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 on Minoritarianism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show 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

Fr0m the New York Times opinion page:

The Age of the Creative Minority
Nov. 24, 2021

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once observed that being a minority in 19th-century Europe was like living in someone else’s country home. The aristocrat owned the house. Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.

Something similar can be said of America in the 1950s. But over the ensuing decades, the Protestant establishment crumbled and America became more marvelously diverse. …

It might be most accurate to say that America is now a place of jostling minorities. The crucial questions become: How do people think about their minority group identity and how do they regard the relationships between minorities?

Historically, to riff on another Sacks observation, there have been at least four different minority mind-sets:

First, assimilation. …

Second, separatism. …

Third, combat. People who take this approach see life as essentially a struggle between oppressor and oppressed groups. Bigotry is so baked in that there’s no realistic hope of integration. The battle must be fought against the groups that despise us and whose values are alien to us. In fact, this battle gives life purpose.

Fourth, integration without assimilation. …

Our politics is so nasty now because many people find the third mind-set most compelling. Americans are a deeply religious people, especially when they think they are not being religious. And these days what I would call the religion of minoritarianism has seized many hearts. This is the belief that history is inevitably the heroic struggle by minorities to free themselves from the yoke of majority domination. It is the belief that sin resides in the social structures imposed by majorities and that virtue and the true consciousness reside with the oppressed groups.

At a recent Faith Angle Forum in France, the British political scientist Matthew Goodwin defined wokeness as a belief system organized around “the sacralization of racial, gender and sexual minorities.” I’d add that right-wing populism is organized around the sacralization of the white working class and the belief that left-wing minority groups have now become the dominant oppressive majority.

As I pointed out in Taki’s Magazine on November 10, 2021:

But another reason is because Democrats believe they have discovered the one true political ideal: minoritarianism. After dallying with the majoritarianism of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, and FDR, the Democrats have come to believe that rather than be concerned with the interests of the majority, politicians should only look out for minorities, the smaller the better.

 
Hide 321 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon[262] • Disclaimer says:

    Minoritarianism is when you can’t visit African countries because of new Covid variants, but illegal migrants from African countries can walk right across the Mexican border and a non-profit resettles them in an apartment complex near your house with no Covid test or vaccine administration, while you have to get the vaccine or be fired.

    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Anon

    That's called Anarcho-Tyranny, but you put up an example of it very well, whatever you all want to call it.

    , @Hannah Katz
    @Anon

    The academics on the left forget that the Bantu tribes conquered most of Africa, displacing and enslaving people like the Khoisan. Now they are headed here. Not content to run their own countries (almost always into the ground) they now want to rule over Europe, North America and Australia.

  2. David Brooks on Minoritarianism

    Original sub-thread, h/t SFG :

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/rogan-rogen/#comment-5028515 (#66)

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    With the generic ballot at R+11, the Dems may be telling their media "thought leaders" to cool down the anti-white racism just a tad. If so, a column from RINO Brooks is probably a good test balloon.


    But wow. Brooks is saying "minoritarianism" is the Dem mind-set and a "coalition of the fringes" is their strategy. iSteve has gone mainstream.

    Replies: @Anon

  3. Democrats… rather than be concerned with the interests of the majority, politicians should only look out for minorities, the smaller the better.

    And in that spirit, President Biden spent his (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving as a guest in (((billionaire David Rubenstein’s mansion))):

    — (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2021/11/23/biden-will-spend-thanksgiving-week-at-private-equity-billionaires-nantucket-home)

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Pat Kittle


    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving
     
    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?

    Thanksgiving is the quintessentially American holiday - it can be celebrated by people of all races and religions.

    When Trump celebrates Thanksgiving, he celebrates it with his Jewish daughter and son in law and Jewish grandchildren, so I guess you just can't get away from Jews in the elite circles of 21st century America.

    I don't think that by celebrating Thanksgiving in Rubenstein's house, Biden was looking out for the Jews - he was looking out for himself.

    The reason that Democrats "look out" for minorities is that a whole bunch of minorities put together (the so called "Coalition of the Fringes") can constitute a majority, especially in big cities and coastal states.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle, @Citizen of a Silly Country

  4. The long shadow of Reagan has reached its end, just as the long shadow of FDR did once.

    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic. Who should take them seriously?

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @nebulafox


    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic.
     
    Brooks and his ilk most definitely have first-class accommodations and every single thing they say and do is designed to ensure that it remains that way.

    That the ship itself is foundering is fairly incontrovertible at this point, but the focus of the Tribe has always been profit at others' expense, even when it puts their own survival at risk.

    Such a mindset may not seem reasonable to the rest of us, but it's baked into their blood and their history is replete with examples. Blind, unreasoning tribal hatred—mother's milk to them. So long as they're on top, they don't really mind if everything is wrecked. Look around us.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive

    , @Bill Jones
    @nebulafox


    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic.
     
    They were the ones who got the lifeboats,
  5. Lurk moar, Brooks.

    My point of view is that the “white working class” (really not just the white one) should be favored for pragmatic reasons, on account of it being the only sector in society that still favors the traditional nation-state. Otherwise, they certainly have plenty of flaws.

  6. the Protestant establishment crumbled and America became more marvelously diverse.

    Ah yes. Or, put another way, the nation was hijacked and is now circling the drain. White Protestant society was notably civilized and high-trust. In the process, unfortunately, ready fodder for those who are neither.

  7. conveniently wrong, as usual (lately). as anyone who cares to think about it easily remembers, this shift in consciousness clearly took place during the reagan era — which was predicated on a systematic fuck-you directed at the bland, dutiful, mid-american protestant worker, and sought to reinvent america as essentially an economic enterprise.

    and certainly not in the interest of any fancifully conceived american / christian-white “majority” either — but an emergent white corporate class which openly antagonized this former majority — legally and otherwise.

    when the reagan-thatcherites started to chant their new mantra that “there is no such thing as social justice” they meant you, deplorowhites

    • Agree: byrresheim
  8. While most minorities enjoy their tiny place in the sun, dependent for fleeting success on being vocal, combative and, most importantly, unapologetic, the silent minority, the famous one percent (or less) abides, magnanimously ceding that same tiny place in the sun striven for cannibalistically by the rest.

    Pretentious? Moi?

  9. We already know where this path leads- history is full of it.

  10. But over the ensuing decades, the Protestant establishment crumbled….

    And Catholics worshipped the Kennedys who were quislings, rich educated quislings, but quislings nonetheless. A priesthood full of misfits who were railroaded into the priesthood by Mom and Dad didn’t help either. Even the Buckleys sent their sons to Yale.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
    @Hibernian


    … Catholics worshipped the Kennedys …
     
    The situation was rather less straightforward than you seem to think it was.

    When the 1960 election took place, I was a junior in high school, and so I remember it very clearly. My parents had moved the family a year before to a private home in Yonkers, a bedroom suburb of New York City. Our new neighborhood was younger and less markedly Irish Catholic than our former neighborhood in the Bronx had been, but since I had not changed schools when we moved, I was back in the old one five days a week.

    But enough background. What I mean to say is that in both neighborhoods, the middle-class Catholic vote went to Nixon by a margin only a bit smaller than it had gone to Ike four years earlier. The pastor of my new parish told my old man that, like him and my mother, he had voted for Nixon, and Nixon was also the overwhelming choice of the Irish Christian Brothers who were my teachers in high school.

    It is certainly true that poor and working-class Catholics voted for Kennedy in large numbers, but they would have voted Democratic anyway—at least so long as the Democratic candidate wasn't as snooty and odd-looking as Adlai Stevenson.

    Kennedy worship truly became the serious and persistent problem it remains only after his assassination, and Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency.

    Replies: @Pierre de Craon

  11. @nebulafox
    The long shadow of Reagan has reached its end, just as the long shadow of FDR did once.

    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic. Who should take them seriously?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Bill Jones

    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic.

    Brooks and his ilk most definitely have first-class accommodations and every single thing they say and do is designed to ensure that it remains that way.

    That the ship itself is foundering is fairly incontrovertible at this point, but the focus of the Tribe has always been profit at others’ expense, even when it puts their own survival at risk.

    Such a mindset may not seem reasonable to the rest of us, but it’s baked into their blood and their history is replete with examples. Blind, unreasoning tribal hatred—mother’s milk to them. So long as they’re on top, they don’t really mind if everything is wrecked. Look around us.

    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    @HammerJack


    That the ship itself is foundering is fairly incontrovertible at this point, but the focus of the Tribe has always been profit at others’ expense, even when it puts their own survival at risk.
     
    Very true.
    Logically, the Ziocons should want to ensure the United States, the protector and patron of Israel, remains strong, both economically, socially and militarily. In fact, they act totally in the other direction.

    The Ziocons have strongly supported globalisation and offshoring, which have reduced America to an industrial husk, as well as shrinking the tax base. At the same time, their promotion of open borders has resulted in the importation of tens of millions of non-whites, nearly all of whom are indifferent or actively hostile to Jews generally and Israel in particular. As a corollary, the percentage of largely philosemitic White Americans has dropped rapidly.

    They have had control over US Defense and Foreign policy for nearly 30 years. In that time, interminable wars have been fought to make the Middle East safe for Israel. They've failed, and added trillions to an already bloated Government Debt. The US military has been degraded, both physically and morally, and morale is low. Worse will follow as President Frank N Furter's Diversity Programme is enforced. The Ziocons will continue to cheer - just ask "Rachel" Levine.

    When economic, then political and social, collapse hits America later this decade, Israel will have a stark choice. The loss of its protector - and its subsidies - means either a humiliating settlement with its Arab neighbours or collapse and elimination. Even the former is unlikely to save it. Without the subsidies, Israel would be an unpleasant place to live. Lebanon with rabbis ! Most would leave or try to do so.
  12. Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad? Pretty impressive to go from internet comment to the pages of the NYT, though the gray lady isn’t what it used to be.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @SimpleSong


    Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad?
     
    Pretty neat, although Brooks mysteriously omitted AnotherDad’s occasional modifier Jewish minoritarianism. 🤔

    Replies: @Danindc

    , @John Derbyshire
    @SimpleSong

    https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/minoritarianism.html

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Don Unf
    @SimpleSong

    That sounds like something out of Wilmot Robertson. In his 30 years of output, spanning the last third of the 20th century, which focused heavily on the majority/minority dynamics, I'm sure he uttered that a few times. 'Majoritarianism' did appear in his Instauration in 1986, though it was a quote from Marty Peretz on the diminution of South African whites.

  13. I do not want to jostle and debate forever with a bunch of newcomers — many of whom came here illegally or are only here due to relatives who did — over how the country will be run.

    Who does?

    I think everybody underestimates how much bad feeling in this country comes from the insistence of some that the rest of us must dance their dance, a dance that is not fun and gets us nowhere. I am not referring to just one group here. There are multiple groups with radically different agendas that want the rest of us to go along with them, agree or disagree.

    Isn’t there a chance that people will refuse to jostle and instead of competing they will attack those who seem to run the game? How do you run a country or accomplish anything with a population that is perpetually seething and feels like it is being poked with a stick?

    You do not.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    @notsaying

    “Poked with a stick” is the best image I have seen for a long time. I have posted “the affronts, compromises, and humiliations of daily life.” Okay, I guess, but too literal. Much better is your “poked,” and also, “seething.” It’s sad of course that such words and images aptly describe the place we have arrived at, but my compliments for great writing.

    , @James Speaks
    @notsaying

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @notsaying, @Alden, @Jack D, @Muggles

    , @Anonymous
    @notsaying

    A brown legal immigrant I know, pretty well, who is for all intents and purposes "pro white" (which he sees as just the Core America) noted to me once what he thought was the oddest feature of the current American society. He was stunned at how the very descendants of the founders of the Nation...the original Colonist who participated in a very risky revolution--were completely SHAT upon by all the minorities (and Jews) and the media, etc. He noted that the descendants of O'Leary, and other fellow travelers of Bolivar, San Martin, Cochrane, Santander etc were very proud of carrying the surnames and that others respected them for being from those families. Here, it is a complete inversion of what would normally be an honorable lineage.

    Replies: @notsaying

  14. I don’t know what “integration without assimilation” means. Sounds like a vague idea of minorities being different in style but still loyal and law-abiding. A liberal pipe-dream.
    Combat – what the Left wants and normal whites are being forced into.
    Separation – what non-blacks want from blacks.
    Assimilation – a mirage in our rear-view mirror.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @PaceLaw
    @rebel yell

    Your analysis is well stated and reasoned.

    I would say that “integration without assimilation“ is where blacks want to go to elite, white colleges but insist on their own dorms. Another example would be where blacks increasingly name their children with breathtakingly creative and outrageous names, but still want to live in the suburbs.

    As to combat, I see this as a fringe black movement influenced by ilk such as Ibram Kendi and Ta Nahesi Coates. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of blacks know they have it good here. That is exactly why you see practically zero emigration of African-Americans to anywhere else.

    Separation - Of course, there is an exceptions to every rule, but I generally agree with you. A large concentration of young black males under the age of 35 is a sure sign of trouble to come. That is exactly why I avoid “urban“ areas.

    Assimilation - The hard-core left is doing its best to destroy assimilation, but I believe it is still the goal and it is still being achieved, for the most part. How else to describe so many Latinos and Asians who come to this country and are fully fluent in English within a generation? Blacks are being manipulated into being forever angry and oppositional, but do not let that blind you to the overall success of assimilation in this country.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @rebel yell

    It's the latest verbal ruse by a particularly verbally adept tribe to keep whites from pushing back. Same old, same old.

    , @res
    @rebel yell


    I don’t know what “integration without assimilation” means.
     
    In practice it seems to mean minorities are integrated (proportionally, mind you) into all activities and spaces of the existing country while they also get to have their own private spaces and maintain cultural differences (whether or not counter to the laws or interests of the country).

    “Integration without assimilation” seems to me like an attempt to create a false dichotomy. Although there are multiple alternatives presented, the false dichotomy intended is "integration with vs. without assimilation." The "with" side being strawmanned into being turned into a clone of boring white America (as if that was a single thing).

    In reality, assimilation has many levels. How about we start with level 1?
    https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

    "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
     
  15. I’m not sure if Brooks addresses this in his article, but the second and fourth options have been basically forbidden to soon-to-be-a-minority white people, which might explain why option three seems so popular with them — or at least popular enough to rattle guys like David Brooks.

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer
  16. “Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once observed that being a minority in 19th-century Europe was like living in someone else’s country home.”

    Uh huh. By “minority” he means being a Jew.

    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.

    • Replies: @thenon
    @Peterike

    Examine the history of minoritarianism in a traditional Catholic country. further imagine yourself a minor titled person, hiding in your Warsaw club in the late 1700s unable to leave because your gambling debts have resulted in armed men outside who will challenge you to a duel. Shlomo and Abraham send you a note saying that if you only agree to sign over management of your country estate to them, including liquor dispensing and the right to collect taxes to them, they will guarantee a substantial increase in your revenues by selling peasants who cannot pay their taxes into slavery, and will buy off the people who you owe. You have this right, but the local priest won't allow this method of terrorism under threat of excommunication. Enter the new minority and modern management. What would you do?

    I had a friend that was from a Polish family of minor nobility. He had a lot of opinions about Jews but saved his hatred for the Germans. It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Curle

    , @Thomas
    @Peterike

    What's an amazing irony when you think about it is how this one tribe of perpetual aliens wound up with what might be the last official ethnostate in the world, while the native inhabitants of all their former host countries have now been left to feel like strangers in their own countries.

    , @International Jew
    @Peterike


    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

     

    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.
     
    Wrong century, smart guy.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Craig Nelsen

  17. A tendentious article nicely filleted, but the shortened version omits this sentence.

    Even the former country house owners have come to feel like minority members.

    Note the transition from “country home” in the opening paragraph to “country house” later on. In the first paragraph, the ancestral Jonathan Sacks is a temporary guest on some country estate, home to all its residents from peasant to landowner in the big house. At a crucial point in the following verbiage, the metaphor subtly shifts from a community of country dwellers to a multiplicity of house owners, and those whose home was never the house but the country are elided away.

    • Thanks: beavertales
  18. If Brooks is writing about this, I guess maybe the boys in the executive suites are realizing the mess they’ve created. Except for a very small number of Whites, the majority of law abiding, hard working Whites, don’t go for the negro worship. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out most blacks aren’t happy with the big crime uptick and early release of violent felons. We can only hope the owners of America can get back to proper management of the country.

    • Replies: @Reality Check (Tikkun Olam)
    @Rich

    Thank Jared Kushner and his pet golem Trump for that early release program. The Clinton Crime Bill was "so evil" that blacks were guaranteed to vote for Trump after he implimented this policy, according to Jared.

    Jared is an example of David Brooks' meritocracy: now that Jews run things instead of WASPS, we get truly talented people like Kushner...a guy so lacking in educational interest and acumen that his father had to spend tens of millions to buy him into the Ivy League.

    And this was Trump's Brain; a guy that spent 75% of his time working for Israel/Jewish interests, and the remaining 25 looking for ways to further loot what remained of white America. Using blacks is often a major part of the latter operation for Jews.

    Such a beautiful country with people like Brooks -- who has a son in the IDF rather than US military -- and Jared Kushner running things.

    Noticing any of this is, of course, part and parcel of the greatest evil known as 'white Supremacy' (the word 'white' can't be capitalised, obviously), which is the same as 'white interests' and 'white society'.

  19. That term’s been around awhile, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoritarianism

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @RyeFrost7291

    Hey, take it easy. The Sailerites are having an ecstatic moment "noticing" (Read: "hallucinating." Cf. enchantment.) that a man they claim to despise has made use of one of their tropes, thus catapulting them into the big leagues. Do not spoil the circle-jerk.

  20. Brooks’ mention of “separatism” brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren’t — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I’m completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn’t that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody’s gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn’t necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Mr. Blank


    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    That's a good point.

    I guess they got grandfathered in. But try to start up your own sect like that today, and Whooh-boy.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Mr. Blank


    Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    I believe it's because, to the Woke powers that be, the Amish are literally beneath contempt.
    , @International Jew
    @Mr. Blank

    It helps to live on the farm, and helps even more to do the dirty work yourself rather than hire Mexicans.

    As for the city, go stroll around Lancaster, PA, and tell me the Amish have been successful walling themselves off from the blessings of mass immigration.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Paperback Writer

    , @AndrewR
    @Mr. Blank

    The Amish do accept outsiders but it's very rare, due in no small part to the difficulties of adjusting to such a radically different lifestyle from how most Americans live. It would probably be safe to say that no black person has ever even given serious thought to become Amish. Forcing black people to live like it's the eighteenth century just for the sake of "equity" seems a bit excessive even for Democrats.

    , @Jack D
    @Mr. Blank


    Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    Because the Woke don't covet their buggies.

    Seriously, if you look at the targets of the Woke, they are occupying seats of wealth and power that the Woke would like to be sitting in. There's no money in defenestrating Amos. What are you going to do next? Get out behind Amos's team of horses and plow a field? Plant potatoes? That's too much like picking cotton. No thank you.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Mr. Blank


    Black Amish
     
    No. There are a few black Mennonites though, all converts.

    "The Amish" are actually quite a diverse group, and I mean that in the old sense of the word. They are always splitting apart. They descend from a core group of Anabaptist German Mennonites who came to the US in waves in the early -mid 18th century.

    The more liberal Mennonite types welcome converts and some are black. They also missionize. I suppose that will bring in some Hispanic converts.

    But the core Amish are clannish and reproduce in the group - that creates even worse genetic issues than among the Hasidim.

    As to your question about the grievance industry, their numbers are still small and they tend to colonize areas the Woke don't care about.

    Also, they don't have the busy-body attention-seeking groups like the ADL.

    , @Mike Tre
    @Mr. Blank

    "Brooks’ mention of “separatism” brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren’t — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?"

    What negro wants to live without technology? They may as well go back to Africa.

    , @Rob
    @Mr. Blank

    The Amish, unlike the main white Gentile nation, do not produce enough surplus to be worth feasting on. At least, not worthwhile as long as there is blood in the corpse of the nation. After that? When Amish are the only white gentiles left standing as a people, and not as atomized individuals, I would expect to see a push to “modernize” them, trying to turn them into a new America so that the feast might continue another generation.

    All the plain people, the Amish and the Mennonites, in addition to non-science-based people like the Christian Scientists, benefit tremendously from being embedded in the (ruins of) Gentile America. We provide them with vaccines that they would be hardpressed to manufacture on their own. We provide the roads on which the horses pull their buggies. Roads which they do not produce enough surplus to produce themselves. Granted, we no longer produce enough surplus to build roads, but we used to. They like us, are surviving off the capital (real, physical stuff) and infrastructure produced by a bygone nation. If our rulers were the sort of people capable of marveling at the achievements of whites, they would marvel that Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. Imagine! A politician doing something that was not intended solely to benefit a favored minority! Built without diversity coordinators! Built without saddling future generations with unpayable debt!

    The fact that Eisenhower is not on everyone’s list of top three Presidents is indicative of how deeply the rot goes. Perhaps no one is willing to publicly praise a President whose every thought was not guided by, “who will this help Israel”? If only he had seen the temptation of deficit spending in addition to the military-industrial complex. If he had foreseen nonstop deficit spending, he would have rightfully seen it as so self-evidently stupid that any nation that thought it was a good idea would not remain first-world for very long.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

    , @Rob McX
    @Mr. Blank


    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    Interesting question. My guess would be that the Amish communities are so insular that it's hard to undermine them. They don't seem to watch TV or go to public school - the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Wilkey

  21. This is the belief that history is inevitably the heroic struggle by minorities to free themselves from the yoke of majority domination. It is the belief that sin resides in the social structures imposed by majorities and that virtue and the true consciousness reside with the oppressed groups.

    What horse shit. All of it.

    • Thanks: Alden
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @mousey

    On the contrary, the vast, vast majority of Jews do believe this, and being the least self-aware people on the planet (well, least self-aware among intelligent races), they believe everyone believes this.

    , @Jmaie
    @mousey



    This is the belief that history is inevitably the heroic struggle by minorities to free themselves from the yoke of majority domination. It is the belief that sin resides in the social structures imposed by majorities and that virtue and the true consciousness reside with the oppressed groups.
     
    What horse shit. All of it.
     
    As may be, this belief is sincerely held by a great number young'uns both college-educated and not. They "know" that the "system" was "designed" for the purpose of forever holding non-white folks down. The idea is quasi-religious, unfalsifiable beliefs based on statements by huckster priests. Meanwhile the normies are terrified of being branded heretics.

    Never mind that said system as a system doesn't exist. Rather like another favorite bugaboo, Capitalism, which is simply a descriptor of a process that developed naturally over centuries...
  22. Political parties used to stand for something: Federal vs States rights, free trade vs. tariff, gov control vs. lazi-fare, higher vs lower taxes, etc.

    Now the only concern is winning.

    The Democrats think they can win by dividing voters into victims vs abusers. Over the years they have made virtually everyone a victim: blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Muslims, gays, lesbians, transgenders, and intersexuals, Jews, Asians, fat people, women, the youth, and the poor.

    Who are the evil abusers who are creating all these victims? Old straight men.

    It’s simply a cynical grab for power. To permanently seize power, they now aim to flood the USA with dysfunctional low-IQ immigrants who don’t like White people, and who will be forever poor and lower class, and hence will always vote Democratic in order to keep the welfare coming.

    Democrats don’t give a damn about America, all they and their Marxist fellow travelers want is power.

    • Agree: Listener
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Patriot

    I thought there was to be a 2nd half of this comment, Patriot. It ought to be something like,

    The other squad of The Party, the Republicans, don't actively hate White people and tradition-minded Americans, but they are also just up there in office working to get elected some more. It may not be evil in the most pure sense, as it is with a lot of the current D/Communist squad. However, being in politics for personal gain of riches and fame and doing nothing constructive to save this country is still evil.

    Pretty much what the red-squad promises up is to slow things down so that the ruination lasts longer for us. So, there's that ...

  23. Unrelated to this post, but perhaps of interest to Steve: One Willie Author (not Arthur) Taggert, to be sure a flailing laterally NCAA Division 1 football coach, has achieved an interesting distinction: He’s been four schools’ (two of them Big Time) first Black head coach. He might be the “league leader” as diversity hire. However, the arc from Oregon-to-FSU-to-FAU is not encouraging. He may not another school’s fifth first Black head football coach.

    “Willie Author Taggart (born August 27, 1976) is an American football college coach who is the head coach at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Taggart had most recently previously served as the head coach at Florida State University. He has held the head coach position at four NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision programs: Western Kentucky (2009 to 2012 seasons); South Florida (2013 to 2016 seasons); Oregon (2017 season); and Florida State (2018 season and part of the 2019 season—through November 3, 2019). At all four schools, he was the first African-American to be hired as the head coach.”

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

  24. Steve, the link to the Takimag column is wrong. The one you want is this one:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the-demonization-of-core-americans/

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Yeah, I.D. I went to write something last evening to the effect that Steve probably got the term "minoritarianism" from commenter AnotherDad (see here) and that Brooks could have gotten it 3rd-hand from iSteve. However my comment (the link above) goes to the right comment thread and article title, How the Democrats' Grand Strategy Blew Up in Virginia, but the article itself is the wrong one, about some Univ. of Austin thing.

    What's going on, Steve, or Ron Unz? I hope it's just this one, but maybe article numbers of some sort are off right now. I gotta go, or I'd check some others for you all.

  25. Anonymous[209] • Disclaimer says:

    But another reason is because Democrats believe they have discovered the one true political ideal: minoritarianism. After dallying with the majoritarianism of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, and FDR, the Democrats have come to believe that rather than be concerned with the interests of the majority, politicians should only look out for minorities, the smaller the better.

    I wouldn’t include FDR as a majoritarian. FDR’s New Deal Coalition was a minority coalition that has served as the template for the Democrats ever since:

    https://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-deal-coalition.html

    This New Deal coalition united disparate cultural groups who shared little more than their common revulsion to the cultures, policies and moral purposes of the Republican coalition…The New Deal coalition…united the many enemies of the old Puritan ethic: Catholic immigrants, Jewish intellectuals, southern gentlemen, black sharecroppers, Appalachian mountain folk, Texas stockmen and California hedonists. All joined in one movement improbably led by a patrician Democrat of New England stock from New York.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    FDR’s New Deal Coalition was a minority coalition
     
    An anti-Yankee coalition:


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/PresidentialCounty1936Colorbrewer.gif

    Replies: @Hibernian

  26. @notsaying
    I do not want to jostle and debate forever with a bunch of newcomers -- many of whom came here illegally or are only here due to relatives who did -- over how the country will be run.

    Who does?

    I think everybody underestimates how much bad feeling in this country comes from the insistence of some that the rest of us must dance their dance, a dance that is not fun and gets us nowhere. I am not referring to just one group here. There are multiple groups with radically different agendas that want the rest of us to go along with them, agree or disagree.

    Isn't there a chance that people will refuse to jostle and instead of competing they will attack those who seem to run the game? How do you run a country or accomplish anything with a population that is perpetually seething and feels like it is being poked with a stick?

    You do not.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @James Speaks, @Anonymous

    “Poked with a stick” is the best image I have seen for a long time. I have posted “the affronts, compromises, and humiliations of daily life.” Okay, I guess, but too literal. Much better is your “poked,” and also, “seething.” It’s sad of course that such words and images aptly describe the place we have arrived at, but my compliments for great writing.

    • Thanks: notsaying
  27. I can never tell whether they’re more perturbed by right-wing “populism” or by right-wing Roman statue/Ubermensch cosplay (once complaining of the Religious Right, now bemoaning the Irreligious Right). They seem to be just really irked by all of it equally.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    I can never tell whether they’re more perturbed by right-wing “populism” or by right-wing Roman statue/Ubermensch cosplay (once complaining of the Religious Right, now bemoaning the Irreligious Right). They seem to be just really irked by all of it equally.
     
    You can't use their names as mascots. But you can't use your own as well-- Crusaders, Rebels, Cossacks, Plainsmen...


    http://www.e-yearbook.com/books/887/1950/jpg180/1.jpg


    (Kyle!)


    Will Knicks and Cajuns survive?


    The late David Yeagley thought that high schools and colleges should be required to have Indian mascots, to remind everyone who was here before them. That's certainly better, for all, than these fraudulent "acknowledgement" ceremonies going around.

    I say scour European history for mascots. There are plenty to choose from.


    Get this:


    "Chatterji developed his thesis after an amazing discovery, he observed that the map of ancient European tribes and modern football club support are almost identical, pointing to historical patterns of continuity of affiliation (HPCA). It was a turning point for the field."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/karlremarks/status/1181923607519342592
     

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGcJQQSX0AA98He.png

    Replies: @Cortes, @Wade Hampton

  28. @notsaying
    I do not want to jostle and debate forever with a bunch of newcomers -- many of whom came here illegally or are only here due to relatives who did -- over how the country will be run.

    Who does?

    I think everybody underestimates how much bad feeling in this country comes from the insistence of some that the rest of us must dance their dance, a dance that is not fun and gets us nowhere. I am not referring to just one group here. There are multiple groups with radically different agendas that want the rest of us to go along with them, agree or disagree.

    Isn't there a chance that people will refuse to jostle and instead of competing they will attack those who seem to run the game? How do you run a country or accomplish anything with a population that is perpetually seething and feels like it is being poked with a stick?

    You do not.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @James Speaks, @Anonymous

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @James Speaks


    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous...
     
    to themselves

    when roused, than [to] the rest of humanity.
     

    Replies: @James Speaks

    , @notsaying
    @James Speaks

    Thanks for sharing this.

    I do not know enough history to say if your friend is right.

    I will point out two things though.

    One is that with one thing and the other, in recent years I have become more conscious of our mixed record. Negatives that are both factually correct and things I do not like to think about are in my mind more often. While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Another thing is that we do not like to be roused. It upsets us to be upset. We like our even keel and stability -- at least on the outside and in public.

    Time will tell, I suppose. One thing we do have is ownership of property and assets but that is becoming more concentrated in the hands of unreliable elites.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Moses, @PhysicistDave

    , @Alden
    @James Speaks

    North West Europeans seem to have bred away any dangerousness. They are as docile and conformist as Asians. Truly docile and conformist. Not the Asian way of outward conformity and quietly do whatever they can get away with.

    Replies: @James Speaks

    , @Jack D
    @James Speaks

    I keep hearing this, but what will rouse them? The Federal government swept away Jim Crow (a fundamentally majoritarian ideology, for better or for worse) with minimal resistance. And this was not boiling the frog the way non-white immigration has crept up on white America - this was done virtually overnight and with the stroke of a Federal pen. If white America was not roused (a handful of clowns in white robes, half of whom were informing on the other half doesn't count) by this then they are never going to be roused. Add another half century of deindustrialization, drug addlement, feminism, video games, Leftist indoctrination of the youth, etc. and I don't think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever coming.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Corvinus

    , @Muggles
    @James Speaks


    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.
     
    There is something to this, though the Mongols can't be entirely counted out. They were ultimately stopped by Northern Europeans.

    NW Europeans have far more Neanderthal DNA in them than the rest of mankind. Up to 4% or so.

    As a famed geneticist recently wrote (A Short History of Humanity, Krause & Trappe) Neanderthals didn't "die out" but interbred with modern homo sapiens in parts of the world.

    Though the Neanderthals lost out overall, they are still with us (some of us). Not to be trifled with.

    While this seems a bit of a stretchy hypothesis, it is as they used to say "no accident" that Northern Europeans came to dominate most of the world. At least for a time, and still do.

    "I'm sorry dear, but every so often I get an ineffable yearning to visit the Neander Valley in Germany. Just don't try to stop me..."

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

  29. It might be most accurate to say that America is now a place of jostling minorities.

    They’re fighting with one another over the tax pie, e.g. should the gov spend more on seniors or on school class size reductions.

    Minoritarianism, majoritarianism, egalitarianism, and all the other political -isms ruining this country, are caused by too much government. Make the gov as small as possible (e.g. a_p_e). Then its X-arianism — always sucky — won’t matter; and that great sucking sound you hear will be all the jostling tax leeches fleeing to the s*hole, European country of their ancestors.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Abolish_public_education


    Minoritarianism, majoritarianism, egalitarianism, and all the other political -isms ruining this country, are caused by too much government. Make the gov as small as possible (e.g. a_p_e). Then its X-arianism — always sucky — won’t matter;
     
    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave

  30. @SimpleSong
    Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad? Pretty impressive to go from internet comment to the pages of the NYT, though the gray lady isn't what it used to be.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @John Derbyshire, @Don Unf

    Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad?

    Pretty neat, although Brooks mysteriously omitted AnotherDad’s occasional modifier Jewish minoritarianism. 🤔

    • Replies: @Danindc
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Did he? It has a Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoritarianism

    I hope you’re right fwiw

  31. >I don’t feel welcome unless I can (exact words) “dominate the culture.”

    Yeah, sounds about right.

    • Agree: Cortes, Rosie
  32. @James Speaks
    @notsaying

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @notsaying, @Alden, @Jack D, @Muggles

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous…

    to themselves

    when roused, than [to] the rest of humanity.

    • Agree: IHTG
    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Reg Cæsar

    We’re being led that way, like lambs etc. by quislings. But I offer flyover country as evidence that all is not happy and docile in old stock America. I also don’t think it is too late. Trump was populist lite. I think populist heavy is gearing up for a run. An organized 20% can run a country. Given Deagle’s, Orlov’s and Tverberg’s prognostications, the timing as about right.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

  33. Did Brooks acknowledge the Waukesha Massacre in any way?

    • Replies: @Greta Handel
    @J.Ross

    If so, it was an accident.

  34. @James Speaks
    @notsaying

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @notsaying, @Alden, @Jack D, @Muggles

    Thanks for sharing this.

    I do not know enough history to say if your friend is right.

    I will point out two things though.

    One is that with one thing and the other, in recent years I have become more conscious of our mixed record. Negatives that are both factually correct and things I do not like to think about are in my mind more often. While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Another thing is that we do not like to be roused. It upsets us to be upset. We like our even keel and stability — at least on the outside and in public.

    Time will tell, I suppose. One thing we do have is ownership of property and assets but that is becoming more concentrated in the hands of unreliable elites.

    • Agree: BB753
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @notsaying


    While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.
     
    And the motive was, at least in part, fear of other Whites. "If we don't take it, other Whites will."
    , @Moses
    @notsaying


    We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.
     
    Are you living under a rock? Do you know anything at all about history?

    Hello, Mongol Empire? Hello, Japan colonizing Korea and Manchuria? Hello, Vikings raiding most of Europe? Hello, Bretons invading England? Hello, Parthians taking Jerusalem? Hello, Viets taking South Vietnam from the Khmer?

    Have you heard of those historical events, or do you get all your “White People Bad” thinking assigned to you by the TV?

    Human groups conquer other groups. It’s as old as time.

    The strong take what they can. The weak yield what they must.

    Europeans had more power than other groups by virtue of superior technology and organization, and so were able to range farther and conquer more.

    Nothing else to see here.

    Replies: @notsaying

    , @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote:


    While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.
     
    Are you referring to the conquest of the Americas?

    Yes, we did not treat the Amerindians well. But the Amerindians did not treat other Amerindians well, either.

    In the greater scheme of things, we were just one more tribe, but with much better technology and organization.

    As to the rest of the world outside of the Western hemisphere, I myself do not think European imperialism was in the interest of most of the peoples of Europe. But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there? (If you do, watch this Python bit from Life of Brian.)

    As for Africa... well, the population would certainly be less without Western medicines!

    We can oppose "invade the world" and still be honest about the effects of the West on the rest of the world.

    Replies: @International Jew, @nebulafox

  35. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    David Brooks on Minoritarianism
     
    Original sub-thread, h/t SFG :

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/rogan-rogen/#comment-5028515 (#66)

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    With the generic ballot at R+11, the Dems may be telling their media “thought leaders” to cool down the anti-white racism just a tad. If so, a column from RINO Brooks is probably a good test balloon.

    But wow. Brooks is saying “minoritarianism” is the Dem mind-set and a “coalition of the fringes” is their strategy. iSteve has gone mainstream.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Hypnotoad666

    The news media won't stop harping on racism no matter what the Democrat party elite tell them. The media only survives because of clicks on their websites. Otherwise, their revenue dries up and all the reporters will lose their jobs. The media looks after its own butt first and Democratic party interests a distant second.

    The U.S. was once a country where we knew our neighbors. This was the state until around the 1970s or so. After that, the I've-Been-Moved generation of workers found it too difficult to form neighborhood bonds, and this problem was further worsened when minorities began to flood into the U.S. in massive numbers in the 1980s onward. The natives in the U.S. had nothing in common with the newcomers, and no reason to form bonds with them.

    Right now, the only reason the peace is being kept in our neighborhoods is mutual interest among strangers. The peace is being preserved (mostly) because a certain number of minorities want goodies, but don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. However, if we get enough minorities that they become a majority, there will be too many people for the available number of goodies. Eventually, they won't find jobs, and our country will be too broke to cover welfare for them.

    At that point, they will try to kill the goose, because that'll be the only remaining way to get ahead.

    By the way, there's a theory that liberals simply don't perceive threats the way normal people do because they have smaller than normal amygdalas. They just don't read threats properly. This is why they're amazed when they're mugged, and even forgive their muggers. "It must have been some extraordinary circumstance to make him attack me. He must have been starving! Poor guy, etc.,"

    In other words, we're having our public policy made by a bunch of people with defective brains. Democrats are the Know-Nothing Party. They know nothing about how society works, yet they try to dictate how it should run. Our current administration is carefully studying the Weimer Republic for Dummies Manual and taking excitable how-to notes from it.

  36. @Anonymous
    I can never tell whether they're more perturbed by right-wing "populism" or by right-wing Roman statue/Ubermensch cosplay (once complaining of the Religious Right, now bemoaning the Irreligious Right). They seem to be just really irked by all of it equally.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I can never tell whether they’re more perturbed by right-wing “populism” or by right-wing Roman statue/Ubermensch cosplay (once complaining of the Religious Right, now bemoaning the Irreligious Right). They seem to be just really irked by all of it equally.

    You can’t use their names as mascots. But you can’t use your own as well– Crusaders, Rebels, Cossacks, Plainsmen…

    (Kyle!)

    Will Knicks and Cajuns survive?

    The late David Yeagley thought that high schools and colleges should be required to have Indian mascots, to remind everyone who was here before them. That’s certainly better, for all, than these fraudulent “acknowledgement” ceremonies going around.

    I say scour European history for mascots. There are plenty to choose from.

    Get this:

    “Chatterji developed his thesis after an amazing discovery, he observed that the map of ancient European tribes and modern football club support are almost identical, pointing to historical patterns of continuity of affiliation (HPCA). It was a turning point for the field.”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/karlremarks/status/1181923607519342592

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @Reg Cæsar

    Shame about the absence of the defining factor: fans at games...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42696675

    Most of the “big leagues” are totally dependent on TV income.

    What’s the blank space NW of Carlisle?

    , @Wade Hampton
    @Reg Cæsar

    University of Idaho has the Vandals as its mascot.

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

  37. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @SimpleSong


    Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad?
     
    Pretty neat, although Brooks mysteriously omitted AnotherDad’s occasional modifier Jewish minoritarianism. 🤔

    Replies: @Danindc

    Did he? It has a Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoritarianism

    I hope you’re right fwiw

  38. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:

    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    It’s not about minoritarianism but minority-elitism or minority-hegemonism.

    Jews are not just another minority. They are the dominant minority. Only a moron would mention Jewish minority in the same breath as Burmese-American minority or even Mexican-American minority, which is numerous but lackluster in elite circles. Most minority groups are heavy on social bottom or the middle. Jews are heavily represented on the top. Comparing Jewish minority and Guatemalan minority is like comparing British minority and Bengali minority in Old India.

    US didn’t go from majority rule to rule by various minorities. It went from Wasp rule the Jewish rule. Most minority groups in the US have no power. And homos and blacks gained at the feet of Jews who found them useful.

    Of course, elites are always a minority. So, even wasp rule was minority rule, at least by class. Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses. With Jews at the helm, that’s no longer the case. But Jewish elites are like Wasp elites in one way. They do identify with lesser Jews even as they insist that white elites not identify with common whites. Also, while Jews, high and middle, feel it’s their duty to identify with fellow Jews in Europe and Israel, they curse out any pan-white or pan-Christian identification. Whites in US better not root for whites in Russia or Hungary. American Christians better not stand up for Arab Christians against Neocon war plans.

    Brooks is a disgusting character. By framing the debate as one of majority vs minority, he pretends that he, as a Jewish minority, are like all the other minority groups. Right, Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans have the same rights, which is why Israel gets funded by billions while BDS is shut down state after state.
    Indeed, the real conflict isn’t really about white majority vs Jews anymore as most whites, GOP or Democratic, are utterly servile to Jewish Power. It’s about Jews having problems with non-whites but using whites as scapegoats so that non-whites will blame all their woes on whites than on Jews, the real overlords of America. It’s so dirty.

    Also, history has often been about minority rule over the majority. Roman empire was about Roman minority elites ruling over majority native populations. And before that, Greek minorities ruled over Egypt after Alexander swept through the area. And Greek and Macedonian minorities ruled over vast swathes of Persia and Bactria. Ottoman minorities ruled over Arabs and Greeks and parts of Balkans. British ruled over India and parts of China. Japanese minority ruled over Manchuria. They were minority elites.

    Another thing. If Jews love diversity of minorities so much, why did they opt to come to overwhelmingly white protestant America? Why not move to Latin American or some other colorful part of the world?

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of…

    • Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster
    @Anonymous


    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.
     
    Dishonesty combined with idiotic naivete.

    This is the same Brooks who swooned over the crease in Obama's slacks -- “I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”

    Also, the guy who slobbered with approval over "reparations" ala Ta-Nehesi Coates.

    How can anyone take anything he says seriously?
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    @Anonymous

    The majority of the top 10% elite in the US is Gentile, though often intermarried with jews. Jews now set the tone of elite thinking - the emphasis on education and credentialism, the scorn for working with one's hands, the attitude that the 90% ordinary people are livestock who only exist to serve them and the view that the US is simply an economic zone. Two weak points are their physical cowardice and sociopathic self-absorption and willingness to throw each other to the wolves. They depend on the police, military and security guards to protect them in the privileged neighborhoods and gated communities. If their protectors refuse to their job, they're vulnerable to attacks by criminals and patriots seeking revenge.

    , @e
    @Anonymous

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of…

    I don't know if most of the time Brooks is simply lying or if most of the time he's simply clueless about white middle and working class Americans.

    I suspect it's 15% the former, 85% the latter.

    , @Curle
    @Anonymous

    “ Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses.”

    Maybe. Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history. I think modern Americans have little understanding of the level of contempt and disinterest British nobles had for the common man of their day.

    Replies: @JMcG

    , @Oscar Peterson
    @Anonymous

    I'd rather this kind of honesty than Brooks's oily hypocrisy. At least with this guy, you get the authentic attitude:


    Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
    October 18, 2010
    JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.

    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.

    "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat," he said to some laughter.

    Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.

    "With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.
     
  39. @Anonymous

    But another reason is because Democrats believe they have discovered the one true political ideal: minoritarianism. After dallying with the majoritarianism of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, and FDR, the Democrats have come to believe that rather than be concerned with the interests of the majority, politicians should only look out for minorities, the smaller the better.
     
    I wouldn't include FDR as a majoritarian. FDR's New Deal Coalition was a minority coalition that has served as the template for the Democrats ever since:

    https://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-deal-coalition.html

    This New Deal coalition united disparate cultural groups who shared little more than their common revulsion to the cultures, policies and moral purposes of the Republican coalition...The New Deal coalition...united the many enemies of the old Puritan ethic: Catholic immigrants, Jewish intellectuals, southern gentlemen, black sharecroppers, Appalachian mountain folk, Texas stockmen and California hedonists. All joined in one movement improbably led by a patrician Democrat of New England stock from New York.
     

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    FDR’s New Deal Coalition was a minority coalition

    An anti-Yankee coalition:

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Reg Cæsar

    An Anti-Yankee coalition led by a Yankee.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  40. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    I can never tell whether they’re more perturbed by right-wing “populism” or by right-wing Roman statue/Ubermensch cosplay (once complaining of the Religious Right, now bemoaning the Irreligious Right). They seem to be just really irked by all of it equally.
     
    You can't use their names as mascots. But you can't use your own as well-- Crusaders, Rebels, Cossacks, Plainsmen...


    http://www.e-yearbook.com/books/887/1950/jpg180/1.jpg


    (Kyle!)


    Will Knicks and Cajuns survive?


    The late David Yeagley thought that high schools and colleges should be required to have Indian mascots, to remind everyone who was here before them. That's certainly better, for all, than these fraudulent "acknowledgement" ceremonies going around.

    I say scour European history for mascots. There are plenty to choose from.


    Get this:


    "Chatterji developed his thesis after an amazing discovery, he observed that the map of ancient European tribes and modern football club support are almost identical, pointing to historical patterns of continuity of affiliation (HPCA). It was a turning point for the field."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/karlremarks/status/1181923607519342592
     

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGcJQQSX0AA98He.png

    Replies: @Cortes, @Wade Hampton

    Shame about the absence of the defining factor: fans at games…

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42696675

    Most of the “big leagues” are totally dependent on TV income.

    What’s the blank space NW of Carlisle?

  41. @Rich
    If Brooks is writing about this, I guess maybe the boys in the executive suites are realizing the mess they've created. Except for a very small number of Whites, the majority of law abiding, hard working Whites, don't go for the negro worship. I wouldn't be surprised to find out most blacks aren't happy with the big crime uptick and early release of violent felons. We can only hope the owners of America can get back to proper management of the country.

    Replies: @Reality Check (Tikkun Olam)

    Thank Jared Kushner and his pet golem Trump for that early release program. The Clinton Crime Bill was “so evil” that blacks were guaranteed to vote for Trump after he implimented this policy, according to Jared.

    Jared is an example of David Brooks’ meritocracy: now that Jews run things instead of WASPS, we get truly talented people like Kushner…a guy so lacking in educational interest and acumen that his father had to spend tens of millions to buy him into the Ivy League.

    And this was Trump’s Brain; a guy that spent 75% of his time working for Israel/Jewish interests, and the remaining 25 looking for ways to further loot what remained of white America. Using blacks is often a major part of the latter operation for Jews.

    Such a beautiful country with people like Brooks — who has a son in the IDF rather than US military — and Jared Kushner running things.

    Noticing any of this is, of course, part and parcel of the greatest evil known as ‘white Supremacy’ (the word ‘white’ can’t be capitalised, obviously), which is the same as ‘white interests’ and ‘white society’.

  42. @Jack Armstrong
    OFF TOPIC:

    https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/durham-county-news/it-has-got-to-stop-durham-police-chief-says-after-3-shot-at-streets-of-southpoint-mall/

    https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/durham-county-news/we-have-to-stop-this-cycle-black-families-in-durham-disproportionately-impacted-by-shootings/

    https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/pair-arrested-in-thanksgiving-homicide-in-rocky-mount/

    Who? Whom?

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @Alden

    Not really off topic though.

  43. Opinion articles now read like the Talmud, with quotes from rabbis. Journalism lacks diversity.

  44. @Jack Armstrong
    OFF TOPIC:

    https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/durham-county-news/it-has-got-to-stop-durham-police-chief-says-after-3-shot-at-streets-of-southpoint-mall/

    https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/durham-county-news/we-have-to-stop-this-cycle-black-families-in-durham-disproportionately-impacted-by-shootings/

    https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/pair-arrested-in-thanksgiving-homicide-in-rocky-mount/

    Who? Whom?

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @Alden

    After what the City of Durham and Duke University did to the 3 LaCrosse team White men. I say, let blacks be blacks.

  45. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    I can never tell whether they’re more perturbed by right-wing “populism” or by right-wing Roman statue/Ubermensch cosplay (once complaining of the Religious Right, now bemoaning the Irreligious Right). They seem to be just really irked by all of it equally.
     
    You can't use their names as mascots. But you can't use your own as well-- Crusaders, Rebels, Cossacks, Plainsmen...


    http://www.e-yearbook.com/books/887/1950/jpg180/1.jpg


    (Kyle!)


    Will Knicks and Cajuns survive?


    The late David Yeagley thought that high schools and colleges should be required to have Indian mascots, to remind everyone who was here before them. That's certainly better, for all, than these fraudulent "acknowledgement" ceremonies going around.

    I say scour European history for mascots. There are plenty to choose from.


    Get this:


    "Chatterji developed his thesis after an amazing discovery, he observed that the map of ancient European tribes and modern football club support are almost identical, pointing to historical patterns of continuity of affiliation (HPCA). It was a turning point for the field."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/karlremarks/status/1181923607519342592
     

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGcJQQSX0AA98He.png

    Replies: @Cortes, @Wade Hampton

    University of Idaho has the Vandals as its mascot.

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

  46. @James Speaks
    @notsaying

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @notsaying, @Alden, @Jack D, @Muggles

    North West Europeans seem to have bred away any dangerousness. They are as docile and conformist as Asians. Truly docile and conformist. Not the Asian way of outward conformity and quietly do whatever they can get away with.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @Alden

    Have you ever been to flyover country?

    Replies: @Alden

  47. @rebel yell
    I don't know what "integration without assimilation" means. Sounds like a vague idea of minorities being different in style but still loyal and law-abiding. A liberal pipe-dream.
    Combat - what the Left wants and normal whites are being forced into.
    Separation - what non-blacks want from blacks.
    Assimilation - a mirage in our rear-view mirror.

    Replies: @PaceLaw, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @res

    Your analysis is well stated and reasoned.

    I would say that “integration without assimilation“ is where blacks want to go to elite, white colleges but insist on their own dorms. Another example would be where blacks increasingly name their children with breathtakingly creative and outrageous names, but still want to live in the suburbs.

    As to combat, I see this as a fringe black movement influenced by ilk such as Ibram Kendi and Ta Nahesi Coates. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of blacks know they have it good here. That is exactly why you see practically zero emigration of African-Americans to anywhere else.

    Separation – Of course, there is an exceptions to every rule, but I generally agree with you. A large concentration of young black males under the age of 35 is a sure sign of trouble to come. That is exactly why I avoid “urban“ areas.

    Assimilation – The hard-core left is doing its best to destroy assimilation, but I believe it is still the goal and it is still being achieved, for the most part. How else to describe so many Latinos and Asians who come to this country and are fully fluent in English within a generation? Blacks are being manipulated into being forever angry and oppositional, but do not let that blind you to the overall success of assimilation in this country.

  48. But we all know that “minoritarianism” will never empower White Gentiles no matter how small their numbers get. In fact, it will get even rougher on them.

    • Replies: @Travis
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    true, Minoritarianism is fundamentally anti-white and anti-christian.

    White Christians are a minority of Americans under the age of 60 today and will be a minority of all Americans in another decade. Whites will be a minority in the United States by 2040. So many of us will live to see Whites as a minority in America. With current levels of white fertility and immigration it will occur sooner than most have predicted. The US census predicts that Whites will be a minority around 2043, they previously predicted 2047 as the year Whites would be a minority. But Over the last decade 7 million more whites died than were born in the US. The death spiral has begun and it accelerated due to covid.

  49. @Abolish_public_education
    It might be most accurate to say that America is now a place of jostling minorities.

    They're fighting with one another over the tax pie, e.g. should the gov spend more on seniors or on school class size reductions.

    Minoritarianism, majoritarianism, egalitarianism, and all the other political -isms ruining this country, are caused by too much government. Make the gov as small as possible (e.g. a_p_e). Then its X-arianism -- always sucky -- won't matter; and that great sucking sound you hear will be all the jostling tax leeches fleeing to the s*hole, European country of their ancestors.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Minoritarianism, majoritarianism, egalitarianism, and all the other political -isms ruining this country, are caused by too much government. Make the gov as small as possible (e.g. a_p_e). Then its X-arianism — always sucky — won’t matter;

    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie



    Make the gov as small as possible...
     
    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?
     
    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to Abolish_public_education:


    Had you not noticed that this ["Make the gov as small as possible"] was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?
     
    No.

    It was tried and it had lots of success. But it was betrayed.

    Let's have a little synopsis of American political history:

    Most of the time from 1801 to 1860, the United States was governed by a limited-government, populist party: the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and then the Jacksonian Democrats.

    But in 1860, the GOP used the split among the Democrats over the issue of slavery in the territories to seize control of the national government at the behest of Northern industrial oligarchs.

    After the resulting War Between the States, the Democrats made a significant comeback, but in 1896 the Bryanite "Populists" pulled off a hostile take-over of the Clevelandite Democratic Party, with the goal of using oligarchic means for (supposedly) populist ends.

    The Bryanite hiatus made it possible for "progressives," a coalition between Northeastern "reformers" and intellectuals and Northern oligarchs, to take control of the Democratic Party as they had already taken control of the Republican Party, resulting in the income tax, the Federal Reserve system, and, most dramatically, US involvement in the First World War.

    And so, since the early twentieth century, we have been governed by a uni-party dominated by a ruling elite of "progressives" and oligarchs imposing upon the people the burden of the welfare/warfare/national-security state.

    But no ruling elite lasts forever.

    They get soft and careless and stupid.

    Ruling elites can be and always are, eventually, overthrown.

    And this one will be too. The only question is how we can help hasten the day of their collapse, hopefully with minimal harm to the productive members of society (i.e., without a nuclear war with China!).

    (Anyone wish to dispute that my little (~250 word) summary of American political history is, more or less, correct?)

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Rosie

  50. @notsaying
    @James Speaks

    Thanks for sharing this.

    I do not know enough history to say if your friend is right.

    I will point out two things though.

    One is that with one thing and the other, in recent years I have become more conscious of our mixed record. Negatives that are both factually correct and things I do not like to think about are in my mind more often. While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Another thing is that we do not like to be roused. It upsets us to be upset. We like our even keel and stability -- at least on the outside and in public.

    Time will tell, I suppose. One thing we do have is ownership of property and assets but that is becoming more concentrated in the hands of unreliable elites.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Moses, @PhysicistDave

    While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    And the motive was, at least in part, fear of other Whites. “If we don’t take it, other Whites will.”

  51. @Rosie
    @Abolish_public_education


    Minoritarianism, majoritarianism, egalitarianism, and all the other political -isms ruining this country, are caused by too much government. Make the gov as small as possible (e.g. a_p_e). Then its X-arianism — always sucky — won’t matter;
     
    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave

    Make the gov as small as possible…

    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?

    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.
     
    Quite right. I should have said implicitly White, small-givernment politics has been tried and failed.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Abolish_public_education

  52. “the Protestant establishment crumbled and America became more marvelously diverse. … Our politics is so nasty now…” —David Brooks

  53. @Alden
    @James Speaks

    North West Europeans seem to have bred away any dangerousness. They are as docile and conformist as Asians. Truly docile and conformist. Not the Asian way of outward conformity and quietly do whatever they can get away with.

    Replies: @James Speaks

    Have you ever been to flyover country?

    • Replies: @Alden
    @James Speaks

    You mean 65 year old men playing with their guns in the garage with their 35 year old sons still living at home with no adult career because of affirmative action? And huffing and puffing about the 2nd amendment and how when the black hordes from Detroit or St Louis invade they’ll use the guns to fight off the black hordes?

    While their adult sons remain eternal adolescents never entering adult life because of affirmative action and the capitalist preference for immigrant non White cheap labor for every job from Dr, accountant engineer to dishwasher and day labor?

    Ever been to NW Europe? The most un masculine males I’ve ever seen in my life.
    And White American men? Millions of White children tortured in desegregated schools. The law of affirmative action that makes basically illegal to hire a White man, give a contract to a White man or a business loan to a White man.

    Check out education from kindergarten to PHD level in the best universities. It’s just one blast of hatred and denigration of Whites especially White men. Uncontrolled black on White crime every where.. The military, the last employment refuge of the macho White formerly working class White man is now run by blacks who hate Whites? The churches? Proud to be gay Protestants, evangelical Protestants who spend their vacations in Haiti rebuilding what never was built and bringing back adopted Haitian babies Lutherans whose main source of income is bringing Somalian savages to America? Catholics who have flooded America with gazillions of Hispanics. Southerners who claim southern blacks are under control because of carrying guns? Even though the crime rates in most of the southern states and big cities are the highest in the country? Southern states whose big cities are controlled by black mayors city councils police and whose industries and industries donate billions to BLM.

    Old French saying Don’t listen to what he says. Watch what he does. Look what White American macho men did Watch what they do every day. You guys can’t even show a little solidarity with your own race by boycotting black TV sports

    American men and women of NW European stock just rolled over and surrendered to the progressive coalition that is destroying us. And the progressive coalition wasn’t isn’t all Ellis Island communist Jews. It was one hundred years ago; and still is , a coalition of Puritan universalists Congregationalist progressives and Ellis’s Island communist Jew descendants.

    Instead of obsessing about the 2nd amendment, how about attempting to restore 14th amendment rights to Whites?

    Replies: @JackOH

  54. There are a couple of remarks worth making on this.

    Talking about the current racial composition of society as an enduring state of affairs is deliberately dishonest. In white countries, non-whites are increasing in number and will eventually outnumber whites. The white-majority/non-white-minority is seen merely as a transitional phase by the powers that be. Politicians of all parties are working towards making whites a minority, if not actively then by default. If they don’t close the borders, all countries in Anglophone America and Western Europe will be majority non-white in a few decades.

    You also need to consider the reason for the presence of minorities in any country. In the past, it was often a historical accident. Borders were redrawn after conquest by a larger power, and people found themselves living side by side with other ethnic or religious groups who outnumbered theirs. Nowadays, the appearance of new minorities in white countries is for one reason only – white countries are better places to live in. Whites create societies that are superior by orders of magnitude to those of other races. The reason why they’re better is also the reason why non-whites are going to make them worse. A glance at any news page will tell you that the newcomers are bringing their own pathologies with them. How could it be otherwise?

    As for minorities of other kinds such as LGBT, I think they’d have no power if it weren’t for racial minorities with whom they can join coalitions. In a homogeneous white society, they’d have no influence without their usual allies. Trans activists would be as irrelevant as flat-earthers.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rob McX


    You also need to consider the reason for the presence of minorities in any country. In the past, it was often a historical accident.
     
    No, it was just as much cheap labor in 1621 as it is in 2021.
  55. Did Brooks newly minted Christian bride convert to Judaism or did she do conversion on bloviated David?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Dan Hayes

    What do you think? His son is in the IDF. His first Christian wife converted to Judaism for him. He dumped her anyway for another Christian wife half her age. I'm sure this fool converted for him too. White Protestants are the biggest trusting fools.

  56. Anon[111] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    With the generic ballot at R+11, the Dems may be telling their media "thought leaders" to cool down the anti-white racism just a tad. If so, a column from RINO Brooks is probably a good test balloon.


    But wow. Brooks is saying "minoritarianism" is the Dem mind-set and a "coalition of the fringes" is their strategy. iSteve has gone mainstream.

    Replies: @Anon

    The news media won’t stop harping on racism no matter what the Democrat party elite tell them. The media only survives because of clicks on their websites. Otherwise, their revenue dries up and all the reporters will lose their jobs. The media looks after its own butt first and Democratic party interests a distant second.

    The U.S. was once a country where we knew our neighbors. This was the state until around the 1970s or so. After that, the I’ve-Been-Moved generation of workers found it too difficult to form neighborhood bonds, and this problem was further worsened when minorities began to flood into the U.S. in massive numbers in the 1980s onward. The natives in the U.S. had nothing in common with the newcomers, and no reason to form bonds with them.

    Right now, the only reason the peace is being kept in our neighborhoods is mutual interest among strangers. The peace is being preserved (mostly) because a certain number of minorities want goodies, but don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. However, if we get enough minorities that they become a majority, there will be too many people for the available number of goodies. Eventually, they won’t find jobs, and our country will be too broke to cover welfare for them.

    At that point, they will try to kill the goose, because that’ll be the only remaining way to get ahead.

    By the way, there’s a theory that liberals simply don’t perceive threats the way normal people do because they have smaller than normal amygdalas. They just don’t read threats properly. This is why they’re amazed when they’re mugged, and even forgive their muggers. “It must have been some extraordinary circumstance to make him attack me. He must have been starving! Poor guy, etc.,”

    In other words, we’re having our public policy made by a bunch of people with defective brains. Democrats are the Know-Nothing Party. They know nothing about how society works, yet they try to dictate how it should run. Our current administration is carefully studying the Weimer Republic for Dummies Manual and taking excitable how-to notes from it.

  57. @Reg Cæsar
    @James Speaks


    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous...
     
    to themselves

    when roused, than [to] the rest of humanity.
     

    Replies: @James Speaks

    We’re being led that way, like lambs etc. by quislings. But I offer flyover country as evidence that all is not happy and docile in old stock America. I also don’t think it is too late. Trump was populist lite. I think populist heavy is gearing up for a run. An organized 20% can run a country. Given Deagle’s, Orlov’s and Tverberg’s prognostications, the timing as about right.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    @James Speaks


    An organized 20% can run a country.
     
    No question. The internet and modern electronic communications have made the 'elites' unnecessary, much to their everlasting shock. The internet is a ‘dis-intermediary’. I don’t need an ‘elite’ to tell me what I like, what is correct and proper, or which color car to pick. It has permanently wrecked the ‘authority’ of traditional figures such as schools and universities, the media, and government. They are done.

    This is why 'Big Tech' is making their bid now to control the population. The main talent that they possess is the ability to monopolize, monitor, and control all the legacy and other forms of communications. They don’t really produce much actual content or products in relation to their outsized role, they just try to get in the middle. They are like Sauron’s ring. All we have to do is throw it in the volcano.

    If you want to see how this is supposed to work, look no further than China. Social Credit Scores, vaccine passports, electronic currency, controlled opposition are not for our benefit.
  58. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    That’s a good point.

    I guess they got grandfathered in. But try to start up your own sect like that today, and Whooh-boy.

  59. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    Why do the Amish get a pass?

    I believe it’s because, to the Woke powers that be, the Amish are literally beneath contempt.

  60. @Peterike
    “Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once observed that being a minority in 19th-century Europe was like living in someone else’s country home.”

    Uh huh. By “minority” he means being a Jew.

    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.

    Replies: @thenon, @Thomas, @International Jew

    Examine the history of minoritarianism in a traditional Catholic country. further imagine yourself a minor titled person, hiding in your Warsaw club in the late 1700s unable to leave because your gambling debts have resulted in armed men outside who will challenge you to a duel. Shlomo and Abraham send you a note saying that if you only agree to sign over management of your country estate to them, including liquor dispensing and the right to collect taxes to them, they will guarantee a substantial increase in your revenues by selling peasants who cannot pay their taxes into slavery, and will buy off the people who you owe. You have this right, but the local priest won’t allow this method of terrorism under threat of excommunication. Enter the new minority and modern management. What would you do?

    I had a friend that was from a Polish family of minor nobility. He had a lot of opinions about Jews but saved his hatred for the Germans. It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @thenon

    thenon wrote:


    It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.
     
    The Nazis were evil all right (National Socialists -- what do you expect?), and the Holocaust was horrifying.

    But how many people know what Stalin did? How many young people know what Pol Pot did?

    Or going further back, Genghis Khan?

    Lots
    of rivers of blood in human history. For the last few decades we have been solely focused on the crimes of the German Leftists in the 1940s. That one-sided focus will probably not last forever.

    Not even a thousand years.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle, @Abolish_public_education

    , @Curle
    @thenon

    “ the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.”

    Dunno, people have been encouraged to forget the river of blood that was the outcome of the Bolshevik Coup and that has mostly worked.

  61. @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie



    Make the gov as small as possible...
     
    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?
     
    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.

    Quite right. I should have said implicitly White, small-givernment politics has been tried and failed.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie


    givernment
     
    Typo, or pun?
    , @Abolish_public_education
    @Rosie

    Government always fails. It's always crappy. Smallists don't claim that SG is uncrappy, only that it sucketh the least.

    1813 & 1913 are noteworthy, but 1776 beats them. G0d Save the Queen.

    Replies: @notsaying

  62. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.
     
    Quite right. I should have said implicitly White, small-givernment politics has been tried and failed.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Abolish_public_education

    givernment

    Typo, or pun?

    • LOL: Rosie
  63. @Rob McX
    There are a couple of remarks worth making on this.

    Talking about the current racial composition of society as an enduring state of affairs is deliberately dishonest. In white countries, non-whites are increasing in number and will eventually outnumber whites. The white-majority/non-white-minority is seen merely as a transitional phase by the powers that be. Politicians of all parties are working towards making whites a minority, if not actively then by default. If they don't close the borders, all countries in Anglophone America and Western Europe will be majority non-white in a few decades.

    You also need to consider the reason for the presence of minorities in any country. In the past, it was often a historical accident. Borders were redrawn after conquest by a larger power, and people found themselves living side by side with other ethnic or religious groups who outnumbered theirs. Nowadays, the appearance of new minorities in white countries is for one reason only - white countries are better places to live in. Whites create societies that are superior by orders of magnitude to those of other races. The reason why they're better is also the reason why non-whites are going to make them worse. A glance at any news page will tell you that the newcomers are bringing their own pathologies with them. How could it be otherwise?

    As for minorities of other kinds such as LGBT, I think they'd have no power if it weren't for racial minorities with whom they can join coalitions. In a homogeneous white society, they'd have no influence without their usual allies. Trans activists would be as irrelevant as flat-earthers.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You also need to consider the reason for the presence of minorities in any country. In the past, it was often a historical accident.

    No, it was just as much cheap labor in 1621 as it is in 2021.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
  64. If minorities regarded living in 19th century Europe as like living in someone else’s country house, then that means that us Europeans were living in our own country houses and we gave it up for….this.

    Of all the writers maybe it was Kenneth Grahame who predicted the future best with his takeover of Toad Hall by weasels and stoats. Except at least Toad displays some alpha male like qualities.

  65. @notsaying
    @James Speaks

    Thanks for sharing this.

    I do not know enough history to say if your friend is right.

    I will point out two things though.

    One is that with one thing and the other, in recent years I have become more conscious of our mixed record. Negatives that are both factually correct and things I do not like to think about are in my mind more often. While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Another thing is that we do not like to be roused. It upsets us to be upset. We like our even keel and stability -- at least on the outside and in public.

    Time will tell, I suppose. One thing we do have is ownership of property and assets but that is becoming more concentrated in the hands of unreliable elites.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Moses, @PhysicistDave

    We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Are you living under a rock? Do you know anything at all about history?

    Hello, Mongol Empire? Hello, Japan colonizing Korea and Manchuria? Hello, Vikings raiding most of Europe? Hello, Bretons invading England? Hello, Parthians taking Jerusalem? Hello, Viets taking South Vietnam from the Khmer?

    Have you heard of those historical events, or do you get all your “White People Bad” thinking assigned to you by the TV?

    Human groups conquer other groups. It’s as old as time.

    The strong take what they can. The weak yield what they must.

    Europeans had more power than other groups by virtue of superior technology and organization, and so were able to range farther and conquer more.

    Nothing else to see here.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Moses

    What you say is true.

    However, we do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @PhysicistDave

  66. @Peterike
    “Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once observed that being a minority in 19th-century Europe was like living in someone else’s country home.”

    Uh huh. By “minority” he means being a Jew.

    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.

    Replies: @thenon, @Thomas, @International Jew

    What’s an amazing irony when you think about it is how this one tribe of perpetual aliens wound up with what might be the last official ethnostate in the world, while the native inhabitants of all their former host countries have now been left to feel like strangers in their own countries.

    • LOL: Moses
    • Troll: International Jew
  67. @RyeFrost7291
    That term’s been around awhile, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoritarianism

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Hey, take it easy. The Sailerites are having an ecstatic moment “noticing” (Read: “hallucinating.” Cf. enchantment.) that a man they claim to despise has made use of one of their tropes, thus catapulting them into the big leagues. Do not spoil the circle-jerk.

  68. Brooks said:

    I’d add that right-wing populism is organized around the sacralization of the white working class and the belief that left-wing minority groups have now become the dominant oppressive majority.

    No, it is not the left-wing minority groups that have become oppressive: they are just pawns.

    It is the White ruling elite who are oppressing the productive classes in this society.

    Ruling elites are always a bit exploitative.

    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    This is not going to end well.

    • Agree: International Jew
    • Replies: @Bumpkin
    @PhysicistDave


    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    This is not going to end well.
     
    Let me shine a ray of light into your dark musings (unfortunately only available in audio podcast form, but you can get a sense of it first from the youtube chapter headings).

    Of course, that will be the death of the current ruling elite. I think they see the writing on the wall, which is why, for example, the media elite is torching their reputation, because they can see their imminent demise coming.
  69. @notsaying
    @James Speaks

    Thanks for sharing this.

    I do not know enough history to say if your friend is right.

    I will point out two things though.

    One is that with one thing and the other, in recent years I have become more conscious of our mixed record. Negatives that are both factually correct and things I do not like to think about are in my mind more often. While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Another thing is that we do not like to be roused. It upsets us to be upset. We like our even keel and stability -- at least on the outside and in public.

    Time will tell, I suppose. One thing we do have is ownership of property and assets but that is becoming more concentrated in the hands of unreliable elites.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Moses, @PhysicistDave

    notsaying wrote:

    While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.

    Are you referring to the conquest of the Americas?

    Yes, we did not treat the Amerindians well. But the Amerindians did not treat other Amerindians well, either.

    In the greater scheme of things, we were just one more tribe, but with much better technology and organization.

    As to the rest of the world outside of the Western hemisphere, I myself do not think European imperialism was in the interest of most of the peoples of Europe. But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there? (If you do, watch this Python bit from Life of Brian.)

    As for Africa… well, the population would certainly be less without Western medicines!

    We can oppose “invade the world” and still be honest about the effects of the West on the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @PhysicistDave


    But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there?
     
    Indians will tell you they were on the verge of industrializing just as the Brits came in and decided India was more useful as a customer for British manufactures.

    They do have something of a We waz kangs attitude.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    The Muslims in India were basically the British before the British, anyhow, which partly explains the sectarian dynamic in South Asia. (Razib Khan does a better job of explaining this than me, but basically, to your average Hindu nationalists, it's galling to see a third of your distinctive branch of humanity praying in the style of a distant West Asian trader turned warlord.) The Mughals became highly Indianized with time, to be sure, but always preserved a sense of separate identity that showed. So, yeah, "alien" rule would have been there anyway.

    When the British took over India, many an officer was surprised to discover that many a local North "Indian" bureaucrat or magistrate was actually an imported Persian. For one, Khomeini's forefathers hailed from Lucknow.

    Re, the Nazis, just because they were revolutionaries and rejected laissez faire capitalism didn't make them leftists. Not that I disagree with your point. Hell, even within WWII, how many people know about, say, the bloodbaths in Yugoslavia that presaged the horrors that would come 50 years later, or the Polish-Ukrainian sectarian violence that overlapped on the Eastern Front?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  70. The aristocrat owned the house. Other people got to stay there but as guests.

    More like, the aristocrat owned the village and Sachs’ ancestors got to live on a muddy side street off the “rynek glowny”.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @International Jew

    I don't know about mud, but I did notice that in almost every Polish city I visited, the Jewish quarter was not in the main square but just to the side of it. You never had far to walk. After I while I was able to sniff the (ex) Jewish quarter out by starting at the center and wandering a few streets out. There was usually some marker or monument or ex-synagogue indicating that you were now in the formerly Jewish section of town. The Jews were not part of the power structure but they were adjacent to it.

  71. @thenon
    @Peterike

    Examine the history of minoritarianism in a traditional Catholic country. further imagine yourself a minor titled person, hiding in your Warsaw club in the late 1700s unable to leave because your gambling debts have resulted in armed men outside who will challenge you to a duel. Shlomo and Abraham send you a note saying that if you only agree to sign over management of your country estate to them, including liquor dispensing and the right to collect taxes to them, they will guarantee a substantial increase in your revenues by selling peasants who cannot pay their taxes into slavery, and will buy off the people who you owe. You have this right, but the local priest won't allow this method of terrorism under threat of excommunication. Enter the new minority and modern management. What would you do?

    I had a friend that was from a Polish family of minor nobility. He had a lot of opinions about Jews but saved his hatred for the Germans. It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Curle

    thenon wrote:

    It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.

    The Nazis were evil all right (National Socialists — what do you expect?), and the Holocaust was horrifying.

    But how many people know what Stalin did? How many young people know what Pol Pot did?

    Or going further back, Genghis Khan?

    Lots
    of rivers of blood in human history. For the last few decades we have been solely focused on the crimes of the German Leftists in the 1940s. That one-sided focus will probably not last forever.

    Not even a thousand years.

    • Agree: Captain Tripps
    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    @PhysicistDave


    the Holocaust was horrifying.
     
    What's really horrifying about "Holocau$t" mythology is people like you -- who don't miss an opportunity to promote it -- while ignoring the vicious persecution of dissidents.

    As for Genghis Khan, his statue dwarfs Robert E. Lee's -- so where's Antifa?

    -- (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Vf5BzA1cSnvgZgFdTq7OMgHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Abolish_public_education
    @PhysicistDave

    A nightmarish focus (see #61) diminishes with an RC time constant, even among Jews (i.e. a people with long memories).

  72. @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote:


    While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.
     
    Are you referring to the conquest of the Americas?

    Yes, we did not treat the Amerindians well. But the Amerindians did not treat other Amerindians well, either.

    In the greater scheme of things, we were just one more tribe, but with much better technology and organization.

    As to the rest of the world outside of the Western hemisphere, I myself do not think European imperialism was in the interest of most of the peoples of Europe. But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there? (If you do, watch this Python bit from Life of Brian.)

    As for Africa... well, the population would certainly be less without Western medicines!

    We can oppose "invade the world" and still be honest about the effects of the West on the rest of the world.

    Replies: @International Jew, @nebulafox

    But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there?

    Indians will tell you they were on the verge of industrializing just as the Brits came in and decided India was more useful as a customer for British manufactures.

    They do have something of a We waz kangs attitude.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @International Jew

    Were they also on the verge of having indoor plumbing?

  73. @Moses
    @notsaying


    We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.
     
    Are you living under a rock? Do you know anything at all about history?

    Hello, Mongol Empire? Hello, Japan colonizing Korea and Manchuria? Hello, Vikings raiding most of Europe? Hello, Bretons invading England? Hello, Parthians taking Jerusalem? Hello, Viets taking South Vietnam from the Khmer?

    Have you heard of those historical events, or do you get all your “White People Bad” thinking assigned to you by the TV?

    Human groups conquer other groups. It’s as old as time.

    The strong take what they can. The weak yield what they must.

    Europeans had more power than other groups by virtue of superior technology and organization, and so were able to range farther and conquer more.

    Nothing else to see here.

    Replies: @notsaying

    What you say is true.

    However, we do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @notsaying

    The victors always paint themselves as heroic and virtuous. Whites aren't special in that regard.

    You have accepted not only the morality of your masters but their version of reality. Your a mental slave. It's hard to watch.

    Replies: @notsaying

    , @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote:


    However, we [Americans] do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.
     
    Where on earth did you grow up???

    I grew up in a conservative, lily-white, church-going suburb in a border state in the Midwest in the mid-twentieth century.

    No one in my youth ever tried to hide the fact that we had not treated Amerindians very well or that slavery was wrong.

    No, the USA has certainly not been perfect. No sensible person (not Jefferson, for example) ever said it was.

    But why should the imperfections of our ancestors mean that we now have to engage in self-mutilation or self-castration?

    Replies: @Curle, @notsaying

  74. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    It helps to live on the farm, and helps even more to do the dirty work yourself rather than hire Mexicans.

    As for the city, go stroll around Lancaster, PA, and tell me the Amish have been successful walling themselves off from the blessings of mass immigration.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @International Jew

    What does this even mean? I don't want to go to Lancaster PA when you can just tell us what you mean.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @International Jew

    What does this mean? I haven't been to Lancaster - is it full of diversity?

    Replies: @res, @International Jew

  75. It’s amazing how our “best and brightest” seem to want to recreate the most dysfunctionalform of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, oblivious to what that produced at its ending.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  76. @Anon
    Minoritarianism is when you can't visit African countries because of new Covid variants, but illegal migrants from African countries can walk right across the Mexican border and a non-profit resettles them in an apartment complex near your house with no Covid test or vaccine administration, while you have to get the vaccine or be fired.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Hannah Katz

    That’s called Anarcho-Tyranny, but you put up an example of it very well, whatever you all want to call it.

  77. @Patriot
    Political parties used to stand for something: Federal vs States rights, free trade vs. tariff, gov control vs. lazi-fare, higher vs lower taxes, etc.

    Now the only concern is winning.

    The Democrats think they can win by dividing voters into victims vs abusers. Over the years they have made virtually everyone a victim: blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, Muslims, gays, lesbians, transgenders, and intersexuals, Jews, Asians, fat people, women, the youth, and the poor.

    Who are the evil abusers who are creating all these victims? Old straight men.

    It’s simply a cynical grab for power. To permanently seize power, they now aim to flood the USA with dysfunctional low-IQ immigrants who don’t like White people, and who will be forever poor and lower class, and hence will always vote Democratic in order to keep the welfare coming.

    Democrats don’t give a damn about America, all they and their Marxist fellow travelers want is power.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I thought there was to be a 2nd half of this comment, Patriot. It ought to be something like,

    The other squad of The Party, the Republicans, don’t actively hate White people and tradition-minded Americans, but they are also just up there in office working to get elected some more. It may not be evil in the most pure sense, as it is with a lot of the current D/Communist squad. However, being in politics for personal gain of riches and fame and doing nothing constructive to save this country is still evil.

    Pretty much what the red-squad promises up is to slow things down so that the ruination lasts longer for us. So, there’s that …

    • Agree: Patriot, PhysicistDave
    • Thanks: John Milton’s Ghost
  78. @Anonymous
    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    It's not about minoritarianism but minority-elitism or minority-hegemonism.

    Jews are not just another minority. They are the dominant minority. Only a moron would mention Jewish minority in the same breath as Burmese-American minority or even Mexican-American minority, which is numerous but lackluster in elite circles. Most minority groups are heavy on social bottom or the middle. Jews are heavily represented on the top. Comparing Jewish minority and Guatemalan minority is like comparing British minority and Bengali minority in Old India.

    US didn't go from majority rule to rule by various minorities. It went from Wasp rule the Jewish rule. Most minority groups in the US have no power. And homos and blacks gained at the feet of Jews who found them useful.

    Of course, elites are always a minority. So, even wasp rule was minority rule, at least by class. Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses. With Jews at the helm, that's no longer the case. But Jewish elites are like Wasp elites in one way. They do identify with lesser Jews even as they insist that white elites not identify with common whites. Also, while Jews, high and middle, feel it's their duty to identify with fellow Jews in Europe and Israel, they curse out any pan-white or pan-Christian identification. Whites in US better not root for whites in Russia or Hungary. American Christians better not stand up for Arab Christians against Neocon war plans.

    Brooks is a disgusting character. By framing the debate as one of majority vs minority, he pretends that he, as a Jewish minority, are like all the other minority groups. Right, Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans have the same rights, which is why Israel gets funded by billions while BDS is shut down state after state.
    Indeed, the real conflict isn't really about white majority vs Jews anymore as most whites, GOP or Democratic, are utterly servile to Jewish Power. It's about Jews having problems with non-whites but using whites as scapegoats so that non-whites will blame all their woes on whites than on Jews, the real overlords of America. It's so dirty.

    Also, history has often been about minority rule over the majority. Roman empire was about Roman minority elites ruling over majority native populations. And before that, Greek minorities ruled over Egypt after Alexander swept through the area. And Greek and Macedonian minorities ruled over vast swathes of Persia and Bactria. Ottoman minorities ruled over Arabs and Greeks and parts of Balkans. British ruled over India and parts of China. Japanese minority ruled over Manchuria. They were minority elites.

    Another thing. If Jews love diversity of minorities so much, why did they opt to come to overwhelmingly white protestant America? Why not move to Latin American or some other colorful part of the world?

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of...

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @e, @Curle, @Oscar Peterson

    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    Dishonesty combined with idiotic naivete.

    This is the same Brooks who swooned over the crease in Obama’s slacks — “I remember distinctly an image of–we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”

    Also, the guy who slobbered with approval over “reparations” ala Ta-Nehesi Coates.

    How can anyone take anything he says seriously?

  79. “But another reason is because Democrats believe they have discovered the one true political ideal: minoritarianism. After dallying with the majoritarianism of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, and FDR, the Democrats have come to believe that rather than be concerned with the interests of the majority, politicians should only look out for minorities, the smaller the better.”

    Democrats created a grab bag of real or manufactured minorities to attack the majority white population now that whites are nearimg minority status they are now championing majority rule. See their criticisms of the electoral college and who can forget this Jennifer Rubin tweet:

    Jennifer ‘pro-voting’ Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) Tweeted:
    a more diverse, more inclusive society. this is fabulous news. now we need to prevent minority White rule. https://t.co/or1MIJHxdx https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger/status/1425899248269266947?s=20

  80. @Intelligent Dasein
    Steve, the link to the Takimag column is wrong. The one you want is this one:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/the-demonization-of-core-americans/

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Yeah, I.D. I went to write something last evening to the effect that Steve probably got the term “minoritarianism” from commenter AnotherDad (see here) and that Brooks could have gotten it 3rd-hand from iSteve. However my comment (the link above) goes to the right comment thread and article title, How the Democrats’ Grand Strategy Blew Up in Virginia, but the article itself is the wrong one, about some Univ. of Austin thing.

    What’s going on, Steve, or Ron Unz? I hope it’s just this one, but maybe article numbers of some sort are off right now. I gotta go, or I’d check some others for you all.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  81. @PhysicistDave
    @thenon

    thenon wrote:


    It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.
     
    The Nazis were evil all right (National Socialists -- what do you expect?), and the Holocaust was horrifying.

    But how many people know what Stalin did? How many young people know what Pol Pot did?

    Or going further back, Genghis Khan?

    Lots
    of rivers of blood in human history. For the last few decades we have been solely focused on the crimes of the German Leftists in the 1940s. That one-sided focus will probably not last forever.

    Not even a thousand years.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle, @Abolish_public_education

    the Holocaust was horrifying.

    What’s really horrifying about “Holocau\$t” mythology is people like you — who don’t miss an opportunity to promote it — while ignoring the vicious persecution of dissidents.

    As for Genghis Khan, his statue dwarfs Robert E. Lee’s — so where’s Antifa?

    — (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Vf5BzA1cSnvgZgFdTq7OMgHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1)

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Pat Kittle

    Pat Kittle wrote to me:


    What’s really horrifying about “Holocau$t” mythology is people like you — who don’t miss an opportunity to promote it — while ignoring the vicious persecution of dissidents.
     
    Pat, I actually have looked into the Holocaust revisionists in some detail: I find them to be very sloppy and unconvincing.

    Now, of course, we will never know exactly how many Jews the Nazis killed: as I recall, Raul Hilberg -- certainly no denialist! -- thought it was closer to five million than to six million.

    And what did Hitler know and when did he know it? And how many Jews died from intentional extermination vs. malevolent neglect? And what about all the non-Jewish victims of the Third Reich?

    All legit questions.

    But after having looked into it some detail, I think the Nazis did kill millions of Jews and, of course, millions of non-Jews also.

    I have no axe to grind here, but evidence does matter.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  82. Something similar can be said of America in the 1950s. But over the ensuing decades, the Protestant establishment crumbled and America became more marvelously diverse. …

    Marvellous for whom? Oh wait I know!

  83. @J.Ross
    Did Brooks acknowledge the Waukesha Massacre in any way?

    Replies: @Greta Handel

    If so, it was an accident.

  84. @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    FDR’s New Deal Coalition was a minority coalition
     
    An anti-Yankee coalition:


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/PresidentialCounty1936Colorbrewer.gif

    Replies: @Hibernian

    An Anti-Yankee coalition led by a Yankee.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Hibernian


    An Anti-Yankee coalition led by a Yankee.
     
    One reason they loved him. He betrayed his people!

    Poor as well as rich, as the map shows. Hillbillies in the Appalachians and Ozarks as well as in the Northeast.

    My county put a CCC exhibit where one of their camps stood. It says nothing about our having voted against the man in seven statewide elections.

  85. Make that “minoritarianism at arm’s length.” You will see very little personal commitment from its mostly white adherents, who confine their efforts to preaching to the choir from the offices of the NYT, a lecture hall at the Harvard-Kennedy School of Government–or from two acre zoning in Greenwich.

  86. @Anon
    Minoritarianism is when you can't visit African countries because of new Covid variants, but illegal migrants from African countries can walk right across the Mexican border and a non-profit resettles them in an apartment complex near your house with no Covid test or vaccine administration, while you have to get the vaccine or be fired.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Hannah Katz

    The academics on the left forget that the Bantu tribes conquered most of Africa, displacing and enslaving people like the Khoisan. Now they are headed here. Not content to run their own countries (almost always into the ground) they now want to rule over Europe, North America and Australia.

  87. @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote:


    While we have a history of great accomplishments and compassion and helping people, we have done a lot of bad things too. We have conquered and taken over land from people who were far away and not a threat to us.
     
    Are you referring to the conquest of the Americas?

    Yes, we did not treat the Amerindians well. But the Amerindians did not treat other Amerindians well, either.

    In the greater scheme of things, we were just one more tribe, but with much better technology and organization.

    As to the rest of the world outside of the Western hemisphere, I myself do not think European imperialism was in the interest of most of the peoples of Europe. But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there? (If you do, watch this Python bit from Life of Brian.)

    As for Africa... well, the population would certainly be less without Western medicines!

    We can oppose "invade the world" and still be honest about the effects of the West on the rest of the world.

    Replies: @International Jew, @nebulafox

    The Muslims in India were basically the British before the British, anyhow, which partly explains the sectarian dynamic in South Asia. (Razib Khan does a better job of explaining this than me, but basically, to your average Hindu nationalists, it’s galling to see a third of your distinctive branch of humanity praying in the style of a distant West Asian trader turned warlord.) The Mughals became highly Indianized with time, to be sure, but always preserved a sense of separate identity that showed. So, yeah, “alien” rule would have been there anyway.

    When the British took over India, many an officer was surprised to discover that many a local North “Indian” bureaucrat or magistrate was actually an imported Persian. For one, Khomeini’s forefathers hailed from Lucknow.

    Re, the Nazis, just because they were revolutionaries and rejected laissez faire capitalism didn’t make them leftists. Not that I disagree with your point. Hell, even within WWII, how many people know about, say, the bloodbaths in Yugoslavia that presaged the horrors that would come 50 years later, or the Polish-Ukrainian sectarian violence that overlapped on the Eastern Front?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote to me:


    Re, the Nazis, just because they were revolutionaries and rejected laissez faire capitalism didn’t make them leftists.
     
    Well...

    a) The Nazis wanted much bigger, more powerful government, in terms of the economy and society more broadly.

    b) The Nazis thought they were scientifically progressive, the true wave of the future.

    c) The Nazis thought that their grand goals trumped any mundane bourgeois concerns with morality at a personal level.

    d) The Nazis showed no inclination to restore the Old Order (the Kaiser, the Roman Church, etc.).

    e) The Nazis said they were Socialists.

    In what sense were they not Leftists?

    Because other Leftists hated them? People often exhibit their greatest hatred for those quite similar to them (heretics are worse than infidels).

    I must admit that I have always been more than a bit bemused by the metamorphosis of "Left vs. Right" in the mid-twentieth century. When Robespierre was the Left and Bourbon restorationists were the Right, yeah, I get it.

    But when a high-ranking figure in the Italian Socialist Party, editor of the Party newspaper Avanti!, became leader of the Fascists, without apparently having significantly changed his opinions, why should we say that he ceased being a Leftist and became a Rightist?

    Sorry, but this is just propaganda on the part of the Leftists who won WW II vs. the Leftists who lost.

    It is plausible to say that Metternich was a Rightist. But Hitler and Mussolini logically belong where they claimed to belong -- with the Socialists.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  88. Steve, your “parodic” style has a real knack for getting under the skin of your readers and driving them bonkers in, I think, mostly a good way. That’s a genuine compliment. Y’know, make ’em glad, make ’em sad, or with your writing, make ’em mad. Getting people to feel again is pretty hard, as so much polemical writing is forgettable eye glaze.

    I’d call your style a burlesquing or travestying of the quiet propagandism of our mainstream media, but that’s me. Your style works no matter the description.

    If a 2024 Presidential candidate comes a-calling with a serious consultancy offer, consider it. Hold out for big money. You’ve built a store of intellectual capital (the verbal and math combo) that I think is found among few other writers.

  89. @SimpleSong
    Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad? Pretty impressive to go from internet comment to the pages of the NYT, though the gray lady isn't what it used to be.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @John Derbyshire, @Don Unf

    • Thanks: siv
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @John Derbyshire

    Gay marriage is ridiculous but "huge majorities of people don't approve of gay marriage" is the worst conceivable argument against it. It's also been outright false for years now in the US.

    "The bible condemns homosexual behavior" is a much, much better argument against it, and I say that as someone who couldn't care less about the fairy tales of Bronze Age Semites.

    "Because God says so" has moral weight that "the neighbors might find it icky" doesn't quite have.

  90. @Pat Kittle

    Democrats... rather than be concerned with the interests of the majority, politicians should only look out for minorities, the smaller the better.
     
    And in that spirit, President Biden spent his (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving as a guest in (((billionaire David Rubenstein's mansion))):

    -- (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2021/11/23/biden-will-spend-thanksgiving-week-at-private-equity-billionaires-nantucket-home)

    Replies: @Jack D

    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving

    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?

    Thanksgiving is the quintessentially American holiday – it can be celebrated by people of all races and religions.

    When Trump celebrates Thanksgiving, he celebrates it with his Jewish daughter and son in law and Jewish grandchildren, so I guess you just can’t get away from Jews in the elite circles of 21st century America.

    I don’t think that by celebrating Thanksgiving in Rubenstein’s house, Biden was looking out for the Jews – he was looking out for himself.

    The reason that Democrats “look out” for minorities is that a whole bunch of minorities put together (the so called “Coalition of the Fringes”) can constitute a majority, especially in big cities and coastal states.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    @Jack D



    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving
     
    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?
     
    I shouldn't have to explain this:

    Pilgrims > Christian > Plymouth Rock > Thanksgiving.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @Abolish_public_education

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    You terrify me, Jack. You could justify anything in your mind if you thought thought that it would move your people forward one inch.

    But I also need to thank you. Because of you, I understand the game being played and what it will take to win.

    My side will probably lose, and you better hope we do.

  91. @International Jew
    @PhysicistDave


    But do you really think India would be better off today if the Brits had never been there?
     
    Indians will tell you they were on the verge of industrializing just as the Brits came in and decided India was more useful as a customer for British manufactures.

    They do have something of a We waz kangs attitude.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Were they also on the verge of having indoor plumbing?

  92. @Peterike
    “Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once observed that being a minority in 19th-century Europe was like living in someone else’s country home.”

    Uh huh. By “minority” he means being a Jew.

    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.

    Replies: @thenon, @Thomas, @International Jew

    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.

    Wrong century, smart guy.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Jewish_nobility


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry - instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    Replies: @res, @Catdompanj, @nebulafox, @International Jew, @Paperback Writer

    , @Craig Nelsen
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    Felix Dzerzhinsky's father in Poland. It's the reason Bolshevik apologists now can pretend that the murderous, sadistic, blood-drenched founder of the dreaded CheKa in December, 1917 in Russia was a scion of the Polish aristocracy.

    From always unreliable Wikipedia:


    Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, nicknamed "Iron Felix", was a Bolshevik revolutionary and official. Born into Polish nobility, from 1917 until his death in 1926 Dzerzhinsky led the first two Soviet state-security organizations, the Cheka and the OGPU, establishing a secret police for the post-revolutionary Soviet regime. He was one of the architects of the Red Terror and decossackization.
     
  93. @International Jew

    The aristocrat owned the house. Other people got to stay there but as guests.
     
    More like, the aristocrat owned the village and Sachs' ancestors got to live on a muddy side street off the "rynek glowny".

    Replies: @Jack D

    I don’t know about mud, but I did notice that in almost every Polish city I visited, the Jewish quarter was not in the main square but just to the side of it. You never had far to walk. After I while I was able to sniff the (ex) Jewish quarter out by starting at the center and wandering a few streets out. There was usually some marker or monument or ex-synagogue indicating that you were now in the formerly Jewish section of town. The Jews were not part of the power structure but they were adjacent to it.

  94. @mousey

    This is the belief that history is inevitably the heroic struggle by minorities to free themselves from the yoke of majority domination. It is the belief that sin resides in the social structures imposed by majorities and that virtue and the true consciousness reside with the oppressed groups.
     
    What horse shit. All of it.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Jmaie

    On the contrary, the vast, vast majority of Jews do believe this, and being the least self-aware people on the planet (well, least self-aware among intelligent races), they believe everyone believes this.

  95. @notsaying
    @Moses

    What you say is true.

    However, we do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @PhysicistDave

    The victors always paint themselves as heroic and virtuous. Whites aren’t special in that regard.

    You have accepted not only the morality of your masters but their version of reality. Your a mental slave. It’s hard to watch.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Who do you see as my masters?

    I didn't think I had any.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian

  96. @John Derbyshire
    @SimpleSong

    https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/minoritarianism.html

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Gay marriage is ridiculous but “huge majorities of people don’t approve of gay marriage” is the worst conceivable argument against it. It’s also been outright false for years now in the US.

    “The bible condemns homosexual behavior” is a much, much better argument against it, and I say that as someone who couldn’t care less about the fairy tales of Bronze Age Semites.

    “Because God says so” has moral weight that “the neighbors might find it icky” doesn’t quite have.

  97. @International Jew
    @Mr. Blank

    It helps to live on the farm, and helps even more to do the dirty work yourself rather than hire Mexicans.

    As for the city, go stroll around Lancaster, PA, and tell me the Amish have been successful walling themselves off from the blessings of mass immigration.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Paperback Writer

    What does this even mean? I don’t want to go to Lancaster PA when you can just tell us what you mean.

  98. @International Jew
    @Peterike


    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

     

    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.
     
    Wrong century, smart guy.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Craig Nelsen

    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.

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

    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry – instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    • Replies: @res
    @Jack D

    Nice preemption (sincerely, I was on my way to reply with that). Way to back up your co-religionist (never let it be said Jews don't look out for each other, an admirable trait as long as it does not extend to harming others). Now that you've gone to the trouble of doing that, how about expanding on this part (emphasis added):


    Many of the people on this list were converts.
     
    That seems to imply that some weren't. Since you have (presumably) gone to the trouble of checking (you care about this topic much more than I do), how about answering International Jew's original question/challenge "Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats." and enumerating those who were not converts?

    I'll start with one family which serves as an existence proof.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Hereditary_titles

    P.S. That said, Peterike's comment basically consisted of an exaggeration ("very often") and an apparent mischaracterization (Weimar Germany as 19th century). Though despite being 20th century, I do think the latter was an on point response. If only to serve as an example of what the alternative was.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Catdompanj
    @Jack D

    Close enough so their puppet strings could reach City Hall and the local Bank. Don't let their neighborhood's location fool you.

    , @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    In some parts of the Tsarist state, the nobility were indeed from a different culture from the locals. But not *that* culture. In Estonia and Latvia, the local aristocracy was almost uniformly ethnic German. Back in the day, it was common for Baltic German young men to not even encounter actual ethnic Russians until you joined the military or bureaucracy.

    The only significant Jewish community was in Riga. They tended to be more secularized/bourgeois than their co-religionists further south-German was the default language instead of Yiddish-and despite how rife anti-Semitism was with the Baltic Germans, the numerically dominant local Balts largely left them alone, in contrast to places like Ukraine. Their resentment tended to be aimed at the Baltic German aristocracy. I suppose that's part of the reason Latvians were so common among Lenin's early thugs, along with geographical proximity to Petersburg.

    (Of course, actually living next to the USSR, then the brief but brutal Soviet occupation-which eventually aimed to destroy Estonian and Latvian national identity-changed attitudes. Understandably, the Jews of Riga preferred Soviet to Nazi rule in 1940, but this meant the Balts came to look at them as collaborators. So, German intelligence shows up in 1941, finds a local populace with bones to pick against the Russians and those who supported them, the local Jewish community has no memory of pogroms and is completely unprepared to even head for the forests... bing, bang, boom, explosion, genocide so through Berlin turns Riga into a dumping ground for German/Austrian/Czech Jews. Lot of people would show up from Berlin or wherever with the old dining utensils and bowls of the previous occupants still around, with Latvian writing on it.)

    I don't know nearly as much about Lithuania or Ukraine, obviously. But my impression is that the Polish szlachta still existed and still stood out in the sea of Ukrainian peasants and Jewish shtetls/bourgeoisie. Even if they'd lost their legal privileges and sometimes their wealth, they probably didn't lose all their heft. Declassed Polish noble youth often made for good targets for the revolutionary underground, in somewhat psychologically reversed reasons from their Jewish counterparts. Case in point: Iron Felix and Piłsudski's brother, who tried to assassinate Alexander III with Lenin's brother. Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @International Jew
    @Jack D

    The British list of Jewish peers is impressively long but almost all of them are from the 20th century. To my slight surprise I even found a cousin of my mom's (a scientist, never had to pull a sword out of a rock or lead a crusade or anything like that). I thought he was just a knight but I guess they upgraded him at some point. Anyway, the point is that it was very nice of the queen but nothing about him corresponds to Peterike's fever dream of Jews ruling the peasants far and wide.

    Replies: @David

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts.

     

    This Does it matter that they were converts? The point is there quite a few Jews assimilated into European nobility, so there was no ethnic/racial bar to that happening. Quite a bit different from Nazism, or the one drop rule here.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

  99. @rebel yell
    I don't know what "integration without assimilation" means. Sounds like a vague idea of minorities being different in style but still loyal and law-abiding. A liberal pipe-dream.
    Combat - what the Left wants and normal whites are being forced into.
    Separation - what non-blacks want from blacks.
    Assimilation - a mirage in our rear-view mirror.

    Replies: @PaceLaw, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @res

    It’s the latest verbal ruse by a particularly verbally adept tribe to keep whites from pushing back. Same old, same old.

  100. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    The Amish do accept outsiders but it’s very rare, due in no small part to the difficulties of adjusting to such a radically different lifestyle from how most Americans live. It would probably be safe to say that no black person has ever even given serious thought to become Amish. Forcing black people to live like it’s the eighteenth century just for the sake of “equity” seems a bit excessive even for Democrats.

  101. @International Jew
    @Peterike


    “The aristocrat owned the house.”

    And was very often Jewish.

     

    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.

    “Other people got to stay there but as guests. They did not get to set the rules, run the institutions or dominate the culture.”

    Lol! Sure sure. Weimar Germany would like a word.
     
    Wrong century, smart guy.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Craig Nelsen

    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.

    Felix Dzerzhinsky’s father in Poland. It’s the reason Bolshevik apologists now can pretend that the murderous, sadistic, blood-drenched founder of the dreaded CheKa in December, 1917 in Russia was a scion of the Polish aristocracy.

    From always unreliable Wikipedia:

    Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, nicknamed “Iron Felix”, was a Bolshevik revolutionary and official. Born into Polish nobility, from 1917 until his death in 1926 Dzerzhinsky led the first two Soviet state-security organizations, the Cheka and the OGPU, establishing a secret police for the post-revolutionary Soviet regime. He was one of the architects of the Red Terror and decossackization.

  102. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Because the Woke don’t covet their buggies.

    Seriously, if you look at the targets of the Woke, they are occupying seats of wealth and power that the Woke would like to be sitting in. There’s no money in defenestrating Amos. What are you going to do next? Get out behind Amos’s team of horses and plow a field? Plant potatoes? That’s too much like picking cotton. No thank you.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    This is where the Sperg Right gets it wrong. You guys think this the other side is primarily motivated by material greed or power or some other rational motive.

    They're not. Sure, they like those things, and they're a nice side effect, but their primarily motivation is hate.

    They hate white people and want them dead. It really is that simple.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  103. @James Speaks
    @notsaying

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @notsaying, @Alden, @Jack D, @Muggles

    I keep hearing this, but what will rouse them? The Federal government swept away Jim Crow (a fundamentally majoritarian ideology, for better or for worse) with minimal resistance. And this was not boiling the frog the way non-white immigration has crept up on white America – this was done virtually overnight and with the stroke of a Federal pen. If white America was not roused (a handful of clowns in white robes, half of whom were informing on the other half doesn’t count) by this then they are never going to be roused. Add another half century of deindustrialization, drug addlement, feminism, video games, Leftist indoctrination of the youth, etc. and I don’t think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever coming.

    • Agree: JackOH
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    Agreed. As the Derb said, white people are pussies.

    However, not all white people are pussies or have lost their tribalism and love for their own people.

    If whites survive as a serious people - and that's a big "if" - we'll go through a major genetic bottleneck.

    And they're coming out the other side as colorblind CivNats.

    , @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    “and I don’t think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever”

    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave

  104. @Anonymous
    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    It's not about minoritarianism but minority-elitism or minority-hegemonism.

    Jews are not just another minority. They are the dominant minority. Only a moron would mention Jewish minority in the same breath as Burmese-American minority or even Mexican-American minority, which is numerous but lackluster in elite circles. Most minority groups are heavy on social bottom or the middle. Jews are heavily represented on the top. Comparing Jewish minority and Guatemalan minority is like comparing British minority and Bengali minority in Old India.

    US didn't go from majority rule to rule by various minorities. It went from Wasp rule the Jewish rule. Most minority groups in the US have no power. And homos and blacks gained at the feet of Jews who found them useful.

    Of course, elites are always a minority. So, even wasp rule was minority rule, at least by class. Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses. With Jews at the helm, that's no longer the case. But Jewish elites are like Wasp elites in one way. They do identify with lesser Jews even as they insist that white elites not identify with common whites. Also, while Jews, high and middle, feel it's their duty to identify with fellow Jews in Europe and Israel, they curse out any pan-white or pan-Christian identification. Whites in US better not root for whites in Russia or Hungary. American Christians better not stand up for Arab Christians against Neocon war plans.

    Brooks is a disgusting character. By framing the debate as one of majority vs minority, he pretends that he, as a Jewish minority, are like all the other minority groups. Right, Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans have the same rights, which is why Israel gets funded by billions while BDS is shut down state after state.
    Indeed, the real conflict isn't really about white majority vs Jews anymore as most whites, GOP or Democratic, are utterly servile to Jewish Power. It's about Jews having problems with non-whites but using whites as scapegoats so that non-whites will blame all their woes on whites than on Jews, the real overlords of America. It's so dirty.

    Also, history has often been about minority rule over the majority. Roman empire was about Roman minority elites ruling over majority native populations. And before that, Greek minorities ruled over Egypt after Alexander swept through the area. And Greek and Macedonian minorities ruled over vast swathes of Persia and Bactria. Ottoman minorities ruled over Arabs and Greeks and parts of Balkans. British ruled over India and parts of China. Japanese minority ruled over Manchuria. They were minority elites.

    Another thing. If Jews love diversity of minorities so much, why did they opt to come to overwhelmingly white protestant America? Why not move to Latin American or some other colorful part of the world?

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of...

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @e, @Curle, @Oscar Peterson

    The majority of the top 10% elite in the US is Gentile, though often intermarried with jews. Jews now set the tone of elite thinking – the emphasis on education and credentialism, the scorn for working with one’s hands, the attitude that the 90% ordinary people are livestock who only exist to serve them and the view that the US is simply an economic zone. Two weak points are their physical cowardice and sociopathic self-absorption and willingness to throw each other to the wolves. They depend on the police, military and security guards to protect them in the privileged neighborhoods and gated communities. If their protectors refuse to their job, they’re vulnerable to attacks by criminals and patriots seeking revenge.

  105. @Anonymous
    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    It's not about minoritarianism but minority-elitism or minority-hegemonism.

    Jews are not just another minority. They are the dominant minority. Only a moron would mention Jewish minority in the same breath as Burmese-American minority or even Mexican-American minority, which is numerous but lackluster in elite circles. Most minority groups are heavy on social bottom or the middle. Jews are heavily represented on the top. Comparing Jewish minority and Guatemalan minority is like comparing British minority and Bengali minority in Old India.

    US didn't go from majority rule to rule by various minorities. It went from Wasp rule the Jewish rule. Most minority groups in the US have no power. And homos and blacks gained at the feet of Jews who found them useful.

    Of course, elites are always a minority. So, even wasp rule was minority rule, at least by class. Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses. With Jews at the helm, that's no longer the case. But Jewish elites are like Wasp elites in one way. They do identify with lesser Jews even as they insist that white elites not identify with common whites. Also, while Jews, high and middle, feel it's their duty to identify with fellow Jews in Europe and Israel, they curse out any pan-white or pan-Christian identification. Whites in US better not root for whites in Russia or Hungary. American Christians better not stand up for Arab Christians against Neocon war plans.

    Brooks is a disgusting character. By framing the debate as one of majority vs minority, he pretends that he, as a Jewish minority, are like all the other minority groups. Right, Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans have the same rights, which is why Israel gets funded by billions while BDS is shut down state after state.
    Indeed, the real conflict isn't really about white majority vs Jews anymore as most whites, GOP or Democratic, are utterly servile to Jewish Power. It's about Jews having problems with non-whites but using whites as scapegoats so that non-whites will blame all their woes on whites than on Jews, the real overlords of America. It's so dirty.

    Also, history has often been about minority rule over the majority. Roman empire was about Roman minority elites ruling over majority native populations. And before that, Greek minorities ruled over Egypt after Alexander swept through the area. And Greek and Macedonian minorities ruled over vast swathes of Persia and Bactria. Ottoman minorities ruled over Arabs and Greeks and parts of Balkans. British ruled over India and parts of China. Japanese minority ruled over Manchuria. They were minority elites.

    Another thing. If Jews love diversity of minorities so much, why did they opt to come to overwhelmingly white protestant America? Why not move to Latin American or some other colorful part of the world?

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of...

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @e, @Curle, @Oscar Peterson

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of…

    I don’t know if most of the time Brooks is simply lying or if most of the time he’s simply clueless about white middle and working class Americans.

    I suspect it’s 15% the former, 85% the latter.

  106. @James Speaks
    @Reg Cæsar

    We’re being led that way, like lambs etc. by quislings. But I offer flyover country as evidence that all is not happy and docile in old stock America. I also don’t think it is too late. Trump was populist lite. I think populist heavy is gearing up for a run. An organized 20% can run a country. Given Deagle’s, Orlov’s and Tverberg’s prognostications, the timing as about right.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

    An organized 20% can run a country.

    No question. The internet and modern electronic communications have made the ‘elites’ unnecessary, much to their everlasting shock. The internet is a ‘dis-intermediary’. I don’t need an ‘elite’ to tell me what I like, what is correct and proper, or which color car to pick. It has permanently wrecked the ‘authority’ of traditional figures such as schools and universities, the media, and government. They are done.

    This is why ‘Big Tech’ is making their bid now to control the population. The main talent that they possess is the ability to monopolize, monitor, and control all the legacy and other forms of communications. They don’t really produce much actual content or products in relation to their outsized role, they just try to get in the middle. They are like Sauron’s ring. All we have to do is throw it in the volcano.

    If you want to see how this is supposed to work, look no further than China. Social Credit Scores, vaccine passports, electronic currency, controlled opposition are not for our benefit.

  107. @rebel yell
    I don't know what "integration without assimilation" means. Sounds like a vague idea of minorities being different in style but still loyal and law-abiding. A liberal pipe-dream.
    Combat - what the Left wants and normal whites are being forced into.
    Separation - what non-blacks want from blacks.
    Assimilation - a mirage in our rear-view mirror.

    Replies: @PaceLaw, @Citizen of a Silly Country, @res

    I don’t know what “integration without assimilation” means.

    In practice it seems to mean minorities are integrated (proportionally, mind you) into all activities and spaces of the existing country while they also get to have their own private spaces and maintain cultural differences (whether or not counter to the laws or interests of the country).

    “Integration without assimilation” seems to me like an attempt to create a false dichotomy. Although there are multiple alternatives presented, the false dichotomy intended is “integration with vs. without assimilation.” The “with” side being strawmanned into being turned into a clone of boring white America (as if that was a single thing).

    In reality, assimilation has many levels. How about we start with level 1?
    https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

  108. If I had free access to the Neocon York Times (and I don’t!), David Brooks is an author whose columns I’d automatically ignore. The man is a lazy “Israel-First” Zionist.

    Term limits for newspaper columnists would go a long way
    https://flux.community/parker-molloy/2021/11/term-limits-newspaper-columnists-would-go-long-way

    No Surprise Dep’t: David Brooks’s son is in Israeli army
    https://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/surprise-brookss-israeli/

    My bone to pick: Brooks’s kid has been in for “months.” So when David Brooks was commenting favorably on Israel’s onslaught on Gaza this summer on National Public Radio, his son was serving in the Israeli army.

    Again, my interest in whatever this [email protected]@hole is saying is precisely zero.

  109. @International Jew
    @Mr. Blank

    It helps to live on the farm, and helps even more to do the dirty work yourself rather than hire Mexicans.

    As for the city, go stroll around Lancaster, PA, and tell me the Amish have been successful walling themselves off from the blessings of mass immigration.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Paperback Writer

    What does this mean? I haven’t been to Lancaster – is it full of diversity?

    • Replies: @res
    @Paperback Writer

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/lancaster-pa-population

    17.18% black.

    https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/pa/lancaster/crime

    Safer than 13% of U.S. Cities

    , @International Jew
    @Paperback Writer

    Lancaster has a small tourist district with an Amish museum and some nice old buildings, but walk a few streets away in any direction and...actually, don't. I saw a lot of youths that were black but Spanish-speaking, so I'll guess Dominican.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  110. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    Black Amish

    No. There are a few black Mennonites though, all converts.

    “The Amish” are actually quite a diverse group, and I mean that in the old sense of the word. They are always splitting apart. They descend from a core group of Anabaptist German Mennonites who came to the US in waves in the early -mid 18th century.

    The more liberal Mennonite types welcome converts and some are black. They also missionize. I suppose that will bring in some Hispanic converts.

    But the core Amish are clannish and reproduce in the group – that creates even worse genetic issues than among the Hasidim.

    As to your question about the grievance industry, their numbers are still small and they tend to colonize areas the Woke don’t care about.

    Also, they don’t have the busy-body attention-seeking groups like the ADL.

  111. @Jack D
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Jewish_nobility


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry - instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    Replies: @res, @Catdompanj, @nebulafox, @International Jew, @Paperback Writer

    Nice preemption (sincerely, I was on my way to reply with that). Way to back up your co-religionist (never let it be said Jews don’t look out for each other, an admirable trait as long as it does not extend to harming others). Now that you’ve gone to the trouble of doing that, how about expanding on this part (emphasis added):

    Many of the people on this list were converts.

    That seems to imply that some weren’t. Since you have (presumably) gone to the trouble of checking (you care about this topic much more than I do), how about answering International Jew’s original question/challenge “Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.” and enumerating those who were not converts?

    I’ll start with one family which serves as an existence proof.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Hereditary_titles

    P.S. That said, Peterike’s comment basically consisted of an exaggeration (“very often”) and an apparent mischaracterization (Weimar Germany as 19th century). Though despite being 20th century, I do think the latter was an on point response. If only to serve as an example of what the alternative was.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @res

    There were quite a few Jews elevated to the (minor) nobility in Western Europe (mainly the Austro-Hungarian Empire) in the 19th century but AFAIK none (that were actually still Jewish) in the Czarist Empire. Peterike is just talking out of his anti-Semitic ass.

  112. @Jack D
    @Mr. Blank


    Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    Because the Woke don't covet their buggies.

    Seriously, if you look at the targets of the Woke, they are occupying seats of wealth and power that the Woke would like to be sitting in. There's no money in defenestrating Amos. What are you going to do next? Get out behind Amos's team of horses and plow a field? Plant potatoes? That's too much like picking cotton. No thank you.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    This is where the Sperg Right gets it wrong. You guys think this the other side is primarily motivated by material greed or power or some other rational motive.

    They’re not. Sure, they like those things, and they’re a nice side effect, but their primarily motivation is hate.

    They hate white people and want them dead. It really is that simple.

    • Thanks: John Regan
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    "They hate white people"

    The hate is driven by envy, which I think is important to distinguish.

  113. @Paperback Writer
    @International Jew

    What does this mean? I haven't been to Lancaster - is it full of diversity?

    Replies: @res, @International Jew

  114. @Jack D
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Jewish_nobility


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry - instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    Replies: @res, @Catdompanj, @nebulafox, @International Jew, @Paperback Writer

    Close enough so their puppet strings could reach City Hall and the local Bank. Don’t let their neighborhood’s location fool you.

  115. @Jack D
    @James Speaks

    I keep hearing this, but what will rouse them? The Federal government swept away Jim Crow (a fundamentally majoritarian ideology, for better or for worse) with minimal resistance. And this was not boiling the frog the way non-white immigration has crept up on white America - this was done virtually overnight and with the stroke of a Federal pen. If white America was not roused (a handful of clowns in white robes, half of whom were informing on the other half doesn't count) by this then they are never going to be roused. Add another half century of deindustrialization, drug addlement, feminism, video games, Leftist indoctrination of the youth, etc. and I don't think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever coming.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Corvinus

    Agreed. As the Derb said, white people are pussies.

    However, not all white people are pussies or have lost their tribalism and love for their own people.

    If whites survive as a serious people – and that’s a big “if” – we’ll go through a major genetic bottleneck.

    And they’re coming out the other side as colorblind CivNats.

  116. @mousey

    This is the belief that history is inevitably the heroic struggle by minorities to free themselves from the yoke of majority domination. It is the belief that sin resides in the social structures imposed by majorities and that virtue and the true consciousness reside with the oppressed groups.
     
    What horse shit. All of it.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Jmaie

    This is the belief that history is inevitably the heroic struggle by minorities to free themselves from the yoke of majority domination. It is the belief that sin resides in the social structures imposed by majorities and that virtue and the true consciousness reside with the oppressed groups.

    What horse shit. All of it.

    As may be, this belief is sincerely held by a great number young’uns both college-educated and not. They “know” that the “system” was “designed” for the purpose of forever holding non-white folks down. The idea is quasi-religious, unfalsifiable beliefs based on statements by huckster priests. Meanwhile the normies are terrified of being branded heretics.

    Never mind that said system as a system doesn’t exist. Rather like another favorite bugaboo, Capitalism, which is simply a descriptor of a process that developed naturally over centuries…

  117. “After dallying with the majoritarianism… …Wilson, and FDR”

    Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt weren’t no majoritarians.

  118. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    “Brooks’ mention of “separatism” brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren’t — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?”

    What negro wants to live without technology? They may as well go back to Africa.

  119. What happens to the concept of American democracy if there is no large ethnic majority anymore. Does it turn into a Hobbesian ethnic struggle of all against all.

    And Brooks’ implicit assumption that a minoritarian America is going to be good for the Jews when the one ethnic group that in the past has most often taken a positive attitude towards American Jews and the importance of the state of Israel, namely, white Protestants, loses its power—the idea that this is going to be good for Jews in America going forward is naive at best and stupid in any case. How did it work out in the Austro-Hungarian empire for example.

    The only hope here in my opinion is a restoration of the American tradition of full assimilation and integration of all immigrant groups into a single American people who think of themselves in precisely these terms If it happens at all it will have to be part of a much more general Restoration of traditional American values and the traditional American sense of itself as one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If that’s going to ever happen it will require the emergence one hell of a political genius, someone of the caliber of Lincoln or the Founding Fathers.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @Luke Lea

    What happens to the concept of American democracy if there is no large ethnic majority anymore. Does it turn into a Hobbesian ethnic struggle of all against all.

    I say:

    Sam Francis and others have suggested that the push for race replacement or WHITE GENOCIDE is because the ruling class wants to create conditions of political mayhem and civilizational mayhem that can only be governed by a centralized managerial ruling class that will concentrate all governmental power.

    Sam Francis suggested that the managerial state is using mass immigration to create the conditions where political power is completely centralized and dissent is not tolerated.

    Sam Francis’s ANARCHO-TYRANNY concept is important to know about.

    Sam Francis was getting at the Hobbesian Leviathan scenario where a multicultural jurisdiction requires brute concentrated force to keep it together because the inherent ethnic antagonisms are so severe.

    Sam Francis from 2014:


    To have freedom on a stable political basis, you have to have a homogeneous culture and society, composed of people who share the same values and beliefs. If they don’t share them, you can hold them together only by force.

     

    https://vdare.com/articles/anarcho-tyranny-where-multiculturalism-leads

    The only thing keeping the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire in power is the asset bubbles created by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Bank.

    Very soon, a new ruling class that explicitly advances the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA will be in power.

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Luke Lea

    People and races are not lumps of clay that can be magically transformed by the prevailing culture into something that they're not.

    It's ironic that commentators around mock the Magic Dirt theory of the Left and then propose their own Magic American Values solution.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  120. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Must have been before 1913. Or 1813.
     
    Quite right. I should have said implicitly White, small-givernment politics has been tried and failed.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Abolish_public_education

    Government always fails. It’s always crappy. Smallists don’t claim that SG is uncrappy, only that it sucketh the least.

    1813 & 1913 are noteworthy, but 1776 beats them. G0d Save the Queen.

    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Abolish_public_education

    The government is one of the tools -- not the only one, but a major one -- that our parents and their generation plus all our ancestors used to protect us and create a better way of life for all Americans.

    I was and still am a beneficiary of my fellow Americans past and present through the government. I helped myself and my fellow Americans through the government.

    I never thought about it in that way before but this is all true. Your saying the government always fails and sucks made me think because it struck me as so untrue and such an exaggeration.

    There is always disagreement about the government and frustration and disappointment, too. That is how it should be in a democracy. But government will inevitably be a major force in any First World country, especially one as successful and large as ours is. If our government always failed we would not even be a First World country.

    Replies: @lavoisier, @Rosie

  121. @thenon
    @Peterike

    Examine the history of minoritarianism in a traditional Catholic country. further imagine yourself a minor titled person, hiding in your Warsaw club in the late 1700s unable to leave because your gambling debts have resulted in armed men outside who will challenge you to a duel. Shlomo and Abraham send you a note saying that if you only agree to sign over management of your country estate to them, including liquor dispensing and the right to collect taxes to them, they will guarantee a substantial increase in your revenues by selling peasants who cannot pay their taxes into slavery, and will buy off the people who you owe. You have this right, but the local priest won't allow this method of terrorism under threat of excommunication. Enter the new minority and modern management. What would you do?

    I had a friend that was from a Polish family of minor nobility. He had a lot of opinions about Jews but saved his hatred for the Germans. It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Curle

    “ the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.”

    Dunno, people have been encouraged to forget the river of blood that was the outcome of the Bolshevik Coup and that has mostly worked.

  122. Anonymous[243] • Disclaimer says:

    Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once observed that being a minority in 19th-century Europe was like living in someone else’s country home

    Minoritarianism is a moral inversion where uninvited guests or ungrateful guests or guests who overstay their welcome are the heroes, and those whose hospitality is imposed upon are the evil ones. The social lies of hospitality are cast as broken treaties – I was told that I could make myself at home, but when I helped myself to the wine cellar and put my feet on the couch they looked at me funny. Evidence of the foreignness of the guest, which should say something about the open mindedness or generosity of the host, is presented as proof of a historical moral failure to have their house so open to foreigners that they’ve ceased to be foreign. The guest who says “I don’t belong here” is seen as recovering his dignity from the degradation imposed on him by having to accept hospitality: hospitality as a corrupt power relation. The host who says, yes,you don’t belong here is committing a grave offense against the venerable tradition of hospitality. Trendy pastors abound to remind us that Our Savior Himself was an uninvited guest in our world.

  123. @Luke Lea
    What happens to the concept of American democracy if there is no large ethnic majority anymore. Does it turn into a Hobbesian ethnic struggle of all against all.

    And Brooks' implicit assumption that a minoritarian America is going to be good for the Jews when the one ethnic group that in the past has most often taken a positive attitude towards American Jews and the importance of the state of Israel, namely, white Protestants, loses its power—the idea that this is going to be good for Jews in America going forward is naive at best and stupid in any case. How did it work out in the Austro-Hungarian empire for example.

    The only hope here in my opinion is a restoration of the American tradition of full assimilation and integration of all immigrant groups into a single American people who think of themselves in precisely these terms If it happens at all it will have to be part of a much more general Restoration of traditional American values and the traditional American sense of itself as one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If that's going to ever happen it will require the emergence one hell of a political genius, someone of the caliber of Lincoln or the Founding Fathers.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    What happens to the concept of American democracy if there is no large ethnic majority anymore. Does it turn into a Hobbesian ethnic struggle of all against all.

    I say:

    Sam Francis and others have suggested that the push for race replacement or WHITE GENOCIDE is because the ruling class wants to create conditions of political mayhem and civilizational mayhem that can only be governed by a centralized managerial ruling class that will concentrate all governmental power.

    Sam Francis suggested that the managerial state is using mass immigration to create the conditions where political power is completely centralized and dissent is not tolerated.

    Sam Francis’s ANARCHO-TYRANNY concept is important to know about.

    Sam Francis was getting at the Hobbesian Leviathan scenario where a multicultural jurisdiction requires brute concentrated force to keep it together because the inherent ethnic antagonisms are so severe.

    Sam Francis from 2014:

    To have freedom on a stable political basis, you have to have a homogeneous culture and society, composed of people who share the same values and beliefs. If they don’t share them, you can hold them together only by force.

    https://vdare.com/articles/anarcho-tyranny-where-multiculturalism-leads

    The only thing keeping the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire in power is the asset bubbles created by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve Bank.

    Very soon, a new ruling class that explicitly advances the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA will be in power.

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING

  124. @PhysicistDave
    @thenon

    thenon wrote:


    It is right to critique people who manipulate the system as they found it for their own gain if they are causing suffering to others while doing so, but the imposition of a solution by the Nazis caused a river of blood that no one could forget in a thousand years.
     
    The Nazis were evil all right (National Socialists -- what do you expect?), and the Holocaust was horrifying.

    But how many people know what Stalin did? How many young people know what Pol Pot did?

    Or going further back, Genghis Khan?

    Lots
    of rivers of blood in human history. For the last few decades we have been solely focused on the crimes of the German Leftists in the 1940s. That one-sided focus will probably not last forever.

    Not even a thousand years.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle, @Abolish_public_education

    A nightmarish focus (see #61) diminishes with an RC time constant, even among Jews (i.e. a people with long memories).

  125. @Jack D
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Jewish_nobility


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry - instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    Replies: @res, @Catdompanj, @nebulafox, @International Jew, @Paperback Writer

    In some parts of the Tsarist state, the nobility were indeed from a different culture from the locals. But not *that* culture. In Estonia and Latvia, the local aristocracy was almost uniformly ethnic German. Back in the day, it was common for Baltic German young men to not even encounter actual ethnic Russians until you joined the military or bureaucracy.

    The only significant Jewish community was in Riga. They tended to be more secularized/bourgeois than their co-religionists further south-German was the default language instead of Yiddish-and despite how rife anti-Semitism was with the Baltic Germans, the numerically dominant local Balts largely left them alone, in contrast to places like Ukraine. Their resentment tended to be aimed at the Baltic German aristocracy. I suppose that’s part of the reason Latvians were so common among Lenin’s early thugs, along with geographical proximity to Petersburg.

    (Of course, actually living next to the USSR, then the brief but brutal Soviet occupation-which eventually aimed to destroy Estonian and Latvian national identity-changed attitudes. Understandably, the Jews of Riga preferred Soviet to Nazi rule in 1940, but this meant the Balts came to look at them as collaborators. So, German intelligence shows up in 1941, finds a local populace with bones to pick against the Russians and those who supported them, the local Jewish community has no memory of pogroms and is completely unprepared to even head for the forests… bing, bang, boom, explosion, genocide so through Berlin turns Riga into a dumping ground for German/Austrian/Czech Jews. Lot of people would show up from Berlin or wherever with the old dining utensils and bowls of the previous occupants still around, with Latvian writing on it.)

    I don’t know nearly as much about Lithuania or Ukraine, obviously. But my impression is that the Polish szlachta still existed and still stood out in the sea of Ukrainian peasants and Jewish shtetls/bourgeoisie. Even if they’d lost their legal privileges and sometimes their wealth, they probably didn’t lose all their heft. Declassed Polish noble youth often made for good targets for the revolutionary underground, in somewhat psychologically reversed reasons from their Jewish counterparts. Case in point: Iron Felix and Piłsudski’s brother, who tried to assassinate Alexander III with Lenin’s brother. Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @nebulafox


    Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.
     
    Unless you think that the Coalition of the Fringes is "ironic". It worked the same way in Russia - disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other. In the end, the more numerous Russians outlasted the other minorities and were able to take power.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @nebulafox

  126. @SimpleSong
    Did David Brooks just use the term minoritarianism, which I believe was coined by AnotherDad? Pretty impressive to go from internet comment to the pages of the NYT, though the gray lady isn't what it used to be.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican, @John Derbyshire, @Don Unf

    That sounds like something out of Wilmot Robertson. In his 30 years of output, spanning the last third of the 20th century, which focused heavily on the majority/minority dynamics, I’m sure he uttered that a few times. ‘Majoritarianism’ did appear in his Instauration in 1986, though it was a quote from Marty Peretz on the diminution of South African whites.

  127. @Luke Lea
    What happens to the concept of American democracy if there is no large ethnic majority anymore. Does it turn into a Hobbesian ethnic struggle of all against all.

    And Brooks' implicit assumption that a minoritarian America is going to be good for the Jews when the one ethnic group that in the past has most often taken a positive attitude towards American Jews and the importance of the state of Israel, namely, white Protestants, loses its power—the idea that this is going to be good for Jews in America going forward is naive at best and stupid in any case. How did it work out in the Austro-Hungarian empire for example.

    The only hope here in my opinion is a restoration of the American tradition of full assimilation and integration of all immigrant groups into a single American people who think of themselves in precisely these terms If it happens at all it will have to be part of a much more general Restoration of traditional American values and the traditional American sense of itself as one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If that's going to ever happen it will require the emergence one hell of a political genius, someone of the caliber of Lincoln or the Founding Fathers.

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    People and races are not lumps of clay that can be magically transformed by the prevailing culture into something that they’re not.

    It’s ironic that commentators around mock the Magic Dirt theory of the Left and then propose their own Magic American Values solution.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    People and races are not lumps of clay that can be magically transformed by the prevailing culture into something that they’re not.
     
    Such as Africans into farm workers. It's nice to find a commenter who agrees that the plantation economy was all fraud, all the time.
  128. @Paperback Writer
    @International Jew

    What does this mean? I haven't been to Lancaster - is it full of diversity?

    Replies: @res, @International Jew

    Lancaster has a small tourist district with an Amish museum and some nice old buildings, but walk a few streets away in any direction and…actually, don’t. I saw a lot of youths that were black but Spanish-speaking, so I’ll guess Dominican.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @International Jew

    Thanks.

    Audacious Epigone had an interesting take on Lancaster:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/in-praise-of-localism/?highlight=Lancaster

    Which doesn't contradict you. I did get the impression that the town is a cesspool in a lovely county during that wannabe riot.

    Lancaster county is 89.7% white.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lancastercountypennsylvania/PST040219

    Replies: @Corvinus

  129. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    The Amish, unlike the main white Gentile nation, do not produce enough surplus to be worth feasting on. At least, not worthwhile as long as there is blood in the corpse of the nation. After that? When Amish are the only white gentiles left standing as a people, and not as atomized individuals, I would expect to see a push to “modernize” them, trying to turn them into a new America so that the feast might continue another generation.

    All the plain people, the Amish and the Mennonites, in addition to non-science-based people like the Christian Scientists, benefit tremendously from being embedded in the (ruins of) Gentile America. We provide them with vaccines that they would be hardpressed to manufacture on their own. We provide the roads on which the horses pull their buggies. Roads which they do not produce enough surplus to produce themselves. Granted, we no longer produce enough surplus to build roads, but we used to. They like us, are surviving off the capital (real, physical stuff) and infrastructure produced by a bygone nation. If our rulers were the sort of people capable of marveling at the achievements of whites, they would marvel that Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Imagine! A politician doing something that was not intended solely to benefit a favored minority! Built without diversity coordinators! Built without saddling future generations with unpayable debt!

    The fact that Eisenhower is not on everyone’s list of top three Presidents is indicative of how deeply the rot goes. Perhaps no one is willing to publicly praise a President whose every thought was not guided by, “who will this help Israel”? If only he had seen the temptation of deficit spending in addition to the military-industrial complex. If he had foreseen nonstop deficit spending, he would have rightfully seen it as so self-evidently stupid that any nation that thought it was a good idea would not remain first-world for very long.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    @Rob


    When Amish are the only white gentiles left standing as a people, and not as atomized individuals, I would expect to see a push to “modernize” them, trying to turn them into a new America so that the feast might continue another generation.
     
    Insulated through their culture they're genes will survive. By looking inward, they might be one of the few Americans, and perhaps people in the West, that manage to get past the whole information revolution. Religion will help that. Cell phones, computers, AI, social credit, etc. will radically alter who we are but the ones who can resist and have a real ingroup will have an enormous advantage. That will be helped by the majority who will be some type of cultural and genetic hybrid blob that won't really be anything.
  130. @Jack D
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Jewish_nobility


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry - instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    Replies: @res, @Catdompanj, @nebulafox, @International Jew, @Paperback Writer

    The British list of Jewish peers is impressively long but almost all of them are from the 20th century. To my slight surprise I even found a cousin of my mom’s (a scientist, never had to pull a sword out of a rock or lead a crusade or anything like that). I thought he was just a knight but I guess they upgraded him at some point. Anyway, the point is that it was very nice of the queen but nothing about him corresponds to Peterike’s fever dream of Jews ruling the peasants far and wide.

    • Replies: @David
    @International Jew

    I've read that Montaigne's mom was a Sephardic jew. Wouldn't any jew that got aristocratic status pre 20th cent. need to play the jew-thing down low, as there was no separation of church and state?

    I'm extremely fond of Montaigne, btw.

  131. @res
    @Jack D

    Nice preemption (sincerely, I was on my way to reply with that). Way to back up your co-religionist (never let it be said Jews don't look out for each other, an admirable trait as long as it does not extend to harming others). Now that you've gone to the trouble of doing that, how about expanding on this part (emphasis added):


    Many of the people on this list were converts.
     
    That seems to imply that some weren't. Since you have (presumably) gone to the trouble of checking (you care about this topic much more than I do), how about answering International Jew's original question/challenge "Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats." and enumerating those who were not converts?

    I'll start with one family which serves as an existence proof.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family#Hereditary_titles

    P.S. That said, Peterike's comment basically consisted of an exaggeration ("very often") and an apparent mischaracterization (Weimar Germany as 19th century). Though despite being 20th century, I do think the latter was an on point response. If only to serve as an example of what the alternative was.

    Replies: @Jack D

    There were quite a few Jews elevated to the (minor) nobility in Western Europe (mainly the Austro-Hungarian Empire) in the 19th century but AFAIK none (that were actually still Jewish) in the Czarist Empire. Peterike is just talking out of his anti-Semitic ass.

  132. @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    In some parts of the Tsarist state, the nobility were indeed from a different culture from the locals. But not *that* culture. In Estonia and Latvia, the local aristocracy was almost uniformly ethnic German. Back in the day, it was common for Baltic German young men to not even encounter actual ethnic Russians until you joined the military or bureaucracy.

    The only significant Jewish community was in Riga. They tended to be more secularized/bourgeois than their co-religionists further south-German was the default language instead of Yiddish-and despite how rife anti-Semitism was with the Baltic Germans, the numerically dominant local Balts largely left them alone, in contrast to places like Ukraine. Their resentment tended to be aimed at the Baltic German aristocracy. I suppose that's part of the reason Latvians were so common among Lenin's early thugs, along with geographical proximity to Petersburg.

    (Of course, actually living next to the USSR, then the brief but brutal Soviet occupation-which eventually aimed to destroy Estonian and Latvian national identity-changed attitudes. Understandably, the Jews of Riga preferred Soviet to Nazi rule in 1940, but this meant the Balts came to look at them as collaborators. So, German intelligence shows up in 1941, finds a local populace with bones to pick against the Russians and those who supported them, the local Jewish community has no memory of pogroms and is completely unprepared to even head for the forests... bing, bang, boom, explosion, genocide so through Berlin turns Riga into a dumping ground for German/Austrian/Czech Jews. Lot of people would show up from Berlin or wherever with the old dining utensils and bowls of the previous occupants still around, with Latvian writing on it.)

    I don't know nearly as much about Lithuania or Ukraine, obviously. But my impression is that the Polish szlachta still existed and still stood out in the sea of Ukrainian peasants and Jewish shtetls/bourgeoisie. Even if they'd lost their legal privileges and sometimes their wealth, they probably didn't lose all their heft. Declassed Polish noble youth often made for good targets for the revolutionary underground, in somewhat psychologically reversed reasons from their Jewish counterparts. Case in point: Iron Felix and Piłsudski's brother, who tried to assassinate Alexander III with Lenin's brother. Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.

    Unless you think that the Coalition of the Fringes is “ironic”. It worked the same way in Russia – disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other. In the end, the more numerous Russians outlasted the other minorities and were able to take power.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    ...disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other.
     

    I always equated FDR with his good buddy Uncle Joe, or with that uptight homo they ganged up on. (All their parties have a similar rap sheet, when you think about it.)

    However, your czarist analysis works quite well for his acolytes, too.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    You don't find the brothers of Pilsudki and Lenin being in the same terrorist cell ironic? You lack humor. Even in the Axis Powers during the next round: from Mannerheim being a former Tsarist officer to the commander of the most successful German commando operation in WWII speaking Russian... because he was a Baltic German who came from a family that had been serving the Tsars for centuries.

    Well, in what was left of the former empire, anyhow. Finland and the western parts of Congress Poland were gone for good, the Baltics wouldn't be brought back into the fold until WWII. The Russian Civil War is really best looked at as a decade of multiple, overlapping conflicts, not too dissimilar from the 1850s-1870s in China. In the midst of the civil war(s) and endemic uprisings that lasted well into the 1920s, it's a bit of a miracle for the Russians that they held onto as much as they did. Also, it's not like non-Russians were uncommon in the Bolshevik leadership and state apparatus, particularly before the purges.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  133. @James Speaks
    @notsaying

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @notsaying, @Alden, @Jack D, @Muggles

    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.

    There is something to this, though the Mongols can’t be entirely counted out. They were ultimately stopped by Northern Europeans.

    NW Europeans have far more Neanderthal DNA in them than the rest of mankind. Up to 4% or so.

    As a famed geneticist recently wrote (A Short History of Humanity, Krause & Trappe) Neanderthals didn’t “die out” but interbred with modern homo sapiens in parts of the world.

    Though the Neanderthals lost out overall, they are still with us (some of us). Not to be trifled with.

    While this seems a bit of a stretchy hypothesis, it is as they used to say “no accident” that Northern Europeans came to dominate most of the world. At least for a time, and still do.

    “I’m sorry dear, but every so often I get an ineffable yearning to visit the Neander Valley in Germany. Just don’t try to stop me…”

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Muggles

    Just some poast by some guy.
    https://akarlin.com/2019/01/could-the-mongols-have-conquered-europe/

    Replies: @Muggles

  134. University of Idaho has the Vandals as its mascot.

    Der Vaterland.

  135. @Hibernian
    @Reg Cæsar

    An Anti-Yankee coalition led by a Yankee.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    An Anti-Yankee coalition led by a Yankee.

    One reason they loved him. He betrayed his people!

    Poor as well as rich, as the map shows. Hillbillies in the Appalachians and Ozarks as well as in the Northeast.

    My county put a CCC exhibit where one of their camps stood. It says nothing about our having voted against the man in seven statewide elections.

  136. @Jack D
    @nebulafox


    Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.
     
    Unless you think that the Coalition of the Fringes is "ironic". It worked the same way in Russia - disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other. In the end, the more numerous Russians outlasted the other minorities and were able to take power.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @nebulafox

    …disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other.

    I always equated FDR with his good buddy Uncle Joe, or with that uptight homo they ganged up on. (All their parties have a similar rap sheet, when you think about it.)

    However, your czarist analysis works quite well for his acolytes, too.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Reg Cæsar

    Stalin, in his own way, was the product of the late Tsarist empire and its contradictions more than any other leading Bolshevik. Son of former serfs, didn't learn to speak Russian until 9, educated in Orthodox seminary before embracing Marxism, and would continue to prefer the company of fellow upwardly mobile but blocked demi-intellectuals for his shashlik as much as his positions...

    It's really not hard to see why Stalin was able to claim the loyalties of all the new Soviet men in the power struggle following Lenin's death. He simply was one of them in a way Trotsky and Co. never could be.

  137. “I’m sorry dear, but every so often I get an ineffable yearning to visit the Neander Valley in Germany. Just don’t try to stop me…”

    I’ve been there. Unfortunately there are not many original artifacts there. Being Germany, they built an expensive modern concrete building that spirals up. Along the way, there were various knickknacks then when you reach the end of the ziggurat there was only one small bone (or something, sorry cannot remember). The grounds are not much better. There are markers showing where the bones were dug up (not real impressive). Overall, it was worth going to see but the original diggings were not scientifically rigorous and they were not so concerned with posterity.

  138. @Rob
    @Mr. Blank

    The Amish, unlike the main white Gentile nation, do not produce enough surplus to be worth feasting on. At least, not worthwhile as long as there is blood in the corpse of the nation. After that? When Amish are the only white gentiles left standing as a people, and not as atomized individuals, I would expect to see a push to “modernize” them, trying to turn them into a new America so that the feast might continue another generation.

    All the plain people, the Amish and the Mennonites, in addition to non-science-based people like the Christian Scientists, benefit tremendously from being embedded in the (ruins of) Gentile America. We provide them with vaccines that they would be hardpressed to manufacture on their own. We provide the roads on which the horses pull their buggies. Roads which they do not produce enough surplus to produce themselves. Granted, we no longer produce enough surplus to build roads, but we used to. They like us, are surviving off the capital (real, physical stuff) and infrastructure produced by a bygone nation. If our rulers were the sort of people capable of marveling at the achievements of whites, they would marvel that Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. Imagine! A politician doing something that was not intended solely to benefit a favored minority! Built without diversity coordinators! Built without saddling future generations with unpayable debt!

    The fact that Eisenhower is not on everyone’s list of top three Presidents is indicative of how deeply the rot goes. Perhaps no one is willing to publicly praise a President whose every thought was not guided by, “who will this help Israel”? If only he had seen the temptation of deficit spending in addition to the military-industrial complex. If he had foreseen nonstop deficit spending, he would have rightfully seen it as so self-evidently stupid that any nation that thought it was a good idea would not remain first-world for very long.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland

    When Amish are the only white gentiles left standing as a people, and not as atomized individuals, I would expect to see a push to “modernize” them, trying to turn them into a new America so that the feast might continue another generation.

    Insulated through their culture they’re genes will survive. By looking inward, they might be one of the few Americans, and perhaps people in the West, that manage to get past the whole information revolution. Religion will help that. Cell phones, computers, AI, social credit, etc. will radically alter who we are but the ones who can resist and have a real ingroup will have an enormous advantage. That will be helped by the majority who will be some type of cultural and genetic hybrid blob that won’t really be anything.

  139. @International Jew
    @Paperback Writer

    Lancaster has a small tourist district with an Amish museum and some nice old buildings, but walk a few streets away in any direction and...actually, don't. I saw a lot of youths that were black but Spanish-speaking, so I'll guess Dominican.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Thanks.

    Audacious Epigone had an interesting take on Lancaster:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/in-praise-of-localism/?highlight=Lancaster

    Which doesn’t contradict you. I did get the impression that the town is a cesspool in a lovely county during that wannabe riot.

    Lancaster county is 89.7% white.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lancastercountypennsylvania/PST040219

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Paperback Writer

    “Which doesn’t contradict you. I did get the impression that the town is a cesspool in a lovely county during that wannabe riot.”

    So it’s a cesspool because you don’t like the people there, which includes the “wrong” type of whites. Got it.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  140. @Jack D
    @Pat Kittle


    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving
     
    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?

    Thanksgiving is the quintessentially American holiday - it can be celebrated by people of all races and religions.

    When Trump celebrates Thanksgiving, he celebrates it with his Jewish daughter and son in law and Jewish grandchildren, so I guess you just can't get away from Jews in the elite circles of 21st century America.

    I don't think that by celebrating Thanksgiving in Rubenstein's house, Biden was looking out for the Jews - he was looking out for himself.

    The reason that Democrats "look out" for minorities is that a whole bunch of minorities put together (the so called "Coalition of the Fringes") can constitute a majority, especially in big cities and coastal states.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving

    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?

    I shouldn’t have to explain this:

    Pilgrims > Christian > Plymouth Rock > Thanksgiving.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Pat Kittle

    I agree with Pat here.
    Sir Walter Raleigh tried to blow up the Great Pumpkin, at that time the despot of Britannia, by putting figgy pudding in the Thames and thus fatally overfeeding his Legions. Fortunately Jesus, in shape of King Noll, sank his Luftwaffe in the Pacific by means of Chinese rockets fired from the Moon by skilled First Nations' warriors.

    C'mon Septics. It's almost as though you know fuckall about History, outside of your giant prison.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle

    , @Abolish_public_education
    @Pat Kittle

    A (multi-) day of thanks, associated with the Pilgrims but found in earlier Protestantism, was likely inspired by the week long, major Jewish holiday of Succoth. In 1621, that would have fallen about ten days into Fall.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle

  141. @Dan Hayes
    Did Brooks newly minted Christian bride convert to Judaism or did she do conversion on bloviated David?

    Replies: @anon

    What do you think? His son is in the IDF. His first Christian wife converted to Judaism for him. He dumped her anyway for another Christian wife half her age. I’m sure this fool converted for him too. White Protestants are the biggest trusting fools.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  142. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    But we all know that "minoritarianism" will never empower White Gentiles no matter how small their numbers get. In fact, it will get even rougher on them.

    Replies: @Travis

    true, Minoritarianism is fundamentally anti-white and anti-christian.

    White Christians are a minority of Americans under the age of 60 today and will be a minority of all Americans in another decade. Whites will be a minority in the United States by 2040. So many of us will live to see Whites as a minority in America. With current levels of white fertility and immigration it will occur sooner than most have predicted. The US census predicts that Whites will be a minority around 2043, they previously predicted 2047 as the year Whites would be a minority. But Over the last decade 7 million more whites died than were born in the US. The death spiral has begun and it accelerated due to covid.

  143. But another reason is because “real” conservatives, aka the Alt Right, believe they have discovered the one “true” political ideal: minoritarianism. After dallying with the majoritarianism of Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson, and FDR, they have come to believe that rather than be concerned with the interests of whites in general, politicians should only tout pro-white interests; the more obscure, the better.

    See how that works, Mr. Sailer?

  144. @Paperback Writer
    @International Jew

    Thanks.

    Audacious Epigone had an interesting take on Lancaster:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/in-praise-of-localism/?highlight=Lancaster

    Which doesn't contradict you. I did get the impression that the town is a cesspool in a lovely county during that wannabe riot.

    Lancaster county is 89.7% white.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lancastercountypennsylvania/PST040219

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Which doesn’t contradict you. I did get the impression that the town is a cesspool in a lovely county during that wannabe riot.”

    So it’s a cesspool because you don’t like the people there, which includes the “wrong” type of whites. Got it.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Corvinus

    Not really.

  145. @Jack D
    @nebulafox


    Irony practically knew no limits in that part of the world during the early 20th Century.
     
    Unless you think that the Coalition of the Fringes is "ironic". It worked the same way in Russia - disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other. In the end, the more numerous Russians outlasted the other minorities and were able to take power.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @nebulafox

    You don’t find the brothers of Pilsudki and Lenin being in the same terrorist cell ironic? You lack humor. Even in the Axis Powers during the next round: from Mannerheim being a former Tsarist officer to the commander of the most successful German commando operation in WWII speaking Russian… because he was a Baltic German who came from a family that had been serving the Tsars for centuries.

    Well, in what was left of the former empire, anyhow. Finland and the western parts of Congress Poland were gone for good, the Baltics wouldn’t be brought back into the fold until WWII. The Russian Civil War is really best looked at as a decade of multiple, overlapping conflicts, not too dissimilar from the 1850s-1870s in China. In the midst of the civil war(s) and endemic uprisings that lasted well into the 1920s, it’s a bit of a miracle for the Russians that they held onto as much as they did. Also, it’s not like non-Russians were uncommon in the Bolshevik leadership and state apparatus, particularly before the purges.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox

    When it comes to Russia, I don't understand what wasn't the fringes. I'm always amazed at how multi-ethnic old Russia was. What's an ethnic Russian anyway? And weren't most of them freed serfs?

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

  146. @nebulafox
    The long shadow of Reagan has reached its end, just as the long shadow of FDR did once.

    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic. Who should take them seriously?

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Bill Jones

    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic.

    They were the ones who got the lifeboats,

  147. @Muggles
    @James Speaks


    A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.
     
    There is something to this, though the Mongols can't be entirely counted out. They were ultimately stopped by Northern Europeans.

    NW Europeans have far more Neanderthal DNA in them than the rest of mankind. Up to 4% or so.

    As a famed geneticist recently wrote (A Short History of Humanity, Krause & Trappe) Neanderthals didn't "die out" but interbred with modern homo sapiens in parts of the world.

    Though the Neanderthals lost out overall, they are still with us (some of us). Not to be trifled with.

    While this seems a bit of a stretchy hypothesis, it is as they used to say "no accident" that Northern Europeans came to dominate most of the world. At least for a time, and still do.

    "I'm sorry dear, but every so often I get an ineffable yearning to visit the Neander Valley in Germany. Just don't try to stop me..."

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @Expletive Deleted

    I am just about to finish reading The Horde, How the Mongols Changed the World, by Marie Favereau.The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021.

    Though I have read other books about the Mongols and their history, this one is very good and mainly focuses on the Golden Horde, the one (or two actually) which was founded by one of Genghis's sons to conquer the West.

    This goes into great detail about how the Golden Horde (a/k/a "Tartars" as commonly called in Russia) ended up controlling all of central Asia and eastern Europe. Goes into good detail about how the Russian princes were vassals of the various successive Khans and served as tax collectors in return for Mongol military "protection."

    The history of Russia starts to make more sense after reading this book.

    While there were various environmental factors limiting Mongol expansion (command and control being the most important, as in the Roman Empire) it is clear that until the Black Death and the various Mongol succession wars (a bane of family run enterprises) the Mongols really never lost in Europe. But they were steppe peoples and as has been said, didn't do well in forests and mountains.

    Ultimately the Poles, Germans, Lithuanians and Russians beat them back though it helps to understand that Russia was until about 500 years ago a Mongol ruled place, indirectly.

    Whenever I see/hear/read of some Zoomer snowflake bitching about some minor thing, I say to myself, "just imagine looking up from your plow and seeing the looming dust of an oncoming Mongol horde. You think you have problems?"

    Replies: @nebulafox

  148. @Corvinus
    @Paperback Writer

    “Which doesn’t contradict you. I did get the impression that the town is a cesspool in a lovely county during that wannabe riot.”

    So it’s a cesspool because you don’t like the people there, which includes the “wrong” type of whites. Got it.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Not really.

  149. @Jack D
    @International Jew


    Name me some 19th century Jewish aristocrats.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Jewish_nobility


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts. In truth, in Poland and Ukraine, where most Jews lived, the aristocracy was overwhelmingly, almost exclusively Christian. Jews might serve as advisors, money lenders, managers, tax collectors, etc. for the Christian aristocrats (allowing the aristocrats to put some distance between themselves and the peasantry - instead the animosity fell on the Jews) but they were not the aristocrats themselves. At first, this was a fairly lucrative role but ultimately many of the Jews of E. Europe ended up very poor because they grew to 10% of the population and completely outgrew their ecological niche.

    Replies: @res, @Catdompanj, @nebulafox, @International Jew, @Paperback Writer

    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts.

    This Does it matter that they were converts? The point is there quite a few Jews assimilated into European nobility, so there was no ethnic/racial bar to that happening. Quite a bit different from Nazism, or the one drop rule here.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    This was really only because there weren't that many. There wasn't supposed to be an ethnic/racial bar in Catholic Spain or in the USSR under Communism. And at first they were accepted and were very successful. A little TOO successful. So later the backlash came and it turned out that there was an ethnic/racial bar after all.

    , @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    Until Nazism and its specific brand of racism-based in supposed Mendelian genetics than religion, aka, not something one could change-came along, Jews in the Central European world were assimilating. Many nominally converted, those that didn't had little use for caftan wearing immigrants out of the boondocks in Berlin or Vienna. You'll note that this didn't happen in Russia, where Jews were at the bottom of a de facto caste system and were attacked or humiliated by the authorities at every juncture, and as a result were not just wholly unassimilated, but prominent in revolutionary movements. Funny how human nature works.

    Like so much else he did (Bolshevism in Berlin rather than internally imploding under the weight of its own grotesque absurdities), Hitler managed to not only retard that, but achieve the opposite result from what would have happened had things been left well enough alone.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  150. @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    You don't find the brothers of Pilsudki and Lenin being in the same terrorist cell ironic? You lack humor. Even in the Axis Powers during the next round: from Mannerheim being a former Tsarist officer to the commander of the most successful German commando operation in WWII speaking Russian... because he was a Baltic German who came from a family that had been serving the Tsars for centuries.

    Well, in what was left of the former empire, anyhow. Finland and the western parts of Congress Poland were gone for good, the Baltics wouldn't be brought back into the fold until WWII. The Russian Civil War is really best looked at as a decade of multiple, overlapping conflicts, not too dissimilar from the 1850s-1870s in China. In the midst of the civil war(s) and endemic uprisings that lasted well into the 1920s, it's a bit of a miracle for the Russians that they held onto as much as they did. Also, it's not like non-Russians were uncommon in the Bolshevik leadership and state apparatus, particularly before the purges.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    When it comes to Russia, I don’t understand what wasn’t the fringes. I’m always amazed at how multi-ethnic old Russia was. What’s an ethnic Russian anyway? And weren’t most of them freed serfs?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer


    What’s an ethnic Russian anyway?
     
    Russia was an Empire with many nationalities but ethnic Russians are real and distinct.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Paperback Writer

    , @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    Many nationalities were serfs, and even after liberation, their descendants were burdened. The Balts didn't launch their jacquerie in 1905 for no reason.

    "Russianness" was not necessarily the same thing as being ethnically Russian, especially before the advent of Russification policies in the 1880s. I remember one 17th Century guy talking about how he had an ethnic German father and a Tatar "Mongol" mother, so naturally, he was a Russian.

  151. @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts.

     

    This Does it matter that they were converts? The point is there quite a few Jews assimilated into European nobility, so there was no ethnic/racial bar to that happening. Quite a bit different from Nazism, or the one drop rule here.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    This was really only because there weren’t that many. There wasn’t supposed to be an ethnic/racial bar in Catholic Spain or in the USSR under Communism. And at first they were accepted and were very successful. A little TOO successful. So later the backlash came and it turned out that there was an ethnic/racial bar after all.

  152. @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox

    When it comes to Russia, I don't understand what wasn't the fringes. I'm always amazed at how multi-ethnic old Russia was. What's an ethnic Russian anyway? And weren't most of them freed serfs?

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    What’s an ethnic Russian anyway?

    Russia was an Empire with many nationalities but ethnic Russians are real and distinct.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Jack D


    Russia was an Empire with many nationalities
     
    Was?
    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D

    Yes, but the more I read about them the less "Russian" most of them were. Of course I'm only reading about the elites, and the artists.

    As nebulafox wrote: " I remember one 17th Century guy talking about how he had an ethnic German father and a Tatar “Mongol” mother, so naturally, he was a Russian."

    I've read stuff like this time and again. People you think are "Russian" are part Kalmyk, German, Finnish, Georgian, what have you. Seems to me the only "real" Russians were the peasantry.

  153. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @notsaying

    The victors always paint themselves as heroic and virtuous. Whites aren't special in that regard.

    You have accepted not only the morality of your masters but their version of reality. Your a mental slave. It's hard to watch.

    Replies: @notsaying

    Who do you see as my masters?

    I didn’t think I had any.

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    @notsaying

    Your Masters?

    Those are the ones whom you are not permitted to criticize.

    Think on that. When your servility is well and truly established, you will find it difficult to perceive. Who do you reflexively flinch from critiquing or questioning? How did things come to such a pass? A hint: pervasive, lifelong indoctrination, perhaps?

  154. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer


    What’s an ethnic Russian anyway?
     
    Russia was an Empire with many nationalities but ethnic Russians are real and distinct.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Paperback Writer

    Russia was an Empire with many nationalities

    Was?

  155. @Abolish_public_education
    @Rosie

    Government always fails. It's always crappy. Smallists don't claim that SG is uncrappy, only that it sucketh the least.

    1813 & 1913 are noteworthy, but 1776 beats them. G0d Save the Queen.

    Replies: @notsaying

    The government is one of the tools — not the only one, but a major one — that our parents and their generation plus all our ancestors used to protect us and create a better way of life for all Americans.

    I was and still am a beneficiary of my fellow Americans past and present through the government. I helped myself and my fellow Americans through the government.

    I never thought about it in that way before but this is all true. Your saying the government always fails and sucks made me think because it struck me as so untrue and such an exaggeration.

    There is always disagreement about the government and frustration and disappointment, too. That is how it should be in a democracy. But government will inevitably be a major force in any First World country, especially one as successful and large as ours is. If our government always failed we would not even be a First World country.

    • Disagree: Abolish_public_education
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    @notsaying


    If our government always failed we would not even be a First World country.
     
    It is failing now on multiple levels. And we are not really a First World country anymore.
    , @Rosie
    @notsaying


    Your saying the government always fails and sucks made me think because it struck me as so untrue and such an exaggeration.
     
    It seems to me that big government countries generally have the highest HDI scores (human development index), including life expectancy, literacy, etc. I would love to see someone on our side do an analysis of this question. Of course, deficit hawks are, IMO, an important constraining faction in modern social democracies.
  156. @Mr. Blank
    Brooks' mention of "separatism" brought up a question for me: Are there any Black Amish? And if there aren't — why have they not been targeted for destruction by the usual suspects?

    I'm completely serious. As best I can tell, the Amish basically operate as separate white ethno-religious society. Doesn't that make them basically Hitler? I know the underlying reason nobody's gone after them, of course: Nobody wants their stuff. But that idea doesn't necessarily filter down the chain of command, so to speak.

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @The Last Real Calvinist, @International Jew, @AndrewR, @Jack D, @Paperback Writer, @Mike Tre, @Rob, @Rob McX

    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?

    Interesting question. My guess would be that the Amish communities are so insular that it’s hard to undermine them. They don’t seem to watch TV or go to public school – the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    “ They don’t seem to watch TV or go to public school – the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.“

    Have you ever thought perhaps most whites view it differently than you, and that your labeling of it in that manner is other than accurate?

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    , @Wilkey
    @Rob McX


    Are there any Black Amish?
     
    Mormons occupy a similar place in the American mind as the Amish, even though they really aren’t that similar. The Mormons live in the modern world, and breed (or used to breed) at a very high rate, like the Amish. And they are very much being undermined and destroyed by the elite. The Mormons are fast on their way to being about as Woke as most mainline Protestant denominations.

    Speaking of which, Jews aren’t exactly diverse either - at least not in the Woke sense of the word. How many black Jews have you ever met? The purported obligation for Christians to evangelize is what has undermined many Christian denominations and Christian countries.

  157. @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox

    When it comes to Russia, I don't understand what wasn't the fringes. I'm always amazed at how multi-ethnic old Russia was. What's an ethnic Russian anyway? And weren't most of them freed serfs?

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    Many nationalities were serfs, and even after liberation, their descendants were burdened. The Balts didn’t launch their jacquerie in 1905 for no reason.

    “Russianness” was not necessarily the same thing as being ethnically Russian, especially before the advent of Russification policies in the 1880s. I remember one 17th Century guy talking about how he had an ethnic German father and a Tatar “Mongol” mother, so naturally, he was a Russian.

  158. @Jack D
    @Pat Kittle


    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving
     
    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?

    Thanksgiving is the quintessentially American holiday - it can be celebrated by people of all races and religions.

    When Trump celebrates Thanksgiving, he celebrates it with his Jewish daughter and son in law and Jewish grandchildren, so I guess you just can't get away from Jews in the elite circles of 21st century America.

    I don't think that by celebrating Thanksgiving in Rubenstein's house, Biden was looking out for the Jews - he was looking out for himself.

    The reason that Democrats "look out" for minorities is that a whole bunch of minorities put together (the so called "Coalition of the Fringes") can constitute a majority, especially in big cities and coastal states.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle, @Citizen of a Silly Country

    You terrify me, Jack. You could justify anything in your mind if you thought thought that it would move your people forward one inch.

    But I also need to thank you. Because of you, I understand the game being played and what it will take to win.

    My side will probably lose, and you better hope we do.

  159. @Rob McX
    @Mr. Blank


    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    Interesting question. My guess would be that the Amish communities are so insular that it's hard to undermine them. They don't seem to watch TV or go to public school - the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Wilkey

    “ They don’t seem to watch TV or go to public school – the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.“

    Have you ever thought perhaps most whites view it differently than you, and that your labeling of it in that manner is other than accurate?

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @Corvinus

    Those who do, are wrong and evil. Quite simple.

    Like you, Demon-worshipper ; )

  160. @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    ...disparate groups were united in their hatred of the Czarist system but once that was gone they went after each other.
     

    I always equated FDR with his good buddy Uncle Joe, or with that uptight homo they ganged up on. (All their parties have a similar rap sheet, when you think about it.)

    However, your czarist analysis works quite well for his acolytes, too.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Stalin, in his own way, was the product of the late Tsarist empire and its contradictions more than any other leading Bolshevik. Son of former serfs, didn’t learn to speak Russian until 9, educated in Orthodox seminary before embracing Marxism, and would continue to prefer the company of fellow upwardly mobile but blocked demi-intellectuals for his shashlik as much as his positions…

    It’s really not hard to see why Stalin was able to claim the loyalties of all the new Soviet men in the power struggle following Lenin’s death. He simply was one of them in a way Trotsky and Co. never could be.

  161. @Jack D
    @James Speaks

    I keep hearing this, but what will rouse them? The Federal government swept away Jim Crow (a fundamentally majoritarian ideology, for better or for worse) with minimal resistance. And this was not boiling the frog the way non-white immigration has crept up on white America - this was done virtually overnight and with the stroke of a Federal pen. If white America was not roused (a handful of clowns in white robes, half of whom were informing on the other half doesn't count) by this then they are never going to be roused. Add another half century of deindustrialization, drug addlement, feminism, video games, Leftist indoctrination of the youth, etc. and I don't think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever coming.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @Corvinus

    “and I don’t think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever”

    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    I would say most whites people are quite awake
     
    Which is why they put John T Chisholm in office, and have no problem with his releasing Darrell Brooks. Corvine wakefulness.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote:


    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?
     
    Uh, Corvy, did you look at the election results on November 2 or the current opinion polls?

    Maybe working-class people (not just Whites) have just begun taking the country back from you and your fellow grifters.

    When you start complaining that you cannot find employment, we will know that progress is being made.

    #RittenhouseForPrez2040

    Replies: @nebulafox

  162. @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    This is really a wise guy answer. Many of the people on this list were converts.

     

    This Does it matter that they were converts? The point is there quite a few Jews assimilated into European nobility, so there was no ethnic/racial bar to that happening. Quite a bit different from Nazism, or the one drop rule here.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    Until Nazism and its specific brand of racism-based in supposed Mendelian genetics than religion, aka, not something one could change-came along, Jews in the Central European world were assimilating. Many nominally converted, those that didn’t had little use for caftan wearing immigrants out of the boondocks in Berlin or Vienna. You’ll note that this didn’t happen in Russia, where Jews were at the bottom of a de facto caste system and were attacked or humiliated by the authorities at every juncture, and as a result were not just wholly unassimilated, but prominent in revolutionary movements. Funny how human nature works.

    Like so much else he did (Bolshevism in Berlin rather than internally imploding under the weight of its own grotesque absurdities), Hitler managed to not only retard that, but achieve the opposite result from what would have happened had things been left well enough alone.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox


    Hitler managed to not only retard that, but achieve the opposite result from what would have happened had things been left well enough alone.
     
    50/50 - most Jews in the West (outside Israel, for obvious reasons) are assimilating quite rapidly - to the chagrin of the rabbis. But you can't stop reality. When an attractive ambient culture exists, most educated people will go for it.

    It's interesting to wonder what might have happened in Russia if they'd moved towards liberal democracy - oh well!

    The only way to resist an attractive meta-culture is to bow out, as the Orthodox and the Amish have.

    This is something none of the anti-Semites here understand, and I don't care to argue with them. Let them believe what they want.
  163. @Pat Kittle
    @Jack D



    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving
     
    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?
     
    I shouldn't have to explain this:

    Pilgrims > Christian > Plymouth Rock > Thanksgiving.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @Abolish_public_education

    I agree with Pat here.
    Sir Walter Raleigh tried to blow up the Great Pumpkin, at that time the despot of Britannia, by putting figgy pudding in the Thames and thus fatally overfeeding his Legions. Fortunately Jesus, in shape of King Noll, sank his Luftwaffe in the Pacific by means of Chinese rockets fired from the Moon by skilled First Nations’ warriors.

    C’mon Septics. It’s almost as though you know fuckall about History, outside of your giant prison.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    @Expletive Deleted


    I agree with Pat here.
    Sir Walter Raleigh tried to blow up the Great Pumpkin, at that time the despot of Britannia, by putting figgy pudding in the Thames and thus fatally overfeeding his Legions. Fortunately Jesus, in shape of King Noll, sank his Luftwaffe in the Pacific by means of Chinese rockets fired from the Moon by skilled First Nations’ warriors.
     
    Hasbara humor -- your fellow trolls will be amused.

    Asserting the Official Version of the "Holocaust" is risk-free, often-rewarded, easily done, and we're all familiar with the "evidence."

    QUESTIONING the Official Version of the "Holocaust" is another matter entirely. Historians go to prison for such heresy.

    And you don't object.

    Hypocrite is too mild a term for you.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

  164. @Pat Kittle
    @PhysicistDave


    the Holocaust was horrifying.
     
    What's really horrifying about "Holocau$t" mythology is people like you -- who don't miss an opportunity to promote it -- while ignoring the vicious persecution of dissidents.

    As for Genghis Khan, his statue dwarfs Robert E. Lee's -- so where's Antifa?

    -- (https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.Vf5BzA1cSnvgZgFdTq7OMgHaE8%26pid%3DApi&f=1)

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Pat Kittle wrote to me:

    What’s really horrifying about “Holocau\$t” mythology is people like you — who don’t miss an opportunity to promote it — while ignoring the vicious persecution of dissidents.

    Pat, I actually have looked into the Holocaust revisionists in some detail: I find them to be very sloppy and unconvincing.

    Now, of course, we will never know exactly how many Jews the Nazis killed: as I recall, Raul Hilberg — certainly no denialist! — thought it was closer to five million than to six million.

    And what did Hitler know and when did he know it? And how many Jews died from intentional extermination vs. malevolent neglect? And what about all the non-Jewish victims of the Third Reich?

    All legit questions.

    But after having looked into it some detail, I think the Nazis did kill millions of Jews and, of course, millions of non-Jews also.

    I have no axe to grind here, but evidence does matter.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    I had a relative who lived near one of the death camps, and interacted with soldiers, civilians, etc from the east that knew what was going on. Let's just say I find Holocaust denial arguments... unconvincing, as a result. It's not scientific, but hey, I'm human, we all have our short-circuits.

    I believe that it is telling that few, if anyone, from the actual WWII generation in Germany denies the Holocaust happened. They might not have had views on WWII that would win the approval of some spoiled journalist brat from the New York Times, who had never dealt with anything more difficult than the office running out of coffee, but they weren't delusional.

    Replies: @Curle, @Jack D

  165. @notsaying
    @Abolish_public_education

    The government is one of the tools -- not the only one, but a major one -- that our parents and their generation plus all our ancestors used to protect us and create a better way of life for all Americans.

    I was and still am a beneficiary of my fellow Americans past and present through the government. I helped myself and my fellow Americans through the government.

    I never thought about it in that way before but this is all true. Your saying the government always fails and sucks made me think because it struck me as so untrue and such an exaggeration.

    There is always disagreement about the government and frustration and disappointment, too. That is how it should be in a democracy. But government will inevitably be a major force in any First World country, especially one as successful and large as ours is. If our government always failed we would not even be a First World country.

    Replies: @lavoisier, @Rosie

    If our government always failed we would not even be a First World country.

    It is failing now on multiple levels. And we are not really a First World country anymore.

  166. @Pat Kittle
    @Jack D



    (Christian holiday of) Thanksgiving
     
    Really? Where in the New Testament is Thanksgiving mentioned? Did Jesus celebrate Thanksgiving? Did he have turkey and cranberry sauce, followed by pumpkin pie?
     
    I shouldn't have to explain this:

    Pilgrims > Christian > Plymouth Rock > Thanksgiving.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @Abolish_public_education

    A (multi-) day of thanks, associated with the Pilgrims but found in earlier Protestantism, was likely inspired by the week long, major Jewish holiday of Succoth. In 1621, that would have fallen about ten days into Fall.

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle
    @Abolish_public_education


    A (multi-) day of thanks, associated with the Pilgrims but found in earlier Protestantism, was likely inspired by the week long, major Jewish holiday of Succoth. In 1621, that would have fallen about ten days into Fall.
     
    Yes, Christianity had roots in other mythologies.

    That does not mean Christian holidays are not Christian holidays.
  167. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer


    What’s an ethnic Russian anyway?
     
    Russia was an Empire with many nationalities but ethnic Russians are real and distinct.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @Paperback Writer

    Yes, but the more I read about them the less “Russian” most of them were. Of course I’m only reading about the elites, and the artists.

    As nebulafox wrote: ” I remember one 17th Century guy talking about how he had an ethnic German father and a Tatar “Mongol” mother, so naturally, he was a Russian.”

    I’ve read stuff like this time and again. People you think are “Russian” are part Kalmyk, German, Finnish, Georgian, what have you. Seems to me the only “real” Russians were the peasantry.

  168. @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    Until Nazism and its specific brand of racism-based in supposed Mendelian genetics than religion, aka, not something one could change-came along, Jews in the Central European world were assimilating. Many nominally converted, those that didn't had little use for caftan wearing immigrants out of the boondocks in Berlin or Vienna. You'll note that this didn't happen in Russia, where Jews were at the bottom of a de facto caste system and were attacked or humiliated by the authorities at every juncture, and as a result were not just wholly unassimilated, but prominent in revolutionary movements. Funny how human nature works.

    Like so much else he did (Bolshevism in Berlin rather than internally imploding under the weight of its own grotesque absurdities), Hitler managed to not only retard that, but achieve the opposite result from what would have happened had things been left well enough alone.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Hitler managed to not only retard that, but achieve the opposite result from what would have happened had things been left well enough alone.

    50/50 – most Jews in the West (outside Israel, for obvious reasons) are assimilating quite rapidly – to the chagrin of the rabbis. But you can’t stop reality. When an attractive ambient culture exists, most educated people will go for it.

    It’s interesting to wonder what might have happened in Russia if they’d moved towards liberal democracy – oh well!

    The only way to resist an attractive meta-culture is to bow out, as the Orthodox and the Amish have.

    This is something none of the anti-Semites here understand, and I don’t care to argue with them. Let them believe what they want.

  169. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    The Muslims in India were basically the British before the British, anyhow, which partly explains the sectarian dynamic in South Asia. (Razib Khan does a better job of explaining this than me, but basically, to your average Hindu nationalists, it's galling to see a third of your distinctive branch of humanity praying in the style of a distant West Asian trader turned warlord.) The Mughals became highly Indianized with time, to be sure, but always preserved a sense of separate identity that showed. So, yeah, "alien" rule would have been there anyway.

    When the British took over India, many an officer was surprised to discover that many a local North "Indian" bureaucrat or magistrate was actually an imported Persian. For one, Khomeini's forefathers hailed from Lucknow.

    Re, the Nazis, just because they were revolutionaries and rejected laissez faire capitalism didn't make them leftists. Not that I disagree with your point. Hell, even within WWII, how many people know about, say, the bloodbaths in Yugoslavia that presaged the horrors that would come 50 years later, or the Polish-Ukrainian sectarian violence that overlapped on the Eastern Front?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    nebulafox wrote to me:

    Re, the Nazis, just because they were revolutionaries and rejected laissez faire capitalism didn’t make them leftists.

    Well…

    a) The Nazis wanted much bigger, more powerful government, in terms of the economy and society more broadly.

    b) The Nazis thought they were scientifically progressive, the true wave of the future.

    c) The Nazis thought that their grand goals trumped any mundane bourgeois concerns with morality at a personal level.

    d) The Nazis showed no inclination to restore the Old Order (the Kaiser, the Roman Church, etc.).

    e) The Nazis said they were Socialists.

    In what sense were they not Leftists?

    Because other Leftists hated them? People often exhibit their greatest hatred for those quite similar to them (heretics are worse than infidels).

    I must admit that I have always been more than a bit bemused by the metamorphosis of “Left vs. Right” in the mid-twentieth century. When Robespierre was the Left and Bourbon restorationists were the Right, yeah, I get it.

    But when a high-ranking figure in the Italian Socialist Party, editor of the Party newspaper Avanti!, became leader of the Fascists, without apparently having significantly changed his opinions, why should we say that he ceased being a Leftist and became a Rightist?

    Sorry, but this is just propaganda on the part of the Leftists who won WW II vs. the Leftists who lost.

    It is plausible to say that Metternich was a Rightist. But Hitler and Mussolini logically belong where they claimed to belong — with the Socialists.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Germany in the 1920s did not have the same political calculus as the contemporary United States, with the unnatural fetishization of CEOs and "the market" within the GOP. For example:

    >a) The Nazis wanted much bigger, more powerful government, in terms of the economy and society more broadly.

    This had little bearing on one's "left/right" position in German political culture at the time. Otto von Bismarck had more statist views on the government and economy than most people to his left, a few socialist malcontents aside. "Trench socialism" was a very popular concept with the far-right in post-WWI Germany, which largely consisted of alienated veterans. The Nazis saw no inconsistency between being right-wing and being socialists, because the two were not thought of as being at odds in far-right German political culture: which contrasted with center-right political culture, Hitler's allies on the Harzburg Front, etc.

    For b, c, and d) as I said, the Nazis were revolutionaries who had zero desire to recreate the old order. Reactionaries who were foolish enough to think they could "use" Hitler ended up used by Hitler (who probably got an understandable sadistic pleasure out of shocking and humiliating people who looked at him as akin to their waiter) instead: and discarded, sometimes killed or imprisoned when they were no longer of use to him. But there were born out of the ultra-nationalist underground with ideas that went back in far-right German (and Russian, Aufbau Verinigung, etc) politics: for example, Ludendorff's own strategic vision of an eastern imperium in 1918. Does anybody think Ludendorff was a leftist?

    What Right and Left are depend entirely on the context of the political culture of a given country and a given time. Revolutionary vs. reactionary is a far more apt comparison that lasts across the ages.

  170. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    “and I don’t think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever”

    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave

    I would say most whites people are quite awake

    Which is why they put John T Chisholm in office, and have no problem with his releasing Darrell Brooks. Corvine wakefulness.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    “Which is why they put John T Chisholm in office…”

    A red herring.

    “and have no problem with his releasing Darrell Brooks.”

    To the contrary, whites are more than angry and frustrated with his release.

    Do you ever tire of losing arguments? You’re approaching Washington General status.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  171. @International Jew
    @Jack D

    The British list of Jewish peers is impressively long but almost all of them are from the 20th century. To my slight surprise I even found a cousin of my mom's (a scientist, never had to pull a sword out of a rock or lead a crusade or anything like that). I thought he was just a knight but I guess they upgraded him at some point. Anyway, the point is that it was very nice of the queen but nothing about him corresponds to Peterike's fever dream of Jews ruling the peasants far and wide.

    Replies: @David

    I’ve read that Montaigne’s mom was a Sephardic jew. Wouldn’t any jew that got aristocratic status pre 20th cent. need to play the jew-thing down low, as there was no separation of church and state?

    I’m extremely fond of Montaigne, btw.

  172. @Rosie
    @Abolish_public_education


    Minoritarianism, majoritarianism, egalitarianism, and all the other political -isms ruining this country, are caused by too much government. Make the gov as small as possible (e.g. a_p_e). Then its X-arianism — always sucky — won’t matter;
     
    Had you not noticed that this was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to Abolish_public_education:

    Had you not noticed that this [“Make the gov as small as possible”] was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?

    No.

    It was tried and it had lots of success. But it was betrayed.

    Let’s have a little synopsis of American political history:

    Most of the time from 1801 to 1860, the United States was governed by a limited-government, populist party: the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and then the Jacksonian Democrats.

    But in 1860, the GOP used the split among the Democrats over the issue of slavery in the territories to seize control of the national government at the behest of Northern industrial oligarchs.

    After the resulting War Between the States, the Democrats made a significant comeback, but in 1896 the Bryanite “Populists” pulled off a hostile take-over of the Clevelandite Democratic Party, with the goal of using oligarchic means for (supposedly) populist ends.

    The Bryanite hiatus made it possible for “progressives,” a coalition between Northeastern “reformers” and intellectuals and Northern oligarchs, to take control of the Democratic Party as they had already taken control of the Republican Party, resulting in the income tax, the Federal Reserve system, and, most dramatically, US involvement in the First World War.

    And so, since the early twentieth century, we have been governed by a uni-party dominated by a ruling elite of “progressives” and oligarchs imposing upon the people the burden of the welfare/warfare/national-security state.

    But no ruling elite lasts forever.

    They get soft and careless and stupid.

    Ruling elites can be and always are, eventually, overthrown.

    And this one will be too. The only question is how we can help hasten the day of their collapse, hopefully with minimal harm to the productive members of society (i.e., without a nuclear war with China!).

    (Anyone wish to dispute that my little (~250 word) summary of American political history is, more or less, correct?)

    • Agree: JerseyJeffersonian
    • Thanks: Bumpkin
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @PhysicistDave

    Nope. I'm liking your comments more and more.

    Elsewhere,

    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    The Anglo elite (among others) seems to have a distinctly high and harmful level of estrangement from its bourgeois and prole classes. A family member researching English folk music told me the English upper class seems to go to great lengths to affect Continental styles over their own folk culture. Cf. Levantine culture where everybody, rich or poor, dances the same dabkes.

    It's a weird form of iconoclasm. In another context, the Protestant reforms apparently resulted in a lot of old iconography, statuary, and even crosses--all made, venerated, and uniquely stylized by Englishmen--being destroyed.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    You are clearly very knowledgeable about political history, much more so than I. My intent was not so much to dispute the merits of small government, but rather to object to the idea that we can ignore race in favor of ideology.

    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Alden

  173. @notsaying
    @Moses

    What you say is true.

    However, we do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country, @PhysicistDave

    notsaying wrote:

    However, we [Americans] do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.

    Where on earth did you grow up???

    I grew up in a conservative, lily-white, church-going suburb in a border state in the Midwest in the mid-twentieth century.

    No one in my youth ever tried to hide the fact that we had not treated Amerindians very well or that slavery was wrong.

    No, the USA has certainly not been perfect. No sensible person (not Jefferson, for example) ever said it was.

    But why should the imperfections of our ancestors mean that we now have to engage in self-mutilation or self-castration?

    • Agree: Muggles
    • Replies: @Curle
    @PhysicistDave

    “or that slavery was wrong.”

    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution. Newcomers, constrained by the labor price realities set by their predecessors or the market generally, should have abstained from participating in the market. The southern states should have forced their plantation economy and infrastructure to revert back to unproductive, but moral, forest. They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.

    Having said all that, the suboptimal moral decisions of 160+ years ago tell us little about the present except to be used as an self-serving cudgel for bizarre causation theories used to hand-wave away concerns over present day behavioral trends and to justify group based spoils.

    Replies: @Jack D, @PhysicistDave

    , @notsaying
    @PhysicistDave

    I am not interested in self-castration or self-mutilation at all. What originally got me to bring up the mixed record of American whites and other Northern Europeans was this comment above:

    "A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity."

    I am admitting that when push comes to shove there is no telling what we might do. I also noted we do not like to be roused and prefer stability. What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  174. @HammerJack
    @nebulafox


    Brooks and his ilk are relics, desperately trying to assure they have 1st class seats on the Titanic.
     
    Brooks and his ilk most definitely have first-class accommodations and every single thing they say and do is designed to ensure that it remains that way.

    That the ship itself is foundering is fairly incontrovertible at this point, but the focus of the Tribe has always been profit at others' expense, even when it puts their own survival at risk.

    Such a mindset may not seem reasonable to the rest of us, but it's baked into their blood and their history is replete with examples. Blind, unreasoning tribal hatred—mother's milk to them. So long as they're on top, they don't really mind if everything is wrecked. Look around us.

    Replies: @Verymuchalive

    That the ship itself is foundering is fairly incontrovertible at this point, but the focus of the Tribe has always been profit at others’ expense, even when it puts their own survival at risk.

    Very true.
    Logically, the Ziocons should want to ensure the United States, the protector and patron of Israel, remains strong, both economically, socially and militarily. In fact, they act totally in the other direction.

    The Ziocons have strongly supported globalisation and offshoring, which have reduced America to an industrial husk, as well as shrinking the tax base. At the same time, their promotion of open borders has resulted in the importation of tens of millions of non-whites, nearly all of whom are indifferent or actively hostile to Jews generally and Israel in particular. As a corollary, the percentage of largely philosemitic White Americans has dropped rapidly.

    They have had control over US Defense and Foreign policy for nearly 30 years. In that time, interminable wars have been fought to make the Middle East safe for Israel. They’ve failed, and added trillions to an already bloated Government Debt. The US military has been degraded, both physically and morally, and morale is low. Worse will follow as President Frank N Furter’s Diversity Programme is enforced. The Ziocons will continue to cheer – just ask “Rachel” Levine.

    When economic, then political and social, collapse hits America later this decade, Israel will have a stark choice. The loss of its protector – and its subsidies – means either a humiliating settlement with its Arab neighbours or collapse and elimination. Even the former is unlikely to save it. Without the subsidies, Israel would be an unpleasant place to live. Lebanon with rabbis ! Most would leave or try to do so.

  175. On this subject metaphors flow like ol’ man river hopped up on spice.

  176. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Jack D

    This is where the Sperg Right gets it wrong. You guys think this the other side is primarily motivated by material greed or power or some other rational motive.

    They're not. Sure, they like those things, and they're a nice side effect, but their primarily motivation is hate.

    They hate white people and want them dead. It really is that simple.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    “They hate white people”

    The hate is driven by envy, which I think is important to distinguish.

  177. @PhysicistDave
    @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote to me:


    Re, the Nazis, just because they were revolutionaries and rejected laissez faire capitalism didn’t make them leftists.
     
    Well...

    a) The Nazis wanted much bigger, more powerful government, in terms of the economy and society more broadly.

    b) The Nazis thought they were scientifically progressive, the true wave of the future.

    c) The Nazis thought that their grand goals trumped any mundane bourgeois concerns with morality at a personal level.

    d) The Nazis showed no inclination to restore the Old Order (the Kaiser, the Roman Church, etc.).

    e) The Nazis said they were Socialists.

    In what sense were they not Leftists?

    Because other Leftists hated them? People often exhibit their greatest hatred for those quite similar to them (heretics are worse than infidels).

    I must admit that I have always been more than a bit bemused by the metamorphosis of "Left vs. Right" in the mid-twentieth century. When Robespierre was the Left and Bourbon restorationists were the Right, yeah, I get it.

    But when a high-ranking figure in the Italian Socialist Party, editor of the Party newspaper Avanti!, became leader of the Fascists, without apparently having significantly changed his opinions, why should we say that he ceased being a Leftist and became a Rightist?

    Sorry, but this is just propaganda on the part of the Leftists who won WW II vs. the Leftists who lost.

    It is plausible to say that Metternich was a Rightist. But Hitler and Mussolini logically belong where they claimed to belong -- with the Socialists.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Germany in the 1920s did not have the same political calculus as the contemporary United States, with the unnatural fetishization of CEOs and “the market” within the GOP. For example:

    >a) The Nazis wanted much bigger, more powerful government, in terms of the economy and society more broadly.

    This had little bearing on one’s “left/right” position in German political culture at the time. Otto von Bismarck had more statist views on the government and economy than most people to his left, a few socialist malcontents aside. “Trench socialism” was a very popular concept with the far-right in post-WWI Germany, which largely consisted of alienated veterans. The Nazis saw no inconsistency between being right-wing and being socialists, because the two were not thought of as being at odds in far-right German political culture: which contrasted with center-right political culture, Hitler’s allies on the Harzburg Front, etc.

    For b, c, and d) as I said, the Nazis were revolutionaries who had zero desire to recreate the old order. Reactionaries who were foolish enough to think they could “use” Hitler ended up used by Hitler (who probably got an understandable sadistic pleasure out of shocking and humiliating people who looked at him as akin to their waiter) instead: and discarded, sometimes killed or imprisoned when they were no longer of use to him. But there were born out of the ultra-nationalist underground with ideas that went back in far-right German (and Russian, Aufbau Verinigung, etc) politics: for example, Ludendorff’s own strategic vision of an eastern imperium in 1918. Does anybody think Ludendorff was a leftist?

    What Right and Left are depend entirely on the context of the political culture of a given country and a given time. Revolutionary vs. reactionary is a far more apt comparison that lasts across the ages.

  178. @PhysicistDave
    @Pat Kittle

    Pat Kittle wrote to me:


    What’s really horrifying about “Holocau$t” mythology is people like you — who don’t miss an opportunity to promote it — while ignoring the vicious persecution of dissidents.
     
    Pat, I actually have looked into the Holocaust revisionists in some detail: I find them to be very sloppy and unconvincing.

    Now, of course, we will never know exactly how many Jews the Nazis killed: as I recall, Raul Hilberg -- certainly no denialist! -- thought it was closer to five million than to six million.

    And what did Hitler know and when did he know it? And how many Jews died from intentional extermination vs. malevolent neglect? And what about all the non-Jewish victims of the Third Reich?

    All legit questions.

    But after having looked into it some detail, I think the Nazis did kill millions of Jews and, of course, millions of non-Jews also.

    I have no axe to grind here, but evidence does matter.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I had a relative who lived near one of the death camps, and interacted with soldiers, civilians, etc from the east that knew what was going on. Let’s just say I find Holocaust denial arguments… unconvincing, as a result. It’s not scientific, but hey, I’m human, we all have our short-circuits.

    I believe that it is telling that few, if anyone, from the actual WWII generation in Germany denies the Holocaust happened. They might not have had views on WWII that would win the approval of some spoiled journalist brat from the New York Times, who had never dealt with anything more difficult than the office running out of coffee, but they weren’t delusional.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @nebulafox

    Inquiring into whether ‘it’ happened seems a ruse to avoid exploring deeply why it happened in a way that doesn’t rely on self-serving reductionist explanations. I presume two Revolution attempts by Jewish dominated agitators, the example of the minoritarian take over in Russia and the plausible betrayal of Germany by this group during WW1 were well known by the populace given these events were part of the common body of knowledge of Germans of that period.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    , @Jack D
    @nebulafox

    The Nazis knew that what they were doing was a war crime and so made some efforts to conceal the details of the extermination from the public. They weren't giving press tours of the death camps. However, you can't just disappear 5 or 6 million people (10% of the population in Poland and in some cities maybe half the population) without people noticing. So it was the kind of "secret" that a lot of people knew about but it was better to pretend that you didn't know.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  179. I think there is one thing that links all of Brooks’ stages. What is the current political interest of the educated ruling class?

    Today, the ruling class thinks it can rule by weaponizing various minorities against the ordinary middle class. I predict that our rulers are wrong. The only uncertainty is the size of the butcher’s bill.

  180. @Anonymous
    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    It's not about minoritarianism but minority-elitism or minority-hegemonism.

    Jews are not just another minority. They are the dominant minority. Only a moron would mention Jewish minority in the same breath as Burmese-American minority or even Mexican-American minority, which is numerous but lackluster in elite circles. Most minority groups are heavy on social bottom or the middle. Jews are heavily represented on the top. Comparing Jewish minority and Guatemalan minority is like comparing British minority and Bengali minority in Old India.

    US didn't go from majority rule to rule by various minorities. It went from Wasp rule the Jewish rule. Most minority groups in the US have no power. And homos and blacks gained at the feet of Jews who found them useful.

    Of course, elites are always a minority. So, even wasp rule was minority rule, at least by class. Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses. With Jews at the helm, that's no longer the case. But Jewish elites are like Wasp elites in one way. They do identify with lesser Jews even as they insist that white elites not identify with common whites. Also, while Jews, high and middle, feel it's their duty to identify with fellow Jews in Europe and Israel, they curse out any pan-white or pan-Christian identification. Whites in US better not root for whites in Russia or Hungary. American Christians better not stand up for Arab Christians against Neocon war plans.

    Brooks is a disgusting character. By framing the debate as one of majority vs minority, he pretends that he, as a Jewish minority, are like all the other minority groups. Right, Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans have the same rights, which is why Israel gets funded by billions while BDS is shut down state after state.
    Indeed, the real conflict isn't really about white majority vs Jews anymore as most whites, GOP or Democratic, are utterly servile to Jewish Power. It's about Jews having problems with non-whites but using whites as scapegoats so that non-whites will blame all their woes on whites than on Jews, the real overlords of America. It's so dirty.

    Also, history has often been about minority rule over the majority. Roman empire was about Roman minority elites ruling over majority native populations. And before that, Greek minorities ruled over Egypt after Alexander swept through the area. And Greek and Macedonian minorities ruled over vast swathes of Persia and Bactria. Ottoman minorities ruled over Arabs and Greeks and parts of Balkans. British ruled over India and parts of China. Japanese minority ruled over Manchuria. They were minority elites.

    Another thing. If Jews love diversity of minorities so much, why did they opt to come to overwhelmingly white protestant America? Why not move to Latin American or some other colorful part of the world?

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of...

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @e, @Curle, @Oscar Peterson

    “ Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses.”

    Maybe. Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history. I think modern Americans have little understanding of the level of contempt and disinterest British nobles had for the common man of their day.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Curle

    Or today. There’s a former BOAC (BA Precursor) pilot who tells a story from the sixties in which a fellow pilot who had been RAF in World War 2 was greeted by a member of the ground crew.
    His response was to say, “People like you don’t talk to people like me.”

    Now, he probably wouldn’t say such a thing out loud these days, but there’s a great deal of contempt for the working class still held by our self-appointed elites.

  181. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    I had a relative who lived near one of the death camps, and interacted with soldiers, civilians, etc from the east that knew what was going on. Let's just say I find Holocaust denial arguments... unconvincing, as a result. It's not scientific, but hey, I'm human, we all have our short-circuits.

    I believe that it is telling that few, if anyone, from the actual WWII generation in Germany denies the Holocaust happened. They might not have had views on WWII that would win the approval of some spoiled journalist brat from the New York Times, who had never dealt with anything more difficult than the office running out of coffee, but they weren't delusional.

    Replies: @Curle, @Jack D

    Inquiring into whether ‘it’ happened seems a ruse to avoid exploring deeply why it happened in a way that doesn’t rely on self-serving reductionist explanations. I presume two Revolution attempts by Jewish dominated agitators, the example of the minoritarian take over in Russia and the plausible betrayal of Germany by this group during WW1 were well known by the populace given these events were part of the common body of knowledge of Germans of that period.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Curle

    Sure, the German public was very familiar with these fallacious arguments from Nazi propaganda and many bought into them (as apparently you have as well). This doesn't mean that they understood that the Jewish population was being exterminated until after the war was over. Nazi propaganda maintainted that the Jews were "being deported to the East" and most Germans were not interested in inquiring further what happened once they got there. So believing that the Jews were really terrible no good people and understanding that they were being murdered en masse were two different things.

    I realize that I am not unbiased in such matters, but to me it is utterly horrifying that, even assuming the accusations you make were true, that it is possible for a human to believe that the murder of infants, women, children, the elderly, etc. is justified as a result.

    Replies: @Curle

    , @nebulafox
    @Curle

    The Holocaust was possible for a lot of reasons which would take a whole thread to sum up. But when all is said and done, one factor was necessary, more than anything else: the fact that a "historical singularity" from Vienna's 20th District was, for a terrible, terrible moment in history, granted absolute power over whole nations and peoples. If Hitler didn't exist, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. I think that's something that most people would agree on. But what does that indicate on a deeper level?

    (Someone who, in anything approximating normal, healthy times, would have been a despairing man on the fringes of society. Someone whose inevitable self-destruction would have impacted nobody else. What does it say about a continent that such a man would come to be its lord and master? It hints at something fundamentally broken, something grey and damaged after WWI. I find it *deeply* significant that the phenomenon of Nazism is so tied into the impact of WWI. Hitler embodied someone who, after the war, continued the war by other means, to the end of his life. He never came home. Why should he have? He had nothing to come home to, and no realistic option of creating something worth coming home to. His all/nothing view on life reflected what was a reality for him... and he decided to apply that to a whole age.)

    No, that's not the whole story: far form it. But that does indicate something that isn't usually pointed out as a logical conclusion from this statement... if Hitler's presence was necessary for the Holocaust, then that face, that fact of his existence at all, was more important than the supposedly widely held belief (according to propaganda from both sides) that people in Germany believed that the Jews "did" something. Presumably, that would have existed as potently without Hitler if that reflected reality.

  182. @Curle
    @Anonymous

    “ Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses.”

    Maybe. Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history. I think modern Americans have little understanding of the level of contempt and disinterest British nobles had for the common man of their day.

    Replies: @JMcG

    Or today. There’s a former BOAC (BA Precursor) pilot who tells a story from the sixties in which a fellow pilot who had been RAF in World War 2 was greeted by a member of the ground crew.
    His response was to say, “People like you don’t talk to people like me.”

    Now, he probably wouldn’t say such a thing out loud these days, but there’s a great deal of contempt for the working class still held by our self-appointed elites.

  183. It didn’t take long for America to go from David Brooks to Darrell Brooks

  184. @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote:


    However, we [Americans] do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.
     
    Where on earth did you grow up???

    I grew up in a conservative, lily-white, church-going suburb in a border state in the Midwest in the mid-twentieth century.

    No one in my youth ever tried to hide the fact that we had not treated Amerindians very well or that slavery was wrong.

    No, the USA has certainly not been perfect. No sensible person (not Jefferson, for example) ever said it was.

    But why should the imperfections of our ancestors mean that we now have to engage in self-mutilation or self-castration?

    Replies: @Curle, @notsaying

    “or that slavery was wrong.”

    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution. Newcomers, constrained by the labor price realities set by their predecessors or the market generally, should have abstained from participating in the market. The southern states should have forced their plantation economy and infrastructure to revert back to unproductive, but moral, forest. They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.

    Having said all that, the suboptimal moral decisions of 160+ years ago tell us little about the present except to be used as an self-serving cudgel for bizarre causation theories used to hand-wave away concerns over present day behavioral trends and to justify group based spoils.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Curle


    They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.
     
    Remember that the colonies were originally unpopulated (by Europeans). If you follow your "no cheap labor" prescription back to the beginning then the continent would never have been populated by Europeans. From day 1 in the the South especially, the colonies were founded by rich men who were not interested in personally plowing the fields. They just assumed that they were going to hire less wealthy men to do the manual labor. I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that. America could never have been industrialized or become a modern country if it was not permissible to hire labor and markets dictate that most unskilled labor is going to be "cheap". At first they brought in other English people and some Irish as indentured servants - indentured servitude was basically the same thing as slavery but limited to a certain # of years. Eventually they would serve out their indentures and join the ranks of (mainly) the lower classes (althought there was a lot of room for upward mobility). Most old stock Americans today are (partly) descended from such "cheap labor".

    The big mistake was bringing in Africans. The fact they they were brought in as slaves made it even more morally repugnant, but even bringing them in for pay would have been a mistake. When building the railroads, they also brought in crews of Chinese but they took pains to send them back when they were done and even those who stayed were not nearly as disruptive as blacks. American didn't have a cheap labor problem, it had (has) an African problem. Even today the Latinos who are coming in are MUCH less destructive than blacks.

    Replies: @Curle

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Curle

    Curle wrote:


    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution.
     
    Indeed.

    My own sympathies, for what it is worth, lie with those abolitionists who wanted to secede from the union with the slave states.

    But of course my opinion is worth next to nothing: everyone involved, victims and victimizers alike, has been dead for a very long time.

    And it is not our job to pretend that we can somehow atone for the sins of people who have been dead for more than a century: that whole game of fake atonement is just a scam.

    Replies: @JMcG

  185. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    I had a relative who lived near one of the death camps, and interacted with soldiers, civilians, etc from the east that knew what was going on. Let's just say I find Holocaust denial arguments... unconvincing, as a result. It's not scientific, but hey, I'm human, we all have our short-circuits.

    I believe that it is telling that few, if anyone, from the actual WWII generation in Germany denies the Holocaust happened. They might not have had views on WWII that would win the approval of some spoiled journalist brat from the New York Times, who had never dealt with anything more difficult than the office running out of coffee, but they weren't delusional.

    Replies: @Curle, @Jack D

    The Nazis knew that what they were doing was a war crime and so made some efforts to conceal the details of the extermination from the public. They weren’t giving press tours of the death camps. However, you can’t just disappear 5 or 6 million people (10% of the population in Poland and in some cities maybe half the population) without people noticing. So it was the kind of “secret” that a lot of people knew about but it was better to pretend that you didn’t know.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Jack D

    To clear up any misunderstanding, I'm not talking about the regular concentration camps (of course people knew about those! Though it was never Stalinist USSR levels, most towns of a certain size had people who had "disappeared" at some point during the previous decade, and like the gulags, people did emerge alive if broken in the prewar era). The death camps were located in occupied Poland for the most part. Two were in the border lands which had a prewar mixture of ethnic Germans and Poles. Four were further east. Overall, it was a big, bureaucratic project which very few people knew the details of: it's telling that Henning von Tresckow, who was in Army Group Center and had more info than most, was orders of magnitude off in estimating the size of the genocide. But more people had tangential run-ins with, like, say, if you worked for the railroads.

    In Germany proper, the Jewish population was relatively small and urbanized. But things were relatively easy because when the majority of deportations from bigger cities took place earlier on in the genocide, from '41-43, the regime wasn't technically lying. They were indeed being "resettled in the East", in places like, say, Riga. Why ask questions when you had better things to worry about, like how your own son was doing in Russia or if your city was going to be bombed that day?

  186. @Curle
    @nebulafox

    Inquiring into whether ‘it’ happened seems a ruse to avoid exploring deeply why it happened in a way that doesn’t rely on self-serving reductionist explanations. I presume two Revolution attempts by Jewish dominated agitators, the example of the minoritarian take over in Russia and the plausible betrayal of Germany by this group during WW1 were well known by the populace given these events were part of the common body of knowledge of Germans of that period.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    Sure, the German public was very familiar with these fallacious arguments from Nazi propaganda and many bought into them (as apparently you have as well). This doesn’t mean that they understood that the Jewish population was being exterminated until after the war was over. Nazi propaganda maintainted that the Jews were “being deported to the East” and most Germans were not interested in inquiring further what happened once they got there. So believing that the Jews were really terrible no good people and understanding that they were being murdered en masse were two different things.

    I realize that I am not unbiased in such matters, but to me it is utterly horrifying that, even assuming the accusations you make were true, that it is possible for a human to believe that the murder of infants, women, children, the elderly, etc. is justified as a result.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Jack D

    I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger. I’ll also note the legitimizing nature of your defense for interwar Jewish aggression; absolute denial and blame the victim. Your view of interwar minoritarian (not just Jewish) aggression, particularly through the mechanism of revolutionary activity is on par with the Holocaust denial you disparage. Not evidence of an particularly skeptical observer but of one with a favored self-serving rationalization.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus, @Occasional lurker

  187. @Curle
    @PhysicistDave

    “or that slavery was wrong.”

    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution. Newcomers, constrained by the labor price realities set by their predecessors or the market generally, should have abstained from participating in the market. The southern states should have forced their plantation economy and infrastructure to revert back to unproductive, but moral, forest. They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.

    Having said all that, the suboptimal moral decisions of 160+ years ago tell us little about the present except to be used as an self-serving cudgel for bizarre causation theories used to hand-wave away concerns over present day behavioral trends and to justify group based spoils.

    Replies: @Jack D, @PhysicistDave

    They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.

    Remember that the colonies were originally unpopulated (by Europeans). If you follow your “no cheap labor” prescription back to the beginning then the continent would never have been populated by Europeans. From day 1 in the the South especially, the colonies were founded by rich men who were not interested in personally plowing the fields. They just assumed that they were going to hire less wealthy men to do the manual labor. I don’t think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that. America could never have been industrialized or become a modern country if it was not permissible to hire labor and markets dictate that most unskilled labor is going to be “cheap”. At first they brought in other English people and some Irish as indentured servants – indentured servitude was basically the same thing as slavery but limited to a certain # of years. Eventually they would serve out their indentures and join the ranks of (mainly) the lower classes (althought there was a lot of room for upward mobility). Most old stock Americans today are (partly) descended from such “cheap labor”.

    The big mistake was bringing in Africans. The fact they they were brought in as slaves made it even more morally repugnant, but even bringing them in for pay would have been a mistake. When building the railroads, they also brought in crews of Chinese but they took pains to send them back when they were done and even those who stayed were not nearly as disruptive as blacks. American didn’t have a cheap labor problem, it had (has) an African problem. Even today the Latinos who are coming in are MUCH less destructive than blacks.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ The big mistake was bringing in Africans.”

    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up. No wonder at a 30% mortality rate as servants. This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices and they made one that is used today to rationalize the defamation of generations of whites with little to no connection to the practice or the lords. If you feel uncomfortable seeing non-radical German Jews pay for the sins of their Bolshevik brethren and those of their more predatory co-ethnics simply for failing to stop those radicals and co-ethnics then the orchestrated defamation of southerners should also set your hair on fire. The connection to the sin is even more attenuated by time if by nothing else.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar

  188. @Jack D
    @Curle

    Sure, the German public was very familiar with these fallacious arguments from Nazi propaganda and many bought into them (as apparently you have as well). This doesn't mean that they understood that the Jewish population was being exterminated until after the war was over. Nazi propaganda maintainted that the Jews were "being deported to the East" and most Germans were not interested in inquiring further what happened once they got there. So believing that the Jews were really terrible no good people and understanding that they were being murdered en masse were two different things.

    I realize that I am not unbiased in such matters, but to me it is utterly horrifying that, even assuming the accusations you make were true, that it is possible for a human to believe that the murder of infants, women, children, the elderly, etc. is justified as a result.

    Replies: @Curle

    I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger. I’ll also note the legitimizing nature of your defense for interwar Jewish aggression; absolute denial and blame the victim. Your view of interwar minoritarian (not just Jewish) aggression, particularly through the mechanism of revolutionary activity is on par with the Holocaust denial you disparage. Not evidence of an particularly skeptical observer but of one with a favored self-serving rationalization.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Curle


    interwar Jewish aggression
     
    Yes, I do deny that such a thing existed. There were individual Jews (in most cases deracinated ones who no longer followed the religion) who committed agressive acts along with their non-Jewish Bolshevik brethren but there was no such thing as "Jewish" agression nor did it follow that Jewish grandmothers and infants were "mortal dangers" as a result of the actions of certain Soviet commissars. Equating Judaism with Bolshevism (and paradoxically at the same time with "international banking") was both overinclusive and underinclusive. If Bolsheviks are your enemy, then why not target Bolsheviks?

    Replies: @Curle

    , @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger.”

    Through intense propaganda. Their (and your) pro-white aggression is (was) predicated on self-serving rationalization.

    “Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history.”

    Citations required. What historians indicated that those elites at that time were essentially “anti-white”?

    Replies: @Curle

    , @Occasional lurker
    @Curle

    No, Germans didn't see Jews a mortal danger (they were a very small minority in Germany and on their way to assmiliation ever since emancipation). The motive for the holocaust was a mix of racist "Aryan" ideology that was not shared by most Germans before 1933, and calculation on the part of the NS nomenclatura (the Wehrmacht officers didn't like it and that is why they were largely left out it). The Nazis wanted to reduce population in the eastern provinces of their imagined Germanic Reich to make room for German settlers, and the very large number of Jews there were in the way, of the race most hated by the ideologues and a possibly not so docile element (too intelligent). The Kommissarbefehl pretended they were a mortal danger, but each and every one of the people who had to shoot masses of civilians in the early phase of the mass killings knew this was not true.
    I am German, in my childhood, the people who actually lived through the time were still around. JackD and Nebulafox describe things accurately from my perspective.

  189. @notsaying
    @Abolish_public_education

    The government is one of the tools -- not the only one, but a major one -- that our parents and their generation plus all our ancestors used to protect us and create a better way of life for all Americans.

    I was and still am a beneficiary of my fellow Americans past and present through the government. I helped myself and my fellow Americans through the government.

    I never thought about it in that way before but this is all true. Your saying the government always fails and sucks made me think because it struck me as so untrue and such an exaggeration.

    There is always disagreement about the government and frustration and disappointment, too. That is how it should be in a democracy. But government will inevitably be a major force in any First World country, especially one as successful and large as ours is. If our government always failed we would not even be a First World country.

    Replies: @lavoisier, @Rosie

    Your saying the government always fails and sucks made me think because it struck me as so untrue and such an exaggeration.

    It seems to me that big government countries generally have the highest HDI scores (human development index), including life expectancy, literacy, etc. I would love to see someone on our side do an analysis of this question. Of course, deficit hawks are, IMO, an important constraining faction in modern social democracies.

  190. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to Abolish_public_education:


    Had you not noticed that this ["Make the gov as small as possible"] was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?
     
    No.

    It was tried and it had lots of success. But it was betrayed.

    Let's have a little synopsis of American political history:

    Most of the time from 1801 to 1860, the United States was governed by a limited-government, populist party: the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and then the Jacksonian Democrats.

    But in 1860, the GOP used the split among the Democrats over the issue of slavery in the territories to seize control of the national government at the behest of Northern industrial oligarchs.

    After the resulting War Between the States, the Democrats made a significant comeback, but in 1896 the Bryanite "Populists" pulled off a hostile take-over of the Clevelandite Democratic Party, with the goal of using oligarchic means for (supposedly) populist ends.

    The Bryanite hiatus made it possible for "progressives," a coalition between Northeastern "reformers" and intellectuals and Northern oligarchs, to take control of the Democratic Party as they had already taken control of the Republican Party, resulting in the income tax, the Federal Reserve system, and, most dramatically, US involvement in the First World War.

    And so, since the early twentieth century, we have been governed by a uni-party dominated by a ruling elite of "progressives" and oligarchs imposing upon the people the burden of the welfare/warfare/national-security state.

    But no ruling elite lasts forever.

    They get soft and careless and stupid.

    Ruling elites can be and always are, eventually, overthrown.

    And this one will be too. The only question is how we can help hasten the day of their collapse, hopefully with minimal harm to the productive members of society (i.e., without a nuclear war with China!).

    (Anyone wish to dispute that my little (~250 word) summary of American political history is, more or less, correct?)

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Rosie

    Nope. I’m liking your comments more and more.

    Elsewhere,

    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    The Anglo elite (among others) seems to have a distinctly high and harmful level of estrangement from its bourgeois and prole classes. A family member researching English folk music told me the English upper class seems to go to great lengths to affect Continental styles over their own folk culture. Cf. Levantine culture where everybody, rich or poor, dances the same dabkes.

    It’s a weird form of iconoclasm. In another context, the Protestant reforms apparently resulted in a lot of old iconography, statuary, and even crosses–all made, venerated, and uniquely stylized by Englishmen–being destroyed.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    The situation in England was quite unlike modern America. England was known for having a rigid class system where you were either u or non-u(pper class) and the upper class looked down on the lower classes. In the TV series The Crown, there is an amusing (and largely fictional) sequence which contrasts what happens when the non-U Mrs. Thatcher comes to visit the Queen at Balmoral vs. what happens when the future Princess Diana comes. Mrs. Thatcher doesn't bring the right shoes for going hunting, she doesn't like hunting, she doesn't like the stupid word games they play at the dinner table, etc. and they look down their noses on her. Diana knows all the secret codes of the upper classes and so they love her.

    What drives the high-low coalition in America is different. American elites have mostly ascended from the middle and lower classes quite recently and don't want to be reminded of that. Obama famously despised his own grandmother for being a "racist". A lot of female elite thinking is just Freudian "daddy issues".

  191. @Curle
    @Jack D

    I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger. I’ll also note the legitimizing nature of your defense for interwar Jewish aggression; absolute denial and blame the victim. Your view of interwar minoritarian (not just Jewish) aggression, particularly through the mechanism of revolutionary activity is on par with the Holocaust denial you disparage. Not evidence of an particularly skeptical observer but of one with a favored self-serving rationalization.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus, @Occasional lurker

    interwar Jewish aggression

    Yes, I do deny that such a thing existed. There were individual Jews (in most cases deracinated ones who no longer followed the religion) who committed agressive acts along with their non-Jewish Bolshevik brethren but there was no such thing as “Jewish” agression nor did it follow that Jewish grandmothers and infants were “mortal dangers” as a result of the actions of certain Soviet commissars. Equating Judaism with Bolshevism (and paradoxically at the same time with “international banking”) was both overinclusive and underinclusive. If Bolsheviks are your enemy, then why not target Bolsheviks?

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ Equating Judaism with Bolshevism (and paradoxically at the same time with “international banking”) was both overinclusive and underinclusive.”

    By whose standards? Yours or 20th century post WW1 Germans?

  192. @Corvinus
    @Rob McX

    “ They don’t seem to watch TV or go to public school – the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.“

    Have you ever thought perhaps most whites view it differently than you, and that your labeling of it in that manner is other than accurate?

    Replies: @Boomthorkell

    Those who do, are wrong and evil. Quite simple.

    Like you, Demon-worshipper ; )

  193. @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    I would say most whites people are quite awake
     
    Which is why they put John T Chisholm in office, and have no problem with his releasing Darrell Brooks. Corvine wakefulness.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Which is why they put John T Chisholm in office…”

    A red herring.

    “and have no problem with his releasing Darrell Brooks.”

    To the contrary, whites are more than angry and frustrated with his release.

    Do you ever tire of losing arguments? You’re approaching Washington General status.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    To the contrary, whites are more than angry and frustrated with his release.
     
    But that's white supremacism. (And it is. Who wrote the bail laws?) So they are inching over to our side?

    You didn't specify which whites are angry and frustrated. Not the ones writing the headlines about an "accident". They're not outliers, they are mainstream.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  194. @Jack D
    @Curle


    They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.
     
    Remember that the colonies were originally unpopulated (by Europeans). If you follow your "no cheap labor" prescription back to the beginning then the continent would never have been populated by Europeans. From day 1 in the the South especially, the colonies were founded by rich men who were not interested in personally plowing the fields. They just assumed that they were going to hire less wealthy men to do the manual labor. I don't think that there is anything fundamentally wrong with that. America could never have been industrialized or become a modern country if it was not permissible to hire labor and markets dictate that most unskilled labor is going to be "cheap". At first they brought in other English people and some Irish as indentured servants - indentured servitude was basically the same thing as slavery but limited to a certain # of years. Eventually they would serve out their indentures and join the ranks of (mainly) the lower classes (althought there was a lot of room for upward mobility). Most old stock Americans today are (partly) descended from such "cheap labor".

    The big mistake was bringing in Africans. The fact they they were brought in as slaves made it even more morally repugnant, but even bringing them in for pay would have been a mistake. When building the railroads, they also brought in crews of Chinese but they took pains to send them back when they were done and even those who stayed were not nearly as disruptive as blacks. American didn't have a cheap labor problem, it had (has) an African problem. Even today the Latinos who are coming in are MUCH less destructive than blacks.

    Replies: @Curle

    “ The big mistake was bringing in Africans.”

    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up. No wonder at a 30% mortality rate as servants. This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices and they made one that is used today to rationalize the defamation of generations of whites with little to no connection to the practice or the lords. If you feel uncomfortable seeing non-radical German Jews pay for the sins of their Bolshevik brethren and those of their more predatory co-ethnics simply for failing to stop those radicals and co-ethnics then the orchestrated defamation of southerners should also set your hair on fire. The connection to the sin is even more attenuated by time if by nothing else.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Curle

    Even at the time of the Civil War, most of the whites who fought to defend slavery were not personally slave owners, certainly not on any large scale. (It was common in the South for even smaller farmers or middle class people to have a slave or two instead of a hired hand, but this was nothing like the plantation agriculture where rich plantation owners (only a handful of the population) owned hundreds of slaves each.) And yet, the Southern white masses fought for this system.

    Needless to say, any living person today is not responsible for slavery any more than young Germans today are responsible for Nazi war crimes. I believe in individual, not collective, guilt. Collective guilt is what leads to horrors like the Holocaust.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up.
     
    And what does that tell you? Besides, African "labor" was also unwilling to pay their own freight. They should have stayed home as well. We'd be so much better off.

    This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices
     
    If their forces could protect an empty Canada from conquest by others, why not a much smaller area like the future Dixie? That excuse doesn't wash. They could have held it until technology and disease control reached the point where whites could thrive.

    constrained
     
    Hah. Using Thomas Sowell's terminology for what turned out to be one of the most unconstrained, i.e., utopian, decisions in human history.

    Replies: @Curle

  195. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @PhysicistDave

    Nope. I'm liking your comments more and more.

    Elsewhere,

    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    The Anglo elite (among others) seems to have a distinctly high and harmful level of estrangement from its bourgeois and prole classes. A family member researching English folk music told me the English upper class seems to go to great lengths to affect Continental styles over their own folk culture. Cf. Levantine culture where everybody, rich or poor, dances the same dabkes.

    It's a weird form of iconoclasm. In another context, the Protestant reforms apparently resulted in a lot of old iconography, statuary, and even crosses--all made, venerated, and uniquely stylized by Englishmen--being destroyed.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The situation in England was quite unlike modern America. England was known for having a rigid class system where you were either u or non-u(pper class) and the upper class looked down on the lower classes. In the TV series The Crown, there is an amusing (and largely fictional) sequence which contrasts what happens when the non-U Mrs. Thatcher comes to visit the Queen at Balmoral vs. what happens when the future Princess Diana comes. Mrs. Thatcher doesn’t bring the right shoes for going hunting, she doesn’t like hunting, she doesn’t like the stupid word games they play at the dinner table, etc. and they look down their noses on her. Diana knows all the secret codes of the upper classes and so they love her.

    What drives the high-low coalition in America is different. American elites have mostly ascended from the middle and lower classes quite recently and don’t want to be reminded of that. Obama famously despised his own grandmother for being a “racist”. A lot of female elite thinking is just Freudian “daddy issues”.

  196. @Jack D
    @Curle


    interwar Jewish aggression
     
    Yes, I do deny that such a thing existed. There were individual Jews (in most cases deracinated ones who no longer followed the religion) who committed agressive acts along with their non-Jewish Bolshevik brethren but there was no such thing as "Jewish" agression nor did it follow that Jewish grandmothers and infants were "mortal dangers" as a result of the actions of certain Soviet commissars. Equating Judaism with Bolshevism (and paradoxically at the same time with "international banking") was both overinclusive and underinclusive. If Bolsheviks are your enemy, then why not target Bolsheviks?

    Replies: @Curle

    “ Equating Judaism with Bolshevism (and paradoxically at the same time with “international banking”) was both overinclusive and underinclusive.”

    By whose standards? Yours or 20th century post WW1 Germans?

  197. @Hibernian

    But over the ensuing decades, the Protestant establishment crumbled....
     
    And Catholics worshipped the Kennedys who were quislings, rich educated quislings, but quislings nonetheless. A priesthood full of misfits who were railroaded into the priesthood by Mom and Dad didn't help either. Even the Buckleys sent their sons to Yale.

    Replies: @Pierre de Craon

    … Catholics worshipped the Kennedys …

    The situation was rather less straightforward than you seem to think it was.

    When the 1960 election took place, I was a junior in high school, and so I remember it very clearly. My parents had moved the family a year before to a private home in Yonkers, a bedroom suburb of New York City. Our new neighborhood was younger and less markedly Irish Catholic than our former neighborhood in the Bronx had been, but since I had not changed schools when we moved, I was back in the old one five days a week.

    But enough background. What I mean to say is that in both neighborhoods, the middle-class Catholic vote went to Nixon by a margin only a bit smaller than it had gone to Ike four years earlier. The pastor of my new parish told my old man that, like him and my mother, he had voted for Nixon, and Nixon was also the overwhelming choice of the Irish Christian Brothers who were my teachers in high school.

    It is certainly true that poor and working-class Catholics voted for Kennedy in large numbers, but they would have voted Democratic anyway—at least so long as the Democratic candidate wasn’t as snooty and odd-looking as Adlai Stevenson.

    Kennedy worship truly became the serious and persistent problem it remains only after his assassination, and Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
    @Pierre de Craon


    … Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency.
     
    I ended that sentence too abruptly. Mea culpa. It should have included the following:

    Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency, except of course for the Catholics in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where the already disproportionately large percentage of citizens who were either employed by the government or getting government welfare payouts were the embodiment of a socialist trend that Kennedy was, in part, elected to advance nationally. In both those states, thanks to their having far more shanty Irish and Neapolitan and Sicilian Italians than was the norm, the inclination to worship a dissolute but good-looking politician who seemed to be serving their interests was already much, much farther advanced than it was virtually anywhere else in the States outside of DC itself.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  198. @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    “Which is why they put John T Chisholm in office…”

    A red herring.

    “and have no problem with his releasing Darrell Brooks.”

    To the contrary, whites are more than angry and frustrated with his release.

    Do you ever tire of losing arguments? You’re approaching Washington General status.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    To the contrary, whites are more than angry and frustrated with his release.

    But that’s white supremacism. (And it is. Who wrote the bail laws?) So they are inching over to our side?

    You didn’t specify which whites are angry and frustrated. Not the ones writing the headlines about an “accident”. They’re not outliers, they are mainstream.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    “But that’s white supremacism. (And it is. Who wrote the bail laws?) So they are inching over to our side?”

    Definitional error on your part.

    “You didn’t specify which whites are angry and frustrated.”

    There isn’t a need to. But that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  199. @Curle
    @Jack D

    I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger. I’ll also note the legitimizing nature of your defense for interwar Jewish aggression; absolute denial and blame the victim. Your view of interwar minoritarian (not just Jewish) aggression, particularly through the mechanism of revolutionary activity is on par with the Holocaust denial you disparage. Not evidence of an particularly skeptical observer but of one with a favored self-serving rationalization.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus, @Occasional lurker

    “I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger.”

    Through intense propaganda. Their (and your) pro-white aggression is (was) predicated on self-serving rationalization.

    “Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history.”

    Citations required. What historians indicated that those elites at that time were essentially “anti-white”?

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    You know nothing about the causes of that event do you?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  200. @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ The big mistake was bringing in Africans.”

    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up. No wonder at a 30% mortality rate as servants. This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices and they made one that is used today to rationalize the defamation of generations of whites with little to no connection to the practice or the lords. If you feel uncomfortable seeing non-radical German Jews pay for the sins of their Bolshevik brethren and those of their more predatory co-ethnics simply for failing to stop those radicals and co-ethnics then the orchestrated defamation of southerners should also set your hair on fire. The connection to the sin is even more attenuated by time if by nothing else.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar

    Even at the time of the Civil War, most of the whites who fought to defend slavery were not personally slave owners, certainly not on any large scale. (It was common in the South for even smaller farmers or middle class people to have a slave or two instead of a hired hand, but this was nothing like the plantation agriculture where rich plantation owners (only a handful of the population) owned hundreds of slaves each.) And yet, the Southern white masses fought for this system.

    Needless to say, any living person today is not responsible for slavery any more than young Germans today are responsible for Nazi war crimes. I believe in individual, not collective, guilt. Collective guilt is what leads to horrors like the Holocaust.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    I believe in individual, not collective, guilt.
     
    Collective guilt is properly applied to organizations, especially those freely entered into. That's why the National Socialists are banned in Germany today-- not as a political party, but as a criminal gang with a rap sheet which, when combined with those of the Soviet and Chinese Communists, is almost as long as our Democrats'.

    We seriously need a program of de-Democraticization in this country.
    , @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ the Southern white masses fought for this system.”

    The Southern white masses fought for an constitutional arrangement that their forefathers agreed to in the 18th century. An arrangement that was not conducive to northern desires for 1) an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares; 2) a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain; 3) a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves; and, 4) a desire to use the federal treasury to finance the expansion of northern industry across the continent (railroad). The southern interpretation of the constitution was uncontroversial for most of the period between ratification and secession. It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states. The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic and reflected in no way the original compromise.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus

  201. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger.”

    Through intense propaganda. Their (and your) pro-white aggression is (was) predicated on self-serving rationalization.

    “Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history.”

    Citations required. What historians indicated that those elites at that time were essentially “anti-white”?

    Replies: @Curle

    You know nothing about the causes of that event do you?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    I know a lot. Regardless, you’re going to have to explain yourself here, and/or provide sources that lend support to your assertion.

    Replies: @Curle

  202. @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ The big mistake was bringing in Africans.”

    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up. No wonder at a 30% mortality rate as servants. This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices and they made one that is used today to rationalize the defamation of generations of whites with little to no connection to the practice or the lords. If you feel uncomfortable seeing non-radical German Jews pay for the sins of their Bolshevik brethren and those of their more predatory co-ethnics simply for failing to stop those radicals and co-ethnics then the orchestrated defamation of southerners should also set your hair on fire. The connection to the sin is even more attenuated by time if by nothing else.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar

    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up.

    And what does that tell you? Besides, African “labor” was also unwilling to pay their own freight. They should have stayed home as well. We’d be so much better off.

    This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices

    If their forces could protect an empty Canada from conquest by others, why not a much smaller area like the future Dixie? That excuse doesn’t wash. They could have held it until technology and disease control reached the point where whites could thrive.

    constrained

    Hah. Using Thomas Sowell’s terminology for what turned out to be one of the most unconstrained, i.e., utopian, decisions in human history.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    “ That excuse doesn’t wash. They could have held it until technology and disease control reached the point where whites could thrive.”

    It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation. That set was not under compulsion nor inclination to look out for the ethnic interests of the white rabble whom they looked upon with contempt. They simply started paying a premium for slaves because their other options, whites, were no longer available.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  203. @Jack D
    @Curle

    Even at the time of the Civil War, most of the whites who fought to defend slavery were not personally slave owners, certainly not on any large scale. (It was common in the South for even smaller farmers or middle class people to have a slave or two instead of a hired hand, but this was nothing like the plantation agriculture where rich plantation owners (only a handful of the population) owned hundreds of slaves each.) And yet, the Southern white masses fought for this system.

    Needless to say, any living person today is not responsible for slavery any more than young Germans today are responsible for Nazi war crimes. I believe in individual, not collective, guilt. Collective guilt is what leads to horrors like the Holocaust.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    I believe in individual, not collective, guilt.

    Collective guilt is properly applied to organizations, especially those freely entered into. That’s why the National Socialists are banned in Germany today– not as a political party, but as a criminal gang with a rap sheet which, when combined with those of the Soviet and Chinese Communists, is almost as long as our Democrats’.

    We seriously need a program of de-Democraticization in this country.

    • Thanks: lavoisier
  204. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to Abolish_public_education:


    Had you not noticed that this ["Make the gov as small as possible"] was tried for several decades with no success whatsoever?
     
    No.

    It was tried and it had lots of success. But it was betrayed.

    Let's have a little synopsis of American political history:

    Most of the time from 1801 to 1860, the United States was governed by a limited-government, populist party: the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and then the Jacksonian Democrats.

    But in 1860, the GOP used the split among the Democrats over the issue of slavery in the territories to seize control of the national government at the behest of Northern industrial oligarchs.

    After the resulting War Between the States, the Democrats made a significant comeback, but in 1896 the Bryanite "Populists" pulled off a hostile take-over of the Clevelandite Democratic Party, with the goal of using oligarchic means for (supposedly) populist ends.

    The Bryanite hiatus made it possible for "progressives," a coalition between Northeastern "reformers" and intellectuals and Northern oligarchs, to take control of the Democratic Party as they had already taken control of the Republican Party, resulting in the income tax, the Federal Reserve system, and, most dramatically, US involvement in the First World War.

    And so, since the early twentieth century, we have been governed by a uni-party dominated by a ruling elite of "progressives" and oligarchs imposing upon the people the burden of the welfare/warfare/national-security state.

    But no ruling elite lasts forever.

    They get soft and careless and stupid.

    Ruling elites can be and always are, eventually, overthrown.

    And this one will be too. The only question is how we can help hasten the day of their collapse, hopefully with minimal harm to the productive members of society (i.e., without a nuclear war with China!).

    (Anyone wish to dispute that my little (~250 word) summary of American political history is, more or less, correct?)

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Rosie

    You are clearly very knowledgeable about political history, much more so than I. My intent was not so much to dispute the merits of small government, but rather to object to the idea that we can ignore race in favor of ideology.

    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.
     
    I take it you are talking about the People's Republic of California in 2021?

    Because that is not a bad description of what the welfare state has brought to parts of LA and San Francisco.

    Here is Sacramento, it's not quite as bad, but still pretty ugly.

    The countries you are talking about are:
    A) Very poor.
    B) Ruled by predatory governments who steal from the poor to create a welfare state for the rich -- kinda like California.

    Rosie, have you known anyone who lived in America in the late nineteenth century before we had a welfare state?

    I did -- my great grandmother and her sister: I was very close to Great Grandma. And all four of my grandparents, all of whom I knew quite well, were born in the first decade of the twentieth century.

    America before the welfare state was not the hell-hole you describe.

    People were free to make their own way in the world, and most did so with at least middling success. The small number who could not were helped out via voluntary charity.

    But the welfare state encourages venality, corruption, irresponsibility, and a dog-eat-dog competition over who gets to gnaw on the bone for the longest time.

    As Dr. Johnson put it, "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money." But under the welfare state, people are focused not on making money by providing goods or services that their fellow citizens will voluntarily pay for. Instead they are focused on rigging the rules so that they get more of the loot at the expense of their fellow citizens.

    And it is not the poorest among us who win at that ruthless game.

    America used to be a nice place: the country was focused on all normal people being able to make a living, raise a family, help out their neighbors, etc.

    Sailer and I lived through the tail end of that Amnerica.

    It's gone. The Left stole it.

    And then there is the little matter of all the wars the "progressives" and "reformers" chose to involve us in that cost well over a million American lives (and probably several times that of non-American lives -- I don't think anyone has ever totaled all of those up). My great grandmother, whom I mentioned above, lost her younger brother in Woodrow Wilson's evil "war to make the world safe for democracy."

    The Left is the enemy of the human species and always has been.

    The Chinese are right to express hatred and contempt for the báizuǒ. Humanity cannot be safe until these people are excluded from human society.

    Race is not the problem. Most of the people Stalin murdered were of his own race. Similarly for Mao.

    The Left is the problem. It must be stripped of any access to power or influence among decent human beings.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Alden
    @Rosie

    Rampant illiteracy, human trafficking especially labor trafficking, disabled beggars in the streets. Sounds just like my home state of California.

    Physicist Dave. Our society is European Christian formerly Roman and German Celtic pagan society. Call it Western culture. Whatever it is, welfare in some form has always been part of our White race European society.

    2,5000 years ago, Rome was one of the biggest welfare societies the world has ever known. Most of the work, including highly skilled work was done by slaves . So the Romans survived by public housing, food banks and government provided activities.

    Ancient Egypt Sumeria and Mesopotamia governments gave agricultural subsidies to owners of orchards and vineyards. Because, unlike wheat, barley and other yearly crops; bushes and trees, especially olive trees take years from planting to harvest.

    Arab and other Muslim countries might look like a sea of wretchedness. But the mosques run welfare systems

    Replies: @Anonymous

  205. @Jack D
    @nebulafox

    The Nazis knew that what they were doing was a war crime and so made some efforts to conceal the details of the extermination from the public. They weren't giving press tours of the death camps. However, you can't just disappear 5 or 6 million people (10% of the population in Poland and in some cities maybe half the population) without people noticing. So it was the kind of "secret" that a lot of people knew about but it was better to pretend that you didn't know.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    To clear up any misunderstanding, I’m not talking about the regular concentration camps (of course people knew about those! Though it was never Stalinist USSR levels, most towns of a certain size had people who had “disappeared” at some point during the previous decade, and like the gulags, people did emerge alive if broken in the prewar era). The death camps were located in occupied Poland for the most part. Two were in the border lands which had a prewar mixture of ethnic Germans and Poles. Four were further east. Overall, it was a big, bureaucratic project which very few people knew the details of: it’s telling that Henning von Tresckow, who was in Army Group Center and had more info than most, was orders of magnitude off in estimating the size of the genocide. But more people had tangential run-ins with, like, say, if you worked for the railroads.

    In Germany proper, the Jewish population was relatively small and urbanized. But things were relatively easy because when the majority of deportations from bigger cities took place earlier on in the genocide, from ’41-43, the regime wasn’t technically lying. They were indeed being “resettled in the East”, in places like, say, Riga. Why ask questions when you had better things to worry about, like how your own son was doing in Russia or if your city was going to be bombed that day?

  206. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    You know nothing about the causes of that event do you?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    I know a lot. Regardless, you’re going to have to explain yourself here, and/or provide sources that lend support to your assertion.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    The fact you’ve asked the question at all demolishes your claim.

    I presume you know how to read and how to order books from the library or internet for such purposes. Look for ‘Bacon’s Rebellion.’ You don’t need to be overly selective as it is unlikely that a book has been written on the subject that doesn’t answer your question.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  207. @Curle
    @nebulafox

    Inquiring into whether ‘it’ happened seems a ruse to avoid exploring deeply why it happened in a way that doesn’t rely on self-serving reductionist explanations. I presume two Revolution attempts by Jewish dominated agitators, the example of the minoritarian take over in Russia and the plausible betrayal of Germany by this group during WW1 were well known by the populace given these events were part of the common body of knowledge of Germans of that period.

    Replies: @Jack D, @nebulafox

    The Holocaust was possible for a lot of reasons which would take a whole thread to sum up. But when all is said and done, one factor was necessary, more than anything else: the fact that a “historical singularity” from Vienna’s 20th District was, for a terrible, terrible moment in history, granted absolute power over whole nations and peoples. If Hitler didn’t exist, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. I think that’s something that most people would agree on. But what does that indicate on a deeper level?

    (Someone who, in anything approximating normal, healthy times, would have been a despairing man on the fringes of society. Someone whose inevitable self-destruction would have impacted nobody else. What does it say about a continent that such a man would come to be its lord and master? It hints at something fundamentally broken, something grey and damaged after WWI. I find it *deeply* significant that the phenomenon of Nazism is so tied into the impact of WWI. Hitler embodied someone who, after the war, continued the war by other means, to the end of his life. He never came home. Why should he have? He had nothing to come home to, and no realistic option of creating something worth coming home to. His all/nothing view on life reflected what was a reality for him… and he decided to apply that to a whole age.)

    No, that’s not the whole story: far form it. But that does indicate something that isn’t usually pointed out as a logical conclusion from this statement… if Hitler’s presence was necessary for the Holocaust, then that face, that fact of his existence at all, was more important than the supposedly widely held belief (according to propaganda from both sides) that people in Germany believed that the Jews “did” something. Presumably, that would have existed as potently without Hitler if that reflected reality.

  208. @Pierre de Craon
    @Hibernian


    … Catholics worshipped the Kennedys …
     
    The situation was rather less straightforward than you seem to think it was.

    When the 1960 election took place, I was a junior in high school, and so I remember it very clearly. My parents had moved the family a year before to a private home in Yonkers, a bedroom suburb of New York City. Our new neighborhood was younger and less markedly Irish Catholic than our former neighborhood in the Bronx had been, but since I had not changed schools when we moved, I was back in the old one five days a week.

    But enough background. What I mean to say is that in both neighborhoods, the middle-class Catholic vote went to Nixon by a margin only a bit smaller than it had gone to Ike four years earlier. The pastor of my new parish told my old man that, like him and my mother, he had voted for Nixon, and Nixon was also the overwhelming choice of the Irish Christian Brothers who were my teachers in high school.

    It is certainly true that poor and working-class Catholics voted for Kennedy in large numbers, but they would have voted Democratic anyway—at least so long as the Democratic candidate wasn't as snooty and odd-looking as Adlai Stevenson.

    Kennedy worship truly became the serious and persistent problem it remains only after his assassination, and Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency.

    Replies: @Pierre de Craon

    … Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency.

    I ended that sentence too abruptly. Mea culpa. It should have included the following:

    Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency, except of course for the Catholics in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where the already disproportionately large percentage of citizens who were either employed by the government or getting government welfare payouts were the embodiment of a socialist trend that Kennedy was, in part, elected to advance nationally. In both those states, thanks to their having far more shanty Irish and Neapolitan and Sicilian Italians than was the norm, the inclination to worship a dissolute but good-looking politician who seemed to be serving their interests was already much, much farther advanced than it was virtually anywhere else in the States outside of DC itself.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Pierre de Craon

    I should have said "many Catholics worshipped Kennedy." I have myself argued against a poster here who said that Catholics were almost unanimously for Kennedy. My Kindergarten class, polled by Sister as to who our parents were voting for, came in by a small margin for Nixon. Nevertheless, Kennedy worship was not limited to poor and working class Catholics, and the MA/RI phenomenon you mention above was not limited to MA and RI, IMHO.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  209. @Expletive Deleted
    @Muggles

    Just some poast by some guy.
    https://akarlin.com/2019/01/could-the-mongols-have-conquered-europe/

    Replies: @Muggles

    I am just about to finish reading The Horde, How the Mongols Changed the World, by Marie Favereau.The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021.

    Though I have read other books about the Mongols and their history, this one is very good and mainly focuses on the Golden Horde, the one (or two actually) which was founded by one of Genghis’s sons to conquer the West.

    This goes into great detail about how the Golden Horde (a/k/a “Tartars” as commonly called in Russia) ended up controlling all of central Asia and eastern Europe. Goes into good detail about how the Russian princes were vassals of the various successive Khans and served as tax collectors in return for Mongol military “protection.”

    The history of Russia starts to make more sense after reading this book.

    While there were various environmental factors limiting Mongol expansion (command and control being the most important, as in the Roman Empire) it is clear that until the Black Death and the various Mongol succession wars (a bane of family run enterprises) the Mongols really never lost in Europe. But they were steppe peoples and as has been said, didn’t do well in forests and mountains.

    Ultimately the Poles, Germans, Lithuanians and Russians beat them back though it helps to understand that Russia was until about 500 years ago a Mongol ruled place, indirectly.

    Whenever I see/hear/read of some Zoomer snowflake bitching about some minor thing, I say to myself, “just imagine looking up from your plow and seeing the looming dust of an oncoming Mongol horde. You think you have problems?”

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Muggles

    Usually, the Mongols only ran into problems when they had to launch invasions by sea, something they never truly got the hang of, or when supply lines were stretched in an abnormally alien environment that caused disease to thin out the ranks. Europe fulfilled neither requirement.

  210. @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus


    To the contrary, whites are more than angry and frustrated with his release.
     
    But that's white supremacism. (And it is. Who wrote the bail laws?) So they are inching over to our side?

    You didn't specify which whites are angry and frustrated. Not the ones writing the headlines about an "accident". They're not outliers, they are mainstream.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “But that’s white supremacism. (And it is. Who wrote the bail laws?) So they are inching over to our side?”

    Definitional error on your part.

    “You didn’t specify which whites are angry and frustrated.”

    There isn’t a need to. But that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus and Rosenbaum together, as the moral equals they are:

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d4/30/9b/d4309b84ea2579f30d6a554432cf1fe3.jpg

  211. @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    White labor willing to pay its own freight to the New World had dried up.
     
    And what does that tell you? Besides, African "labor" was also unwilling to pay their own freight. They should have stayed home as well. We'd be so much better off.

    This left British lords with a very constrained set of choices
     
    If their forces could protect an empty Canada from conquest by others, why not a much smaller area like the future Dixie? That excuse doesn't wash. They could have held it until technology and disease control reached the point where whites could thrive.

    constrained
     
    Hah. Using Thomas Sowell's terminology for what turned out to be one of the most unconstrained, i.e., utopian, decisions in human history.

    Replies: @Curle

    “ That excuse doesn’t wash. They could have held it until technology and disease control reached the point where whites could thrive.”

    It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation. That set was not under compulsion nor inclination to look out for the ethnic interests of the white rabble whom they looked upon with contempt. They simply started paying a premium for slaves because their other options, whites, were no longer available.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    They simply started paying a premium for slaves
     
    Why? The laziest people known to man are not even worth the base price. It takes some seriously fraudulent accounting to make it look that way.

    White men didn't come because the conditions sucked. They might have reconsidered at a higher wage.

    Replies: @Curle

  212. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    I know a lot. Regardless, you’re going to have to explain yourself here, and/or provide sources that lend support to your assertion.

    Replies: @Curle

    The fact you’ve asked the question at all demolishes your claim.

    I presume you know how to read and how to order books from the library or internet for such purposes. Look for ‘Bacon’s Rebellion.’ You don’t need to be overly selective as it is unlikely that a book has been written on the subject that doesn’t answer your question.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “The fact you’ve asked the question at all demolishes your claim.”

    That’s not how argumentation works. You made an extraordinary claim— Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history.

    Merely stating it doesn’t make it true nor accurate nor factual in nature. Back it up.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  213. @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    “ That excuse doesn’t wash. They could have held it until technology and disease control reached the point where whites could thrive.”

    It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation. That set was not under compulsion nor inclination to look out for the ethnic interests of the white rabble whom they looked upon with contempt. They simply started paying a premium for slaves because their other options, whites, were no longer available.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    They simply started paying a premium for slaves

    Why? The laziest people known to man are not even worth the base price. It takes some seriously fraudulent accounting to make it look that way.

    White men didn’t come because the conditions sucked. They might have reconsidered at a higher wage.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    Why?

    Blacks appear to have been satisfactory for the demands of the day. Plus, white indentured servant interest in escape, suppressed initially by low numbers and lots of Indians, eventually increased as the Indians withdrew and the surrounding free white population increased making escape for whites easier than it had been previously. In other words, fear of Indians was part of the business model of the planters who paid transport fare for their white workers and expected to get a return on investment.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  214. @Corvinus
    @Reg Cæsar

    “But that’s white supremacism. (And it is. Who wrote the bail laws?) So they are inching over to our side?”

    Definitional error on your part.

    “You didn’t specify which whites are angry and frustrated.”

    There isn’t a need to. But that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Corvinus and Rosenbaum together, as the moral equals they are:

  215. @Jack D
    @Curle

    Even at the time of the Civil War, most of the whites who fought to defend slavery were not personally slave owners, certainly not on any large scale. (It was common in the South for even smaller farmers or middle class people to have a slave or two instead of a hired hand, but this was nothing like the plantation agriculture where rich plantation owners (only a handful of the population) owned hundreds of slaves each.) And yet, the Southern white masses fought for this system.

    Needless to say, any living person today is not responsible for slavery any more than young Germans today are responsible for Nazi war crimes. I believe in individual, not collective, guilt. Collective guilt is what leads to horrors like the Holocaust.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Curle

    “ the Southern white masses fought for this system.”

    The Southern white masses fought for an constitutional arrangement that their forefathers agreed to in the 18th century. An arrangement that was not conducive to northern desires for 1) an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares; 2) a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain; 3) a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves; and, 4) a desire to use the federal treasury to finance the expansion of northern industry across the continent (railroad). The southern interpretation of the constitution was uncontroversial for most of the period between ratification and secession. It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states. The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic and reflected in no way the original compromise.

    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    @Curle

    Very well parsed, Curle.

    And recall that when things came to the crunch, the Northerners had elected as President of the Republic, Lincoln…a railroad attorney, in some ways that time’s equivalent of a Deep Stater, and totally on board with shattering the original republican compact. He was the last straw for the Southern States, and with good reason. Yes, he maintained that he was not interested in disrupting the “peculiar institution”, but reasonably enough, the Southern States did not believe him, and their suspicions were proved true when he promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation. Much more to say, but not here.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Curle


    a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves;

     

    When was this going to happen? Blacks didn't move north in great numbers until after ww1 and the so-called Great Migration happened after ww2. It was largely economic. Farming became mechanized & factories opened up North.

    Replies: @Curle

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic
     
    ...as was the three-fifths rule, which made some white men twice as equal as others in Congress. That's the only reason Jefferson beat Adams.

    an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares
     
    Make your own damned wares then. Don't feed the beast that impressed our seamen.

    a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain
     
    Tariffs were designed to protect industry throughout the land. That some parts had no industry to protect is not the fault of those levying them. Tariffs are no fun, but if the alternative is an income tax... oh, wait...

    Next time, import people with brains in their skulls!

    , @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states”

    As well as the realization by northerners and southerners that slavery was a moral scourge. The South has ramped up its efforts to expand slavery due to the success of the cotton gin, as well as growing demand for textiles. The southern economy was chugging along very nicely.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660/no

    —By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton.

    Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…
    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world.

    Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.—

  216. @Expletive Deleted
    @Pat Kittle

    I agree with Pat here.
    Sir Walter Raleigh tried to blow up the Great Pumpkin, at that time the despot of Britannia, by putting figgy pudding in the Thames and thus fatally overfeeding his Legions. Fortunately Jesus, in shape of King Noll, sank his Luftwaffe in the Pacific by means of Chinese rockets fired from the Moon by skilled First Nations' warriors.

    C'mon Septics. It's almost as though you know fuckall about History, outside of your giant prison.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle

    I agree with Pat here.
    Sir Walter Raleigh tried to blow up the Great Pumpkin, at that time the despot of Britannia, by putting figgy pudding in the Thames and thus fatally overfeeding his Legions. Fortunately Jesus, in shape of King Noll, sank his Luftwaffe in the Pacific by means of Chinese rockets fired from the Moon by skilled First Nations’ warriors.

    Hasbara humor — your fellow trolls will be amused.

    Asserting the Official Version of the “Holocaust” is risk-free, often-rewarded, easily done, and we’re all familiar with the “evidence.”

    QUESTIONING the Official Version of the “Holocaust” is another matter entirely. Historians go to prison for such heresy.

    And you don’t object.

    Hypocrite is too mild a term for you.

    • Troll: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    @Pat Kittle

    O for fuck's sake Pat.
    You finally got me.
    At last I am imprisoned in the carbonite with simian retard Corvinus.
    But at least that squeaky Thing there is not ..
    .. a Fenian.
    Tim-bay-a-m'lord, Tim bay-aaaa

    I'd rather be a paedophile heroin monster cannibal.
    Sort of like the pope, or Jack Dorsey, ken.
    At least it would be smooth.

  217. @Abolish_public_education
    @Pat Kittle

    A (multi-) day of thanks, associated with the Pilgrims but found in earlier Protestantism, was likely inspired by the week long, major Jewish holiday of Succoth. In 1621, that would have fallen about ten days into Fall.

    Replies: @Pat Kittle

    A (multi-) day of thanks, associated with the Pilgrims but found in earlier Protestantism, was likely inspired by the week long, major Jewish holiday of Succoth. In 1621, that would have fallen about ten days into Fall.

    Yes, Christianity had roots in other mythologies.

    That does not mean Christian holidays are not Christian holidays.

  218. @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    They simply started paying a premium for slaves
     
    Why? The laziest people known to man are not even worth the base price. It takes some seriously fraudulent accounting to make it look that way.

    White men didn't come because the conditions sucked. They might have reconsidered at a higher wage.

    Replies: @Curle

    Why?

    Blacks appear to have been satisfactory for the demands of the day. Plus, white indentured servant interest in escape, suppressed initially by low numbers and lots of Indians, eventually increased as the Indians withdrew and the surrounding free white population increased making escape for whites easier than it had been previously. In other words, fear of Indians was part of the business model of the planters who paid transport fare for their white workers and expected to get a return on investment.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    Blacks appear to have been satisfactory for the demands of the day.
     
    Talk about low expectations! Who was left to do the actual work?

    I can't see how traditional explanations of the antebellum economy, whether of the "Southern partisan" or the "woke" variety, can survive an HBD analysis.

    Replies: @Curle

  219. @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    Why?

    Blacks appear to have been satisfactory for the demands of the day. Plus, white indentured servant interest in escape, suppressed initially by low numbers and lots of Indians, eventually increased as the Indians withdrew and the surrounding free white population increased making escape for whites easier than it had been previously. In other words, fear of Indians was part of the business model of the planters who paid transport fare for their white workers and expected to get a return on investment.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Blacks appear to have been satisfactory for the demands of the day.

    Talk about low expectations! Who was left to do the actual work?

    I can’t see how traditional explanations of the antebellum economy, whether of the “Southern partisan” or the “woke” variety, can survive an HBD analysis.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    HBD analysis does not preclude the possibility that low cost manual agricultural labor from 160 years ago might allow for profit taking.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  220. @PhysicistDave
    Brooks said:

    I’d add that right-wing populism is organized around the sacralization of the white working class and the belief that left-wing minority groups have now become the dominant oppressive majority.
     
    No, it is not the left-wing minority groups that have become oppressive: they are just pawns.

    It is the White ruling elite who are oppressing the productive classes in this society.

    Ruling elites are always a bit exploitative.

    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    This is not going to end well.

    Replies: @Bumpkin

    But the current ruling elite has become truly obsessive in their hatred of the people who produce actual goods and services in this society.

    This is not going to end well.

    Let me shine a ray of light into your dark musings (unfortunately only available in audio podcast form, but you can get a sense of it first from the youtube chapter headings).

    Of course, that will be the death of the current ruling elite. I think they see the writing on the wall, which is why, for example, the media elite is torching their reputation, because they can see their imminent demise coming.

  221. @Curle
    @PhysicistDave

    “or that slavery was wrong.”

    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution. Newcomers, constrained by the labor price realities set by their predecessors or the market generally, should have abstained from participating in the market. The southern states should have forced their plantation economy and infrastructure to revert back to unproductive, but moral, forest. They should have never imported cheap labor of any kind.

    Having said all that, the suboptimal moral decisions of 160+ years ago tell us little about the present except to be used as an self-serving cudgel for bizarre causation theories used to hand-wave away concerns over present day behavioral trends and to justify group based spoils.

    Replies: @Jack D, @PhysicistDave

    Curle wrote:

    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution.

    Indeed.

    My own sympathies, for what it is worth, lie with those abolitionists who wanted to secede from the union with the slave states.

    But of course my opinion is worth next to nothing: everyone involved, victims and victimizers alike, has been dead for a very long time.

    And it is not our job to pretend that we can somehow atone for the sins of people who have been dead for more than a century: that whole game of fake atonement is just a scam.

    • Agree: nebulafox
    • Replies: @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    You’ve been hitting on all cylinders lately, Physicist Dave.

  222. @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    “and I don’t think the glorious day when white people will finally wake up and take back America is ever”

    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @PhysicistDave

    Corvinus wrote:

    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?

    Uh, Corvy, did you look at the election results on November 2 or the current opinion polls?

    Maybe working-class people (not just Whites) have just begun taking the country back from you and your fellow grifters.

    When you start complaining that you cannot find employment, we will know that progress is being made.

    #RittenhouseForPrez2040

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    I sympathize with your sentiment, Dave, but if I were Kyle Rittenhouse, I'd try to avoid getting tied up with the GOP grifter eunuchs for the time being. Luckily, his comments about his first lawyer and choice of Carlson for his interview show he knows how to pick his spots.

    Jesus Christ, the amount of BlueChecks fantasizing about the rape, torture, and murder of an 18 year old during the trial. What is it? I think it's a mixture of what he proves about their nature and the fact that he's not some self destructive loser in the corner who they believe he should be because of his race and class.

  223. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    You are clearly very knowledgeable about political history, much more so than I. My intent was not so much to dispute the merits of small government, but rather to object to the idea that we can ignore race in favor of ideology.

    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Alden

    Rosie wrote to me:

    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.

    I take it you are talking about the People’s Republic of California in 2021?

    Because that is not a bad description of what the welfare state has brought to parts of LA and San Francisco.

    Here is Sacramento, it’s not quite as bad, but still pretty ugly.

    The countries you are talking about are:
    A) Very poor.
    B) Ruled by predatory governments who steal from the poor to create a welfare state for the rich — kinda like California.

    Rosie, have you known anyone who lived in America in the late nineteenth century before we had a welfare state?

    I did — my great grandmother and her sister: I was very close to Great Grandma. And all four of my grandparents, all of whom I knew quite well, were born in the first decade of the twentieth century.

    America before the welfare state was not the hell-hole you describe.

    People were free to make their own way in the world, and most did so with at least middling success. The small number who could not were helped out via voluntary charity.

    But the welfare state encourages venality, corruption, irresponsibility, and a dog-eat-dog competition over who gets to gnaw on the bone for the longest time.

    As Dr. Johnson put it, “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.” But under the welfare state, people are focused not on making money by providing goods or services that their fellow citizens will voluntarily pay for. Instead they are focused on rigging the rules so that they get more of the loot at the expense of their fellow citizens.

    And it is not the poorest among us who win at that ruthless game.

    America used to be a nice place: the country was focused on all normal people being able to make a living, raise a family, help out their neighbors, etc.

    Sailer and I lived through the tail end of that Amnerica.

    It’s gone. The Left stole it.

    And then there is the little matter of all the wars the “progressives” and “reformers” chose to involve us in that cost well over a million American lives (and probably several times that of non-American lives — I don’t think anyone has ever totaled all of those up). My great grandmother, whom I mentioned above, lost her younger brother in Woodrow Wilson’s evil “war to make the world safe for democracy.”

    The Left is the enemy of the human species and always has been.

    The Chinese are right to express hatred and contempt for the báizuǒ. Humanity cannot be safe until these people are excluded from human society.

    Race is not the problem. Most of the people Stalin murdered were of his own race. Similarly for Mao.

    The Left is the problem. It must be stripped of any access to power or influence among decent human beings.

    • Agree: JerseyJeffersonian
    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    Race is not the problem.
     
    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.

    Replies: @Highlander, @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    Sailer and I lived through the tail end of that Amnerica.
     
    Typo, or pun?
  224. @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote:


    However, we [Americans] do not chose to see our similarities with these groups of people though, do we? We see ourselves as uniquely virtuous and right.

    Sometimes we are that. Not always. That is why I say our record is mixed.
     
    Where on earth did you grow up???

    I grew up in a conservative, lily-white, church-going suburb in a border state in the Midwest in the mid-twentieth century.

    No one in my youth ever tried to hide the fact that we had not treated Amerindians very well or that slavery was wrong.

    No, the USA has certainly not been perfect. No sensible person (not Jefferson, for example) ever said it was.

    But why should the imperfections of our ancestors mean that we now have to engage in self-mutilation or self-castration?

    Replies: @Curle, @notsaying

    I am not interested in self-castration or self-mutilation at all. What originally got me to bring up the mixed record of American whites and other Northern Europeans was this comment above:

    “A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity.”

    I am admitting that when push comes to shove there is no telling what we might do. I also noted we do not like to be roused and prefer stability. What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote to me:


    What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.
     
    "We" did not do those bad things. Some people long dead did some bad things.

    And some living thugs also did some bad things -- like when the murderer Joe Biden killed ten innocent people in Afghanistan.

    Nor have those bad things given us "advantages." Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.

    And similarly for the terror bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intervention in Afghanistan, and all the rest. The murderous members of the ruling elite who benefited are not "we."

    We need to keep our eyes on the fact that the ruling elite is the enemy: they have committed numerous horrific crimes, but those crimes have harmed us, the majority of the American people, just as those crimes have harmed foreigners and minorities.

    Part of the game of the ruling elite is to get us, their victims, to accept a sense of guilt for their crimes.

    No: we are not guilty. They are, and they must be punished accordingly.

    Replies: @Curle, @nebulafox

  225. @notsaying
    @PhysicistDave

    I am not interested in self-castration or self-mutilation at all. What originally got me to bring up the mixed record of American whites and other Northern Europeans was this comment above:

    "A wise friend once asked, rhetorically, which tribe is the most dangerous. The answer he sought was that the tribe of Northern Europeans is far more dangerous, when roused, than the rest of humanity."

    I am admitting that when push comes to shove there is no telling what we might do. I also noted we do not like to be roused and prefer stability. What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    notsaying wrote to me:

    What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.

    “We” did not do those bad things. Some people long dead did some bad things.

    And some living thugs also did some bad things — like when the murderer Joe Biden killed ten innocent people in Afghanistan.

    Nor have those bad things given us “advantages.” Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.

    And similarly for the terror bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intervention in Afghanistan, and all the rest. The murderous members of the ruling elite who benefited are not “we.”

    We need to keep our eyes on the fact that the ruling elite is the enemy: they have committed numerous horrific crimes, but those crimes have harmed us, the majority of the American people, just as those crimes have harmed foreigners and minorities.

    Part of the game of the ruling elite is to get us, their victims, to accept a sense of guilt for their crimes.

    No: we are not guilty. They are, and they must be punished accordingly.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @Curle
    @PhysicistDave

    “ Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.”

    Slavery was just the moralized pseudo-proximate cause, the Finance power was going to blow the thing apart one way or another to get access to the public purse for infrastructure projects, the American system so beloved of Lincoln. Only question is how the old Republic was going to die, with a roar or a whimper.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Lol on the notion of Hiroshima being an especially singular terror bombing that stands out. What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?

    I still remember seeing the memorial in Yokoamicho Park as a kid. They say that Tokyo's shallow canals actually BOILED that night. They don't care about the lives, they care about their petty anti nuclear agenda at a time where the US needs nuclear plants. Can you imagine where'd we be if we built those in the 70s? No Middle East wars that squandered trillions on armpits with less GDPs than we spent in one year.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  226. @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    Blacks appear to have been satisfactory for the demands of the day.
     
    Talk about low expectations! Who was left to do the actual work?

    I can't see how traditional explanations of the antebellum economy, whether of the "Southern partisan" or the "woke" variety, can survive an HBD analysis.

    Replies: @Curle

    HBD analysis does not preclude the possibility that low cost manual agricultural labor from 160 years ago might allow for profit taking.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle


    HBD analysis does not preclude the possibility that low cost manual agricultural labor from 160 years ago might allow for profit taking.
     
    Assuming actual labor.


    https://www.americanantiquarian.org/Freedmen/graphics/epstereo1x.jpg
  227. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.
     
    I take it you are talking about the People's Republic of California in 2021?

    Because that is not a bad description of what the welfare state has brought to parts of LA and San Francisco.

    Here is Sacramento, it's not quite as bad, but still pretty ugly.

    The countries you are talking about are:
    A) Very poor.
    B) Ruled by predatory governments who steal from the poor to create a welfare state for the rich -- kinda like California.

    Rosie, have you known anyone who lived in America in the late nineteenth century before we had a welfare state?

    I did -- my great grandmother and her sister: I was very close to Great Grandma. And all four of my grandparents, all of whom I knew quite well, were born in the first decade of the twentieth century.

    America before the welfare state was not the hell-hole you describe.

    People were free to make their own way in the world, and most did so with at least middling success. The small number who could not were helped out via voluntary charity.

    But the welfare state encourages venality, corruption, irresponsibility, and a dog-eat-dog competition over who gets to gnaw on the bone for the longest time.

    As Dr. Johnson put it, "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money." But under the welfare state, people are focused not on making money by providing goods or services that their fellow citizens will voluntarily pay for. Instead they are focused on rigging the rules so that they get more of the loot at the expense of their fellow citizens.

    And it is not the poorest among us who win at that ruthless game.

    America used to be a nice place: the country was focused on all normal people being able to make a living, raise a family, help out their neighbors, etc.

    Sailer and I lived through the tail end of that Amnerica.

    It's gone. The Left stole it.

    And then there is the little matter of all the wars the "progressives" and "reformers" chose to involve us in that cost well over a million American lives (and probably several times that of non-American lives -- I don't think anyone has ever totaled all of those up). My great grandmother, whom I mentioned above, lost her younger brother in Woodrow Wilson's evil "war to make the world safe for democracy."

    The Left is the enemy of the human species and always has been.

    The Chinese are right to express hatred and contempt for the báizuǒ. Humanity cannot be safe until these people are excluded from human society.

    Race is not the problem. Most of the people Stalin murdered were of his own race. Similarly for Mao.

    The Left is the problem. It must be stripped of any access to power or influence among decent human beings.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar

    Race is not the problem.

    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.

    • Replies: @Highlander
    @Rosie

    And today's America is not comparable to your livable welfare states because of our open border.

    Replies: @Occasional lurker

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.
     
    The frontier was not open when my grandparents were born, much less when they were young adults.

    Rosie, dear girl, you need to stop believing the lies from the Leftist murderers and start learning some history!

    Rosie also wrote:


    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.
     
    And Rosie dear girls, you also need to stop taking seriously the neo-Bolsheviks who control Wikipedia.

    I take it you are just an innocent young girl without significant life experience?

    The West is dying, Rosie, and the Leftists (including the welfare/warfare state) killed it. And you are blinding yourself to that truth.

    If you have any kids, teach then how to say, "Would you like soy sauce with that?" in Mandarin.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie,

    I was a bit flippant in dismissing the wikipedia article you link to and so I am here giving a more detailed response.

    First, and of overwhelming importance:

    The people in the high-ranked countries are choosing to not have babies.

    That fact is dispositive.

    If people have good lives in good societies, they physically reproduce. They want the society to continue and they want to pass on its blessings to their posterity.

    This is sufficient to prove that the so-called "human development index" is nonsense.

    And, indeed, there are certain obvious flaws in how the index is constructed.

    For example, they count years of schooling (mislabeled as "education") as a plus.

    I doubt you or most Americans would have trouble seeing that years spent in a madrasa should not count as a plus!

    But Western schools are now Leftist madrasas.

    Also, one of the major inputs to their index is per capita gross national income. However, the income statistics really count money paid out to people for supposed "jobs," even if those "jobs" actually reduce human welfare. For example, all the money we Americans shell out to diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, lawyers, the state universities, etc. is, quite bizarrely, counted as contributing to our well-being, when it actually worsens our lives.

    Finally, the index fails to measure the despair that is now the dominant sense of life among the productive classes in the West. Our welfare states, which you praise, do not really help poor people that much. What they really do is feed a predatory, corrupt ruling class -- what I call the "parasitic verbalist overclass": lawyers, "educators," bureaucrats," journalists," etc. -- that feeds off and openly despises the productive members of society.

    The productive members of our societies are despairing and are starting to fight back. Hopefully, we are not too far away from overthrowing the evil and corrupt regimes that now dominate the West.

    You dispute my analysis?

    Fine: then just explain why the people of the West are choosing not to reproduce.

    If this is a good society, I would hate to see a hellish one!

    Replies: @JMcG, @Rosie

  228. Jared Kushner’s net worth is estimated to be around \$800 million. He just purchased a Miami home for \$24 million.

    The battle to stay rich is his life’s purpose, second only to helping his tribespeople. You cannot turn to people like this to help anyone but themselves.

    Noblesse oblige requires real attachment. Marrying in to the overclass just to attain a façade does not make you ‘one who belongs’.

  229. @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote to me:


    What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.
     
    "We" did not do those bad things. Some people long dead did some bad things.

    And some living thugs also did some bad things -- like when the murderer Joe Biden killed ten innocent people in Afghanistan.

    Nor have those bad things given us "advantages." Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.

    And similarly for the terror bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intervention in Afghanistan, and all the rest. The murderous members of the ruling elite who benefited are not "we."

    We need to keep our eyes on the fact that the ruling elite is the enemy: they have committed numerous horrific crimes, but those crimes have harmed us, the majority of the American people, just as those crimes have harmed foreigners and minorities.

    Part of the game of the ruling elite is to get us, their victims, to accept a sense of guilt for their crimes.

    No: we are not guilty. They are, and they must be punished accordingly.

    Replies: @Curle, @nebulafox

    “ Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.”

    Slavery was just the moralized pseudo-proximate cause, the Finance power was going to blow the thing apart one way or another to get access to the public purse for infrastructure projects, the American system so beloved of Lincoln. Only question is how the old Republic was going to die, with a roar or a whimper.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Curle

    Curle wrote to me:


    Slavery was just the moralized pseudo-proximate cause, the Finance power was going to blow the thing apart one way or another to get access to the public purse for infrastructure projects, the American system so beloved of Lincoln. Only question is how the old Republic was going to die, with a roar or a whimper.
     
    Well, that is part of the point I made above in my ~250-word summary of American political history. The Civil War was essentially a prime example of Pareto's "circulation of elites": the rising Northern plutocracy crushed the Southern slavocracy (I am intentionally using the derogatory terms for each to be even-handed and also because I think they fit).

    Nonetheless, it is true that the issue of slavery in the territories was the spark used by the Republicans to light the conflagration.

    For very readable summaries of how the catastrophe came about, see two brilliant books by the historian Michael Holt: The Political Crisis of the 1850s and especially The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War. (Holt has a newer book specifically on the 1860 election, which I am looking forward to reading.)

    Incidentally, I myself do not share Holt's political sympathies (I'm basically a "Locofoco," whereas Holt seems sympathetic to the Whigs), but he is very informative and a very good writer.
  230. @notsaying
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Who do you see as my masters?

    I didn't think I had any.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian

    Your Masters?

    Those are the ones whom you are not permitted to criticize.

    Think on that. When your servility is well and truly established, you will find it difficult to perceive. Who do you reflexively flinch from critiquing or questioning? How did things come to such a pass? A hint: pervasive, lifelong indoctrination, perhaps?

  231. @Muggles
    @Expletive Deleted

    I am just about to finish reading The Horde, How the Mongols Changed the World, by Marie Favereau.The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021.

    Though I have read other books about the Mongols and their history, this one is very good and mainly focuses on the Golden Horde, the one (or two actually) which was founded by one of Genghis's sons to conquer the West.

    This goes into great detail about how the Golden Horde (a/k/a "Tartars" as commonly called in Russia) ended up controlling all of central Asia and eastern Europe. Goes into good detail about how the Russian princes were vassals of the various successive Khans and served as tax collectors in return for Mongol military "protection."

    The history of Russia starts to make more sense after reading this book.

    While there were various environmental factors limiting Mongol expansion (command and control being the most important, as in the Roman Empire) it is clear that until the Black Death and the various Mongol succession wars (a bane of family run enterprises) the Mongols really never lost in Europe. But they were steppe peoples and as has been said, didn't do well in forests and mountains.

    Ultimately the Poles, Germans, Lithuanians and Russians beat them back though it helps to understand that Russia was until about 500 years ago a Mongol ruled place, indirectly.

    Whenever I see/hear/read of some Zoomer snowflake bitching about some minor thing, I say to myself, "just imagine looking up from your plow and seeing the looming dust of an oncoming Mongol horde. You think you have problems?"

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Usually, the Mongols only ran into problems when they had to launch invasions by sea, something they never truly got the hang of, or when supply lines were stretched in an abnormally alien environment that caused disease to thin out the ranks. Europe fulfilled neither requirement.

  232. @PhysicistDave
    @notsaying

    notsaying wrote to me:


    What I am doing is what many people before me have done: admitting and lamenting the bad things we have done while accepting the advantages they have given us.
     
    "We" did not do those bad things. Some people long dead did some bad things.

    And some living thugs also did some bad things -- like when the murderer Joe Biden killed ten innocent people in Afghanistan.

    Nor have those bad things given us "advantages." Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.

    And similarly for the terror bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the intervention in Afghanistan, and all the rest. The murderous members of the ruling elite who benefited are not "we."

    We need to keep our eyes on the fact that the ruling elite is the enemy: they have committed numerous horrific crimes, but those crimes have harmed us, the majority of the American people, just as those crimes have harmed foreigners and minorities.

    Part of the game of the ruling elite is to get us, their victims, to accept a sense of guilt for their crimes.

    No: we are not guilty. They are, and they must be punished accordingly.

    Replies: @Curle, @nebulafox

    Lol on the notion of Hiroshima being an especially singular terror bombing that stands out. What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?

    I still remember seeing the memorial in Yokoamicho Park as a kid. They say that Tokyo’s shallow canals actually BOILED that night. They don’t care about the lives, they care about their petty anti nuclear agenda at a time where the US needs nuclear plants. Can you imagine where’d we be if we built those in the 70s? No Middle East wars that squandered trillions on armpits with less GDPs than we spent in one year.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote:


    What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?
     
    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value, which was why it was a virgin target.

    Many of the top US military people criticized the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima: Japan was already beaten and was suing for peaces. They tried to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but of course it was not in Stalin's interests to help facilitate peace until the Soviets could move in and do their usual looting.

    McMeekin covers this towards the end of his current book, Stalin's War, but of course it is old hat and and available in numerous sources.

    The central theme of McMeekin's book, by the way, is that the only winners in WW II were the Communists, thanks to well-documented infiltration of the US and British governments by Soviet agents and, even more, the naivete of FDR and Churchill (Churchill woke up towards the very end, but far too late).

    (McMeekin is of course a professional historian and a professor at Bard, not a tinfoil hat kook.)

    Replies: @Alden, @JMcG, @Reg Cæsar

  233. @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote:


    I would say most whites people are quite awake, and are simply not buying into your virtue signaling and shaming, much to your chagrin. Maybe they have taken back America after all, in fundamental ways you personally disagree with?
     
    Uh, Corvy, did you look at the election results on November 2 or the current opinion polls?

    Maybe working-class people (not just Whites) have just begun taking the country back from you and your fellow grifters.

    When you start complaining that you cannot find employment, we will know that progress is being made.

    #RittenhouseForPrez2040

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I sympathize with your sentiment, Dave, but if I were Kyle Rittenhouse, I’d try to avoid getting tied up with the GOP grifter eunuchs for the time being. Luckily, his comments about his first lawyer and choice of Carlson for his interview show he knows how to pick his spots.

    Jesus Christ, the amount of BlueChecks fantasizing about the rape, torture, and murder of an 18 year old during the trial. What is it? I think it’s a mixture of what he proves about their nature and the fact that he’s not some self destructive loser in the corner who they believe he should be because of his race and class.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  234. @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ the Southern white masses fought for this system.”

    The Southern white masses fought for an constitutional arrangement that their forefathers agreed to in the 18th century. An arrangement that was not conducive to northern desires for 1) an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares; 2) a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain; 3) a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves; and, 4) a desire to use the federal treasury to finance the expansion of northern industry across the continent (railroad). The southern interpretation of the constitution was uncontroversial for most of the period between ratification and secession. It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states. The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic and reflected in no way the original compromise.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus

    Very well parsed, Curle.

    And recall that when things came to the crunch, the Northerners had elected as President of the Republic, Lincoln…a railroad attorney, in some ways that time’s equivalent of a Deep Stater, and totally on board with shattering the original republican compact. He was the last straw for the Southern States, and with good reason. Yes, he maintained that he was not interested in disrupting the “peculiar institution”, but reasonably enough, the Southern States did not believe him, and their suspicions were proved true when he promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation. Much more to say, but not here.

  235. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    Race is not the problem.
     
    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.

    Replies: @Highlander, @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    And today’s America is not comparable to your livable welfare states because of our open border.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Occasional lurker
    @Highlander

    A welfare state should of course only have open borders with other welfare states of similar wealth. A welfare state also needs measures to minimize free riding. Welfare states (where money was given to people without paid work) were the Capitalist West's answer to the threats of fascism and communism (who gave paid work to everyone). Now that both are history in Europe, they feel free to destroy support for welfare by making it unsustainable.

  236. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    The fact you’ve asked the question at all demolishes your claim.

    I presume you know how to read and how to order books from the library or internet for such purposes. Look for ‘Bacon’s Rebellion.’ You don’t need to be overly selective as it is unlikely that a book has been written on the subject that doesn’t answer your question.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The fact you’ve asked the question at all demolishes your claim.”

    That’s not how argumentation works. You made an extraordinary claim— Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history.

    Merely stating it doesn’t make it true nor accurate nor factual in nature. Back it up.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote to Carle:


    That’s not how argumentation works.
     
    Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here -- indeed any sensible person -- is willing to engage in "argumentation" with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of "argumentation."

    This is not a classroom, Corvy, and you are not our schoolmarm.

    And mature people do not usually use the word "argumentation." "Argument" is already a noun: no need for five more letters to sound like a pompous fool.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  237. @PhysicistDave
    @Curle

    Curle wrote:


    British plantation owners should not have planted overseas trade commodity crops in British colonies where such crops could not earn profits sufficient to support cheap paid labor. Such operations, and their necessary prerequisite labor systems, should not have been permitted to continue post Revolution.
     
    Indeed.

    My own sympathies, for what it is worth, lie with those abolitionists who wanted to secede from the union with the slave states.

    But of course my opinion is worth next to nothing: everyone involved, victims and victimizers alike, has been dead for a very long time.

    And it is not our job to pretend that we can somehow atone for the sins of people who have been dead for more than a century: that whole game of fake atonement is just a scam.

    Replies: @JMcG

    You’ve been hitting on all cylinders lately, Physicist Dave.

  238. @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ the Southern white masses fought for this system.”

    The Southern white masses fought for an constitutional arrangement that their forefathers agreed to in the 18th century. An arrangement that was not conducive to northern desires for 1) an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares; 2) a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain; 3) a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves; and, 4) a desire to use the federal treasury to finance the expansion of northern industry across the continent (railroad). The southern interpretation of the constitution was uncontroversial for most of the period between ratification and secession. It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states. The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic and reflected in no way the original compromise.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus

    a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves;

    When was this going to happen? Blacks didn’t move north in great numbers until after ww1 and the so-called Great Migration happened after ww2. It was largely economic. Farming became mechanized & factories opened up North.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    “ When was this going to happen?”

    It was happening well before the war. Several northern states assembled commissions to examine the problem, especially relative to crime and vagrancy. Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases. The British solved their problem by settling these imports in Sierra Leone.

    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers. Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, had restrictions on the sale of slaves ‘all or none’ provisions designed to encourage relocation, through sale, to the South. Washington Territory criminalized whites helping blacks relocate to the Territory.

    And then there is that famous scene in Faulkner novel where occupying Union army turns slaves away (back) at the Mississippi border. Based on real events. There was a reason for the long northern occupation after all.

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population. The only southern state allowed to do so, I believe.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus, @Paperback Writer

  239. @Anonymous
    Dishonest garbage from Brooks.

    It's not about minoritarianism but minority-elitism or minority-hegemonism.

    Jews are not just another minority. They are the dominant minority. Only a moron would mention Jewish minority in the same breath as Burmese-American minority or even Mexican-American minority, which is numerous but lackluster in elite circles. Most minority groups are heavy on social bottom or the middle. Jews are heavily represented on the top. Comparing Jewish minority and Guatemalan minority is like comparing British minority and Bengali minority in Old India.

    US didn't go from majority rule to rule by various minorities. It went from Wasp rule the Jewish rule. Most minority groups in the US have no power. And homos and blacks gained at the feet of Jews who found them useful.

    Of course, elites are always a minority. So, even wasp rule was minority rule, at least by class. Still, wasp elites felt some identification with the white masses. With Jews at the helm, that's no longer the case. But Jewish elites are like Wasp elites in one way. They do identify with lesser Jews even as they insist that white elites not identify with common whites. Also, while Jews, high and middle, feel it's their duty to identify with fellow Jews in Europe and Israel, they curse out any pan-white or pan-Christian identification. Whites in US better not root for whites in Russia or Hungary. American Christians better not stand up for Arab Christians against Neocon war plans.

    Brooks is a disgusting character. By framing the debate as one of majority vs minority, he pretends that he, as a Jewish minority, are like all the other minority groups. Right, Jewish Americans and Palestinian Americans have the same rights, which is why Israel gets funded by billions while BDS is shut down state after state.
    Indeed, the real conflict isn't really about white majority vs Jews anymore as most whites, GOP or Democratic, are utterly servile to Jewish Power. It's about Jews having problems with non-whites but using whites as scapegoats so that non-whites will blame all their woes on whites than on Jews, the real overlords of America. It's so dirty.

    Also, history has often been about minority rule over the majority. Roman empire was about Roman minority elites ruling over majority native populations. And before that, Greek minorities ruled over Egypt after Alexander swept through the area. And Greek and Macedonian minorities ruled over vast swathes of Persia and Bactria. Ottoman minorities ruled over Arabs and Greeks and parts of Balkans. British ruled over India and parts of China. Japanese minority ruled over Manchuria. They were minority elites.

    Another thing. If Jews love diversity of minorities so much, why did they opt to come to overwhelmingly white protestant America? Why not move to Latin American or some other colorful part of the world?

    Brooks is a vile dirtbag. Pure and simple. Nothing but lies from that pile of...

    Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster, @Ris_Eruwaedhiel, @e, @Curle, @Oscar Peterson

    I’d rather this kind of honesty than Brooks’s oily hypocrisy. At least with this guy, you get the authentic attitude:

    Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews
    October 18, 2010
    JERUSALEM (JTA) — Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his weekly Saturday night sermon said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews.

    “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.

    “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,” he said to some laughter.

    Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas Party and the former chief Sephardi rabbi of Israel, also said that the lives of non-Jews are protected in order to prevent financial loss to Jews.

    “With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi, who recently turned 90.

  240. @Curle
    @Reg Cæsar

    HBD analysis does not preclude the possibility that low cost manual agricultural labor from 160 years ago might allow for profit taking.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    HBD analysis does not preclude the possibility that low cost manual agricultural labor from 160 years ago might allow for profit taking.

    Assuming actual labor.

  241. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    Race is not the problem.
     
    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.

    Replies: @Highlander, @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to me:

    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.

    The frontier was not open when my grandparents were born, much less when they were young adults.

    Rosie, dear girl, you need to stop believing the lies from the Leftist murderers and start learning some history!

    Rosie also wrote:

    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.

    And Rosie dear girls, you also need to stop taking seriously the neo-Bolsheviks who control Wikipedia.

    I take it you are just an innocent young girl without significant life experience?

    The West is dying, Rosie, and the Leftists (including the welfare/warfare state) killed it. And you are blinding yourself to that truth.

    If you have any kids, teach then how to say, “Would you like soy sauce with that?” in Mandarin.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    I take it you are just an innocent young girl without significant life experience?
     
    No, I'm a middle-aged mother, and I suspect I have more life experience with poverty than you will ever have.

    The West is dying, Rosie, and the Leftists (including the welfare/warfare state) killed it.
     
    How do you know that? Did you catch the welfare state with a smoking gun? If not, you are doing nothing but speculating about the causes of American decline, dismissing demographics without argument.

    Indeed, it's not even clear to me that te welfare state would have grown so much in the absence of wage-busting immigration.

  242. @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ the Southern white masses fought for this system.”

    The Southern white masses fought for an constitutional arrangement that their forefathers agreed to in the 18th century. An arrangement that was not conducive to northern desires for 1) an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares; 2) a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain; 3) a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves; and, 4) a desire to use the federal treasury to finance the expansion of northern industry across the continent (railroad). The southern interpretation of the constitution was uncontroversial for most of the period between ratification and secession. It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states. The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic and reflected in no way the original compromise.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus

    The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic

    …as was the three-fifths rule, which made some white men twice as equal as others in Congress. That’s the only reason Jefferson beat Adams.

    an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares

    Make your own damned wares then. Don’t feed the beast that impressed our seamen.

    a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain

    Tariffs were designed to protect industry throughout the land. That some parts had no industry to protect is not the fault of those levying them. Tariffs are no fun, but if the alternative is an income tax… oh, wait…

    Next time, import people with brains in their skulls!

  243. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “The fact you’ve asked the question at all demolishes your claim.”

    That’s not how argumentation works. You made an extraordinary claim— Though Bacon’s Rebellion suggests that elites compromising white interests generally has a long history.

    Merely stating it doesn’t make it true nor accurate nor factual in nature. Back it up.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Corvinus wrote to Carle:

    That’s not how argumentation works.

    Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here — indeed any sensible person — is willing to engage in “argumentation” with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of “argumentation.”

    This is not a classroom, Corvy, and you are not our schoolmarm.

    And mature people do not usually use the word “argumentation.” “Argument” is already a noun: no need for five more letters to sound like a pompous fool.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here — indeed any sensible person — is willing to engage in “argumentation” with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of “argumentation”.”

    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate. And you’re right, I’m asking too much from some people to articulate their position when requested, especially when that position seems far fetched.

    Replies: @Curle, @PhysicistDave

  244. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.
     
    I take it you are talking about the People's Republic of California in 2021?

    Because that is not a bad description of what the welfare state has brought to parts of LA and San Francisco.

    Here is Sacramento, it's not quite as bad, but still pretty ugly.

    The countries you are talking about are:
    A) Very poor.
    B) Ruled by predatory governments who steal from the poor to create a welfare state for the rich -- kinda like California.

    Rosie, have you known anyone who lived in America in the late nineteenth century before we had a welfare state?

    I did -- my great grandmother and her sister: I was very close to Great Grandma. And all four of my grandparents, all of whom I knew quite well, were born in the first decade of the twentieth century.

    America before the welfare state was not the hell-hole you describe.

    People were free to make their own way in the world, and most did so with at least middling success. The small number who could not were helped out via voluntary charity.

    But the welfare state encourages venality, corruption, irresponsibility, and a dog-eat-dog competition over who gets to gnaw on the bone for the longest time.

    As Dr. Johnson put it, "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money." But under the welfare state, people are focused not on making money by providing goods or services that their fellow citizens will voluntarily pay for. Instead they are focused on rigging the rules so that they get more of the loot at the expense of their fellow citizens.

    And it is not the poorest among us who win at that ruthless game.

    America used to be a nice place: the country was focused on all normal people being able to make a living, raise a family, help out their neighbors, etc.

    Sailer and I lived through the tail end of that Amnerica.

    It's gone. The Left stole it.

    And then there is the little matter of all the wars the "progressives" and "reformers" chose to involve us in that cost well over a million American lives (and probably several times that of non-American lives -- I don't think anyone has ever totaled all of those up). My great grandmother, whom I mentioned above, lost her younger brother in Woodrow Wilson's evil "war to make the world safe for democracy."

    The Left is the enemy of the human species and always has been.

    The Chinese are right to express hatred and contempt for the báizuǒ. Humanity cannot be safe until these people are excluded from human society.

    Race is not the problem. Most of the people Stalin murdered were of his own race. Similarly for Mao.

    The Left is the problem. It must be stripped of any access to power or influence among decent human beings.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar

    Sailer and I lived through the tail end of that Amnerica.

    Typo, or pun?

  245. @nebulafox
    @PhysicistDave

    Lol on the notion of Hiroshima being an especially singular terror bombing that stands out. What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?

    I still remember seeing the memorial in Yokoamicho Park as a kid. They say that Tokyo's shallow canals actually BOILED that night. They don't care about the lives, they care about their petty anti nuclear agenda at a time where the US needs nuclear plants. Can you imagine where'd we be if we built those in the 70s? No Middle East wars that squandered trillions on armpits with less GDPs than we spent in one year.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    nebulafox wrote:

    What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?

    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value, which was why it was a virgin target.

    Many of the top US military people criticized the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima: Japan was already beaten and was suing for peaces. They tried to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but of course it was not in Stalin’s interests to help facilitate peace until the Soviets could move in and do their usual looting.

    McMeekin covers this towards the end of his current book, Stalin’s War, but of course it is old hat and and available in numerous sources.

    The central theme of McMeekin’s book, by the way, is that the only winners in WW II were the Communists, thanks to well-documented infiltration of the US and British governments by Soviet agents and, even more, the naivete of FDR and Churchill (Churchill woke up towards the very end, but far too late).

    (McMeekin is of course a professional historian and a professor at Bard, not a tinfoil hat kook.)

    • Replies: @Alden
    @PhysicistDave

    I’ve always thought that the communists were the only winners of both world wars. First Russia 20 years later half of Europe and China.

    Great minds think alike I and McMeekin. A professor at Bard. Probably a White hating heterosexual hating Christian hating European culture hating communist like every other college propagandist in the western world. Been looking for a substitute word for professor for a while. Propagandist fits.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    Stalin’s war is excellent. I’m currently working my way through his book on the diplomatic maneuvering that led up to the First World War, July 1914. It’s also very good, though rather heavier going.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value...

     

    But tremendous psychological value. This is called "terrorism" today.

    the naivete of FDR
     
    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn't want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  246. @Curle
    @PhysicistDave

    “ Slavery tore the country in two and devastated the South: we are still suffering from what slavery did to our society.”

    Slavery was just the moralized pseudo-proximate cause, the Finance power was going to blow the thing apart one way or another to get access to the public purse for infrastructure projects, the American system so beloved of Lincoln. Only question is how the old Republic was going to die, with a roar or a whimper.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Curle wrote to me:

    Slavery was just the moralized pseudo-proximate cause, the Finance power was going to blow the thing apart one way or another to get access to the public purse for infrastructure projects, the American system so beloved of Lincoln. Only question is how the old Republic was going to die, with a roar or a whimper.

    Well, that is part of the point I made above in my ~250-word summary of American political history. The Civil War was essentially a prime example of Pareto’s “circulation of elites”: the rising Northern plutocracy crushed the Southern slavocracy (I am intentionally using the derogatory terms for each to be even-handed and also because I think they fit).

    Nonetheless, it is true that the issue of slavery in the territories was the spark used by the Republicans to light the conflagration.

    For very readable summaries of how the catastrophe came about, see two brilliant books by the historian Michael Holt: The Political Crisis of the 1850s and especially The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War. (Holt has a newer book specifically on the 1860 election, which I am looking forward to reading.)

    Incidentally, I myself do not share Holt’s political sympathies (I’m basically a “Locofoco,” whereas Holt seems sympathetic to the Whigs), but he is very informative and a very good writer.

    • Thanks: Curle
  247. …no need for five more letters to sound like a pompous fool.


  248. @Paperback Writer
    @Curle


    a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves;

     

    When was this going to happen? Blacks didn't move north in great numbers until after ww1 and the so-called Great Migration happened after ww2. It was largely economic. Farming became mechanized & factories opened up North.

    Replies: @Curle

    “ When was this going to happen?”

    It was happening well before the war. Several northern states assembled commissions to examine the problem, especially relative to crime and vagrancy. Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases. The British solved their problem by settling these imports in Sierra Leone.

    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers. Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, had restrictions on the sale of slaves ‘all or none’ provisions designed to encourage relocation, through sale, to the South. Washington Territory criminalized whites helping blacks relocate to the Territory.

    And then there is that famous scene in Faulkner novel where occupying Union army turns slaves away (back) at the Mississippi border. Based on real events. There was a reason for the long northern occupation after all.

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population. The only southern state allowed to do so, I believe.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Curle

    In other words, the Colonization Society was right!

    , @Corvinus
    @Curle

    Jacob Green, a Presbyterian minister in Morris County., 1776:

    —What a dreadful absurdity! What a shocking consideration, that people who are strenuously contending for liberty should at the same time encourage and practice slavery! And being thus guilty, expose themselves to the judgement of Heaven! May slavery cease in America! Well may the West India islands be afraid of their slaves where that unnatural inequity is so abundantly practiced—

    “Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases”.

    If you are going to make that case, cite sources. Because assuredly there were those instances, but you make it appear it was the rule.

    The fact of the matter is that Black Loyalists contributed to the British cause in exchange for their freedom. In New York, for example, they generally worked as paid laborers in the Quartermaster General’s Department or the Forage and Provision Department. Other opportunities included British privateering vessels or for the Royal Chimney Sweep (Hodges 1999:149). This historian describes how a cultural life emerged among the formerly enslaved in this state—“Ethiopian Balls,” horse races, and regular activities at taverns, of which apparently were interracial affairs.

    General Carleton, in charge of British New York, agreed to General Washington’s demand in 1783 to list each black émigré—1,336 men, 914 women, and 750 children. They for the most part left this state for new opportunities on their own accord, from venturing to Sierra Leone to moving out west to setting up shop in Nova Scotia.

    Here are accounts, culled from various archives, of several freed blacks who settled in Canada, a “well-documented handful of these risk takers illustrating the complexity of slavery and its aftermath, showing examples of creative survival, family formation and re-formation, the growth of religious autonomy and political activism”.

    http://smallstatebighistory.com/should-they-stay-or-should-they-go-rhode-island-black-loyalists-after-the-american-revolution/

    “Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots”

    Yeah, about that. Free blacks in the North and South varied profoundly in status. Most lived in poverty, but in a few cities such as New Orleans, Baltimore, and Charleston, free blacks worked as skilled carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, and millwrights. They formed the small black middle class, and the wealth they accumulated would be used to build churches and form mutual aid societies. Although northern states had passed gradual abolition acts between 1780 and 1803, governments here did not extend equal rights and citizenship. Free people of color occupied an uneasy middle ground Legally, courts denied them the right to serve on juries or to testify against whites. Enforcement of northern race laws, however, was generally selective, and their real value lay in discouragement of further settlement and as a reminder to free blacks living there that their existence was dependent on white toleration. So some communities in the North were more agreeable to the presence of blacks, who worked alongside whites typically as manual laborers, but lived in their own squatter/ghetto neighborhoods on the outskirts of town.

    Replies: @Curle

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Curle


    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots

     

    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through. This is covered in Leon Witwack's North of Slavery.

    or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers.
     
    I've always been interested in this. Do you have any sources on it?

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population.

     

    This is unclear. Relocate in TN or elsewhere?

    I'm really disagreeing with you, just saying that the masses of freed black slaves had neither the gumption nor the means to move.

    There were also cases of whites trying to prevent blacks from moving - because they were the only labor force around.

    Replies: @Curle, @Curle, @PhysicistDave

  249. @Pierre de Craon
    @Pierre de Craon


    … Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency.
     
    I ended that sentence too abruptly. Mea culpa. It should have included the following:

    Catholics were by no means more guilty of genuflecting to the idol than any other Democratic Party constituency, except of course for the Catholics in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where the already disproportionately large percentage of citizens who were either employed by the government or getting government welfare payouts were the embodiment of a socialist trend that Kennedy was, in part, elected to advance nationally. In both those states, thanks to their having far more shanty Irish and Neapolitan and Sicilian Italians than was the norm, the inclination to worship a dissolute but good-looking politician who seemed to be serving their interests was already much, much farther advanced than it was virtually anywhere else in the States outside of DC itself.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    I should have said “many Catholics worshipped Kennedy.” I have myself argued against a poster here who said that Catholics were almost unanimously for Kennedy. My Kindergarten class, polled by Sister as to who our parents were voting for, came in by a small margin for Nixon. Nevertheless, Kennedy worship was not limited to poor and working class Catholics, and the MA/RI phenomenon you mention above was not limited to MA and RI, IMHO.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Hibernian


    I should have said “many Catholics worshipped Kennedy.”
     
    After centuries of explaining to Protestants, often futilely, that we don't actually worship Mary. Just show her more respect than they do.
  250. @James Speaks
    @Alden

    Have you ever been to flyover country?

    Replies: @Alden

    You mean 65 year old men playing with their guns in the garage with their 35 year old sons still living at home with no adult career because of affirmative action? And huffing and puffing about the 2nd amendment and how when the black hordes from Detroit or St Louis invade they’ll use the guns to fight off the black hordes?

    While their adult sons remain eternal adolescents never entering adult life because of affirmative action and the capitalist preference for immigrant non White cheap labor for every job from Dr, accountant engineer to dishwasher and day labor?

    Ever been to NW Europe? The most un masculine males I’ve ever seen in my life.
    And White American men? Millions of White children tortured in desegregated schools. The law of affirmative action that makes basically illegal to hire a White man, give a contract to a White man or a business loan to a White man.

    Check out education from kindergarten to PHD level in the best universities. It’s just one blast of hatred and denigration of Whites especially White men. Uncontrolled black on White crime every where.. The military, the last employment refuge of the macho White formerly working class White man is now run by blacks who hate Whites? The churches? Proud to be gay Protestants, evangelical Protestants who spend their vacations in Haiti rebuilding what never was built and bringing back adopted Haitian babies Lutherans whose main source of income is bringing Somalian savages to America? Catholics who have flooded America with gazillions of Hispanics. Southerners who claim southern blacks are under control because of carrying guns? Even though the crime rates in most of the southern states and big cities are the highest in the country? Southern states whose big cities are controlled by black mayors city councils police and whose industries and industries donate billions to BLM.

    Old French saying Don’t listen to what he says. Watch what he does. Look what White American macho men did Watch what they do every day. You guys can’t even show a little solidarity with your own race by boycotting black TV sports

    American men and women of NW European stock just rolled over and surrendered to the progressive coalition that is destroying us. And the progressive coalition wasn’t isn’t all Ellis Island communist Jews. It was one hundred years ago; and still is , a coalition of Puritan universalists Congregationalist progressives and Ellis’s Island communist Jew descendants.

    Instead of obsessing about the 2nd amendment, how about attempting to restore 14th amendment rights to Whites?

    • Replies: @JackOH
    @Alden


    You mean 65 year old men playing with their guns in the garage with their 35 year old sons still living at home with no adult career because of affirmative action?
     
    Alden, thanks for that.

    In the 1990s I noticed a cohort (mostly White males) in their 30s to their 50s who were, like me, at loose ends for long periods. Overeducated and unemployed or underemployed. Took a few years for me to admit that a combo of deindustrialization, affirmative action, immigration, etc. were displacing White folks (mostly guys) in labor markets. There's really no effective political recourse either, without sounding like an embittered nut job.
  251. @PhysicistDave
    @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote:


    What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?
     
    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value, which was why it was a virgin target.

    Many of the top US military people criticized the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima: Japan was already beaten and was suing for peaces. They tried to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but of course it was not in Stalin's interests to help facilitate peace until the Soviets could move in and do their usual looting.

    McMeekin covers this towards the end of his current book, Stalin's War, but of course it is old hat and and available in numerous sources.

    The central theme of McMeekin's book, by the way, is that the only winners in WW II were the Communists, thanks to well-documented infiltration of the US and British governments by Soviet agents and, even more, the naivete of FDR and Churchill (Churchill woke up towards the very end, but far too late).

    (McMeekin is of course a professional historian and a professor at Bard, not a tinfoil hat kook.)

    Replies: @Alden, @JMcG, @Reg Cæsar

    I’ve always thought that the communists were the only winners of both world wars. First Russia 20 years later half of Europe and China.

    Great minds think alike I and McMeekin. A professor at Bard. Probably a White hating heterosexual hating Christian hating European culture hating communist like every other college propagandist in the western world. Been looking for a substitute word for professor for a while. Propagandist fits.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Alden

    Alden wrote to me:


    Great minds think alike I and McMeekin. A professor at Bard. Probably a White hating heterosexual hating Christian hating European culture hating communist like every other college propagandist in the western world. Been looking for a substitute word for professor for a while. Propagandist fits.
     
    As far as I can tell from a few hints in the book, McMeekin is a conservative with libertarian leanings (he approvingly quotes Bastiat at one point, in a gentle rebuke of Keynesians, for example).

    But, more than anything, he seems to be a guy who really loves writing about history and digging up the facts of history.

    To be sure, he has his own favorite views on specific issues in history (e.g., who is responsible for WW I), but it is a little hard to think of any historian who doesn't.

    I do wonder though how he gets along at Bard. Maybe he is just a nice guy and really good at what he does. Or maybe he has tenure and stays quiet about current politics and just talks about history.
  252. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    You are clearly very knowledgeable about political history, much more so than I. My intent was not so much to dispute the merits of small government, but rather to object to the idea that we can ignore race in favor of ideology.

    That said, I am very skeptical of the idea that a reasonably humane society can exist without a welfare state. Certainly, contemporary examples are not promising, at least that I am aware of. Go to a country without a welfare state, and you will find rampant illiteracy, human trafficking, extreme poverty, prisons with horrible living conditions, disabled beggars in the streets, etc. At least, that is my impression.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Alden

    Rampant illiteracy, human trafficking especially labor trafficking, disabled beggars in the streets. Sounds just like my home state of California.

    Physicist Dave. Our society is European Christian formerly Roman and German Celtic pagan society. Call it Western culture. Whatever it is, welfare in some form has always been part of our White race European society.

    2,5000 years ago, Rome was one of the biggest welfare societies the world has ever known. Most of the work, including highly skilled work was done by slaves . So the Romans survived by public housing, food banks and government provided activities.

    Ancient Egypt Sumeria and Mesopotamia governments gave agricultural subsidies to owners of orchards and vineyards. Because, unlike wheat, barley and other yearly crops; bushes and trees, especially olive trees take years from planting to harvest.

    Arab and other Muslim countries might look like a sea of wretchedness. But the mosques run welfare systems

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Alden

    In Rome only citizens were allowed to be soldiers and only citizens were eligible for the dole. These things were connected. It was in the interest of the state for citizens to be healthy and well fed, and to not be tied to jobs that they could not leave in time of war.

  253. @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    “ When was this going to happen?”

    It was happening well before the war. Several northern states assembled commissions to examine the problem, especially relative to crime and vagrancy. Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases. The British solved their problem by settling these imports in Sierra Leone.

    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers. Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, had restrictions on the sale of slaves ‘all or none’ provisions designed to encourage relocation, through sale, to the South. Washington Territory criminalized whites helping blacks relocate to the Territory.

    And then there is that famous scene in Faulkner novel where occupying Union army turns slaves away (back) at the Mississippi border. Based on real events. There was a reason for the long northern occupation after all.

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population. The only southern state allowed to do so, I believe.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus, @Paperback Writer

    In other words, the Colonization Society was right!

    • Agree: Curle
  254. @Hibernian
    @Pierre de Craon

    I should have said "many Catholics worshipped Kennedy." I have myself argued against a poster here who said that Catholics were almost unanimously for Kennedy. My Kindergarten class, polled by Sister as to who our parents were voting for, came in by a small margin for Nixon. Nevertheless, Kennedy worship was not limited to poor and working class Catholics, and the MA/RI phenomenon you mention above was not limited to MA and RI, IMHO.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I should have said “many Catholics worshipped Kennedy.”

    After centuries of explaining to Protestants, often futilely, that we don’t actually worship Mary. Just show her more respect than they do.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  255. Your points are well taken. I might indeed have been too optimistic regarding the geographical confinement of the MA/RI phenomenon. Also, though I didn’t mean to imply or state that only the lower classes of Irish were Kennedy idolators, I see now that that is how what I wrote might be read. What I simply meant was that I’d argue that the better-off Irish and their non-Irish (and non-Catholic) socioeconomic peers and companions tended to idolize JFK and the other Kennedys in similar percentage terms. The fact that so little has changed for the better on this front in almost sixty years is yet another reason for despairing about this country’s future.

    In sum, I do still feel confident in asserting that among the lace-curtain Irish specifically, the desire for “social distancing” [ahem] from the Kennedy phenomenon was (1) plain as day to those of us who mixed with such people or were fortunate enough to be born into their number* and (2) effectively invisible to the great mass of our fellow Americans, for whom a tendency to generalize from ignorance, to generalize about the wrong things, or to do both seems to be ingested with mother’s milk.
    ______________
    *Both of my parents, now long deceased, were half-Irish on the father’s side. Of the two fathers, only my mother’s was genuinely lace-curtain in ancestry and upbringing, but he was poor as dirt thanks to a disinclination for working.

  256. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    Race is not the problem.
     
    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.

    Replies: @Highlander, @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie,

    I was a bit flippant in dismissing the wikipedia article you link to and so I am here giving a more detailed response.

    First, and of overwhelming importance:

    The people in the high-ranked countries are choosing to not have babies.

    That fact is dispositive.

    If people have good lives in good societies, they physically reproduce. They want the society to continue and they want to pass on its blessings to their posterity.

    This is sufficient to prove that the so-called “human development index” is nonsense.

    And, indeed, there are certain obvious flaws in how the index is constructed.

    For example, they count years of schooling (mislabeled as “education”) as a plus.

    I doubt you or most Americans would have trouble seeing that years spent in a madrasa should not count as a plus!

    But Western schools are now Leftist madrasas.

    Also, one of the major inputs to their index is per capita gross national income. However, the income statistics really count money paid out to people for supposed “jobs,” even if those “jobs” actually reduce human welfare. For example, all the money we Americans shell out to diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, lawyers, the state universities, etc. is, quite bizarrely, counted as contributing to our well-being, when it actually worsens our lives.

    Finally, the index fails to measure the despair that is now the dominant sense of life among the productive classes in the West. Our welfare states, which you praise, do not really help poor people that much. What they really do is feed a predatory, corrupt ruling class — what I call the “parasitic verbalist overclass”: lawyers, “educators,” bureaucrats,” journalists,” etc. — that feeds off and openly despises the productive members of society.

    The productive members of our societies are despairing and are starting to fight back. Hopefully, we are not too far away from overthrowing the evil and corrupt regimes that now dominate the West.

    You dispute my analysis?

    Fine: then just explain why the people of the West are choosing not to reproduce.

    If this is a good society, I would hate to see a hellish one!

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, from where comes your knowledge of the despair in the productive class in the US? I completely agree, but that’s the sea in which I swim. I’m doing well myself, but you’re spot on for the most part. Do you have family in this world?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    , @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    You dispute my analysis?
     
    Yes, absolutely.

    You cannot fudge life expectancy, and homelessness effectively does not exist in First World societies. Go to a homelessness camp and you will find that everyone is addicted to drugs and therefore cannot be helped.

    Deaths of despair (drugs, suicide) are not caused by high taxes. Deaths of despair are caused by total economic dislocation, which, in turn, has been caused by these "productivity taxpayers" who have benefitted from globalization.

    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been. The difference now is that people adjust their fertility downward because of lower infant mortality.

    The reason average fertility rates are down is because of increasing childlessness, not smaller families. Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.

    https://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

  257. @PhysicistDave
    @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote:


    What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?
     
    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value, which was why it was a virgin target.

    Many of the top US military people criticized the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima: Japan was already beaten and was suing for peaces. They tried to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but of course it was not in Stalin's interests to help facilitate peace until the Soviets could move in and do their usual looting.

    McMeekin covers this towards the end of his current book, Stalin's War, but of course it is old hat and and available in numerous sources.

    The central theme of McMeekin's book, by the way, is that the only winners in WW II were the Communists, thanks to well-documented infiltration of the US and British governments by Soviet agents and, even more, the naivete of FDR and Churchill (Churchill woke up towards the very end, but far too late).

    (McMeekin is of course a professional historian and a professor at Bard, not a tinfoil hat kook.)

    Replies: @Alden, @JMcG, @Reg Cæsar

    Stalin’s war is excellent. I’m currently working my way through his book on the diplomatic maneuvering that led up to the First World War, July 1914. It’s also very good, though rather heavier going.

  258. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie,

    I was a bit flippant in dismissing the wikipedia article you link to and so I am here giving a more detailed response.

    First, and of overwhelming importance:

    The people in the high-ranked countries are choosing to not have babies.

    That fact is dispositive.

    If people have good lives in good societies, they physically reproduce. They want the society to continue and they want to pass on its blessings to their posterity.

    This is sufficient to prove that the so-called "human development index" is nonsense.

    And, indeed, there are certain obvious flaws in how the index is constructed.

    For example, they count years of schooling (mislabeled as "education") as a plus.

    I doubt you or most Americans would have trouble seeing that years spent in a madrasa should not count as a plus!

    But Western schools are now Leftist madrasas.

    Also, one of the major inputs to their index is per capita gross national income. However, the income statistics really count money paid out to people for supposed "jobs," even if those "jobs" actually reduce human welfare. For example, all the money we Americans shell out to diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, lawyers, the state universities, etc. is, quite bizarrely, counted as contributing to our well-being, when it actually worsens our lives.

    Finally, the index fails to measure the despair that is now the dominant sense of life among the productive classes in the West. Our welfare states, which you praise, do not really help poor people that much. What they really do is feed a predatory, corrupt ruling class -- what I call the "parasitic verbalist overclass": lawyers, "educators," bureaucrats," journalists," etc. -- that feeds off and openly despises the productive members of society.

    The productive members of our societies are despairing and are starting to fight back. Hopefully, we are not too far away from overthrowing the evil and corrupt regimes that now dominate the West.

    You dispute my analysis?

    Fine: then just explain why the people of the West are choosing not to reproduce.

    If this is a good society, I would hate to see a hellish one!

    Replies: @JMcG, @Rosie

    Dave, from where comes your knowledge of the despair in the productive class in the US? I completely agree, but that’s the sea in which I swim. I’m doing well myself, but you’re spot on for the most part. Do you have family in this world?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @JMcG

    JMcG asked me:


    Dave, from where comes your knowledge of the despair in the productive class in the US? I completely agree, but that’s the sea in which I swim.
     
    Well, I do have a cousin who works on the assembly line at a GM plant back in the Midwest, and of course I follow the news as well as whatever Sailer is currently "noticing."

    But besides that, I have tried to make clear that I include in the "productive class" not simply farmers and truckers but also engineers and physicians. I am a physicist turned engineer and I have a close family member who is a physician. And what we have seen is that even in "white-collar" jobs like these that do deal with physical reality (try to get by on BS in such fields and the bridge collapses and the patient dies!), the productive people tend to be controlled and trashed by the sociopaths and manipulators.

    I think most Americans are still fundamentally decent people. But, based on what my immediate family has observed over the last few decades in a wide variety of environments -- from medical practice to engineering to medical labs to academic research in natural science -- I think that the majority of people in this society in positions of authority are sociopathic.

    Is it possible that my family has just had exceptionally bad luck? Unfortunately, the news -- everything from Ghislaine Maxwell to the Rittenhouse case to the Cuomo crime family to the Russian collusion fraud to critical race theory to our friends here like Corvinus and Rosie-- suggests that my family's experience is valid.

    The structures of authority in this society are rotten to the core.
  259. @Alden
    @James Speaks

    You mean 65 year old men playing with their guns in the garage with their 35 year old sons still living at home with no adult career because of affirmative action? And huffing and puffing about the 2nd amendment and how when the black hordes from Detroit or St Louis invade they’ll use the guns to fight off the black hordes?

    While their adult sons remain eternal adolescents never entering adult life because of affirmative action and the capitalist preference for immigrant non White cheap labor for every job from Dr, accountant engineer to dishwasher and day labor?

    Ever been to NW Europe? The most un masculine males I’ve ever seen in my life.
    And White American men? Millions of White children tortured in desegregated schools. The law of affirmative action that makes basically illegal to hire a White man, give a contract to a White man or a business loan to a White man.

    Check out education from kindergarten to PHD level in the best universities. It’s just one blast of hatred and denigration of Whites especially White men. Uncontrolled black on White crime every where.. The military, the last employment refuge of the macho White formerly working class White man is now run by blacks who hate Whites? The churches? Proud to be gay Protestants, evangelical Protestants who spend their vacations in Haiti rebuilding what never was built and bringing back adopted Haitian babies Lutherans whose main source of income is bringing Somalian savages to America? Catholics who have flooded America with gazillions of Hispanics. Southerners who claim southern blacks are under control because of carrying guns? Even though the crime rates in most of the southern states and big cities are the highest in the country? Southern states whose big cities are controlled by black mayors city councils police and whose industries and industries donate billions to BLM.

    Old French saying Don’t listen to what he says. Watch what he does. Look what White American macho men did Watch what they do every day. You guys can’t even show a little solidarity with your own race by boycotting black TV sports

    American men and women of NW European stock just rolled over and surrendered to the progressive coalition that is destroying us. And the progressive coalition wasn’t isn’t all Ellis Island communist Jews. It was one hundred years ago; and still is , a coalition of Puritan universalists Congregationalist progressives and Ellis’s Island communist Jew descendants.

    Instead of obsessing about the 2nd amendment, how about attempting to restore 14th amendment rights to Whites?

    Replies: @JackOH

    You mean 65 year old men playing with their guns in the garage with their 35 year old sons still living at home with no adult career because of affirmative action?

    Alden, thanks for that.

    In the 1990s I noticed a cohort (mostly White males) in their 30s to their 50s who were, like me, at loose ends for long periods. Overeducated and unemployed or underemployed. Took a few years for me to admit that a combo of deindustrialization, affirmative action, immigration, etc. were displacing White folks (mostly guys) in labor markets. There’s really no effective political recourse either, without sounding like an embittered nut job.

  260. @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote to Carle:


    That’s not how argumentation works.
     
    Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here -- indeed any sensible person -- is willing to engage in "argumentation" with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of "argumentation."

    This is not a classroom, Corvy, and you are not our schoolmarm.

    And mature people do not usually use the word "argumentation." "Argument" is already a noun: no need for five more letters to sound like a pompous fool.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here — indeed any sensible person — is willing to engage in “argumentation” with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of “argumentation”.”

    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate. And you’re right, I’m asking too much from some people to articulate their position when requested, especially when that position seems far fetched.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    Your general state of ignorance is not a measuring stick and you can do your own research. This would be a good start.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/953301.1676

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote to me:


    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate.
     
    Oh, Corvy, I just love your use of the passive voice here: it is "expected" but you don't tell us who expects it.

    After all, if you told us that "everyone" expects it, it would be trivial to show you are wrong.

    I'm tempted to play your game and say "Show us evidence that it is expected."

    But of course that would be pointless, since at least one person does expect it (you) and certainly many people do no expect it.

    I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view.

    Nor have I ever heard of any intelligent person who expresses that view, and I have known a lot of people that most would think are pretty intelligent -- several Nobel laureates, the inventor of TTL logic and the inventor of the Lange coupler, etc.

    Not a one of them, in my experience, ever indicated that they expect what you think is "expected."

    I suppose that all we can do is get a chuckle out of your oh-so-clever use of the passive voice. That sort of skill is what gets you your weekly paycheck, right?

    Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  261. @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    “ When was this going to happen?”

    It was happening well before the war. Several northern states assembled commissions to examine the problem, especially relative to crime and vagrancy. Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases. The British solved their problem by settling these imports in Sierra Leone.

    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers. Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, had restrictions on the sale of slaves ‘all or none’ provisions designed to encourage relocation, through sale, to the South. Washington Territory criminalized whites helping blacks relocate to the Territory.

    And then there is that famous scene in Faulkner novel where occupying Union army turns slaves away (back) at the Mississippi border. Based on real events. There was a reason for the long northern occupation after all.

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population. The only southern state allowed to do so, I believe.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus, @Paperback Writer

    Jacob Green, a Presbyterian minister in Morris County., 1776:

    —What a dreadful absurdity! What a shocking consideration, that people who are strenuously contending for liberty should at the same time encourage and practice slavery! And being thus guilty, expose themselves to the judgement of Heaven! May slavery cease in America! Well may the West India islands be afraid of their slaves where that unnatural inequity is so abundantly practiced—

    “Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases”.

    If you are going to make that case, cite sources. Because assuredly there were those instances, but you make it appear it was the rule.

    The fact of the matter is that Black Loyalists contributed to the British cause in exchange for their freedom. In New York, for example, they generally worked as paid laborers in the Quartermaster General’s Department or the Forage and Provision Department. Other opportunities included British privateering vessels or for the Royal Chimney Sweep (Hodges 1999:149). This historian describes how a cultural life emerged among the formerly enslaved in this state—“Ethiopian Balls,” horse races, and regular activities at taverns, of which apparently were interracial affairs.

    General Carleton, in charge of British New York, agreed to General Washington’s demand in 1783 to list each black émigré—1,336 men, 914 women, and 750 children. They for the most part left this state for new opportunities on their own accord, from venturing to Sierra Leone to moving out west to setting up shop in Nova Scotia.

    Here are accounts, culled from various archives, of several freed blacks who settled in Canada, a “well-documented handful of these risk takers illustrating the complexity of slavery and its aftermath, showing examples of creative survival, family formation and re-formation, the growth of religious autonomy and political activism”.

    http://smallstatebighistory.com/should-they-stay-or-should-they-go-rhode-island-black-loyalists-after-the-american-revolution/

    “Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots”

    Yeah, about that. Free blacks in the North and South varied profoundly in status. Most lived in poverty, but in a few cities such as New Orleans, Baltimore, and Charleston, free blacks worked as skilled carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, and millwrights. They formed the small black middle class, and the wealth they accumulated would be used to build churches and form mutual aid societies. Although northern states had passed gradual abolition acts between 1780 and 1803, governments here did not extend equal rights and citizenship. Free people of color occupied an uneasy middle ground Legally, courts denied them the right to serve on juries or to testify against whites. Enforcement of northern race laws, however, was generally selective, and their real value lay in discouragement of further settlement and as a reminder to free blacks living there that their existence was dependent on white toleration. So some communities in the North were more agreeable to the presence of blacks, who worked alongside whites typically as manual laborers, but lived in their own squatter/ghetto neighborhoods on the outskirts of town.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    “ If you are going to make that case, cite sources.”

    I made my case. That you don’t like it and also don’t want to expend energy looking for an contrary argument isn’t my problem.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  262. @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here — indeed any sensible person — is willing to engage in “argumentation” with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of “argumentation”.”

    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate. And you’re right, I’m asking too much from some people to articulate their position when requested, especially when that position seems far fetched.

    Replies: @Curle, @PhysicistDave

    Your general state of ignorance is not a measuring stick and you can do your own research. This would be a good start.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/953301.1676

  263. @Curle
    @Jack D

    “ the Southern white masses fought for this system.”

    The Southern white masses fought for an constitutional arrangement that their forefathers agreed to in the 18th century. An arrangement that was not conducive to northern desires for 1) an exclusive southern (and new state) market for their wares; 2) a desire to hobble trade between the southern states and the North’s economic competitor, Britain; 3) a desire to stem the flow of cheap labor/crime and charity cases migrating north in the form of freed slaves; and, 4) a desire to use the federal treasury to finance the expansion of northern industry across the continent (railroad). The southern interpretation of the constitution was uncontroversial for most of the period between ratification and secession. It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states. The interpretation adopted by the North was purely opportunistic and reflected in no way the original compromise.

    Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus

    “It only became controversial when this interpretation collided with an ‘evolving’ notion of merchantile and expansionist need, desire and opportunities as viewed by the growing northern states”

    As well as the realization by northerners and southerners that slavery was a moral scourge. The South has ramped up its efforts to expand slavery due to the success of the cotton gin, as well as growing demand for textiles. The southern economy was chugging along very nicely.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660/no

    —By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton.

    Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…
    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world.

    Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.—

  264. Yes, the South was the OPEC of midlands UK textile manufacturing.

    More slaves = more slaves moving North = more social tension + frustrated Finance opportunism + infrastructure demand/profit opportunities (American System) + desire to capture southern market = let’s be inventive with the constitution = war.

    Morality, as always, was the cover story.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “Your general state of ignorance is not a measuring stick and you can do your own research. This would be a good start.”

    As I expected, you choose to wave the white flag.

    “More slaves = more slaves moving North = more social tension + frustrated Finance opportunism + infrastructure demand/profit opportunities (American System) + desire to capture southern market = let’s be inventive with the constitution = war.”

    More like…

    More slaves = growing awareness by slaves and opponents of slavery in North/South to their treatment/conditions = political and social tension + southern plantation owner demands for protectionism + opposition to national business expansion without slavery + southern elitist expectation for lower social classes to be foot soldiers = civil war

    Immorality, as always, was the cover story.

    Replies: @Curle

  265. @Curle
    Yes, the South was the OPEC of midlands UK textile manufacturing.

    More slaves = more slaves moving North = more social tension + frustrated Finance opportunism + infrastructure demand/profit opportunities (American System) + desire to capture southern market = let’s be inventive with the constitution = war.

    Morality, as always, was the cover story.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Your general state of ignorance is not a measuring stick and you can do your own research. This would be a good start.”

    As I expected, you choose to wave the white flag.

    “More slaves = more slaves moving North = more social tension + frustrated Finance opportunism + infrastructure demand/profit opportunities (American System) + desire to capture southern market = let’s be inventive with the constitution = war.”

    More like…

    More slaves = growing awareness by slaves and opponents of slavery in North/South to their treatment/conditions = political and social tension + southern plantation owner demands for protectionism + opposition to national business expansion without slavery + southern elitist expectation for lower social classes to be foot soldiers = civil war

    Immorality, as always, was the cover story.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    “ As I expected, you choose to wave the white flag.”

    Read the book. Enough people here know the story without acceding to your demands to be spoon fed.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  266. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “Your general state of ignorance is not a measuring stick and you can do your own research. This would be a good start.”

    As I expected, you choose to wave the white flag.

    “More slaves = more slaves moving North = more social tension + frustrated Finance opportunism + infrastructure demand/profit opportunities (American System) + desire to capture southern market = let’s be inventive with the constitution = war.”

    More like…

    More slaves = growing awareness by slaves and opponents of slavery in North/South to their treatment/conditions = political and social tension + southern plantation owner demands for protectionism + opposition to national business expansion without slavery + southern elitist expectation for lower social classes to be foot soldiers = civil war

    Immorality, as always, was the cover story.

    Replies: @Curle

    “ As I expected, you choose to wave the white flag.”

    Read the book. Enough people here know the story without acceding to your demands to be spoon fed.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “Enough people here know the story without acceding to your demands to be spoon fed”

    According to Who/Whom?

    I imagine that since you are familiar with this particular source, you will be able to easily procure quotations and offer analysis as to what were and what were not “white interests” in the context of the time period’s imperial and colonial political and economic policies, and explain specific examples as to how southern plantation elites (the “bad” whites) knowingly developed and executed courses of action to the detriment of their own racial brethren (the “good” whites), who became aware of such machinations.

    Your move, William Berkeley.

    Replies: @Curle

  267. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    “ As I expected, you choose to wave the white flag.”

    Read the book. Enough people here know the story without acceding to your demands to be spoon fed.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Enough people here know the story without acceding to your demands to be spoon fed”

    According to Who/Whom?

    I imagine that since you are familiar with this particular source, you will be able to easily procure quotations and offer analysis as to what were and what were not “white interests” in the context of the time period’s imperial and colonial political and economic policies, and explain specific examples as to how southern plantation elites (the “bad” whites) knowingly developed and executed courses of action to the detriment of their own racial brethren (the “good” whites), who became aware of such machinations.

    Your move, William Berkeley.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    Consider my comment directed at those who are so informed.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  268. Essentially, David Brooks is celebrating Weimar Amerika.

    Makes me envy China just reading it.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  269. @Curle
    @Jack D

    I’m suggesting the German people viewed them as a mortal danger. I’ll also note the legitimizing nature of your defense for interwar Jewish aggression; absolute denial and blame the victim. Your view of interwar minoritarian (not just Jewish) aggression, particularly through the mechanism of revolutionary activity is on par with the Holocaust denial you disparage. Not evidence of an particularly skeptical observer but of one with a favored self-serving rationalization.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus, @Occasional lurker

    No, Germans didn’t see Jews a mortal danger (they were a very small minority in Germany and on their way to assmiliation ever since emancipation). The motive for the holocaust was a mix of racist “Aryan” ideology that was not shared by most Germans before 1933, and calculation on the part of the NS nomenclatura (the Wehrmacht officers didn’t like it and that is why they were largely left out it). The Nazis wanted to reduce population in the eastern provinces of their imagined Germanic Reich to make room for German settlers, and the very large number of Jews there were in the way, of the race most hated by the ideologues and a possibly not so docile element (too intelligent). The Kommissarbefehl pretended they were a mortal danger, but each and every one of the people who had to shoot masses of civilians in the early phase of the mass killings knew this was not true.
    I am German, in my childhood, the people who actually lived through the time were still around. JackD and Nebulafox describe things accurately from my perspective.

  270. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “Enough people here know the story without acceding to your demands to be spoon fed”

    According to Who/Whom?

    I imagine that since you are familiar with this particular source, you will be able to easily procure quotations and offer analysis as to what were and what were not “white interests” in the context of the time period’s imperial and colonial political and economic policies, and explain specific examples as to how southern plantation elites (the “bad” whites) knowingly developed and executed courses of action to the detriment of their own racial brethren (the “good” whites), who became aware of such machinations.

    Your move, William Berkeley.

    Replies: @Curle

    Consider my comment directed at those who are so informed.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    I’m not really surprised that you Are weaseling your way out of it

    Replies: @Curle

  271. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    Early America is beside the point, because of the open frontier.
     
    The frontier was not open when my grandparents were born, much less when they were young adults.

    Rosie, dear girl, you need to stop believing the lies from the Leftist murderers and start learning some history!

    Rosie also wrote:


    The facts on the ground simply do not support this view. The most livable countries in the world are all welfare states.
     
    And Rosie dear girls, you also need to stop taking seriously the neo-Bolsheviks who control Wikipedia.

    I take it you are just an innocent young girl without significant life experience?

    The West is dying, Rosie, and the Leftists (including the welfare/warfare state) killed it. And you are blinding yourself to that truth.

    If you have any kids, teach then how to say, "Would you like soy sauce with that?" in Mandarin.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I take it you are just an innocent young girl without significant life experience?

    No, I’m a middle-aged mother, and I suspect I have more life experience with poverty than you will ever have.

    The West is dying, Rosie, and the Leftists (including the welfare/warfare state) killed it.

    How do you know that? Did you catch the welfare state with a smoking gun? If not, you are doing nothing but speculating about the causes of American decline, dismissing demographics without argument.

    Indeed, it’s not even clear to me that te welfare state would have grown so much in the absence of wage-busting immigration.

  272. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie,

    I was a bit flippant in dismissing the wikipedia article you link to and so I am here giving a more detailed response.

    First, and of overwhelming importance:

    The people in the high-ranked countries are choosing to not have babies.

    That fact is dispositive.

    If people have good lives in good societies, they physically reproduce. They want the society to continue and they want to pass on its blessings to their posterity.

    This is sufficient to prove that the so-called "human development index" is nonsense.

    And, indeed, there are certain obvious flaws in how the index is constructed.

    For example, they count years of schooling (mislabeled as "education") as a plus.

    I doubt you or most Americans would have trouble seeing that years spent in a madrasa should not count as a plus!

    But Western schools are now Leftist madrasas.

    Also, one of the major inputs to their index is per capita gross national income. However, the income statistics really count money paid out to people for supposed "jobs," even if those "jobs" actually reduce human welfare. For example, all the money we Americans shell out to diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, lawyers, the state universities, etc. is, quite bizarrely, counted as contributing to our well-being, when it actually worsens our lives.

    Finally, the index fails to measure the despair that is now the dominant sense of life among the productive classes in the West. Our welfare states, which you praise, do not really help poor people that much. What they really do is feed a predatory, corrupt ruling class -- what I call the "parasitic verbalist overclass": lawyers, "educators," bureaucrats," journalists," etc. -- that feeds off and openly despises the productive members of society.

    The productive members of our societies are despairing and are starting to fight back. Hopefully, we are not too far away from overthrowing the evil and corrupt regimes that now dominate the West.

    You dispute my analysis?

    Fine: then just explain why the people of the West are choosing not to reproduce.

    If this is a good society, I would hate to see a hellish one!

    Replies: @JMcG, @Rosie

    You dispute my analysis?

    Yes, absolutely.

    You cannot fudge life expectancy, and homelessness effectively does not exist in First World societies. Go to a homelessness camp and you will find that everyone is addicted to drugs and therefore cannot be helped.

    Deaths of despair (drugs, suicide) are not caused by high taxes. Deaths of despair are caused by total economic dislocation, which, in turn, has been caused by these “productivity taxpayers” who have benefitted from globalization.

    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been. The difference now is that people adjust their fertility downward because of lower infant mortality.

    The reason average fertility rates are down is because of increasing childlessness, not smaller families. Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been.
     
    Are you really, truly this incredibly stupid???

    Sailer has been going on for years about the failure of populations in the advanced countries to reproduce themselves. Long before Sailer got on it, others (e.g., the late Ben Wattenberg) were going on about it.

    The statistics are very well-known and very easily available.

    Since you are so fond of wikipedia, look here.

    Quoting from the wikipedia article:

    The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s, dropped to below replacement in the early 70s, and by 1999 was at 2 children. Currently, the fertility is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the United States from countries with higher fertility. However, the fertility rate of immigrants to the United States has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income. In 2020, U.S. TFR continued to decline, reaching 1.64. [emphasis added: Note: replacement fertility corresponds to a TFR slightly above 2.0]
     
    Americans are not reproducing themselves.

    As for the EU, wikipedia notes, "The average total fertility rate in the European Union (EU-27) is calculated at 1.55 children per woman in 2018," i.e., way below replacement.

    Your claim that "As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm" is just utter nonsense. That is not what is happening in the US or the EU.

    People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    Something has gone horribly, catastrophically wrong.

    These countries are, in the most literal. biological sense, dying.

    Are you really so abysmally stupid that you do not know this?

    (Yes, everyone, I know I am venting, but what on earth is wrong mentally with this "Rosie" person?)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Rosie

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.
     
    Maybe.

    Materialism is, in my opinion, clearly false. Atheism, in my opinion, is probably true.

    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.

    And most people in the modern West are neither atheists nor materialists, so, no, I am afraid that that does not explain why the West has stopped making babies.

    And the fact that we evolved from other primates (more primitive from our point of view, though I suppose they would not share that opinion) is more certain than the fact that the earth moves around the sun. I've had occasion to analyze some of the primary data myself.

    Oh, and Darwin himself was actually pretty good at making babies!

    Replies: @Rosie

  273. @Highlander
    @Rosie

    And today's America is not comparable to your livable welfare states because of our open border.

    Replies: @Occasional lurker

    A welfare state should of course only have open borders with other welfare states of similar wealth. A welfare state also needs measures to minimize free riding. Welfare states (where money was given to people without paid work) were the Capitalist West’s answer to the threats of fascism and communism (who gave paid work to everyone). Now that both are history in Europe, they feel free to destroy support for welfare by making it unsustainable.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  274. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    Consider my comment directed at those who are so informed.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    I’m not really surprised that you Are weaseling your way out of it

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    Weaseling out of what? My non-obligation to accommodate your non-assertion of fact?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  275. Anonymous[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @notsaying
    I do not want to jostle and debate forever with a bunch of newcomers -- many of whom came here illegally or are only here due to relatives who did -- over how the country will be run.

    Who does?

    I think everybody underestimates how much bad feeling in this country comes from the insistence of some that the rest of us must dance their dance, a dance that is not fun and gets us nowhere. I am not referring to just one group here. There are multiple groups with radically different agendas that want the rest of us to go along with them, agree or disagree.

    Isn't there a chance that people will refuse to jostle and instead of competing they will attack those who seem to run the game? How do you run a country or accomplish anything with a population that is perpetually seething and feels like it is being poked with a stick?

    You do not.

    Replies: @SafeNow, @James Speaks, @Anonymous

    A brown legal immigrant I know, pretty well, who is for all intents and purposes “pro white” (which he sees as just the Core America) noted to me once what he thought was the oddest feature of the current American society. He was stunned at how the very descendants of the founders of the Nation…the original Colonist who participated in a very risky revolution–were completely SHAT upon by all the minorities (and Jews) and the media, etc. He noted that the descendants of O’Leary, and other fellow travelers of Bolivar, San Martin, Cochrane, Santander etc were very proud of carrying the surnames and that others respected them for being from those families. Here, it is a complete inversion of what would normally be an honorable lineage.

    • Thanks: notsaying
    • Replies: @notsaying
    @Anonymous

    That is an interesting difference.

    I do not expect anybody to have any special respect for whites here for a long time. I wasn't brought up that way.

    But I have had enough of people who came here recently telling us how awful we were and are when whoever in their family who came here knew that, and came anyway. We Americans had no choice, we were born here.

    But when people came here specifically to make us share with them what we have, and then argue and point fingers about how we got it and how we treat them like a broken record, the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of their vision of themselves as victims is too much.

    These immigrants are not victims. Whatever we got we shouldn't have from American Indians and blacks, they came to piggyback on. When you buy something off the back of a truck, you are benefitting from a crime; our sins, whatever they may be, are their sins, too.

    I am also really ticked off we have allowed ourselves to end up a minority bin out own country but I will take that topic on another day.

  276. Anonymous[105] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden
    @Rosie

    Rampant illiteracy, human trafficking especially labor trafficking, disabled beggars in the streets. Sounds just like my home state of California.

    Physicist Dave. Our society is European Christian formerly Roman and German Celtic pagan society. Call it Western culture. Whatever it is, welfare in some form has always been part of our White race European society.

    2,5000 years ago, Rome was one of the biggest welfare societies the world has ever known. Most of the work, including highly skilled work was done by slaves . So the Romans survived by public housing, food banks and government provided activities.

    Ancient Egypt Sumeria and Mesopotamia governments gave agricultural subsidies to owners of orchards and vineyards. Because, unlike wheat, barley and other yearly crops; bushes and trees, especially olive trees take years from planting to harvest.

    Arab and other Muslim countries might look like a sea of wretchedness. But the mosques run welfare systems

    Replies: @Anonymous

    In Rome only citizens were allowed to be soldiers and only citizens were eligible for the dole. These things were connected. It was in the interest of the state for citizens to be healthy and well fed, and to not be tied to jobs that they could not leave in time of war.

  277. @Pat Kittle
    @Expletive Deleted


    I agree with Pat here.
    Sir Walter Raleigh tried to blow up the Great Pumpkin, at that time the despot of Britannia, by putting figgy pudding in the Thames and thus fatally overfeeding his Legions. Fortunately Jesus, in shape of King Noll, sank his Luftwaffe in the Pacific by means of Chinese rockets fired from the Moon by skilled First Nations’ warriors.
     
    Hasbara humor -- your fellow trolls will be amused.

    Asserting the Official Version of the "Holocaust" is risk-free, often-rewarded, easily done, and we're all familiar with the "evidence."

    QUESTIONING the Official Version of the "Holocaust" is another matter entirely. Historians go to prison for such heresy.

    And you don't object.

    Hypocrite is too mild a term for you.

    Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    O for fuck’s sake Pat.
    You finally got me.
    At last I am imprisoned in the carbonite with simian retard Corvinus.
    But at least that squeaky Thing there is not ..
    .. a Fenian.
    Tim-bay-a-m’lord, Tim bay-aaaa

    I’d rather be a paedophile heroin monster cannibal.
    Sort of like the pope, or Jack Dorsey, ken.
    At least it would be smooth.

  278. @PhysicistDave
    @nebulafox

    nebulafox wrote:


    What would one call Operation Meetinghouse? Killed more people. Why do people focus on Hiroshima, which probably helped prevent an invasion that would have killed a lot more people, instead?
     
    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value, which was why it was a virgin target.

    Many of the top US military people criticized the use of the Bomb on Hiroshima: Japan was already beaten and was suing for peaces. They tried to use the Soviets as intermediaries, but of course it was not in Stalin's interests to help facilitate peace until the Soviets could move in and do their usual looting.

    McMeekin covers this towards the end of his current book, Stalin's War, but of course it is old hat and and available in numerous sources.

    The central theme of McMeekin's book, by the way, is that the only winners in WW II were the Communists, thanks to well-documented infiltration of the US and British governments by Soviet agents and, even more, the naivete of FDR and Churchill (Churchill woke up towards the very end, but far too late).

    (McMeekin is of course a professional historian and a professor at Bard, not a tinfoil hat kook.)

    Replies: @Alden, @JMcG, @Reg Cæsar

    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value…

    But tremendous psychological value. This is called “terrorism” today.

    the naivete of FDR

    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn’t want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Reg Cæsar

    GReg Cæsar wrote to me:


    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn’t want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.
     
    Well... I am not sure FDR knew the attack would come at Pearl. But Secretary Stimson did present a statement to Congress that 12 days before the attack on Pearl, FDR informed his top advisors that Japan would soon attack.

    (Stimson's diary entry for November 25, 1941 stated that FDR "brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.")

    So, yeah, basically FDR knew.

    Again, I recommend to anyone Sean McMeekin's current book, Stalin's War, which lays out the background in a calm way that no reasonable person could consider over-the-top.

    However, McMeekin thinks, and I agree, that FDR was naive about Stalin. Do you disagree?

    I don't think FDR wanted the horrors that descended on Eastern Europe and China after the Communist takeovers. I think FDR was simply a very skilled two-bit politicians who had no real sense of world affairs.

    Churchill, of course, was a more complicated case: At one level, he was always the little Winston playing with his toy soldiers. But he was also bright enough that, from time to time, he would see clearly the realities of geopolitics.

    McMeekin goes into both issues in some detail.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG

  279. @Anonymous
    @notsaying

    A brown legal immigrant I know, pretty well, who is for all intents and purposes "pro white" (which he sees as just the Core America) noted to me once what he thought was the oddest feature of the current American society. He was stunned at how the very descendants of the founders of the Nation...the original Colonist who participated in a very risky revolution--were completely SHAT upon by all the minorities (and Jews) and the media, etc. He noted that the descendants of O'Leary, and other fellow travelers of Bolivar, San Martin, Cochrane, Santander etc were very proud of carrying the surnames and that others respected them for being from those families. Here, it is a complete inversion of what would normally be an honorable lineage.

    Replies: @notsaying

    That is an interesting difference.

    I do not expect anybody to have any special respect for whites here for a long time. I wasn’t brought up that way.

    But I have had enough of people who came here recently telling us how awful we were and are when whoever in their family who came here knew that, and came anyway. We Americans had no choice, we were born here.

    But when people came here specifically to make us share with them what we have, and then argue and point fingers about how we got it and how we treat them like a broken record, the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of their vision of themselves as victims is too much.

    These immigrants are not victims. Whatever we got we shouldn’t have from American Indians and blacks, they came to piggyback on. When you buy something off the back of a truck, you are benefitting from a crime; our sins, whatever they may be, are their sins, too.

    I am also really ticked off we have allowed ourselves to end up a minority bin out own country but I will take that topic on another day.

  280. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    Jacob Green, a Presbyterian minister in Morris County., 1776:

    —What a dreadful absurdity! What a shocking consideration, that people who are strenuously contending for liberty should at the same time encourage and practice slavery! And being thus guilty, expose themselves to the judgement of Heaven! May slavery cease in America! Well may the West India islands be afraid of their slaves where that unnatural inequity is so abundantly practiced—

    “Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases”.

    If you are going to make that case, cite sources. Because assuredly there were those instances, but you make it appear it was the rule.

    The fact of the matter is that Black Loyalists contributed to the British cause in exchange for their freedom. In New York, for example, they generally worked as paid laborers in the Quartermaster General’s Department or the Forage and Provision Department. Other opportunities included British privateering vessels or for the Royal Chimney Sweep (Hodges 1999:149). This historian describes how a cultural life emerged among the formerly enslaved in this state—“Ethiopian Balls,” horse races, and regular activities at taverns, of which apparently were interracial affairs.

    General Carleton, in charge of British New York, agreed to General Washington’s demand in 1783 to list each black émigré—1,336 men, 914 women, and 750 children. They for the most part left this state for new opportunities on their own accord, from venturing to Sierra Leone to moving out west to setting up shop in Nova Scotia.

    Here are accounts, culled from various archives, of several freed blacks who settled in Canada, a “well-documented handful of these risk takers illustrating the complexity of slavery and its aftermath, showing examples of creative survival, family formation and re-formation, the growth of religious autonomy and political activism”.

    http://smallstatebighistory.com/should-they-stay-or-should-they-go-rhode-island-black-loyalists-after-the-american-revolution/

    “Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots”

    Yeah, about that. Free blacks in the North and South varied profoundly in status. Most lived in poverty, but in a few cities such as New Orleans, Baltimore, and Charleston, free blacks worked as skilled carpenters, shoemakers, tailors, and millwrights. They formed the small black middle class, and the wealth they accumulated would be used to build churches and form mutual aid societies. Although northern states had passed gradual abolition acts between 1780 and 1803, governments here did not extend equal rights and citizenship. Free people of color occupied an uneasy middle ground Legally, courts denied them the right to serve on juries or to testify against whites. Enforcement of northern race laws, however, was generally selective, and their real value lay in discouragement of further settlement and as a reminder to free blacks living there that their existence was dependent on white toleration. So some communities in the North were more agreeable to the presence of blacks, who worked alongside whites typically as manual laborers, but lived in their own squatter/ghetto neighborhoods on the outskirts of town.

    Replies: @Curle

    “ If you are going to make that case, cite sources.”

    I made my case. That you don’t like it and also don’t want to expend energy looking for an contrary argument isn’t my problem.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    “I made my case. That you don’t like it and also don’t want to expend energy looking for an contrary argument isn’t my problem.“

    You made a claim. And when asked to supply the requisite evidence to back it up, you simply linked to a book. That’s not making your case.

  281. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    I’m not really surprised that you Are weaseling your way out of it

    Replies: @Curle

    Weaseling out of what? My non-obligation to accommodate your non-assertion of fact?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    No, your duty to lend support when asked to a claim you assume to be absolutely true. Otherwise, your credibility is shot. Hey, if you want to be a weasel, knock yourself out.

  282. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    You dispute my analysis?
     
    Yes, absolutely.

    You cannot fudge life expectancy, and homelessness effectively does not exist in First World societies. Go to a homelessness camp and you will find that everyone is addicted to drugs and therefore cannot be helped.

    Deaths of despair (drugs, suicide) are not caused by high taxes. Deaths of despair are caused by total economic dislocation, which, in turn, has been caused by these "productivity taxpayers" who have benefitted from globalization.

    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been. The difference now is that people adjust their fertility downward because of lower infant mortality.

    The reason average fertility rates are down is because of increasing childlessness, not smaller families. Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.

    https://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to me:

    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been.

    Are you really, truly this incredibly stupid???

    Sailer has been going on for years about the failure of populations in the advanced countries to reproduce themselves. Long before Sailer got on it, others (e.g., the late Ben Wattenberg) were going on about it.

    The statistics are very well-known and very easily available.

    Since you are so fond of wikipedia, look here.

    Quoting from the wikipedia article:

    The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s, dropped to below replacement in the early 70s, and by 1999 was at 2 children. Currently, the fertility is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the United States from countries with higher fertility. However, the fertility rate of immigrants to the United States has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income. In 2020, U.S. TFR continued to decline, reaching 1.64. [emphasis added: Note: replacement fertility corresponds to a TFR slightly above 2.0]

    Americans are not reproducing themselves.

    As for the EU, wikipedia notes, “The average total fertility rate in the European Union (EU-27) is calculated at 1.55 children per woman in 2018,” i.e., way below replacement.

    Your claim that “As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm” is just utter nonsense. That is not what is happening in the US or the EU.

    People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    Something has gone horribly, catastrophically wrong.

    These countries are, in the most literal. biological sense, dying.

    Are you really so abysmally stupid that you do not know this?

    (Yes, everyone, I know I am venting, but what on earth is wrong mentally with this “Rosie” person?)

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.
     
    Or maybe they're too happy?
    , @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    Really, you need to get a grip, and you desperately need to learn the difference between fact and conjecture. Low birthrates are a fact, your claim that unhappiness is their cause is conjecture, and bad conjecture at that. Recent birthrate declines have mainly affected downscale Whites who, I suspect, don't pay taxes because they don't have any money.
    However abysmally stupid I may be, at least I'm not so dense as to believe that taking away their safety net will encourage them to have more children.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/05/ST_2015-05-07_childlessness-08.png?w=315


    Your claim that “As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm” is just utter nonsense. That is not what is happening in the US or the EU.
     
    Your TFR statistics are completely irrelevant, because they do not take account of increasing childlessness. (Did you even read my post all the way through?) Here are the statistics you want:

    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/05/ST_2015-05-07_childlessness-07.png

    As you can see, the overwhelming majority of mothers have two or more children, and, at least some of those mothers likely would have liked to have more. Do you even know what a "norm" is?

    As I said, the problem of sub-replacement fertility is caused by childlessness, which brings down the average. Now, what should we suppose is the cause of increasing childlessness?

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X21994148

    Unless you can rule out, or at least quantify, the impact of other hypothetical cubes of low fertility, your belief that the welfare state is the primary case is nothing more than surmise.

    I overstated the case when I said that 2 or 3 children has always been the norm, but not radically so. On the farm, children are an economic boon. What is the historical average family size in post-agricultural communities? I don't know the data, but I do know that infant mortality was unimaginably high in cities until relatively recently.
  283. @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    Well, of course, Hiroshima is noteworthy because it killed a very large number of people in one big blast. And it had very little strategic value...

     

    But tremendous psychological value. This is called "terrorism" today.

    the naivete of FDR
     
    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn't want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    GReg Cæsar wrote to me:

    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn’t want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.

    Well… I am not sure FDR knew the attack would come at Pearl. But Secretary Stimson did present a statement to Congress that 12 days before the attack on Pearl, FDR informed his top advisors that Japan would soon attack.

    (Stimson’s diary entry for November 25, 1941 stated that FDR “brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”)

    So, yeah, basically FDR knew.

    Again, I recommend to anyone Sean McMeekin’s current book, Stalin’s War, which lays out the background in a calm way that no reasonable person could consider over-the-top.

    However, McMeekin thinks, and I agree, that FDR was naive about Stalin. Do you disagree?

    I don’t think FDR wanted the horrors that descended on Eastern Europe and China after the Communist takeovers. I think FDR was simply a very skilled two-bit politicians who had no real sense of world affairs.

    Churchill, of course, was a more complicated case: At one level, he was always the little Winston playing with his toy soldiers. But he was also bright enough that, from time to time, he would see clearly the realities of geopolitics.

    McMeekin goes into both issues in some detail.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @PhysicistDave


    Well… I am not sure FDR knew the attack would come at Pearl.
     
    They probably preferred a German attack, and were surprised by a kidney punch from the rear. But embargoing Japan while arming Britain... isn't that an act of war itself?
    , @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    I think FDR was way out of his depth in international affairs. I’d say Harry Hopkins has a lot to answer for as he pretty much ran Soviet affairs during the war. He was dying slowly from the effects of his stomach cancer, only outliving the very ill Roosevelt by a few months.
    I don’t really understand how anyone, least of all FDR, could be naive about Stalin in 1941.
    The famines, the show trials, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the joint invasion of Poland, the invasion of Finland, etc. amply demonstrated the true nature of Stalin.
    Prior to 1941-42, Stalin was ahead in the list of victims by millions at least. To this day, I cannot understand why Hitler was seen as a greater threat than Stalin at that time.
    Churchill was never naive about anything except his own abilities. No human being could drink the quantity of alcohol he is described as having done daily and been high functioning. He was in massive debt to those who bailed him out of his financial difficulties in the thirties.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  284. @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, from where comes your knowledge of the despair in the productive class in the US? I completely agree, but that’s the sea in which I swim. I’m doing well myself, but you’re spot on for the most part. Do you have family in this world?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    JMcG asked me:

    Dave, from where comes your knowledge of the despair in the productive class in the US? I completely agree, but that’s the sea in which I swim.

    Well, I do have a cousin who works on the assembly line at a GM plant back in the Midwest, and of course I follow the news as well as whatever Sailer is currently “noticing.”

    But besides that, I have tried to make clear that I include in the “productive class” not simply farmers and truckers but also engineers and physicians. I am a physicist turned engineer and I have a close family member who is a physician. And what we have seen is that even in “white-collar” jobs like these that do deal with physical reality (try to get by on BS in such fields and the bridge collapses and the patient dies!), the productive people tend to be controlled and trashed by the sociopaths and manipulators.

    I think most Americans are still fundamentally decent people. But, based on what my immediate family has observed over the last few decades in a wide variety of environments — from medical practice to engineering to medical labs to academic research in natural science — I think that the majority of people in this society in positions of authority are sociopathic.

    Is it possible that my family has just had exceptionally bad luck? Unfortunately, the news — everything from Ghislaine Maxwell to the Rittenhouse case to the Cuomo crime family to the Russian collusion fraud to critical race theory to our friends here like Corvinus and Rosie– suggests that my family’s experience is valid.

    The structures of authority in this society are rotten to the core.

  285. @PhysicistDave
    @Reg Cæsar

    GReg Cæsar wrote to me:


    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn’t want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.
     
    Well... I am not sure FDR knew the attack would come at Pearl. But Secretary Stimson did present a statement to Congress that 12 days before the attack on Pearl, FDR informed his top advisors that Japan would soon attack.

    (Stimson's diary entry for November 25, 1941 stated that FDR "brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.")

    So, yeah, basically FDR knew.

    Again, I recommend to anyone Sean McMeekin's current book, Stalin's War, which lays out the background in a calm way that no reasonable person could consider over-the-top.

    However, McMeekin thinks, and I agree, that FDR was naive about Stalin. Do you disagree?

    I don't think FDR wanted the horrors that descended on Eastern Europe and China after the Communist takeovers. I think FDR was simply a very skilled two-bit politicians who had no real sense of world affairs.

    Churchill, of course, was a more complicated case: At one level, he was always the little Winston playing with his toy soldiers. But he was also bright enough that, from time to time, he would see clearly the realities of geopolitics.

    McMeekin goes into both issues in some detail.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG

    Well… I am not sure FDR knew the attack would come at Pearl.

    They probably preferred a German attack, and were surprised by a kidney punch from the rear. But embargoing Japan while arming Britain… isn’t that an act of war itself?

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  286. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been.
     
    Are you really, truly this incredibly stupid???

    Sailer has been going on for years about the failure of populations in the advanced countries to reproduce themselves. Long before Sailer got on it, others (e.g., the late Ben Wattenberg) were going on about it.

    The statistics are very well-known and very easily available.

    Since you are so fond of wikipedia, look here.

    Quoting from the wikipedia article:

    The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s, dropped to below replacement in the early 70s, and by 1999 was at 2 children. Currently, the fertility is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the United States from countries with higher fertility. However, the fertility rate of immigrants to the United States has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income. In 2020, U.S. TFR continued to decline, reaching 1.64. [emphasis added: Note: replacement fertility corresponds to a TFR slightly above 2.0]
     
    Americans are not reproducing themselves.

    As for the EU, wikipedia notes, "The average total fertility rate in the European Union (EU-27) is calculated at 1.55 children per woman in 2018," i.e., way below replacement.

    Your claim that "As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm" is just utter nonsense. That is not what is happening in the US or the EU.

    People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    Something has gone horribly, catastrophically wrong.

    These countries are, in the most literal. biological sense, dying.

    Are you really so abysmally stupid that you do not know this?

    (Yes, everyone, I know I am venting, but what on earth is wrong mentally with this "Rosie" person?)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Rosie

    People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    Or maybe they’re too happy?

  287. Reg Cæsar wrote to me:

    [Dave] People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    [RC] Or maybe they’re too happy?

    I assume you are suggesting the hypothesis that they have so many ways of having fun nowadays that the joys of having and raising children just cannot compete?

    Maybe… but I think the evidence goes against that.

    What we have succeeded in doing is providing “quick fixes” for the stimuli that evolution designed us to crave — ranging from sugar (my personal addiction) to seeing beautiful women to social interaction to the appeal of novelty.

    But getting that easy quick fix seems not to make us happy long term. There have been various reports recently on the topic such as this one.

    Part of the problem is that your brain eventually habituates to the easy stimulation and then it no longer makes you happy. Except that now merely getting enough of the stimulus to stay on an even keel emotionally interferes with other important and rewarding activities.

    Which is, I suppose, more or less the definition of addiction.

    So, both from the neuro and psych studies and from watching the news, as well as just common-sense observation of the society we live in, no, I do not think our contemporaries are too happy to have kids.

    I think Sailer’s theory of “affordable family formation” along with the general despair evidenced among the productive classes in our society is a better explanation.

    But it would be a very good thing if bright people aside from Sailer (and perhaps Charles Murray and Angus Deaton and his wife) would think more carefully about all this.

    Something
    is certainly very, very wrong.

    The West is, in simple biological terms, dying.

    • Replies: @Bumpkin
    @PhysicistDave


    Something is certainly very, very wrong.

    The West is, in simple biological terms, dying.
     

    That's a bit much. Let's say the US population drops by more than half by 2100, say because we keep all the more "fertile" immigrants out and only have the natives barely procreating. If that got us back to the 159 million who were here in 1950, was the US an irredeemable shithole in 1950? I find those wringing their hands like you about the birthrate to be very strange.

    And Rosie is right that widespread "atheism and materialism" are the reasons, along with all the entertainment and other choices that you criticize, but those are the results of the liberty and choice that you espouse, as do I.

    I would love if the population, here and everywhere, dropped by half or more because of people choosing to have less babies. I can't believe you think the population explosion of the last century has been any great boon, as opposed to the quality-of-life improvements that an innovative few came up with.

    Note that I largely agree with much of what you write on other subjects, so this is not to disagree about corruption and the like, but I'm sure you know the US govt was always riddled with corruption: the govt itself is just bigger than ever now.

  288. @Alden
    @PhysicistDave

    I’ve always thought that the communists were the only winners of both world wars. First Russia 20 years later half of Europe and China.

    Great minds think alike I and McMeekin. A professor at Bard. Probably a White hating heterosexual hating Christian hating European culture hating communist like every other college propagandist in the western world. Been looking for a substitute word for professor for a while. Propagandist fits.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Alden wrote to me:

    Great minds think alike I and McMeekin. A professor at Bard. Probably a White hating heterosexual hating Christian hating European culture hating communist like every other college propagandist in the western world. Been looking for a substitute word for professor for a while. Propagandist fits.

    As far as I can tell from a few hints in the book, McMeekin is a conservative with libertarian leanings (he approvingly quotes Bastiat at one point, in a gentle rebuke of Keynesians, for example).

    But, more than anything, he seems to be a guy who really loves writing about history and digging up the facts of history.

    To be sure, he has his own favorite views on specific issues in history (e.g., who is responsible for WW I), but it is a little hard to think of any historian who doesn’t.

    I do wonder though how he gets along at Bard. Maybe he is just a nice guy and really good at what he does. Or maybe he has tenure and stays quiet about current politics and just talks about history.

  289. @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “Corvy, you still suffer from the delusion that anyone here — indeed any sensible person — is willing to engage in “argumentation” with you, with you being allowed to define the rules of “argumentation”.”

    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate. And you’re right, I’m asking too much from some people to articulate their position when requested, especially when that position seems far fetched.

    Replies: @Curle, @PhysicistDave

    Corvinus wrote to me:

    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate.

    Oh, Corvy, I just love your use of the passive voice here: it is “expected” but you don’t tell us who expects it.

    After all, if you told us that “everyone” expects it, it would be trivial to show you are wrong.

    I’m tempted to play your game and say “Show us evidence that it is expected.”

    But of course that would be pointless, since at least one person does expect it (you) and certainly many people do no expect it.

    I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view.

    Nor have I ever heard of any intelligent person who expresses that view, and I have known a lot of people that most would think are pretty intelligent — several Nobel laureates, the inventor of TTL logic and the inventor of the Lange coupler, etc.

    Not a one of them, in my experience, ever indicated that they expect what you think is “expected.”

    I suppose that all we can do is get a chuckle out of your oh-so-clever use of the passive voice. That sort of skill is what gets you your weekly paycheck, right?

    Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view“

    Of course you have. As a physicist, you are obligated to provide evidence in support of your conclusions. I imagine you wrote scientific papers or engaged in dialogue with colleagues, and when asked, you supplied the requisite information and analysis.

    It’s no different here on this fine opinion webzine, as a number of posters here do just that, including yourself. That is the expectation in and of itself. So don’t play coy here.

    “Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?“

    Now you’re just acting clownish here. There were two posts on this thread that I took time to offer analysis and sources in rebuttal to Curle. Any reasonable person would say that there was skill and knowledge in those two posts. But your stubbornness gets in the way here. Did you act that way at work when someone you philosophically opposed made cogent points?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

  290. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    Weaseling out of what? My non-obligation to accommodate your non-assertion of fact?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    No, your duty to lend support when asked to a claim you assume to be absolutely true. Otherwise, your credibility is shot. Hey, if you want to be a weasel, knock yourself out.

  291. @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote to me:


    It’s not my rules, it’s simply the decorum expected in a discussion/debate.
     
    Oh, Corvy, I just love your use of the passive voice here: it is "expected" but you don't tell us who expects it.

    After all, if you told us that "everyone" expects it, it would be trivial to show you are wrong.

    I'm tempted to play your game and say "Show us evidence that it is expected."

    But of course that would be pointless, since at least one person does expect it (you) and certainly many people do no expect it.

    I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view.

    Nor have I ever heard of any intelligent person who expresses that view, and I have known a lot of people that most would think are pretty intelligent -- several Nobel laureates, the inventor of TTL logic and the inventor of the Lange coupler, etc.

    Not a one of them, in my experience, ever indicated that they expect what you think is "expected."

    I suppose that all we can do is get a chuckle out of your oh-so-clever use of the passive voice. That sort of skill is what gets you your weekly paycheck, right?

    Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view“

    Of course you have. As a physicist, you are obligated to provide evidence in support of your conclusions. I imagine you wrote scientific papers or engaged in dialogue with colleagues, and when asked, you supplied the requisite information and analysis.

    It’s no different here on this fine opinion webzine, as a number of posters here do just that, including yourself. That is the expectation in and of itself. So don’t play coy here.

    “Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?“

    Now you’re just acting clownish here. There were two posts on this thread that I took time to offer analysis and sources in rebuttal to Curle. Any reasonable person would say that there was skill and knowledge in those two posts. But your stubbornness gets in the way here. Did you act that way at work when someone you philosophically opposed made cogent points?

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus wrote to me:.


    There were two posts on this thread that I took time to offer analysis and sources in rebuttal to Curle. Any reasonable person would say that there was skill and knowledge in those two posts.
     
    Evidence, please!

    (Just between you and me, you seem not to have impressed anyone at all -- reasonable or unreasonable!)

    Corvy also wrote:

    Did you act that way at work when someone you philosophically opposed made cogent points?
     
    Ummm.... you really do not know how either science or engineering work, do you, Corvy?

    I mean, "someone [I] philosophically opposed" making "cogent points"? You have no idea how preciously effeminate that sounds, do you, Corvy?

    Yes, yes, I know we are not supposed to make fun of effeminacy any more. I just can't help it. It is so precious!
    , @nebulafox
    @Corvinus

    >Of course you have. As a physicist, you are obligated...

    Please, just don't.

  292. @Rob McX
    @Mr. Blank


    How have they not yet attracted the ire of the grievance industry? They go after every other example of white folks living in peace and harmony, no matter how far afield it is from anything anyone cares about. Why do the Amish get a pass?
     
    Interesting question. My guess would be that the Amish communities are so insular that it's hard to undermine them. They don't seem to watch TV or go to public school - the two biggest conduits for enemy propaganda.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Wilkey

    Are there any Black Amish?

    Mormons occupy a similar place in the American mind as the Amish, even though they really aren’t that similar. The Mormons live in the modern world, and breed (or used to breed) at a very high rate, like the Amish. And they are very much being undermined and destroyed by the elite. The Mormons are fast on their way to being about as Woke as most mainline Protestant denominations.

    Speaking of which, Jews aren’t exactly diverse either – at least not in the Woke sense of the word. How many black Jews have you ever met? The purported obligation for Christians to evangelize is what has undermined many Christian denominations and Christian countries.

  293. @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view“

    Of course you have. As a physicist, you are obligated to provide evidence in support of your conclusions. I imagine you wrote scientific papers or engaged in dialogue with colleagues, and when asked, you supplied the requisite information and analysis.

    It’s no different here on this fine opinion webzine, as a number of posters here do just that, including yourself. That is the expectation in and of itself. So don’t play coy here.

    “Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?“

    Now you’re just acting clownish here. There were two posts on this thread that I took time to offer analysis and sources in rebuttal to Curle. Any reasonable person would say that there was skill and knowledge in those two posts. But your stubbornness gets in the way here. Did you act that way at work when someone you philosophically opposed made cogent points?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

    Corvinus wrote to me:.

    There were two posts on this thread that I took time to offer analysis and sources in rebuttal to Curle. Any reasonable person would say that there was skill and knowledge in those two posts.

    Evidence, please!

    (Just between you and me, you seem not to have impressed anyone at all — reasonable or unreasonable!)

    Corvy also wrote:

    Did you act that way at work when someone you philosophically opposed made cogent points?

    Ummm…. you really do not know how either science or engineering work, do you, Corvy?

    I mean, “someone [I] philosophically opposed” making “cogent points”? You have no idea how preciously effeminate that sounds, do you, Corvy?

    Yes, yes, I know we are not supposed to make fun of effeminacy any more. I just can’t help it. It is so precious!

  294. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    You dispute my analysis?
     
    Yes, absolutely.

    You cannot fudge life expectancy, and homelessness effectively does not exist in First World societies. Go to a homelessness camp and you will find that everyone is addicted to drugs and therefore cannot be helped.

    Deaths of despair (drugs, suicide) are not caused by high taxes. Deaths of despair are caused by total economic dislocation, which, in turn, has been caused by these "productivity taxpayers" who have benefitted from globalization.

    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been. The difference now is that people adjust their fertility downward because of lower infant mortality.

    The reason average fertility rates are down is because of increasing childlessness, not smaller families. Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.

    https://youtu.be/7ToSEAj2V0s

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to me:

    Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.

    Maybe.

    Materialism is, in my opinion, clearly false. Atheism, in my opinion, is probably true.

    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.

    And most people in the modern West are neither atheists nor materialists, so, no, I am afraid that that does not explain why the West has stopped making babies.

    And the fact that we evolved from other primates (more primitive from our point of view, though I suppose they would not share that opinion) is more certain than the fact that the earth moves around the sun. I’ve had occasion to analyze some of the primary data myself.

    Oh, and Darwin himself was actually pretty good at making babies!

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.
     
    Right, but then, they didn't have intrauterine devices to prevent it, did they?

    You don’t care about sub-replacement fertility, Dave. If you did, you would make like the Catholic Church and condemn birth control. You care about your pocketbook. Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don't pay taxes, anyway.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

  295. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm, as it has always been.
     
    Are you really, truly this incredibly stupid???

    Sailer has been going on for years about the failure of populations in the advanced countries to reproduce themselves. Long before Sailer got on it, others (e.g., the late Ben Wattenberg) were going on about it.

    The statistics are very well-known and very easily available.

    Since you are so fond of wikipedia, look here.

    Quoting from the wikipedia article:

    The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s, dropped to below replacement in the early 70s, and by 1999 was at 2 children. Currently, the fertility is below replacement among those native born, and above replacement among immigrant families, most of whom come to the United States from countries with higher fertility. However, the fertility rate of immigrants to the United States has been found to decrease sharply in the second generation, correlating with improved education and income. In 2020, U.S. TFR continued to decline, reaching 1.64. [emphasis added: Note: replacement fertility corresponds to a TFR slightly above 2.0]
     
    Americans are not reproducing themselves.

    As for the EU, wikipedia notes, "The average total fertility rate in the European Union (EU-27) is calculated at 1.55 children per woman in 2018," i.e., way below replacement.

    Your claim that "As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm" is just utter nonsense. That is not what is happening in the US or the EU.

    People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    Something has gone horribly, catastrophically wrong.

    These countries are, in the most literal. biological sense, dying.

    Are you really so abysmally stupid that you do not know this?

    (Yes, everyone, I know I am venting, but what on earth is wrong mentally with this "Rosie" person?)

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Rosie

    Really, you need to get a grip, and you desperately need to learn the difference between fact and conjecture. Low birthrates are a fact, your claim that unhappiness is their cause is conjecture, and bad conjecture at that. Recent birthrate declines have mainly affected downscale Whites who, I suspect, don’t pay taxes because they don’t have any money.
    However abysmally stupid I may be, at least I’m not so dense as to believe that taking away their safety net will encourage them to have more children.

    Your claim that “As for birthrates, the 2-3 child family is still very much the norm” is just utter nonsense. That is not what is happening in the US or the EU.

    Your TFR statistics are completely irrelevant, because they do not take account of increasing childlessness. (Did you even read my post all the way through?) Here are the statistics you want:

    As you can see, the overwhelming majority of mothers have two or more children, and, at least some of those mothers likely would have liked to have more. Do you even know what a “norm” is?

    As I said, the problem of sub-replacement fertility is caused by childlessness, which brings down the average. Now, what should we suppose is the cause of increasing childlessness?

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X21994148

    Unless you can rule out, or at least quantify, the impact of other hypothetical cubes of low fertility, your belief that the welfare state is the primary case is nothing more than surmise.

    I overstated the case when I said that 2 or 3 children has always been the norm, but not radically so. On the farm, children are an economic boon. What is the historical average family size in post-agricultural communities? I don’t know the data, but I do know that infant mortality was unimaginably high in cities until relatively recently.

  296. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    Childlessness is a function of atheism and materialism, which, I might add, certain people are desperately trying to prop up.
     
    Maybe.

    Materialism is, in my opinion, clearly false. Atheism, in my opinion, is probably true.

    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.

    And most people in the modern West are neither atheists nor materialists, so, no, I am afraid that that does not explain why the West has stopped making babies.

    And the fact that we evolved from other primates (more primitive from our point of view, though I suppose they would not share that opinion) is more certain than the fact that the earth moves around the sun. I've had occasion to analyze some of the primary data myself.

    Oh, and Darwin himself was actually pretty good at making babies!

    Replies: @Rosie

    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.

    Right, but then, they didn’t have intrauterine devices to prevent it, did they?

    You don’t care about sub-replacement fertility, Dave. If you did, you would make like the Catholic Church and condemn birth control. You care about your pocketbook. Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don’t pay taxes, anyway.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don’t pay taxes, anyway.
     
    Taxes?? Where, silly girl, did I say anything about "taxes"?

    The main problem with the welfare state is the demoralization of the productive classes in our society. Taxes are the least of it. You are the one obsessed with $$$, typical of your corrupt class.

    No, the main problem is that we are ruled by a kleptocratic class of corrupt grifters -- people like you and our friend Corvinus. Corruption, not taxes, is the main problem.

    For example, a few months ago, you and I had a discussion about a crooked lawyer we were dealing with. This guy, a shyster named Christopher Knauf who is "litigation director" at the "Disability Rights Legal center" in LA, had been representing our daughter to get UCLA to abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last summer, this jerk announced that he would no longer represent our daughter and promised to promptly file the paperwork to take himself off the case so she could be represented by a new lawyer.

    But then he would not let go of our daughter.

    We hired a new lawyer, but Knauf still would not sign the paperwork to let the new lawyer take over.

    This went on for ten weeks.

    Per your and my discussion, we contacted the state Bar and filed a formal complaint.

    The Bar told us to go to Hell.

    It turns out that choosing to end representation of a client but refusing to allow a new lawyer to take over the case is not considered unethical by the state Bar of California!

    Sweet deal, eh?

    This shyster only allowed our daughter to get a new lawyer when we started contacting the Board of Directors of the Disability Rights Legal Center. I think they realized it was going to look bad when we went to the media.

    And, it turns out, the jerk had induced our daughter to sign an illegal representation agreement forbidding her to settle the lawsuit without his consent (it has been settled law for a century in California that such provisions are illegal: the client always has the right to accept or decline a settlement offer in California, as a matter of law, regardless of what the attorney wants or thinks).

    Yeah, I know: we can sue him for malpractice. By hiring still another lawyer. And going through a court system run by lawyers.

    Because of course they will be more ethical than the state Bar.

    I have a close family member who is a physician. The regulatory bodies dealing with physicians and medical laboratories work just like the state Bar: i.e., they protect the crooks.

    I could go on and on, but anyone who watches the daily news already gets it: the ruling elite in this country, people like you and Corvy who have no idea how to produce any goods or services that their fellow citizens actually want or need, have deeply angered and infuriated the actual producers in the country.

    It is not race. It is not poor people. It is not immigrants.

    It is the parasitic verbalist overclass, people like you and Corvy, who live very well indeed at the expense of ordinary productive Americans.

    The class of which you are a member must be eliminated. You must be forced to engage in productive labor -- cleaning latrines comes to mind.

    What we need, Rosie, is a real class war in this country in which the productive classes rise up and disenfranchise parasites like you and Corvy and the shysters I described above. When you and Crovy tell us you cannot get a job and cannot put food on the table, then we will know we are winning.

    It's starting; it is just starting.

    "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..."

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    You don’t care about sub-replacement fertility, Dave. If you did, you would make like the Catholic Church and condemn birth control. You care about your pocketbook.
     
    You're a liar, Rosie.

    You just made that up: you are the one who is obsessed with taxes and who keeps bringing it up.

    I am obsessed with corruption and the resulting demoralization of the productive class in this society.

    As to condemning birth control:
    A) I am a passionate supporter of individual liberty: it is hard to see how I could rationally support a ban on birth control.
    B) The underlying problem is the oppression and demoralization of the productive classes in our society. Banning birth control would not address that at all: it would just make people justifiably angrier.
  297. @PhysicistDave
    @Reg Cæsar

    GReg Cæsar wrote to me:


    Get real! Nothing happened that he didn’t want to happen. Including Pearl Harbor.
     
    Well... I am not sure FDR knew the attack would come at Pearl. But Secretary Stimson did present a statement to Congress that 12 days before the attack on Pearl, FDR informed his top advisors that Japan would soon attack.

    (Stimson's diary entry for November 25, 1941 stated that FDR "brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.")

    So, yeah, basically FDR knew.

    Again, I recommend to anyone Sean McMeekin's current book, Stalin's War, which lays out the background in a calm way that no reasonable person could consider over-the-top.

    However, McMeekin thinks, and I agree, that FDR was naive about Stalin. Do you disagree?

    I don't think FDR wanted the horrors that descended on Eastern Europe and China after the Communist takeovers. I think FDR was simply a very skilled two-bit politicians who had no real sense of world affairs.

    Churchill, of course, was a more complicated case: At one level, he was always the little Winston playing with his toy soldiers. But he was also bright enough that, from time to time, he would see clearly the realities of geopolitics.

    McMeekin goes into both issues in some detail.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @JMcG

    I think FDR was way out of his depth in international affairs. I’d say Harry Hopkins has a lot to answer for as he pretty much ran Soviet affairs during the war. He was dying slowly from the effects of his stomach cancer, only outliving the very ill Roosevelt by a few months.
    I don’t really understand how anyone, least of all FDR, could be naive about Stalin in 1941.
    The famines, the show trials, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the joint invasion of Poland, the invasion of Finland, etc. amply demonstrated the true nature of Stalin.
    Prior to 1941-42, Stalin was ahead in the list of victims by millions at least. To this day, I cannot understand why Hitler was seen as a greater threat than Stalin at that time.
    Churchill was never naive about anything except his own abilities. No human being could drink the quantity of alcohol he is described as having done daily and been high functioning. He was in massive debt to those who bailed him out of his financial difficulties in the thirties.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @JMcG

    JMcG wrote to me


    :Churchill was never naive about anything except his own abilities. No human being could drink the quantity of alcohol he is described as having done daily and been high functioning.
     
    Well... there's that. Pretty articulate guy considering that he actually was an alcoholic.

    McMeekin thinks that Churchill was over-run with a sense of camaraderie and British fair play when dealing with Stalin. Too late he figured out that Stalin was playing by different rules.

    Replies: @JMcG

  298. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    “ If you are going to make that case, cite sources.”

    I made my case. That you don’t like it and also don’t want to expend energy looking for an contrary argument isn’t my problem.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I made my case. That you don’t like it and also don’t want to expend energy looking for an contrary argument isn’t my problem.“

    You made a claim. And when asked to supply the requisite evidence to back it up, you simply linked to a book. That’s not making your case.

  299. @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    “ When was this going to happen?”

    It was happening well before the war. Several northern states assembled commissions to examine the problem, especially relative to crime and vagrancy. Britain, after the Revolutionary War, faced a similar problem when they imported freed blacks from the US who had fought on their side. In a short time those imports started becoming crime and vagrancy cases. The British solved their problem by settling these imports in Sierra Leone.

    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers. Illinois, the Land of Lincoln, had restrictions on the sale of slaves ‘all or none’ provisions designed to encourage relocation, through sale, to the South. Washington Territory criminalized whites helping blacks relocate to the Territory.

    And then there is that famous scene in Faulkner novel where occupying Union army turns slaves away (back) at the Mississippi border. Based on real events. There was a reason for the long northern occupation after all.

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population. The only southern state allowed to do so, I believe.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Corvinus, @Paperback Writer

    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots

    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through. This is covered in Leon Witwack’s North of Slavery.

    or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers.

    I’ve always been interested in this. Do you have any sources on it?

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population.

    This is unclear. Relocate in TN or elsewhere?

    I’m really disagreeing with you, just saying that the masses of freed black slaves had neither the gumption nor the means to move.

    There were also cases of whites trying to prevent blacks from moving – because they were the only labor force around.

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    Here’s a good place to start. At around the 3:40 mark Livingston starts talking about northern concerns vis-a-vis blacks and eventually discusses policy to bottle them in the South.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGSYuMa3tVQ

    I’ll see if I can track down other materials relative to Johnson.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    And there was this:

    “https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war”

    Downs has collected numerous shocking accounts of the lives of freed slaves. He came across accounts of deplorable conditions in hospitals and refugee camps, where doctors often had racist theories about how black Americans reacted to disease. Things were so bad that one military official in Tennessee in 1865 wrote that former slaves were: "dying by scores – that sometimes 30 per day die and are carried out by wagonloads without coffins, and thrown promiscuously, like brutes, into a trench".

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Paperback Writer

    PW wrote:


    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through.
     
    Is that true? My recollection was that Massachusetts gave equal rights to blacks. Am I misremembering?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  300. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.
     
    Right, but then, they didn't have intrauterine devices to prevent it, did they?

    You don’t care about sub-replacement fertility, Dave. If you did, you would make like the Catholic Church and condemn birth control. You care about your pocketbook. Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don't pay taxes, anyway.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to me:

    Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don’t pay taxes, anyway.

    Taxes?? Where, silly girl, did I say anything about “taxes”?

    The main problem with the welfare state is the demoralization of the productive classes in our society. Taxes are the least of it. You are the one obsessed with \$\$\$, typical of your corrupt class.

    No, the main problem is that we are ruled by a kleptocratic class of corrupt grifters — people like you and our friend Corvinus. Corruption, not taxes, is the main problem.

    For example, a few months ago, you and I had a discussion about a crooked lawyer we were dealing with. This guy, a shyster named Christopher Knauf who is “litigation director” at the “Disability Rights Legal center” in LA, had been representing our daughter to get UCLA to abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last summer, this jerk announced that he would no longer represent our daughter and promised to promptly file the paperwork to take himself off the case so she could be represented by a new lawyer.

    But then he would not let go of our daughter.

    We hired a new lawyer, but Knauf still would not sign the paperwork to let the new lawyer take over.

    This went on for ten weeks.

    Per your and my discussion, we contacted the state Bar and filed a formal complaint.

    The Bar told us to go to Hell.

    It turns out that choosing to end representation of a client but refusing to allow a new lawyer to take over the case is not considered unethical by the state Bar of California!

    Sweet deal, eh?

    This shyster only allowed our daughter to get a new lawyer when we started contacting the Board of Directors of the Disability Rights Legal Center. I think they realized it was going to look bad when we went to the media.

    And, it turns out, the jerk had induced our daughter to sign an illegal representation agreement forbidding her to settle the lawsuit without his consent (it has been settled law for a century in California that such provisions are illegal: the client always has the right to accept or decline a settlement offer in California, as a matter of law, regardless of what the attorney wants or thinks).

    Yeah, I know: we can sue him for malpractice. By hiring still another lawyer. And going through a court system run by lawyers.

    Because of course they will be more ethical than the state Bar.

    I have a close family member who is a physician. The regulatory bodies dealing with physicians and medical laboratories work just like the state Bar: i.e., they protect the crooks.

    I could go on and on, but anyone who watches the daily news already gets it: the ruling elite in this country, people like you and Corvy who have no idea how to produce any goods or services that their fellow citizens actually want or need, have deeply angered and infuriated the actual producers in the country.

    It is not race. It is not poor people. It is not immigrants.

    It is the parasitic verbalist overclass, people like you and Corvy, who live very well indeed at the expense of ordinary productive Americans.

    The class of which you are a member must be eliminated. You must be forced to engage in productive labor — cleaning latrines comes to mind.

    What we need, Rosie, is a real class war in this country in which the productive classes rise up and disenfranchise parasites like you and Corvy and the shysters I described above. When you and Crovy tell us you cannot get a job and cannot put food on the table, then we will know we are winning.

    It’s starting; it is just starting.

    “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union…”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    Lol. This is a new one. Low birth rates are caused by ... bad lawyers.

    What I find curious here is that you claim that (1) lawyers are useless parasites, and (2) you hired one to get assistance with a violation of your daughter's rights.

    Anyway, I'm a SAHM. You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

  301. @Paperback Writer
    @Curle


    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots

     

    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through. This is covered in Leon Witwack's North of Slavery.

    or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers.
     
    I've always been interested in this. Do you have any sources on it?

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population.

     

    This is unclear. Relocate in TN or elsewhere?

    I'm really disagreeing with you, just saying that the masses of freed black slaves had neither the gumption nor the means to move.

    There were also cases of whites trying to prevent blacks from moving - because they were the only labor force around.

    Replies: @Curle, @Curle, @PhysicistDave

    Here’s a good place to start. At around the 3:40 mark Livingston starts talking about northern concerns vis-a-vis blacks and eventually discusses policy to bottle them in the South.

    I’ll see if I can track down other materials relative to Johnson.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Curle

    Thanks. I'll definitely look that up. The standard history books on the CW are very slanted.

    When I said, "I’m really disagreeing with you," I meant to say, "I'm NOT really disagreeing with you."

    Bad day yesterday. Things got to me.

  302. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don’t pay taxes, anyway.
     
    Taxes?? Where, silly girl, did I say anything about "taxes"?

    The main problem with the welfare state is the demoralization of the productive classes in our society. Taxes are the least of it. You are the one obsessed with $$$, typical of your corrupt class.

    No, the main problem is that we are ruled by a kleptocratic class of corrupt grifters -- people like you and our friend Corvinus. Corruption, not taxes, is the main problem.

    For example, a few months ago, you and I had a discussion about a crooked lawyer we were dealing with. This guy, a shyster named Christopher Knauf who is "litigation director" at the "Disability Rights Legal center" in LA, had been representing our daughter to get UCLA to abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last summer, this jerk announced that he would no longer represent our daughter and promised to promptly file the paperwork to take himself off the case so she could be represented by a new lawyer.

    But then he would not let go of our daughter.

    We hired a new lawyer, but Knauf still would not sign the paperwork to let the new lawyer take over.

    This went on for ten weeks.

    Per your and my discussion, we contacted the state Bar and filed a formal complaint.

    The Bar told us to go to Hell.

    It turns out that choosing to end representation of a client but refusing to allow a new lawyer to take over the case is not considered unethical by the state Bar of California!

    Sweet deal, eh?

    This shyster only allowed our daughter to get a new lawyer when we started contacting the Board of Directors of the Disability Rights Legal Center. I think they realized it was going to look bad when we went to the media.

    And, it turns out, the jerk had induced our daughter to sign an illegal representation agreement forbidding her to settle the lawsuit without his consent (it has been settled law for a century in California that such provisions are illegal: the client always has the right to accept or decline a settlement offer in California, as a matter of law, regardless of what the attorney wants or thinks).

    Yeah, I know: we can sue him for malpractice. By hiring still another lawyer. And going through a court system run by lawyers.

    Because of course they will be more ethical than the state Bar.

    I have a close family member who is a physician. The regulatory bodies dealing with physicians and medical laboratories work just like the state Bar: i.e., they protect the crooks.

    I could go on and on, but anyone who watches the daily news already gets it: the ruling elite in this country, people like you and Corvy who have no idea how to produce any goods or services that their fellow citizens actually want or need, have deeply angered and infuriated the actual producers in the country.

    It is not race. It is not poor people. It is not immigrants.

    It is the parasitic verbalist overclass, people like you and Corvy, who live very well indeed at the expense of ordinary productive Americans.

    The class of which you are a member must be eliminated. You must be forced to engage in productive labor -- cleaning latrines comes to mind.

    What we need, Rosie, is a real class war in this country in which the productive classes rise up and disenfranchise parasites like you and Corvy and the shysters I described above. When you and Crovy tell us you cannot get a job and cannot put food on the table, then we will know we are winning.

    It's starting; it is just starting.

    "We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..."

    Replies: @Rosie

    Lol. This is a new one. Low birth rates are caused by … bad lawyers.

    What I find curious here is that you claim that (1) lawyers are useless parasites, and (2) you hired one to get assistance with a violation of your daughter’s rights.

    Anyway, I’m a SAHM. You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.
     
    No, Rosie, I think that the deep corruption my family and I have observed among lawyers, at UICLA, etc. helps to illustrate the deep corruption in this society that needs to be eradicated.

    I remind you that my daughter has been assaulted on three separate occasions at UCLA: the one time she made the mistake of reporting the assault to the school authorities, UCLA punished my daughter and let the assailant off scot free, even though the assailant confessed to multiple crimes against my daughter, even though my daughter suffered a broken bone from the assault, and even though UCLA acknowledged that my daughter of course did not harm the attacker.

    You are an apologist for the deep corruption in this society that goes by the name of the "welfare state" and you are one of those racists who attempts to distract attention from the corruption that you support and benefit from by phrases like "race replacement."

    It is not other races that are destroying this society but people like you who are apologists for the evil and corrupt ruling regime.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    If you define yourself rather than your enemies through an acronym, you got problems... and when *I* say you've got problems, man...

  303. @Paperback Writer
    @Curle


    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots

     

    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through. This is covered in Leon Witwack's North of Slavery.

    or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers.
     
    I've always been interested in this. Do you have any sources on it?

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population.

     

    This is unclear. Relocate in TN or elsewhere?

    I'm really disagreeing with you, just saying that the masses of freed black slaves had neither the gumption nor the means to move.

    There were also cases of whites trying to prevent blacks from moving - because they were the only labor force around.

    Replies: @Curle, @Curle, @PhysicistDave

    And there was this:

    “https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war”

    Downs has collected numerous shocking accounts of the lives of freed slaves. He came across accounts of deplorable conditions in hospitals and refugee camps, where doctors often had racist theories about how black Americans reacted to disease. Things were so bad that one military official in Tennessee in 1865 wrote that former slaves were: “dying by scores – that sometimes 30 per day die and are carried out by wagonloads without coffins, and thrown promiscuously, like brutes, into a trench”.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Curle

    Yes, I've heard of that.

    But I wonder how good things were for Southern whites at the time.

    The real story of what the former Confederacy was like, post-war, has never truly been written.

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Curle

    That has nothing to do with the issue. I sense that you're being evasive, for partisan reasons.

    There are also cases where whites didn't want blacks to leave. Look up "Exodusters."

    Replies: @Curle

  304. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    Lol. This is a new one. Low birth rates are caused by ... bad lawyers.

    What I find curious here is that you claim that (1) lawyers are useless parasites, and (2) you hired one to get assistance with a violation of your daughter's rights.

    Anyway, I'm a SAHM. You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

    Rosie wrote to me:

    You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.

    No, Rosie, I think that the deep corruption my family and I have observed among lawyers, at UICLA, etc. helps to illustrate the deep corruption in this society that needs to be eradicated.

    I remind you that my daughter has been assaulted on three separate occasions at UCLA: the one time she made the mistake of reporting the assault to the school authorities, UCLA punished my daughter and let the assailant off scot free, even though the assailant confessed to multiple crimes against my daughter, even though my daughter suffered a broken bone from the assault, and even though UCLA acknowledged that my daughter of course did not harm the attacker.

    You are an apologist for the deep corruption in this society that goes by the name of the “welfare state” and you are one of those racists who attempts to distract attention from the corruption that you support and benefit from by phrases like “race replacement.”

    It is not other races that are destroying this society but people like you who are apologists for the evil and corrupt ruling regime.

    • Agree: nebulafox
    • Disagree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    I remind you that my daughter has been assaulted on three separate occasions at UCLA: the one time she made the mistake of reporting the assault to the school authorities, UCLA punished my daughter and let the assailant off scot free, even though the assailant confessed to multiple crimes against my daughter, even though my daughter suffered a broken bone from the assault, and even though UCLA acknowledged that my daughter of course did not harm the attacker.
     
    I'm really sorry to hear that, but it has nothing to do with the welfare state. Seriously, this is just incoherent nonsense. How does getting rid of food stamps help prevent this sort of injustice?

    It doesn't. You're just babbling gibberish.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  305. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    In any case, people in a whole lot of cultures who did not much care about your God or the issue of materialism (which only makes sense in the context of modern science) managed to make babies.
     
    Right, but then, they didn't have intrauterine devices to prevent it, did they?

    You don’t care about sub-replacement fertility, Dave. If you did, you would make like the Catholic Church and condemn birth control. You care about your pocketbook. Hence your attempt to blame taxes for declining birthrates among downscale Whites who don't pay taxes, anyway.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @PhysicistDave

    Rosie wrote to me:

    You don’t care about sub-replacement fertility, Dave. If you did, you would make like the Catholic Church and condemn birth control. You care about your pocketbook.

    You’re a liar, Rosie.

    You just made that up: you are the one who is obsessed with taxes and who keeps bringing it up.

    I am obsessed with corruption and the resulting demoralization of the productive class in this society.

    As to condemning birth control:
    A) I am a passionate supporter of individual liberty: it is hard to see how I could rationally support a ban on birth control.
    B) The underlying problem is the oppression and demoralization of the productive classes in our society. Banning birth control would not address that at all: it would just make people justifiably angrier.

  306. @Paperback Writer
    @Curle


    Before the war several northern states instituted tough laws to discourage free blacks from setting down roots

     

    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through. This is covered in Leon Witwack's North of Slavery.

    or to encourage northern slaveholders to sell their slaves to southern buyers.
     
    I've always been interested in this. Do you have any sources on it?

    And then there is the backlash Andrew Johnson endured for letting his home state of TN relocate a portion of their former slave population.

     

    This is unclear. Relocate in TN or elsewhere?

    I'm really disagreeing with you, just saying that the masses of freed black slaves had neither the gumption nor the means to move.

    There were also cases of whites trying to prevent blacks from moving - because they were the only labor force around.

    Replies: @Curle, @Curle, @PhysicistDave

    PW wrote:

    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through.

    Is that true? My recollection was that Massachusetts gave equal rights to blacks. Am I misremembering?

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @PhysicistDave

    Read this book. Massachusetts was slightly more lax than other states but not much more.

    https://www.amazon.com/North-Slavery-Negro-States-1790-1860/dp/0226485862


    The main point of the book is: the South did not invent Jim Crow.

  307. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie wrote to me:


    You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.
     
    No, Rosie, I think that the deep corruption my family and I have observed among lawyers, at UICLA, etc. helps to illustrate the deep corruption in this society that needs to be eradicated.

    I remind you that my daughter has been assaulted on three separate occasions at UCLA: the one time she made the mistake of reporting the assault to the school authorities, UCLA punished my daughter and let the assailant off scot free, even though the assailant confessed to multiple crimes against my daughter, even though my daughter suffered a broken bone from the assault, and even though UCLA acknowledged that my daughter of course did not harm the attacker.

    You are an apologist for the deep corruption in this society that goes by the name of the "welfare state" and you are one of those racists who attempts to distract attention from the corruption that you support and benefit from by phrases like "race replacement."

    It is not other races that are destroying this society but people like you who are apologists for the evil and corrupt ruling regime.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I remind you that my daughter has been assaulted on three separate occasions at UCLA: the one time she made the mistake of reporting the assault to the school authorities, UCLA punished my daughter and let the assailant off scot free, even though the assailant confessed to multiple crimes against my daughter, even though my daughter suffered a broken bone from the assault, and even though UCLA acknowledged that my daughter of course did not harm the attacker.

    I’m really sorry to hear that, but it has nothing to do with the welfare state. Seriously, this is just incoherent nonsense. How does getting rid of food stamps help prevent this sort of injustice?

    It doesn’t. You’re just babbling gibberish.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie asked me:


    How does getting rid of food stamps help prevent this sort of injustice?
     
    Once again you are putting words into my mouth -- I have not said anything about food stamps.

    I have made clear that in criticizing the welfare state I am criticizing the corruption it produces in financing the parasitic verbalist overcleass -- the educrats, lawyers, diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, and all the rest.

    Very, very little of the money spent on welfare goes to poor people.


    By far, the biggest chunk of federal welfare spending goes to retired folks -- Social Security and Medicare. Most recipients are middle-class.

    Out here in California, roughly half of our state budget goes to government schools -- K-12 and state colleges and universities. Again, most of that goes to the middle class.

    And a significant fraction of the money that is supposedly directed to the poor goes to fund middle-class sinecures -- social workers, consultants, etc.

    But beyond that, the corruption that I related that my own family has seen -- at UCLA, in the defense industry, in the medical-industrial complex, etc. -- is made possible by the government, the welfare-warfare state.

    In a nutshell, here are my main claims as nice simple bullet points:

    A) We are governed and controlled by a parasitic verbalist overclass that has used the state apparatus to create institutions (not just the state itself but also, for example, the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex) that necessarily survive by exploiting those ordinary productive American who are not hangers-on of the ruling elite. And the overclass, which survives by using words to control other human beings, hates and despises the ordinary people who produce the goods and services in this country, even though the members of the overclass are incapable of actual productive work themselves.

    B) These institutions wallow in corruption: the Deep State, the public schools, etc. are just rife with corruption. I gave my own personal examples to illuminate how this wrecks ordinary people's lives, but anyone who watches the news knows this is true on a large scale.

    C) The facts outlined in A) and B) are major contributors to the despair and demoralization of the decent and productive members of our society.

    D) And that despair and demoralization explain why American are not making babies, which means this society will die.

    I'll make a deal with you. You can keep your damned food stamps (they call it SNAP now), if we can abolish the Deep State, the education-industrial complex, the medical and Big Pharma oligopoly, the military-industrial complex, the diversicrat scam, the climate-change and "green-energy" con games, and all the rest.

    In short, the euthanasia of the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    And, as a bonus, I'll toss in the money to build the border wall.

    Deal?

    Replies: @Rosie

  308. @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    Here’s a good place to start. At around the 3:40 mark Livingston starts talking about northern concerns vis-a-vis blacks and eventually discusses policy to bottle them in the South.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGSYuMa3tVQ

    I’ll see if I can track down other materials relative to Johnson.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Thanks. I’ll definitely look that up. The standard history books on the CW are very slanted.

    When I said, “I’m really disagreeing with you,” I meant to say, “I’m NOT really disagreeing with you.”

    Bad day yesterday. Things got to me.

  309. @PhysicistDave
    @Paperback Writer

    PW wrote:


    All northern states had tough laws barring blacks from settling down, or even passing through.
     
    Is that true? My recollection was that Massachusetts gave equal rights to blacks. Am I misremembering?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Read this book. Massachusetts was slightly more lax than other states but not much more.

    The main point of the book is: the South did not invent Jim Crow.

  310. @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    And there was this:

    “https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war”

    Downs has collected numerous shocking accounts of the lives of freed slaves. He came across accounts of deplorable conditions in hospitals and refugee camps, where doctors often had racist theories about how black Americans reacted to disease. Things were so bad that one military official in Tennessee in 1865 wrote that former slaves were: "dying by scores – that sometimes 30 per day die and are carried out by wagonloads without coffins, and thrown promiscuously, like brutes, into a trench".

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    Yes, I’ve heard of that.

    But I wonder how good things were for Southern whites at the time.

    The real story of what the former Confederacy was like, post-war, has never truly been written.

  311. @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    And there was this:

    “https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war”

    Downs has collected numerous shocking accounts of the lives of freed slaves. He came across accounts of deplorable conditions in hospitals and refugee camps, where doctors often had racist theories about how black Americans reacted to disease. Things were so bad that one military official in Tennessee in 1865 wrote that former slaves were: "dying by scores – that sometimes 30 per day die and are carried out by wagonloads without coffins, and thrown promiscuously, like brutes, into a trench".

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    That has nothing to do with the issue. I sense that you’re being evasive, for partisan reasons.

    There are also cases where whites didn’t want blacks to leave. Look up “Exodusters.”

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Paperback Writer

    Johnson was heavily criticized for allowing TN back into the union (pretended they never left) without going through reconstruction which meant no Union army to contain the black population as per Faulkner. This meant blacks could leave as per Exodusters. But, that wasn’t what I was looking for. Instead, I’m looking for post war comparative numbers for southern black population by state which I’ve seen. The argument is that TN’s black population declined more than other southern states in part cause of non-presence of Union army. Which partially explains TN’s comparatively lower black percentage today. Those numbers may be in Down’s book.

    Feel free to suspect what you want. Not all info, especially relative to the Civil War and reconstruction, is available online.

  312. @Corvinus
    @PhysicistDave

    “I will say that I do not know even one single person in the real world who has expressed your view“

    Of course you have. As a physicist, you are obligated to provide evidence in support of your conclusions. I imagine you wrote scientific papers or engaged in dialogue with colleagues, and when asked, you supplied the requisite information and analysis.

    It’s no different here on this fine opinion webzine, as a number of posters here do just that, including yourself. That is the expectation in and of itself. So don’t play coy here.

    “Do you ever wish you actually had some useful skill or knowledge?“

    Now you’re just acting clownish here. There were two posts on this thread that I took time to offer analysis and sources in rebuttal to Curle. Any reasonable person would say that there was skill and knowledge in those two posts. But your stubbornness gets in the way here. Did you act that way at work when someone you philosophically opposed made cogent points?

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

    >Of course you have. As a physicist, you are obligated…

    Please, just don’t.

  313. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    I remind you that my daughter has been assaulted on three separate occasions at UCLA: the one time she made the mistake of reporting the assault to the school authorities, UCLA punished my daughter and let the assailant off scot free, even though the assailant confessed to multiple crimes against my daughter, even though my daughter suffered a broken bone from the assault, and even though UCLA acknowledged that my daughter of course did not harm the attacker.
     
    I'm really sorry to hear that, but it has nothing to do with the welfare state. Seriously, this is just incoherent nonsense. How does getting rid of food stamps help prevent this sort of injustice?

    It doesn't. You're just babbling gibberish.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Rosie asked me:

    How does getting rid of food stamps help prevent this sort of injustice?

    Once again you are putting words into my mouth — I have not said anything about food stamps.

    I have made clear that in criticizing the welfare state I am criticizing the corruption it produces in financing the parasitic verbalist overcleass — the educrats, lawyers, diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, and all the rest.

    Very, very little of the money spent on welfare goes to poor people.

    By far, the biggest chunk of federal welfare spending goes to retired folks — Social Security and Medicare. Most recipients are middle-class.

    Out here in California, roughly half of our state budget goes to government schools — K-12 and state colleges and universities. Again, most of that goes to the middle class.

    And a significant fraction of the money that is supposedly directed to the poor goes to fund middle-class sinecures — social workers, consultants, etc.

    But beyond that, the corruption that I related that my own family has seen — at UCLA, in the defense industry, in the medical-industrial complex, etc. — is made possible by the government, the welfare-warfare state.

    In a nutshell, here are my main claims as nice simple bullet points:

    A) We are governed and controlled by a parasitic verbalist overclass that has used the state apparatus to create institutions (not just the state itself but also, for example, the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex) that necessarily survive by exploiting those ordinary productive American who are not hangers-on of the ruling elite. And the overclass, which survives by using words to control other human beings, hates and despises the ordinary people who produce the goods and services in this country, even though the members of the overclass are incapable of actual productive work themselves.

    B) These institutions wallow in corruption: the Deep State, the public schools, etc. are just rife with corruption. I gave my own personal examples to illuminate how this wrecks ordinary people’s lives, but anyone who watches the news knows this is true on a large scale.

    C) The facts outlined in A) and B) are major contributors to the despair and demoralization of the decent and productive members of our society.

    D) And that despair and demoralization explain why American are not making babies, which means this society will die.

    I’ll make a deal with you. You can keep your damned food stamps (they call it SNAP now), if we can abolish the Deep State, the education-industrial complex, the medical and Big Pharma oligopoly, the military-industrial complex, the diversicrat scam, the climate-change and “green-energy” con games, and all the rest.

    In short, the euthanasia of the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    And, as a bonus, I’ll toss in the money to build the border wall.

    Deal?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave


    I’ll make a deal with you. You can keep your damned food stamps (they call it SNAP now), if we can abolish the Deep State, the education-industrial complex, the medical and Big Pharma oligopoly, the military-industrial complex, the diversicrat scam, the climate-change and “green-energy” con games, and all the rest.

    In short, the euthanasia of the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    And, as a bonus, I’ll toss in the money to build the border wall.

    Deal?
     
    I'd take that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday!
  314. @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    I think FDR was way out of his depth in international affairs. I’d say Harry Hopkins has a lot to answer for as he pretty much ran Soviet affairs during the war. He was dying slowly from the effects of his stomach cancer, only outliving the very ill Roosevelt by a few months.
    I don’t really understand how anyone, least of all FDR, could be naive about Stalin in 1941.
    The famines, the show trials, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the joint invasion of Poland, the invasion of Finland, etc. amply demonstrated the true nature of Stalin.
    Prior to 1941-42, Stalin was ahead in the list of victims by millions at least. To this day, I cannot understand why Hitler was seen as a greater threat than Stalin at that time.
    Churchill was never naive about anything except his own abilities. No human being could drink the quantity of alcohol he is described as having done daily and been high functioning. He was in massive debt to those who bailed him out of his financial difficulties in the thirties.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    JMcG wrote to me

    :Churchill was never naive about anything except his own abilities. No human being could drink the quantity of alcohol he is described as having done daily and been high functioning.

    Well… there’s that. Pretty articulate guy considering that he actually was an alcoholic.

    McMeekin thinks that Churchill was over-run with a sense of camaraderie and British fair play when dealing with Stalin. Too late he figured out that Stalin was playing by different rules.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @PhysicistDave

    I’m not sure I got that from McMeekin. I’d say it was more that Churchill was so overwhelmed at finally gaining an ally against the Germans that he threw all caution to the winds.
    I think McMeekin discusses Operation Pike in his book. The Anglo-French alliance planned on bombing the Soviet Oil Fields in the Caucusus as a result of Soviet Actions against Finland and Poland. Soviet behavior in Poland after their occupation seems to have been well known to British Intelligence.
    Churchill was aghast at FDR’s idiotic proclamation of the unconditional surrender policy. He was many things, but never naive. A look at his involvement with the treaty talks after the Anglo-Irish war is proof enough of that. As for his sense of British fair play, his unhesitating support for the nighttime fire bombing of German cities should put paid to that.
    I’m not really a Churchill hater. I just think his abilities, though not his influence, have been vastly overrated.

  315. @PhysicistDave
    @Rosie

    Rosie asked me:


    How does getting rid of food stamps help prevent this sort of injustice?
     
    Once again you are putting words into my mouth -- I have not said anything about food stamps.

    I have made clear that in criticizing the welfare state I am criticizing the corruption it produces in financing the parasitic verbalist overcleass -- the educrats, lawyers, diversity consultants, green consultants, the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, and all the rest.

    Very, very little of the money spent on welfare goes to poor people.


    By far, the biggest chunk of federal welfare spending goes to retired folks -- Social Security and Medicare. Most recipients are middle-class.

    Out here in California, roughly half of our state budget goes to government schools -- K-12 and state colleges and universities. Again, most of that goes to the middle class.

    And a significant fraction of the money that is supposedly directed to the poor goes to fund middle-class sinecures -- social workers, consultants, etc.

    But beyond that, the corruption that I related that my own family has seen -- at UCLA, in the defense industry, in the medical-industrial complex, etc. -- is made possible by the government, the welfare-warfare state.

    In a nutshell, here are my main claims as nice simple bullet points:

    A) We are governed and controlled by a parasitic verbalist overclass that has used the state apparatus to create institutions (not just the state itself but also, for example, the military-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex) that necessarily survive by exploiting those ordinary productive American who are not hangers-on of the ruling elite. And the overclass, which survives by using words to control other human beings, hates and despises the ordinary people who produce the goods and services in this country, even though the members of the overclass are incapable of actual productive work themselves.

    B) These institutions wallow in corruption: the Deep State, the public schools, etc. are just rife with corruption. I gave my own personal examples to illuminate how this wrecks ordinary people's lives, but anyone who watches the news knows this is true on a large scale.

    C) The facts outlined in A) and B) are major contributors to the despair and demoralization of the decent and productive members of our society.

    D) And that despair and demoralization explain why American are not making babies, which means this society will die.

    I'll make a deal with you. You can keep your damned food stamps (they call it SNAP now), if we can abolish the Deep State, the education-industrial complex, the medical and Big Pharma oligopoly, the military-industrial complex, the diversicrat scam, the climate-change and "green-energy" con games, and all the rest.

    In short, the euthanasia of the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    And, as a bonus, I'll toss in the money to build the border wall.

    Deal?

    Replies: @Rosie

    I’ll make a deal with you. You can keep your damned food stamps (they call it SNAP now), if we can abolish the Deep State, the education-industrial complex, the medical and Big Pharma oligopoly, the military-industrial complex, the diversicrat scam, the climate-change and “green-energy” con games, and all the rest.

    In short, the euthanasia of the parasitic verbalist overclass.

    And, as a bonus, I’ll toss in the money to build the border wall.

    Deal?

    I’d take that deal any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

    • Thanks: PhysicistDave
  316. @PhysicistDave
    @JMcG

    JMcG wrote to me


    :Churchill was never naive about anything except his own abilities. No human being could drink the quantity of alcohol he is described as having done daily and been high functioning.
     
    Well... there's that. Pretty articulate guy considering that he actually was an alcoholic.

    McMeekin thinks that Churchill was over-run with a sense of camaraderie and British fair play when dealing with Stalin. Too late he figured out that Stalin was playing by different rules.

    Replies: @JMcG

    I’m not sure I got that from McMeekin. I’d say it was more that Churchill was so overwhelmed at finally gaining an ally against the Germans that he threw all caution to the winds.
    I think McMeekin discusses Operation Pike in his book. The Anglo-French alliance planned on bombing the Soviet Oil Fields in the Caucusus as a result of Soviet Actions against Finland and Poland. Soviet behavior in Poland after their occupation seems to have been well known to British Intelligence.
    Churchill was aghast at FDR’s idiotic proclamation of the unconditional surrender policy. He was many things, but never naive. A look at his involvement with the treaty talks after the Anglo-Irish war is proof enough of that. As for his sense of British fair play, his unhesitating support for the nighttime fire bombing of German cities should put paid to that.
    I’m not really a Churchill hater. I just think his abilities, though not his influence, have been vastly overrated.

  317. @Paperback Writer
    @Curle

    That has nothing to do with the issue. I sense that you're being evasive, for partisan reasons.

    There are also cases where whites didn't want blacks to leave. Look up "Exodusters."

    Replies: @Curle

    Johnson was heavily criticized for allowing TN back into the union (pretended they never left) without going through reconstruction which meant no Union army to contain the black population as per Faulkner. This meant blacks could leave as per Exodusters. But, that wasn’t what I was looking for. Instead, I’m looking for post war comparative numbers for southern black population by state which I’ve seen. The argument is that TN’s black population declined more than other southern states in part cause of non-presence of Union army. Which partially explains TN’s comparatively lower black percentage today. Those numbers may be in Down’s book.

    Feel free to suspect what you want. Not all info, especially relative to the Civil War and reconstruction, is available online.

  318. @Rosie
    @PhysicistDave

    Lol. This is a new one. Low birth rates are caused by ... bad lawyers.

    What I find curious here is that you claim that (1) lawyers are useless parasites, and (2) you hired one to get assistance with a violation of your daughter's rights.

    Anyway, I'm a SAHM. You are a pathetic cuck who thinks your own personal problems are a national crisis and race replacement is just fine.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @nebulafox

    If you define yourself rather than your enemies through an acronym, you got problems… and when *I* say you’ve got problems, man…

  319. @PhysicistDave
    Reg Cæsar wrote to me:

    [Dave] People in the advanced welfare states are so unhappy that they are not making children at the rate required to replace themselves.

    [RC] Or maybe they’re too happy?
     
    I assume you are suggesting the hypothesis that they have so many ways of having fun nowadays that the joys of having and raising children just cannot compete?

    Maybe... but I think the evidence goes against that.

    What we have succeeded in doing is providing "quick fixes" for the stimuli that evolution designed us to crave -- ranging from sugar (my personal addiction) to seeing beautiful women to social interaction to the appeal of novelty.

    But getting that easy quick fix seems not to make us happy long term. There have been various reports recently on the topic such as this one.

    Part of the problem is that your brain eventually habituates to the easy stimulation and then it no longer makes you happy. Except that now merely getting enough of the stimulus to stay on an even keel emotionally interferes with other important and rewarding activities.

    Which is, I suppose, more or less the definition of addiction.

    So, both from the neuro and psych studies and from watching the news, as well as just common-sense observation of the society we live in, no, I do not think our contemporaries are too happy to have kids.

    I think Sailer's theory of "affordable family formation" along with the general despair evidenced among the productive classes in our society is a better explanation.

    But it would be a very good thing if bright people aside from Sailer (and perhaps Charles Murray and Angus Deaton and his wife) would think more carefully about all this.

    Something
    is certainly very, very wrong.

    The West is, in simple biological terms, dying.

    Replies: @Bumpkin

    Something is certainly very, very wrong.

    The West is, in simple biological terms, dying.

    That’s a bit much. Let’s say the US population drops by more than half by 2100, say because we keep all the more “fertile” immigrants out and only have the natives barely procreating. If that got us back to the 159 million who were here in 1950, was the US an irredeemable shithole in 1950? I find those wringing their hands like you about the birthrate to be very strange.

    And Rosie is right that widespread “atheism and materialism” are the reasons, along with all the entertainment and other choices that you criticize, but those are the results of the liberty and choice that you espouse, as do I.

    I would love if the population, here and everywhere, dropped by half or more because of people choosing to have less babies. I can’t believe you think the population explosion of the last century has been any great boon, as opposed to the quality-of-life improvements that an innovative few came up with.

    Note that I largely agree with much of what you write on other subjects, so this is not to disagree about corruption and the like, but I’m sure you know the US govt was always riddled with corruption: the govt itself is just bigger than ever now.

  320. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Luke Lea

    People and races are not lumps of clay that can be magically transformed by the prevailing culture into something that they're not.

    It's ironic that commentators around mock the Magic Dirt theory of the Left and then propose their own Magic American Values solution.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    People and races are not lumps of clay that can be magically transformed by the prevailing culture into something that they’re not.

    Such as Africans into farm workers. It’s nice to find a commenter who agrees that the plantation economy was all fraud, all the time.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV