The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Ferguson, Yet Again: More Shooting, This Time Live on Video
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtD57qE9S2g

At a demonstration in Ferguson on the one-anniversary of Michael Brown’s violent spree, a violent spree breaks out.

Here’s video from Putin’s channel RT of tonight’s gun battle in Ferguson, with a few dozen shots fired. You can see some of the muzzle flashes, although I can’t make much sense of what’s happening.

Here are people on Reddit trying to analyze the videos.

If you can explain what’s going on, help me out.

By the way if you are a strategist for one of the 20 or so Presidential candidates, all this is probably starting to remind you of what you’ve vaguely heard about that far distant election year of 1968 in which the Democratic candidate wound up with 18.4 percentage points less than the Democratic candidate in 1964, despite tremendous prosperity over those four years.

You’d likely find it helpful to read the recent memoir by Pat Buchanan of what 1968 looked like from the winner’s elbow: The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority.

If you are a Hillary strategist who had been methodically planning her coronation by hopping on the trendy Black Lives Matter bandwagon, you might be feeling right now like LBJ strategists must have felt after the Detroit riots in the summer of 1967.

By the way, earlier today before this amazing RT footage from Ferguson via Moscow, a reader wrote claiming that RT’s stance on police v. crooks is strikingly similar to the NYT’s:

… stoking minority & immigrant anger is Standard Operating Procedure for the USSR stooge news outlet RT, which I occasionally watch for the same perspective our media gives. I’d like to say RT gives a different perspective than say Faux news or MSNBC, unfortunately, its more of the same with the constant attempts to rile up minorities.

Objectively watch for yourself for an hour or two: “rile up minorities” is on their daily “to do list”, (on fox it’s a constant whine about them- which angers minorities toward conservatives for some strange reason) …

The Democratic party platform has the same platform of the Old USSR (as if that 70 year social experiment criminal mafia train wreck collapse never happened).

“Wreck America as fast as possible through any means”

I don’t have cable, so I don’t have an opinion on any cable news channel, but I thought it was interesting that he asserted that the Russian and American establishments seem to have similar stances on this question, just that Obama and Hillary claim they are doing it for the good of America, while Putin is obviously out to undermine our country.

 
Hide 166 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. We need to start letting cops ‘opt out’ of serving particular communities. As things stand, the cops with least seniority have the most dangerous (and thankless) jobs. That’s no surprise, but there needs to be a limit to how much abuse we’ll heap upon them.

    • Replies: @anon
    Containment allows the media to get away with lying to the public about the problem so in terms of the "greatest good" over the long term it probably would be better if the police just stepped back and let it overflow. The problem with doing that is you'd effectively be sacrificing the excess victims in the short term until it got so bad the media was forced to tell the truth.

    In the long term there'd be less victims but in the short term there'd be more.
    , @Truth
    That would cause have the police force to "opt out" of employment. I don't know if you realize this, but, in policing; high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.
  2. Yesterday, on August 9, the first anniversary of the Ferguson incident, the American Thinker website published an article I wrote, titled “What Would Have Happened in a Trial of Officer Darren Wilson”.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/what_would_have_happened_in_a_trial_of_office_darren_wilson.html

    Prosecution attorneys would have been able to present a prima facie case that Police Officer Darren Wilson applied excessive force. However, defense attorneys would have been able to present a series of witnesses — all of them Black or half-Black — who said that Michael Brown “charged” ruthlessly and relentlessly at Wilson.

    My article addressed also the question of the two White construction workers, who were video-taped a couple minutes after the shooting. One of them was filmed raising his hands high up above his head and yelling that Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot to death. The story about the two White construction story was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public.

    • Replies: @casey
    That's interesting about the construction workers. Helpful article for understanding the case.

    The #BlackLivesMatter people are still calling Darren Wilson a murderer. I suspect if there was a trial and it went as poorly for them as you project, it wouldn't even matter.

    I've been following this new story on twitter for a few hours and heard only repeated reference to the "peaceful protest all day up until the shots were fired", how it was simply a peaceful gathering and concert & memorial etc. Only when I checked out an unrelated article in the good ol' Daily mail did I learn of this charming aspect of the event that culminated in protestors beheading a roasted pig that had Darren Wilson's name carved into its side:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191305/Ferguson-protesters-march-roasted-pig-s-head-Darren-Wilson-s-scrawled-one-year-death-Michael-Brown.html

    , @tbraton
    "My article addressed also the question of the two White construction workers, who were video-taped a couple minutes after the shooting. One of them was filmed raising his hands high up above his head and yelling that Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot to death. The story about the two White construction story was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public."

    Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson which is contrary to what your article says. Here are two key paragraphs from your article:

    "The investigating detectives thought that the older worker was involved in marijuana business with Johnson and Brown. The detectives summoned both workers to hostile interrogations on August 21. The detectives pressured the older worker to admit such business and pressured the younger worker to inform on the older worker. Both workers resisted the detectives’ pressure, but the defense attorney would have raised all the same questions in a trial.

    The older worker did not see the final gunshots. He probably was smoking marijuana in his truck during that time. High as a kite, he began watching the scene when two backup police officers arrived on the scene. He insisted in all his loony statements to investigators and the grand jury that those other two officers were next to Wilson during the final gunshots. "

    Possibly involved with Michael Brown in the marijuana business, high as a kite during the actual shooting, and offering "loony statements" to the investigators? I don't think Officer Wilson had anything to fear from that direction.
  3. Earlier, plainclothes cop in Alabama makes a traffic stop and black male motorist pisol whips the cop as othrs laugh and tske pics as officer lies motionless on ground. suspevt arrested, cop okay.

    Bernie, how you likey BLM now?

  4. It’s too bad the patience of that nice black officer was not rewarded. But I think it will be a long time before Mr Soros runs out of money.

    • Replies: @e
    The pistol-whipped officer is white.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pistol-whipped-alabama-mocked-twitter-facebook-article-1.2319836
  5. It strikes me that the really chaotic moments of protest almost always happen at night. If the city were to light the place up a little more, people would feel less anonymous and less likely to try risky stuff. Solar powered motion lamps are pretty cheap.

    I’d also serve free turkey and dressing so everyone would get sleepy but I don’t think I’d have the nerve to bring that up at the city council meeting.

  6. The New York Times is still holding valiantly to the “peaceful protest” angle for this developing story, as of 4 AM Eastern time: http://worldcrass.com/2015/08/10/peaceful-protests-is-the-new-euphemism-for-riot/

    • Replies: @FactsAreImportant

    The New York Times is still holding valiantly to the “peaceful protest” angle for this developing story, as of 4 AM Eastern time: http://worldcrass.com/2015/08/10/peaceful-protests-is-the-new-euphemism-for-riot/
     
    Here's a video of a young Ferguson gentleman saying he is "ready for war":

    http://therightscoop.com/breaking-multiple-shots-fired-in-ferguson-on-anniversary-of-mike-browns-death/ (Ctrl-F "war".)

    See also the pics of "protestors" shouting at police up close.

    Also notice how the NYT says "gunshots were fired".

  7. @Mike Sylwester
    Yesterday, on August 9, the first anniversary of the Ferguson incident, the American Thinker website published an article I wrote, titled "What Would Have Happened in a Trial of Officer Darren Wilson".

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/what_would_have_happened_in_a_trial_of_office_darren_wilson.html

    Prosecution attorneys would have been able to present a prima facie case that Police Officer Darren Wilson applied excessive force. However, defense attorneys would have been able to present a series of witnesses -- all of them Black or half-Black -- who said that Michael Brown "charged" ruthlessly and relentlessly at Wilson.

    My article addressed also the question of the two White construction workers, who were video-taped a couple minutes after the shooting. One of them was filmed raising his hands high up above his head and yelling that Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot to death. The story about the two White construction story was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public.

    That’s interesting about the construction workers. Helpful article for understanding the case.

    The #BlackLivesMatter people are still calling Darren Wilson a murderer. I suspect if there was a trial and it went as poorly for them as you project, it wouldn’t even matter.

    I’ve been following this new story on twitter for a few hours and heard only repeated reference to the “peaceful protest all day up until the shots were fired”, how it was simply a peaceful gathering and concert & memorial etc. Only when I checked out an unrelated article in the good ol’ Daily mail did I learn of this charming aspect of the event that culminated in protestors beheading a roasted pig that had Darren Wilson’s name carved into its side:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191305/Ferguson-protesters-march-roasted-pig-s-head-Darren-Wilson-s-scrawled-one-year-death-Michael-Brown.html

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?
  8. OT:

    You might find this funny, Steve. Dominicans booing the Mayor of NYC because of his support for Haitians in the Dominican Republic.

    http://nypost.com/2015/08/10/de-blasio-met-with-boos-at-dominican-day-parade/

    • Replies: @Ed
    In the Daily News write up a Dominican woman called him a traitor and yelled, "we voted for you!".

    This more than anything else may cost him his reelection. He should have kept his mouth shut but simply couldn't help himself.
    , @The most deplorable one
    What's with that Dominican Day Parade?

    Shouldn't it have been a Dominican Gay Parade? Get with the times de Blasio!
  9. @casey
    That's interesting about the construction workers. Helpful article for understanding the case.

    The #BlackLivesMatter people are still calling Darren Wilson a murderer. I suspect if there was a trial and it went as poorly for them as you project, it wouldn't even matter.

    I've been following this new story on twitter for a few hours and heard only repeated reference to the "peaceful protest all day up until the shots were fired", how it was simply a peaceful gathering and concert & memorial etc. Only when I checked out an unrelated article in the good ol' Daily mail did I learn of this charming aspect of the event that culminated in protestors beheading a roasted pig that had Darren Wilson's name carved into its side:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191305/Ferguson-protesters-march-roasted-pig-s-head-Darren-Wilson-s-scrawled-one-year-death-Michael-Brown.html

    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    • Replies: @anon
    It's partly media incitement. They cover up black anti-white violence while maximizing this police stuff.

    It's like war propaganda.
    , @casey
    I don't know, I still have to get my bearings after seeing those women act out in Seattle (thanks to Steve posting the video here or I would never have watched it) and now this bizarre, cannibalistic pig/human sacrificial rite on the same day..it's like something Charles Manson's followers would dream up...I saw a video of them cutting up and getting ready to eat the very human looking animal on twitchy.com and thought this comment by Kilroy was insightful:

    "Well that's... psychopathic to say the least. Not to get into my psychology armchair, but this group here seems to represent a portion of the country that's so far regressed into childish mentalities that they've started to believe in magical symbolism again!

    So we have people who seem to think that symbolically eating a pig dressed up to look like a 'hated enemy' will bring about some nebulous change to go along with the people who are trying to bring back Gaia worship. I'm reminded of how much I HATE people who claim that modern man is oh-so-much-more advanced than his ancestors."
    , @elmer
    Envy.
    , @carol
    Their riots in Africa look remarkably similar...always the sudden running about, with such great acceleration.

    At least, the older ones know enough to just stay home, don't they?
    , @IA
    Which way? They are acting the way they are supposed to, left to their own devices. I honestly don't understand your consternation.
    , @Realist
    Stupidity.
    , @E. Burke

    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?
     
    Well, I think that William Lind would say that it's a form of low-intensity Fourth Generation War by which irregular combatants drive foreigners (i.e., whites), including the foreign army (i.e., police) from their territory, while exacting economic costs upon the enemy, including ransom monies (i.e., welfare, affirmative action, etc.).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

    Then again, maybe that's giving them too much credit.

    , @AndrewR
    Incredibly strong ethnic solidarity, high time preference, propensity for aggression and low median IQ
    , @Big Bill
    Black ghetto culture is an honor culture. Any public affront to your personal dignity must be met with a strong response or you will lose face. Think of it as "African duelling".

    If you try to rob some 7-11 and the owner manages to run you off, there is no loss of face. You merely failed. You were not "disrespected". You suffer no loss of face in the black community.

    On the other hand, if someone "disrespects" you, you will lose face in the black community and therefore must respond or the disrespect will spread.

    The big problem is not that blacks kill each other for reasons of personal honor (it is their culture after all) but that they do not formalize it with a "pistols at dawn" approach. They just open up and start blazing away at a funeral, a child's birthday party, a dance, a backyard barbecue, whatever. This saddles white folks with police costs, hospital bills, lifetime medical care, etc.

    It was an honor crime that got Emmett Till killed. After he accosted, grabbed, and propositioned that white woman, the woman and her sister-in-law working the store agreed to keep it to themselves.

    Unfortunately, the black witnesses started spreading the word in the black community (which Emmett probably welcomed since it raised his status).

    This by itself wouldn't have been so bad, except one of the black witnesses (or a friend) made a point of telling the woman's husband about it when he returned to town. Honor, respect and status in the white AND black community was then an issue.

    Emmett's fate was sealed.
  10. @Mike Sylwester
    Yesterday, on August 9, the first anniversary of the Ferguson incident, the American Thinker website published an article I wrote, titled "What Would Have Happened in a Trial of Officer Darren Wilson".

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/what_would_have_happened_in_a_trial_of_office_darren_wilson.html

    Prosecution attorneys would have been able to present a prima facie case that Police Officer Darren Wilson applied excessive force. However, defense attorneys would have been able to present a series of witnesses -- all of them Black or half-Black -- who said that Michael Brown "charged" ruthlessly and relentlessly at Wilson.

    My article addressed also the question of the two White construction workers, who were video-taped a couple minutes after the shooting. One of them was filmed raising his hands high up above his head and yelling that Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot to death. The story about the two White construction story was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public.

    “My article addressed also the question of the two White construction workers, who were video-taped a couple minutes after the shooting. One of them was filmed raising his hands high up above his head and yelling that Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot to death. The story about the two White construction story was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public.”

    Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson which is contrary to what your article says. Here are two key paragraphs from your article:

    “The investigating detectives thought that the older worker was involved in marijuana business with Johnson and Brown. The detectives summoned both workers to hostile interrogations on August 21. The detectives pressured the older worker to admit such business and pressured the younger worker to inform on the older worker. Both workers resisted the detectives’ pressure, but the defense attorney would have raised all the same questions in a trial.

    The older worker did not see the final gunshots. He probably was smoking marijuana in his truck during that time. High as a kite, he began watching the scene when two backup police officers arrived on the scene. He insisted in all his loony statements to investigators and the grand jury that those other two officers were next to Wilson during the final gunshots. ”

    Possibly involved with Michael Brown in the marijuana business, high as a kite during the actual shooting, and offering “loony statements” to the investigators? I don’t think Officer Wilson had anything to fear from that direction.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson
     
    The older worker would have testified that Brown was trying to surrender when Wilson was shooting him.

    His testimony would have been discredited, however, by his own statements that two other police officers were standing next to Wilson when he was shooting. It would be obvious to the jurors that the older worker began watching the scene after the two back-up officers arrived -- i.e. began watching well after Brown had collapsed dead.

    Since the younger worker was not sitting in a truck smoking dope, he actually saw the incident's final moments happen. His observations were rather credible and do not incriminate Wilson significantly.

    The reason why Brown and Johnson went to the store to steal cigarillos was so that they could smoke dope with the older worker. Therefore that worker had a motive to lie about the incident. If the prosecutors had called him to testify in a trial of Wilson, the trial would have turned into a spectacular fiasco -- featuring much cross-examination about that worker's drug-dealing with Brown and Johnson.

  11. RT managed to capture some pretty intense footage of the actual shooting. “Actual” as in, you can actually see the guy(s) squeezing off some of the rounds.

    You may need to go full screen + HD, but watch for muzzle flashes behind the white pick-up truck at 0:08 and especially 0:23.

    • Replies: @Real Gary Seven
    Hah! Note the irony of the "Progressive" storefront sign presiding over the shooting in the RT footage.
  12. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Kyle McKenna
    We need to start letting cops 'opt out' of serving particular communities. As things stand, the cops with least seniority have the most dangerous (and thankless) jobs. That's no surprise, but there needs to be a limit to how much abuse we'll heap upon them.

    Containment allows the media to get away with lying to the public about the problem so in terms of the “greatest good” over the long term it probably would be better if the police just stepped back and let it overflow. The problem with doing that is you’d effectively be sacrificing the excess victims in the short term until it got so bad the media was forced to tell the truth.

    In the long term there’d be less victims but in the short term there’d be more.

  13. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    It’s partly media incitement. They cover up black anti-white violence while maximizing this police stuff.

    It’s like war propaganda.

  14. @Kyle McKenna
    We need to start letting cops 'opt out' of serving particular communities. As things stand, the cops with least seniority have the most dangerous (and thankless) jobs. That's no surprise, but there needs to be a limit to how much abuse we'll heap upon them.

    That would cause have the police force to “opt out” of employment. I don’t know if you realize this, but, in policing; high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    • Replies: @bomag
    high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    I like my paper towels for cleaning up spilled water. But I don't throw them in the ocean because "that's where the water is."
    , @International Jew
    Dunno. As someone who actually pays the taxes that pay the police, I would very much enjoy more patrols in my neighborhood. More people would go out strolling at night, more people would let their kids out to play.

    Believe it or not, I'm not at all worried that a policeman will gun down my son.
    , @Olorin
    You beat me to it.

    Kyle's suggestion was the one being made in the 1960s and 1970s in the 60+ percent black city where I lived in the NE. "They don't want law, let's leave and let them have their way."

    This is what happened in my own home city, where my family settled a very long time ago and seemed not to have too much trouble being orderly and productive over the centuries, despite their own taste for guns, pugilism, and the occasional act of violent anarchish-ism to cut through the fog of lardoon-basted politics. By the 1970s, the police force became entirely blackulated, with LE becoming political functionaries, more like mushmouthed PR agents.

    The joke on the streets when I was working as a sandblaster on the riverfront was that an enterprising street criminal didn't have to worry about the black cops. What were they going to do? Shoot yuh o sum'um? Everybody knew they were more likely to hit themselves than air with their guns and more likely to hit air than anything else. Walls maybe.

    (This is in fact the major grievance against the Darren Wilsons/white cops of the world: they hit what they aim at. That ability to project force and physics is largely genetic, requiring a large degree of hardwired self control and forward thinking. This is precisely why gun rights are targeted for obliteration by Sarah Moon Glampers.)

    Problem with the Snake Plissken model is that there are always lawyers who tack themselves on to the process. "Oh, you got yourself all shot up while acting like a lawless savage in your home jungle? You deserve a SETTLEMENT!" So then the legal process clicks in--for people who want no parts of it except profit, and ridicule of the law. By that I mean both the perps and the lawyersharks.

    This is the whole point of the "broken window" policing model. It SHOULD indicate, and create documentation of, people who have no intention of living within the system they benefit from in a way that contributes to it. For them, all the world is a jungle you move through, looking for tasty bananas you pull off of magically appearing trees. "Just gibs muh dat."

    Left to their own devices, they would be perfectly manageable that way. Add in the professional victim class, especially the ones with media ratings to secure, social work degrees to employ, tenure to secure, and J.D.s to exercise, and the banana pickers become a very lucrative labor force for the PVs. In this household we have stopped referring to the "inner city," and simply call it what it is, a banana plantation. The lowest IQ members steal the bananas, the higher IQ members connive ways it will make them money.

    Now the Sarah Moon Glamperses want to make it illegal for anyone to choose to leave the jungle. They just can't get over the fact that evolution is such a racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, cis-privileging sumbitch.
    , @Big Bill
    Not true. White people commit just as many crimes as black folks do. The disparity in crime statistics is due to deliberate, racist UNDERpolicing of white neighborhoods, and deliberate, racist OVERpolicing of black neighborhoods.

    Every community should have the same per capita number of police. How else are we going to stop the black "school-to-prison pipeline" if not by reducing the police presence in the ghetto and increasing police patrols in white neighborhoods?

    The police in Chicago fill out "contact cards" whenever they accost someone and the contact cards clearly show they are OVERpolicing the ghetto. The CPD clearly needs to stop racially discriminating, reduce the number of black contacts and increase the number of white contacts.

    Since one out of six Americans are black, we need more cops in white areas and out of the ghetto. For every one black contact we need five white contacts to be racially non-discriminatory. If you accost a black man, you must accost 5 white folks in a white neighborhood before you return to harass hard-working ghetto folks again.

    To reduce black contacts and arrests, we could do like the Detroit PD does: take two or three hours to arrive on the scene in the ghetto. Close and lock the local precincts after 4PM. Move all the detectives downtown. I can guarantee you that will reduce the number of reported crimes AND the (so-called) "high crime rates".
  15. Neoconned [AKA "truth is treason"] says:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/walter-e-block/haters-of-austrian-economics/

    Off topic, but noah “coates is better than tolstoy” smith just got completely owned by walter block. It is downright embarrassing!

  16. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    I don’t know, I still have to get my bearings after seeing those women act out in Seattle (thanks to Steve posting the video here or I would never have watched it) and now this bizarre, cannibalistic pig/human sacrificial rite on the same day..it’s like something Charles Manson’s followers would dream up…I saw a video of them cutting up and getting ready to eat the very human looking animal on twitchy.com and thought this comment by Kilroy was insightful:

    “Well that’s… psychopathic to say the least. Not to get into my psychology armchair, but this group here seems to represent a portion of the country that’s so far regressed into childish mentalities that they’ve started to believe in magical symbolism again!

    So we have people who seem to think that symbolically eating a pig dressed up to look like a ‘hated enemy’ will bring about some nebulous change to go along with the people who are trying to bring back Gaia worship. I’m reminded of how much I HATE people who claim that modern man is oh-so-much-more advanced than his ancestors.”

    • Replies: @Gato de la Biblioteca
    There was similar behavior around the body of Nathan Bedford Forrest a few weeks back:

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A group was fed up with waiting, so they got a shovel and dug up a patch of grass next to Nathan Bedford Forrest’s grave and statue in a public park in the Medical District.

    The group says they wanted the statue and remains removed for a long time, because he was a Confederate soldier, a KKK leader and a slave trader.

    “If he’s gone, some of this racism and race-hate might be gone,” said Isaac Richmond with Commission on Religion and Racism.
     
    So, dig up the body and desecrate the grave, and magic will happen. Voodoo, plain and simple.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    What I want to know is whether "the other white meat" has magical properties like albinos in Africa.
  17. @Niccolo Salo
    OT:

    You might find this funny, Steve. Dominicans booing the Mayor of NYC because of his support for Haitians in the Dominican Republic.

    http://nypost.com/2015/08/10/de-blasio-met-with-boos-at-dominican-day-parade/

    In the Daily News write up a Dominican woman called him a traitor and yelled, “we voted for you!”.

    This more than anything else may cost him his reelection. He should have kept his mouth shut but simply couldn’t help himself.

    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Dominicans in NYC, like Mexicans in LA, know how to handle black predators and gangstas.

    Since Dominicans and Mexicans are also part of the Rainbow Coalition, however, any racial conflict with blacks will be ignored by the MSM.

    Taking sides in a foreign (!) brown-on-brown race war was a chump move by DeBlasio.
  18. Steve, you have been making this comparison between now and those formative years in your youth for a while, but I don’t know if it really holds up. In the late 60’s, working class whites truly felt under siege in their homes and in the neighborhoods. Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks. Archie Bunker is dead and Meat Head is on disability, spending his days watching Springer with D’Marcus and T’various.

    Similarly, the Chamber of Commerce types from the late 60’s and early 70’s saw the riots in the streets as a direct threat to their livelihood. Today, they have been bought out by Megacorp using zero interest money. Years of diversity training at work and school have made middle-class whites allergic to even thinking about this stuff.

    In 1968, Ted Cruz is a moderate Democrat. Today is too far Right for the GOP.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks.

    Let me guess-you haven't walked around in a WalMart lately.
    , @Power Child
    MeatHead was a professor, remember? He's in a Bryan Caplan bubble, cheering on the protesters and writing supportive but clueless articles about BLM--from a safe distance.

    Lionel Jefferson would be embarrassed by this stuff though.
  19. iSteveFan says:

    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don’t seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin’s Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven’t done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain’t 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    You said it. When it comes to coverage of US and UK politics, the tone hasn't changed at all since the Soviet Union disappeared.
    , @Maj. Kong
    To a certain number of American 'conservatives', Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to 'rebuild the Soviet Union'. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.

    A bit odd, one would normally accuse Russia of rebuilding the Empire, not the USSR.

    The Russian mindset is still probably allergic to finding any Western allies, we aren't Eastern Orthodox. They have more interest in being friends with Angela Merkel, for naked economics. Russian support of Marine LePen should be viewed as a negotiating ploy.

    It doesn't help that the Russians with overseas experience tend to be either former KGB/SVR, or oligarchs.
    , @IA
    Well done. Taking cheap shots isn't going to help Russia.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Your analysis is spot on but forget about explaining anything to Russians about the US. They won't listen.

    Also, Americans who somehow think of Russia as an ally in white nationalism are stupid. And Putin really is a thug.
    , @AnAnon
    The russians are playing both ends against the middle, they don't want to see a more conservative america, they want to see her broken. And that might just be the inevitable result of what is happening, though I doubt russia will have much if anything to do with it.
    , @AndrewR
    Perhaps Russian leaders aren't as clueless as you think. Perhaps they are trying to instigate a civil war which obviously would be in Russia's interest. And frankly egging on antiwhite forces in the US is not an irrational way to ignite a civil war.

    Plus there's the fact that many establishment conservatives, who would oppose RT's narrative of the Ferguson events, are also vehemently anti-Russia. The rabbit hole goes deep.

    , @schmenz
    A perceptive comment all around.

    RT is a valuable source of news on many international topics, but on this issue they simply don't get it. They have no understanding of what it is like to live among people who regularly resort to gunplay instead of discussion.

    There are some Russians and pro-Russians (e.g., The Saker) who will gladly shoot themselves in the foot before even thinking about allying with anyone who is sympathetic to them, especially lots of worried Catholics. They would rather punch them in the face as work with them. Sad.

    I'm not sure we can call RT "Putin's paper" as such since they seem fairly honest about reporting both the good and the bad in Russia. But when it comes to black violence they are clueless. Yes, it could be, as some here have suggested, that they just want to "stick it to the Americans". If true, who would blame them after all the misery we have caused them as they tried to crawl out from under the rubble of Soviet days?

    "Russia Insider" is a little better than RT in this regard. They are not afraid to make friends with others who share many of the same concerns.


    I do wish someone could sit down with their editorial boards and talk to them.
  20. RT just seems so forced when they do the racial agitation shtick, done by numbers, the Western press do it with an almost religious conviction. What the Russian media used to do before the siloviki curbed the oligarchs. No wonder Putin keeps our oligarchs awake at night.

  21. At least RT has hot teleprompter readers, not Mexican weathergirl hot, more subdued. Plus they have anti- israel Finkelstein as well as doom and gloom Austrian economists.

  22. I’ve seen pro-Kremlin media in Russia praise Trump. The Kremlin will support any opposition movement in the US for the same reason that it supports Marine Le Pen in France. If someone with Pat Buchanen’s views mounted a credible campaign for the White House again, RT’s coverage of race in America would flip by 180 degrees.

    The Russian liberal opposition is entirely paid for by the US State Department (the neocons) and Sorosite NGOs. Responding in kind would be a dream come true for the Kremlin.

  23. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    RT’s job is to point out the deficiencies of American society along with covering various news stories. It’s not totally objective and neither are any other news sources; viewers have to read between the lines. That RT and the NYT might converge on certain issues is probably just coincidental, in this case since both are only willing to recognize nurture and reject any hint of nature then of course all coverage of black dysfunction is going to be similar. RT is worth watching, along with some of the other foreign news outlets, as long as one keeps in mind what they’re trying to do.

  24. @Truth
    That would cause have the police force to "opt out" of employment. I don't know if you realize this, but, in policing; high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    I like my paper towels for cleaning up spilled water. But I don’t throw them in the ocean because “that’s where the water is.”

  25. @The Z Blog
    Steve, you have been making this comparison between now and those formative years in your youth for a while, but I don't know if it really holds up. In the late 60's, working class whites truly felt under siege in their homes and in the neighborhoods. Today, working class whites don't work and mix freely with underclass blacks. Archie Bunker is dead and Meat Head is on disability, spending his days watching Springer with D'Marcus and T'various.

    Similarly, the Chamber of Commerce types from the late 60's and early 70's saw the riots in the streets as a direct threat to their livelihood. Today, they have been bought out by Megacorp using zero interest money. Years of diversity training at work and school have made middle-class whites allergic to even thinking about this stuff.

    In 1968, Ted Cruz is a moderate Democrat. Today is too far Right for the GOP.

    Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks.

    Let me guess-you haven’t walked around in a WalMart lately.

    • Disagree: The Z Blog
    • Replies: @CJ
    Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks.

    I believe that Mr. Z's intended meaning would have been better conveyed by putting a comma after "work".
  26. Comments on Reddit are running heavily against BlackLivesMatter. This is a useful barmometer of informed, left-leaning, white opinion.

    An example of the comments at Reddit:

    Isn’t this the place where the officer was vindicated by evidence, to include autopsies performed by people appointed by Mr. Brown’s family? And where “witnesses” were caught lying about what they witnessed?

    Yup. There are many cases where police shootings are unjustified but I can’t for the life of me figure out how people think this one was.

    The media ran with a narrative and refused to back down as the facts came out. They played it as a national tragedy and by God they were sticking to it!

    The BLM women at Bernie’s rally are being seen as a summary of BLM insanity by the Reddit crowd:

    It’s just sickening. The #BLM movement forced Bernie off stage and demanded a 4 1/2 minute moment of silence for Michael Brown. Of all people?! He is the martyr? Really?! Someone that, on video, had just committed a robbery 1! He then charged an officer and was justifiably shot and killed by an officer, as proven by the non-indictment of the officer involved. I just don’t get it. Then his supporters start shooting and looting in honor of the anniversary of his death?! There’s a reason people quickly dismiss the whole #BlackLivesMatter thing. If they don’t give a shit about killing one another; how do they expect people to respect the message they claim to project? /endrant

    The video of the Sanders rally is a superbly concise summary of BLM insanity.

  27. Nothing to analyze. A #BlackLivesMatter genius tried to mow down a St. Louis County cop, the cop shot back at him. There were two other sets of shootings last night, one at about that time and one a few hours later, and one last night. Those were just TNB, and could have happened but for any of you ever knowing where Ferguson is. The protests brought people out who took out their queued up beefs and rivalries with each other.

  28. @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    You said it. When it comes to coverage of US and UK politics, the tone hasn’t changed at all since the Soviet Union disappeared.

  29. @Crassus
    The New York Times is still holding valiantly to the "peaceful protest" angle for this developing story, as of 4 AM Eastern time: http://worldcrass.com/2015/08/10/peaceful-protests-is-the-new-euphemism-for-riot/

    The New York Times is still holding valiantly to the “peaceful protest” angle for this developing story, as of 4 AM Eastern time: http://worldcrass.com/2015/08/10/peaceful-protests-is-the-new-euphemism-for-riot/

    Here’s a video of a young Ferguson gentleman saying he is “ready for war”:

    http://therightscoop.com/breaking-multiple-shots-fired-in-ferguson-on-anniversary-of-mike-browns-death/ (Ctrl-F “war”.)

    See also the pics of “protestors” shouting at police up close.

    Also notice how the NYT says “gunshots were fired”.

  30. Ta has more blood on his hands.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Ta has more blood on his hands.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.
  31. If you were Putin, wouldn’t you want to undermine the US?

    • Replies: @Anon
    "If you were Putin, wouldn’t you want to undermine the US?"

    This makes me wonder..

    maybe Truman-and-Churchill's Cold War was a big mistake. While US and Europe needed to fend themselves from communist power, maybe they should made a pact with the USSR. And given that they were all allies during WWII, it might have been possible.

    After all, the USSR leadership could be pragmatic. Nazi Germany and USSR were ideologically diametrically opposed, but when Hitler made an overture to Stalin, USSR was willing to bury the hatchet and get along. If USSR could do that with Nazi Germany, why not with US and UK? It was when Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR that Stalin went into anti-German mode in war and propaganda.

    Stalin's attitude toward Germany was, "If you shake my hand, I shake your hand; if you spit on me, I spit on you."

    Now, suppose US and Western Europe were willing to work with the USSR instead of vilifying the Iron Curtain and etc.
    Since US had allowed the USSR to gobble up Eastern Europe, those areas would have to be ceded to the Soviets.
    Perhaps, China was a bigger problem but US is to blame cuz Roosevelt asked Stalin to invade Northeastern Asia against Japan.
    Even so, there were lots of tensions between Soviet communists and Chinese communists, and even communist China might not have been so virulently anti-American if US hadn't ramped up the Cold War.

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.
    As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the 'darkies', the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.

    But suppose Truman and Churchill had gone to Stalin and made a pact. They treat him well like a great statesman and allow him to keep Eastern Europe and don't threaten hinm. In turn, the USS, during and after Stalin, don't support anti-white and anti-Western movements around the world. US doesn't encircle the USSR, and the USSR doesn't fund anti-American and anti-Western movements in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and in America itself by stirring up the Negroes via Jewish closet-communists working for the USSR.

    Things might have been better for the West. Foreign policy is about deal-making.

    Look at China. When US was against China, Mao supported all the anti-American causes around the world. But once Nixon met with China, Mao tuned down all that and even offered advice to North Vietnamese that maybe the war should be ended with the South. Mao was looking out for China first. Once US stopped being hostile to China, China drastically reduced its anti-American rhetoric and support.

    So, maybe paradoxically, the communist threat became worse around the world precisely because US and UK went on the offensive against the USSR soon after the end of WWII. As USSR felt encircled and threatened, they figured they'd fund and support every communist and anti-western movement around the world in Africa, Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.

    Maybe a deal could have been reached between Capitalist West and Communist East.

    "We don't condemn or interfere with the Soviet sphere of influence from Eastern Europe to Siberia, and the Soviets don't interfere with Western sphere of influence."

    As with Putin's latest shenanigans, I think much of Soviet anti-Western policy had more to do with geopolitics than ideology. As the West was encircling the USSR, USSR fought back by encircling the West with anti-western/white movements. It's like a game of Go where whites try to encircle the black and so the black try to encircle the white with the black and etc.

    One thing for sure, Putin doesn't want this war of words and images with the West. He wants business and good relations. But Jewish elites are salivating over taking over Russia like they took over America. And they fear the rise of Russia as a counter-example of a great power where the leaders represent the national interests of the majority.
    It's interesting what Jews are trying to do in Ukraine, which is contradictory. On the one hand, Jews are using Ukrainian nationalism against Russian 'imperialism'. There is some legitimacy to this since it's understandable that Ukrainians want to be free of Russian influence, which has been no less corrupting than EU/US influence. So, even though Jews oppose goy nationalism, they find Ukrainian nationalism use against Russian nationalism. Make goy fight goy. On the other hand, Jews are trying to promote Ukraine as a 'liberal democracy' on the EU model by pressuring it to have 'gay pride' parades.

    Anyway, during the Cold War, America's aggressive stance against white Russia made Russia support non-whites against White America and white Europe.
    White folks should not be bashing white folks.

  32. @The Z Blog
    Steve, you have been making this comparison between now and those formative years in your youth for a while, but I don't know if it really holds up. In the late 60's, working class whites truly felt under siege in their homes and in the neighborhoods. Today, working class whites don't work and mix freely with underclass blacks. Archie Bunker is dead and Meat Head is on disability, spending his days watching Springer with D'Marcus and T'various.

    Similarly, the Chamber of Commerce types from the late 60's and early 70's saw the riots in the streets as a direct threat to their livelihood. Today, they have been bought out by Megacorp using zero interest money. Years of diversity training at work and school have made middle-class whites allergic to even thinking about this stuff.

    In 1968, Ted Cruz is a moderate Democrat. Today is too far Right for the GOP.

    MeatHead was a professor, remember? He’s in a Bryan Caplan bubble, cheering on the protesters and writing supportive but clueless articles about BLM–from a safe distance.

    Lionel Jefferson would be embarrassed by this stuff though.

  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Envy.

  34. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    I don’t have cable, so I don’t have an opinion on any cable news channel, but I thought it was interesting that he asserted that the Russian and American establishments seem to have similar stances on this question, just that Obama and Hillary claim they are doing it for the good of America, while Putin is obviously out to undermine our country.

    I think it more likely that he is trying to undermine America’s owners’ attempts to meddle in his country. After all, the political instability right on his border is worrying and that large slide in oil prices does not help Russia very much and efforts to prevent the South Stream gas pipeline were pretty successful.

  35. @Truth
    That would cause have the police force to "opt out" of employment. I don't know if you realize this, but, in policing; high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    Dunno. As someone who actually pays the taxes that pay the police, I would very much enjoy more patrols in my neighborhood. More people would go out strolling at night, more people would let their kids out to play.

    Believe it or not, I’m not at all worried that a policeman will gun down my son.

  36. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Niccolo Salo
    OT:

    You might find this funny, Steve. Dominicans booing the Mayor of NYC because of his support for Haitians in the Dominican Republic.

    http://nypost.com/2015/08/10/de-blasio-met-with-boos-at-dominican-day-parade/

    What’s with that Dominican Day Parade?

    Shouldn’t it have been a Dominican Gay Parade? Get with the times de Blasio!

  37. That police officer had a good rant about “Black lives matter” where he said in this video (who need to be viral) if black lives really did matter people would care about the aborted black babies.

    And I already mentionned that video in the past, but it’s worth to mention it again titled “Black lives matter….Oh Really?!?!”

  38. @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.

    A bit odd, one would normally accuse Russia of rebuilding the Empire, not the USSR.

    The Russian mindset is still probably allergic to finding any Western allies, we aren’t Eastern Orthodox. They have more interest in being friends with Angela Merkel, for naked economics. Russian support of Marine LePen should be viewed as a negotiating ploy.

    It doesn’t help that the Russians with overseas experience tend to be either former KGB/SVR, or oligarchs.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.
     
    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

    There are a lot of people in this country that would change their views on Russia if a) the US media changed its tone on news about Russia, and b) the Russians would stop with their coverage of the US as some big racist nation.

    I saw during the Sochi Games where some conservatives were actually intrigued, for example, by the Russian gay propaganda law. Of course the media coverage of Russia did all it could to make them look as bad as possible. I've seen conservatives do double takes when I showed them videos of Putin in Church making the sign of the Cross. Ditto for those new Jesus flags being flown by the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

    But still most conservatives I know either don't want to change their views or don't believe what I show them. One guy I know who fought in Vietnam will never change his view of them because of Soviet aid to North Vietnam. He is like one of those old WW2 vets who refused to buy anything Japanese. And the Russians don't help by their coverage of domestic US politics. Even with me I get ticked off reading RT articles about US domestic politics.

    There are a lot of folks in the USA that have no idea how Russia is changing. I hear guys lament about how the US has lost its religious values and everyone is becoming secular/atheist. Then I explain to them how even after 70 years of oppression in the USSR, there are green shoots of Christianity forming in Russia, and the Russian government is actively trying to nurture those shoots, not eradicate them. This could play well in the US, but our media won't promote it, and the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends.

    The Russians just don't get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become. While the Americans that hated the Soviet Union are the ones that would probably like a Christian Russia, but have no clue it is actually forming.
  39. Gato de la Biblioteca [AKA "Icepick"] says:
    @casey
    I don't know, I still have to get my bearings after seeing those women act out in Seattle (thanks to Steve posting the video here or I would never have watched it) and now this bizarre, cannibalistic pig/human sacrificial rite on the same day..it's like something Charles Manson's followers would dream up...I saw a video of them cutting up and getting ready to eat the very human looking animal on twitchy.com and thought this comment by Kilroy was insightful:

    "Well that's... psychopathic to say the least. Not to get into my psychology armchair, but this group here seems to represent a portion of the country that's so far regressed into childish mentalities that they've started to believe in magical symbolism again!

    So we have people who seem to think that symbolically eating a pig dressed up to look like a 'hated enemy' will bring about some nebulous change to go along with the people who are trying to bring back Gaia worship. I'm reminded of how much I HATE people who claim that modern man is oh-so-much-more advanced than his ancestors."

    There was similar behavior around the body of Nathan Bedford Forrest a few weeks back:

    MEMPHIS, Tenn. — A group was fed up with waiting, so they got a shovel and dug up a patch of grass next to Nathan Bedford Forrest’s grave and statue in a public park in the Medical District.

    The group says they wanted the statue and remains removed for a long time, because he was a Confederate soldier, a KKK leader and a slave trader.

    “If he’s gone, some of this racism and race-hate might be gone,” said Isaac Richmond with Commission on Religion and Racism.

    So, dig up the body and desecrate the grave, and magic will happen. Voodoo, plain and simple.

  40. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Their riots in Africa look remarkably similar…always the sudden running about, with such great acceleration.

    At least, the older ones know enough to just stay home, don’t they?

  41. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Which way? They are acting the way they are supposed to, left to their own devices. I honestly don’t understand your consternation.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It's just crazy and counterproductive.
  42. @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    Well done. Taking cheap shots isn’t going to help Russia.

  43. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    And like American Media, in this story, RT refuses to provide identifying details about the assailants.

    However, since no other news source has any information about the assailants, perhaps it is Swedish authorities who are refusing to provide the information.

    • Replies: @Fredrik
    You wouldn't believe who did it.

    The arrested suspect is African.
    , @Bad memories
    Now we see reports like:

    The suspects were two men born in 1992 and 1979 who probably knew each other, Agren said. They had no connection with the victims and the motive for the attack was not known, he said.
     
    That reminds me of something.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/uk-sweden-ikea-attack-idUKKCN0QF1C320150810?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
  44. @casey
    I don't know, I still have to get my bearings after seeing those women act out in Seattle (thanks to Steve posting the video here or I would never have watched it) and now this bizarre, cannibalistic pig/human sacrificial rite on the same day..it's like something Charles Manson's followers would dream up...I saw a video of them cutting up and getting ready to eat the very human looking animal on twitchy.com and thought this comment by Kilroy was insightful:

    "Well that's... psychopathic to say the least. Not to get into my psychology armchair, but this group here seems to represent a portion of the country that's so far regressed into childish mentalities that they've started to believe in magical symbolism again!

    So we have people who seem to think that symbolically eating a pig dressed up to look like a 'hated enemy' will bring about some nebulous change to go along with the people who are trying to bring back Gaia worship. I'm reminded of how much I HATE people who claim that modern man is oh-so-much-more advanced than his ancestors."

    What I want to know is whether “the other white meat” has magical properties like albinos in Africa.

  45. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    Your analysis is spot on but forget about explaining anything to Russians about the US. They won’t listen.

    Also, Americans who somehow think of Russia as an ally in white nationalism are stupid. And Putin really is a thug.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I agree the WN movement is full of fools who believe in a fairy tale pan-Europism where "white" folks from Seattle to Dublin to Moscow will join hands to purge the "nonwhites" from their lands and usher in the Great White Utopia. Russians will never GAF about other "white" people except insofar as said "whites" can help increase Russian hegemony. With that said, Russia could be a good ally in helping to overthrow the anti-white elite that dominate the West. White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia's help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.
  46. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Stupidity.

  47. I notice that there is a #BlackBehaviorMatters hashtag on Twitter that isn’t getting much use. It ought to be promoted.

  48. @eah
    It's too bad the patience of that nice black officer was not rewarded. But I think it will be a long time before Mr Soros runs out of money.
    • Replies: @eah
    Just for the record: if you watch the top video, a black man, who looks like a law enforcement officer, says "we just want to be as patient as possible" -- meaning presumably until the rioters stop rioting and go home.
  49. nice photos

  50. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Well, I think that William Lind would say that it’s a form of low-intensity Fourth Generation War by which irregular combatants drive foreigners (i.e., whites), including the foreign army (i.e., police) from their territory, while exacting economic costs upon the enemy, including ransom monies (i.e., welfare, affirmative action, etc.).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

    Then again, maybe that’s giving them too much credit.

    • Replies: @olson
    Blacks aren't extorting anything because they have no power which ticks them off. Elites extort on their behalf to get votes which in turn keep elites in power.
  51. “Putin is obviously out to undermine our country”

    Exactly.

    US says Russia is Nazi Germany cuz it beats homos.

    Russia says US is Nazi Germany cuz it beats blacks.

    It’s all so cynical. And hilarious.

    RT will feature ‘far right’ and ‘far left’ to bash America ruled by globalists.

  52. Yesterday the Washington Post ran a big dramatic story about the injustice of “unarmed” blacks dying at the hands of cops.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/08/black-and-unarmed/

    I read hundreds of comments and they were all critical of the leftist arguments and conclusions.

    It occurred to me that the internet will be banned or compromised very soon. Knowledge is too dangerous and now it’s democratized and essentially free.

    • Replies: @John Mansfield
    A line from that article: "However, black men accounted for 40 percent of the 60 unarmed deaths, even though they make up just 6 percent of the U.S. population."

    I read that and thought, "Six percent? That's much too small," then realized that that's the percentage not of blacks, but of black men. If they're going to give that opening, then the question is: Why do police shoot men, black or white, so much more often than women? Everyone knows the answer to that, but how to word it without getting into trouble would be interesting.
  53. Actually, if I had to pick an American news resource that most resembles Russia Today, it would be the Unz Review.

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1SFXN_enGB501GB511&espv=2&q=Russia+Today+Israel&oq=Russia+Today+Israel&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30l3.1898.2902.0.3066.7.7.0.0.0.0.187.538.0j4.4.0….0…1c.1.64.serp..3.4.535.dTHRiI7uXzM

  54. Here’s a broadcast from RT.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Here’s a broadcast from RT.
     
    Very well done. Good for Putin.
  55. Steve,

    An interesting read.

    http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/50799-Democratic-Republic-of-Congo-Lubumbashi-to-Kinshasa/page6

    “Let’s put this in a bit of perspective: Frère Louis told us some of these stories while we were sitting in the comforts of the Kamina mission. He told the stories as if it was a daily occurance.. and that was actually the case indeed. At that moment we were shocked, but thought this was something of the (distant) past. And it was – at least in this area. It is only until after the trip, when we started reading his document, that we started to comprehend the large scale of the massacres that had been going on here.

    “We were here in 2008. The last reports of cannabilism in this area were in 2006.

    “I had never heard about any of this in international news.”

    • Replies: @anon
    The truth about the Congo is suppressed in the western media for the same reason the black gang culture is suppressed.
  56. @larry lurker
    RT managed to capture some pretty intense footage of the actual shooting. "Actual" as in, you can actually see the guy(s) squeezing off some of the rounds.

    You may need to go full screen + HD, but watch for muzzle flashes behind the white pick-up truck at 0:08 and especially 0:23.

    Hah! Note the irony of the “Progressive” storefront sign presiding over the shooting in the RT footage.

  57. By the way if you are a strategist for one of the 20 or so Presidential candidates, all this is probably starting to remind you of what you’ve vaguely heard about that far distant election year of 1968 in which the Democratic candidate wound up with 18.4 percentage points less than the Democratic candidate in 1964, despite tremendous prosperity over those four years.

    You’d likely find it helpful to read the recent memoir by Pat Buchanan of what 1968 looked like from the winner’s elbow: The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority.

    We are the Silent Majority, and Donald Trump, warts and all, is our candidate.

    The issues now are bad trade and lousy immigration. Add to that the insanity of political correctness, and you have our core concerns.

    We find it necessary to support an un-buyable blowhard to move America away from what is destroying it.

  58. Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    "These results come from Gallup's Minority Rights and Relations survey conducted June 15-July 10, which included an expanded sample of blacks and Hispanics. This practice is often referred to as "oversampling," and allows for a closer look at attitudes and opinions of minority groups whose representation in the sample of a standard poll might otherwise be too small for statistical analysis." - and the results are still favorable to the position that immigration should be restricted.
    , @Gato de la Biblioteca
    Torn between thinking that of course levels supporting increased immigration are up, and belief that the survey is utter bullshit. Reasons for the up-trend would be the increased numbers of immigrants, coupled with the ever increasing levels of stupidity from swipples. Reasons for thinking it's bullshit are anecdotal: mainly that even the immigrants I know are in favor of diminished immigration.
    , @olson

    Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx
     
    That link shows that 25% support increased immigration

    Well, about 25% of people want abortion illegal in all cases.

    And about 25% want abortion legal in all cases.

    So, how is it that 25 = 25 = 25 but not all 25's are equal?

    Well?
    , @AnotherDad


    Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx
     
    Ahh ... not good news, sure. But what you're talking about is a few points tick up in the more immigration side. It's small enough a good chunk is probably just shifted demographics.

    But the bottom line here is that a plurality gives the default "about right" answer. Of those who take a side the "less" are greater than the "more". Even among "Hispanics" it's 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.

    And the key point: This is without any media, any politician, anyone significant making the anti case. And in the face of massive "immigration is good for you!" propaganda from the establishment--journalists, politicians, Hollyweird.

    The anti case is overwhelming in terms of stuff--jobs, wages, housing prices, family formation, education, taxes, environment, culture, social cohesion, crime, etc. not to mention the more ticklish HBD issues of IQ and long term prosperity of the nation. All it needs is someone to forcefully intelligently articulate it. Not just half-assed one-offs like Trump so far, but a solid case.

    Even the simplest question: "When do we stop? Just how big and crowded do you want the nation to be?" ... is unanswerable. Because immigration fundamentally makes no sense as an ongoing policy. Waves of "your people" settling a conquered territory--sure. But a continual policy? It's just biologically\logically ludicrous.

    So this sort of poll trending ... not real exciting. The question is what happens when a candidate is really willing to make this an issue and force a real debate. Then i think the anti case is easy to make and overwhelming. (Because the "pro" case is just nonsensical.)
    , @ben tillman

    Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx
     
    Come on -- those numbers are ludicrous.
  59. @Truth
    That would cause have the police force to "opt out" of employment. I don't know if you realize this, but, in policing; high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    You beat me to it.

    Kyle’s suggestion was the one being made in the 1960s and 1970s in the 60+ percent black city where I lived in the NE. “They don’t want law, let’s leave and let them have their way.”

    This is what happened in my own home city, where my family settled a very long time ago and seemed not to have too much trouble being orderly and productive over the centuries, despite their own taste for guns, pugilism, and the occasional act of violent anarchish-ism to cut through the fog of lardoon-basted politics. By the 1970s, the police force became entirely blackulated, with LE becoming political functionaries, more like mushmouthed PR agents.

    The joke on the streets when I was working as a sandblaster on the riverfront was that an enterprising street criminal didn’t have to worry about the black cops. What were they going to do? Shoot yuh o sum’um? Everybody knew they were more likely to hit themselves than air with their guns and more likely to hit air than anything else. Walls maybe.

    (This is in fact the major grievance against the Darren Wilsons/white cops of the world: they hit what they aim at. That ability to project force and physics is largely genetic, requiring a large degree of hardwired self control and forward thinking. This is precisely why gun rights are targeted for obliteration by Sarah Moon Glampers.)

    Problem with the Snake Plissken model is that there are always lawyers who tack themselves on to the process. “Oh, you got yourself all shot up while acting like a lawless savage in your home jungle? You deserve a SETTLEMENT!” So then the legal process clicks in–for people who want no parts of it except profit, and ridicule of the law. By that I mean both the perps and the lawyersharks.

    This is the whole point of the “broken window” policing model. It SHOULD indicate, and create documentation of, people who have no intention of living within the system they benefit from in a way that contributes to it. For them, all the world is a jungle you move through, looking for tasty bananas you pull off of magically appearing trees. “Just gibs muh dat.”

    Left to their own devices, they would be perfectly manageable that way. Add in the professional victim class, especially the ones with media ratings to secure, social work degrees to employ, tenure to secure, and J.D.s to exercise, and the banana pickers become a very lucrative labor force for the PVs. In this household we have stopped referring to the “inner city,” and simply call it what it is, a banana plantation. The lowest IQ members steal the bananas, the higher IQ members connive ways it will make them money.

    Now the Sarah Moon Glamperses want to make it illegal for anyone to choose to leave the jungle. They just can’t get over the fact that evolution is such a racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, cis-privileging sumbitch.

    • Replies: @scoops
    wow! what truth!
  60. Dahlia says:

    If you are a Hillary strategist who had been methodically planning her coronation by hopping on the trendy Black Lives Matter bandwagon, you might be feeling right now like LBJ strategists must have felt after the Detroit riots in the summer of 1967.

    Actually, I’m thinking of Robert Kennedy. Bernie just keeps advancing despite dirty tricks. Crowds getting bigger. And he and his people are clueless about their enemies. I don’t just means Soros and Progressive Inc., but the animal spirits they are unleashing amongst Blacks.

    I believe it was Bernie’s wife who could be seen in the video nicely asking “Braids” why not speak afterwards, Bernie will let you… Her look of absolute befuddlement when this was rejected says it all about their philosophy (see redheaded women off to right and behind Braids).

    Others such as Johnnywalker123 and Bill P. said it very well here: the Bernie phenomenon lacks testosterone; it is inherent in the outlook and identity of the movement.

    Contrast this with George H.W. Bush 1987. Not a masculine guy who struggled with the “wimp factor”, he was surrounded by manly men and manly men elsewhere had his back. Lee Atwater. Saturday Night Live even!

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Bush I was a WWII dive bomber pilot. Safe to say he did not lack for testicular fortitude.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Dahlia says:

    Actually, I’m thinking of Robert Kennedy. Bernie just keeps advancing despite dirty tricks. Crowds getting bigger."

    Bernie isn't RFK. More like Eugene McCarthy. I don't think he'll get the nomination.

  61. @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    The russians are playing both ends against the middle, they don’t want to see a more conservative america, they want to see her broken. And that might just be the inevitable result of what is happening, though I doubt russia will have much if anything to do with it.

  62. Directly on point; have you ever watched any of the videos featuring former KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov, from the 80s. He describes Soviet subversion tactics that could be Democrat party get out the vote strategies.

  63. @E. Harding
    Things aren't looking good for immigration restriction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    “These results come from Gallup’s Minority Rights and Relations survey conducted June 15-July 10, which included an expanded sample of blacks and Hispanics. This practice is often referred to as “oversampling,” and allows for a closer look at attitudes and opinions of minority groups whose representation in the sample of a standard poll might otherwise be too small for statistical analysis.” – and the results are still favorable to the position that immigration should be restricted.

  64. Gato de la Biblioteca [AKA "Icepick"] says:
    @E. Harding
    Things aren't looking good for immigration restriction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    Torn between thinking that of course levels supporting increased immigration are up, and belief that the survey is utter bullshit. Reasons for the up-trend would be the increased numbers of immigrants, coupled with the ever increasing levels of stupidity from swipples. Reasons for thinking it’s bullshit are anecdotal: mainly that even the immigrants I know are in favor of diminished immigration.

  65. @IA
    Which way? They are acting the way they are supposed to, left to their own devices. I honestly don't understand your consternation.

    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It’s just crazy and counterproductive.

    • Replies: @e
    OMG.
    , @Big Bill
    A black President, black attorney generals, black immigration bosses, countless black bureaucrats, and black legislators (CBC) are all fighting for Open Borders, Free Trade, offshoring black jobs, and importing cheap workers to replace black folks because "they do the work [black] Americans won't do".

    And yet black folks keep voting for them, lockstep.

    I no longer listen to black folks who go on about "jobs" or "poverty" (as though white folks have some secret stash of jobs and money).

    They would rather give their jobs to Mexicans, Somalis, Nigerians, Chinese and Indians.

    So be it.
    , @IA
    From their standpoint rioting and violence make sense. Whites cave.

    They don't trust whites, quite naturally, since they view whites the same way Muslims view kafirs.
    , @Fun
    The people out there committing violence at these public protests are mostly young black males, a lumpenproletariat driven by incoherent emotions, not ideology or long term principle. They cannot really be "controlled" directly, but they do respond to the overall discourse in our culture, which currently encourages them to blame cops and white society for their lot in life.
    , @Jefferson
    "Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It’s just crazy and counterproductive."

    Despite the violent behavior of the Black underclass, this demographic still has plenty of White allies. There were White pro-Black Lives Matter protestors where were recently arrested in Ferguson at the 1 year anniversary of Michael Brown's death.

    These White protestors are pathetic because they NEVER protest when someone who racially looks like them is killed by the police. They only care about people who do NOT racially look like them getting shot and killed by the police. They really do hate their own race.

    Why do Whites protest over the police killing Black people when Black people do NOT return the favor and protest when the police kill White people. It's a one way street here with White liberals scratching the backs of Blacks but Blacks do not do the same to them.

    If the WASPy Left Winger Chris Matthews son was killed by the police, how many Blacks would hit the streets and protest his death? None that's how many.
  66. Politics makes odd bedfellows. Anyone with a brain would realize (without needing to watch a picosecond of RT programming) that RT is out to weaken USGOV. A weak USGOV is clearly in the interests of RUSGOV. But showing America as a Racist Place where Evil White Supremacists oppress Powerless POCs actually helps strengthen USGOV by increasing American support of increasing federal power in order to free those Oppressed POCs from the yoke of White Supremacist state and local governments.

    I seriously don’t know which way is up anymore. Someone smarter please put this into context for me.

    • Replies: @anon
    It is strange.

    Assuming their aim is to undermine Washington then you'd think they'd focus on the things the Western media covers up but they mostly come across as simply another version of the standard media.

    Either the initial assumption is wrong or they can't figure a "line" to take so they default to being the same as the standard western media because their journalists came out of the same western universities.

    I guess what they want is something neutral between standard left and right but damaging to the current ruling establishment as a whole.

    I'd suggest highlighting that the foundations of modern western "democracy" are a combination of corporate funding, media information filtering and the creation and use of teenage prostitutes for political blackmail.
  67. @The most deplorable one
    And like American Media, in this story, RT refuses to provide identifying details about the assailants.

    However, since no other news source has any information about the assailants, perhaps it is Swedish authorities who are refusing to provide the information.

    You wouldn’t believe who did it.

    The arrested suspect is African.

  68. @Truth
    That would cause have the police force to "opt out" of employment. I don't know if you realize this, but, in policing; high-crime areas tend to be where the jobs are.

    Not true. White people commit just as many crimes as black folks do. The disparity in crime statistics is due to deliberate, racist UNDERpolicing of white neighborhoods, and deliberate, racist OVERpolicing of black neighborhoods.

    Every community should have the same per capita number of police. How else are we going to stop the black “school-to-prison pipeline” if not by reducing the police presence in the ghetto and increasing police patrols in white neighborhoods?

    The police in Chicago fill out “contact cards” whenever they accost someone and the contact cards clearly show they are OVERpolicing the ghetto. The CPD clearly needs to stop racially discriminating, reduce the number of black contacts and increase the number of white contacts.

    Since one out of six Americans are black, we need more cops in white areas and out of the ghetto. For every one black contact we need five white contacts to be racially non-discriminatory. If you accost a black man, you must accost 5 white folks in a white neighborhood before you return to harass hard-working ghetto folks again.

    To reduce black contacts and arrests, we could do like the Detroit PD does: take two or three hours to arrive on the scene in the ghetto. Close and lock the local precincts after 4PM. Move all the detectives downtown. I can guarantee you that will reduce the number of reported crimes AND the (so-called) “high crime rates”.

    • Replies: @Truth
    Bill, I think that that is an interesting idea, and certainly worth consideration.
  69. Steve wrote: “By the way if you are a strategist for one of the 20 or so Presidential candidates, all this is probably starting to remind you of what you’ve vaguely heard about that far distant election year of 1968 in which the Democratic candidate wound up with 18.4 percentage points less than the Democratic candidate in 1964, despite tremendous prosperity over those four years.”

    The difference between 1968 and 2015 is that in 1968, 90% of the population of the United States was white. Hispanics were relatively few. Today, whites (including Hispanics) amount to 77%, non-Hispanic whites to 63%.

    The large white majority in 1968, having endured several “long hot summers” punctuated by race riots, wanted “law and order” – which both Richard Nixon and George Wallace promised. Despite dividing their votes between those two, whites prevailed and the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was defeated.

    According to the Roper Center’s polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 – 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

    If 2016 favors a law-and-order conservative for president, he’ll have to win the white vote by something more than 60%. Will that happen – or have whites developed enough “negro fatigue” yet, after 6-1/2 years of Obama’s ad Holder’s collusion with the likes of Al Sharpton in stirring the pot of racial discord?

    • Replies: @olson

    According to the Roper Center’s polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 – 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

     

    Romney also won the male vote.

    So, if you want the kind of society that women and minorities build, then...

    But if you like stuff like compassion, rule of law, etc. yeah, women and minorities aren't going to be doling that out any time soon given that they never have before.
    , @rod1963
    You can forget about Hillary getting the sort of black turn out Obama did. She won't because she's white. She's not even getting the large rally's Bernie is getting. Face it, outside of the beltway crowd and MSM she's not that popular.

    She's the Democratic version of Jeb and everyone knows it. It's why the rank and file chose Bernie over her.
    , @MarkinLA
    They won't get that blue collar white vote with Romney IIs like Fiorina and Cruz. Romney could have won if he wasn't Romney the vulture capitalist that nobody from the rust belt states was ever going to vote for.
  70. @E. Burke

    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?
     
    Well, I think that William Lind would say that it's a form of low-intensity Fourth Generation War by which irregular combatants drive foreigners (i.e., whites), including the foreign army (i.e., police) from their territory, while exacting economic costs upon the enemy, including ransom monies (i.e., welfare, affirmative action, etc.).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

    Then again, maybe that's giving them too much credit.

    Blacks aren’t extorting anything because they have no power which ticks them off. Elites extort on their behalf to get votes which in turn keep elites in power.

  71. @Ed
    In the Daily News write up a Dominican woman called him a traitor and yelled, "we voted for you!".

    This more than anything else may cost him his reelection. He should have kept his mouth shut but simply couldn't help himself.

    Dominicans in NYC, like Mexicans in LA, know how to handle black predators and gangstas.

    Since Dominicans and Mexicans are also part of the Rainbow Coalition, however, any racial conflict with blacks will be ignored by the MSM.

    Taking sides in a foreign (!) brown-on-brown race war was a chump move by DeBlasio.

    • Replies: @fish

    Taking sides in a foreign (!) brown-on-brown race war was a chump move by DeBlasio.
     
    .....and this surprises you?
    , @Jefferson
    "Dominicans in NYC, like Mexicans in LA, know how to handle black predators and gangstas."

    During Jim Crow the vast majority of the Dominican underclass in New York City would have been considered the same race as those African American/Haitian predators and gangstas that you speak of.

    Based on phenotype, I can not see most Dominicans being able to get away with drinking from Whites only water fountains or being able to get away with booking a room at a Whites only hotel establishment if they had lived in Georgia in 1933 for example. They could try and tell White Southerners that they are just Spaniards who spend way too much time in the sun but I don't think most White Southerners were that stupid retarded back than to fall for that. Not even Razib Khan would be able to pass for White in Jim Crow South and his hair is straighter than that of most Dominicans.

  72. @E. Harding
    Things aren't looking good for immigration restriction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    That link shows that 25% support increased immigration

    Well, about 25% of people want abortion illegal in all cases.

    And about 25% want abortion legal in all cases.

    So, how is it that 25 = 25 = 25 but not all 25’s are equal?

    Well?

  73. @Crawfurdmuir
    Steve wrote: "By the way if you are a strategist for one of the 20 or so Presidential candidates, all this is probably starting to remind you of what you’ve vaguely heard about that far distant election year of 1968 in which the Democratic candidate wound up with 18.4 percentage points less than the Democratic candidate in 1964, despite tremendous prosperity over those four years."

    The difference between 1968 and 2015 is that in 1968, 90% of the population of the United States was white. Hispanics were relatively few. Today, whites (including Hispanics) amount to 77%, non-Hispanic whites to 63%.

    The large white majority in 1968, having endured several "long hot summers" punctuated by race riots, wanted "law and order" - which both Richard Nixon and George Wallace promised. Despite dividing their votes between those two, whites prevailed and the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was defeated.

    According to the Roper Center's polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 - 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

    If 2016 favors a law-and-order conservative for president, he'll have to win the white vote by something more than 60%. Will that happen - or have whites developed enough "negro fatigue" yet, after 6-1/2 years of Obama's ad Holder's collusion with the likes of Al Sharpton in stirring the pot of racial discord?

    According to the Roper Center’s polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 – 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

    Romney also won the male vote.

    So, if you want the kind of society that women and minorities build, then…

    But if you like stuff like compassion, rule of law, etc. yeah, women and minorities aren’t going to be doling that out any time soon given that they never have before.

  74. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Incredibly strong ethnic solidarity, high time preference, propensity for aggression and low median IQ

    • Replies: @anon

    Incredibly strong ethnic solidarity
     
    Very low ethnic solidarity except when whipped up and marshaled by the media's war propaganda.


    also

    Perhaps Russian leaders aren’t as clueless as you think. Perhaps they are trying to instigate a civil war which obviously would be in Russia’s interest. And frankly egging on antiwhite forces in the US is not an irrational way to ignite a civil war.
     
    But that's the point. The mainstream western media is inciting the anti-white side already so RT doesn't need to join in. If they wanted to maximize the damage they'd report the other side of the story and pull white voters away from the MSM.
  75. @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    Perhaps Russian leaders aren’t as clueless as you think. Perhaps they are trying to instigate a civil war which obviously would be in Russia’s interest. And frankly egging on antiwhite forces in the US is not an irrational way to ignite a civil war.

    Plus there’s the fact that many establishment conservatives, who would oppose RT’s narrative of the Ferguson events, are also vehemently anti-Russia. The rabbit hole goes deep.

  76. @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It's just crazy and counterproductive.

    OMG.

    • Agree: Kylie
  77. Uh Oh!…Part IIL

    The “talented 10%” knows when it is wrong, and is not too big to issue a retraction for a past mistake.

    • Replies: @josh
    I get that it has something to do with white women having sex with black men, but I don't really understand what you are getting at? What was the past mistake?
  78. I thought it was interesting that he asserted that the Russian and American establishments seem to have similar stances on this question

    Ferguson has managed to bring Russia and George Soros together.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    Well, Steve Sailer's view of the Cold War is identical to Soros's, the neocons' and Masha Gessen's view. On that issue Putin would be the odd man out.
    , @schmenz
    Not really, Matra. Russia has just politely kicked Mr Soros' "foundation" out of the country. They have his number.

    So does RT, actually, who are not afraid to points out the deeds of the ubiquitous Mr Soros. What is odd through is that they cannot see the hand of Soros in all this black rioting.

    It's a mystery.
  79. @JohnnyWalker123
    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Black ghetto culture is an honor culture. Any public affront to your personal dignity must be met with a strong response or you will lose face. Think of it as “African duelling”.

    If you try to rob some 7-11 and the owner manages to run you off, there is no loss of face. You merely failed. You were not “disrespected”. You suffer no loss of face in the black community.

    On the other hand, if someone “disrespects” you, you will lose face in the black community and therefore must respond or the disrespect will spread.

    The big problem is not that blacks kill each other for reasons of personal honor (it is their culture after all) but that they do not formalize it with a “pistols at dawn” approach. They just open up and start blazing away at a funeral, a child’s birthday party, a dance, a backyard barbecue, whatever. This saddles white folks with police costs, hospital bills, lifetime medical care, etc.

    It was an honor crime that got Emmett Till killed. After he accosted, grabbed, and propositioned that white woman, the woman and her sister-in-law working the store agreed to keep it to themselves.

    Unfortunately, the black witnesses started spreading the word in the black community (which Emmett probably welcomed since it raised his status).

    This by itself wouldn’t have been so bad, except one of the black witnesses (or a friend) made a point of telling the woman’s husband about it when he returned to town. Honor, respect and status in the white AND black community was then an issue.

    Emmett’s fate was sealed.

    • Replies: @fnn
    It was the big mistake for the Till defendants to tell their story (including the actual murder) to Life magazine after their acquittals. It made them pariahs. It may have been justifiable according to local norms (including those of blacks) but there is no way the NYC media would understand that. IIRC, Till was stupidly defiant and refused to apologize for what he had done. Not that I understand why something short of killing could not have done to chastise him.
  80. @Matra
    I thought it was interesting that he asserted that the Russian and American establishments seem to have similar stances on this question

    Ferguson has managed to bring Russia and George Soros together.

    Well, Steve Sailer’s view of the Cold War is identical to Soros’s, the neocons’ and Masha Gessen’s view. On that issue Putin would be the odd man out.

  81. iSteveFan says:
    @Maj. Kong
    To a certain number of American 'conservatives', Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to 'rebuild the Soviet Union'. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.

    A bit odd, one would normally accuse Russia of rebuilding the Empire, not the USSR.

    The Russian mindset is still probably allergic to finding any Western allies, we aren't Eastern Orthodox. They have more interest in being friends with Angela Merkel, for naked economics. Russian support of Marine LePen should be viewed as a negotiating ploy.

    It doesn't help that the Russians with overseas experience tend to be either former KGB/SVR, or oligarchs.

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.

    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

    There are a lot of people in this country that would change their views on Russia if a) the US media changed its tone on news about Russia, and b) the Russians would stop with their coverage of the US as some big racist nation.

    I saw during the Sochi Games where some conservatives were actually intrigued, for example, by the Russian gay propaganda law. Of course the media coverage of Russia did all it could to make them look as bad as possible. I’ve seen conservatives do double takes when I showed them videos of Putin in Church making the sign of the Cross. Ditto for those new Jesus flags being flown by the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

    But still most conservatives I know either don’t want to change their views or don’t believe what I show them. One guy I know who fought in Vietnam will never change his view of them because of Soviet aid to North Vietnam. He is like one of those old WW2 vets who refused to buy anything Japanese. And the Russians don’t help by their coverage of domestic US politics. Even with me I get ticked off reading RT articles about US domestic politics.

    There are a lot of folks in the USA that have no idea how Russia is changing. I hear guys lament about how the US has lost its religious values and everyone is becoming secular/atheist. Then I explain to them how even after 70 years of oppression in the USSR, there are green shoots of Christianity forming in Russia, and the Russian government is actively trying to nurture those shoots, not eradicate them. This could play well in the US, but our media won’t promote it, and the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends.

    The Russians just don’t get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become. While the Americans that hated the Soviet Union are the ones that would probably like a Christian Russia, but have no clue it is actually forming.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    Russians are bad at public relations. An example of the consequences of this deficiency of theirs is contained in your comment. Russia turned conservative around the time of WWII. The post-WWII USSR was the opposite of the pre-WWII version in almost every way. That's why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War. If Stalin didn't turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

    But most Americans don't even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

    , @schmenz
    Again, perceptive and spot on. Thank you.

    In my own small blogging efforts I have tried to convince people to stop being conned by propaganda experts and manipulators of opinion and to research and think for themselves. It's a struggle, to be sure.
    , @inertial
    RT's goal was never about making friends in America. The Russians do not believe it is possible, and even if it were it wouldn't matter due to objective geopolitical reasons. They figure that whoever runs America will not tolerate independent Russia, so America will always be Russia's enemy unless Russia capitulates.


    Instead, Russian propaganda is targeted at the Europeans because Russia's main objective right now is to drive a wedge between Europe and America as far as the Russian policy is concerned. So RT caters to beliefs and prejudices of a typical anti-American European. In fact, it is to a large degree staffed by anti-American Europeans.
    , @HA

    "...the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends....The Russians just don’t get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become."
     
    Not true. The descendants of the old-garde Left still toe the Moscow line: for example, Stephen F. Cohen, "the Kremlin's #1 US apologist", who is also a contributing editor of The Nation, which his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel publishes, not to mention a slew of other workers-of-the-world-united types.

    When Moscow apologists lament the weirdly bimodal distribution of left and right who oppose their Ukraine campaign, they might simply be projecting, given that much the same could be said of their fan base.

    Potential friends, you say? I say some people never learn.

  82. @The most deplorable one
    And like American Media, in this story, RT refuses to provide identifying details about the assailants.

    However, since no other news source has any information about the assailants, perhaps it is Swedish authorities who are refusing to provide the information.

    Now we see reports like:

    The suspects were two men born in 1992 and 1979 who probably knew each other, Agren said. They had no connection with the victims and the motive for the attack was not known, he said.

    That reminds me of something.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/uk-sweden-ikea-attack-idUKKCN0QF1C320150810?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews

  83. @WhatEvvs
    Your analysis is spot on but forget about explaining anything to Russians about the US. They won't listen.

    Also, Americans who somehow think of Russia as an ally in white nationalism are stupid. And Putin really is a thug.

    I agree the WN movement is full of fools who believe in a fairy tale pan-Europism where “white” folks from Seattle to Dublin to Moscow will join hands to purge the “nonwhites” from their lands and usher in the Great White Utopia. Russians will never GAF about other “white” people except insofar as said “whites” can help increase Russian hegemony. With that said, Russia could be a good ally in helping to overthrow the anti-white elite that dominate the West. White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia’s help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "I agree the WN movement is full of fools who believe in a fairy tale pan-Europism where “white” folks from Seattle to Dublin to Moscow will join hands to purge the “nonwhites” from their lands and usher in the Great White Utopia. Russians will never GAF about other “white” people except insofar as said “whites” can help increase Russian hegemony. With that said, Russia could be a good ally in helping to overthrow the anti-white elite that dominate the West. White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia’s help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers."

    Vladimir Putin is a Russian first by a huge landslide and pan racial White an extremely distant second. I doubt very much Vladimir Putin considers Louisiana Cajuns and Sicilians for example to be his people.

    If Russian is not your first language, than Vladimir Putin does not see you as his people no matter how White your skin is.
    , @iSteveFan
    @AamirKhanFan
    @AndrewR

    White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia’s help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.
     
    I support the view about post-USSR Russia that Pat Buchanan spoke of twenty some years ago. He believed then and now that the USA and Russia had no historical animus between them as nations, except of course for the communist regime that ran the USSR for 70 plus years. So with the removal of that regime there was no longer any reason for the US and Russia to remain antagonistic. And that both the US and Russia, as well as the rest of the European world would face a common threat in both the population explosion of the global south, and the worldwide resurgence of Islam.

    Nowhere in that statement do I believe that we are all one happy white race. I understand that I will always view fellow Anglo nations like Canada and Australia differently than non Anglo ones. Mexico will never be looked upon by us as Canada is. Of course Jeb Bush might have something to say on that. But I could write the same about Greece, Spain, Poland and the rest of the Euros whose language and culture are unknown to me.

    I am not wanting to love Russia, Greece, Poland, Germany or the rest. I just don't want to destroy them in the name of the Great Game. The days of bludgeoning each other over who controls access to Africa, India or some other place are over. The rest of the world is growing in numbers, they are growing restless, and they are wanting to come North.

    BTW, not only do I want to deescalate with Russia, I also want to take the NE Asians into the fold too. There is no reason to fight with them anymore and they are in a similar position as we are. Of course they have resisted the great migration so far. But the global population explosion might eventually threaten them too.
  84. @iSteveFan

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.
     
    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

    There are a lot of people in this country that would change their views on Russia if a) the US media changed its tone on news about Russia, and b) the Russians would stop with their coverage of the US as some big racist nation.

    I saw during the Sochi Games where some conservatives were actually intrigued, for example, by the Russian gay propaganda law. Of course the media coverage of Russia did all it could to make them look as bad as possible. I've seen conservatives do double takes when I showed them videos of Putin in Church making the sign of the Cross. Ditto for those new Jesus flags being flown by the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

    But still most conservatives I know either don't want to change their views or don't believe what I show them. One guy I know who fought in Vietnam will never change his view of them because of Soviet aid to North Vietnam. He is like one of those old WW2 vets who refused to buy anything Japanese. And the Russians don't help by their coverage of domestic US politics. Even with me I get ticked off reading RT articles about US domestic politics.

    There are a lot of folks in the USA that have no idea how Russia is changing. I hear guys lament about how the US has lost its religious values and everyone is becoming secular/atheist. Then I explain to them how even after 70 years of oppression in the USSR, there are green shoots of Christianity forming in Russia, and the Russian government is actively trying to nurture those shoots, not eradicate them. This could play well in the US, but our media won't promote it, and the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends.

    The Russians just don't get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become. While the Americans that hated the Soviet Union are the ones that would probably like a Christian Russia, but have no clue it is actually forming.

    Russians are bad at public relations. An example of the consequences of this deficiency of theirs is contained in your comment. Russia turned conservative around the time of WWII. The post-WWII USSR was the opposite of the pre-WWII version in almost every way. That’s why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War. If Stalin didn’t turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

    But most Americans don’t even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    That’s why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War.
     
    The neocons turned against the USSR because of the turn of events that surrounded the creation of Israel. Stalin disliked Jews who seemed more loyal to Israel than to the USSR, eventually supported the Arabs, and refused to allow Jews to emigrate. In other words their like or dislike of the Soviet Union was based upon how well or poorly Jews were treated by the Soviet Union.

    If Stalin didn’t turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

     

    I thought the Old Bolsheviks were supporters of worldwide revolution and such stuff, similar to the worldwide push for democracy today. Had Stalin still maintained that policy, then it goes to reason he would have actively supported revolution worldwide, not just in his near abroad. But I fail to see how the Cold War would have been avoided given the USSR's position after WW2 and its presence in Eastern Europe. Unless of course you are suggesting that the Cold War would have been a hot one, and thus a cold war would never have happened.

    But most Americans don’t even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

     

    Actually most commenters on this site are quite aware of how the USSR was in regards to homosexuals and other pet issues of our day. I've seen a few back and forth discussions about this on this blog in the context of wondering why socialists in the West promote social rot, while the socialists of the Communist bloc did not. Some suggested that when the socialists own the whole pie, as in the communist nations, they set out to preserve and nurture that society since they own it. But in nations like the West, where they don't have full control, they seek to destroy that society so that they can take over and rebuild it.

    However, just because the late USSR did not promote homosexuality did not make it socially conservative. They were of course atheists, and while they did not gun down the clergy in the 197s0s, they surely did not promote religion, and if one was openly religious, it probably hindered his future chances at social advancement. That is not most people's definition of a socially conservative society.

    The Masha Gessens of this world are rooting against Russia today, not because they are socially conservative, but because they are actively promoting Christianity. They have a problem with Christianity, especially the Russian Orthodox variety, that goes back to the days of the Czar. They thought it had been extinguished after the Bolshevik Revolution. It is clearly a sore spot with them that after almost 100 years, Christianity appears to be making a comeback. The worst part is that the central government of Russia is actively promoting this comeback.
  85. @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It's just crazy and counterproductive.

    A black President, black attorney generals, black immigration bosses

    [MORE]
    , countless black bureaucrats, and black legislators (CBC) are all fighting for Open Borders, Free Trade, offshoring black jobs, and importing cheap workers to replace black folks because “they do the work [black] Americans won’t do”.

    And yet black folks keep voting for them, lockstep.

    I no longer listen to black folks who go on about “jobs” or “poverty” (as though white folks have some secret stash of jobs and money).

    They would rather give their jobs to Mexicans, Somalis, Nigerians, Chinese and Indians.

    So be it.

  86. This is all Obama’s fault. He could’ve been a healer, a bridger instead of a divider, but instead he took sides. What a waste of a golden opportunity.

    • Agree: Harold, TWS
    • Replies: @Marat
    You assume Obama has the same goals you do (healing the country or damping down the discord or something of that nature). Obama is "going to bat" for "his group" as he sees it. He could have, at any moment, addressed the country, but he hasn't and won't.
    , @anonymous

    This is all Obama’s fault. He could’ve been a healer, a bridger instead of a divider, but instead he took sides. What a waste of a golden opportunity.
     
    He's just too small a man, a petty, jealous, narcissistic little man. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something positive on a grand scale but wasn't up to it.
  87. Trump made an interesting off-the-cuff remark the other day when asked about violence. “We have to have a strong police presence,” or words to that effect. That was all he said.

  88. @Crawfurdmuir
    Steve wrote: "By the way if you are a strategist for one of the 20 or so Presidential candidates, all this is probably starting to remind you of what you’ve vaguely heard about that far distant election year of 1968 in which the Democratic candidate wound up with 18.4 percentage points less than the Democratic candidate in 1964, despite tremendous prosperity over those four years."

    The difference between 1968 and 2015 is that in 1968, 90% of the population of the United States was white. Hispanics were relatively few. Today, whites (including Hispanics) amount to 77%, non-Hispanic whites to 63%.

    The large white majority in 1968, having endured several "long hot summers" punctuated by race riots, wanted "law and order" - which both Richard Nixon and George Wallace promised. Despite dividing their votes between those two, whites prevailed and the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was defeated.

    According to the Roper Center's polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 - 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

    If 2016 favors a law-and-order conservative for president, he'll have to win the white vote by something more than 60%. Will that happen - or have whites developed enough "negro fatigue" yet, after 6-1/2 years of Obama's ad Holder's collusion with the likes of Al Sharpton in stirring the pot of racial discord?

    You can forget about Hillary getting the sort of black turn out Obama did. She won’t because she’s white. She’s not even getting the large rally’s Bernie is getting. Face it, outside of the beltway crowd and MSM she’s not that popular.

    She’s the Democratic version of Jeb and everyone knows it. It’s why the rank and file chose Bernie over her.

  89. @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It's just crazy and counterproductive.

    From their standpoint rioting and violence make sense. Whites cave.

    They don’t trust whites, quite naturally, since they view whites the same way Muslims view kafirs.

  90. @iSteveFan
    A few of us have exchanged blog comments about this before in which we described the Russians as being tone deaf to their potential allies in the US and sticking to the old Soviet plan of showing America as a racist nation.

    What the Russians don't seem to realize is that their potential allies in 2015 USA, conservatives and traditionalists, have no use for pandering to minorities after 50 years of the so-called Great Society. At a time where we are disillusioned by our own elites who seem hellbent on destroying our culture, both demographically and morally, we might see a potential friend in a re-Christianizing Russia.

    But Russia is so ticked off over the way our elites have treated her that she jumps on any chance to show them up as hypocrites. Hence, RT focuses on Ferguson and takes a stand somewhat similar to the NY Times and MSNBC.

    The irony of course is this. While Russia thinks she is pointing out the hypocrisy of our ruling elite, she is really just giving them the ammunition to continue with their destructive policies. Instead of being embarrassed about being hypocrites in the way we treat our minorities, the elite can point to the fact that even Putin's Russia thinks we treat our blacks poorly so you cuckservatives better shut up and let us double down on the Great Society. This only confirms what our foremost public intellectual preaches about reparations. If anything, we haven't done enough.

    Somebody needs to explain to the Russians this ain't 1965, and that if they ever intend to get any sympathetic souls in the West, they should play up to the people who are opposed to what is happening in our countries. After all the elites of the USA and Western Europe are a common enemy of both Russia and Western/USA conservatives and traditionalists.

    A perceptive comment all around.

    RT is a valuable source of news on many international topics, but on this issue they simply don’t get it. They have no understanding of what it is like to live among people who regularly resort to gunplay instead of discussion.

    There are some Russians and pro-Russians (e.g., The Saker) who will gladly shoot themselves in the foot before even thinking about allying with anyone who is sympathetic to them, especially lots of worried Catholics. They would rather punch them in the face as work with them. Sad.

    I’m not sure we can call RT “Putin’s paper” as such since they seem fairly honest about reporting both the good and the bad in Russia. But when it comes to black violence they are clueless. Yes, it could be, as some here have suggested, that they just want to “stick it to the Americans”. If true, who would blame them after all the misery we have caused them as they tried to crawl out from under the rubble of Soviet days?

    “Russia Insider” is a little better than RT in this regard. They are not afraid to make friends with others who share many of the same concerns.

    I do wish someone could sit down with their editorial boards and talk to them.

  91. @mack
    Yesterday the Washington Post ran a big dramatic story about the injustice of "unarmed" blacks dying at the hands of cops.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/08/black-and-unarmed/

    I read hundreds of comments and they were all critical of the leftist arguments and conclusions.

    It occurred to me that the internet will be banned or compromised very soon. Knowledge is too dangerous and now it's democratized and essentially free.

    A line from that article: “However, black men accounted for 40 percent of the 60 unarmed deaths, even though they make up just 6 percent of the U.S. population.”

    I read that and thought, “Six percent? That’s much too small,” then realized that that’s the percentage not of blacks, but of black men. If they’re going to give that opening, then the question is: Why do police shoot men, black or white, so much more often than women? Everyone knows the answer to that, but how to word it without getting into trouble would be interesting.

  92. @E. Harding
    Things aren't looking good for immigration restriction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    Ahh … not good news, sure. But what you’re talking about is a few points tick up in the more immigration side. It’s small enough a good chunk is probably just shifted demographics.

    But the bottom line here is that a plurality gives the default “about right” answer. Of those who take a side the “less” are greater than the “more”. Even among “Hispanics” it’s 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.

    And the key point: This is without any media, any politician, anyone significant making the anti case. And in the face of massive “immigration is good for you!” propaganda from the establishment–journalists, politicians, Hollyweird.

    The anti case is overwhelming in terms of stuff–jobs, wages, housing prices, family formation, education, taxes, environment, culture, social cohesion, crime, etc. not to mention the more ticklish HBD issues of IQ and long term prosperity of the nation. All it needs is someone to forcefully intelligently articulate it. Not just half-assed one-offs like Trump so far, but a solid case.

    Even the simplest question: “When do we stop? Just how big and crowded do you want the nation to be?” … is unanswerable. Because immigration fundamentally makes no sense as an ongoing policy. Waves of “your people” settling a conquered territory–sure. But a continual policy? It’s just biologically\logically ludicrous.

    So this sort of poll trending … not real exciting. The question is what happens when a candidate is really willing to make this an issue and force a real debate. Then i think the anti case is easy to make and overwhelming. (Because the “pro” case is just nonsensical.)

  93. @Matra
    I thought it was interesting that he asserted that the Russian and American establishments seem to have similar stances on this question

    Ferguson has managed to bring Russia and George Soros together.

    Not really, Matra. Russia has just politely kicked Mr Soros’ “foundation” out of the country. They have his number.

    So does RT, actually, who are not afraid to points out the deeds of the ubiquitous Mr Soros. What is odd through is that they cannot see the hand of Soros in all this black rioting.

    It’s a mystery.

  94. @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It's just crazy and counterproductive.

    The people out there committing violence at these public protests are mostly young black males, a lumpenproletariat driven by incoherent emotions, not ideology or long term principle. They cannot really be “controlled” directly, but they do respond to the overall discourse in our culture, which currently encourages them to blame cops and white society for their lot in life.

  95. @iSteveFan

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.
     
    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

    There are a lot of people in this country that would change their views on Russia if a) the US media changed its tone on news about Russia, and b) the Russians would stop with their coverage of the US as some big racist nation.

    I saw during the Sochi Games where some conservatives were actually intrigued, for example, by the Russian gay propaganda law. Of course the media coverage of Russia did all it could to make them look as bad as possible. I've seen conservatives do double takes when I showed them videos of Putin in Church making the sign of the Cross. Ditto for those new Jesus flags being flown by the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

    But still most conservatives I know either don't want to change their views or don't believe what I show them. One guy I know who fought in Vietnam will never change his view of them because of Soviet aid to North Vietnam. He is like one of those old WW2 vets who refused to buy anything Japanese. And the Russians don't help by their coverage of domestic US politics. Even with me I get ticked off reading RT articles about US domestic politics.

    There are a lot of folks in the USA that have no idea how Russia is changing. I hear guys lament about how the US has lost its religious values and everyone is becoming secular/atheist. Then I explain to them how even after 70 years of oppression in the USSR, there are green shoots of Christianity forming in Russia, and the Russian government is actively trying to nurture those shoots, not eradicate them. This could play well in the US, but our media won't promote it, and the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends.

    The Russians just don't get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become. While the Americans that hated the Soviet Union are the ones that would probably like a Christian Russia, but have no clue it is actually forming.

    Again, perceptive and spot on. Thank you.

    In my own small blogging efforts I have tried to convince people to stop being conned by propaganda experts and manipulators of opinion and to research and think for themselves. It’s a struggle, to be sure.

  96. It costs almost 20 bucks to practice at my gun range. Those guys were just saving some money.

  97. @Crawfurdmuir
    Steve wrote: "By the way if you are a strategist for one of the 20 or so Presidential candidates, all this is probably starting to remind you of what you’ve vaguely heard about that far distant election year of 1968 in which the Democratic candidate wound up with 18.4 percentage points less than the Democratic candidate in 1964, despite tremendous prosperity over those four years."

    The difference between 1968 and 2015 is that in 1968, 90% of the population of the United States was white. Hispanics were relatively few. Today, whites (including Hispanics) amount to 77%, non-Hispanic whites to 63%.

    The large white majority in 1968, having endured several "long hot summers" punctuated by race riots, wanted "law and order" - which both Richard Nixon and George Wallace promised. Despite dividing their votes between those two, whites prevailed and the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, was defeated.

    According to the Roper Center's polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 - 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

    If 2016 favors a law-and-order conservative for president, he'll have to win the white vote by something more than 60%. Will that happen - or have whites developed enough "negro fatigue" yet, after 6-1/2 years of Obama's ad Holder's collusion with the likes of Al Sharpton in stirring the pot of racial discord?

    They won’t get that blue collar white vote with Romney IIs like Fiorina and Cruz. Romney could have won if he wasn’t Romney the vulture capitalist that nobody from the rust belt states was ever going to vote for.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "They won’t get that blue collar white vote with Romney IIs like Fiorina and Cruz. Romney could have won if he wasn’t Romney the vulture capitalist that nobody from the rust belt states was ever going to vote for."

    Yet blue collar African Americans and Hispanics will have no problem voting for Hillary Rodham, a woman who is richer than God. What she charges for just 1 speaking engagement is more than what most Americans households make in 1 year.
  98. @E. Harding
    Things aren't looking good for immigration restriction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    Things aren’t looking good for immigration restriction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/184529/support-increased-immigration.aspx

    Come on — those numbers are ludicrous.

  99. @JohnnyWalker123
    Here's a broadcast from RT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4EEAQrpS7k

    Here’s a broadcast from RT.

    Very well done. Good for Putin.

  100. This may be my favorite headline of the year:

    Pentagon under fire for guidelines that liken war reporters to ‘belligerents’

    Because that’s what non-belligerents do; attack you when they find out you secretly think they’re hostile.

    The leftist corporate press gang is a psychopathic hive-mind.

  101. @iSteveFan

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.
     
    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

    There are a lot of people in this country that would change their views on Russia if a) the US media changed its tone on news about Russia, and b) the Russians would stop with their coverage of the US as some big racist nation.

    I saw during the Sochi Games where some conservatives were actually intrigued, for example, by the Russian gay propaganda law. Of course the media coverage of Russia did all it could to make them look as bad as possible. I've seen conservatives do double takes when I showed them videos of Putin in Church making the sign of the Cross. Ditto for those new Jesus flags being flown by the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

    But still most conservatives I know either don't want to change their views or don't believe what I show them. One guy I know who fought in Vietnam will never change his view of them because of Soviet aid to North Vietnam. He is like one of those old WW2 vets who refused to buy anything Japanese. And the Russians don't help by their coverage of domestic US politics. Even with me I get ticked off reading RT articles about US domestic politics.

    There are a lot of folks in the USA that have no idea how Russia is changing. I hear guys lament about how the US has lost its religious values and everyone is becoming secular/atheist. Then I explain to them how even after 70 years of oppression in the USSR, there are green shoots of Christianity forming in Russia, and the Russian government is actively trying to nurture those shoots, not eradicate them. This could play well in the US, but our media won't promote it, and the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends.

    The Russians just don't get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become. While the Americans that hated the Soviet Union are the ones that would probably like a Christian Russia, but have no clue it is actually forming.

    RT’s goal was never about making friends in America. The Russians do not believe it is possible, and even if it were it wouldn’t matter due to objective geopolitical reasons. They figure that whoever runs America will not tolerate independent Russia, so America will always be Russia’s enemy unless Russia capitulates.

    Instead, Russian propaganda is targeted at the Europeans because Russia’s main objective right now is to drive a wedge between Europe and America as far as the Russian policy is concerned. So RT caters to beliefs and prejudices of a typical anti-American European. In fact, it is to a large degree staffed by anti-American Europeans.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    There is some truth to this. Just a few years ago Berlusconi was friendly with Russia. Greece is kind of friendly. And even Hungary isn't hostile, which is remarkable given the feelings about the 1945-1990 period. Marine le Pen is very pro-Russian. From the Kremlin's perpsective Europe is less of a pipe dream than the US.

    But still, if a true opposition movement emerges in America and it's not hostile to Russia, Russia would have to support it regardless of what this movement would believe about anything else. It would be political malpractice for the Kremlin not to support a hypothetical future Pat Buchanan type for example. Unless he was hostile to Russia of course.
  102. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Chris
    If you were Putin, wouldn't you want to undermine the US?

    “If you were Putin, wouldn’t you want to undermine the US?”

    This makes me wonder..

    maybe Truman-and-Churchill’s Cold War was a big mistake. While US and Europe needed to fend themselves from communist power, maybe they should made a pact with the USSR. And given that they were all allies during WWII, it might have been possible.

    After all, the USSR leadership could be pragmatic. Nazi Germany and USSR were ideologically diametrically opposed, but when Hitler made an overture to Stalin, USSR was willing to bury the hatchet and get along. If USSR could do that with Nazi Germany, why not with US and UK? It was when Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR that Stalin went into anti-German mode in war and propaganda.

    Stalin’s attitude toward Germany was, “If you shake my hand, I shake your hand; if you spit on me, I spit on you.”

    Now, suppose US and Western Europe were willing to work with the USSR instead of vilifying the Iron Curtain and etc.
    Since US had allowed the USSR to gobble up Eastern Europe, those areas would have to be ceded to the Soviets.
    Perhaps, China was a bigger problem but US is to blame cuz Roosevelt asked Stalin to invade Northeastern Asia against Japan.
    Even so, there were lots of tensions between Soviet communists and Chinese communists, and even communist China might not have been so virulently anti-American if US hadn’t ramped up the Cold War.

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.
    As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the ‘darkies’, the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.

    But suppose Truman and Churchill had gone to Stalin and made a pact. They treat him well like a great statesman and allow him to keep Eastern Europe and don’t threaten hinm. In turn, the USS, during and after Stalin, don’t support anti-white and anti-Western movements around the world. US doesn’t encircle the USSR, and the USSR doesn’t fund anti-American and anti-Western movements in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and in America itself by stirring up the Negroes via Jewish closet-communists working for the USSR.

    Things might have been better for the West. Foreign policy is about deal-making.

    Look at China. When US was against China, Mao supported all the anti-American causes around the world. But once Nixon met with China, Mao tuned down all that and even offered advice to North Vietnamese that maybe the war should be ended with the South. Mao was looking out for China first. Once US stopped being hostile to China, China drastically reduced its anti-American rhetoric and support.

    So, maybe paradoxically, the communist threat became worse around the world precisely because US and UK went on the offensive against the USSR soon after the end of WWII. As USSR felt encircled and threatened, they figured they’d fund and support every communist and anti-western movement around the world in Africa, Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.

    Maybe a deal could have been reached between Capitalist West and Communist East.

    “We don’t condemn or interfere with the Soviet sphere of influence from Eastern Europe to Siberia, and the Soviets don’t interfere with Western sphere of influence.”

    As with Putin’s latest shenanigans, I think much of Soviet anti-Western policy had more to do with geopolitics than ideology. As the West was encircling the USSR, USSR fought back by encircling the West with anti-western/white movements. It’s like a game of Go where whites try to encircle the black and so the black try to encircle the white with the black and etc.

    One thing for sure, Putin doesn’t want this war of words and images with the West. He wants business and good relations. But Jewish elites are salivating over taking over Russia like they took over America. And they fear the rise of Russia as a counter-example of a great power where the leaders represent the national interests of the majority.
    It’s interesting what Jews are trying to do in Ukraine, which is contradictory. On the one hand, Jews are using Ukrainian nationalism against Russian ‘imperialism’. There is some legitimacy to this since it’s understandable that Ukrainians want to be free of Russian influence, which has been no less corrupting than EU/US influence. So, even though Jews oppose goy nationalism, they find Ukrainian nationalism use against Russian nationalism. Make goy fight goy. On the other hand, Jews are trying to promote Ukraine as a ‘liberal democracy’ on the EU model by pressuring it to have ‘gay pride’ parades.

    Anyway, during the Cold War, America’s aggressive stance against white Russia made Russia support non-whites against White America and white Europe.
    White folks should not be bashing white folks.

    • Replies: @HA

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the ‘darkies’, the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.
     
    For anyone who bothered to read all that, I'm willing to bet good money that you have taking extensive liberties with the words of John Lukacs. He might well have rued the catastrophic costs of the Cold War, but I don't ever recall him going on about "darkies", per se. Then again, it has been a while. Is there any link that would substantiate any of the above paragraph?
  103. Everything we know about history tells us that Black Lives Don’t Matter to Blacks. The open-secret story of slavery is that it’s a black enterprise, much blacker than not, that slavery has been hardest to stamp out in black Africa, and that few if any other populations have engaged in slavery in the wholesale way that blacks have. Few have been as willing to sell off people of their own race to buyers from other races. Then there’s the way they slaughter one another on a routine basis. The Rwandan Genocide exceeded the Holocaust in terms of death rate, with machetes as the weapon of choice (“industrialized systems of death” and “death camps” and all the rest are for sissy white people, apparently).

    Seriously, why do blacks have to act this way?

    Africa’s always got several low-intensity conflicts (the highest intensity of conflict blacks can sustain) boiling. Internet says the war in Somalia has been going on since 2009, Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria since 2009, civil war in Central African Republic since 2012, civil war in Congo since 1998, Uganda since 1987, insurgency in northern Mali since 2012, south Sudan on and off (mostly on) since 1955. And where there isn’t war, there seem to be strongmen ruling with an iron fist.

    This is all against a backdrop of more routine black levels of violent crime, infrastructure-wrecking levels of property crime, slavery, human trafficking, bizzare ritualistic murder, cannibalism, and general depraved insanity.

    Why? Why not?

    Here’s a video of a young Ferguson gentleman saying he is “ready for war”

    Meaning, “a nice low-intensity conflict where there’s lots of wild shooting, chaos, and opportunity for looting and mayhem, but not many casualties among the ‘fighters.’”

    So, dig up the body and desecrate the grave, and magic will happen. Voodoo, plain and simple.

    Well, that’s how they’re selling it to their friends in the press gang, anyway. It’s just simple aggression.

    It occurred to me that the internet will be banned or compromised very soon. Knowledge is too dangerous and now it’s democratized and essentially free.

    That’s going to be very hard to pull off. A lot of people have gotten used to speaking their minds, or reading people speaking their minds, and shutting down or further “sanitizing” speech will just drive them off the reservation, allowing free speech to out-compete censored or banned speech.

    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It’s just crazy and counterproductive.

    Sounds suspiciously like their legitimate concerns are self-inflicted wounds. Acting violently tends to alienate employers and attract police.

    The difference between 1968 and 2015 is that in 1968, 90% of the population of the United States was white. Hispanics were relatively few. Today, whites (including Hispanics) amount to 77%, non-Hispanic whites to 63%.

    And that category usually includes all “Caucasoid” peoples like Arabs, Levantines, North Africans, south & southwest Asians, etc.

    According to the Roper Center’s polling data, in 2008 Obama lost the white vote, 43 – 55. In 2012, he lost it 39-59. Nonetheless he won both elections on the strength of an almost unanimous black vote and with 70%+ majorities amongst Hispanics and Asians. Whites are no longer numerous enough to swing an election, even when they favor a candidate by a margin of 20%, as they favored Mitt Romney in 2012.

    Makes no sense, based on your own numbers. 37% of the population got him elected by giving him margins bigger than 20%.

    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

  104. @inertial
    RT's goal was never about making friends in America. The Russians do not believe it is possible, and even if it were it wouldn't matter due to objective geopolitical reasons. They figure that whoever runs America will not tolerate independent Russia, so America will always be Russia's enemy unless Russia capitulates.


    Instead, Russian propaganda is targeted at the Europeans because Russia's main objective right now is to drive a wedge between Europe and America as far as the Russian policy is concerned. So RT caters to beliefs and prejudices of a typical anti-American European. In fact, it is to a large degree staffed by anti-American Europeans.

    There is some truth to this. Just a few years ago Berlusconi was friendly with Russia. Greece is kind of friendly. And even Hungary isn’t hostile, which is remarkable given the feelings about the 1945-1990 period. Marine le Pen is very pro-Russian. From the Kremlin’s perpsective Europe is less of a pipe dream than the US.

    But still, if a true opposition movement emerges in America and it’s not hostile to Russia, Russia would have to support it regardless of what this movement would believe about anything else. It would be political malpractice for the Kremlin not to support a hypothetical future Pat Buchanan type for example. Unless he was hostile to Russia of course.

  105. @Dahlia

    If you are a Hillary strategist who had been methodically planning her coronation by hopping on the trendy Black Lives Matter bandwagon, you might be feeling right now like LBJ strategists must have felt after the Detroit riots in the summer of 1967.

     

    Actually, I'm thinking of Robert Kennedy. Bernie just keeps advancing despite dirty tricks. Crowds getting bigger. And he and his people are clueless about their enemies. I don't just means Soros and Progressive Inc., but the animal spirits they are unleashing amongst Blacks.

    I believe it was Bernie's wife who could be seen in the video nicely asking "Braids" why not speak afterwards, Bernie will let you... Her look of absolute befuddlement when this was rejected says it all about their philosophy (see redheaded women off to right and behind Braids).

    Others such as Johnnywalker123 and Bill P. said it very well here: the Bernie phenomenon lacks testosterone; it is inherent in the outlook and identity of the movement.

    Contrast this with George H.W. Bush 1987. Not a masculine guy who struggled with the "wimp factor", he was surrounded by manly men and manly men elsewhere had his back. Lee Atwater. Saturday Night Live even!

    Bush I was a WWII dive bomber pilot. Safe to say he did not lack for testicular fortitude.

    • Replies: @Dirk Dagger
    Donald Trump might disagree with you. Bush wasn't captured but he was shot down, those torpedo-bombers weren't the fastest things.
    , @David In TN
    Torpedo bomber, not dive bomber.
  106. I love it. This stuff is pure hilarity when you live in a town with zero percent Diversity. Have you ever experienced zero percent Diversity, even for just a week? It’s the tops!

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "I love it. This stuff is pure hilarity when you live in a town with zero percent Diversity. Have you ever experienced zero percent Diversity, even for just a week? It’s the tops!"

    When you say your town has zero percent diversity, are you talking about just Blacks or Nonwhites in general? There are areas of the U.S that have few Blacks, but plenty of Mestizos/Amerindians, or Asians, or Non Hispanic Native Americans take their place.

    The San Gabriel Valley and El Paso for example are not Whitopias, even though they have few Blacks. Also some areas of North Dakota are not Whitopias because of the reservations.
  107. @Big Bill
    Dominicans in NYC, like Mexicans in LA, know how to handle black predators and gangstas.

    Since Dominicans and Mexicans are also part of the Rainbow Coalition, however, any racial conflict with blacks will be ignored by the MSM.

    Taking sides in a foreign (!) brown-on-brown race war was a chump move by DeBlasio.

    Taking sides in a foreign (!) brown-on-brown race war was a chump move by DeBlasio.

    …..and this surprises you?

  108. Black women mistake one another for Bernie Sanders.

    • Replies: @anon
    Nice try. That is obviously one of the country's premier slapstick street comedy troops. They make the Three Stooges look like pikers.
  109. @Truth
    Uh Oh!...Part IIL

    The "talented 10%" knows when it is wrong, and is not too big to issue a retraction for a past mistake.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz1sgkHIVmE

    I get that it has something to do with white women having sex with black men, but I don’t really understand what you are getting at? What was the past mistake?

    • Replies: @Truth
    The past mistake was that Mr. Carroll assumed that white women were having sex with black men without having any verification, as I often do, so he identified his mistake, as I do, and humbly stated that he would refrain from such errors until he had the proof he needed.
  110. @yaqub the mad scientist
    Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks.

    Let me guess-you haven't walked around in a WalMart lately.

    Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks.

    I believe that Mr. Z’s intended meaning would have been better conveyed by putting a comma after “work”.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    I wouldn't go nearly that far but that was a very funny comment.
  111. @CJ
    Today, working class whites don’t work and mix freely with underclass blacks.

    I believe that Mr. Z's intended meaning would have been better conveyed by putting a comma after "work".

    I wouldn’t go nearly that far but that was a very funny comment.

  112. Dirk Dagger [AKA "Chico Caldera"] says:
    @Whiskey
    Bush I was a WWII dive bomber pilot. Safe to say he did not lack for testicular fortitude.

    Donald Trump might disagree with you. Bush wasn’t captured but he was shot down, those torpedo-bombers weren’t the fastest things.

  113. @iSteveFan

    To a certain number of American ‘conservatives’, Russia is just as Communist as China is, and Putin is trying to ‘rebuild the Soviet Union’. Hillary Clinton also made a reference to this some years back.
     
    Most conservatives I speak with still hold this view of Russia. They conflate communist with Russian. They conflate USSR with Russia. Point out that Stalin was a Georgian, the guys the neocons wanted to fight for in 2008, and they will change the subject. Ask them if they are anti-Semites since they hate communists so much and they get incensed . Yet tell them that Jews in Russia probably supported the Bolsheviks in higher proportions than ethnic Russians and they go blank.

    There are a lot of people in this country that would change their views on Russia if a) the US media changed its tone on news about Russia, and b) the Russians would stop with their coverage of the US as some big racist nation.

    I saw during the Sochi Games where some conservatives were actually intrigued, for example, by the Russian gay propaganda law. Of course the media coverage of Russia did all it could to make them look as bad as possible. I've seen conservatives do double takes when I showed them videos of Putin in Church making the sign of the Cross. Ditto for those new Jesus flags being flown by the rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

    But still most conservatives I know either don't want to change their views or don't believe what I show them. One guy I know who fought in Vietnam will never change his view of them because of Soviet aid to North Vietnam. He is like one of those old WW2 vets who refused to buy anything Japanese. And the Russians don't help by their coverage of domestic US politics. Even with me I get ticked off reading RT articles about US domestic politics.

    There are a lot of folks in the USA that have no idea how Russia is changing. I hear guys lament about how the US has lost its religious values and everyone is becoming secular/atheist. Then I explain to them how even after 70 years of oppression in the USSR, there are green shoots of Christianity forming in Russia, and the Russian government is actively trying to nurture those shoots, not eradicate them. This could play well in the US, but our media won't promote it, and the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends.

    The Russians just don't get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become. While the Americans that hated the Soviet Union are the ones that would probably like a Christian Russia, but have no clue it is actually forming.

    “…the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends….The Russians just don’t get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become.”

    Not true. The descendants of the old-garde Left still toe the Moscow line: for example, Stephen F. Cohen, “the Kremlin’s #1 US apologist”, who is also a contributing editor of The Nation, which his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel publishes, not to mention a slew of other workers-of-the-world-united types.

    When Moscow apologists lament the weirdly bimodal distribution of left and right who oppose their Ukraine campaign, they might simply be projecting, given that much the same could be said of their fan base.

    Potential friends, you say? I say some people never learn.

    • Replies: @IA
    You may not be a white, hetero man. For non-status-marking Eloi though, the current Western regime is not our friend.
  114. @Whiskey
    Bush I was a WWII dive bomber pilot. Safe to say he did not lack for testicular fortitude.

    Torpedo bomber, not dive bomber.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Thanks. Stand corrected. Torpedo bombers were if anything, even more a death sentence than Dive Bombers. Flying low and slow. IIRC one entire squadron at Midway was wiped out, to the last man.
  115. I don’t know why so many people on Stormfront love Vladimir Putin when he does not have a single racially aware bone in his body. Vladimir Putin has hopped on the America is racist against Blacks and treats Blacks like second class citizens bandwagon. Vladimir Putin is too much of a corrupt politician to care about the White race.

    • Replies: @fnn
    US is geopolitical rival of Russia, so RT probes for its exploitable weak points in the context of the hegemonic international hivemind. That doesn't change the fact that the American Empire is objectively the greatest enemy of whites worldwide. Weaken the strangehold of the American Empire on Europe and it has a chance to survive. Nearly all politicos are slime, but Putin does not buy into the Western ideology that says that whites must be racially replaced and Putin has endorsed a Russian Orthodoxy (ethnocentric but not racialist) that is traditionalist and non-prog/cult marxist-unlike 99% of what passes for Christianity in the West. So some degree of support for Putin is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    In case anyone doesn't know that USG is actively hostile to whites:

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/
  116. @dumpstersquirrel
    I love it. This stuff is pure hilarity when you live in a town with zero percent Diversity. Have you ever experienced zero percent Diversity, even for just a week? It's the tops!

    “I love it. This stuff is pure hilarity when you live in a town with zero percent Diversity. Have you ever experienced zero percent Diversity, even for just a week? It’s the tops!”

    When you say your town has zero percent diversity, are you talking about just Blacks or Nonwhites in general? There are areas of the U.S that have few Blacks, but plenty of Mestizos/Amerindians, or Asians, or Non Hispanic Native Americans take their place.

    The San Gabriel Valley and El Paso for example are not Whitopias, even though they have few Blacks. Also some areas of North Dakota are not Whitopias because of the reservations.

  117. @FactsAreImportant
    Ta has more blood on his hands.

    Ta has more blood on his hands.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

    • Agree: Arclight
    • Replies: @Cryptogenic

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black body in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.
     
    Fixed this for you.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

     

    Don't give it to Facts, give it to Steve!
    , @Truth
    The point is solid in the abstract, but you'd be a little surprised, not every Afrophile in America is an Unzista. Some are actually black.
  118. @David In TN
    Torpedo bomber, not dive bomber.

    Thanks. Stand corrected. Torpedo bombers were if anything, even more a death sentence than Dive Bombers. Flying low and slow. IIRC one entire squadron at Midway was wiped out, to the last man.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "IIRC one entire squadron at Midway was wiped out, to the last man."

    They came in first and low to draw the Japanese carrier's fighter cover down to the deck. A second wave then came in at altitude and hit the carriers that no longer had fighter cover. The strategy worked, the Japanese were devastated. These men knowingly sacrificed themselves. No one should ever forget that.
    __________

    @Sylwester
    "That's not the impression I intended to give."

    tbraton seems to be the only one to have gotten that impression.
  119. @MarkinLA
    They won't get that blue collar white vote with Romney IIs like Fiorina and Cruz. Romney could have won if he wasn't Romney the vulture capitalist that nobody from the rust belt states was ever going to vote for.

    “They won’t get that blue collar white vote with Romney IIs like Fiorina and Cruz. Romney could have won if he wasn’t Romney the vulture capitalist that nobody from the rust belt states was ever going to vote for.”

    Yet blue collar African Americans and Hispanics will have no problem voting for Hillary Rodham, a woman who is richer than God. What she charges for just 1 speaking engagement is more than what most Americans households make in 1 year.

  120. @Anon
    "If you were Putin, wouldn’t you want to undermine the US?"

    This makes me wonder..

    maybe Truman-and-Churchill's Cold War was a big mistake. While US and Europe needed to fend themselves from communist power, maybe they should made a pact with the USSR. And given that they were all allies during WWII, it might have been possible.

    After all, the USSR leadership could be pragmatic. Nazi Germany and USSR were ideologically diametrically opposed, but when Hitler made an overture to Stalin, USSR was willing to bury the hatchet and get along. If USSR could do that with Nazi Germany, why not with US and UK? It was when Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR that Stalin went into anti-German mode in war and propaganda.

    Stalin's attitude toward Germany was, "If you shake my hand, I shake your hand; if you spit on me, I spit on you."

    Now, suppose US and Western Europe were willing to work with the USSR instead of vilifying the Iron Curtain and etc.
    Since US had allowed the USSR to gobble up Eastern Europe, those areas would have to be ceded to the Soviets.
    Perhaps, China was a bigger problem but US is to blame cuz Roosevelt asked Stalin to invade Northeastern Asia against Japan.
    Even so, there were lots of tensions between Soviet communists and Chinese communists, and even communist China might not have been so virulently anti-American if US hadn't ramped up the Cold War.

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.
    As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the 'darkies', the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.

    But suppose Truman and Churchill had gone to Stalin and made a pact. They treat him well like a great statesman and allow him to keep Eastern Europe and don't threaten hinm. In turn, the USS, during and after Stalin, don't support anti-white and anti-Western movements around the world. US doesn't encircle the USSR, and the USSR doesn't fund anti-American and anti-Western movements in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and in America itself by stirring up the Negroes via Jewish closet-communists working for the USSR.

    Things might have been better for the West. Foreign policy is about deal-making.

    Look at China. When US was against China, Mao supported all the anti-American causes around the world. But once Nixon met with China, Mao tuned down all that and even offered advice to North Vietnamese that maybe the war should be ended with the South. Mao was looking out for China first. Once US stopped being hostile to China, China drastically reduced its anti-American rhetoric and support.

    So, maybe paradoxically, the communist threat became worse around the world precisely because US and UK went on the offensive against the USSR soon after the end of WWII. As USSR felt encircled and threatened, they figured they'd fund and support every communist and anti-western movement around the world in Africa, Middle East, Asia, and Latin America.

    Maybe a deal could have been reached between Capitalist West and Communist East.

    "We don't condemn or interfere with the Soviet sphere of influence from Eastern Europe to Siberia, and the Soviets don't interfere with Western sphere of influence."

    As with Putin's latest shenanigans, I think much of Soviet anti-Western policy had more to do with geopolitics than ideology. As the West was encircling the USSR, USSR fought back by encircling the West with anti-western/white movements. It's like a game of Go where whites try to encircle the black and so the black try to encircle the white with the black and etc.

    One thing for sure, Putin doesn't want this war of words and images with the West. He wants business and good relations. But Jewish elites are salivating over taking over Russia like they took over America. And they fear the rise of Russia as a counter-example of a great power where the leaders represent the national interests of the majority.
    It's interesting what Jews are trying to do in Ukraine, which is contradictory. On the one hand, Jews are using Ukrainian nationalism against Russian 'imperialism'. There is some legitimacy to this since it's understandable that Ukrainians want to be free of Russian influence, which has been no less corrupting than EU/US influence. So, even though Jews oppose goy nationalism, they find Ukrainian nationalism use against Russian nationalism. Make goy fight goy. On the other hand, Jews are trying to promote Ukraine as a 'liberal democracy' on the EU model by pressuring it to have 'gay pride' parades.

    Anyway, during the Cold War, America's aggressive stance against white Russia made Russia support non-whites against White America and white Europe.
    White folks should not be bashing white folks.

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the ‘darkies’, the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.

    For anyone who bothered to read all that, I’m willing to bet good money that you have taking extensive liberties with the words of John Lukacs. He might well have rued the catastrophic costs of the Cold War, but I don’t ever recall him going on about “darkies”, per se. Then again, it has been a while. Is there any link that would substantiate any of the above paragraph?

    • Replies: @Matra
    Anon doesn't specifically say that Lukacs said any of that stuff other than the first sentence. Lukacs believed the Cold War was a reciprocal misunderstanding but he tends to blame the Russians a bit more but without letting the US off the hook:

    The crude unscrupulousness of the Russians and their Communist satellites - their obsessive propaganda and the brutality of their behavior - was a decisive contribution to these perceptions. But, then, so was the appeal of anti-Communism, concentrating on Communism rather than Russian national interests...
     
    That's from p.24 of this book.
    , @Anon
    "For anyone who bothered to read all that, I'm willing to bet good money that you have taking extensive liberties with the words of John Lukacs. He might well have rued the catastrophic costs of the Cold War, but I don't ever recall him going on about "darkies", per se. Then again, it has been a while. Is there any link that would substantiate any of the above paragraph?"

    No, he didn't say 'darkies', but his point is that the ultimate challenge to the West is yellow China, not white Russia.

    So, according to Lukacs, US made a huge mistake when it sided with China against the USSR.

    In the 70s and 80s, USSR seemed the great power while China seemed so backward and poor.

    But Lukacs thought US should ease its tensions with USSR and instead be wary of China. Sure, China was backward under Maoism, but it might change drastically under new leadership. If Japan and Taiwan could grow fast, what would happen to China with great land mass and over billion people?

    But US didn't see it that way. They saw USSR as the looming giant forever while seeing China as poor and backward.

    It turns out Lukacs was more right than wrong. China is an awakened giant. It has huge economic hurdles to go through still but has the potential to become a genuine power.
    In contrast, Russia is no longer a great power. It is a regional power and has inherited Soviet military, but it cannot challenge the West ever.

    I think Lukacs thinks in terms of numbers and national character. Russians and Central Asians and Turkmens have huge landmass but not enough numbers, and their national character makes them either lazy or unmotivated.
    In contrast, Chinese have lots of people + work ethic. That makes a huge difference. If little Japan with no natural resources once posed a challenge to the West, what might China do?

    Anyway, Lukacs' point is that West is ruled by whites, Russia is ruled by whites. Russians maybe somewhat 'oriental' cuz of Tatar invasion and rule, but they are all white folks. So, white folks should look beyond ideology and make peace and be wary of the Asiatics.

    Actually, this is pretty good advice, and it applies to Asiatics too. They'd be better off forging an Asian co-prosperity sphere. But much of Asia is closer to America than to China.
    And with Cold War tensions and then Ukraine tensions, US and EU are closer to parts of Asia than to Russia. Also, US is merging with Mexico and Europe is merging with Middle East and Africa.
    How nicer it would be if EU were to close off Middle East and Africa and grow closer to Russia?
    How nicer if US would close borders with Mexico, end immigration from Asia, and grow closer to EU-Russia. But then... there is the Jewish factor that fears white unity and white integration.

    I don't agree with everything Lukacs wrote but he's been one of the more thoughtful contrarian thinkers about history and the world.
    He seems to see the world as divided between those civilizations that are like locomotives that are hurling way too fast and those civilizations where the locomotive is at a standstill or barely moving.
    Both kinds of civilizations have their own problem. A fast moving locomotive is moving alright and going somewhere but it's difficult to handle cuz it's hurling forth, like the Runaway Train by Andrei Konchalovsky. America is like a runaway train. It has tremendous resources, talent, freedom(still despite PC), opportunities, and etc. It's always changing and it's difficult to predict what will happen next. It may be exciting, but it makes us wonder if we are headed to disaster and if anyone can change direction or stop it. Can we change globalization, can we stop immigration, can we change 'gay agenda', can we change the crazy foreign policy, can we change Wall Street risks, etc? There are too many forces busily operating at so many level. US could be headed in the right direction or it could be headed toward a cliff. Either way, who is truly in control? Jews are the elites, but even they can't control the future of America.

    At one time, Russia seemed like the locomotive moving into the future. Especially after communist takeover, Russia seems to be energetically headed into the future. But Lukacs sensed that it wouldn't last long. Why? Communism is bound to run out of steam. It doesn't reward initiatives and hard work. Also, Russian national character is Byzantine and bearish. Russians will eventually revert to their 'nature' of munching on potatoes, drinking vodka, and dancing on tables. Russia will once again become like a locomotive that won't move, as it began to happen under Brezhnev, and Gorby couldn't change it. Putin has steered Russia toward stability but hasn't really managed to make it grow.

    For a civilization that is like a standstill locomotive, the challenge is different from that of America. American conservatives are worried that US never stands still and is changing so fast all the time.
    But in some nations, the problem is there seems to be no way to get the locomotive moving. It's like Israel saw great development since its founding, but nations like Egypt went nowhere. Much of Latin America and Southern Europe are like locomotives that won't move. At least in the past, this wasn't so bad cuz they were protected from globalism. They were stagnant but conserved their identity and national integrity. But as part of EU, they now get the worst of both worlds. Stagnant lack of growth/development AND flooding by masses of foreigners from Middle East and Africa, not least due to US-led wars all over.

    For a long time, the West looked upon China as a dead locomotive. The big sick man of Asia seemed incapable of getting their act together under the Manchus, under the Republic, during the warlord era, under KMT rule, under Mao's rule.
    Compared to the dynamic West, China seemed to be mummified.

    But Lukacs agreed with Napoleon. Sure, China wasn't moving, but it could move like a volcano/earthquake once the seismic shifts take place. Once roused, it could be a real danger. Japan failed because it was a small island nation with limited resources. But suppose Japan had been the size of China. Might it not have been a much greater challenge to the West in the 30s and 40s?

    The West used to look at China as a dead locomotive, barely a rickshaw that could move. But if Hong Kong and Singapore, mere city states, could do so much so fast, what if that were multiplied many times over in mainland China once Maoism fades and Chinese adopt dynamic modernity?

    So, the problem of China went overnight from the inability to get the locomotive moving to the challenge of how to manage the locomotive that is moving too fast. The problem of China has been too much growth too fast.

    If you look at the demographics and read the national character right, you might have a better assessment of long-term prospects.

    As a conservative, Lukacs is worried about the historical locomotive moving too fast and messing up borders, cultures, identity, and values. He finds American Conservatism to be willfully naive, reckless, and childish with its worship of technology and growth. He finds modern Liberalism to be decadent and puerile. He doesn't want a dead static locomotive, but he thinks conservatism is pointless unless mankind has some control of the pace of change and movement.
    Sure, history is exciting when its hurtling fast, but to where? A Europe that is Africanized, a US that is third-world-ized, cities that tooty-fruitized, and economy that is totally financialized and casinoized?

    Of course today, some American elites and global strategisgts are very much worried about China. They don't so much fear China's rise as a manufacturing power. It means Chinese work at low-skilled labor doing assembly line stuff. True power is in control of high-tech, and US totally dominates. So, as long as China expands as the factory of the world, it cannot really challenge American power. But what if China becomes a genuine power in the high-tech sector? Even Jews worry, as in the opening of SOCIAL NETWORK where Sorkin-via-'Zuckerberg' says China has all these geniuses.

    So, the US policy seems to be brain-drain-ize China. Lure the Chinese with the most money and brains to the US, so that they will work for Silicon Valley and become invested in America's future than China's. As long as US holds high-tech edge, China will not challenge the US. Besides, the rise of mechanization will undermine human manufacturing in the future.
    Some may fear Chinese will take over the US, but it is unlikely cuz Chinese men not much have leadership charisma, Chinese women have kids with white men or Jews with meaters, and Americans of all color(white, black, brown) simply don't trust yellow folks.
    Too soon to tell what will happen.

    The best would be for the West to end all immigration from the East, for white folks to have more kids, shut off all borders to Third World. Maybe if genuine conservatives had control over the pace of the locomotive, that would be possible, but they are nowhere near the controls.

    The future looks more like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7akUtLs9teQ

    PS. It's interesting that Runaway Train was written by Kurosawa. There is a certain fatalism at its core. It's like Kaeda takes down everything with her in Ran. And the Voight character is willing to take the warden and the train do their doom along with him.

  121. @JohnnyWalker123
    Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It's just crazy and counterproductive.

    “Blacks actually do have some legitimate concerns on issues like poverty, police killings, and jobs. Yet they act so violently and alienate whites who could be potential allies. It’s just crazy and counterproductive.”

    Despite the violent behavior of the Black underclass, this demographic still has plenty of White allies. There were White pro-Black Lives Matter protestors where were recently arrested in Ferguson at the 1 year anniversary of Michael Brown’s death.

    These White protestors are pathetic because they NEVER protest when someone who racially looks like them is killed by the police. They only care about people who do NOT racially look like them getting shot and killed by the police. They really do hate their own race.

    Why do Whites protest over the police killing Black people when Black people do NOT return the favor and protest when the police kill White people. It’s a one way street here with White liberals scratching the backs of Blacks but Blacks do not do the same to them.

    If the WASPy Left Winger Chris Matthews son was killed by the police, how many Blacks would hit the streets and protest his death? None that’s how many.

  122. @AndrewR
    I agree the WN movement is full of fools who believe in a fairy tale pan-Europism where "white" folks from Seattle to Dublin to Moscow will join hands to purge the "nonwhites" from their lands and usher in the Great White Utopia. Russians will never GAF about other "white" people except insofar as said "whites" can help increase Russian hegemony. With that said, Russia could be a good ally in helping to overthrow the anti-white elite that dominate the West. White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia's help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.

    “I agree the WN movement is full of fools who believe in a fairy tale pan-Europism where “white” folks from Seattle to Dublin to Moscow will join hands to purge the “nonwhites” from their lands and usher in the Great White Utopia. Russians will never GAF about other “white” people except insofar as said “whites” can help increase Russian hegemony. With that said, Russia could be a good ally in helping to overthrow the anti-white elite that dominate the West. White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia’s help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.”

    Vladimir Putin is a Russian first by a huge landslide and pan racial White an extremely distant second. I doubt very much Vladimir Putin considers Louisiana Cajuns and Sicilians for example to be his people.

    If Russian is not your first language, than Vladimir Putin does not see you as his people no matter how White your skin is.

  123. @Harry Baldwin
    Ta has more blood on his hands.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black body in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

    Fixed this for you.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  124. @Olorin
    You beat me to it.

    Kyle's suggestion was the one being made in the 1960s and 1970s in the 60+ percent black city where I lived in the NE. "They don't want law, let's leave and let them have their way."

    This is what happened in my own home city, where my family settled a very long time ago and seemed not to have too much trouble being orderly and productive over the centuries, despite their own taste for guns, pugilism, and the occasional act of violent anarchish-ism to cut through the fog of lardoon-basted politics. By the 1970s, the police force became entirely blackulated, with LE becoming political functionaries, more like mushmouthed PR agents.

    The joke on the streets when I was working as a sandblaster on the riverfront was that an enterprising street criminal didn't have to worry about the black cops. What were they going to do? Shoot yuh o sum'um? Everybody knew they were more likely to hit themselves than air with their guns and more likely to hit air than anything else. Walls maybe.

    (This is in fact the major grievance against the Darren Wilsons/white cops of the world: they hit what they aim at. That ability to project force and physics is largely genetic, requiring a large degree of hardwired self control and forward thinking. This is precisely why gun rights are targeted for obliteration by Sarah Moon Glampers.)

    Problem with the Snake Plissken model is that there are always lawyers who tack themselves on to the process. "Oh, you got yourself all shot up while acting like a lawless savage in your home jungle? You deserve a SETTLEMENT!" So then the legal process clicks in--for people who want no parts of it except profit, and ridicule of the law. By that I mean both the perps and the lawyersharks.

    This is the whole point of the "broken window" policing model. It SHOULD indicate, and create documentation of, people who have no intention of living within the system they benefit from in a way that contributes to it. For them, all the world is a jungle you move through, looking for tasty bananas you pull off of magically appearing trees. "Just gibs muh dat."

    Left to their own devices, they would be perfectly manageable that way. Add in the professional victim class, especially the ones with media ratings to secure, social work degrees to employ, tenure to secure, and J.D.s to exercise, and the banana pickers become a very lucrative labor force for the PVs. In this household we have stopped referring to the "inner city," and simply call it what it is, a banana plantation. The lowest IQ members steal the bananas, the higher IQ members connive ways it will make them money.

    Now the Sarah Moon Glamperses want to make it illegal for anyone to choose to leave the jungle. They just can't get over the fact that evolution is such a racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, cis-privileging sumbitch.

    wow! what truth!

  125. @Harry Baldwin
    Ta has more blood on his hands.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

    Don’t give it to Facts, give it to Steve!

  126. @Big Bill
    Black ghetto culture is an honor culture. Any public affront to your personal dignity must be met with a strong response or you will lose face. Think of it as "African duelling".

    If you try to rob some 7-11 and the owner manages to run you off, there is no loss of face. You merely failed. You were not "disrespected". You suffer no loss of face in the black community.

    On the other hand, if someone "disrespects" you, you will lose face in the black community and therefore must respond or the disrespect will spread.

    The big problem is not that blacks kill each other for reasons of personal honor (it is their culture after all) but that they do not formalize it with a "pistols at dawn" approach. They just open up and start blazing away at a funeral, a child's birthday party, a dance, a backyard barbecue, whatever. This saddles white folks with police costs, hospital bills, lifetime medical care, etc.

    It was an honor crime that got Emmett Till killed. After he accosted, grabbed, and propositioned that white woman, the woman and her sister-in-law working the store agreed to keep it to themselves.

    Unfortunately, the black witnesses started spreading the word in the black community (which Emmett probably welcomed since it raised his status).

    This by itself wouldn't have been so bad, except one of the black witnesses (or a friend) made a point of telling the woman's husband about it when he returned to town. Honor, respect and status in the white AND black community was then an issue.

    Emmett's fate was sealed.

    It was the big mistake for the Till defendants to tell their story (including the actual murder) to Life magazine after their acquittals. It made them pariahs. It may have been justifiable according to local norms (including those of blacks) but there is no way the NYC media would understand that. IIRC, Till was stupidly defiant and refused to apologize for what he had done. Not that I understand why something short of killing could not have done to chastise him.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    It was the big mistake for the Till defendants to tell their story (including the actual murder) to Life magazine after their acquittals. It made them pariahs. It may have been justifiable according to local norms (including those of blacks) but there is no way the NYC media would understand that.
     
    The mass media were already promoting a much worse account, with the stupid "wolf whistle" baloney. The Look article is a crucial basis for our understanding that the widely propagated bogus account was false.
  127. @Jefferson
    I don't know why so many people on Stormfront love Vladimir Putin when he does not have a single racially aware bone in his body. Vladimir Putin has hopped on the America is racist against Blacks and treats Blacks like second class citizens bandwagon. Vladimir Putin is too much of a corrupt politician to care about the White race.

    US is geopolitical rival of Russia, so RT probes for its exploitable weak points in the context of the hegemonic international hivemind. That doesn’t change the fact that the American Empire is objectively the greatest enemy of whites worldwide. Weaken the strangehold of the American Empire on Europe and it has a chance to survive. Nearly all politicos are slime, but Putin does not buy into the Western ideology that says that whites must be racially replaced and Putin has endorsed a Russian Orthodoxy (ethnocentric but not racialist) that is traditionalist and non-prog/cult marxist-unlike 99% of what passes for Christianity in the West. So some degree of support for Putin is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    In case anyone doesn’t know that USG is actively hostile to whites:

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "US is geopolitical rival of Russia, so RT probes for its exploitable weak points in the context of the hegemonic international hivemind. That doesn’t change the fact that the American Empire is objectively the greatest enemy of whites worldwide. Weaken the strangehold of the American Empire on Europe and it has a chance to survive. Nearly all politicos are slime, but Putin does not buy into the Western ideology that says that whites must be racially replaced and Putin has endorsed a Russian Orthodoxy (ethnocentric but not racialist) that is traditionalist and non-prog/cult marxist-unlike 99% of what passes for Christianity in the West. So some degree of support for Putin is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    In case anyone doesn’t know that USG is actively hostile to whites:

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/"

    Since Vladimir Putin believes that Blacks have it extremely bad in the U.S, he should open Russia's borders to America's 45 million Blacks and say that they are welcome anytime to immigrate to Russia.
  128. @Big Bill
    Not true. White people commit just as many crimes as black folks do. The disparity in crime statistics is due to deliberate, racist UNDERpolicing of white neighborhoods, and deliberate, racist OVERpolicing of black neighborhoods.

    Every community should have the same per capita number of police. How else are we going to stop the black "school-to-prison pipeline" if not by reducing the police presence in the ghetto and increasing police patrols in white neighborhoods?

    The police in Chicago fill out "contact cards" whenever they accost someone and the contact cards clearly show they are OVERpolicing the ghetto. The CPD clearly needs to stop racially discriminating, reduce the number of black contacts and increase the number of white contacts.

    Since one out of six Americans are black, we need more cops in white areas and out of the ghetto. For every one black contact we need five white contacts to be racially non-discriminatory. If you accost a black man, you must accost 5 white folks in a white neighborhood before you return to harass hard-working ghetto folks again.

    To reduce black contacts and arrests, we could do like the Detroit PD does: take two or three hours to arrive on the scene in the ghetto. Close and lock the local precincts after 4PM. Move all the detectives downtown. I can guarantee you that will reduce the number of reported crimes AND the (so-called) "high crime rates".

    Bill, I think that that is an interesting idea, and certainly worth consideration.

  129. @josh
    I get that it has something to do with white women having sex with black men, but I don't really understand what you are getting at? What was the past mistake?

    The past mistake was that Mr. Carroll assumed that white women were having sex with black men without having any verification, as I often do, so he identified his mistake, as I do, and humbly stated that he would refrain from such errors until he had the proof he needed.

    • Replies: @josh
    why "uh-oh"? "Uh-oh" for whom?
  130. @Anon
    Black women mistake one another for Bernie Sanders.

    https://youtu.be/0JjUqkfwYkU

    Nice try. That is obviously one of the country’s premier slapstick street comedy troops. They make the Three Stooges look like pikers.

  131. @Harry Baldwin
    Ta has more blood on his hands.

    I could probably afford to give you $10 for every black person in Ferguson who has heard of Ta Nehisi Coates.

    The point is solid in the abstract, but you’d be a little surprised, not every Afrophile in America is an Unzista. Some are actually black.

  132. @HA

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the ‘darkies’, the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.
     
    For anyone who bothered to read all that, I'm willing to bet good money that you have taking extensive liberties with the words of John Lukacs. He might well have rued the catastrophic costs of the Cold War, but I don't ever recall him going on about "darkies", per se. Then again, it has been a while. Is there any link that would substantiate any of the above paragraph?

    Anon doesn’t specifically say that Lukacs said any of that stuff other than the first sentence. Lukacs believed the Cold War was a reciprocal misunderstanding but he tends to blame the Russians a bit more but without letting the US off the hook:

    The crude unscrupulousness of the Russians and their Communist satellites – their obsessive propaganda and the brutality of their behavior – was a decisive contribution to these perceptions. But, then, so was the appeal of anti-Communism, concentrating on Communism rather than Russian national interests…

    That’s from p.24 of this book.

    • Replies: @HA

    Anon doesn’t specifically say that Lukacs said any of that stuff other than the first sentence. Lukacs believed the Cold War was a reciprocal misunderstanding but he tends to blame the Russians a bit more but without letting the US off the hook
     
    You might be right regarding your first sentence, and I would raise no objection to your second; it is in line with the Lukacs I'm familiar with. But even boiling the quote you gave down to "the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR,... ", which is what Anon did, hardly does the man's thinking any justice, and isn't really in line with your characterization of it, either. Not to mention all the rest about the 'darkies', or whatever, though I'm guessing Anon was referring to this:

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

    That was a cliche (and a joke) long before Lukacs ever started writing about the Cold War.

  133. iSteveFan says:
    @Glossy
    Russians are bad at public relations. An example of the consequences of this deficiency of theirs is contained in your comment. Russia turned conservative around the time of WWII. The post-WWII USSR was the opposite of the pre-WWII version in almost every way. That's why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War. If Stalin didn't turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

    But most Americans don't even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

    That’s why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War.

    The neocons turned against the USSR because of the turn of events that surrounded the creation of Israel. Stalin disliked Jews who seemed more loyal to Israel than to the USSR, eventually supported the Arabs, and refused to allow Jews to emigrate. In other words their like or dislike of the Soviet Union was based upon how well or poorly Jews were treated by the Soviet Union.

    If Stalin didn’t turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

    I thought the Old Bolsheviks were supporters of worldwide revolution and such stuff, similar to the worldwide push for democracy today. Had Stalin still maintained that policy, then it goes to reason he would have actively supported revolution worldwide, not just in his near abroad. But I fail to see how the Cold War would have been avoided given the USSR’s position after WW2 and its presence in Eastern Europe. Unless of course you are suggesting that the Cold War would have been a hot one, and thus a cold war would never have happened.

    But most Americans don’t even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

    Actually most commenters on this site are quite aware of how the USSR was in regards to homosexuals and other pet issues of our day. I’ve seen a few back and forth discussions about this on this blog in the context of wondering why socialists in the West promote social rot, while the socialists of the Communist bloc did not. Some suggested that when the socialists own the whole pie, as in the communist nations, they set out to preserve and nurture that society since they own it. But in nations like the West, where they don’t have full control, they seek to destroy that society so that they can take over and rebuild it.

    However, just because the late USSR did not promote homosexuality did not make it socially conservative. They were of course atheists, and while they did not gun down the clergy in the 197s0s, they surely did not promote religion, and if one was openly religious, it probably hindered his future chances at social advancement. That is not most people’s definition of a socially conservative society.

    The Masha Gessens of this world are rooting against Russia today, not because they are socially conservative, but because they are actively promoting Christianity. They have a problem with Christianity, especially the Russian Orthodox variety, that goes back to the days of the Czar. They thought it had been extinguished after the Bolshevik Revolution. It is clearly a sore spot with them that after almost 100 years, Christianity appears to be making a comeback. The worst part is that the central government of Russia is actively promoting this comeback.

    • Replies: @Glossy
    On the social conservatism of the late USSR:

    Drugs, prostitution, strip clubs, pornography, gambling did not exist at all. All entertainment was wholsome and moralistic. Modernist art was essentially banned and realistic art, classcial music, classical 19th century literature, etc. were promoted. Divorce was legal but rarer than in the West. Abortion was legal and more common than in the West - the one exception to the conservative trend. Homosexuality was officially a mental disorder up until the 1990s.

    Under the Old Bolsheviks (i.e. from 1917 through the early 1930s) homosexuality was legal, modernist art was promoted, churches were blown up and priests were killed, etc. They owned society and they continued to screw it up. This screwing-up of society only ended when Stalin killed the Old Bolsheviks during the party purges of the 1930s.

    The persecution of the Orthodox Church ended when Stalin concluded an agreement with it in 1943. After that the state remained atheist but citizens did not have to be. Most ethnic Russians, including government officials, baptized their children in the late Soviet era.

    Why did Trotskyists hate Stalinism? The social conservatism described above was one reason. Trotsky also accused Stalin of not collectivising the economy enough and of being on the side of the kulaks during the collectivization campaign. The abandonment of the world revolution idea. Well, and to turn the country in the new direction Stalin had to kill the Old Bolsheviks. That kind of thing tends to spoil relationships.

    If Stalin or someone like him did not come to power in the USSR, it would have lost WWII to Germany. The industrialization campaign wouldn't have started and the country would have been completely looted out by 1941. It would not have been able to put up much resistance.

    If neither Stalin nor Hitler nor anyone like them came to power in either the USSR or Germany, the old Bolsheviks would have used the USSR as the base for worldwide revolution in the same way that the neocons are now using the US as the base for color revolutions.

    Why didn't Stalin renounce the Communist label after killing the Old Bolsheviks and reversing their policies? Well, the modern Chinese leadership isn't Communist either, not in the original sense, yet it still uses that label. Labels aren't all that important.
    , @5371
    [They were of course atheists, and while they did not gun down the clergy in the 197s0s, they surely did not promote religion, and if one was openly religious, it probably hindered his future chances at social advancement]

    There's a distinction to be made here. Restrictions on religion, Orthodoxy first and foremost, which had been removed during the war were reintroduced in 1958, and persecution began again, although of course not with the previous ferocity. Khrushchev was in some ways a Trotskyite.
  134. @Matra
    Anon doesn't specifically say that Lukacs said any of that stuff other than the first sentence. Lukacs believed the Cold War was a reciprocal misunderstanding but he tends to blame the Russians a bit more but without letting the US off the hook:

    The crude unscrupulousness of the Russians and their Communist satellites - their obsessive propaganda and the brutality of their behavior - was a decisive contribution to these perceptions. But, then, so was the appeal of anti-Communism, concentrating on Communism rather than Russian national interests...
     
    That's from p.24 of this book.

    Anon doesn’t specifically say that Lukacs said any of that stuff other than the first sentence. Lukacs believed the Cold War was a reciprocal misunderstanding but he tends to blame the Russians a bit more but without letting the US off the hook

    You might be right regarding your first sentence, and I would raise no objection to your second; it is in line with the Lukacs I’m familiar with. But even boiling the quote you gave down to “the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR,… “, which is what Anon did, hardly does the man’s thinking any justice, and isn’t really in line with your characterization of it, either. Not to mention all the rest about the ‘darkies’, or whatever, though I’m guessing Anon was referring to this:

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

    That was a cliche (and a joke) long before Lukacs ever started writing about the Cold War.

  135. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @HA

    John Lukacs thinks the Cold War was a big mistake. Because the West ideologically attacked the USSR, the USSR fought back in kind by spreading anti-Western and anti-white propaganda all over the world and within US itself.As US had a huge race problem and as the West ruled over the ‘darkies’, the West was morally, ideologically, and/or militarily vulnerable to this kind of support from the other superpower.
     
    For anyone who bothered to read all that, I'm willing to bet good money that you have taking extensive liberties with the words of John Lukacs. He might well have rued the catastrophic costs of the Cold War, but I don't ever recall him going on about "darkies", per se. Then again, it has been a while. Is there any link that would substantiate any of the above paragraph?

    “For anyone who bothered to read all that, I’m willing to bet good money that you have taking extensive liberties with the words of John Lukacs. He might well have rued the catastrophic costs of the Cold War, but I don’t ever recall him going on about “darkies”, per se. Then again, it has been a while. Is there any link that would substantiate any of the above paragraph?”

    No, he didn’t say ‘darkies’, but his point is that the ultimate challenge to the West is yellow China, not white Russia.

    So, according to Lukacs, US made a huge mistake when it sided with China against the USSR.

    In the 70s and 80s, USSR seemed the great power while China seemed so backward and poor.

    But Lukacs thought US should ease its tensions with USSR and instead be wary of China. Sure, China was backward under Maoism, but it might change drastically under new leadership. If Japan and Taiwan could grow fast, what would happen to China with great land mass and over billion people?

    But US didn’t see it that way. They saw USSR as the looming giant forever while seeing China as poor and backward.

    It turns out Lukacs was more right than wrong. China is an awakened giant. It has huge economic hurdles to go through still but has the potential to become a genuine power.
    In contrast, Russia is no longer a great power. It is a regional power and has inherited Soviet military, but it cannot challenge the West ever.

    I think Lukacs thinks in terms of numbers and national character. Russians and Central Asians and Turkmens have huge landmass but not enough numbers, and their national character makes them either lazy or unmotivated.
    In contrast, Chinese have lots of people + work ethic. That makes a huge difference. If little Japan with no natural resources once posed a challenge to the West, what might China do?

    Anyway, Lukacs’ point is that West is ruled by whites, Russia is ruled by whites. Russians maybe somewhat ‘oriental’ cuz of Tatar invasion and rule, but they are all white folks. So, white folks should look beyond ideology and make peace and be wary of the Asiatics.

    Actually, this is pretty good advice, and it applies to Asiatics too. They’d be better off forging an Asian co-prosperity sphere. But much of Asia is closer to America than to China.
    And with Cold War tensions and then Ukraine tensions, US and EU are closer to parts of Asia than to Russia. Also, US is merging with Mexico and Europe is merging with Middle East and Africa.
    How nicer it would be if EU were to close off Middle East and Africa and grow closer to Russia?
    How nicer if US would close borders with Mexico, end immigration from Asia, and grow closer to EU-Russia. But then… there is the Jewish factor that fears white unity and white integration.

    I don’t agree with everything Lukacs wrote but he’s been one of the more thoughtful contrarian thinkers about history and the world.
    He seems to see the world as divided between those civilizations that are like locomotives that are hurling way too fast and those civilizations where the locomotive is at a standstill or barely moving.
    Both kinds of civilizations have their own problem. A fast moving locomotive is moving alright and going somewhere but it’s difficult to handle cuz it’s hurling forth, like the Runaway Train by Andrei Konchalovsky. America is like a runaway train. It has tremendous resources, talent, freedom(still despite PC), opportunities, and etc. It’s always changing and it’s difficult to predict what will happen next. It may be exciting, but it makes us wonder if we are headed to disaster and if anyone can change direction or stop it. Can we change globalization, can we stop immigration, can we change ‘gay agenda’, can we change the crazy foreign policy, can we change Wall Street risks, etc? There are too many forces busily operating at so many level. US could be headed in the right direction or it could be headed toward a cliff. Either way, who is truly in control? Jews are the elites, but even they can’t control the future of America.

    At one time, Russia seemed like the locomotive moving into the future. Especially after communist takeover, Russia seems to be energetically headed into the future. But Lukacs sensed that it wouldn’t last long. Why? Communism is bound to run out of steam. It doesn’t reward initiatives and hard work. Also, Russian national character is Byzantine and bearish. Russians will eventually revert to their ‘nature’ of munching on potatoes, drinking vodka, and dancing on tables. Russia will once again become like a locomotive that won’t move, as it began to happen under Brezhnev, and Gorby couldn’t change it. Putin has steered Russia toward stability but hasn’t really managed to make it grow.

    For a civilization that is like a standstill locomotive, the challenge is different from that of America. American conservatives are worried that US never stands still and is changing so fast all the time.
    But in some nations, the problem is there seems to be no way to get the locomotive moving. It’s like Israel saw great development since its founding, but nations like Egypt went nowhere. Much of Latin America and Southern Europe are like locomotives that won’t move. At least in the past, this wasn’t so bad cuz they were protected from globalism. They were stagnant but conserved their identity and national integrity. But as part of EU, they now get the worst of both worlds. Stagnant lack of growth/development AND flooding by masses of foreigners from Middle East and Africa, not least due to US-led wars all over.

    For a long time, the West looked upon China as a dead locomotive. The big sick man of Asia seemed incapable of getting their act together under the Manchus, under the Republic, during the warlord era, under KMT rule, under Mao’s rule.
    Compared to the dynamic West, China seemed to be mummified.

    But Lukacs agreed with Napoleon. Sure, China wasn’t moving, but it could move like a volcano/earthquake once the seismic shifts take place. Once roused, it could be a real danger. Japan failed because it was a small island nation with limited resources. But suppose Japan had been the size of China. Might it not have been a much greater challenge to the West in the 30s and 40s?

    The West used to look at China as a dead locomotive, barely a rickshaw that could move. But if Hong Kong and Singapore, mere city states, could do so much so fast, what if that were multiplied many times over in mainland China once Maoism fades and Chinese adopt dynamic modernity?

    So, the problem of China went overnight from the inability to get the locomotive moving to the challenge of how to manage the locomotive that is moving too fast. The problem of China has been too much growth too fast.

    If you look at the demographics and read the national character right, you might have a better assessment of long-term prospects.

    As a conservative, Lukacs is worried about the historical locomotive moving too fast and messing up borders, cultures, identity, and values. He finds American Conservatism to be willfully naive, reckless, and childish with its worship of technology and growth. He finds modern Liberalism to be decadent and puerile. He doesn’t want a dead static locomotive, but he thinks conservatism is pointless unless mankind has some control of the pace of change and movement.
    Sure, history is exciting when its hurtling fast, but to where? A Europe that is Africanized, a US that is third-world-ized, cities that tooty-fruitized, and economy that is totally financialized and casinoized?

    Of course today, some American elites and global strategisgts are very much worried about China. They don’t so much fear China’s rise as a manufacturing power. It means Chinese work at low-skilled labor doing assembly line stuff. True power is in control of high-tech, and US totally dominates. So, as long as China expands as the factory of the world, it cannot really challenge American power. But what if China becomes a genuine power in the high-tech sector? Even Jews worry, as in the opening of SOCIAL NETWORK where Sorkin-via-‘Zuckerberg’ says China has all these geniuses.

    So, the US policy seems to be brain-drain-ize China. Lure the Chinese with the most money and brains to the US, so that they will work for Silicon Valley and become invested in America’s future than China’s. As long as US holds high-tech edge, China will not challenge the US. Besides, the rise of mechanization will undermine human manufacturing in the future.
    Some may fear Chinese will take over the US, but it is unlikely cuz Chinese men not much have leadership charisma, Chinese women have kids with white men or Jews with meaters, and Americans of all color(white, black, brown) simply don’t trust yellow folks.
    Too soon to tell what will happen.

    The best would be for the West to end all immigration from the East, for white folks to have more kids, shut off all borders to Third World. Maybe if genuine conservatives had control over the pace of the locomotive, that would be possible, but they are nowhere near the controls.

    The future looks more like this:

    PS. It’s interesting that Runaway Train was written by Kurosawa. There is a certain fatalism at its core. It’s like Kaeda takes down everything with her in Ran. And the Voight character is willing to take the warden and the train do their doom along with him.

  136. @fnn
    It was the big mistake for the Till defendants to tell their story (including the actual murder) to Life magazine after their acquittals. It made them pariahs. It may have been justifiable according to local norms (including those of blacks) but there is no way the NYC media would understand that. IIRC, Till was stupidly defiant and refused to apologize for what he had done. Not that I understand why something short of killing could not have done to chastise him.

    It was the big mistake for the Till defendants to tell their story (including the actual murder) to Life magazine after their acquittals. It made them pariahs. It may have been justifiable according to local norms (including those of blacks) but there is no way the NYC media would understand that.

    The mass media were already promoting a much worse account, with the stupid “wolf whistle” baloney. The Look article is a crucial basis for our understanding that the widely propagated bogus account was false.

  137. iSteveFan says:
    @AndrewR
    I agree the WN movement is full of fools who believe in a fairy tale pan-Europism where "white" folks from Seattle to Dublin to Moscow will join hands to purge the "nonwhites" from their lands and usher in the Great White Utopia. Russians will never GAF about other "white" people except insofar as said "whites" can help increase Russian hegemony. With that said, Russia could be a good ally in helping to overthrow the anti-white elite that dominate the West. White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia's help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.

    @AamirKhanFan

    White nationalism is inherently foolish due to an ideological foundation completely lacking a real understanding of genetics, history, psychology or geopolitics, but nationalists and race realists of all Caucasian ethnicities could use Russia’s help right now in overthrowing our globalist anti-white rulers.

    I support the view about post-USSR Russia that Pat Buchanan spoke of twenty some years ago. He believed then and now that the USA and Russia had no historical animus between them as nations, except of course for the communist regime that ran the USSR for 70 plus years. So with the removal of that regime there was no longer any reason for the US and Russia to remain antagonistic. And that both the US and Russia, as well as the rest of the European world would face a common threat in both the population explosion of the global south, and the worldwide resurgence of Islam.

    Nowhere in that statement do I believe that we are all one happy white race. I understand that I will always view fellow Anglo nations like Canada and Australia differently than non Anglo ones. Mexico will never be looked upon by us as Canada is. Of course Jeb Bush might have something to say on that. But I could write the same about Greece, Spain, Poland and the rest of the Euros whose language and culture are unknown to me.

    I am not wanting to love Russia, Greece, Poland, Germany or the rest. I just don’t want to destroy them in the name of the Great Game. The days of bludgeoning each other over who controls access to Africa, India or some other place are over. The rest of the world is growing in numbers, they are growing restless, and they are wanting to come North.

    BTW, not only do I want to deescalate with Russia, I also want to take the NE Asians into the fold too. There is no reason to fight with them anymore and they are in a similar position as we are. Of course they have resisted the great migration so far. But the global population explosion might eventually threaten them too.

  138. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    just that Obama and Hillary claim they are doing it for the good of America, while Putin is obviously out to undermine our country.

    It seems likely to me that Putin is aware that the American Ruling Class has the hots for world government with themselves at the reigns. There are really only two impediments: Russia and China.

  139. @Dahlia

    If you are a Hillary strategist who had been methodically planning her coronation by hopping on the trendy Black Lives Matter bandwagon, you might be feeling right now like LBJ strategists must have felt after the Detroit riots in the summer of 1967.

     

    Actually, I'm thinking of Robert Kennedy. Bernie just keeps advancing despite dirty tricks. Crowds getting bigger. And he and his people are clueless about their enemies. I don't just means Soros and Progressive Inc., but the animal spirits they are unleashing amongst Blacks.

    I believe it was Bernie's wife who could be seen in the video nicely asking "Braids" why not speak afterwards, Bernie will let you... Her look of absolute befuddlement when this was rejected says it all about their philosophy (see redheaded women off to right and behind Braids).

    Others such as Johnnywalker123 and Bill P. said it very well here: the Bernie phenomenon lacks testosterone; it is inherent in the outlook and identity of the movement.

    Contrast this with George H.W. Bush 1987. Not a masculine guy who struggled with the "wimp factor", he was surrounded by manly men and manly men elsewhere had his back. Lee Atwater. Saturday Night Live even!

    “Dahlia says:

    Actually, I’m thinking of Robert Kennedy. Bernie just keeps advancing despite dirty tricks. Crowds getting bigger.”

    Bernie isn’t RFK. More like Eugene McCarthy. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination.

  140. @tbraton
    "My article addressed also the question of the two White construction workers, who were video-taped a couple minutes after the shooting. One of them was filmed raising his hands high up above his head and yelling that Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot to death. The story about the two White construction story was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public."

    Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson which is contrary to what your article says. Here are two key paragraphs from your article:

    "The investigating detectives thought that the older worker was involved in marijuana business with Johnson and Brown. The detectives summoned both workers to hostile interrogations on August 21. The detectives pressured the older worker to admit such business and pressured the younger worker to inform on the older worker. Both workers resisted the detectives’ pressure, but the defense attorney would have raised all the same questions in a trial.

    The older worker did not see the final gunshots. He probably was smoking marijuana in his truck during that time. High as a kite, he began watching the scene when two backup police officers arrived on the scene. He insisted in all his loony statements to investigators and the grand jury that those other two officers were next to Wilson during the final gunshots. "

    Possibly involved with Michael Brown in the marijuana business, high as a kite during the actual shooting, and offering "loony statements" to the investigators? I don't think Officer Wilson had anything to fear from that direction.

    Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson

    The older worker would have testified that Brown was trying to surrender when Wilson was shooting him.

    His testimony would have been discredited, however, by his own statements that two other police officers were standing next to Wilson when he was shooting. It would be obvious to the jurors that the older worker began watching the scene after the two back-up officers arrived — i.e. began watching well after Brown had collapsed dead.

    Since the younger worker was not sitting in a truck smoking dope, he actually saw the incident’s final moments happen. His observations were rather credible and do not incriminate Wilson significantly.

    The reason why Brown and Johnson went to the store to steal cigarillos was so that they could smoke dope with the older worker. Therefore that worker had a motive to lie about the incident. If the prosecutors had called him to testify in a trial of Wilson, the trial would have turned into a spectacular fiasco — featuring much cross-examination about that worker’s drug-dealing with Brown and Johnson.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    You respond to my message by providing a lot of details about the two white workers which were not contained in your original comment on this thread, which, as far as I am concerned, simply confirms my original point. BTW here is the passage from my prior comment, of which you provided only part: "Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson which is contrary to what your article says. Here are two key paragraphs from your article:" I then went on to briefly summarize the key points re the White construction workers which undercut the possibility of their testimony damaging Officer Wilson, something, I would note, that your original comment in this thread failed to do.

    My point was that your original comment (Comment #2 in this thread), by omitting key details, left the false impression that there was an attempt to hide some crucial information dealing with the Brown shooting. You conclude your original comment with the sentence that reads "The story about the two White construction story [sic] was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public." That certainly left me with the initial impression that the reason the public was not fully informed about the two White workers was that it was part of a coverup to protect Officer Wilson, an impression that was quickly dispelled by reading your article. Here's a question for you: Who was helped by this information not becoming more widely disseminated, Michael Brown or Officer Wilson? I would argue that the suppression worked to protect the reputation of Michael Brown by leaving out evidence that he was a user and a dealer in marijuana. So he was not the aspiring scholar cut down prematurely as he was about to start a glorious academic career, as the MSM and BLM would have it, but a drug dealing thug who stole cigarillos from a convenience store so he could get high with one of his customers/business partners. BTW I read or heard recently that the lawyers behind the "blacks shot by cops" grievance industry have learned from the mistakes in the Trayvon Martin case and now try to scrub any damaging information from social media pertaining to the saintly black victim.
  141. @iSteveFan

    That’s why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War.
     
    The neocons turned against the USSR because of the turn of events that surrounded the creation of Israel. Stalin disliked Jews who seemed more loyal to Israel than to the USSR, eventually supported the Arabs, and refused to allow Jews to emigrate. In other words their like or dislike of the Soviet Union was based upon how well or poorly Jews were treated by the Soviet Union.

    If Stalin didn’t turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

     

    I thought the Old Bolsheviks were supporters of worldwide revolution and such stuff, similar to the worldwide push for democracy today. Had Stalin still maintained that policy, then it goes to reason he would have actively supported revolution worldwide, not just in his near abroad. But I fail to see how the Cold War would have been avoided given the USSR's position after WW2 and its presence in Eastern Europe. Unless of course you are suggesting that the Cold War would have been a hot one, and thus a cold war would never have happened.

    But most Americans don’t even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

     

    Actually most commenters on this site are quite aware of how the USSR was in regards to homosexuals and other pet issues of our day. I've seen a few back and forth discussions about this on this blog in the context of wondering why socialists in the West promote social rot, while the socialists of the Communist bloc did not. Some suggested that when the socialists own the whole pie, as in the communist nations, they set out to preserve and nurture that society since they own it. But in nations like the West, where they don't have full control, they seek to destroy that society so that they can take over and rebuild it.

    However, just because the late USSR did not promote homosexuality did not make it socially conservative. They were of course atheists, and while they did not gun down the clergy in the 197s0s, they surely did not promote religion, and if one was openly religious, it probably hindered his future chances at social advancement. That is not most people's definition of a socially conservative society.

    The Masha Gessens of this world are rooting against Russia today, not because they are socially conservative, but because they are actively promoting Christianity. They have a problem with Christianity, especially the Russian Orthodox variety, that goes back to the days of the Czar. They thought it had been extinguished after the Bolshevik Revolution. It is clearly a sore spot with them that after almost 100 years, Christianity appears to be making a comeback. The worst part is that the central government of Russia is actively promoting this comeback.

    On the social conservatism of the late USSR:

    Drugs, prostitution, strip clubs, pornography, gambling did not exist at all. All entertainment was wholsome and moralistic. Modernist art was essentially banned and realistic art, classcial music, classical 19th century literature, etc. were promoted. Divorce was legal but rarer than in the West. Abortion was legal and more common than in the West – the one exception to the conservative trend. Homosexuality was officially a mental disorder up until the 1990s.

    Under the Old Bolsheviks (i.e. from 1917 through the early 1930s) homosexuality was legal, modernist art was promoted, churches were blown up and priests were killed, etc. They owned society and they continued to screw it up. This screwing-up of society only ended when Stalin killed the Old Bolsheviks during the party purges of the 1930s.

    The persecution of the Orthodox Church ended when Stalin concluded an agreement with it in 1943. After that the state remained atheist but citizens did not have to be. Most ethnic Russians, including government officials, baptized their children in the late Soviet era.

    Why did Trotskyists hate Stalinism? The social conservatism described above was one reason. Trotsky also accused Stalin of not collectivising the economy enough and of being on the side of the kulaks during the collectivization campaign. The abandonment of the world revolution idea. Well, and to turn the country in the new direction Stalin had to kill the Old Bolsheviks. That kind of thing tends to spoil relationships.

    If Stalin or someone like him did not come to power in the USSR, it would have lost WWII to Germany. The industrialization campaign wouldn’t have started and the country would have been completely looted out by 1941. It would not have been able to put up much resistance.

    If neither Stalin nor Hitler nor anyone like them came to power in either the USSR or Germany, the old Bolsheviks would have used the USSR as the base for worldwide revolution in the same way that the neocons are now using the US as the base for color revolutions.

    Why didn’t Stalin renounce the Communist label after killing the Old Bolsheviks and reversing their policies? Well, the modern Chinese leadership isn’t Communist either, not in the original sense, yet it still uses that label. Labels aren’t all that important.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Why didn’t Stalin renounce the Communist label after killing the Old Bolsheviks and reversing their policies? Well, the modern Chinese leadership isn’t Communist either, not in the original sense, yet it still uses that label. Labels aren’t all that important.

     

    No. It's who gets to apply them. And to whom.

    Кто? Кому?

  142. @iSteveFan

    That’s why the neocons, old Trotskyists that they were, opposed the USSR in the Cold War.
     
    The neocons turned against the USSR because of the turn of events that surrounded the creation of Israel. Stalin disliked Jews who seemed more loyal to Israel than to the USSR, eventually supported the Arabs, and refused to allow Jews to emigrate. In other words their like or dislike of the Soviet Union was based upon how well or poorly Jews were treated by the Soviet Union.

    If Stalin didn’t turn right, if he did not kill the Old Bolsheviks and reverse their policies, there would have never been a Cold War.

     

    I thought the Old Bolsheviks were supporters of worldwide revolution and such stuff, similar to the worldwide push for democracy today. Had Stalin still maintained that policy, then it goes to reason he would have actively supported revolution worldwide, not just in his near abroad. But I fail to see how the Cold War would have been avoided given the USSR's position after WW2 and its presence in Eastern Europe. Unless of course you are suggesting that the Cold War would have been a hot one, and thus a cold war would never have happened.

    But most Americans don’t even know that the late USSR was socially conservative. Hence the weird phenomenon of guys like you and Steve rooting for the same side in the Cold War as Soros and Masha Gessen.

     

    Actually most commenters on this site are quite aware of how the USSR was in regards to homosexuals and other pet issues of our day. I've seen a few back and forth discussions about this on this blog in the context of wondering why socialists in the West promote social rot, while the socialists of the Communist bloc did not. Some suggested that when the socialists own the whole pie, as in the communist nations, they set out to preserve and nurture that society since they own it. But in nations like the West, where they don't have full control, they seek to destroy that society so that they can take over and rebuild it.

    However, just because the late USSR did not promote homosexuality did not make it socially conservative. They were of course atheists, and while they did not gun down the clergy in the 197s0s, they surely did not promote religion, and if one was openly religious, it probably hindered his future chances at social advancement. That is not most people's definition of a socially conservative society.

    The Masha Gessens of this world are rooting against Russia today, not because they are socially conservative, but because they are actively promoting Christianity. They have a problem with Christianity, especially the Russian Orthodox variety, that goes back to the days of the Czar. They thought it had been extinguished after the Bolshevik Revolution. It is clearly a sore spot with them that after almost 100 years, Christianity appears to be making a comeback. The worst part is that the central government of Russia is actively promoting this comeback.

    [They were of course atheists, and while they did not gun down the clergy in the 197s0s, they surely did not promote religion, and if one was openly religious, it probably hindered his future chances at social advancement]

    There’s a distinction to be made here. Restrictions on religion, Orthodoxy first and foremost, which had been removed during the war were reintroduced in 1958, and persecution began again, although of course not with the previous ferocity. Khrushchev was in some ways a Trotskyite.

  143. @Luke Lea
    This is all Obama's fault. He could've been a healer, a bridger instead of a divider, but instead he took sides. What a waste of a golden opportunity.

    You assume Obama has the same goals you do (healing the country or damping down the discord or something of that nature). Obama is “going to bat” for “his group” as he sees it. He could have, at any moment, addressed the country, but he hasn’t and won’t.

  144. Putin understands at a very sophisticated level the damage being wrought on all Christian civilization by over a century of Progressivism. He sees it destroying Europe (Sweden foremost) and understands full well the havoc liberalism brings in systematically destroying individual identity (religion, gender, etc) for the sake of internationalizing and marching toward a single market.

    Has any American pol even thought about it much? There’s no Dugin whispering in Obama’s ear. For all his faults, Putin makes it clear he wants to save Russia from the fate of western Progressivism. Pointing out internal contradictions inherent in Progressive policies (and the failed outcomes of these policies) is instructive and a natural defensive survival move. Just like kicking out the think tanks, VOA, etc. Imagine if the US had a defender of our original founding principles! Wouldn’t that be wonderful right about now?

  145. @e
    The pistol-whipped officer is white.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pistol-whipped-alabama-mocked-twitter-facebook-article-1.2319836

    Just for the record: if you watch the top video, a black man, who looks like a law enforcement officer, says “we just want to be as patient as possible” — meaning presumably until the rioters stop rioting and go home.

  146. @Big Bill
    Dominicans in NYC, like Mexicans in LA, know how to handle black predators and gangstas.

    Since Dominicans and Mexicans are also part of the Rainbow Coalition, however, any racial conflict with blacks will be ignored by the MSM.

    Taking sides in a foreign (!) brown-on-brown race war was a chump move by DeBlasio.

    “Dominicans in NYC, like Mexicans in LA, know how to handle black predators and gangstas.”

    During Jim Crow the vast majority of the Dominican underclass in New York City would have been considered the same race as those African American/Haitian predators and gangstas that you speak of.

    Based on phenotype, I can not see most Dominicans being able to get away with drinking from Whites only water fountains or being able to get away with booking a room at a Whites only hotel establishment if they had lived in Georgia in 1933 for example. They could try and tell White Southerners that they are just Spaniards who spend way too much time in the sun but I don’t think most White Southerners were that stupid retarded back than to fall for that. Not even Razib Khan would be able to pass for White in Jim Crow South and his hair is straighter than that of most Dominicans.

  147. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea
    This is all Obama's fault. He could've been a healer, a bridger instead of a divider, but instead he took sides. What a waste of a golden opportunity.

    This is all Obama’s fault. He could’ve been a healer, a bridger instead of a divider, but instead he took sides. What a waste of a golden opportunity.

    He’s just too small a man, a petty, jealous, narcissistic little man. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something positive on a grand scale but wasn’t up to it.

    • Agree: fish
    • Replies: @fish

    He’s just too small a man, a petty, jealous, narcissistic little man. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something positive on a grand scale but wasn’t up to it.

     

    Born a greasy incipient Ward Heeler and will be remembered as one.
  148. @IA
    Steve,

    An interesting read.

    http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/50799-Democratic-Republic-of-Congo-Lubumbashi-to-Kinshasa/page6

    "Let's put this in a bit of perspective: Frère Louis told us some of these stories while we were sitting in the comforts of the Kamina mission. He told the stories as if it was a daily occurance.. and that was actually the case indeed. At that moment we were shocked, but thought this was something of the (distant) past. And it was - at least in this area. It is only until after the trip, when we started reading his document, that we started to comprehend the large scale of the massacres that had been going on here.

    "We were here in 2008. The last reports of cannabilism in this area were in 2006.

    "I had never heard about any of this in international news."

    The truth about the Congo is suppressed in the western media for the same reason the black gang culture is suppressed.

  149. @anonymous

    This is all Obama’s fault. He could’ve been a healer, a bridger instead of a divider, but instead he took sides. What a waste of a golden opportunity.
     
    He's just too small a man, a petty, jealous, narcissistic little man. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something positive on a grand scale but wasn't up to it.

    He’s just too small a man, a petty, jealous, narcissistic little man. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something positive on a grand scale but wasn’t up to it.

    Born a greasy incipient Ward Heeler and will be remembered as one.

  150. @Truth
    The past mistake was that Mr. Carroll assumed that white women were having sex with black men without having any verification, as I often do, so he identified his mistake, as I do, and humbly stated that he would refrain from such errors until he had the proof he needed.

    why “uh-oh”? “Uh-oh” for whom?

  151. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    Politics makes odd bedfellows. Anyone with a brain would realize (without needing to watch a picosecond of RT programming) that RT is out to weaken USGOV. A weak USGOV is clearly in the interests of RUSGOV. But showing America as a Racist Place where Evil White Supremacists oppress Powerless POCs actually helps strengthen USGOV by increasing American support of increasing federal power in order to free those Oppressed POCs from the yoke of White Supremacist state and local governments.

    I seriously don't know which way is up anymore. Someone smarter please put this into context for me.

    It is strange.

    Assuming their aim is to undermine Washington then you’d think they’d focus on the things the Western media covers up but they mostly come across as simply another version of the standard media.

    Either the initial assumption is wrong or they can’t figure a “line” to take so they default to being the same as the standard western media because their journalists came out of the same western universities.

    I guess what they want is something neutral between standard left and right but damaging to the current ruling establishment as a whole.

    I’d suggest highlighting that the foundations of modern western “democracy” are a combination of corporate funding, media information filtering and the creation and use of teenage prostitutes for political blackmail.

  152. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    Incredibly strong ethnic solidarity, high time preference, propensity for aggression and low median IQ

    Incredibly strong ethnic solidarity

    Very low ethnic solidarity except when whipped up and marshaled by the media’s war propaganda.

    also

    Perhaps Russian leaders aren’t as clueless as you think. Perhaps they are trying to instigate a civil war which obviously would be in Russia’s interest. And frankly egging on antiwhite forces in the US is not an irrational way to ignite a civil war.

    But that’s the point. The mainstream western media is inciting the anti-white side already so RT doesn’t need to join in. If they wanted to maximize the damage they’d report the other side of the story and pull white voters away from the MSM.

  153. @Mike Sylwester

    Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson
     
    The older worker would have testified that Brown was trying to surrender when Wilson was shooting him.

    His testimony would have been discredited, however, by his own statements that two other police officers were standing next to Wilson when he was shooting. It would be obvious to the jurors that the older worker began watching the scene after the two back-up officers arrived -- i.e. began watching well after Brown had collapsed dead.

    Since the younger worker was not sitting in a truck smoking dope, he actually saw the incident's final moments happen. His observations were rather credible and do not incriminate Wilson significantly.

    The reason why Brown and Johnson went to the store to steal cigarillos was so that they could smoke dope with the older worker. Therefore that worker had a motive to lie about the incident. If the prosecutors had called him to testify in a trial of Wilson, the trial would have turned into a spectacular fiasco -- featuring much cross-examination about that worker's drug-dealing with Brown and Johnson.

    You respond to my message by providing a lot of details about the two white workers which were not contained in your original comment on this thread, which, as far as I am concerned, simply confirms my original point. BTW here is the passage from my prior comment, of which you provided only part: “Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson which is contrary to what your article says. Here are two key paragraphs from your article:” I then went on to briefly summarize the key points re the White construction workers which undercut the possibility of their testimony damaging Officer Wilson, something, I would note, that your original comment in this thread failed to do.

    My point was that your original comment (Comment #2 in this thread), by omitting key details, left the false impression that there was an attempt to hide some crucial information dealing with the Brown shooting. You conclude your original comment with the sentence that reads “The story about the two White construction story [sic] was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public.” That certainly left me with the initial impression that the reason the public was not fully informed about the two White workers was that it was part of a coverup to protect Officer Wilson, an impression that was quickly dispelled by reading your article. Here’s a question for you: Who was helped by this information not becoming more widely disseminated, Michael Brown or Officer Wilson? I would argue that the suppression worked to protect the reputation of Michael Brown by leaving out evidence that he was a user and a dealer in marijuana. So he was not the aspiring scholar cut down prematurely as he was about to start a glorious academic career, as the MSM and BLM would have it, but a drug dealing thug who stole cigarillos from a convenience store so he could get high with one of his customers/business partners. BTW I read or heard recently that the lawyers behind the “blacks shot by cops” grievance industry have learned from the mistakes in the Trayvon Martin case and now try to scrub any damaging information from social media pertaining to the saintly black victim.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    That certainly left me with the initial impression that the reason the public was not fully informed about the two White workers was that it was part of a coverup to protect Officer Wilson.
     
    That's not the impression I intended to give.

    I obtained my information about the white construction workers from documents that have been released to the public. I never said anything along the lines that there was "a coverup to protect Officer Wilson".

    The US Justice Department's report about the shooting evaluated both construction workers as unreliable. Neither witness would be useful to the prosecution in a trial of Wilson.

    http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-special-importance-of-white.html

    I studied all the transcripts of the investigators' interviews of the two construction workers and deduced the situation. The detectives thought that the older White worker was involved in some drug business with Brown and Johnson. The detectives were not able to convince the younger worker to testify against the older worker, however, and so that part of the investigation went no further.

  154. @tbraton
    You respond to my message by providing a lot of details about the two white workers which were not contained in your original comment on this thread, which, as far as I am concerned, simply confirms my original point. BTW here is the passage from my prior comment, of which you provided only part: "Your comment leaves the completely false impression that the two white workers would have provided damaging testimony against Wilson which is contrary to what your article says. Here are two key paragraphs from your article:" I then went on to briefly summarize the key points re the White construction workers which undercut the possibility of their testimony damaging Officer Wilson, something, I would note, that your original comment in this thread failed to do.

    My point was that your original comment (Comment #2 in this thread), by omitting key details, left the false impression that there was an attempt to hide some crucial information dealing with the Brown shooting. You conclude your original comment with the sentence that reads "The story about the two White construction story [sic] was told in the grand-jury documents released to the public but has not been told yet to the public." That certainly left me with the initial impression that the reason the public was not fully informed about the two White workers was that it was part of a coverup to protect Officer Wilson, an impression that was quickly dispelled by reading your article. Here's a question for you: Who was helped by this information not becoming more widely disseminated, Michael Brown or Officer Wilson? I would argue that the suppression worked to protect the reputation of Michael Brown by leaving out evidence that he was a user and a dealer in marijuana. So he was not the aspiring scholar cut down prematurely as he was about to start a glorious academic career, as the MSM and BLM would have it, but a drug dealing thug who stole cigarillos from a convenience store so he could get high with one of his customers/business partners. BTW I read or heard recently that the lawyers behind the "blacks shot by cops" grievance industry have learned from the mistakes in the Trayvon Martin case and now try to scrub any damaging information from social media pertaining to the saintly black victim.

    That certainly left me with the initial impression that the reason the public was not fully informed about the two White workers was that it was part of a coverup to protect Officer Wilson.

    That’s not the impression I intended to give.

    I obtained my information about the white construction workers from documents that have been released to the public. I never said anything along the lines that there was “a coverup to protect Officer Wilson”.

    The US Justice Department’s report about the shooting evaluated both construction workers as unreliable. Neither witness would be useful to the prosecution in a trial of Wilson.

    http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-special-importance-of-white.html

    I studied all the transcripts of the investigators’ interviews of the two construction workers and deduced the situation. The detectives thought that the older White worker was involved in some drug business with Brown and Johnson. The detectives were not able to convince the younger worker to testify against the older worker, however, and so that part of the investigation went no further.

  155. @HA

    "...the Russian media appears to be doing everything it can to alienate those potential friends....The Russians just don’t get it that the Americans that used to like the Soviet Union are the very ones that hate what Russia has become."
     
    Not true. The descendants of the old-garde Left still toe the Moscow line: for example, Stephen F. Cohen, "the Kremlin's #1 US apologist", who is also a contributing editor of The Nation, which his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel publishes, not to mention a slew of other workers-of-the-world-united types.

    When Moscow apologists lament the weirdly bimodal distribution of left and right who oppose their Ukraine campaign, they might simply be projecting, given that much the same could be said of their fan base.

    Potential friends, you say? I say some people never learn.

    You may not be a white, hetero man. For non-status-marking Eloi though, the current Western regime is not our friend.

  156. @Whiskey
    Thanks. Stand corrected. Torpedo bombers were if anything, even more a death sentence than Dive Bombers. Flying low and slow. IIRC one entire squadron at Midway was wiped out, to the last man.

    “IIRC one entire squadron at Midway was wiped out, to the last man.”

    They came in first and low to draw the Japanese carrier’s fighter cover down to the deck. A second wave then came in at altitude and hit the carriers that no longer had fighter cover. The strategy worked, the Japanese were devastated. These men knowingly sacrificed themselves. No one should ever forget that.
    __________

    @Sylwester
    “That’s not the impression I intended to give.”

    tbraton seems to be the only one to have gotten that impression.

  157. @Glossy
    On the social conservatism of the late USSR:

    Drugs, prostitution, strip clubs, pornography, gambling did not exist at all. All entertainment was wholsome and moralistic. Modernist art was essentially banned and realistic art, classcial music, classical 19th century literature, etc. were promoted. Divorce was legal but rarer than in the West. Abortion was legal and more common than in the West - the one exception to the conservative trend. Homosexuality was officially a mental disorder up until the 1990s.

    Under the Old Bolsheviks (i.e. from 1917 through the early 1930s) homosexuality was legal, modernist art was promoted, churches were blown up and priests were killed, etc. They owned society and they continued to screw it up. This screwing-up of society only ended when Stalin killed the Old Bolsheviks during the party purges of the 1930s.

    The persecution of the Orthodox Church ended when Stalin concluded an agreement with it in 1943. After that the state remained atheist but citizens did not have to be. Most ethnic Russians, including government officials, baptized their children in the late Soviet era.

    Why did Trotskyists hate Stalinism? The social conservatism described above was one reason. Trotsky also accused Stalin of not collectivising the economy enough and of being on the side of the kulaks during the collectivization campaign. The abandonment of the world revolution idea. Well, and to turn the country in the new direction Stalin had to kill the Old Bolsheviks. That kind of thing tends to spoil relationships.

    If Stalin or someone like him did not come to power in the USSR, it would have lost WWII to Germany. The industrialization campaign wouldn't have started and the country would have been completely looted out by 1941. It would not have been able to put up much resistance.

    If neither Stalin nor Hitler nor anyone like them came to power in either the USSR or Germany, the old Bolsheviks would have used the USSR as the base for worldwide revolution in the same way that the neocons are now using the US as the base for color revolutions.

    Why didn't Stalin renounce the Communist label after killing the Old Bolsheviks and reversing their policies? Well, the modern Chinese leadership isn't Communist either, not in the original sense, yet it still uses that label. Labels aren't all that important.

    Why didn’t Stalin renounce the Communist label after killing the Old Bolsheviks and reversing their policies? Well, the modern Chinese leadership isn’t Communist either, not in the original sense, yet it still uses that label. Labels aren’t all that important.

    No. It’s who gets to apply them. And to whom.

    Кто? Кому?

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Кто? Кому?
     
    "Кто кого?"
  158. @Reg Cæsar

    Why didn’t Stalin renounce the Communist label after killing the Old Bolsheviks and reversing their policies? Well, the modern Chinese leadership isn’t Communist either, not in the original sense, yet it still uses that label. Labels aren’t all that important.

     

    No. It's who gets to apply them. And to whom.

    Кто? Кому?

    Кто? Кому?

    “Кто кого?”

    • Replies: @Glossy
    I don't know if Reg Cæsar used the dative on purpose (who is giving a label to whom?) or if that was just Google Translate mistranslating things. The original Lenin quote was indeed nominative accusative (кто кого?), not nominative dative (кто кому?)

    Never trust Google Translate, by the way.
  159. The neocons turned against the USSR because of the turn of events that surrounded the creation of Israel. Stalin disliked Jews who seemed more loyal to Israel than to the USSR, eventually supported the Arabs, and refused to allow Jews to emigrate. In other words their like or dislike of the Soviet Union was based upon how well or poorly Jews were treated by the Soviet Union.

    Too bad the neocon Jews weren’t in charge of Hollywood, which didn’t turn against Russia until after Larry Summers was done with her.

  160. @fnn
    US is geopolitical rival of Russia, so RT probes for its exploitable weak points in the context of the hegemonic international hivemind. That doesn't change the fact that the American Empire is objectively the greatest enemy of whites worldwide. Weaken the strangehold of the American Empire on Europe and it has a chance to survive. Nearly all politicos are slime, but Putin does not buy into the Western ideology that says that whites must be racially replaced and Putin has endorsed a Russian Orthodoxy (ethnocentric but not racialist) that is traditionalist and non-prog/cult marxist-unlike 99% of what passes for Christianity in the West. So some degree of support for Putin is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    In case anyone doesn't know that USG is actively hostile to whites:

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/

    “US is geopolitical rival of Russia, so RT probes for its exploitable weak points in the context of the hegemonic international hivemind. That doesn’t change the fact that the American Empire is objectively the greatest enemy of whites worldwide. Weaken the strangehold of the American Empire on Europe and it has a chance to survive. Nearly all politicos are slime, but Putin does not buy into the Western ideology that says that whites must be racially replaced and Putin has endorsed a Russian Orthodoxy (ethnocentric but not racialist) that is traditionalist and non-prog/cult marxist-unlike 99% of what passes for Christianity in the West. So some degree of support for Putin is a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    In case anyone doesn’t know that USG is actively hostile to whites:

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/capitalist-liberal-multicultacracy/”

    Since Vladimir Putin believes that Blacks have it extremely bad in the U.S, he should open Russia’s borders to America’s 45 million Blacks and say that they are welcome anytime to immigrate to Russia.

  161. @Anonymous

    Кто? Кому?
     
    "Кто кого?"

    I don’t know if Reg Cæsar used the dative on purpose (who is giving a label to whom?) or if that was just Google Translate mistranslating things. The original Lenin quote was indeed nominative accusative (кто кого?), not nominative dative (кто кому?)

    Never trust Google Translate, by the way.

  162. Putin is less hostile to white Americans than Washington is.

    But then who isn’t?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2