost disease is another, and finally, the real cost of infrastructure is greater than the productivity of immigrants can support, a nation of minimarts and street vendors maybe cannot support first world infrastructure. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2015/04/01/this-is-no-april-fool-japan-is-beating-the-pants-off-the-united-states/#358beec5b882 is an interesting article on Japan that mentions Japanese infrastructure that been built as America’s declines.

    The last reason to stop immigration now that did not apply then is environmental. We don’t have enough water in a lot of low population density areas. The Colorado River does not reach the ocean today. The population using it will be hard-pressed to increase without lowering per capital water consumption. That’s one limiting factor one place, you say. But Liebig’s law of the minimum applies everywhere. An economic one could be formulated relating living standards or production to the the availability of the most limiting factor, Some places, it’s just going to be space. If the economy (not per capita) grows 10%, but you have a four hour commute, are you truly better off? Finally, the world cannot afford America producing 50& more carbon dioxide than we do today. The world cannot afford the US producing 50 less carbon. Millions of third worlders will die if webdon’t cut our output drastically. Sure, a few third worlderx will have highe standards of living here, but surely the other third worlders matter, even if they aren’t their former compatriots who were a
    Americans all this time.

    Finally, the restaurant rationale is often cited as as an argument for immigration, but does it not work in reverse? If liking ethnoracial diversity is a legitimate reason for supporting immigration, then disliking it is a legitimate reason to oppose it. You like Mexican food? Well, I don’t like seeing squat brown women, If you love Indian food, and that’s a reason to bring in 10+ million of them, isn’t hating the smell of curry also a great reason to keep them out?

    Finally finally, the precautionary principle, while it should not be followed blindly, should always be considered when it comes to making big changes. If we lowered capital gains tax, tax we can always raise it later, no great harm done. If this Fifty-five year (so far) wave of immigration turns out badly, that is a huge problem that is hard to fix, The alternative to repatriation would be accepting the US as a not-quite developed country. Has any country lost every industry before? We are close to that. I don’t think the US would survive a large devaluation of the dollar, The changes required to repatriate 100 millions immigrants to plus progeny is huge. Realistically, it would take a civil war. If you don’t think we’re close…I am not sure one is coming, but I am also not sure it’s not, but I would not get the country on it.

    Look at how close we are to a civil war now. The only reason there isn’t more blood in the streets is that Trump is worthless from a patriotic perspective, so the right isn’t showing up to fight. Imagine if there’s a crackup of the Republican Party, the establishment zigs and the base zags, and it breaks apart, then the base forms a party without the money men corrupting it , and the free marketers running herd. If a Candidate Trump, but smart, energetic and charismatic ran for president, and appealed to all those women that Trump has turned off vote for him, we could win in 2024, maybe even 2028. So imagine how the left would react to a Candidate Trump as President who actually pushed America first. The left is hysterical about a President who occasionally tweets patriotic things. We would have a civil war, That is a huge reason to oppose immigration that applies now but didn’t back then,

  205. @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That’s exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    Only if you define 'imperium' so broadly that it encompasses any variation in influence between states. Neither the inter-war period nor the period since 1990 have seen any sort of German or Russian imperium, the wartime German 'imperium' lasted all of three years, and Russia faced multiple rebellions during the period running from 1948 to 1982.

    NB, the Hapsburg dominions fell apart in a manner of weeks in 1918 in a bottom-up rebellion by local political chieftains. You propose to avoid that how?

    Replies: @nebulafox

    The interbellum period allowed Central Europe to enjoy something of an extended adolescence that inevitably was going to come to an end when those two powers recovered their strength. In particular, Versailles failed to permanently cripple Germany in any meaningful long-term way, despite the severe degree of economic and social turmoil the Weimar Republic faced.

    As far as the latter goes, considering what Europe went through to finally get to 1990…

    >NB, the Hapsburg dominions fell apart in a manner of weeks in 1918 in a bottom-up rebellion by local political chieftains.

    I think Austria’s collapse took two things: starvation conditions and the announcement of the Fourteen Points. One was already a reality by 1917, but the other was not, and presumably would not have been had America never entered the war. That didn’t mean Austria was in good shape in the slightest: definitely not! Karl’s backdoor attempts to negotiate happened for a reason. But all the same, if nationalist sentiment really motivated the populace as much as postwar hindsight claimed, it would have come earlier, especially after Franz Josef died.

    One of the big points I took away from “Ring of Steel” by Alexander Watson was the degree of long-term postwar social degradation the war caused within Germany (ultimately leading to the kind of morose, grey environment that Hitler’s skills as a politician were nightmarishly suited for) and, in particular, Austria-Hungary. That colors a lot of our historical hindsight about both powers. But reading sources contemporary to the age, very few, even observers critical of the monarchy, thought the latter was bound to collapse in 1913. The place did not even experience the endemic levels of political violence that Tsarist Russia did during its contemporary drive to modernity. It did take the war to lay the conditions for the collapse of the state… but if that were true, why did it take until 1918? Starvation conditions had been commonplace in Austria for years at that point. It took the publication of Wilson’s Points to give the local nationalists the opening they needed. If the collapse were bound to occur due to the monarchy’s ethnic problems, considering how deeply entrenched they were, I find it very hard to believe it wouldn’t have come sooner given the degree of economic and military trouble the Central Powers were in already.

    The military side of things does reflect this to some extent. Though the Russians obliterated Hapsburg army after army to the point that it was reduced to Berlin’s satellite, on other fronts (noticeably the Italian, where none of the conflicted feelings about fighting fellow Slavs existed and many Croats and Slovenes in particular were highly motivated) the army remained coherent enough to launch things like the Caporetto Offensive, with German aid of course. Even against the Russians, though the Czechs remained the most alienated minority, heavy-handed Tsarist governance turns all but the most avidly Slavophile Galicians against their self-proclaimed big brothers.

    >You propose to avoid that how?

    Given the degree of Habsburg reliance on Germany by 1917, the following might have done the trick:

    1) America doesn’t enter the war, needless to say. I don’t know, for this you might need to dispose of Arthur Zimmermann and dump his body into the Spree.

    2) Max Hoffmann is listened to during the negotiations at Brest and the Russians are allowed to leave the war with minimal territory losses. As a result, Berlin doesn’t-yet again-confirm Allied propaganda about the lawless Hun and negotiations without an American presence that doomed Berlin would be more feasible. Austro-German war planners hoped to resolve their food situation with the conquered territories, but that was a pipe dream given the ravages of war and reflected the inability of the German leadership to understand the soft aspects of the war, be they propaganda or economic or diplomatic. In a weird way, Wilson was right here: they couldn’t keep up with the modern age.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Thanks for the hand-waving. Always an education.

  206. @Corvinus
    @MEH 0910

    Here is Fox News supporting what was written in the Atlantic piece.

    https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1301993408219684865

    Replies: @MEH 0910, @nebulafox

    Well, again: I don’t put it beyond Trump to call ordinary soldiers losers and suckers. But anonymous disgruntled former officials presented by the media of 2020 simply aren’t gonna cut it anymore. And on this particular issue, the legacy GOP is probably going to be even more hostile to Trump than the Democrats considering the cachet that the military still holds in the party.

    Moreover:

    It’s almost as if gross, visible hypocrisy does things to your credibility.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @nebulafox

    "Well, again: I don’t put it beyond Trump to call ordinary soldiers losers and suckers".

    At least you are being honest here.

    "But anonymous disgruntled former officials presented by the media of 2020 simply aren’t gonna cut it anymore".

    I am of the impression that some of the sources from current officials in the White House. Furthermore, they may be disgruntled because of what they witnessed on a daily basis regarding Trump's conduct which is other than presidential. It does not mean what they say is inaccurate or untruthful.

  207. @nebulafox
    @LondonBob

    >America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    When I say I think America's intervention in WWI was a mistake, I don't necessarily mean because it ended the conflict with a Franco-British victory, but because of how the leading pro-war zeitgeist in the US viewed Europe and what to do with the peace. These guys held a very specific set of ideological views. For example, Wilson held all the typically "progressive" views on the Hapsburg monarchy as backwards and primitive, which lead to the fateful Point 10 in the Fourteen Points.

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That's exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France's military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright

    You have just said that the rise of Hitler was due to the US intervention in WW1, not due to the Versailles treaty or some such. First time I’ve heard that one.

    Now I expect that you would respond that Versailles would not have happened without the United States’ involvement. Either way you trace everything back to the USA. Which wasn’t even a major player in the first war.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Anonymous

    'Now I expect that you would respond that Versailles would not have happened without the United States’ involvement. Either way you trace everything back to the USA. Which wasn’t even a major player in the first war.'

    We were a decisive player, though. Absent our intervention, Germany's defeat becomes very problematic.

    I've got an old atlas somewhere. It has the Western front as of November 11th, 1918. About half the line is held by American divisions -- and we were just getting started.

    Moreover, we were the only ones still charging forward, undeterred by 50% losses -- not too skillful, but numerous, and definitely enthusiastic.

    This is why Germany quit. They could have fought the British and French to exhaustion -- largely had. Our weight in the scales made all the difference.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  208. @MEH 0910
    @Corvinus

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1302087414031290368

    Replies: @Corvinus

    It is other than surprising that this news publication would come to the defense of Trump. The author of the piece, Joel Pollack, is an Orthodox Jew. I thought we cannot trust ANYTHING that comes out of the tribe’s mouth. Now, the claim he makes is that there are a number of Trump officials who refute the findings of the author by…wait for it…stating it was a “coordinated attack” without evidence. Of course his close associates in the Oval Office will offer up a defense. However, the use of anonymous sources, along with fact checking and corroborating their accounts, is standard in journalism. Pollack, as part of the media, also employs this strategy.

    Furthermore, the author claims that John Bolton, who again I thought we are not to trust, disputed the Atlantic story. To the contrary, in a recent interview with Bloomberg, he said “I have not heard anybody say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t sound like the Donald Trump I know…These comments are despicable. If he made them, they are despicable”.

    On top of it all, Fox News Channel’s–which is a trusted outlet among conservatives, right?–Jen Griffen stands by her reporting on Trump repeatedly insulting U.S. military heroes. She circled back with one source, who firmly said “this was not a one-off”. Her source says Trump repeatedly called John McCain and veterans “suckers”.

  209. @nebulafox
    @Corvinus

    Well, again: I don't put it beyond Trump to call ordinary soldiers losers and suckers. But anonymous disgruntled former officials presented by the media of 2020 simply aren't gonna cut it anymore. And on this particular issue, the legacy GOP is probably going to be even more hostile to Trump than the Democrats considering the cachet that the military still holds in the party.

    Moreover:

    https://twitter.com/danielchaitin7/status/1301880528480673793

    https://twitter.com/TheAgeofShoddy/status/1301926628654608385

    It's almost as if gross, visible hypocrisy does things to your credibility.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Well, again: I don’t put it beyond Trump to call ordinary soldiers losers and suckers”.

    At least you are being honest here.

    “But anonymous disgruntled former officials presented by the media of 2020 simply aren’t gonna cut it anymore”.

    I am of the impression that some of the sources from current officials in the White House. Furthermore, they may be disgruntled because of what they witnessed on a daily basis regarding Trump’s conduct which is other than presidential. It does not mean what they say is inaccurate or untruthful.

  210. @Anonymous

    People, can we calm down and back off?
     
    Since you asked:

    Short answer: no.

    After WW II, the WW II coalition (Solid South, Labor Unions, Big City Political Machines, Major corporations) was whittled down to Big City Political Machines. The cities went bankrupt in the 1960s, and the 1960's Hippie Revolution succeeded in having the Federal Government make up urban deficits under the excuse of social welfare payments.

    I say "excuse" because the welfare payments did not go directly to the poor, nor did the payments help the poor in any way. What the payments did was stop the historic increase in Black income, flatten out that income, destroy Black families, and introduce massive competition for traditionally Black jobs (e.g. building janitor). But the payments did fund the cities (the money went to city government, not to the welfare recipients). So did indirect subsidies, such as ensuring that the financial institutions remained in cities.

    In any case, the cities never got enough income. To keep their political power had to import foreigners who had to remain living in the cities because they couldn't work productively in an industrial society, and could not support themselves elsewhere. Cities infrastructure deteriorated and cities simultaneously became less governable. Today, the big cities are shutting down their police forces because they can't afford a police force, and have started cultivating homeless encampments as welfare revenue sources. They are being evacuated by anybody who can evacuate, and Pres. Trump [1] is shutting down subsidies to cities that make no effort to control riots that, given their foreign settlements and their loss of influence over their Black inhabitants, they probably could not control anyway. Pres. Trump is not encouraging cities to stop riots, Pres. Trump cutting his budget by abandoning cities, and will continue to do so. It's his only winning move. NYC stands to lose 7,000,000,000 (7E9, seven billion) dollars/year. These funding reductions are just the start, the beginning of the end you might say, and the cities know this -- they could see it when Trump won in 2016 on a platform of attriting the cities' vote farms by ending immigration.

    The big cities have two choices: they can win the 2020 election or they can go under.

    If the big cities win, they will make DC a State, make Puerto Rico a State, increase immigration, and use the resulting domination of all three Branches of the Federal Government to institute the totalitarian state that they are advocating now. At any rate, that's what Biden promises. This, the big cities think, will give them the money they must have to keep going.

    On the other side, if the countryside loses the 2020/11 election, it will be mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. Today's White Death will look like a cultural efflorescence in comparison.

    So: no. Nobody is going to calm down and back off. It would hurt too many people for that to happen.

    And, no, I don't like it, the more so since I'm a prime target to get splashed by the overkill. However, my opinions and actions so far have not influenced events -- I can't change it.

    I'm interested in substantive corrections to my analysis. Please omit pilpul and trash talk.

    "and while the future's there for anyone to change,
    still you know it seems,
    it would be easier sometimes to change the past."
    https://youtu.be/VITDpayaHus?t=215

    1] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-orders-review-to-redirect-federal-funds-from-cities-that-permit-anarchy

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “If the big cities win, they will make DC a State, make Puerto Rico a State, increase immigration, and use the resulting domination of all three Branches of the Federal Government to institute the totalitarian state that they are advocating now…On the other side, if the countryside loses the 2020/11 election, it will be mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. Today’s White Death will look like a cultural efflorescence in comparison”.

    You will making progress with your points until these statements, which are false generalizations.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Gee, Corvinus. I said no pilpul.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Rob
    @Corvinus

    Seriously, you think saying that that the Democrats will make Puerto Rico and DC states, and increase immigration are false generalizations? Do you think the Democrats don’t want to do all those things? There may be some disagreement, but the majority of Democrats want all those things, and momentum in the party favors all three.

    The white, moderate Democrats are aging and dying, and the diverse next generation can taste victory. It is possible Biden is too old to like many changes, He has been a centrist, but he’s not a centrist to Americans’ views, he’s a centrist to the political class’ views. He’s terrible on every issue that matters; ending our wars and occupations, cutting the military to a reasonable size, ending immigration, repatriating the illegals, reshoring manufacturing, going carbon neutral...

    But Biden is not getting younger, and sometimes has trouble speaking. The Presidency is hard and draining for anyone. Biden and Trump have a lot in common, though either one would challenge you too fistfight if you told him so.

    They are very old. Trump is the oldest man ever elected, and he is too old to be President. Biden will be even older. Neither is a smart man for their class and milieu, though they both probably started with IQ a bit north of 100, and Biden is smarter than Trump. Trump has mentally checked out of being President, and has declined a lot since his candidacy. How far has Biden declined since we last saw him live?

    Biden will almost certainly be socially distancing when he starts his term, and will be delegating a lot to his underlings, much like Trump does. Like Trump, when he does not delegate decision-making, they will delegate it to themselves. Peop,e who work for administrations are more politically extremist than the average voter, and often push their preferred policies in lieu of the Presidents preferences. Biden’s White House will no more be loyal to Biden’s agenda than Trump’s underlines ste to his.

    Like Trump, it is very possible that Biden dies or becomes permanently incapacitated before his four years are up. I’m too lazy to look up the actuarial tables, and I’m sure if you go digging around the internet you can find actuarial tables that give his expected lifespan. Keep in mind that he had a stroke and an aneurysm. This is a right-wing talking point, but that does not make it untrue.

    Like Trump Biden’s campaign has been very light on policy. Like Trump, but more so, Biden is running on the fact that he is not the other candidate. Bernie voters and government workers are expecting very different things than John Kasich. White suburban voters who crossed over because Trump is crass are not likely to appreciate the trillion dollars for Democratic cities that Pelosi is holding up virus relief for. NeverTrump Republicans, those that survive the election, are going to want material benefits for changing sides, a tax cut, of course.

    Like Trump, I think Biden is mostly looking to finally win the big race and take a victory lap, while being the most popular man on campus, er in the country. Governing will be very difficult. The country will still be terribly divided. It took a few years for BLM to live down the first wave of BLM-inspired murders, but the left is now onto rioting. If rioting gets them the Presidency, the lumpenproletariat will be ready to riot over anything. Just because Soros or whoever turns off the money spigot, the unrest might continue with a yet more avaricious edge. They will need to steal money somehow to support their rioting, Trump had to deal with civil unrest at the beginning of his administration, but it was all middle-aged women in silly hats. Biden’s rioters are much burnier and lootiet than Trump’s were.

    So, more similar than either would admit, and in ways that make governing productively difficult.

    Because Biden will be old and isolating, Harris is likely to have a lot of influence in the administration. Obama gave Biden a lot to do, and Biden will likely do the same. Like Biden, Harris might be a political establishment moderate, and frankly seems a bit apolitical, but she may be hiding an agenda. The thousand(?) White House staffers will each have an agenda, the donors have agenda, though Biden may not feel indebted to current donors, he will likely feel indebted to the party insiders who cleared the primary field for him.

    We live in interesting times.

    Steve, please don’t whim my comments in this thread. Think of me as Whiskey, but crazy in a different way. As Donut might say, Don’t be such a whiman.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  211. @Arlo L. Ramsbottom
    @Mr McKenna

    The battle of Belleau Woods was an extraordinary display of Marine fighting ferocity. The Germans labeled them "Devil Dogs" for their spirit.
    This is where Dan Daly made his immortal battle cry,"Come on you sons of bitches,do you want to live forever?"
    He was recommended for the Medal of Honor for his actions,but was awarded the Navy Cross. Having won two previous Medals of Honor,it seems pretty clear he was denied the MOH because he was Irish. It wouldn't look good that the only American with three MOHs was Irish,especially given that some Irish had spoken out against joining the War to bail out the Brits. That's my theory anyway.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Tlotsi

    He stole that from Frederick the Great.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Tlotsi

    He stole that from Frederick the Great.

    Again, Freddy never led from the front.

  212. @Polynikes
    @Mr McKenna

    Reddit is essentially Chinese propaganda.

    Replies: @Mr McKenna, @Tlotsi

    So is much of the Unz Review.

  213. @Bill
    @Altai

    This is nothing new for them. Neocons consider WWI and especially America's participation in it a very good thing. Wilson is one of their heroes. They are an utter freak show.

    Replies: @Tlotsi

    It’s weird that a bunch of Jews should support a series of events that led to the rise of Hitler, but I guess it also led to Israel, so who knows?

  214. @Colin Wright
    @William Badwhite

    'A likely scenario is Trump wins, but the GOP loses the Senate. They’ll simply impeach him again and this time be able to remove him.'

    Conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Unless Trump pisses off Israel, ain't gonna happen.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    Oh jeez I knew that. My mistake, sorry all.

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
  215. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "If the big cities win, they will make DC a State, make Puerto Rico a State, increase immigration, and use the resulting domination of all three Branches of the Federal Government to institute the totalitarian state that they are advocating now...On the other side, if the countryside loses the 2020/11 election, it will be mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. Today’s White Death will look like a cultural efflorescence in comparison".

    You will making progress with your points until these statements, which are false generalizations.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Rob

    Gee, Corvinus. I said no pilpul.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "Gee, Corvinus. I said no pilpul".

    I didn't. But I don't expect you to admit otherwise.

  216. @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "If the big cities win, they will make DC a State, make Puerto Rico a State, increase immigration, and use the resulting domination of all three Branches of the Federal Government to institute the totalitarian state that they are advocating now...On the other side, if the countryside loses the 2020/11 election, it will be mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. Today’s White Death will look like a cultural efflorescence in comparison".

    You will making progress with your points until these statements, which are false generalizations.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Rob

    Seriously, you think saying that that the Democrats will make Puerto Rico and DC states, and increase immigration are false generalizations? Do you think the Democrats don’t want to do all those things? There may be some disagreement, but the majority of Democrats want all those things, and momentum in the party favors all three.

    The white, moderate Democrats are aging and dying, and the diverse next generation can taste victory. It is possible Biden is too old to like many changes, He has been a centrist, but he’s not a centrist to Americans’ views, he’s a centrist to the political class’ views. He’s terrible on every issue that matters; ending our wars and occupations, cutting the military to a reasonable size, ending immigration, repatriating the illegals, reshoring manufacturing, going carbon neutral…

    [MORE]

    But Biden is not getting younger, and sometimes has trouble speaking. The Presidency is hard and draining for anyone. Biden and Trump have a lot in common, though either one would challenge you too fistfight if you told him so.

    They are very old. Trump is the oldest man ever elected, and he is too old to be President. Biden will be even older. Neither is a smart man for their class and milieu, though they both probably started with IQ a bit north of 100, and Biden is smarter than Trump. Trump has mentally checked out of being President, and has declined a lot since his candidacy. How far has Biden declined since we last saw him live?

    Biden will almost certainly be socially distancing when he starts his term, and will be delegating a lot to his underlings, much like Trump does. Like Trump, when he does not delegate decision-making, they will delegate it to themselves. Peop,e who work for administrations are more politically extremist than the average voter, and often push their preferred policies in lieu of the Presidents preferences. Biden’s White House will no more be loyal to Biden’s agenda than Trump’s underlines ste to his.

    Like Trump, it is very possible that Biden dies or becomes permanently incapacitated before his four years are up. I’m too lazy to look up the actuarial tables, and I’m sure if you go digging around the internet you can find actuarial tables that give his expected lifespan. Keep in mind that he had a stroke and an aneurysm. This is a right-wing talking point, but that does not make it untrue.

    Like Trump Biden’s campaign has been very light on policy. Like Trump, but more so, Biden is running on the fact that he is not the other candidate. Bernie voters and government workers are expecting very different things than John Kasich. White suburban voters who crossed over because Trump is crass are not likely to appreciate the trillion dollars for Democratic cities that Pelosi is holding up virus relief for. NeverTrump Republicans, those that survive the election, are going to want material benefits for changing sides, a tax cut, of course.

    Like Trump, I think Biden is mostly looking to finally win the big race and take a victory lap, while being the most popular man on campus, er in the country. Governing will be very difficult. The country will still be terribly divided. It took a few years for BLM to live down the first wave of BLM-inspired murders, but the left is now onto rioting. If rioting gets them the Presidency, the lumpenproletariat will be ready to riot over anything. Just because Soros or whoever turns off the money spigot, the unrest might continue with a yet more avaricious edge. They will need to steal money somehow to support their rioting, Trump had to deal with civil unrest at the beginning of his administration, but it was all middle-aged women in silly hats. Biden’s rioters are much burnier and lootiet than Trump’s were.

    So, more similar than either would admit, and in ways that make governing productively difficult.

    Because Biden will be old and isolating, Harris is likely to have a lot of influence in the administration. Obama gave Biden a lot to do, and Biden will likely do the same. Like Biden, Harris might be a political establishment moderate, and frankly seems a bit apolitical, but she may be hiding an agenda. The thousand(?) White House staffers will each have an agenda, the donors have agenda, though Biden may not feel indebted to current donors, he will likely feel indebted to the party insiders who cleared the primary field for him.

    We live in interesting times.

    Steve, please don’t whim my comments in this thread. Think of me as Whiskey, but crazy in a different way. As Donut might say, Don’t be such a whiman.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Rob

    "Seriously, you think saying that that the Democrats will make Puerto Rico and DC states, and increase immigration are false generalizations?"

    I am saying that IF those things happen, the end result is the institution of a totalitarian state and nation mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. That is what I correctly referred to as a false generalization.

    "It took a few years for BLM to live down the first wave of BLM-inspired murders, but the left is now onto rioting."

    You are employing similar logic that the British used against the colonists; that state governments used against unions; and that southern governments used against civil rights activists. One has to separate the actual peaceful protestors from those who purely seek to agitate through physical confrontation and violence. And I would say people in general tend to associate “mostly” as being at least 80-90% “good”, as in “this apple for the most part is good”. So, what do you do if there are brown spots or it is a little soft? Cut it out. One does not throw away the entire apple.

  217. @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    The interbellum period allowed Central Europe to enjoy something of an extended adolescence that inevitably was going to come to an end when those two powers recovered their strength. In particular, Versailles failed to permanently cripple Germany in any meaningful long-term way, despite the severe degree of economic and social turmoil the Weimar Republic faced.

    As far as the latter goes, considering what Europe went through to finally get to 1990...

    >NB, the Hapsburg dominions fell apart in a manner of weeks in 1918 in a bottom-up rebellion by local political chieftains.

    I think Austria's collapse took two things: starvation conditions and the announcement of the Fourteen Points. One was already a reality by 1917, but the other was not, and presumably would not have been had America never entered the war. That didn't mean Austria was in good shape in the slightest: definitely not! Karl's backdoor attempts to negotiate happened for a reason. But all the same, if nationalist sentiment really motivated the populace as much as postwar hindsight claimed, it would have come earlier, especially after Franz Josef died.

    One of the big points I took away from "Ring of Steel" by Alexander Watson was the degree of long-term postwar social degradation the war caused within Germany (ultimately leading to the kind of morose, grey environment that Hitler's skills as a politician were nightmarishly suited for) and, in particular, Austria-Hungary. That colors a lot of our historical hindsight about both powers. But reading sources contemporary to the age, very few, even observers critical of the monarchy, thought the latter was bound to collapse in 1913. The place did not even experience the endemic levels of political violence that Tsarist Russia did during its contemporary drive to modernity. It did take the war to lay the conditions for the collapse of the state... but if that were true, why did it take until 1918? Starvation conditions had been commonplace in Austria for years at that point. It took the publication of Wilson's Points to give the local nationalists the opening they needed. If the collapse were bound to occur due to the monarchy's ethnic problems, considering how deeply entrenched they were, I find it very hard to believe it wouldn't have come sooner given the degree of economic and military trouble the Central Powers were in already.

    The military side of things does reflect this to some extent. Though the Russians obliterated Hapsburg army after army to the point that it was reduced to Berlin's satellite, on other fronts (noticeably the Italian, where none of the conflicted feelings about fighting fellow Slavs existed and many Croats and Slovenes in particular were highly motivated) the army remained coherent enough to launch things like the Caporetto Offensive, with German aid of course. Even against the Russians, though the Czechs remained the most alienated minority, heavy-handed Tsarist governance turns all but the most avidly Slavophile Galicians against their self-proclaimed big brothers.

    >You propose to avoid that how?

    Given the degree of Habsburg reliance on Germany by 1917, the following might have done the trick:

    1) America doesn't enter the war, needless to say. I don't know, for this you might need to dispose of Arthur Zimmermann and dump his body into the Spree.

    2) Max Hoffmann is listened to during the negotiations at Brest and the Russians are allowed to leave the war with minimal territory losses. As a result, Berlin doesn't-yet again-confirm Allied propaganda about the lawless Hun and negotiations without an American presence that doomed Berlin would be more feasible. Austro-German war planners hoped to resolve their food situation with the conquered territories, but that was a pipe dream given the ravages of war and reflected the inability of the German leadership to understand the soft aspects of the war, be they propaganda or economic or diplomatic. In a weird way, Wilson was right here: they couldn't keep up with the modern age.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Thanks for the hand-waving. Always an education.

  218. @Art Deco
    @Prester John

    They're collateral relatives of Jackie Onassis' step-father. The family recycles the name 'Hugh' over and over and people misspell their surname with abandon, so it can be a puzzle as to just which 'Hugh Auchincloss' (or Anchincloss, or Auchincoude) is which. This fellow 'Jake Auchincloss' is the issue of a line of doctors. His father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were all physicians / surgeons.

    Replies: @HammerJack

    Do you happen to know about Luke?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @HammerJack

    Don't know who that is.

  219. @Tlotsi
    @Arlo L. Ramsbottom

    He stole that from Frederick the Great.

    Replies: @anon

    He stole that from Frederick the Great.

    Again, Freddy never led from the front.

  220. @nebulafox
    @LondonBob

    >America should have heeded Teddy Roosevelt and joined earlier, the war could have been over a lot sooner.

    When I say I think America's intervention in WWI was a mistake, I don't necessarily mean because it ended the conflict with a Franco-British victory, but because of how the leading pro-war zeitgeist in the US viewed Europe and what to do with the peace. These guys held a very specific set of ideological views. For example, Wilson held all the typically "progressive" views on the Hapsburg monarchy as backwards and primitive, which lead to the fateful Point 10 in the Fourteen Points.

    Imperial Austria had many, many problems, but without it or something like it, the long-term inevitable fate of Central Europe was to fall prey to either Greater Germany or a Russian imperium. That's exactly what happened, first one then the other, once those states recovered and consolidated under regimes that dreamt stuff that made Willy and Nicky look like saints.

    If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France's military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Anonymous, @Colin Wright

    [i]’…If the US did not intervene, the war would have hardly gone on forever. Everybody was bled absolutely white. Germany and Austria were starving and France’s military was revolting by 1917. Had that happened: Adolf Hitler would have either made his living as a harmless army flunky, or he would have been discharged into civilian life and died penniless and alone, probably by his own hand.'[/i]

    If the US does not intervene…

    Russia is still forced out of the war, undergoes a catastrophic revolution, and accedes to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with Germany.

    The Kaiserschlacht still fails, but Britain and France find themselves unable to whip their troops forward into a decisive counteroffensive.

    There’s a status quo ante peace in the West. Best case otherwise is Germany presumably crushes the Bolshevik state — but is forced to make drastic concessions to the Social Democrats to keep them on side, leading to kind of a giant version of socialist Sweden. Britain and France both find themselves swinging violently left as well

    On the other hand, it’s also possible — particularly if Germany isn’t able to keep revolution from breaking out at home — that the Bolsheviks manage to set off global — or at least Europe-wide — revolution after all.

  221. @Anonymous
    @nebulafox

    You have just said that the rise of Hitler was due to the US intervention in WW1, not due to the Versailles treaty or some such. First time I've heard that one.

    Now I expect that you would respond that Versailles would not have happened without the United States' involvement. Either way you trace everything back to the USA. Which wasn't even a major player in the first war.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Now I expect that you would respond that Versailles would not have happened without the United States’ involvement. Either way you trace everything back to the USA. Which wasn’t even a major player in the first war.’

    We were a decisive player, though. Absent our intervention, Germany’s defeat becomes very problematic.

    I’ve got an old atlas somewhere. It has the Western front as of November 11th, 1918. About half the line is held by American divisions — and we were just getting started.

    Moreover, we were the only ones still charging forward, undeterred by 50% losses — not too skillful, but numerous, and definitely enthusiastic.

    This is why Germany quit. They could have fought the British and French to exhaustion — largely had. Our weight in the scales made all the difference.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Colin Wright

    To Anonymous: I don't trace everything back to the USA. Hitler's rise was far from inevitable, even in 1932. But did the destabilizing geopolitical conditions sown in 1918 and 1919 matter for the future of Europe? Yes. Another crucial, less well remembered decision was the intervention in the Russian Civil War, which helped stabilize the Bolshevik regime rather than the other way around.

    Colin: agreed. Without American intervention, there would have had to have been some kind of compromise peace deal, regardless of whatever the politicians at the time were saying. Everybody involved was exhausted. The Central Powers were starving, desperate, and stuck with extremely counterproductive gains in the east after early 1918, but there was no prospect of an Allied breakthrough on a different front (depending on how the Italian campaign goes in 1918, it's possible that the Central Powers situation on the Western Front would be stronger with a more stable AH) and their economic/military situation wasn't much better. It isn't remembered much because of how history planned out, but London and Paris were also facing a serious manpower and especially financial crisis by 1917. So, yeah, the immediate infusion of all those Americans was the X-factor.

    German war planners viewed American soldiers dimly compared to their British and French counterparts, but the relative quality of the troops really didn't matter: the presence of all those Americans meant that Berlin's gamble had failed, and they knew it.

  222. @HammerJack
    @Art Deco

    Do you happen to know about Luke?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Don’t know who that is.

  223. @Johann Ricke
    @S. Anonyia


    Your chart for defense spending looks fairly level.
     
    A drop from 10% at the end of Eisenhower's 2nd term, during which he talked about the need for a military-industrial complex, to about 4% today, is not level.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    Perhaps you'd consider a 60% drop in your wages or savings level. I wouldn't.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    the end of Eisenhower’s 2nd term, during which he talked about the need for a military-industrial complex

    Wow, you have wildly misunderstood Eisenhower’s speech.

    • LOL: Gabe Ruth
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder


    Wow, you have wildly misunderstood Eisenhower’s speech.
     
    Liberals have deliberately misunderstood it, and "conservatives" have gone along for the ride. Read the speech at the link, instead of the snippets you hear about from the liberal media.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    Eisenhower talked about the need for a permanent military industrial complex, because the speed of war had accelerated to the point that any country that fell behind stood the possibility of having the war's outcome decided against it before the first battle had been fought. The non-defense government industrial complex was already massive during his tenure. He cautioned against a similar expansion in defense. Given that he presided over military spending exceeding 10% of GDP throughout his 8-year tenure, he obviously had few qualms about that level of defense spending.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

  224. @Anon
    Jesus you are pathetic. If Trump did say that (and you don't even pretend to doubt the accuracy of this report), how dishonest and/or stupid do you have to be to spin it as him simply saying "World War One (not Two, One) was pointless"?

    It wouldn't kill you to admit that Trump is a terrible person, that this report seems more than plausible, and that, if he did say it, then it was undeniably disrespectful to the American soldiers who died in the Great War. Are you so afraid of helping Trump's admittedly-demonic foes like David Brooks that you will say anything to spite them?

    I have been reading you for years and cannot recall you even implicitly criticizing Good Orange Man. You're like a poor man's version (literally) of Scott Adams: 60-something year old nerd who hates the left so much that you're willing to unconditionally shill for Donald Trump, who isn't even paying you and probably wouldn't even spit on you if you were on fire. Instead of your constant fundraiser posts maybe you could at least try to send the White House an invoice for the dedicated propaganda you've spent years writing for Trump.

    Replies: @CajunSmiff, @Anonymous, @vinteuil

    If Trump did say that (and you don’t even pretend to doubt the accuracy of this report), how dishonest and/or stupid do you have to be to spin it as him simply saying “World War One (not Two, One) was pointless”?

    As usual, I find myself doubting that Trump said anything close to what’s being reported, while wishing that he had.

    The Americans who died in WWI were, in fact, suckered into a conflict in which they and their people had nothing at stake. And they lost their lives fighting for Wilson’s lies.

    Suckers and Losers, all.

  225. @Anonymous
    @Anon


    this report seems more than plausible
     
    No, in fact, it does not seem even remotely plausible. It sounds far more like something that 'The Atlantic' retrieved from it's posterior orifice, and I must insist they return it from whence it came.

    Replies: @Wielgus

    It seems a somewhat Leona Helmsley type of remark to make, but he moves in those circles.

  226. @Cortes
    @Coemgen

    Just as well that the puny Russian Federation doesn’t have a whole suite of hypersonic weapons systems to counteract the ultimate power of collateralised obligations, hedging strategies and offshoring of industrial capacity, then

    Replies: @Coemgen

    Just as well that the puny Russian Federation doesn’t have a whole suite of hypersonic weapons systems to counteract the ultimate power of collateralised obligations, hedging strategies and offshoring of industrial capacity, then

    The Russians could sell some of their weapons of mass destruction. Then use the proceeds to buy some political influence.

    How much would it cost the Russians to get CNN to start pushing pro-Russian propaganda? How much for Google … or NYT … or a premium subscription to SecureDrop?

  227. @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Johann Ricke


    the end of Eisenhower’s 2nd term, during which he talked about the need for a military-industrial complex
     
    Wow, you have wildly misunderstood Eisenhower's speech.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Wow, you have wildly misunderstood Eisenhower’s speech.

    Liberals have deliberately misunderstood it, and “conservatives” have gone along for the ride. Read the speech at the link, instead of the snippets you hear about from the liberal media.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    Eisenhower talked about the need for a permanent military industrial complex, because the speed of war had accelerated to the point that any country that fell behind stood the possibility of having the war’s outcome decided against it before the first battle had been fought. The non-defense government industrial complex was already massive during his tenure. He cautioned against a similar expansion in defense. Given that he presided over military spending exceeding 10% of GDP throughout his 8-year tenure, he obviously had few qualms about that level of defense spending.

    • Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Johann Ricke

    Well okay! I will read the entire speech and let you know what I think.

  228. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    Gee, Corvinus. I said no pilpul.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Gee, Corvinus. I said no pilpul”.

    I didn’t. But I don’t expect you to admit otherwise.

  229. @Rob
    @Corvinus

    Seriously, you think saying that that the Democrats will make Puerto Rico and DC states, and increase immigration are false generalizations? Do you think the Democrats don’t want to do all those things? There may be some disagreement, but the majority of Democrats want all those things, and momentum in the party favors all three.

    The white, moderate Democrats are aging and dying, and the diverse next generation can taste victory. It is possible Biden is too old to like many changes, He has been a centrist, but he’s not a centrist to Americans’ views, he’s a centrist to the political class’ views. He’s terrible on every issue that matters; ending our wars and occupations, cutting the military to a reasonable size, ending immigration, repatriating the illegals, reshoring manufacturing, going carbon neutral...

    But Biden is not getting younger, and sometimes has trouble speaking. The Presidency is hard and draining for anyone. Biden and Trump have a lot in common, though either one would challenge you too fistfight if you told him so.

    They are very old. Trump is the oldest man ever elected, and he is too old to be President. Biden will be even older. Neither is a smart man for their class and milieu, though they both probably started with IQ a bit north of 100, and Biden is smarter than Trump. Trump has mentally checked out of being President, and has declined a lot since his candidacy. How far has Biden declined since we last saw him live?

    Biden will almost certainly be socially distancing when he starts his term, and will be delegating a lot to his underlings, much like Trump does. Like Trump, when he does not delegate decision-making, they will delegate it to themselves. Peop,e who work for administrations are more politically extremist than the average voter, and often push their preferred policies in lieu of the Presidents preferences. Biden’s White House will no more be loyal to Biden’s agenda than Trump’s underlines ste to his.

    Like Trump, it is very possible that Biden dies or becomes permanently incapacitated before his four years are up. I’m too lazy to look up the actuarial tables, and I’m sure if you go digging around the internet you can find actuarial tables that give his expected lifespan. Keep in mind that he had a stroke and an aneurysm. This is a right-wing talking point, but that does not make it untrue.

    Like Trump Biden’s campaign has been very light on policy. Like Trump, but more so, Biden is running on the fact that he is not the other candidate. Bernie voters and government workers are expecting very different things than John Kasich. White suburban voters who crossed over because Trump is crass are not likely to appreciate the trillion dollars for Democratic cities that Pelosi is holding up virus relief for. NeverTrump Republicans, those that survive the election, are going to want material benefits for changing sides, a tax cut, of course.

    Like Trump, I think Biden is mostly looking to finally win the big race and take a victory lap, while being the most popular man on campus, er in the country. Governing will be very difficult. The country will still be terribly divided. It took a few years for BLM to live down the first wave of BLM-inspired murders, but the left is now onto rioting. If rioting gets them the Presidency, the lumpenproletariat will be ready to riot over anything. Just because Soros or whoever turns off the money spigot, the unrest might continue with a yet more avaricious edge. They will need to steal money somehow to support their rioting, Trump had to deal with civil unrest at the beginning of his administration, but it was all middle-aged women in silly hats. Biden’s rioters are much burnier and lootiet than Trump’s were.

    So, more similar than either would admit, and in ways that make governing productively difficult.

    Because Biden will be old and isolating, Harris is likely to have a lot of influence in the administration. Obama gave Biden a lot to do, and Biden will likely do the same. Like Biden, Harris might be a political establishment moderate, and frankly seems a bit apolitical, but she may be hiding an agenda. The thousand(?) White House staffers will each have an agenda, the donors have agenda, though Biden may not feel indebted to current donors, he will likely feel indebted to the party insiders who cleared the primary field for him.

    We live in interesting times.

    Steve, please don’t whim my comments in this thread. Think of me as Whiskey, but crazy in a different way. As Donut might say, Don’t be such a whiman.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Seriously, you think saying that that the Democrats will make Puerto Rico and DC states, and increase immigration are false generalizations?”

    I am saying that IF those things happen, the end result is the institution of a totalitarian state and nation mercilessly pillaged and swamped with hostile foreigner and urban dwellers. That is what I correctly referred to as a false generalization.

    “It took a few years for BLM to live down the first wave of BLM-inspired murders, but the left is now onto rioting.”

    You are employing similar logic that the British used against the colonists; that state governments used against unions; and that southern governments used against civil rights activists. One has to separate the actual peaceful protestors from those who purely seek to agitate through physical confrontation and violence. And I would say people in general tend to associate “mostly” as being at least 80-90% “good”, as in “this apple for the most part is good”. So, what do you do if there are brown spots or it is a little soft? Cut it out. One does not throw away the entire apple.

  230. @Hibernian
    @Patrick Sullivan

    Anonymous sources have zero credibility. Five times zero equals fifty times zero equals one hundred times zero equals zero.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Anonymous sources have zero credibility.”

    Actually, it comes down to verifying the information. Assume a reporter has four sources who wish to remain anonymous, with each source not knowing that he/she talked to each one of them. He/she will seek to verify the information each one provided to them. It is also general practice for the reporter disclose the identity of their anonymous sources to their editors.

    It is important to understand a source’s motivation for speaking and determine their agenda. Thus, reporters tell their sources he/she will verify everything they tell him/her, and balance the information they provided with other relevant information, or challenge their information with other facts to build a story that includes multiple points of view.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    Actually in the case of the Atlantic it can come down to flat out lying.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/20/four-days-since-a-police-brutality-story-unraveled-the-atlantic-still-refuses-to-respond/

  231. “The Americans who died in WWI were, in fact, suckered into a conflict in which they and their people had nothing at stake.”

    Actually, we had a decided interest in Europe at that time–commercial activities. So, once again, you place hyperbole over fact.

  232. @anon
    @Altai

    The bright side to WWI is that few of the people living today would be ever have been born. Not in the nations affected by the war, anyway. Great grandfather Harry might never have met great grandmother Sally. Or if they did meet, the ripples of time changed by the wars caused temporal dislocations that might have meant that another Harry the spermatozoa met another Sally the egg. And thus producing a different person. An alternate timeline sibling.

    A whole lot of other people would have been born if not for WWI. But they of course are not around to complain or comment about not ever being born.

    And of course, for all we know, WWI might have saved humanity from total extinction in a nuclear holocaust sometime later in the 20th century.

    Replies: @Gabe Ruth

    GTF back to plebbit.

  233. @Colin Wright
    @Anonymous

    'Now I expect that you would respond that Versailles would not have happened without the United States’ involvement. Either way you trace everything back to the USA. Which wasn’t even a major player in the first war.'

    We were a decisive player, though. Absent our intervention, Germany's defeat becomes very problematic.

    I've got an old atlas somewhere. It has the Western front as of November 11th, 1918. About half the line is held by American divisions -- and we were just getting started.

    Moreover, we were the only ones still charging forward, undeterred by 50% losses -- not too skillful, but numerous, and definitely enthusiastic.

    This is why Germany quit. They could have fought the British and French to exhaustion -- largely had. Our weight in the scales made all the difference.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    To Anonymous: I don’t trace everything back to the USA. Hitler’s rise was far from inevitable, even in 1932. But did the destabilizing geopolitical conditions sown in 1918 and 1919 matter for the future of Europe? Yes. Another crucial, less well remembered decision was the intervention in the Russian Civil War, which helped stabilize the Bolshevik regime rather than the other way around.

    Colin: agreed. Without American intervention, there would have had to have been some kind of compromise peace deal, regardless of whatever the politicians at the time were saying. Everybody involved was exhausted. The Central Powers were starving, desperate, and stuck with extremely counterproductive gains in the east after early 1918, but there was no prospect of an Allied breakthrough on a different front (depending on how the Italian campaign goes in 1918, it’s possible that the Central Powers situation on the Western Front would be stronger with a more stable AH) and their economic/military situation wasn’t much better. It isn’t remembered much because of how history planned out, but London and Paris were also facing a serious manpower and especially financial crisis by 1917. So, yeah, the immediate infusion of all those Americans was the X-factor.

    German war planners viewed American soldiers dimly compared to their British and French counterparts, but the relative quality of the troops really didn’t matter: the presence of all those Americans meant that Berlin’s gamble had failed, and they knew it.

  234. @Corvinus
    @Hibernian

    "Anonymous sources have zero credibility."

    Actually, it comes down to verifying the information. Assume a reporter has four sources who wish to remain anonymous, with each source not knowing that he/she talked to each one of them. He/she will seek to verify the information each one provided to them. It is also general practice for the reporter disclose the identity of their anonymous sources to their editors.

    It is important to understand a source’s motivation for speaking and determine their agenda. Thus, reporters tell their sources he/she will verify everything they tell him/her, and balance the information they provided with other relevant information, or challenge their information with other facts to build a story that includes multiple points of view.

    Replies: @anon

  235. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Mr McKenna

    It's not "New Journalism", it's simply journalism. The fact of the matter is that anyone associated with the Trump White House who dares to openly question Trump will get their b----/cli----- cut out. The level of detail provided by these sources, as well as the level of consistency in their accounts, demonstrates Trump's actual position regarding our military personnel.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The level of detail provided by these sources, as well as the level of consistency in their accounts, demonstrates Trump’s actual position regarding our military personnel.

    Or perhaps the level of consistency is far better exemplified in the following accounting of Trump’s respect and allegiance to our nation’s veterans, and you’re a dumb cunt who could never measure up to Trump’s achievements in 50 lifetimes.

    What do you think?

    https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2020/09/trump-honors-war-dead-with-his-heart.html

  236. @Johann Ricke
    @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder


    Wow, you have wildly misunderstood Eisenhower’s speech.
     
    Liberals have deliberately misunderstood it, and "conservatives" have gone along for the ride. Read the speech at the link, instead of the snippets you hear about from the liberal media.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    Eisenhower talked about the need for a permanent military industrial complex, because the speed of war had accelerated to the point that any country that fell behind stood the possibility of having the war's outcome decided against it before the first battle had been fought. The non-defense government industrial complex was already massive during his tenure. He cautioned against a similar expansion in defense. Given that he presided over military spending exceeding 10% of GDP throughout his 8-year tenure, he obviously had few qualms about that level of defense spending.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    Well okay! I will read the entire speech and let you know what I think.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS