The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
If Liberals Undermine Community and Conservatives Undermine Government, Who Wins?
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

Commenter Tim Howells dredges up a quote from a lecture given a long time ago by a Georgetown history professor named Carroll Quigley (1910-1977):

“Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.

“Liberals, on the other hand, are still telling us, as they have for a long, long time, that in order to make individuals free, we must destroy communities. By communities I mean villages. Ghettos and cities. Ethnic groupings. Religious groupings. Anything which is segregated. We must destroy them. So that all individuals would be, if possible, identical. Including boys and girls.

“But the area of political action … in which you have government, individuals … three others: voluntary associations (which I’ll say no more about), corporations and communities. And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.”

I don’t know when this speech was given (obviously, no later than 1977), but the Dow Jones Average was almost certainly below 1,000 at the time, so you’ve got to give him some points for prescience.

 
Hide 194 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hey Steve,

    I got a fever dream right here.

  2. • Replies: @DCThrowback
    @Maj. Kong

    Thanks so much for this. I've always wanted to read it.

    , @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    @Maj. Kong

    Well, just visited the home site. Looks like I'll be busy reading for the next week. Thanks for the link.

  3. • Replies: @anon
    @jack o'fire

    This will be an increasing trend imo.


    Northwest Europeans developed a way of co-operating on a large scale but at the cost of losing their ability to compete at the clannish scale - hence why their countries used to be so good (compared to most places).

    Most other places are the opposite. They are good at the clannish scale but as a side effect they co-operate badly at a larger scale - hence why their countries suck.

    If the two patterns are combined the clannish sub population(s) will pick a niche and very rapidly come to dominate that niche as they co-operate as extended families (clans) versus people competing as individuals or nuclear families. However too much / too many and the originally NW Euro type countries will simply collapse to the standard pattern (except with hundreds of different ethnic groups per region / country).

    When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won't.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)

    Replies: @Sunbeam, @map

    , @Old Jew
    @jack o'fire

    What the Parsi and Jain do now is similar to what Meyer Rothschild did about 1800.
    One son to Paris one son to London another one to Vienna or Berlin.
    The brothers had strong confidence in each other.

  4. I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities – the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    @AshTon

    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.

    From the classic "Social Control, A Survey of the Foundations of Order" by E.A. Ross (1910):

    "Social order, even among the passive, unambitious Hindoos, presents a problem for solution. But it is a much more serious problem among the dolichocephalic blonds of the West. The restless, striving, doing Aryan, with his personal ambition, his lust for power, his longing to wreak himself, his willingness to turn the world upside down to get the fame, or the fortune, or the woman, he wants is under no easy discipline. The existence or order among men of this daring and disobedient breed challenges explanation. Especially is this true of the European man in America or Australia. The same selective migrations that made the Teuton more self-assertive than the docile Slav or the quiescent Hindoo , have made the American more strong-willed and unmanageable than even the West-European."

    Ross also had a lot to say about the conflict between organic communities and modern technocratic societies:

    https://books.google.se/books?id=c08PekqsQFUC&pg=PA432&dq=%22folk-craft%22+%22state-craft%22&hl=sv&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22folk-craft%22%20%22state-craft%22&f=false

    Replies: @AshTon, @Jack D, @SFG

    , @ben tillman
    @AshTon


    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities – the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc.
     
    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960's.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Massimo Heitor

    , @Jason
    @AshTon

    Yes it is ONLY the White Normal areas that have to be broken up. No one says El Paso must be made more diverse. No one says Kenya needs a flood of White people.

    But we are still having a hard time wrapping our head around the central truth of our time: These modern movements are anti-White. They are led by Whites who are anti-White.

    For whatever reason, everyone runs from this obvious fact, I guess because they think it makes them Hitler to notice it.

    , @vinteuil
    @AshTon

    "...the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation..."

    (1) When & (2) where did this reduction in state power and taxation of which you speak take place?

    Suggested answers: (1) never & (2) in your imagination.

    Replies: @Travis

    , @SFG
    @AshTon

    I really want to do a parody of Allen Ginsberg's 'Please Master' with that theme now, but then you'd all have to read it to get the joke, and I don't want to do that to any of you.

    (Some idiot high school teacher (!) read that to his kids and was mercifully cashiered. I really, really don't recommend you Google it unless you have a strong stomach...though Albertosaurus might dig it if he's still around.)

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @AshTon


    …undermining certain communities– the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc.
     
    Yeah, but note the significant overlap-- black/Christian, and white/tranny/pink-in-general. "It's complicated."

    And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.
     
    Maybe, but the growth of the immensely powerful state and taxation is the deliberate, not accidental, result of reducing Church power and tithing. If you prefer the soul to the soulless, that's the real tragedy.
  5. “I don’t know when this speech was given (obviously, no later than 1977)…”

    One would really hope so.

  6. Quigley’s ‘Tragedy and Hope’ is an interesting read. Although, the most memorable part for me was research showing the interesting and perhaps counter-intuitive relationship between IQ and the eleven plus examination results.

    This was part of a section on how Britain is/was willfully destroying itself. This was written in 1966.

    That will probably mean nothing to Americans, but googling this (Tragedy and Hope is online) and posting it in the comment section of British newspapers like the Telegraph or The Guardian whenever the topic of Grammar schools comes up, never fails to cause confusion and sometimes apparent fury with what I assume are British middle class conservatives. Cognitive dissonance I suppose.

    British class and IQ – you love all that, dontcha?

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @Working Class Englishman

    Could you elaborate on that? My father's English and regards the destruction of the grammar school system as a crime, it's one of the reasons he hates Labour. What's your view?

    Replies: @PatrickH

  7. Carroll Quigley has more than prescience. He is one of the most knowledgeable and well-researched historians I have ever read. Unfortunately for all of us, he died in 1977.

    I bring the reader’s attention to his book, “Tragedy and Hope — A history of the World in our Time.” It is 1,300 pages of a very well-documented look into … as he says, the history of our time from the Middle Ages through 1964. It’s a free e-book on Amazon Kindle. If you are a life-long history buff as I am, he is likely to change your view of the past and therefore how you understand the present.

    Mr. Quigley’s historical analyses stop short of commenting on historical trends beyond 1964 because, as he says, no one really knows that is going on because the documents were not yet available when he wrote the book. History needs time to unveil the secrecy that are the traditional trademarks of governments, security agencies, and corporations — Deep States that do everything they can to conspire and operate in the shadows. The partial exposes from Wikileaks in our own time bear testimony to that caveat. Historians are still trying to make sense of WWII … to tell us what really happened amid the flotsam of secrecy, disinformation, and propaganda from all sides. But where the documents are available, Mr. Quigley is unparalleled with his insights.

  8. Quigley sounds like a fascist. I mean that in the most complimentary way.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Thrasymachus

    Bill Clinton liked him

    , @Anonymous
    @Thrasymachus

    I don't know if he was a fascist or not, but to the extent that he was critical of both these modern liberal and conservative trends, he wouldn't be completely enthusiastic about fascism. Fascism doesn't try to oppose or reverse these trends, but tries to square the circle and synthesize them so that the state becomes the dominant community and individuals are freed in order to better serve the state.

  9. Steve, you must know who Quigley is, right?

  10. @Thrasymachus
    Quigley sounds like a fascist. I mean that in the most complimentary way.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Anonymous

    Bill Clinton liked him

  11. @AshTon
    I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities - the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities - the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @ben tillman, @Jason, @vinteuil, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.

    From the classic “Social Control, A Survey of the Foundations of Order” by E.A. Ross (1910):

    “Social order, even among the passive, unambitious Hindoos, presents a problem for solution. But it is a much more serious problem among the dolichocephalic blonds of the West. The restless, striving, doing Aryan, with his personal ambition, his lust for power, his longing to wreak himself, his willingness to turn the world upside down to get the fame, or the fortune, or the woman, he wants is under no easy discipline. The existence or order among men of this daring and disobedient breed challenges explanation. Especially is this true of the European man in America or Australia. The same selective migrations that made the Teuton more self-assertive than the docile Slav or the quiescent Hindoo , have made the American more strong-willed and unmanageable than even the West-European.”

    Ross also had a lot to say about the conflict between organic communities and modern technocratic societies:

    https://books.google.se/books?id=c08PekqsQFUC&pg=PA432&dq=%22folk-craft%22+%22state-craft%22&hl=sv&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22folk-craft%22%20%22state-craft%22&f=false

    • Replies: @AshTon
    @Tim Howells


    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.
     
    That doesn't quite ring true. Even elite groups can be carried along by, and sincerely believe, whatever the current ideologies are. In Sweden for instance, the people who are promoting immigration and multi-culturalism are not doing so as a devious plot against their own people. They are not sitting on a pile of cash screaming “mycket pengar!”, and using some alchemy to turn immigrants into money.

    No, they are ideological followers. They are going with the flow. They believe they are doing good. This is a story more about self-delusion, conformity, and and belief in doing good - or at least be seen to be doing good.

    The problem is that the characteristics which make a country pleasant to live in are often the same ones which make it easy to subvert and dissolve.

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    , @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn't seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    "The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains."

    Boy, in the '30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that "past performance is no guaranty of future results". The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It's like dog breeding - all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can't create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded - there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @Jay, @SFG, @n/a, @n/a

    , @SFG
    @Tim Howells

    Slavs docile? I don't know if Poland, for example, is docile so much as has terrible luck in terms of its neighbors. Can you imagine being invaded by Stalin *and* Hitler?

  12. When I go to the main page of unz.com this AM, I get a “blocked by administrator” message from wordfence. Get the same message when I try to enter by proxy, so don’t think it was me that was flagged specifically. I was able to get into site through a back page, but wanted to let you all know of issue. The email I listed above was real, btw, should you all need it.

  13. @Maj. Kong
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf

    Replies: @DCThrowback, @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    Thanks so much for this. I’ve always wanted to read it.

  14. A very interesting quote and a very interesting YouTube link. Thanks.

    It’s this sort of analysis and historical data that are going to help us make sense of the mess we’re collectively in right now. We need this sort of thing make sense of the last century and to draw anything close to an accurate mental map of this civilizational crash site we find ourselves wandering in. I get the feeling we’re on the right trail when we find things like this talk by Quigley.

  15. There is an aspect of this that has intrigued me for years, and that is the Left’s need to define new ‘communities’ at the same time they are destroying the old ones. The ‘gay community’, the ‘trans community’, the ‘black community’, the ‘activist community’, etc.

    I doubt this has a basis in Classic Marxist ideology. Perhaps it can be found in Cultural Marxist/Frankfurt/New School teachings. The theoretical need to oppose Hegemony on a group (ie ‘community’) basis, perhaps.

    What I do know is that their clarion call is not Libertinism or Individualism per se. They preach alternative ‘communities’ … right up until one group of dissidents cannot live within the last alternative ‘community’ and splinters off to form another, e.g. the now-coalescing ‘trans community’ versus the ‘feminist community’.

    Mind you, the end result is the same: complete individualism.

    The ‘community’ concept is an almost completely left-centered notion. If you coopt their ‘community’ language from the right, they almost visibly gnash their teeth. Try talking about the ‘prison guard community’, the ‘pedophile community’, or the ‘gun community’ and listen to the reaction. For example: ‘As a member of the gun community, I am concerned that you …’

  16. @Working Class Englishman
    Quigley's 'Tragedy and Hope' is an interesting read. Although, the most memorable part for me was research showing the interesting and perhaps counter-intuitive relationship between IQ and the eleven plus examination results.

    This was part of a section on how Britain is/was willfully destroying itself. This was written in 1966.

    That will probably mean nothing to Americans, but googling this (Tragedy and Hope is online) and posting it in the comment section of British newspapers like the Telegraph or The Guardian whenever the topic of Grammar schools comes up, never fails to cause confusion and sometimes apparent fury with what I assume are British middle class conservatives. Cognitive dissonance I suppose.

    British class and IQ - you love all that, dontcha?

    Replies: @German_reader

    Could you elaborate on that? My father’s English and regards the destruction of the grammar school system as a crime, it’s one of the reasons he hates Labour. What’s your view?

    • Replies: @PatrickH
    @German_reader

    If no one else steps up to address your questions, perhaps this might help. The English grammar schools were originally set up in the Middle Ages to provide instruction for young people of the towns in which they were located, and the surrounding countryside. They were paid for by the city/town fathers but I think sometimes charged fees. Their purpose was to provide an education for boys (sometimes girls too) of the "middling" rank of society, whose parents did not want to educate them for the Church and did not have the money for one of the "public" schools that also began at around the same time. Even poorer boys, those whose parents could not afford to pay any fees or to support a child who was not working, could obtain scholarships to attend.

    The schools taught (Latin) grammar (hence grammar school), mathematics, and other academic subjects. Although many who attended them had no intention of going to university, education at a grammar school made this possible, especially when universities came to be less oriented towards producing clergymen, giving their pupils a chance to enter the "Establishment". Although the education offered at grammar schools was usually excellent (so I've read), the social gap between them and public schools like Eton or Westminster, or private boarding schools, was significant. Thus grammar schools were resented by the very poor and looked down on by the well-off.

    The resentment felt by labour supporters towards grammar schools was powerful enough that once the Labour government came into power again after WWII (first time round they lacked the muscle), they set to work to undo the schools and create a system of "comprehensives" that would discourage social distinction between working poor and middle class. So they set to work creating a system in which academic subjects (though not Latin? not sure) were taught alongside typing etc., like some North American high schools. These schools did not require an entrance exam and charged no fees.

    Middle-class intellectuals who supported Labour but did not ordinarily send their own children to grammar schools cheered this on, while the rich, of course, were equally immune to any such social experiments. The idea was to reduce social distinctions between classes, but some people argue that the new schools achieved the opposite effect. Really bright working-class children had nowhere to go to get away from peers who were uninterested in academic success, while middle-class parents removed their children into private schools if they could, or moved where they could get them into whatever grammar schools were not converted by successive Labour governments into comprehensives.

    Your father may be right about Labour having started this trend towards getting rid of grammar schools, but I have read that Margaret Thatcher, far from trying to stop it, accelerated it.

  17. Liberals can’t destroy voluntary associations and communities without the government so if conservatives make government smaller it takes that instrument of destruction out of the hands of liberals.

  18. ” The same selective migrations that made the Teuton more self-assertive than the docile Slav or the quiescent Hindoo ,”

    You know in retrospect I’d say that it was always a lot of work to keep the Slavs docile. I’m not in a situation where I am exposed to Russian emigres, I don’t have the cash or need to travel to Eastern Europe or Russia…

    But just as a personal take, these guys are energetic, restless, and just plain ornery. And that take is also that they have more of these qualities than “Teutons” or Englishmen or Frenchmen.

    Dmitry Orlov wasn’t really widely known, and for the current period where energy prices are relatively low there isn’t an audience for him.

    But he had a quote in his collapse gap essay comparing Americans and Russians. His take was that Americans were natural “communists” and Russians were natural … uh not really capitalists, anarchists is more like it.

    If anything my impression is that collective action is much more difficult to get going in Russia, than in say England.

    His comparison of an American and Russian que line, or a Russian stalking the elusive cut of meat hidden behind some counter in Moscow always makes me chuckle.

  19. I thought the idea that the government protected the people died along with Charles in 1649.

    Anyway, regardless of what conservatives want, the truth is that the power of the state continues to expand rapidly, and the goal of the Left is to leave us atomized before the organized power of the Leftist state and its cohesive core.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @ben tillman

    It's just as much the private sector managers as it is the Leftists who want us atomized. There really is no important difference between the public sector and private sector managerial class. If there was a difference a hundred years ago, they've spent the last century literally and figuratively interbreeding. Look at how the Left really says as little about economic policy as it can possibly get away with and the corporations and banks fall over themselves to prove how much they support the latest Cultural Marxist project.

    Replies: @SFG

    , @Jack D
    @ben tillman

    Perhaps libertarians (a word not in common usage when Quigley wrote) want less government. Conservatives and liberals both favor big government and regulation - they just want the government to do different things. Conservatives want the government to have a big military and to forbid things that they don't like, such as abortion. Look at "revealed preference" - the size of government in the US has been growing steadily since the '30s. It grows when Democrats are in power and it grows when Republicans are in power.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @dsgntd_plyr

  20. @AshTon
    I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities - the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities - the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @ben tillman, @Jason, @vinteuil, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities – the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc.

    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960’s.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @ben tillman


    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960′s.
     
    I dunno; Black Americans seem to have a lot more Asabiyya than Whites do....

    Replies: @Hacienda, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Jay

    , @Massimo Heitor
    @ben tillman

    Blacks may not have a community in the classical sense, but in the US there is definitely a fiercely separate and segregated black American culture with a distinct spoken dialect, music, identity, and politics.

  21. Whatever was blocking the site seems fixed now. Lasted at least 45 minutes.

  22. Thanks for this.

  23. @ben tillman
    I thought the idea that the government protected the people died along with Charles in 1649.

    Anyway, regardless of what conservatives want, the truth is that the power of the state continues to expand rapidly, and the goal of the Left is to leave us atomized before the organized power of the Leftist state and its cohesive core.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D

    It’s just as much the private sector managers as it is the Leftists who want us atomized. There really is no important difference between the public sector and private sector managerial class. If there was a difference a hundred years ago, they’ve spent the last century literally and figuratively interbreeding. Look at how the Left really says as little about economic policy as it can possibly get away with and the corporations and banks fall over themselves to prove how much they support the latest Cultural Marxist project.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Cagey Beast

    Agreed. I think it's a mix of things, including the Left shifting from the unions to the universities, and increased diversity making it harder to unify the working and middle classes. And the rise of a gay movement.

  24. @ben tillman
    @AshTon


    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities – the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc.
     
    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960's.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Massimo Heitor

    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960′s.

    I dunno; Black Americans seem to have a lot more Asabiyya than Whites do….

    • Replies: @Hacienda
    @syonredux

    Black on black crime rates disprove greater Asabiyya.

    Replies: @syonredux

    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    @syonredux

    Blacks have Asabiyya???

    Really???

    Ask yourself who bankrolls many of these AA and for that matter Latino astroturfed identity and "civil rights" organizations.

    For a hint:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/06/jews-and-the-civil-rights-movement/


    I will admit that to a degree upper middle class blacks(ie the far right segment of the Black bell curve) at one time had some control over the direction of their community and were sincerely attempting steer it towards White(European) social norms. But those days are long over.

    Face it. 60's and 70's aspirational Motown is long dead and gone, dysfunctional, degenerate "Hip Hop" now rules!!!

    And it is hard to think of anything more corrosive to build functioning black communities than the "Hip Hop" world view.

    And just as with the pornography industry what people played a vastly disproportionate role in the pushing "Hip Hop" towards mass acceptance and empathizing its worse elements???

    To the degree that Blacks and for that matter Latinos have " Asabiyya", it is because TWMNBN have spent billions and billions convincing that they are better off "Voting for a Living" than "Working for a Living".

    Other than that. by all other indicators, intact married families and functioning neighborhoods for instance. their communities are in free fall.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Jim Don Bob

    , @Jay
    @syonredux

    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.

    Replies: @syonredux

  25. But in fact, “conservatives” haven’t curtailed government at all.

    So the liberals have won.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Jason

    The liberals have not won.

    "..there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause." - T.S.Eliot

    Irolas: "It is as Lord Denethor predicted! Long has he foreseen this doom!"
    Gandalf: "Foreseen and done nothing!"

    Either replace your period with a question mark, or keep your counsel of despair to yourself.

  26. @AshTon
    I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities - the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities - the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @ben tillman, @Jason, @vinteuil, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Yes it is ONLY the White Normal areas that have to be broken up. No one says El Paso must be made more diverse. No one says Kenya needs a flood of White people.

    But we are still having a hard time wrapping our head around the central truth of our time: These modern movements are anti-White. They are led by Whites who are anti-White.

    For whatever reason, everyone runs from this obvious fact, I guess because they think it makes them Hitler to notice it.

  27. In retrospect, Quigley’s worries about the conservatives “destroying” the government look pretty idiotic:

    http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

  28. Who Wins?

    Eskimos

  29. Quigley left out the University as an area of political action, plus the media savvy NGOs they spawn.

    If you look at who has the whip hand these days, it isn’t big companies.

    Sort of unsurprising Quigley wouldn’t mention this. Do not look at the man behind the curtain!

    • Replies: @SFG
    @zanon

    When was he writing? Universities weren't all that left-wing before the Depression or so.

  30. @AshTon
    I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities - the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities - the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @ben tillman, @Jason, @vinteuil, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    “…the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation…”

    (1) When & (2) where did this reduction in state power and taxation of which you speak take place?

    Suggested answers: (1) never & (2) in your imagination.

    • Replies: @Travis
    @vinteuil

    Vinteull , I had the same thought....what is he talking about....the power of the State has expanded tremendously under every President in my lifetime. Each president creates new agencies, new regulations under old laws while signing new laws to further increase government regulations and thus increase the power of government. The politicians have learned new and creative methods of extorting businesses to increase their wealth and power

    while corporate income taxes remain extraordinarily high in America. It seems the politicians use their power to reward certain industries with tax breaks, while they continue to keep corporate taxes high, continue to double tax corporate earnings earned outside our boarders and they continue to double tax corporate profits when they are paid out as dividends

    Corporations have become bigger partly due to politicians extorting them for jobs for their friends and family so that most democrats and republicans use their power to gain wealth via deals with the largest corporations. The states have so expanded regulations and tax collecting methods so that it is near impossible for small companies to succeed...large corporations have learned how to game the political process so that the increase regulations keep new companies from competing against them, as they have the regulators in their pocket...which is why the regulators eventually get jobs with the companies they once regulated.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @SFG

  31. Saying conservatives want to “eliminate” government is a straw man argument. The libertarian part of the republican party is for smaller government, not zero government.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @eric

    And liberals are for less community, not zero community, but Quigley's point is that nature abhors a (power) vacuum. If we reduce the power of government and of community over individuals (doesn't have to be to zero, just less than before), some other institution will move in and this could well be corporations, especially thanks to the power of media. In a libertarian dream world this enlarged space would be left to the individual himself, but in real life the individual has to fight for this (for himself and his family) or others will try to grab the vacant power space.

    Replies: @Sunbeam

  32. Carroll Quigley was Bill Clinton’s favorite professor.

  33. Here’s an article on Carrol Quigley’s relationship with his fans on the Alex Jones end of the spectrum:

    “Quigley . . . making Birchers bark”
    An article by Wes Christenson in Georgetown Today, Volume 4, Number 4 (March 1972), pp 12-13.
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    @Cagey Beast

    You are aware that Alex Jones himself is a Neocon backed "controlled opposition" operation???

    The whole "Truth-er" movement that Alex Jones nutures distracts otherwise rightfully worried, even paranoid, Americans from the role that TWMNBN backed Open Borders policies are destroying the country while making it increasing susceptible to terrorist attacks and leading the public towards greater acceptance of the erosion of our civil liberties. Instead they fret about Freemasons, Bilderbergers, The Illuminati, the Vatican, Black Helicopters... These folks end up voting for fringe parties , if they even vote, and in that way remove themselves from influencing the political debate at all.

    See here
    http://alexjonesexposed.info/alex-jones-and-emmis-communications/
    https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/tag/emmis-communications/

    Alex Jones is backed by ultra Zionist Jeff Smulyan of Emmis Communications(Emmis means "Truth" in Yiddish/Hebrew). Emmis operates "conservative", actually rabidly Neocon, talk radio stations across the country including WIBC here in Indianapolis.

  34. It would be crazy to say that government power is shrinking. Its military and surveillance capacity is growing all the time, for instance, and legislatures never rest from enacting new laws. It certainly won’t let go of its powers of taxation either. It would be more accurate to say that the powers it ought to wield – to secure borders and promote homogeneous, cohesive societies – are being abandoned. Government in Western countries isn’t just abandoning the indigenous population, it’s actively undermining it in favour of global capitalism. Liberals are colluding in this, in the name of “social justice”.

  35. @eric
    Saying conservatives want to "eliminate" government is a straw man argument. The libertarian part of the republican party is for smaller government, not zero government.

    Replies: @Jack D

    And liberals are for less community, not zero community, but Quigley’s point is that nature abhors a (power) vacuum. If we reduce the power of government and of community over individuals (doesn’t have to be to zero, just less than before), some other institution will move in and this could well be corporations, especially thanks to the power of media. In a libertarian dream world this enlarged space would be left to the individual himself, but in real life the individual has to fight for this (for himself and his family) or others will try to grab the vacant power space.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    @Jack D

    "And liberals are for less community, not zero community, but Quigley’s point is that nature abhors a (power) vacuum. If we reduce the power of government and of community over individuals (doesn’t have to be to zero, just less than before), some other institution will move in and this could well be corporations, especially thanks to the power of media. In a libertarian dream world this enlarged space would be left to the individual himself, but in real life the individual has to fight for this (for himself and his family) or others will try to grab the vacant power space."

    If I understand the argument correctly, isn't that the same thing as saying that Libertarianism is an unattainable ideal? (at least with any workable system man's technology to date has made possible)

    There will always be reins, just waiting for someone to pick them up. And someone always will.

    Whether it is the State, Corporations, or in an earlier world Bram the Hammer (who will kill anyone in the tribe who looks at him funny).

    You might enforce a libertarian state of some sort, but it isn't stable because it depends on the actors to ignore their own immediate interests in favor of an abstract concept.

    Might be workable if you could incorporate into a religion. My personal feeling is ideology is weaksauce compared to faith.

  36. @ben tillman
    I thought the idea that the government protected the people died along with Charles in 1649.

    Anyway, regardless of what conservatives want, the truth is that the power of the state continues to expand rapidly, and the goal of the Left is to leave us atomized before the organized power of the Leftist state and its cohesive core.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D

    Perhaps libertarians (a word not in common usage when Quigley wrote) want less government. Conservatives and liberals both favor big government and regulation – they just want the government to do different things. Conservatives want the government to have a big military and to forbid things that they don’t like, such as abortion. Look at “revealed preference” – the size of government in the US has been growing steadily since the ’30s. It grows when Democrats are in power and it grows when Republicans are in power.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Jack D

    I can't speak of them categorically, but the libertarians I know are the most atomized humans I've ever met. They think every person is a prison, or a trap.

    Replies: @Jeff Albertson

    , @dsgntd_plyr
    @Jack D

    George W. Bush had the decency to tell us he is a big government Conservative way back in 2000 ("Compassionate Conservatism"). So he's got that going for him.

  37. Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?

    • Replies: @HA
    @International Jew

    "Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?"

    Sure, back when every neighborhood might have been as likely to have a Carl, Karl, Karol or Karlo somewhere, at which point all the Carols would have probably insisted on the unambiguously feminine Caroline or Carlotta.

    , @Pat Gilligan
    @International Jew


    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?
     
    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @anon, @ben tillman

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @International Jew


    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?

     

    Carol as a girl's name is a 20th-century fad. Carol surpassed Carroll in rank just after WWI, then reached a numerical peak in 1941.

    Carrolls quickly receded and disappeared from the top 1,000 in 1978. Carols eventually did the same in 2007.
  38. @syonredux
    @ben tillman


    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960′s.
     
    I dunno; Black Americans seem to have a lot more Asabiyya than Whites do....

    Replies: @Hacienda, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Jay

    Black on black crime rates disprove greater Asabiyya.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Hacienda


    Black on black crime rates disprove greater Asabiyya.
     
    On the other hand, as TN Coates demonstrates, what really angers Blacks is when Black Bodies are assaulted by non-Black bodies....

    Replies: @anon

  39. @International Jew
    Did "Carroll" ever not sound like a girl's name?

    Replies: @HA, @Pat Gilligan, @Reg Cæsar

    “Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?”

    Sure, back when every neighborhood might have been as likely to have a Carl, Karl, Karol or Karlo somewhere, at which point all the Carols would have probably insisted on the unambiguously feminine Caroline or Carlotta.

  40. @Tim Howells
    @AshTon

    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.

    From the classic "Social Control, A Survey of the Foundations of Order" by E.A. Ross (1910):

    "Social order, even among the passive, unambitious Hindoos, presents a problem for solution. But it is a much more serious problem among the dolichocephalic blonds of the West. The restless, striving, doing Aryan, with his personal ambition, his lust for power, his longing to wreak himself, his willingness to turn the world upside down to get the fame, or the fortune, or the woman, he wants is under no easy discipline. The existence or order among men of this daring and disobedient breed challenges explanation. Especially is this true of the European man in America or Australia. The same selective migrations that made the Teuton more self-assertive than the docile Slav or the quiescent Hindoo , have made the American more strong-willed and unmanageable than even the West-European."

    Ross also had a lot to say about the conflict between organic communities and modern technocratic societies:

    https://books.google.se/books?id=c08PekqsQFUC&pg=PA432&dq=%22folk-craft%22+%22state-craft%22&hl=sv&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22folk-craft%22%20%22state-craft%22&f=false

    Replies: @AshTon, @Jack D, @SFG

    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.

    That doesn’t quite ring true. Even elite groups can be carried along by, and sincerely believe, whatever the current ideologies are. In Sweden for instance, the people who are promoting immigration and multi-culturalism are not doing so as a devious plot against their own people. They are not sitting on a pile of cash screaming “mycket pengar!”, and using some alchemy to turn immigrants into money.

    No, they are ideological followers. They are going with the flow. They believe they are doing good. This is a story more about self-delusion, conformity, and and belief in doing good – or at least be seen to be doing good.

    The problem is that the characteristics which make a country pleasant to live in are often the same ones which make it easy to subvert and dissolve.

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    @AshTon

    Hejsan! I'm writing this from Sweden, as it happens. Yes, I agree that for the average person here and even the average politician this comes back to ideology (brainwashing). But where did this ideology come from? In 1970 the established pattern was that the Conservatives (now called the Moderates) would push for more immigration because they wanted cheap labor, but the very dominant Social Democrats would shut them down, saying "Hey, we're not here to save you money - we're here to protect the Swedish worker!" That all changed, but why? Well, it tracks back to the usual suspects:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/the-jewish-origins-of-multiculturalism-in-sweden/

  41. @Tim Howells
    @AshTon

    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.

    From the classic "Social Control, A Survey of the Foundations of Order" by E.A. Ross (1910):

    "Social order, even among the passive, unambitious Hindoos, presents a problem for solution. But it is a much more serious problem among the dolichocephalic blonds of the West. The restless, striving, doing Aryan, with his personal ambition, his lust for power, his longing to wreak himself, his willingness to turn the world upside down to get the fame, or the fortune, or the woman, he wants is under no easy discipline. The existence or order among men of this daring and disobedient breed challenges explanation. Especially is this true of the European man in America or Australia. The same selective migrations that made the Teuton more self-assertive than the docile Slav or the quiescent Hindoo , have made the American more strong-willed and unmanageable than even the West-European."

    Ross also had a lot to say about the conflict between organic communities and modern technocratic societies:

    https://books.google.se/books?id=c08PekqsQFUC&pg=PA432&dq=%22folk-craft%22+%22state-craft%22&hl=sv&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22folk-craft%22%20%22state-craft%22&f=false

    Replies: @AshTon, @Jack D, @SFG

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn’t seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    “The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains.”

    Boy, in the ’30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that “past performance is no guaranty of future results”. The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It’s like dog breeding – all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can’t create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded – there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    @Jack D

    And yet there Germany is again at the head of the pack in Europe (by far) and making very significant deals with a stubbornly traditionalist and Christian Russia that would bind the resources of Eurasia with the industrial and technical powerhouse of Germany.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gazprom-signs-preliminary-deal-to-expand-gas-pipeline-to-germany-1434648924

    If this happens (and it looks inevitable), the landscape you describe could change very quickly.

    From a post here at Unz by Mike Whitney quoting George Friedman, the head of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor:


    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
     
    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/washingtons-war-on-russia/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc

    The celebrations of Germany's enemies may prove premature.

    Replies: @Jack D, @syonredux, @SFG

    , @Jay
    @Jack D

    Just a quibble about what selection can achieve. On the time scale that we all care about, years-to-decades, your analogy to dog breeding holds well. The low IQ gene pool will not throw up many 130 IQ individuals who will be beneficial to America. Over millions of years, however, tree-climbing did evolve in canids: the Grey Fox, which is an impressive climber. If I were to try to select for tree climbing in dogs, I would start with Jack Russells. At least they would be game to try the vertical locomotory course that would determine which dogs would create the next generation.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank

    , @SFG
    @Jack D

    I agree--this whole idea that races have some eternal essence strikes me as one of the sillier things HBDers inherited from the 19th century. Scandinavians have gone from Vikings to feminists.

    As for the Asians...my big worry isn't so much that the Chinese will corrupt America so much that the 21st century is likely to be marked by American competition with China, and they have the potential to serve as a fifth column, willingly or not--if the Chinese government says 'give me these nuclear secrets or I'll kill your grandma', what would you do?

    , @n/a
    @Jack D

    "Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:"

    This has proved wrong how? While one of Walker's concerns was the glut of unskilled labor, this was not his only concern.


    For it is never to be forgotten that self-defense is the first law of nature and of nations. If that man who careth not for his own household is worse than an infidel, the nation which permits its institutions to be endangered by any cause which can fairly be removed is guilty not less in Christian than in natural law. Charity begins at home; and while the people of the United States have gladly offered an asylum to millions upon millions of the distressed and unfortunate of other lands and climes, they have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril. All the good the United States could do by offering indiscriminate hospitality to a few millions more of European peasants, whose places at home will, within another generation, be filled by others as miserable as themselves, would not compensate for any permanent injury done to our republic. Our highest duty to charity and to humanity is to make this great experiment, here, of free laws and educated labor, the most triumphant success that can possibly be attained. In this way we shall do far more for Europe than by allowing its city slums and its vast stagnant reservoirs of degraded peasantry to be drained off upon our soil. Within the decade between 1880 and 1890 five and a quarter millions of foreigners entered our ports! No nation in human history ever undertook to deal with such masses of alien population. That man must be a sentimentalist and an optimist beyond all bounds of reason who believes that we can take such a load upon the national stomach without a failure of assimilation, and without great danger to the health and life of the nation. For one, I believe it is time that we should take a rest, and give our social, political, and industrial system some chance to recuperate. The problems which so sternly confront us to-day are serious enough without being complicated and aggravated by the addition of some millions of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, south Italians, and Russian Jews.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1896/06/restriction-of-immigration/306011/

     

    , @n/a
    @Jack D

    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).

    Replies: @syonredux

  42. Insanely off-topic:

    In honor of the Moon Landings, a nice video showing how faking them would have been a lot harder than actually doing them:

    • Replies: @Ed
    @syonredux

    "The Moon Landings Couldn't Have Been Hoaxed" video argues that cameras that enabled that many minutes to be shot slow motion on video did not exist in 1969. I'm skeptical of the debunking argument.

    The Apollo missions (including the ones where people didn't land on the Moon) are still the only recorded instances in human history where people went beyond the Van Allen Belts and returned safely. Every mission did it, but no one has bothered sending people into deep space since 1973. Other than having lost the technology as the video points out, we are told that this is people there is really no reason to send people beyond the Van Allen Belts, and going to the Moon was a big propaganda production for the US with no other value that would make people want to return there. When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).

    Replies: @syonredux

  43. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:

    Interesting guy. He singles out Rhodes & Milner at the helm of the international corporatist movement – both were what we would call nowadays gay.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @WhatEvvs

    Was Milner?

    Replies: @WhatEvvs, @Tim Howells

    , @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    Sheer nonsense for Milner, and no evidence that Rhodes ever had sex with a man.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

  44. @ben tillman
    @AshTon


    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities – the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc.
     
    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960's.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Massimo Heitor

    Blacks may not have a community in the classical sense, but in the US there is definitely a fiercely separate and segregated black American culture with a distinct spoken dialect, music, identity, and politics.

  45. Quigley was a pro-establishmentarian who accidentally let a lot of truth slip about about the way the establishment works, (plus some interesting insights and lessons not having to do with such matters.)

    That’s why he was assassinated.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @countenance

    Like Joan Rivers?

    , @Jack D
    @countenance

    Right. All his obituaries in the Zionist newspapers say that he died in the hospital after a heart attack but THEY would want you to think that. We all know how easy it is for the Elders of Zion/CIA (the same thing really) to make it look as if you have had a heart attack. [Removes tinfoil hat.]

    Replies: @countenance, @Chuck

  46. @Maj. Kong
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf

    Replies: @DCThrowback, @Sean the Neon Caucasian

    Well, just visited the home site. Looks like I’ll be busy reading for the next week. Thanks for the link.

  47. That is a brilliant, prescient quote, particularly about the liberal motivation to destroy communities. This type of liberalism has been most pervasive in Western Christian societies, so has been most successful at destroying Christianity, while notably Islam has this fierce tribal power and community untainted by liberals.

    He is wrong in that the corporation has not grown in power and scope. The big institution to rise in power has been academia. The higher education system has far more power and influence over today’s society and culture than ever before.

    Conservatives have _wanted_ to limit government, particularly federal government but this has so far been a failure. A generation ago, it would be unthinkable to have federal government have the authority and power over society that it does today. Particularly in education, medicine, and law enforcement which have traditionally been bastions of more localized control and devolution of power.

  48. @Jack D
    @ben tillman

    Perhaps libertarians (a word not in common usage when Quigley wrote) want less government. Conservatives and liberals both favor big government and regulation - they just want the government to do different things. Conservatives want the government to have a big military and to forbid things that they don't like, such as abortion. Look at "revealed preference" - the size of government in the US has been growing steadily since the '30s. It grows when Democrats are in power and it grows when Republicans are in power.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @dsgntd_plyr

    I can’t speak of them categorically, but the libertarians I know are the most atomized humans I’ve ever met. They think every person is a prison, or a trap.

    • Replies: @Jeff Albertson
    @yaqub the mad scientist

    We're just better judges of human nature from experience. If you get an electrical shock every time you put out your hand, you stop doing it. That old r&b song "Smiling Faces/Backstabbers" nailed it.

    Trust but verify is for the gullible.

  49. @Jack D
    @eric

    And liberals are for less community, not zero community, but Quigley's point is that nature abhors a (power) vacuum. If we reduce the power of government and of community over individuals (doesn't have to be to zero, just less than before), some other institution will move in and this could well be corporations, especially thanks to the power of media. In a libertarian dream world this enlarged space would be left to the individual himself, but in real life the individual has to fight for this (for himself and his family) or others will try to grab the vacant power space.

    Replies: @Sunbeam

    “And liberals are for less community, not zero community, but Quigley’s point is that nature abhors a (power) vacuum. If we reduce the power of government and of community over individuals (doesn’t have to be to zero, just less than before), some other institution will move in and this could well be corporations, especially thanks to the power of media. In a libertarian dream world this enlarged space would be left to the individual himself, but in real life the individual has to fight for this (for himself and his family) or others will try to grab the vacant power space.”

    If I understand the argument correctly, isn’t that the same thing as saying that Libertarianism is an unattainable ideal? (at least with any workable system man’s technology to date has made possible)

    There will always be reins, just waiting for someone to pick them up. And someone always will.

    Whether it is the State, Corporations, or in an earlier world Bram the Hammer (who will kill anyone in the tribe who looks at him funny).

    You might enforce a libertarian state of some sort, but it isn’t stable because it depends on the actors to ignore their own immediate interests in favor of an abstract concept.

    Might be workable if you could incorporate into a religion. My personal feeling is ideology is weaksauce compared to faith.

  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thrasymachus
    Quigley sounds like a fascist. I mean that in the most complimentary way.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Anonymous

    I don’t know if he was a fascist or not, but to the extent that he was critical of both these modern liberal and conservative trends, he wouldn’t be completely enthusiastic about fascism. Fascism doesn’t try to oppose or reverse these trends, but tries to square the circle and synthesize them so that the state becomes the dominant community and individuals are freed in order to better serve the state.

  51. Seems we’d still have pleanty of government if it merely were reduced to it’s size before Reagan, GHerb, & GDub were elected to reduce government.

  52. the cited Quigley quote was not profound, it was different-sounding words for the same thing rather than A PICTURE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING…”Tragedy N Hope” was okay when I read it decades ago

  53. Ed says:
    @syonredux
    Insanely off-topic:

    In honor of the Moon Landings, a nice video showing how faking them would have been a lot harder than actually doing them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

    Replies: @Ed

    “The Moon Landings Couldn’t Have Been Hoaxed” video argues that cameras that enabled that many minutes to be shot slow motion on video did not exist in 1969. I’m skeptical of the debunking argument.

    The Apollo missions (including the ones where people didn’t land on the Moon) are still the only recorded instances in human history where people went beyond the Van Allen Belts and returned safely. Every mission did it, but no one has bothered sending people into deep space since 1973. Other than having lost the technology as the video points out, we are told that this is people there is really no reason to send people beyond the Van Allen Belts, and going to the Moon was a big propaganda production for the US with no other value that would make people want to return there. When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Ed


    When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).
     
    Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Ed

  54. Sam says:

    “Conservatives now are telling us that we must curtail government, cut government spending, cut government powers, reduce government personnel for the sake of making individuals more free.”

    I don’t know when this speech was given (obviously, no later than 1977), but the Dow Jones Average was almost certainly below 1,000 at the time, so you’ve got to give him some points for prescience.

    That is due to the breakdown of Bretton Wooods by Nixon, helped by Friedman admittedly.

    Have conservatives succesfully underminded government though?

    Seems to me that government is doing just fine in terms of size and in fact it has much more power today than before when it comes to activist judges and bureaucratic power.
    If people have lost faith in government it mostly due to the Great Society failures.

  55. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @countenance
    Quigley was a pro-establishmentarian who accidentally let a lot of truth slip about about the way the establishment works, (plus some interesting insights and lessons not having to do with such matters.)

    That's why he was assassinated.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs, @Jack D

    Like Joan Rivers?

  56. Hmm, for some reason this post and the following comments don’t seem like the Steve Sailer I am used to. Theories of a civilization’s rise and fall are always suspect, at least in my view, because we have so few examples to generalize from. Indeed, in the case of modern Western civilization (the very word “civlization” by the way was a neologism coined in modern times) there is only one example. All previous civilizations so-called were not even civilized by modern standards: they were all based on agricultural servitude and, with rare exceptions, absolutist forms of government, and lacked (except for parts of Judeo-Christian tradition) the very concepts of political and economic liberty, let alone human equality.

    I admit that Western civilization is in a moment of crisis. What I doubt is that we can learn many lessons from the past — except for the transformation of the Roman republic into the Roman empire. But that was unique.

    • Replies: @random observer
    @Luke Lea

    Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated, which so vastly exceeds that possible to pre-industrial peoples. Among other things, it allowed us to merge the ideas of civilization and freedom for the first time.

    Civilization to the ancients mainly meant living in cities and towns and practicing a high level of culture at the elite level. Nothing to do with freedom. Academics looking back added ideas like surplus production to back all that up, division of labour, increasingly complex hierarchies and institutions, and so forth.

    Hitherto, literary minded souls assumed that barbarism was a freer condition of life. Some carried this tradition into the 20th century (RE Howard, for one sterling example). Of course, that only applied if you were a physically strong male able to beat all comers, but for some it was a MUCH freer way of life for thousands of years. I expect it varied widely by circumstance. One could be a slave or a conscript in republican Rome, or a beggar for that matter. But for a few generations here and there civilization sometimes meant that men could be free from the need to bulk up and march only to get stabbed in the gut by another man's spear, so to speak. And possibly even live free from all that much state interference- we're not talking about societies whose governments necessarily demanded all that much on a day to day basis. Out on the steppes one could avoid even these impositions, but the demands were higher. And chances are there was some elder or chief still demanding obedience, and hoary customs and taboos whose disobedience could get you killed.

    Arguably, not only what we consider civilization but what we consider freedom was impossible and inconceivable prior to modernity. Even the Greeks and the Romans had a pretty different set of assumptions than those of modern Americans, or the Founders, or even your average wandering Saxon.

    Sorry to ramble. I was reminded of the age old debate about how could the Romans be civilized when they killed more people than the Huns, etc. Civilization wasn't defined by pacifism any more than by liberty.

    Replies: @Luke Lea

  57. “Conservatives” talk about but never get around to curtailing government, cutting government spending, cutting government powers, and reducing government personnel.

  58. Ha! When I read the title of the article, I immediately thought about Quigley. The guy was incredible. I’ve read all of his works, and his writing is magnificent, and gets better with re-reading.

    The Evolution of Civilizations is a 300-page History 101 for the elitest of elite university students. The opening chapter in which Quigley explains his understanding of the scientific method is jaw-dropping.
    Tragedy & Hope is one of the most perceptive histories of the 20th century (though it only goes up to about Nixon). The chapters on economics alone are superlative.
    The Anglo-American Establishment tells history from the inside. Remarkable doesn’t begin to describe that book.
    – The unfinished 1000-page oevre about weapon systems is Quigley’s attempt at writing a Toynbee-esque comprehensive history of the world. It’s a solid effort. The parts about Rome, the medieval knights and their castles, and the Mongols are awesome.

    – For a relatively brief introduction to Quigley’s thought, try his 1976 three-part lecture Public Authority and the State in the Western Tradition. You can find it here:
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/lectures.htm

  59. @countenance
    Quigley was a pro-establishmentarian who accidentally let a lot of truth slip about about the way the establishment works, (plus some interesting insights and lessons not having to do with such matters.)

    That's why he was assassinated.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs, @Jack D

    Right. All his obituaries in the Zionist newspapers say that he died in the hospital after a heart attack but THEY would want you to think that. We all know how easy it is for the Elders of Zion/CIA (the same thing really) to make it look as if you have had a heart attack. [Removes tinfoil hat.]

    • Replies: @countenance
    @Jack D

    I usually don't go in for the tinfoil hat stuff.

    I do have serious doubts about the official narrative of Quigley's death.

    , @Chuck
    @Jack D

    The truth is what the New York Times reports. Everything else are libelous canards.

  60. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-cities-americans-are-ditching

    Steve,
    Interesting article on domestic migration. Basically, Americans are following the Sailer Strategy after spending a few years after college in the “Yglesias-Glaeser” model utopias by moving to places that you can actually afford to raise a family.

    Here is a very interest quote from the article:

    “Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S.

    So what’s going on here? Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said. (Everyone knows how unaffordable the Manhattan area has become.)

    And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls “creative housing arrangements” in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It’s an arrangement that most Americans just aren’t willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it’s not for them as time goes by, he said. ”

    So basically Americans have freely decided not to live four families in one apartment. In response, our elites have decided that improving living standards is not a good thing. Therefore, we need to fill vacant low-skilled jobs by packing six to eight individuals or into apartments. People will look you straight in the eye and tell you that this is a good thing.

    By the way, El Paso has the highest percentage of domestic out-migration. So I guess mass-Mexican migration has not created a thriving tech scene there…

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @JerseyGuy

    "And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls “creative housing arrangements” in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It’s an arrangement that most Americans just aren’t willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it’s not for them as time goes by, he said."

    Same in London:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/david-willetts-the-pinch-uk-cabinet-ministers-discreet-but-devastating-dissent-on-immigrati

    It's tied into the "absolute nuclear family" system that emerged among Anglo-Saxons about 1,000 years ago. They don't like living with cousin Aram and his uncle-in-law.

    , @anon
    @JerseyGuy


    Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out...And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs.
     
    Except that's a self-serving globalist lie.

    The low-skilled (and lower paid) immigration comes first with the immigrants willing to live eight to a room because they are sending their money home.

    (The globalists are effectively simply arbitraging global wage rates.)

    This makes both housing and jobs unavailable to the native population (and greatly increases the local crime rate) so the native population are forced out.

    The (illegal) low-skilled immigration comes first - the rest follows from that.
  61. Tragedy and Hope was an interesting book. A friend of mine described it as a perfectly preserved fossil of the sophisticated liberalism of the Kennedy era. Quigley’s ideas appealed to a lot of very bright people in his day.

    Quigley does seem to have a point about the power businesses have now. Recently, I had quipped that I longed for the evil corporations of 1980s movies, which would gleefully suppress protest. I was thinking of contrasting this with how pusillanimous corporations seem to be today, but I think my point of reference was off. I’m interested in truth, whereas corporations, as necessitated by their fiduciary obligations, are only interested in wealth. Rolling over for two-bit scam artists is just a cost of doing business, and business is very, very good. Who really has the whip-hand here?

  62. @Jack D
    @countenance

    Right. All his obituaries in the Zionist newspapers say that he died in the hospital after a heart attack but THEY would want you to think that. We all know how easy it is for the Elders of Zion/CIA (the same thing really) to make it look as if you have had a heart attack. [Removes tinfoil hat.]

    Replies: @countenance, @Chuck

    I usually don’t go in for the tinfoil hat stuff.

    I do have serious doubts about the official narrative of Quigley’s death.

  63. Here’s a big error with Quigley’s mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn’t hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.

    What has happened is that the social power of communities and quasi-governmental private institutions other than corporations have been seriously weakened.

    That was all that was necessary for the power of the corporate-government colossus to increase.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @countenance

    Here’s a big error with Quigley’s mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn’t hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.


    I don't see how Quigley's statement contradicts this, in fact he says precisely that:


    And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.”
     
    , @Jack D
    @countenance

    Wow, so you mean that when liberalism triumphed in America, not only did the power of government increase but the power of self-organized communities shrank even more and big corporations and media rushed in to occupy the newly vacant power space? Who could have imagined that would happen?

    , @rod1963
    @countenance

    Of course they work hand in hand. Corporations have expended large sums of money to gain control of politicians. And it's natural that corporations would do quite well under this rigged system.

    Just look at Opensecrets.org to see who's been bought by who.

    But it took them a long time to get to this point. First they eradicated the ethnic identities of white Americans, their sense of community, ruined the family. That makes the people fragmented and malleable. A hundred years all told.

    The Black family and society was ruined by the Great Society program which looks to be designed from the get go to be anti-family. Then came the twin scourges of crack and rap to further poison what remained of black society. I find quite odd that Rap was promoted by a certain group of whites in the record industry.

    Then factor in the trade agreements that wiped out the working and middle-class and devastated small towns and cities across the country. Oh yeah middle-class that segment of society that is going extinct.

    But for the corporations, things couldn't be better, plus we're producing more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. And that's what matters.

    , @TB2
    @countenance

    That's because the culturally dominant left is fixated on the task of destroying white America, and the corporations pose no threat to that central, all-consuming obsession, indeed they've been very neatly coerced into playing a major part in the pogrom, er, program. They're feeding the crocodile though, once responsible whites are destroyed the parasites will demand the goose be slaughtered, a la Chavez, something we're already seeing the beginning of with the internal conflicts within the left.

  64. @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn't seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    "The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains."

    Boy, in the '30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that "past performance is no guaranty of future results". The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It's like dog breeding - all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can't create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded - there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @Jay, @SFG, @n/a, @n/a

    And yet there Germany is again at the head of the pack in Europe (by far) and making very significant deals with a stubbornly traditionalist and Christian Russia that would bind the resources of Eurasia with the industrial and technical powerhouse of Germany.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gazprom-signs-preliminary-deal-to-expand-gas-pipeline-to-germany-1434648924

    If this happens (and it looks inevitable), the landscape you describe could change very quickly.

    From a post here at Unz by Mike Whitney quoting George Friedman, the head of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor:

    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/washingtons-war-on-russia/

    The celebrations of Germany’s enemies may prove premature.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    Yes, the Russian Bear and the German Eagle will join forces to humiliate the Anglo-Saxon powers. Have you been watching too much RT? Speaking of premature celebrations, I think it is a little premature to plan the VUSA parade just yet.

    It's even premature to talk about that unbuilt pipeline which may never get built. The Germans are increasingly relying on renewable power, not Russian gas. Merkel grew up in the East and knows the "benefits" of hitching your economy to Russia's. East Germany tried that for 40 years and their combined resources produced such wonders as the Trabant and the Berlin Wall. I'm sure she is as eager as Putin for a rerun. Read the linked article - South Stream has already been cancelled and I wouldn't bet the farm that this one will be built either. And even if it is, this does not exactly signal a new Hitler-Stalin Pact.

    , @syonredux
    @Tim Howells


    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
     
    That quote makes no sense.The USA first fought Germany in 1917, that's not even 100 years ago.The primary foreign power concerns for the USA from 1789-1815 were France and Britain.From 1815 on, the primary concern was managing the break-up of the Spanish Empire and her successor states.France became a renewed source of concern in the 1860s (Napoleon III's move into Mexico), but that was quite temporary.

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    , @SFG
    @Tim Howells

    Much as I hate to pass up a good Nazi joke, Germans don't like Putin, they just need his oil. They're also understandably reluctant to see Europe get militarized again.

  65. Astoundingly prescient, but Quigley was always brilliant.

    Quigley’s book the Anglo American Establishment was spot on too. Chamberlain initially only gave a guarantee of Poland’s independence (he was trying to allow Hitler to get a bit of Poland ceded to Germany so Germany would have a border with the Siviet Union. Hitler and Stalin could do all the fighting). But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory.

    Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany.

    Stalin understood in making a non aggression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west. Stalin, like everyone else underestimated Hitler and the German army. Few people expected Germany to win decisively against France and Britain. It’s only because things didn’t go as expected that Stalin was left looking naive.

    Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Sean

    "But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory."

    No, Chamberlain guaranteed Poland on 3/31/39. The Nazi-Soviet Pact came on 8/23/39.

    Replies: @Sean, @WhatEvvs

    , @syonredux
    @Sean


    But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory.

    Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany.

    Stalin understood in making a non aggression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west.
     
    I'm sorry, this seems garbled.Are you arguing that Stalin "grabbed the Baltic states" before the Hitler-Stalin Pact?The Pact was signed in August of 1939.Stalin invaded the Baltic states after the Pact was signed.
    , @5371
    @Sean

    Some of this is right, but it was only in Chamberlain's fantasies that he could still get the Poles to peacefully surrender Danzig and a corridor to the Germans after he had already given the Poles a guarantee. He hoped that the US would do what he no longer could and put pressure on them, but FDR refused to oblige.

  66. Both groups want to strip the people down to nothing – but for different reasons. Liberals just don’t like whites and their culture(whats left of it that is) and want both gone, they also want to be in total control afterwards like Stalin. Conservatives would like to have a docile and fearful class of laborers for their businesses. To have either, you can’t have intact families, cultures and community. That tends to give people solidarity and hence make them uppity, something a businessman or wannabe tyrants cannot tolerate.

    Both groups for the last 30 years have supported illegal immigration, job destroying trade pacts, importing foreign workers to replace Americans, changes in law to strip us of our Constitutional rights, illegal and senseless wars(Iraq and Afghanistan). Supporting a succession of destructive speculative bubbles blown by Wall Street that enriched a relative handful, etc.

    All of which has wrecked white communities and families, along with critically damaging our economic infrastructure.

    ISIS could only dream of having such a impact on America.

  67. @Luke Lea
    Hmm, for some reason this post and the following comments don't seem like the Steve Sailer I am used to. Theories of a civilization's rise and fall are always suspect, at least in my view, because we have so few examples to generalize from. Indeed, in the case of modern Western civilization (the very word "civlization" by the way was a neologism coined in modern times) there is only one example. All previous civilizations so-called were not even civilized by modern standards: they were all based on agricultural servitude and, with rare exceptions, absolutist forms of government, and lacked (except for parts of Judeo-Christian tradition) the very concepts of political and economic liberty, let alone human equality.

    I admit that Western civilization is in a moment of crisis. What I doubt is that we can learn many lessons from the past -- except for the transformation of the Roman republic into the Roman empire. But that was unique.

    Replies: @random observer

    Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated, which so vastly exceeds that possible to pre-industrial peoples. Among other things, it allowed us to merge the ideas of civilization and freedom for the first time.

    Civilization to the ancients mainly meant living in cities and towns and practicing a high level of culture at the elite level. Nothing to do with freedom. Academics looking back added ideas like surplus production to back all that up, division of labour, increasingly complex hierarchies and institutions, and so forth.

    Hitherto, literary minded souls assumed that barbarism was a freer condition of life. Some carried this tradition into the 20th century (RE Howard, for one sterling example). Of course, that only applied if you were a physically strong male able to beat all comers, but for some it was a MUCH freer way of life for thousands of years. I expect it varied widely by circumstance. One could be a slave or a conscript in republican Rome, or a beggar for that matter. But for a few generations here and there civilization sometimes meant that men could be free from the need to bulk up and march only to get stabbed in the gut by another man’s spear, so to speak. And possibly even live free from all that much state interference- we’re not talking about societies whose governments necessarily demanded all that much on a day to day basis. Out on the steppes one could avoid even these impositions, but the demands were higher. And chances are there was some elder or chief still demanding obedience, and hoary customs and taboos whose disobedience could get you killed.

    Arguably, not only what we consider civilization but what we consider freedom was impossible and inconceivable prior to modernity. Even the Greeks and the Romans had a pretty different set of assumptions than those of modern Americans, or the Founders, or even your average wandering Saxon.

    Sorry to ramble. I was reminded of the age old debate about how could the Romans be civilized when they killed more people than the Huns, etc. Civilization wasn’t defined by pacifism any more than by liberty.

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    @random observer

    "Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated,"

    Fair point. On the one hand, I sometimes think of these archaic civilizations as barbarous creations, which literally they were. On the other hand, it is true that the West did a lot (not all) of its "primitive accumulation" (if I may borrow a term from Marx) by preying on these various archaic civilzations around the world: India, China, Peru, Mexico. And since the capital upon which Western civilization rests is itself "the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest," we must admit that it was a process that took place in all four quarters of the globe. In that sense, we may owe them something.

    I would like Western civilization to eventually become a world civilization, but it looks like that if it happens is going to be a very slow process that will take centuries. HBD is a big part of the obstacle as we are learning to our chagrin.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @Romanian, @SFG

  68. @countenance
    Here's a big error with Quigley's mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn't hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.

    What has happened is that the social power of communities and quasi-governmental private institutions other than corporations have been seriously weakened.

    That was all that was necessary for the power of the corporate-government colossus to increase.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D, @rod1963, @TB2

    Here’s a big error with Quigley’s mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn’t hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.

    I don’t see how Quigley’s statement contradicts this, in fact he says precisely that:

    And if the liberals destroy communities for the sake of the individual, and the conservatives destroy the government for the sake of individuals, you’re going to have an area of political action in which irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless.”

  69. @Jack D
    @ben tillman

    Perhaps libertarians (a word not in common usage when Quigley wrote) want less government. Conservatives and liberals both favor big government and regulation - they just want the government to do different things. Conservatives want the government to have a big military and to forbid things that they don't like, such as abortion. Look at "revealed preference" - the size of government in the US has been growing steadily since the '30s. It grows when Democrats are in power and it grows when Republicans are in power.

    Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist, @dsgntd_plyr

    George W. Bush had the decency to tell us he is a big government Conservative way back in 2000 (“Compassionate Conservatism”). So he’s got that going for him.

  70. @countenance
    Here's a big error with Quigley's mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn't hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.

    What has happened is that the social power of communities and quasi-governmental private institutions other than corporations have been seriously weakened.

    That was all that was necessary for the power of the corporate-government colossus to increase.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D, @rod1963, @TB2

    Wow, so you mean that when liberalism triumphed in America, not only did the power of government increase but the power of self-organized communities shrank even more and big corporations and media rushed in to occupy the newly vacant power space? Who could have imagined that would happen?

  71. @Jack D
    @countenance

    Right. All his obituaries in the Zionist newspapers say that he died in the hospital after a heart attack but THEY would want you to think that. We all know how easy it is for the Elders of Zion/CIA (the same thing really) to make it look as if you have had a heart attack. [Removes tinfoil hat.]

    Replies: @countenance, @Chuck

    The truth is what the New York Times reports. Everything else are libelous canards.

  72. @countenance
    Here's a big error with Quigley's mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn't hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.

    What has happened is that the social power of communities and quasi-governmental private institutions other than corporations have been seriously weakened.

    That was all that was necessary for the power of the corporate-government colossus to increase.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D, @rod1963, @TB2

    Of course they work hand in hand. Corporations have expended large sums of money to gain control of politicians. And it’s natural that corporations would do quite well under this rigged system.

    Just look at Opensecrets.org to see who’s been bought by who.

    But it took them a long time to get to this point. First they eradicated the ethnic identities of white Americans, their sense of community, ruined the family. That makes the people fragmented and malleable. A hundred years all told.

    The Black family and society was ruined by the Great Society program which looks to be designed from the get go to be anti-family. Then came the twin scourges of crack and rap to further poison what remained of black society. I find quite odd that Rap was promoted by a certain group of whites in the record industry.

    Then factor in the trade agreements that wiped out the working and middle-class and devastated small towns and cities across the country. Oh yeah middle-class that segment of society that is going extinct.

    But for the corporations, things couldn’t be better, plus we’re producing more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. And that’s what matters.

  73. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @jack o'fire

    This will be an increasing trend imo.

    Northwest Europeans developed a way of co-operating on a large scale but at the cost of losing their ability to compete at the clannish scale – hence why their countries used to be so good (compared to most places).

    Most other places are the opposite. They are good at the clannish scale but as a side effect they co-operate badly at a larger scale – hence why their countries suck.

    If the two patterns are combined the clannish sub population(s) will pick a niche and very rapidly come to dominate that niche as they co-operate as extended families (clans) versus people competing as individuals or nuclear families. However too much / too many and the originally NW Euro type countries will simply collapse to the standard pattern (except with hundreds of different ethnic groups per region / country).

    When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won’t.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    @anon

    "When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won’t.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)"

    I've had this thought for a long time, since I started reading Sailer. I've brought up this point a number of times in different threads, but it never seems to inspire much debate.

    You know... I go long, long stretches of time without thinking of Jews. There was another version of this country where they did very well at a number of things like business, entertainment, the sciences, and it wasn't a secret or anything.

    My biggest reaction would have been to grunt, and think "Good for them, whatever." and forget about them for another long stretch of time.

    But now, I really wonder how smart Jews are sometimes. Playing it my head I don't think the changes that are coming to this country are going to be beneficial to them. Very much the opposite in fact.

    Dunno, maybe I'm wrong and Jewish Central Command in Jerusalem knows exactly what it is doing. I kind of doubt it though, for a number of reasons to include Jewish Central Command existing.

    I think it's more a case of they've actually come to believe the BS. Maybe they always did.

    Replies: @anon

    , @map
    @anon

    European societies are wealthy and powerful because their institutions enable high trust among nuclear families. Thus, levels of cooperation are high.

    However, clannish subgroups can undermine high trust societies by conning those naive enough to trust them.

    Replies: @anon

  74. @random observer
    @Luke Lea

    Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated, which so vastly exceeds that possible to pre-industrial peoples. Among other things, it allowed us to merge the ideas of civilization and freedom for the first time.

    Civilization to the ancients mainly meant living in cities and towns and practicing a high level of culture at the elite level. Nothing to do with freedom. Academics looking back added ideas like surplus production to back all that up, division of labour, increasingly complex hierarchies and institutions, and so forth.

    Hitherto, literary minded souls assumed that barbarism was a freer condition of life. Some carried this tradition into the 20th century (RE Howard, for one sterling example). Of course, that only applied if you were a physically strong male able to beat all comers, but for some it was a MUCH freer way of life for thousands of years. I expect it varied widely by circumstance. One could be a slave or a conscript in republican Rome, or a beggar for that matter. But for a few generations here and there civilization sometimes meant that men could be free from the need to bulk up and march only to get stabbed in the gut by another man's spear, so to speak. And possibly even live free from all that much state interference- we're not talking about societies whose governments necessarily demanded all that much on a day to day basis. Out on the steppes one could avoid even these impositions, but the demands were higher. And chances are there was some elder or chief still demanding obedience, and hoary customs and taboos whose disobedience could get you killed.

    Arguably, not only what we consider civilization but what we consider freedom was impossible and inconceivable prior to modernity. Even the Greeks and the Romans had a pretty different set of assumptions than those of modern Americans, or the Founders, or even your average wandering Saxon.

    Sorry to ramble. I was reminded of the age old debate about how could the Romans be civilized when they killed more people than the Huns, etc. Civilization wasn't defined by pacifism any more than by liberty.

    Replies: @Luke Lea

    “Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated,”

    Fair point. On the one hand, I sometimes think of these archaic civilizations as barbarous creations, which literally they were. On the other hand, it is true that the West did a lot (not all) of its “primitive accumulation” (if I may borrow a term from Marx) by preying on these various archaic civilzations around the world: India, China, Peru, Mexico. And since the capital upon which Western civilization rests is itself “the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest,” we must admit that it was a process that took place in all four quarters of the globe. In that sense, we may owe them something.

    I would like Western civilization to eventually become a world civilization, but it looks like that if it happens is going to be a very slow process that will take centuries. HBD is a big part of the obstacle as we are learning to our chagrin.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    @Luke Lea

    This is not true, for example Bruges had enormous wealth in the 1200s, a period of tremendous Western isolation from the rest of the world and Muslim dominance of the Med. Just look at all the fantastic and hideously expensive cathedrals built in the place at the time. Western wealth was built on first, textiles particularly wool, along with the moldboard plow allowing much more intensive agriculture in the thick sod of North West Europe. Then came manufacturing, first with water and wind power, then steam. A place like the Low Countries was far more wealthy and able to fight off the Spanish domination through their wealth, from native industries and trade compared to all that Spanish silver and gold mined in Mexico and Peru.

    As for what happened in the West, it is self-evidently a group of inter-married people of Utopian Culture seizing power in inter-mixed Corporations, Government, Media, NGOs, etc. all essentially the same thing: ATT is the US Government is the Ford Foundation is PBS is ABC/Disney is Goldman Sachs.

    BUT ... tremendous power has been given to various self-organized communities: Muslims demand and get the Empire State Building lit up in Green for Eid, various groveling before Muslims after the latest terror attack by them. Blacks dominate completely whenever and wherever they encounter Whites, Asians, even Hispanics. Government and Media and Corporations bend over backwards for them: Amazon pulled the Confederate Flag as did Ebay, Stone Mountain is going to be demolished by the State of Georgia, Democrats junked Jefferson and Jackson from celebratory dinners, and the demolishing of Washington and Jefferson from Mount Rushmore and the demolishing of their Washington DC monuments is next. As is changing Washington to "Black City" or something.

    In any encounter between Bill Gates and say, Tehnsi Coates, Coates has the most social power and dominance. The vacuum created by the elite, intermarried governing class destruction of old (White) social orders has created powerful non-White and hostile to Whites identity groups: gays, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics who pretty much get whatever they want.

    How long this can go on is an open question. Probably not very long -- it seems a temporary condition based on real but declining White demographic superiority. As soon as Whites are near minority my guess is White Identity politics will come back with a vengeance. Trump is merely the stormy petrel of that movement.

    Replies: @anowow

    , @Romanian
    @Luke Lea

    Those are good points, but I also appreciated Ulick Varange's ideas in Imperium, that every civilization is distinct and its borrowings from another are not taken in the spirit that they were held in there, but turned into something completely new. He distinguished Western Civ from the Classical Civ which included the Romans and the Greeks. He said that Napoleon only called himself First Consul because the term Caliph was too alien to resonate in the historical sense, but he was not a Consul in the Roman sense, he was something new that used the Western Civ's historical sense. He also stated that Western Civilization's greatest achievements were not just its embrace of technology and science, but also its obsession with history and its understanding... and polyphonic music. I had never thought about the history bit before, but it strikes me as being true. It has always been Westerners digging up long forgotten sites and deciphering dead languages.

    Anyway, got sidetracked by another book, so I haven't finished Imperium yet. Hope I won't end up with National Socialist leanings ;)

    Replies: @SFG

    , @SFG
    @Luke Lea

    Of course, they would have done the same to us if they'd had the chance. Islam tried pretty hard, but Byzantium kept them bottled up for a while.

  75. @Sean
    Astoundingly prescient, but Quigley was always brilliant.

    Quigley's book the Anglo American Establishment was spot on too. Chamberlain initially only gave a guarantee of Poland's independence (he was trying to allow Hitler to get a bit of Poland ceded to Germany so Germany would have a border with the Siviet Union. Hitler and Stalin could do all the fighting). But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin's masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's territory.

    Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany.

    Stalin understood in making a non aggression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west. Stalin, like everyone else underestimated Hitler and the German army. Few people expected Germany to win decisively against France and Britain. It's only because things didn't go as expected that Stalin was left looking naive.

    Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux, @5371

    “But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory.”

    No, Chamberlain guaranteed Poland on 3/31/39. The Nazi-Soviet Pact came on 8/23/39.

    • Replies: @Sean
    @Steve Sailer

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf

    Page 396 for the guarantee being worded to cover Poland's independence not territorial integrity, and Chamberlain explicitly confirming and accepting the interpretation that it was a guarantee of independence during a debate in Parliament.

    Page 300 "Only after the German- Soviet Nonaggression Pact of August 21 1939 did Halifax [the British foreign minister] implement the unilateral guarantee with a more formal mutual assistance pact between Britain and Poland."

    , @WhatEvvs
    @Steve Sailer

    One of Quigley's assertions is that Britain, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia & the US were cozy and altogether in making the world safe for capitalism. See the stuff he wrote on Montagu Norman. This is very shocking to me; I cannot understand it but from what I've read of Quigley, he was deeply learned and wrote from vast stores of knowledge and perception so I must accept it provisionally before making a judgement as to its validity.

    I got the above from reading excerpts and I would have to read the entire book to understand the context. That will take awhile as it is longer than Stanley Dunham's thesis on peasant blacksmithing in medieval Indonesia.

  76. irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless

    Except that there are many natural limits on the power of corporations. They spend a great deal of their resources begging the “socially naked and defenseless” to patronize them. They are subject to the whims of customers, competition, and technological changes. 50 years ago, people worried about how GM and IBM and US Steel would become too powerful. How’d that work out?

    Corporations can become too powerful, but it’s nearly always when they are in league with government(s) (i.e. crony capitalism): e.g. United Fruit in Latin America, the old AT&T monopoly, the health insurance companies under Obamacare.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @PapayaSF

    "Corporations can become too powerful, but it’s nearly always when they are in league with government(s) (i.e. crony capitalism): e.g. United Fruit in Latin America, the old AT&T monopoly, the health insurance companies under Obamacare."

    Precisely so.

  77. @JerseyGuy
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-cities-americans-are-ditching

    Steve,
    Interesting article on domestic migration. Basically, Americans are following the Sailer Strategy after spending a few years after college in the "Yglesias-Glaeser" model utopias by moving to places that you can actually afford to raise a family.

    Here is a very interest quote from the article:

    "Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S.

    So what's going on here? Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said. (Everyone knows how unaffordable the Manhattan area has become.)

    And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls "creative housing arrangements" in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It's an arrangement that most Americans just aren't willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it's not for them as time goes by, he said. "

    So basically Americans have freely decided not to live four families in one apartment. In response, our elites have decided that improving living standards is not a good thing. Therefore, we need to fill vacant low-skilled jobs by packing six to eight individuals or into apartments. People will look you straight in the eye and tell you that this is a good thing.

    By the way, El Paso has the highest percentage of domestic out-migration. So I guess mass-Mexican migration has not created a thriving tech scene there...

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @anon

    “And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls “creative housing arrangements” in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It’s an arrangement that most Americans just aren’t willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it’s not for them as time goes by, he said.”

    Same in London:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/david-willetts-the-pinch-uk-cabinet-ministers-discreet-but-devastating-dissent-on-immigrati

    It’s tied into the “absolute nuclear family” system that emerged among Anglo-Saxons about 1,000 years ago. They don’t like living with cousin Aram and his uncle-in-law.

  78. @Luke Lea
    @random observer

    "Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated,"

    Fair point. On the one hand, I sometimes think of these archaic civilizations as barbarous creations, which literally they were. On the other hand, it is true that the West did a lot (not all) of its "primitive accumulation" (if I may borrow a term from Marx) by preying on these various archaic civilzations around the world: India, China, Peru, Mexico. And since the capital upon which Western civilization rests is itself "the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest," we must admit that it was a process that took place in all four quarters of the globe. In that sense, we may owe them something.

    I would like Western civilization to eventually become a world civilization, but it looks like that if it happens is going to be a very slow process that will take centuries. HBD is a big part of the obstacle as we are learning to our chagrin.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @Romanian, @SFG

    This is not true, for example Bruges had enormous wealth in the 1200s, a period of tremendous Western isolation from the rest of the world and Muslim dominance of the Med. Just look at all the fantastic and hideously expensive cathedrals built in the place at the time. Western wealth was built on first, textiles particularly wool, along with the moldboard plow allowing much more intensive agriculture in the thick sod of North West Europe. Then came manufacturing, first with water and wind power, then steam. A place like the Low Countries was far more wealthy and able to fight off the Spanish domination through their wealth, from native industries and trade compared to all that Spanish silver and gold mined in Mexico and Peru.

    As for what happened in the West, it is self-evidently a group of inter-married people of Utopian Culture seizing power in inter-mixed Corporations, Government, Media, NGOs, etc. all essentially the same thing: ATT is the US Government is the Ford Foundation is PBS is ABC/Disney is Goldman Sachs.

    BUT … tremendous power has been given to various self-organized communities: Muslims demand and get the Empire State Building lit up in Green for Eid, various groveling before Muslims after the latest terror attack by them. Blacks dominate completely whenever and wherever they encounter Whites, Asians, even Hispanics. Government and Media and Corporations bend over backwards for them: Amazon pulled the Confederate Flag as did Ebay, Stone Mountain is going to be demolished by the State of Georgia, Democrats junked Jefferson and Jackson from celebratory dinners, and the demolishing of Washington and Jefferson from Mount Rushmore and the demolishing of their Washington DC monuments is next. As is changing Washington to “Black City” or something.

    In any encounter between Bill Gates and say, Tehnsi Coates, Coates has the most social power and dominance. The vacuum created by the elite, intermarried governing class destruction of old (White) social orders has created powerful non-White and hostile to Whites identity groups: gays, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics who pretty much get whatever they want.

    How long this can go on is an open question. Probably not very long — it seems a temporary condition based on real but declining White demographic superiority. As soon as Whites are near minority my guess is White Identity politics will come back with a vengeance. Trump is merely the stormy petrel of that movement.

    • Replies: @anowow
    @Whiskey

    @whiskey
    "In any encounter between Bill Gates and say, Tehnsi Coates, Coates has the most social power and dominance. "

    You really do see Gates, Bloomberg et al as tragic victims. Your myopic focus on race and the sexual politics of race, causes you, like many other whites, to give way too much agency and power to the Coates of the world.

    All it takes is for people to start calling them out, and surviving socially and financially, and the game is up. But the point is, Gates et al don't want the game to be up. Their Yankee forebears were playing this same game of favoring their black clients against Southerners and ethnics back when Coates et al's great-grandfathers were down in Carolina doin' whatever it is was they did.

    And lets not even mention the tribe's role in this. No, whiskey won't go there, will ya bubala.

  79. @WhatEvvs
    Interesting guy. He singles out Rhodes & Milner at the helm of the international corporatist movement - both were what we would call nowadays gay.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @5371

    Was Milner?

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @Steve Sailer

    Married, but his title died with him because he died "without issue."

    YMMV, but this always screams "beard" to me.

    Then again, he married his wife after a secret affair, which indicates the real deal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Milner,_Viscountess_Milner

    Replies: @5371

    , @Tim Howells
    @Steve Sailer

    No, Milner was not gay. He ultimately married, and before that he had several known affairs. The woman he married was Violet Cecil (nee Maxse) who was a great beauty. They had a long-standing affair starting when he was High Commissioner of South Africa.

  80. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @WhatEvvs

    Was Milner?

    Replies: @WhatEvvs, @Tim Howells

    Married, but his title died with him because he died “without issue.”

    YMMV, but this always screams “beard” to me.

    Then again, he married his wife after a secret affair, which indicates the real deal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Milner,_Viscountess_Milner

    • Replies: @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    Read Pakenham's "Boer War" before writing such silly stuff.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

  81. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:

    What happens when everything is reduced to radical individualism? Seems to me that it always ends up with a BRL birth rate. How is that good for capitalism?

  82. @anon
    @jack o'fire

    This will be an increasing trend imo.


    Northwest Europeans developed a way of co-operating on a large scale but at the cost of losing their ability to compete at the clannish scale - hence why their countries used to be so good (compared to most places).

    Most other places are the opposite. They are good at the clannish scale but as a side effect they co-operate badly at a larger scale - hence why their countries suck.

    If the two patterns are combined the clannish sub population(s) will pick a niche and very rapidly come to dominate that niche as they co-operate as extended families (clans) versus people competing as individuals or nuclear families. However too much / too many and the originally NW Euro type countries will simply collapse to the standard pattern (except with hundreds of different ethnic groups per region / country).

    When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won't.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)

    Replies: @Sunbeam, @map

    “When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won’t.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)”

    I’ve had this thought for a long time, since I started reading Sailer. I’ve brought up this point a number of times in different threads, but it never seems to inspire much debate.

    You know… I go long, long stretches of time without thinking of Jews. There was another version of this country where they did very well at a number of things like business, entertainment, the sciences, and it wasn’t a secret or anything.

    My biggest reaction would have been to grunt, and think “Good for them, whatever.” and forget about them for another long stretch of time.

    But now, I really wonder how smart Jews are sometimes. Playing it my head I don’t think the changes that are coming to this country are going to be beneficial to them. Very much the opposite in fact.

    Dunno, maybe I’m wrong and Jewish Central Command in Jerusalem knows exactly what it is doing. I kind of doubt it though, for a number of reasons to include Jewish Central Command existing.

    I think it’s more a case of they’ve actually come to believe the BS. Maybe they always did.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Sunbeam

    I don't think people are rational. I think they are biological robots motivated by whatever set and strength of hormones they have and they simply rationalize what their hormones want. Hence dummies are

    short-term benefit > medium-term disbenefit

    and smart people are simply up one notch to

    medium-term benefit > long-term disbenefit

    imo.

  83. @syonredux
    @ben tillman


    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960′s.
     
    I dunno; Black Americans seem to have a lot more Asabiyya than Whites do....

    Replies: @Hacienda, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Jay

    Blacks have Asabiyya???

    Really???

    Ask yourself who bankrolls many of these AA and for that matter Latino astroturfed identity and “civil rights” organizations.

    For a hint:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/06/jews-and-the-civil-rights-movement/

    I will admit that to a degree upper middle class blacks(ie the far right segment of the Black bell curve) at one time had some control over the direction of their community and were sincerely attempting steer it towards White(European) social norms. But those days are long over.

    Face it. 60’s and 70’s aspirational Motown is long dead and gone, dysfunctional, degenerate “Hip Hop” now rules!!!

    And it is hard to think of anything more corrosive to build functioning black communities than the “Hip Hop” world view.

    And just as with the pornography industry what people played a vastly disproportionate role in the pushing “Hip Hop” towards mass acceptance and empathizing its worse elements???

    To the degree that Blacks and for that matter Latinos have ” Asabiyya”, it is because TWMNBN have spent billions and billions convincing that they are better off “Voting for a Living” than “Working for a Living”.

    Other than that. by all other indicators, intact married families and functioning neighborhoods for instance. their communities are in free fall.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @anonymous-antimarxist


    Blacks have Asabiyya???

    Really???
     
    Defined as hating the White Man and all his works, yes.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    anonymous-antimarxist said,"I will admit that to a degree upper middle class blacks(ie the far right segment of the Black bell curve) at one time had some control over the direction of their community and were sincerely attempting steer it towards White(European) social norms. But those days are long over. "

    Right. The "good' blacks kept the "bad" blacks in line because in the days of segregated housing they all lived in the same neighborhood. That all went away in the 70s and 80s and the "good" blacks got the hell out as fast as they could. See Prince Georges County Maryland for example.

  84. @syonredux
    @ben tillman


    There is no Black community. The Left destroyed it with the Great Society and anti-discrimination laws of the 1960′s.
     
    I dunno; Black Americans seem to have a lot more Asabiyya than Whites do....

    Replies: @Hacienda, @anonymous-antimarxist, @Jay

    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Jay


    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.
     
    They don't need it.Their community is organized around taking stuff from White People

    Replies: @Chuck

  85. @Tim Howells
    @Jack D

    And yet there Germany is again at the head of the pack in Europe (by far) and making very significant deals with a stubbornly traditionalist and Christian Russia that would bind the resources of Eurasia with the industrial and technical powerhouse of Germany.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gazprom-signs-preliminary-deal-to-expand-gas-pipeline-to-germany-1434648924

    If this happens (and it looks inevitable), the landscape you describe could change very quickly.

    From a post here at Unz by Mike Whitney quoting George Friedman, the head of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor:


    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
     
    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/washingtons-war-on-russia/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc

    The celebrations of Germany's enemies may prove premature.

    Replies: @Jack D, @syonredux, @SFG

    Yes, the Russian Bear and the German Eagle will join forces to humiliate the Anglo-Saxon powers. Have you been watching too much RT? Speaking of premature celebrations, I think it is a little premature to plan the VUSA parade just yet.

    It’s even premature to talk about that unbuilt pipeline which may never get built. The Germans are increasingly relying on renewable power, not Russian gas. Merkel grew up in the East and knows the “benefits” of hitching your economy to Russia’s. East Germany tried that for 40 years and their combined resources produced such wonders as the Trabant and the Berlin Wall. I’m sure she is as eager as Putin for a rerun. Read the linked article – South Stream has already been cancelled and I wouldn’t bet the farm that this one will be built either. And even if it is, this does not exactly signal a new Hitler-Stalin Pact.

  86. @Steve Sailer
    @Sean

    "But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory."

    No, Chamberlain guaranteed Poland on 3/31/39. The Nazi-Soviet Pact came on 8/23/39.

    Replies: @Sean, @WhatEvvs

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf

    Page 396 for the guarantee being worded to cover Poland’s independence not territorial integrity, and Chamberlain explicitly confirming and accepting the interpretation that it was a guarantee of independence during a debate in Parliament.

    Page 300 “Only after the German- Soviet Nonaggression Pact of August 21 1939 did Halifax [the British foreign minister] implement the unilateral guarantee with a more formal mutual assistance pact between Britain and Poland.”

  87. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:

    This Quigley fellow is a real find.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The_Mythology_of_American_Democracy.htm

    Another basic point. Democracy is not the highest political value. Speeches about democracy and the democratic tradition might lead you to think this is the most perfect political system ever devised. That just isn’t true. There are other political values which are more important and urgent—security, for example. And I would suggest that political stability and political responsibility are also more important.

    Well, right now we have none of the above: no stability, no responsibility, and no respect for minority rights.

    • Replies: @Okie44
    @WhatEvvs

    He is a real find. Here's his advice to a troubled friend:

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Life.htm

  88. TB2 says:
    @countenance
    Here's a big error with Quigley's mindset, in light of the what has happened since his death (assassination).

    Government has gotten way bigger and way more intrusive, yet this hasn't hurt the power of corporations. In fact, corporate power has only increased.

    What has happened is that the social power of communities and quasi-governmental private institutions other than corporations have been seriously weakened.

    That was all that was necessary for the power of the corporate-government colossus to increase.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Jack D, @rod1963, @TB2

    That’s because the culturally dominant left is fixated on the task of destroying white America, and the corporations pose no threat to that central, all-consuming obsession, indeed they’ve been very neatly coerced into playing a major part in the pogrom, er, program. They’re feeding the crocodile though, once responsible whites are destroyed the parasites will demand the goose be slaughtered, a la Chavez, something we’re already seeing the beginning of with the internal conflicts within the left.

  89. Jay says:
    @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn't seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    "The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains."

    Boy, in the '30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that "past performance is no guaranty of future results". The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It's like dog breeding - all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can't create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded - there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @Jay, @SFG, @n/a, @n/a

    Just a quibble about what selection can achieve. On the time scale that we all care about, years-to-decades, your analogy to dog breeding holds well. The low IQ gene pool will not throw up many 130 IQ individuals who will be beneficial to America. Over millions of years, however, tree-climbing did evolve in canids: the Grey Fox, which is an impressive climber. If I were to try to select for tree climbing in dogs, I would start with Jack Russells. At least they would be game to try the vertical locomotory course that would determine which dogs would create the next generation.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    @Jay

    I once dated a girl with a Jack Russell that loved to climb trees. Once she asked me to go out in the back yard and get her dog to bring him back inside. I spent at least a couple of minutes wandering around the yard, looking at the ground, and not seeing him anywhere. Then I finally looked up and found him staring straight at me, exactly level with my head, standing on a tree branch.

  90. @Cagey Beast
    Here's an article on Carrol Quigley's relationship with his fans on the Alex Jones end of the spectrum:

    “Quigley . . . making Birchers bark”
    An article by Wes Christenson in Georgetown Today, Volume 4, Number 4 (March 1972), pp 12-13.
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/biography/Making-Birchers-Bark.htm

    Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist

    You are aware that Alex Jones himself is a Neocon backed “controlled opposition” operation???

    The whole “Truth-er” movement that Alex Jones nutures distracts otherwise rightfully worried, even paranoid, Americans from the role that TWMNBN backed Open Borders policies are destroying the country while making it increasing susceptible to terrorist attacks and leading the public towards greater acceptance of the erosion of our civil liberties. Instead they fret about Freemasons, Bilderbergers, The Illuminati, the Vatican, Black Helicopters… These folks end up voting for fringe parties , if they even vote, and in that way remove themselves from influencing the political debate at all.

    See here
    http://alexjonesexposed.info/alex-jones-and-emmis-communications/
    https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/tag/emmis-communications/

    Alex Jones is backed by ultra Zionist Jeff Smulyan of Emmis Communications(Emmis means “Truth” in Yiddish/Hebrew). Emmis operates “conservative”, actually rabidly Neocon, talk radio stations across the country including WIBC here in Indianapolis.

  91. @International Jew
    Did "Carroll" ever not sound like a girl's name?

    Replies: @HA, @Pat Gilligan, @Reg Cæsar

    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?

    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Pat Gilligan

    Carroll with two Ls is the surname of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and also of the first Catholic Bishop in the United States (Bishop of Baltimore.) Used as a given name, it goes well with such surnames as Quigley and O' Connor (aka "Archie Bunker.")

    , @anon
    @Pat Gilligan

    The issue it creates is not that of grade school bullying, but one of genuine confusion.

    , @ben tillman
    @Pat Gilligan


    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.
     
    Well, I got it, at least.

    Hibernian & anon:

    It was an allusion. Carroll O'Connor played Archie Bunker; Archie would tell his wife Edith to "stifle".

  92. @anonymous-antimarxist
    @syonredux

    Blacks have Asabiyya???

    Really???

    Ask yourself who bankrolls many of these AA and for that matter Latino astroturfed identity and "civil rights" organizations.

    For a hint:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/06/jews-and-the-civil-rights-movement/


    I will admit that to a degree upper middle class blacks(ie the far right segment of the Black bell curve) at one time had some control over the direction of their community and were sincerely attempting steer it towards White(European) social norms. But those days are long over.

    Face it. 60's and 70's aspirational Motown is long dead and gone, dysfunctional, degenerate "Hip Hop" now rules!!!

    And it is hard to think of anything more corrosive to build functioning black communities than the "Hip Hop" world view.

    And just as with the pornography industry what people played a vastly disproportionate role in the pushing "Hip Hop" towards mass acceptance and empathizing its worse elements???

    To the degree that Blacks and for that matter Latinos have " Asabiyya", it is because TWMNBN have spent billions and billions convincing that they are better off "Voting for a Living" than "Working for a Living".

    Other than that. by all other indicators, intact married families and functioning neighborhoods for instance. their communities are in free fall.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Jim Don Bob

    Blacks have Asabiyya???

    Really???

    Defined as hating the White Man and all his works, yes.

  93. @Jay
    @syonredux

    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.

    Replies: @syonredux

    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.

    They don’t need it.Their community is organized around taking stuff from White People

    • Replies: @Chuck
    @syonredux

    Blacks are organized? Good one.

  94. OT but it concerns liberals. The Democrat party in Connecticut is dropping the names Jefferson (Thomas) and Jackson ( Andrew) from the title of their annual fundraising dinner. The result of bowing to pressure from the NAACP, Jefferson for owning slaves and Jackson for his dealing with the Indians in the West. Obama is keeping the seat warm in this Clown-car until Hillary can climb aboard.

    • Replies: @carol
    @Buffalo Joe

    Bwahaha..so I wonder if there's any pressure on the GOP to drop its Lincoln-Reagan dinner moniker?

    Nah.

    , @Hibernian
    @Buffalo Joe

    Jackson was also a slaveholder.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Buffalo Joe

  95. @PapayaSF

    irresponsible, immensely powerful corporations are engaged in opposition to individuals who are socially naked and defenseless
     
    Except that there are many natural limits on the power of corporations. They spend a great deal of their resources begging the "socially naked and defenseless" to patronize them. They are subject to the whims of customers, competition, and technological changes. 50 years ago, people worried about how GM and IBM and US Steel would become too powerful. How'd that work out?

    Corporations can become too powerful, but it's nearly always when they are in league with government(s) (i.e. crony capitalism): e.g. United Fruit in Latin America, the old AT&T monopoly, the health insurance companies under Obamacare.

    Replies: @vinteuil

    “Corporations can become too powerful, but it’s nearly always when they are in league with government(s) (i.e. crony capitalism): e.g. United Fruit in Latin America, the old AT&T monopoly, the health insurance companies under Obamacare.”

    Precisely so.

  96. @AshTon
    @Tim Howells


    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.
     
    That doesn't quite ring true. Even elite groups can be carried along by, and sincerely believe, whatever the current ideologies are. In Sweden for instance, the people who are promoting immigration and multi-culturalism are not doing so as a devious plot against their own people. They are not sitting on a pile of cash screaming “mycket pengar!”, and using some alchemy to turn immigrants into money.

    No, they are ideological followers. They are going with the flow. They believe they are doing good. This is a story more about self-delusion, conformity, and and belief in doing good - or at least be seen to be doing good.

    The problem is that the characteristics which make a country pleasant to live in are often the same ones which make it easy to subvert and dissolve.

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    Hejsan! I’m writing this from Sweden, as it happens. Yes, I agree that for the average person here and even the average politician this comes back to ideology (brainwashing). But where did this ideology come from? In 1970 the established pattern was that the Conservatives (now called the Moderates) would push for more immigration because they wanted cheap labor, but the very dominant Social Democrats would shut them down, saying “Hey, we’re not here to save you money – we’re here to protect the Swedish worker!” That all changed, but why? Well, it tracks back to the usual suspects:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/the-jewish-origins-of-multiculturalism-in-sweden/

  97. @Tim Howells
    @Jack D

    And yet there Germany is again at the head of the pack in Europe (by far) and making very significant deals with a stubbornly traditionalist and Christian Russia that would bind the resources of Eurasia with the industrial and technical powerhouse of Germany.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gazprom-signs-preliminary-deal-to-expand-gas-pipeline-to-germany-1434648924

    If this happens (and it looks inevitable), the landscape you describe could change very quickly.

    From a post here at Unz by Mike Whitney quoting George Friedman, the head of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor:


    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
     
    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/washingtons-war-on-russia/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc

    The celebrations of Germany's enemies may prove premature.

    Replies: @Jack D, @syonredux, @SFG

    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)

    That quote makes no sense.The USA first fought Germany in 1917, that’s not even 100 years ago.The primary foreign power concerns for the USA from 1789-1815 were France and Britain.From 1815 on, the primary concern was managing the break-up of the Spanish Empire and her successor states.France became a renewed source of concern in the 1860s (Napoleon III’s move into Mexico), but that was quite temporary.

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    @syonredux

    Yes, Friedman's quote makes little sense, unless you view the USA as the direct successor to the British Empire. Mackinder's "World Island" paper goes back to 1904, which is 1.11 centuries ago, so under this assumption Friedman is technically in the clear. Mackinder was a confounder of the London School of Economics that was funded by the Fabian Society, which is a front group for the Cecil Rhodes secret society that Quigley talks about. Rhodes actually talked about moving the center of power of the Empire to the USA and explicitly said that he would be OK with that, if it brought us back into the fold. I think that the Friedman quote indicates that he really does view the USA this way.

    Replies: @syonredux

  98. @Ed
    @syonredux

    "The Moon Landings Couldn't Have Been Hoaxed" video argues that cameras that enabled that many minutes to be shot slow motion on video did not exist in 1969. I'm skeptical of the debunking argument.

    The Apollo missions (including the ones where people didn't land on the Moon) are still the only recorded instances in human history where people went beyond the Van Allen Belts and returned safely. Every mission did it, but no one has bothered sending people into deep space since 1973. Other than having lost the technology as the video points out, we are told that this is people there is really no reason to send people beyond the Van Allen Belts, and going to the Moon was a big propaganda production for the US with no other value that would make people want to return there. When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).

    Replies: @syonredux

    When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).

    Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @syonredux

    A Saturn V launch was a rather public event.

    , @Ed
    @syonredux

    "Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon"

    The point I was trying to make is at some point, we got the tech to shoot lots of video in slow motion, even if we didn't had it then (I'm still a bit lost as to why this would have been a deal breaker). NASA knowing how to shoot lots of video in slow motion in 1969 just means it could do this earlier than we thought.

    On the other hand, no one has been close to the Moon or past the van Allen belts since 1973. The Chinese are going to try. NASA said they couldn't do it when GW Bush asked them. The Russians never could do it. So the Apollo missions themselves are the only evidence that the Apollo missions were technologically feasible -even with today's tech. I actually am open to the argument that we had the capability in the late 1960s and then just lost it.

    I'm just increasingly skeptical that putting humans in deep space relatively safely (at least safe enough that your space organization has no qualms with showing them live on TV while they are there, instead of waiting to see if the mission was a success before announcing it, Soviet style) was something that humans ever really got close at being capable of doing.

    Replies: @syonredux

  99. @Hacienda
    @syonredux

    Black on black crime rates disprove greater Asabiyya.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Black on black crime rates disprove greater Asabiyya.

    On the other hand, as TN Coates demonstrates, what really angers Blacks is when Black Bodies are assaulted by non-Black bodies….

    • Replies: @anon
    @syonredux

    With or without media incitement and/or the hand of Soros?

    Seems to me a lot of what you are considering asab-wotsit is being constructed from the outside.

  100. @Sean
    Astoundingly prescient, but Quigley was always brilliant.

    Quigley's book the Anglo American Establishment was spot on too. Chamberlain initially only gave a guarantee of Poland's independence (he was trying to allow Hitler to get a bit of Poland ceded to Germany so Germany would have a border with the Siviet Union. Hitler and Stalin could do all the fighting). But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin's masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's territory.

    Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany.

    Stalin understood in making a non aggression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west. Stalin, like everyone else underestimated Hitler and the German army. Few people expected Germany to win decisively against France and Britain. It's only because things didn't go as expected that Stalin was left looking naive.

    Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux, @5371

    But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory.

    Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany.

    Stalin understood in making a non aggression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west.

    I’m sorry, this seems garbled.Are you arguing that Stalin “grabbed the Baltic states” before the Hitler-Stalin Pact?The Pact was signed in August of 1939.Stalin invaded the Baltic states after the Pact was signed.

  101. The government is the tool the liberals are using to undermine the community.

  102. Big problem with Quigley’s analysis is that it is so very much dated by what has been happening since his death.

    First of all , it’s “Liberals”, and lets face increasingly we really mean Cultural Marxists, who are destroying respect for Government by pushing things like Disparate Impact and AA in public sector hiring. It’s the Marxists who are dismantling the broadly supported Goo-Goo (“Good Government”) reforms, of the real Progressive Movement, that of the first four decades of the 20th century, that played a huge role in acceptance of a larger public sector.

    Second was it Conservatives or really ultra libertarians like Ayn Rand, who really wanted to undermine the public sector??? And lets be honest, Ayn Rand was a crackpot cultist completely outside of the American political tradition who had only contempt for the Individualism that had its roots in this country’s Anglo-Saxon Christian traditions and culture.

    In the last decade it seems to me that lots of true Conservatives, at least those on the Alternative Right are rapidly distancing themselves from the lunacy that is Randian Objectivism. Increasingly it is only the Neocons who still talk favorably of Ayn Rand and that seem to be based on both ethnocentric identity and a hostility to the historical American nation.

    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit. He openly mocks Randian simpletons like Ron and Rand Paul and Paul Ryan.

    Ramzpaul has a good interview up with Robert Stark on how he has turned his back on his youthful infatuation with Ayn Rand.

    http://www.ramzpaul.com/2015/07/ramzpaul-interview-with-robert-stark.html

    • Replies: @SFG
    @anonymous-antimarxist

    It's only liberals who are destroying respect for government? It's not liberals I hear every day claiming that government is too big, arguing against the Common Core, advocating for states' rights, claiming that government can't do anything right, fighting against Obamacare on the grounds it's government control of healthcare (which every other rich nation has), and so on.

    If anything I'd say the liberals pay lip service to government in theory even as they weaken it in practice with affirmative action hires.

    I agree Ayn Rand is silly and don't blame the alt-right for running away from her. But Rand Paul's conserva-libertarianism seems to be one of the more popular forms of conservatism among the kids today, with his attacks on drones and surveillance winning him lots of points with the kids who can't get behind a guy who spends time attacking gay people.

    It's a good point that liberal 'good government' actually works in places full of white people like Portland, Austin, Sweden, and Germany.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @anonymous-antimarxist


    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit.
     
    If you enjoy being pushed around by smug progressives, yes. If you'd just as soon keep unmarried couples from your B&B, not so much.

    Is it still legal for Mr Kersey to make that point publicly in Portland and Austin? Just try it in work pretty good*" Sweden, Germany, France, or elsewhere in the Anglosphere.

    *Where did you go to elementary school? "Work pretty good" indeed.

    Replies: @syonredux

  103. OT.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11758761/Failed-your-GCSEs-You-should-blame-your-genes.html

    “The researchers analysed genetic data from 12,500 twins to tease out what role genes were playing in educational success. They found that all exam results were highly heritable, demonstrating that genes explain a larger proportion of the differences between children, between 54 and 65 per cent. In contrast shared environmental factors such as home and school environment contributed between 14 and 21 per cent. The rest was made up by individual external influences such as diseases or friends. “

    This is all bog-standard stuff but I guess they just have to keep on keeping on, banging out the same message.

    “Report author Professor Robert Plomin said that children should be genetically screened at the age of four so that an individualised curriculum could be tailored to their needs.”

    I think that’s pretty unlikely (aka “realms of fantasy, Plomin“), but I guess it depends on the cost. I suppose some algorithm could suggest subjects and textbooks.

  104. I’ve got Quigley’s gigantic tome “tragedy and hope” staring at me from my bookshelf where it has resided lo these many years since I purchased it in a fit of goodreads enthusiasm…of course isteve is there first.

  105. @Jay
    @Jack D

    Just a quibble about what selection can achieve. On the time scale that we all care about, years-to-decades, your analogy to dog breeding holds well. The low IQ gene pool will not throw up many 130 IQ individuals who will be beneficial to America. Over millions of years, however, tree-climbing did evolve in canids: the Grey Fox, which is an impressive climber. If I were to try to select for tree climbing in dogs, I would start with Jack Russells. At least they would be game to try the vertical locomotory course that would determine which dogs would create the next generation.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank

    I once dated a girl with a Jack Russell that loved to climb trees. Once she asked me to go out in the back yard and get her dog to bring him back inside. I spent at least a couple of minutes wandering around the yard, looking at the ground, and not seeing him anywhere. Then I finally looked up and found him staring straight at me, exactly level with my head, standing on a tree branch.

  106. @WhatEvvs
    This Quigley fellow is a real find.

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Lectures/The_Mythology_of_American_Democracy.htm

    Another basic point. Democracy is not the highest political value. Speeches about democracy and the democratic tradition might lead you to think this is the most perfect political system ever devised. That just isn't true. There are other political values which are more important and urgent—security, for example. And I would suggest that political stability and political responsibility are also more important.
     
    Well, right now we have none of the above: no stability, no responsibility, and no respect for minority rights.

    Replies: @Okie44

    He is a real find. Here’s his advice to a troubled friend:

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Life.htm

  107. @vinteuil
    @AshTon

    "...the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation..."

    (1) When & (2) where did this reduction in state power and taxation of which you speak take place?

    Suggested answers: (1) never & (2) in your imagination.

    Replies: @Travis

    Vinteull , I had the same thought….what is he talking about….the power of the State has expanded tremendously under every President in my lifetime. Each president creates new agencies, new regulations under old laws while signing new laws to further increase government regulations and thus increase the power of government. The politicians have learned new and creative methods of extorting businesses to increase their wealth and power

    while corporate income taxes remain extraordinarily high in America. It seems the politicians use their power to reward certain industries with tax breaks, while they continue to keep corporate taxes high, continue to double tax corporate earnings earned outside our boarders and they continue to double tax corporate profits when they are paid out as dividends

    Corporations have become bigger partly due to politicians extorting them for jobs for their friends and family so that most democrats and republicans use their power to gain wealth via deals with the largest corporations. The states have so expanded regulations and tax collecting methods so that it is near impossible for small companies to succeed…large corporations have learned how to game the political process so that the increase regulations keep new companies from competing against them, as they have the regulators in their pocket…which is why the regulators eventually get jobs with the companies they once regulated.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    An example: Anti-trust used to be a big deal. Now it's a much smaller deal. A lot of mergers I read about sound just plain nuts to me on anti-competition grounds, but only a few get shot down. Heck, I'd have a lot more money if the Reagan Administration had allowed my firm's merger to go through in 1987.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Travis

    , @SFG
    @Travis

    Agree wholeheartedly. I have read this idea elsewhere and will not claim credit for it, but one thing about the USA is that because it is so bloody difficult to invade, accumulations of power can coalesce and become difficult to remove, whereas countries like France and Germany have had the old-boy network wiped away with revolutions and wars more frequently (though I doubt anyone living through any of the wars or revolutions would have been happy about that!)

  108. @WhatEvvs
    Interesting guy. He singles out Rhodes & Milner at the helm of the international corporatist movement - both were what we would call nowadays gay.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @5371

    Sheer nonsense for Milner, and no evidence that Rhodes ever had sex with a man.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @5371

    Always fun to see the extremes denial takes. Malcolm Forbes fathered five kids. And:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lygon,_7th_Earl_Beauchamp

    Lady Beauchamp always insisted that her husband was not a "bugler" - I'm not obliged to accept that pronouncement.

    http://tinyurl.com/pdou4o9

  109. @Sean
    Astoundingly prescient, but Quigley was always brilliant.

    Quigley's book the Anglo American Establishment was spot on too. Chamberlain initially only gave a guarantee of Poland's independence (he was trying to allow Hitler to get a bit of Poland ceded to Germany so Germany would have a border with the Siviet Union. Hitler and Stalin could do all the fighting). But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin's masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland's territory.

    Stalin had already grabbed the Baltic states plus parts of Finland and Rumania. The British were mobilizing against the USSR over the war with Finland even after declaring war with Germany.

    Stalin understood in making a non aggression pact with Hitler he was freeing him to attack France ect in the west. Stalin, like everyone else underestimated Hitler and the German army. Few people expected Germany to win decisively against France and Britain. It's only because things didn't go as expected that Stalin was left looking naive.

    Stalin wanted to sit the war between the capitalists out and reap the rewards. Neville Chamberlain wanted to see the fighting done by the Germans and Bolshies, we know he thought that because he said so to a meeting of important Tories.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @syonredux, @5371

    Some of this is right, but it was only in Chamberlain’s fantasies that he could still get the Poles to peacefully surrender Danzig and a corridor to the Germans after he had already given the Poles a guarantee. He hoped that the US would do what he no longer could and put pressure on them, but FDR refused to oblige.

  110. @WhatEvvs
    @Steve Sailer

    Married, but his title died with him because he died "without issue."

    YMMV, but this always screams "beard" to me.

    Then again, he married his wife after a secret affair, which indicates the real deal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Milner,_Viscountess_Milner

    Replies: @5371

    Read Pakenham’s “Boer War” before writing such silly stuff.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @5371

    Pakenham wrote a stodgy establishment history. The real deal:

    http://www.amazon.com/Closet-Queens-Century-British-Politicians/dp/1408704129


    Michael Bloch's publishers did well to get Matthew Parris to give his imprimatur to this book. It could easily have been a sleazy parade of salacious innuendo, but Bloch is a scrupulous historian who wrote an excellent biography of Jeremy Thorpe and has now looked at around 50 more politicians of the last century who led similarly double lives. This is a serious historical subject ... Bloch shows that there was a far more extensive network of covert homosexuality than has hitherto been recognised, and there is no longer any need for reticence in admitting it -- John Campbell Independent The tales of secret love affairs and repressed emotions of some of Britain's past and (slightly) present MPs are told with an aborbing and gossipy literary tone, shining a light on some fascinating characters ... The cunning required to avoid being caught ... seems to have played a significant role in the successful careers outlined in Closet Queens ... The book gives a fascinating insight into the political times in which these men operated, and also outlines the staggering battle gay people have had to wage in order to gain acceptance and equality ... As well as a high calibre work of modern political history, it serves as a timely reminder of the difficulties endured by gay people in the all-too-recent past -- Charlotte Henry Independent on Sunday

    A hugely entertaining book ... In my experience, homosexuals have a gift for seeing homosexuality everywhere, yet after reading Michael Bloch's survey I am retrospectively more persuaded ... Bloch juggles the skills of lock-picker, outrageous gossip and historian. The result is unflaggingly absorbing -- Nicholas Shakespeare Daily Telegraph

    Bloch is the ideal author of this survey of closeted politicians, having published an excellent biography of Jeremy Thorpe, a gay man destroyed by his risk-taking ... It would be easy for this sort of study to be sensationalist, but Bloch ... makes it clear when he is reporting rumour and doesn't whip up scandal from thin air -- Patrick Kidd The Times

    Michael Bloch has written an entertaining account of the sex lives of some of Britain's most prominent and colourful politicians. What is surprising is that there were rather more secretly gay MPs than anyone imagined -- Chris Mullin Observer

     

    All this has been obvious for many years, open secrets. And it all fits in with what Quigley is trying to elucidate: that corporate capitalism is destroying native culture, good and bad. English culture is very anti-homosexual. The first buggery laws date back to the 16th century. The latter-day tolerance is entirely a function of top-down force, as it is in the US.

    Replies: @5371

  111. @Travis
    @vinteuil

    Vinteull , I had the same thought....what is he talking about....the power of the State has expanded tremendously under every President in my lifetime. Each president creates new agencies, new regulations under old laws while signing new laws to further increase government regulations and thus increase the power of government. The politicians have learned new and creative methods of extorting businesses to increase their wealth and power

    while corporate income taxes remain extraordinarily high in America. It seems the politicians use their power to reward certain industries with tax breaks, while they continue to keep corporate taxes high, continue to double tax corporate earnings earned outside our boarders and they continue to double tax corporate profits when they are paid out as dividends

    Corporations have become bigger partly due to politicians extorting them for jobs for their friends and family so that most democrats and republicans use their power to gain wealth via deals with the largest corporations. The states have so expanded regulations and tax collecting methods so that it is near impossible for small companies to succeed...large corporations have learned how to game the political process so that the increase regulations keep new companies from competing against them, as they have the regulators in their pocket...which is why the regulators eventually get jobs with the companies they once regulated.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @SFG

    An example: Anti-trust used to be a big deal. Now it’s a much smaller deal. A lot of mergers I read about sound just plain nuts to me on anti-competition grounds, but only a few get shot down. Heck, I’d have a lot more money if the Reagan Administration had allowed my firm’s merger to go through in 1987.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    @Steve Sailer

    Hmmm...so anti-trust became a smaller & smaller deal at the very same time that the government got bigger & bigger...

    How strange. How puzzling. I mean, it's almost inconceivable!

    'Cause the government & the corporations are naturally at odds with one another - aren't they?

    , @Travis
    @Steve Sailer

    very true, I was going to mention how the government stopped using the anti-trust laws to stop mergers in the 90s and the Supreme Court prohibited States from enforcing anti-trust laws in the 80s...meanwhile the Supreme Court struck down some state measures which made it easier for hostile take-overs...

    The number of public companies peaked in 1996 at around 9,000 and today we have less than 5,000 publicly traded corporations, partly caused by less anti-trust enforcement and due to excess regulations put in place after the dot.com collapse. Sarbanes oxley regulations have curtailed firms from going public and the IPO markets have never recovered, which is why the investment Banks looked to other sources of income and became giant hedge funds, speculating in derivatives and bond trading to maintain their incomes.

    for example , back in the 90s Goldman Sachs employed less than 20,000 people and earned most of their money acting as an investment bank, advising firms and taking firms public, but by 2007 they earned less than 30% of their income via typical investment banking , earning most of their profits via speculating in the bond markets and partnering with private equity firms to take firms like Burger King private. In 1986 Goldman had 126 million invested in Private companies with private equity partners, by 2005 they had 12 Billion invested in private equity, generating 30% of their profits, equal to their money earned from investment banking, with another 30% earned thru Bond trading. Very different from the 80s and 90s

    in the 1990s Wall Street brought an average of 400 firms public each year, peaking in 1996 with 675 IPOs. Since Sarbanes Oxley was passed we have averaged less than 100 IPOs per year. The destruction of the IPO market is another cause of the Financial collapse of 2008 , since many small companies found it more attractive to borrow money to grow instead of going public. The investment banks were forced to take on more risk, and were forced to earn money thru lending to capital instead of raising capital, and speculating instead of advising.

    I worked at Goldman from 1998 to 2014 , so observed the rise of speculation after we went public in 1999 and especially after Sarbanes Oxley. Once it became Public, the partners had less skin in the game, taking risk became less risky for them.

  112. @syonredux
    @Ed


    When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).
     
    Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Ed

    A Saturn V launch was a rather public event.

  113. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    An example: Anti-trust used to be a big deal. Now it's a much smaller deal. A lot of mergers I read about sound just plain nuts to me on anti-competition grounds, but only a few get shot down. Heck, I'd have a lot more money if the Reagan Administration had allowed my firm's merger to go through in 1987.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Travis

    Hmmm…so anti-trust became a smaller & smaller deal at the very same time that the government got bigger & bigger…

    How strange. How puzzling. I mean, it’s almost inconceivable!

    ‘Cause the government & the corporations are naturally at odds with one another – aren’t they?

  114. @Buffalo Joe
    OT but it concerns liberals. The Democrat party in Connecticut is dropping the names Jefferson (Thomas) and Jackson ( Andrew) from the title of their annual fundraising dinner. The result of bowing to pressure from the NAACP, Jefferson for owning slaves and Jackson for his dealing with the Indians in the West. Obama is keeping the seat warm in this Clown-car until Hillary can climb aboard.

    Replies: @carol, @Hibernian

    Bwahaha..so I wonder if there’s any pressure on the GOP to drop its Lincoln-Reagan dinner moniker?

    Nah.

  115. @Luke Lea
    @random observer

    "Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated,"

    Fair point. On the one hand, I sometimes think of these archaic civilizations as barbarous creations, which literally they were. On the other hand, it is true that the West did a lot (not all) of its "primitive accumulation" (if I may borrow a term from Marx) by preying on these various archaic civilzations around the world: India, China, Peru, Mexico. And since the capital upon which Western civilization rests is itself "the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest," we must admit that it was a process that took place in all four quarters of the globe. In that sense, we may owe them something.

    I would like Western civilization to eventually become a world civilization, but it looks like that if it happens is going to be a very slow process that will take centuries. HBD is a big part of the obstacle as we are learning to our chagrin.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @Romanian, @SFG

    Those are good points, but I also appreciated Ulick Varange’s ideas in Imperium, that every civilization is distinct and its borrowings from another are not taken in the spirit that they were held in there, but turned into something completely new. He distinguished Western Civ from the Classical Civ which included the Romans and the Greeks. He said that Napoleon only called himself First Consul because the term Caliph was too alien to resonate in the historical sense, but he was not a Consul in the Roman sense, he was something new that used the Western Civ’s historical sense. He also stated that Western Civilization’s greatest achievements were not just its embrace of technology and science, but also its obsession with history and its understanding… and polyphonic music. I had never thought about the history bit before, but it strikes me as being true. It has always been Westerners digging up long forgotten sites and deciphering dead languages.

    Anyway, got sidetracked by another book, so I haven’t finished Imperium yet. Hope I won’t end up with National Socialist leanings 😉

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Romanian

    Of course, that's because a lot of our history was forgotten and dead after the Middle Ages. The Chinese enjoyed going back over their thousands of years of history until Mao or so. Now they're mostly into money.

    As for becoming a Nazi...whatever. Read everyone you can. It is true that you have to accept a proposition as true before you can evaluate it, so there is the risk of slow ideological corruption, but you can always read your favorites to immunize yourself. And always consider the possibility that everything you know is wrong.

    I think it was Lewis who said you should read old and new books, because the old ones treat certain questions the new ones totally ignore, and vice versa. Read everything you have time for. At a minimum, try to read a right-wing and a left-wing news source every day.

    Replies: @Romanian

  116. @AshTon
    I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities - the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities - the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @ben tillman, @Jason, @vinteuil, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    I really want to do a parody of Allen Ginsberg’s ‘Please Master’ with that theme now, but then you’d all have to read it to get the joke, and I don’t want to do that to any of you.

    (Some idiot high school teacher (!) read that to his kids and was mercifully cashiered. I really, really don’t recommend you Google it unless you have a strong stomach…though Albertosaurus might dig it if he’s still around.)

  117. @Tim Howells
    @AshTon

    Our elites promote groups they do not remotely view as a threat, and they undermine groups that scare the crap out of them.

    From the classic "Social Control, A Survey of the Foundations of Order" by E.A. Ross (1910):

    "Social order, even among the passive, unambitious Hindoos, presents a problem for solution. But it is a much more serious problem among the dolichocephalic blonds of the West. The restless, striving, doing Aryan, with his personal ambition, his lust for power, his longing to wreak himself, his willingness to turn the world upside down to get the fame, or the fortune, or the woman, he wants is under no easy discipline. The existence or order among men of this daring and disobedient breed challenges explanation. Especially is this true of the European man in America or Australia. The same selective migrations that made the Teuton more self-assertive than the docile Slav or the quiescent Hindoo , have made the American more strong-willed and unmanageable than even the West-European."

    Ross also had a lot to say about the conflict between organic communities and modern technocratic societies:

    https://books.google.se/books?id=c08PekqsQFUC&pg=PA432&dq=%22folk-craft%22+%22state-craft%22&hl=sv&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22folk-craft%22%20%22state-craft%22&f=false

    Replies: @AshTon, @Jack D, @SFG

    Slavs docile? I don’t know if Poland, for example, is docile so much as has terrible luck in terms of its neighbors. Can you imagine being invaded by Stalin *and* Hitler?

  118. Ed says:
    @syonredux
    @Ed


    When you think about this argument, if the only worth is propaganda, why not just shoot the whole thing in a studio (especially as they were recording the training sessions anyway).
     
    Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Ed

    “Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon”

    The point I was trying to make is at some point, we got the tech to shoot lots of video in slow motion, even if we didn’t had it then (I’m still a bit lost as to why this would have been a deal breaker). NASA knowing how to shoot lots of video in slow motion in 1969 just means it could do this earlier than we thought.

    On the other hand, no one has been close to the Moon or past the van Allen belts since 1973. The Chinese are going to try. NASA said they couldn’t do it when GW Bush asked them. The Russians never could do it. So the Apollo missions themselves are the only evidence that the Apollo missions were technologically feasible -even with today’s tech. I actually am open to the argument that we had the capability in the late 1960s and then just lost it.

    I’m just increasingly skeptical that putting humans in deep space relatively safely (at least safe enough that your space organization has no qualms with showing them live on TV while they are there, instead of waiting to see if the mission was a success before announcing it, Soviet style) was something that humans ever really got close at being capable of doing.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Ed


    The point I was trying to make is at some point, we got the tech to shoot lots of video in slow motion, even if we didn’t had it then (I’m still a bit lost as to why this would have been a deal breaker). NASA knowing how to shoot lots of video in slow motion in 1969 just means it could do this earlier than we thought.
     
    You really need to watch the video again.His entire point is that faking the Moon landings would have presented insuperable technical difficulties in the late '60s-early '70s.Heck, even now, it would pose a truly formidable challenge.

    And he's not even going into the huge security risks that such an operation would entail....

    On the other hand, no one has been close to the Moon or past the van Allen belts since 1973. The Chinese are going to try. NASA said they couldn’t do it when GW Bush asked them. The Russians never could do it. So the Apollo missions themselves are the only evidence that the Apollo missions were technologically feasible -even with today’s tech. I actually am open to the argument that we had the capability in the late 1960s and then just lost it.
     
    We haven't lost it; we are just not willing to spend the amounts of money that would be necessary to establish the infrastructure for another Moon-shot

    I’m just increasingly skeptical that putting humans in deep space relatively safely (at least safe enough that your space organization has no qualms with showing them live on TV while they are there, instead of waiting to see if the mission was a success before announcing it, Soviet style) was something that humans ever really got close at being capable of doing.
     
    It was incredibly risky.Nixon had two speeches prepared, and one of them was a eulogy for the valiant astronauts who died in Space.

    However, we are talking about a different America.People were willing to take insane risks for national honor, and that included sticking guys in a tincan and launching them at the Moon.
  119. @zanon
    Quigley left out the University as an area of political action, plus the media savvy NGOs they spawn.

    If you look at who has the whip hand these days, it isn't big companies.

    Sort of unsurprising Quigley wouldn't mention this. Do not look at the man behind the curtain!

    Replies: @SFG

    When was he writing? Universities weren’t all that left-wing before the Depression or so.

  120. @Cagey Beast
    @ben tillman

    It's just as much the private sector managers as it is the Leftists who want us atomized. There really is no important difference between the public sector and private sector managerial class. If there was a difference a hundred years ago, they've spent the last century literally and figuratively interbreeding. Look at how the Left really says as little about economic policy as it can possibly get away with and the corporations and banks fall over themselves to prove how much they support the latest Cultural Marxist project.

    Replies: @SFG

    Agreed. I think it’s a mix of things, including the Left shifting from the unions to the universities, and increased diversity making it harder to unify the working and middle classes. And the rise of a gay movement.

  121. @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn't seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    "The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains."

    Boy, in the '30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that "past performance is no guaranty of future results". The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It's like dog breeding - all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can't create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded - there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @Jay, @SFG, @n/a, @n/a

    I agree–this whole idea that races have some eternal essence strikes me as one of the sillier things HBDers inherited from the 19th century. Scandinavians have gone from Vikings to feminists.

    As for the Asians…my big worry isn’t so much that the Chinese will corrupt America so much that the 21st century is likely to be marked by American competition with China, and they have the potential to serve as a fifth column, willingly or not–if the Chinese government says ‘give me these nuclear secrets or I’ll kill your grandma’, what would you do?

  122. Haha, since we are referencing classic Quigley articles, here’s one for those of you interested in things like the “manosphere”, immigration (both Mexican and Muslim), and the nature vs nurture conundrum:
    http://www.carrollquigley.net/Articles/Mexican-National-Character-Circum-Mediterranean-Personality-Structure.htm

  123. BTW – I’d just love to hear what Curtis Yarvin might have to say about Carroll Quigley. What was his position in The Cathedral?

    Deacon? Bishop? Cardinal-Archbishop?

    • Replies: @fnn
    @vinteuil

    Believe it or not, Moldbug said it was better to read John Birch Society books from the 1950s and 1960s.

    Replies: @Former Darfur

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @vinteuil


    BTW – I’d just love to hear what Curtis Yarvin might have to say about Carroll Quigley. What was his position in The Cathedral?

    Deacon? Bishop? Cardinal-Archbishop?

     

    More like catamite. He was the altar boytoy who snitched.
  124. @Tim Howells
    @Jack D

    And yet there Germany is again at the head of the pack in Europe (by far) and making very significant deals with a stubbornly traditionalist and Christian Russia that would bind the resources of Eurasia with the industrial and technical powerhouse of Germany.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gazprom-signs-preliminary-deal-to-expand-gas-pipeline-to-germany-1434648924

    If this happens (and it looks inevitable), the landscape you describe could change very quickly.

    From a post here at Unz by Mike Whitney quoting George Friedman, the head of the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor:


    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
     
    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/washingtons-war-on-russia/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc

    The celebrations of Germany's enemies may prove premature.

    Replies: @Jack D, @syonredux, @SFG

    Much as I hate to pass up a good Nazi joke, Germans don’t like Putin, they just need his oil. They’re also understandably reluctant to see Europe get militarized again.

  125. @Luke Lea
    @random observer

    "Indeed, but to be fair we should not go too far in denying them the term civilization. We enjoy the benefits we have solely because of the technologies we have invented and the titanic [searching for just the right superlative to convey the scale here] surplus of wealth they have generated,"

    Fair point. On the one hand, I sometimes think of these archaic civilizations as barbarous creations, which literally they were. On the other hand, it is true that the West did a lot (not all) of its "primitive accumulation" (if I may borrow a term from Marx) by preying on these various archaic civilzations around the world: India, China, Peru, Mexico. And since the capital upon which Western civilization rests is itself "the accumulated crime and sacrifice of centuries, plus interest," we must admit that it was a process that took place in all four quarters of the globe. In that sense, we may owe them something.

    I would like Western civilization to eventually become a world civilization, but it looks like that if it happens is going to be a very slow process that will take centuries. HBD is a big part of the obstacle as we are learning to our chagrin.

    Replies: @Whiskey, @Romanian, @SFG

    Of course, they would have done the same to us if they’d had the chance. Islam tried pretty hard, but Byzantium kept them bottled up for a while.

  126. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Big problem with Quigley's analysis is that it is so very much dated by what has been happening since his death.

    First of all , it's "Liberals", and lets face increasingly we really mean Cultural Marxists, who are destroying respect for Government by pushing things like Disparate Impact and AA in public sector hiring. It's the Marxists who are dismantling the broadly supported Goo-Goo ("Good Government") reforms, of the real Progressive Movement, that of the first four decades of the 20th century, that played a huge role in acceptance of a larger public sector.

    Second was it Conservatives or really ultra libertarians like Ayn Rand, who really wanted to undermine the public sector??? And lets be honest, Ayn Rand was a crackpot cultist completely outside of the American political tradition who had only contempt for the Individualism that had its roots in this country's Anglo-Saxon Christian traditions and culture.

    In the last decade it seems to me that lots of true Conservatives, at least those on the Alternative Right are rapidly distancing themselves from the lunacy that is Randian Objectivism. Increasingly it is only the Neocons who still talk favorably of Ayn Rand and that seem to be based on both ethnocentric identity and a hostility to the historical American nation.

    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that "liberal" government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit. He openly mocks Randian simpletons like Ron and Rand Paul and Paul Ryan.

    Ramzpaul has a good interview up with Robert Stark on how he has turned his back on his youthful infatuation with Ayn Rand.

    http://www.ramzpaul.com/2015/07/ramzpaul-interview-with-robert-stark.html

    Replies: @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s only liberals who are destroying respect for government? It’s not liberals I hear every day claiming that government is too big, arguing against the Common Core, advocating for states’ rights, claiming that government can’t do anything right, fighting against Obamacare on the grounds it’s government control of healthcare (which every other rich nation has), and so on.

    If anything I’d say the liberals pay lip service to government in theory even as they weaken it in practice with affirmative action hires.

    I agree Ayn Rand is silly and don’t blame the alt-right for running away from her. But Rand Paul’s conserva-libertarianism seems to be one of the more popular forms of conservatism among the kids today, with his attacks on drones and surveillance winning him lots of points with the kids who can’t get behind a guy who spends time attacking gay people.

    It’s a good point that liberal ‘good government’ actually works in places full of white people like Portland, Austin, Sweden, and Germany.

  127. @Travis
    @vinteuil

    Vinteull , I had the same thought....what is he talking about....the power of the State has expanded tremendously under every President in my lifetime. Each president creates new agencies, new regulations under old laws while signing new laws to further increase government regulations and thus increase the power of government. The politicians have learned new and creative methods of extorting businesses to increase their wealth and power

    while corporate income taxes remain extraordinarily high in America. It seems the politicians use their power to reward certain industries with tax breaks, while they continue to keep corporate taxes high, continue to double tax corporate earnings earned outside our boarders and they continue to double tax corporate profits when they are paid out as dividends

    Corporations have become bigger partly due to politicians extorting them for jobs for their friends and family so that most democrats and republicans use their power to gain wealth via deals with the largest corporations. The states have so expanded regulations and tax collecting methods so that it is near impossible for small companies to succeed...large corporations have learned how to game the political process so that the increase regulations keep new companies from competing against them, as they have the regulators in their pocket...which is why the regulators eventually get jobs with the companies they once regulated.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @SFG

    Agree wholeheartedly. I have read this idea elsewhere and will not claim credit for it, but one thing about the USA is that because it is so bloody difficult to invade, accumulations of power can coalesce and become difficult to remove, whereas countries like France and Germany have had the old-boy network wiped away with revolutions and wars more frequently (though I doubt anyone living through any of the wars or revolutions would have been happy about that!)

  128. @Romanian
    @Luke Lea

    Those are good points, but I also appreciated Ulick Varange's ideas in Imperium, that every civilization is distinct and its borrowings from another are not taken in the spirit that they were held in there, but turned into something completely new. He distinguished Western Civ from the Classical Civ which included the Romans and the Greeks. He said that Napoleon only called himself First Consul because the term Caliph was too alien to resonate in the historical sense, but he was not a Consul in the Roman sense, he was something new that used the Western Civ's historical sense. He also stated that Western Civilization's greatest achievements were not just its embrace of technology and science, but also its obsession with history and its understanding... and polyphonic music. I had never thought about the history bit before, but it strikes me as being true. It has always been Westerners digging up long forgotten sites and deciphering dead languages.

    Anyway, got sidetracked by another book, so I haven't finished Imperium yet. Hope I won't end up with National Socialist leanings ;)

    Replies: @SFG

    Of course, that’s because a lot of our history was forgotten and dead after the Middle Ages. The Chinese enjoyed going back over their thousands of years of history until Mao or so. Now they’re mostly into money.

    As for becoming a Nazi…whatever. Read everyone you can. It is true that you have to accept a proposition as true before you can evaluate it, so there is the risk of slow ideological corruption, but you can always read your favorites to immunize yourself. And always consider the possibility that everything you know is wrong.

    I think it was Lewis who said you should read old and new books, because the old ones treat certain questions the new ones totally ignore, and vice versa. Read everything you have time for. At a minimum, try to read a right-wing and a left-wing news source every day.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @SFG

    Good advice, but a bit hard to do in practice, especially since I also have my own country's madness to interest myself in. And a job. And a life to live, if I should convince someone to pop out those >2.1 European kids everybody hectors me about. I think the high threshold to proper understanding of policy and politics is part of the problem in allowing people to view their long-term interest and their reality. Too much noise, misinformation, mood affiliation, legacy baggage, social posturing etc. It's easier when a good enough variant is already accepted knowledge and you can hitch your ideological cart to that. I have to say that, as an outsider, I think I might be getting a better picture of what's happening in the US than the average person immersed in it and its very local politics.

    I have a former Professor and work mate (he gave me my first job as a financial & macro journalist during my Uni days) who is a hardcore libertarian, the Academic kind, whose salary is paid for by the state. He is awfully open to debating his positions and very lucid about some of the contradictions and the likelihood that his ideology reflects his own personality and weltanschauung. He keeps letting me publicly contradict him and his mates in the publications he edits. Sort of like Ron Unz with no money. But what he told me one day was a shocker - that he is aware that, had he been born earlier, and raised as a Communist apparatchik, he would have made a formidable Inquisitor, a real Torquemada and Savonarola. I guess some of us are born soldiers for the cause.

    I sometimes think that my own ideology and the vast rightward shift it has suffered in these past few months can be attributed not only to new information, but to changes in my brain chemistry and life phase (more testosterone, an incipient preoccupation with family, status and legacy, community loyalty, abandonment of economic reductionism etc). Everyone has to negotiate with himself as to what kind of exceptions would he accept from his standards or principles, and in that grey area between axiom/hard position and political position, there are a million factors that affect us. Steve Sailer should do an article on how life stages affect political views. It's odd that I was never a bra burner before this. Must have been a late bloomer.

    Replies: @SFG

  129. n/a says: • Website
    @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn't seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    "The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains."

    Boy, in the '30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that "past performance is no guaranty of future results". The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It's like dog breeding - all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can't create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded - there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @Jay, @SFG, @n/a, @n/a

    “Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:”

    This has proved wrong how? While one of Walker’s concerns was the glut of unskilled labor, this was not his only concern.

    For it is never to be forgotten that self-defense is the first law of nature and of nations. If that man who careth not for his own household is worse than an infidel, the nation which permits its institutions to be endangered by any cause which can fairly be removed is guilty not less in Christian than in natural law. Charity begins at home; and while the people of the United States have gladly offered an asylum to millions upon millions of the distressed and unfortunate of other lands and climes, they have no right to carry their hospitality one step beyond the line where American institutions, the American rate of wages, the American standard of living, are brought into serious peril. All the good the United States could do by offering indiscriminate hospitality to a few millions more of European peasants, whose places at home will, within another generation, be filled by others as miserable as themselves, would not compensate for any permanent injury done to our republic. Our highest duty to charity and to humanity is to make this great experiment, here, of free laws and educated labor, the most triumphant success that can possibly be attained. In this way we shall do far more for Europe than by allowing its city slums and its vast stagnant reservoirs of degraded peasantry to be drained off upon our soil. Within the decade between 1880 and 1890 five and a quarter millions of foreigners entered our ports! No nation in human history ever undertook to deal with such masses of alien population. That man must be a sentimentalist and an optimist beyond all bounds of reason who believes that we can take such a load upon the national stomach without a failure of assimilation, and without great danger to the health and life of the nation. For one, I believe it is time that we should take a rest, and give our social, political, and industrial system some chance to recuperate. The problems which so sternly confront us to-day are serious enough without being complicated and aggravated by the addition of some millions of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, south Italians, and Russian Jews.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1896/06/restriction-of-immigration/306011/

  130. n/a says: • Website
    @Jack D
    @Tim Howells

    But things change. Viking warriors are now emasculated Swedes where the dad does exactly half the baby sitting. The Bundeswehr consists not of Teutonic warriors but of gay friendly oompah bands. Quiescent Hindoos run 1/2 of Silicon Valley. Putin doesn't seem like a very docile Slav. Etc.

    Ross reminds me of Walker, the president of MIT who wrote in the Atlantic in 1896 that we were making a big mistake letting in Italians, Jews, Hungarians, etc.:

    "The entrance into our political, social, and industrial life of such vast masses of peasantry, degraded below our utmost conceptions, is a matter which no intelligent patriot can look upon without the gravest apprehension and alarm. These people have no history behind them which is of a nature to give encouragement. They have none of the inherited instincts and tendencies which made it comparatively easy to deal with the immigration of the olden time. They are beaten men from beaten races; representing the worst failures in the struggle for existence. Centuries are against them, as centuries were on the side of those who formerly came to us. They have none of the ideas and aptitudes which fit men to take up readily and easily the problem of self-care and self-government, such as belong to those who are descended from the tribes that met under the oak-trees of old Germany to make laws and choose chieftains."

    Boy, in the '30s the Germans really showed a great flair for making laws and choosing chieftains.

    The point is that "past performance is no guaranty of future results". The same Hindoo who seems quiescent in his village may make a great tech executive once you clean him (or his grandchildren) up and get him an engineering degree. The Teutonic warrior may develop a taste for the settled life.

    This is not to say that in the future Zulus and Quechas will fill the shoes of the former immigrants. It's like dog breeding - all you can do is turn up traits that are already present but dormant. You can't create new ones out of thin air. You can develop a dog that will retrieve ducks or dig for gophers but not one that will climb trees. There is no hidden pool of Mixtec geniuses waiting to be exploited like the shtetl talent that exploded in the 20th century (literally exploded - there would have been no Fat Man and no Little Boy without them).

    But, once you put aside prejudice, you can see that, for example most Asians make great Americans and are no more incapable of integrating than the Italians and Jews who Walker thought unsuited for life in a democratic society.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @Jay, @SFG, @n/a, @n/a

    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @n/a


    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).
     
    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It's been downhill ever since

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Former Darfur

  131. @Ed
    @syonredux

    "Because, as he points out, faking going to the Moon using 1960s tech would have more difficult than just actually going to the Moon"

    The point I was trying to make is at some point, we got the tech to shoot lots of video in slow motion, even if we didn't had it then (I'm still a bit lost as to why this would have been a deal breaker). NASA knowing how to shoot lots of video in slow motion in 1969 just means it could do this earlier than we thought.

    On the other hand, no one has been close to the Moon or past the van Allen belts since 1973. The Chinese are going to try. NASA said they couldn't do it when GW Bush asked them. The Russians never could do it. So the Apollo missions themselves are the only evidence that the Apollo missions were technologically feasible -even with today's tech. I actually am open to the argument that we had the capability in the late 1960s and then just lost it.

    I'm just increasingly skeptical that putting humans in deep space relatively safely (at least safe enough that your space organization has no qualms with showing them live on TV while they are there, instead of waiting to see if the mission was a success before announcing it, Soviet style) was something that humans ever really got close at being capable of doing.

    Replies: @syonredux

    The point I was trying to make is at some point, we got the tech to shoot lots of video in slow motion, even if we didn’t had it then (I’m still a bit lost as to why this would have been a deal breaker). NASA knowing how to shoot lots of video in slow motion in 1969 just means it could do this earlier than we thought.

    You really need to watch the video again.His entire point is that faking the Moon landings would have presented insuperable technical difficulties in the late ’60s-early ’70s.Heck, even now, it would pose a truly formidable challenge.

    And he’s not even going into the huge security risks that such an operation would entail….

    On the other hand, no one has been close to the Moon or past the van Allen belts since 1973. The Chinese are going to try. NASA said they couldn’t do it when GW Bush asked them. The Russians never could do it. So the Apollo missions themselves are the only evidence that the Apollo missions were technologically feasible -even with today’s tech. I actually am open to the argument that we had the capability in the late 1960s and then just lost it.

    We haven’t lost it; we are just not willing to spend the amounts of money that would be necessary to establish the infrastructure for another Moon-shot

    I’m just increasingly skeptical that putting humans in deep space relatively safely (at least safe enough that your space organization has no qualms with showing them live on TV while they are there, instead of waiting to see if the mission was a success before announcing it, Soviet style) was something that humans ever really got close at being capable of doing.

    It was incredibly risky.Nixon had two speeches prepared, and one of them was a eulogy for the valiant astronauts who died in Space.

    However, we are talking about a different America.People were willing to take insane risks for national honor, and that included sticking guys in a tincan and launching them at the Moon.

  132. @n/a
    @Jack D

    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).

    Replies: @syonredux

    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).

    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @syonredux


    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since
     
    It's also plausible that the shared war experience of WWII combined with the prosperity that followed in a period with little to no global economic competition was important in unifying the nation-state in that period. Things might have been more divisive if the depression dragged on and wasn't followed by a unifying shared war experience and economic prosperity. More radical socialist politics might have been a possibility.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank

    , @Former Darfur
    @syonredux

    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since.

    Exactly and precisely correct: it was Peak America and everyone knows it.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  133. @Pat Gilligan
    @International Jew


    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?
     
    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @anon, @ben tillman

    Carroll with two Ls is the surname of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and also of the first Catholic Bishop in the United States (Bishop of Baltimore.) Used as a given name, it goes well with such surnames as Quigley and O’ Connor (aka “Archie Bunker.”)

  134. @Buffalo Joe
    OT but it concerns liberals. The Democrat party in Connecticut is dropping the names Jefferson (Thomas) and Jackson ( Andrew) from the title of their annual fundraising dinner. The result of bowing to pressure from the NAACP, Jefferson for owning slaves and Jackson for his dealing with the Indians in the West. Obama is keeping the seat warm in this Clown-car until Hillary can climb aboard.

    Replies: @carol, @Hibernian

    Jackson was also a slaveholder.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Hibernian


    Jackson was also a slaveholder.
     
    The PC-POC Left apportions their hatred selectively.Jefferson is hated for being a slave-owner; Jackson is hated for expelling the Amerinds.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Hibernian

    Hiberian, If they can prove he was homophobic and misogynistic they can petition to disinter him and ban the mention of his name. But lots of blacks with that last name, and as a first name. What to do?

    Replies: @Hibernian

  135. Where are these mythical conservatives you speak of? They must be in the fairy tale free market zones where producers make things that their customers want, not their government and hire/ fire the people they want without checking for diversity, etc.

  136. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    @n/a


    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).
     
    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It's been downhill ever since

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Former Darfur

    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since

    It’s also plausible that the shared war experience of WWII combined with the prosperity that followed in a period with little to no global economic competition was important in unifying the nation-state in that period. Things might have been more divisive if the depression dragged on and wasn’t followed by a unifying shared war experience and economic prosperity. More radical socialist politics might have been a possibility.

    • Replies: @Mr. Blank
    @Anonymous

    Well, define "radical." In college I did a research project where I had to read a bunch of old socialist/leftist/radical newspapers from the 1910-1930s. It was ... weird. I always associated "socialism" with long-haired, wild-eyed nutsos, so it was strange to read all this stuff from self-described socialists who looked and sounded like boring middle-class 1950s white Americans. (If I remember correctly, I think the Wobblies came closest to my modern ideas about what "socialists" are like -- but even they dressed normal.)

    A common theme was how American workers needed socialism to protect a lot of things that today would be grouped under the umbrella term of "family values." You get a whiff of this kind of thing from Bernie Sanders — but only a whiff. In the old days they went full tilt boogie with the God-and-mom-and-apple-pie pitch. People tend to forget that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-described Socialist. Chicago's self-proclaimed "socialist" newspaper had an effing sports section, if I recall. It was a straight sports section, too -- none of this turgid grad school crap I expect to hear from socialists today.

    The cultural Marxist crap the left is obsessed with these days would be incomprehensible to those old-school "radicals."

  137. @vinteuil
    BTW - I'd just love to hear what Curtis Yarvin might have to say about Carroll Quigley. What was his position in The Cathedral?

    Deacon? Bishop? Cardinal-Archbishop?

    Replies: @fnn, @Reg Cæsar

    Believe it or not, Moldbug said it was better to read John Birch Society books from the 1950s and 1960s.

    • Replies: @Former Darfur
    @fnn

    I got dragged as a kid to JBS meetings in the late sixties to mid seventies and vaguely remember hearing the name "Carroll Quigley" discussed as a Bad Guy in the tapes and in the books they sent out under the American Opinion imprimatur. I seem to remember "None Dare Call It Treason" and "None Dare Call It Conspiracy".

    The notorious Oliver had been kicked out of JBS by then, but I listened to a couple of his JBS talks on one of the WN sites some years back and seem to remember him talking about Quigley too.

    The most famous "Carroll", of course, is Carroll Shelby, who, having been a Ferrari factory team road race driver in the 50s, I (briefly) interviewed some years back. He was very much all man, and he definitely liked women. But he was a gentleman. I remember having said something about Linda Vaughn's cheerleader outfit and he came to her defense immediately: I hastened to clarify I was just talking about the outfit, and I went on to say that I knew she was a fine family oriented spokesperson, etc. It was a faux pas on my part, but Shelby was very informative and not a macho butthead, clearly he understood racing and business intimately.

  138. @Steve Sailer
    @Travis

    An example: Anti-trust used to be a big deal. Now it's a much smaller deal. A lot of mergers I read about sound just plain nuts to me on anti-competition grounds, but only a few get shot down. Heck, I'd have a lot more money if the Reagan Administration had allowed my firm's merger to go through in 1987.

    Replies: @vinteuil, @Travis

    very true, I was going to mention how the government stopped using the anti-trust laws to stop mergers in the 90s and the Supreme Court prohibited States from enforcing anti-trust laws in the 80s…meanwhile the Supreme Court struck down some state measures which made it easier for hostile take-overs…

    The number of public companies peaked in 1996 at around 9,000 and today we have less than 5,000 publicly traded corporations, partly caused by less anti-trust enforcement and due to excess regulations put in place after the dot.com collapse. Sarbanes oxley regulations have curtailed firms from going public and the IPO markets have never recovered, which is why the investment Banks looked to other sources of income and became giant hedge funds, speculating in derivatives and bond trading to maintain their incomes.

    for example , back in the 90s Goldman Sachs employed less than 20,000 people and earned most of their money acting as an investment bank, advising firms and taking firms public, but by 2007 they earned less than 30% of their income via typical investment banking , earning most of their profits via speculating in the bond markets and partnering with private equity firms to take firms like Burger King private. In 1986 Goldman had 126 million invested in Private companies with private equity partners, by 2005 they had 12 Billion invested in private equity, generating 30% of their profits, equal to their money earned from investment banking, with another 30% earned thru Bond trading. Very different from the 80s and 90s

    in the 1990s Wall Street brought an average of 400 firms public each year, peaking in 1996 with 675 IPOs. Since Sarbanes Oxley was passed we have averaged less than 100 IPOs per year. The destruction of the IPO market is another cause of the Financial collapse of 2008 , since many small companies found it more attractive to borrow money to grow instead of going public. The investment banks were forced to take on more risk, and were forced to earn money thru lending to capital instead of raising capital, and speculating instead of advising.

    I worked at Goldman from 1998 to 2014 , so observed the rise of speculation after we went public in 1999 and especially after Sarbanes Oxley. Once it became Public, the partners had less skin in the game, taking risk became less risky for them.

  139. @Jason
    But in fact, "conservatives" haven't curtailed government at all.

    So the liberals have won.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    The liberals have not won.

    “..there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.” – T.S.Eliot

    Irolas: “It is as Lord Denethor predicted! Long has he foreseen this doom!”
    Gandalf: “Foreseen and done nothing!”

    Either replace your period with a question mark, or keep your counsel of despair to yourself.

  140. @Pat Gilligan
    @International Jew


    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?
     
    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @anon, @ben tillman

    The issue it creates is not that of grade school bullying, but one of genuine confusion.

  141. @Anonymous
    @syonredux


    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since
     
    It's also plausible that the shared war experience of WWII combined with the prosperity that followed in a period with little to no global economic competition was important in unifying the nation-state in that period. Things might have been more divisive if the depression dragged on and wasn't followed by a unifying shared war experience and economic prosperity. More radical socialist politics might have been a possibility.

    Replies: @Mr. Blank

    Well, define “radical.” In college I did a research project where I had to read a bunch of old socialist/leftist/radical newspapers from the 1910-1930s. It was … weird. I always associated “socialism” with long-haired, wild-eyed nutsos, so it was strange to read all this stuff from self-described socialists who looked and sounded like boring middle-class 1950s white Americans. (If I remember correctly, I think the Wobblies came closest to my modern ideas about what “socialists” are like — but even they dressed normal.)

    A common theme was how American workers needed socialism to protect a lot of things that today would be grouped under the umbrella term of “family values.” You get a whiff of this kind of thing from Bernie Sanders — but only a whiff. In the old days they went full tilt boogie with the God-and-mom-and-apple-pie pitch. People tend to forget that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-described Socialist. Chicago’s self-proclaimed “socialist” newspaper had an effing sports section, if I recall. It was a straight sports section, too — none of this turgid grad school crap I expect to hear from socialists today.

    The cultural Marxist crap the left is obsessed with these days would be incomprehensible to those old-school “radicals.”

  142. @Pat Gilligan
    @International Jew


    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?
     
    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @anon, @ben tillman

    I know, how embarrassing, I always have to stifle my laugh when I hear a boy with this name.

    Well, I got it, at least.

    Hibernian & anon:

    It was an allusion. Carroll O’Connor played Archie Bunker; Archie would tell his wife Edith to “stifle”.

  143. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JerseyGuy
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-cities-americans-are-ditching

    Steve,
    Interesting article on domestic migration. Basically, Americans are following the Sailer Strategy after spending a few years after college in the "Yglesias-Glaeser" model utopias by moving to places that you can actually afford to raise a family.

    Here is a very interest quote from the article:

    "Interestingly, these are also the cities with some of the highest net inflows of people from outside the country. That gives many of these cities a steadily growing population, despite the net exodus of people moving within the U.S.

    So what's going on here? Michael Stoll, a professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of California Los Angeles, has an idea. Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out and scaring away potential new ones from other parts of the country, he said. (Everyone knows how unaffordable the Manhattan area has become.)

    And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs. They are able to do so by living in what Stoll calls "creative housing arrangements" in which they pack six to eight individuals, or two to four families, into one apartment or home. It's an arrangement that most Americans just aren't willing to pursue, and even many immigrants decide it's not for them as time goes by, he said. "

    So basically Americans have freely decided not to live four families in one apartment. In response, our elites have decided that improving living standards is not a good thing. Therefore, we need to fill vacant low-skilled jobs by packing six to eight individuals or into apartments. People will look you straight in the eye and tell you that this is a good thing.

    By the way, El Paso has the highest percentage of domestic out-migration. So I guess mass-Mexican migration has not created a thriving tech scene there...

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @anon

    Soaring home prices are pushing local residents out…And as Americans leave, people from abroad move in to these bustling cities to fill the vacant low-skilled jobs.

    Except that’s a self-serving globalist lie.

    The low-skilled (and lower paid) immigration comes first with the immigrants willing to live eight to a room because they are sending their money home.

    (The globalists are effectively simply arbitraging global wage rates.)

    This makes both housing and jobs unavailable to the native population (and greatly increases the local crime rate) so the native population are forced out.

    The (illegal) low-skilled immigration comes first – the rest follows from that.

  144. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Sunbeam
    @anon

    "When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won’t.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)"

    I've had this thought for a long time, since I started reading Sailer. I've brought up this point a number of times in different threads, but it never seems to inspire much debate.

    You know... I go long, long stretches of time without thinking of Jews. There was another version of this country where they did very well at a number of things like business, entertainment, the sciences, and it wasn't a secret or anything.

    My biggest reaction would have been to grunt, and think "Good for them, whatever." and forget about them for another long stretch of time.

    But now, I really wonder how smart Jews are sometimes. Playing it my head I don't think the changes that are coming to this country are going to be beneficial to them. Very much the opposite in fact.

    Dunno, maybe I'm wrong and Jewish Central Command in Jerusalem knows exactly what it is doing. I kind of doubt it though, for a number of reasons to include Jewish Central Command existing.

    I think it's more a case of they've actually come to believe the BS. Maybe they always did.

    Replies: @anon

    I don’t think people are rational. I think they are biological robots motivated by whatever set and strength of hormones they have and they simply rationalize what their hormones want. Hence dummies are

    short-term benefit > medium-term disbenefit

    and smart people are simply up one notch to

    medium-term benefit > long-term disbenefit

    imo.

  145. @syonredux
    @Hacienda


    Black on black crime rates disprove greater Asabiyya.
     
    On the other hand, as TN Coates demonstrates, what really angers Blacks is when Black Bodies are assaulted by non-Black bodies....

    Replies: @anon

    With or without media incitement and/or the hand of Soros?

    Seems to me a lot of what you are considering asab-wotsit is being constructed from the outside.

  146. anon • Disclaimer says:

    On Quigley and the Conservative arm of the pincer movement:

    Conservatives want smaller government, not least because they want to pay less taxes.

    “Conservative” politicians *say* they want the same thing to get elected but actually want the state suborned to work for corporate interests.

    (Or rather, only “Conservative” politicians who think that will get campaign funding while the rest are filtered out.)

    So Quigley is mostly right – Conservative politicians (who get campaign funding) will want to get rid of all those bits of the state that protect the citizen and Liberal politicians (who get campaign funding) will want to get rid of all those bits of community that protect the citizen.

    I’d take a wild guess that the people providing the campaign funding are the ones cui bono.

  147. @fnn
    @vinteuil

    Believe it or not, Moldbug said it was better to read John Birch Society books from the 1950s and 1960s.

    Replies: @Former Darfur

    I got dragged as a kid to JBS meetings in the late sixties to mid seventies and vaguely remember hearing the name “Carroll Quigley” discussed as a Bad Guy in the tapes and in the books they sent out under the American Opinion imprimatur. I seem to remember “None Dare Call It Treason” and “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”.

    The notorious Oliver had been kicked out of JBS by then, but I listened to a couple of his JBS talks on one of the WN sites some years back and seem to remember him talking about Quigley too.

    The most famous “Carroll”, of course, is Carroll Shelby, who, having been a Ferrari factory team road race driver in the 50s, I (briefly) interviewed some years back. He was very much all man, and he definitely liked women. But he was a gentleman. I remember having said something about Linda Vaughn’s cheerleader outfit and he came to her defense immediately: I hastened to clarify I was just talking about the outfit, and I went on to say that I knew she was a fine family oriented spokesperson, etc. It was a faux pas on my part, but Shelby was very informative and not a macho butthead, clearly he understood racing and business intimately.

  148. @syonredux
    @n/a


    Note also that America did have an immigration pause, with the World War and 1924 immigration act. Without the pause, America would have been transformed even more radically than it ended up being (which itself was enough to set us up for the current even more radical transformation in progress).
     
    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It's been downhill ever since

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Former Darfur

    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since.

    Exactly and precisely correct: it was Peak America and everyone knows it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Former Darfur



    @syon
    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since.
     
    Exactly and precisely correct: it was Peak America and everyone knows it.

     

    Not everyone. We were on the downslope before the oldest "boomer" could sign a legal contract, yet the kids get the blame and the adults of the day get a pass.

    They defeated the enemy in 1945, and their progeny in 1964.

    Replies: @syonredux

  149. @AshTon
    I like this quote. It shows the left and right wings are not diametrically apposed. They just force us to disrobe different clothes, with the ultimate result of having us naked on our hands and knees with our beneficent master behind us.

    I’m not sure its entirely true though. For instance the Left is interested in undermining certain communities - the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities - the Black, the Transexual etc. And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Replies: @Tim Howells, @ben tillman, @Jason, @vinteuil, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    …undermining certain communities– the White, the Christian etc, while valorizing other communities – the Black, the Transexual etc.

    Yeah, but note the significant overlap– black/Christian, and white/tranny/pink-in-general. “It’s complicated.”

    And I would argue the immensely powerful corporations we have are a deliberate result of reducing state power and taxation, not just an accidental result as the author implies.

    Maybe, but the growth of the immensely powerful state and taxation is the deliberate, not accidental, result of reducing Church power and tithing. If you prefer the soul to the soulless, that’s the real tragedy.

  150. @International Jew
    Did "Carroll" ever not sound like a girl's name?

    Replies: @HA, @Pat Gilligan, @Reg Cæsar

    Did “Carroll” ever not sound like a girl’s name?

    Carol as a girl’s name is a 20th-century fad. Carol surpassed Carroll in rank just after WWI, then reached a numerical peak in 1941.

    Carrolls quickly receded and disappeared from the top 1,000 in 1978. Carols eventually did the same in 2007.

  151. Corporations can become too powerful, but it’s nearly always when they are in league with government(s) (i.e. crony capitalism): e.g. United Fruit in Latin America, the old AT&T monopoly, the health insurance companies under Obamacare.

    This.

    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.

    Too true. Blacks have had engrained the idea that playing a role is where the money’s at. This doesn’t counter almost every other variable, which all point toward low black solidarity.

    Merkel grew up in the East and knows the “benefits” of hitching your economy to Russia’s. East Germany tried that for 40 years and their combined resources produced such wonders as the Trabant and the Berlin Wall. I’m sure she is as eager as Putin for a rerun. Read the linked article – South Stream has already been cancelled and I wouldn’t bet the farm that this one will be built either. And even if it is, this does not exactly signal a new Hitler-Stalin Pact.

    Seems rather tendentious, for a variety of obvious reasons.

    Defined as hating the White Man and all his works, yes.

    It’s born of envy.

    They don’t need it.Their community is organized around taking stuff from White People.

    That’s the most profitable enterprise available to blacks.

    On the other hand, as TN Coates demonstrates, what really angers Blacks is when Black Bodies are assaulted by non-Black bodies….

    Because that’s where the money is.

    People tend to forget that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-described Socialist.

    The day I was mature enough to understand the PoI was the day I began to dislike it. “Indivisible” sounded way too much like tyranny. Like what an abusive husband calls his marriage. Not long after, I started faking it. I figured one thing I didn’t have to do was take an oath I didn’t believe in. When I discovered the author was a socialist, I wasn’t surprised.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Svigor

    Not to mention that the PofA used to be recite with the Nazi arm salute:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg

    before that guy with the mustache coopted its symbolism. He was also into that "one nation" thing.

    Despite that, I think you are reading too much into "indivisible" - it is just there to remind us which side won the Civil War.

    "Under God" was a later addition, to remind us about how we differed from the Soviets, whose constitution also promised "liberty and justice for all" (but not under God).

    So, you can see, the Pledge is as much about who we are NOT as who we are. We are defined by our enemies and our enemies change so the Pledge and the ritual around it changes too. We are not Confederates, we are not Communists (anymore). We are not Nazis (anymore).

  152. @vinteuil
    BTW - I'd just love to hear what Curtis Yarvin might have to say about Carroll Quigley. What was his position in The Cathedral?

    Deacon? Bishop? Cardinal-Archbishop?

    Replies: @fnn, @Reg Cæsar

    BTW – I’d just love to hear what Curtis Yarvin might have to say about Carroll Quigley. What was his position in The Cathedral?

    Deacon? Bishop? Cardinal-Archbishop?

    More like catamite. He was the altar boytoy who snitched.

  153. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Big problem with Quigley's analysis is that it is so very much dated by what has been happening since his death.

    First of all , it's "Liberals", and lets face increasingly we really mean Cultural Marxists, who are destroying respect for Government by pushing things like Disparate Impact and AA in public sector hiring. It's the Marxists who are dismantling the broadly supported Goo-Goo ("Good Government") reforms, of the real Progressive Movement, that of the first four decades of the 20th century, that played a huge role in acceptance of a larger public sector.

    Second was it Conservatives or really ultra libertarians like Ayn Rand, who really wanted to undermine the public sector??? And lets be honest, Ayn Rand was a crackpot cultist completely outside of the American political tradition who had only contempt for the Individualism that had its roots in this country's Anglo-Saxon Christian traditions and culture.

    In the last decade it seems to me that lots of true Conservatives, at least those on the Alternative Right are rapidly distancing themselves from the lunacy that is Randian Objectivism. Increasingly it is only the Neocons who still talk favorably of Ayn Rand and that seem to be based on both ethnocentric identity and a hostility to the historical American nation.

    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that "liberal" government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit. He openly mocks Randian simpletons like Ron and Rand Paul and Paul Ryan.

    Ramzpaul has a good interview up with Robert Stark on how he has turned his back on his youthful infatuation with Ayn Rand.

    http://www.ramzpaul.com/2015/07/ramzpaul-interview-with-robert-stark.html

    Replies: @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit.

    If you enjoy being pushed around by smug progressives, yes. If you’d just as soon keep unmarried couples from your B&B, not so much.

    Is it still legal for Mr Kersey to make that point publicly in Portland and Austin? Just try it in work pretty good*” Sweden, Germany, France, or elsewhere in the Anglosphere.

    *Where did you go to elementary school? “Work pretty good” indeed.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Reg Cæsar


    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit.

    If you enjoy being pushed around by smug progressives, yes. If you’d just as soon keep unmarried couples from your B&B, not so much.
     
    I dunno; if forced to chose between living in Portland/Austin or living in Baltimore/Detroit, I'd pick Portland/Austin.In a heartbeat.

    Smug White progressives are a lot more tolerable than Blacks.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  154. @Former Darfur
    @syonredux

    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since.

    Exactly and precisely correct: it was Peak America and everyone knows it.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    @syon
    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since.

    Exactly and precisely correct: it was Peak America and everyone knows it.

    Not everyone. We were on the downslope before the oldest “boomer” could sign a legal contract, yet the kids get the blame and the adults of the day get a pass.

    They defeated the enemy in 1945, and their progeny in 1964.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Reg Cæsar


    Not everyone. We were on the downslope before the oldest “boomer” could sign a legal contract, yet the kids get the blame and the adults of the day get a pass.

    They defeated the enemy in 1945, and their progeny in 1964.
     
    1965.That was the moment when the elite decided that race/national origin would no longer be a factor in immigration.

    As I like to point out, policy can always be changed, but people are permanent.
  155. @anon
    @jack o'fire

    This will be an increasing trend imo.


    Northwest Europeans developed a way of co-operating on a large scale but at the cost of losing their ability to compete at the clannish scale - hence why their countries used to be so good (compared to most places).

    Most other places are the opposite. They are good at the clannish scale but as a side effect they co-operate badly at a larger scale - hence why their countries suck.

    If the two patterns are combined the clannish sub population(s) will pick a niche and very rapidly come to dominate that niche as they co-operate as extended families (clans) versus people competing as individuals or nuclear families. However too much / too many and the originally NW Euro type countries will simply collapse to the standard pattern (except with hundreds of different ethnic groups per region / country).

    When Jews were the only high IQ relatively clannish (compared to NW Euros) sub population they had a unique advantage but increasingly they won't.

    (Although East Asians may figure out a third way as a result of watching the western collapse.)

    Replies: @Sunbeam, @map

    European societies are wealthy and powerful because their institutions enable high trust among nuclear families. Thus, levels of cooperation are high.

    However, clannish subgroups can undermine high trust societies by conning those naive enough to trust them.

    • Replies: @anon
    @map

    Yes, but they can also out-compete within a specific niche e.g. barber shops, ice cream sellers etc without conning anyone simply because they co-operate well at the clan scale.

    For example if you have wannabe shopkeepers from one population competing on a nuclear family basis against wannabe shopkeepers from another population who are competing as an alliance of nuclear families then the latter win (mainly because they pool capital and labor).

    At the same time people who co-operate well at the clan level but not at the national scale get out-competed at the national level by the first type.

    Using a military analogy it's like if one population always fights in units of either ten or a thousand while a second population always fights in groups of a hundred - the latter always wins one set of fights but always loses the second type.

  156. @Steve Sailer
    @WhatEvvs

    Was Milner?

    Replies: @WhatEvvs, @Tim Howells

    No, Milner was not gay. He ultimately married, and before that he had several known affairs. The woman he married was Violet Cecil (nee Maxse) who was a great beauty. They had a long-standing affair starting when he was High Commissioner of South Africa.

  157. @syonredux
    @Tim Howells


    The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars–the First, the Second and Cold Wars–has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” … George Friedman at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs, Time 1:40 to 1:57)
     
    That quote makes no sense.The USA first fought Germany in 1917, that's not even 100 years ago.The primary foreign power concerns for the USA from 1789-1815 were France and Britain.From 1815 on, the primary concern was managing the break-up of the Spanish Empire and her successor states.France became a renewed source of concern in the 1860s (Napoleon III's move into Mexico), but that was quite temporary.

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    Yes, Friedman’s quote makes little sense, unless you view the USA as the direct successor to the British Empire. Mackinder’s “World Island” paper goes back to 1904, which is 1.11 centuries ago, so under this assumption Friedman is technically in the clear. Mackinder was a confounder of the London School of Economics that was funded by the Fabian Society, which is a front group for the Cecil Rhodes secret society that Quigley talks about. Rhodes actually talked about moving the center of power of the Empire to the USA and explicitly said that he would be OK with that, if it brought us back into the fold. I think that the Friedman quote indicates that he really does view the USA this way.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Tim Howells


    Yes, Friedman’s quote makes little sense, unless you view the USA as the direct successor to the British Empire. Mackinder’s “World Island” paper goes back to 1904, which is 1.11 centuries ago, so under this assumption Friedman is technically in the clear.
     
    Then he needs to write more clearly, use words like British-American Empire, etc

    Even then, his assumptions are rather silly.Britain's historic rival was France, not Germany (cf, for example, the period stretching from The War of the Spanish Succession to Waterloo ).Germany only began to emerge as an imperial rival to Britain after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71

    Replies: @Tim Howells

  158. @Reg Cæsar
    @anonymous-antimarxist


    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit.
     
    If you enjoy being pushed around by smug progressives, yes. If you'd just as soon keep unmarried couples from your B&B, not so much.

    Is it still legal for Mr Kersey to make that point publicly in Portland and Austin? Just try it in work pretty good*" Sweden, Germany, France, or elsewhere in the Anglosphere.

    *Where did you go to elementary school? "Work pretty good" indeed.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit.

    If you enjoy being pushed around by smug progressives, yes. If you’d just as soon keep unmarried couples from your B&B, not so much.

    I dunno; if forced to chose between living in Portland/Austin or living in Baltimore/Detroit, I’d pick Portland/Austin.In a heartbeat.

    Smug White progressives are a lot more tolerable than Blacks.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @syonredux

    Many of the latter are better co-workers, neighbors, etc., than many of the former.

  159. @Reg Cæsar
    @Former Darfur



    @syon
    An argument can be made that the 1924-1965 period marked the high-water mark for America as a reasonably unified nation-state.It’s been downhill ever since.
     
    Exactly and precisely correct: it was Peak America and everyone knows it.

     

    Not everyone. We were on the downslope before the oldest "boomer" could sign a legal contract, yet the kids get the blame and the adults of the day get a pass.

    They defeated the enemy in 1945, and their progeny in 1964.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Not everyone. We were on the downslope before the oldest “boomer” could sign a legal contract, yet the kids get the blame and the adults of the day get a pass.

    They defeated the enemy in 1945, and their progeny in 1964.

    1965.That was the moment when the elite decided that race/national origin would no longer be a factor in immigration.

    As I like to point out, policy can always be changed, but people are permanent.

  160. @Hibernian
    @Buffalo Joe

    Jackson was also a slaveholder.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Buffalo Joe

    Jackson was also a slaveholder.

    The PC-POC Left apportions their hatred selectively.Jefferson is hated for being a slave-owner; Jackson is hated for expelling the Amerinds.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @syonredux

    Jackson also adopted an Indian boy:

    http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/children/

    Jackson was among the most fascinating American presidents. That he is being expunged from the American national consciousness is something only a Quigley could explain.

    Replies: @syonredux

  161. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    Sheer nonsense for Milner, and no evidence that Rhodes ever had sex with a man.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    Always fun to see the extremes denial takes. Malcolm Forbes fathered five kids. And:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lygon,_7th_Earl_Beauchamp

    Lady Beauchamp always insisted that her husband was not a “bugler” – I’m not obliged to accept that pronouncement.

    http://tinyurl.com/pdou4o9

  162. @yaqub the mad scientist
    @Jack D

    I can't speak of them categorically, but the libertarians I know are the most atomized humans I've ever met. They think every person is a prison, or a trap.

    Replies: @Jeff Albertson

    We’re just better judges of human nature from experience. If you get an electrical shock every time you put out your hand, you stop doing it. That old r&b song “Smiling Faces/Backstabbers” nailed it.

    Trust but verify is for the gullible.

  163. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @Sean

    "But after the Nazi -Soviet pact ((Stalin’s masterstroke) Chamberlain guaranteed Poland’s territory."

    No, Chamberlain guaranteed Poland on 3/31/39. The Nazi-Soviet Pact came on 8/23/39.

    Replies: @Sean, @WhatEvvs

    One of Quigley’s assertions is that Britain, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia & the US were cozy and altogether in making the world safe for capitalism. See the stuff he wrote on Montagu Norman. This is very shocking to me; I cannot understand it but from what I’ve read of Quigley, he was deeply learned and wrote from vast stores of knowledge and perception so I must accept it provisionally before making a judgement as to its validity.

    I got the above from reading excerpts and I would have to read the entire book to understand the context. That will take awhile as it is longer than Stanley Dunham’s thesis on peasant blacksmithing in medieval Indonesia.

  164. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @syonredux
    @Hibernian


    Jackson was also a slaveholder.
     
    The PC-POC Left apportions their hatred selectively.Jefferson is hated for being a slave-owner; Jackson is hated for expelling the Amerinds.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    Jackson also adopted an Indian boy:

    http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/children/

    Jackson was among the most fascinating American presidents. That he is being expunged from the American national consciousness is something only a Quigley could explain.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    Jackson also adopted an Indian boy:

    http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/children/
     
    Yeah, I read about that when I was an undergrad (cf The Revolutionary Age of Andrew Jackson)

    Jackson was among the most fascinating American presidents. That he is being expunged from the American national consciousness is something only a Quigley could explain.
     
    It's quite easy to understand.Jackson is seen as being one of the prime movers behind universal White male suffrage, and the liberal consensus has now come to the conclusion that that was a really, really bad thing.

    Replies: @SFG

  165. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    Read Pakenham's "Boer War" before writing such silly stuff.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    Pakenham wrote a stodgy establishment history. The real deal:

    Michael Bloch’s publishers did well to get Matthew Parris to give his imprimatur to this book. It could easily have been a sleazy parade of salacious innuendo, but Bloch is a scrupulous historian who wrote an excellent biography of Jeremy Thorpe and has now looked at around 50 more politicians of the last century who led similarly double lives. This is a serious historical subject … Bloch shows that there was a far more extensive network of covert homosexuality than has hitherto been recognised, and there is no longer any need for reticence in admitting it — John Campbell Independent The tales of secret love affairs and repressed emotions of some of Britain’s past and (slightly) present MPs are told with an aborbing and gossipy literary tone, shining a light on some fascinating characters … The cunning required to avoid being caught … seems to have played a significant role in the successful careers outlined in Closet Queens … The book gives a fascinating insight into the political times in which these men operated, and also outlines the staggering battle gay people have had to wage in order to gain acceptance and equality … As well as a high calibre work of modern political history, it serves as a timely reminder of the difficulties endured by gay people in the all-too-recent past — Charlotte Henry Independent on Sunday

    A hugely entertaining book … In my experience, homosexuals have a gift for seeing homosexuality everywhere, yet after reading Michael Bloch’s survey I am retrospectively more persuaded … Bloch juggles the skills of lock-picker, outrageous gossip and historian. The result is unflaggingly absorbing — Nicholas Shakespeare Daily Telegraph

    Bloch is the ideal author of this survey of closeted politicians, having published an excellent biography of Jeremy Thorpe, a gay man destroyed by his risk-taking … It would be easy for this sort of study to be sensationalist, but Bloch … makes it clear when he is reporting rumour and doesn’t whip up scandal from thin air — Patrick Kidd The Times

    Michael Bloch has written an entertaining account of the sex lives of some of Britain’s most prominent and colourful politicians. What is surprising is that there were rather more secretly gay MPs than anyone imagined — Chris Mullin Observer

    All this has been obvious for many years, open secrets. And it all fits in with what Quigley is trying to elucidate: that corporate capitalism is destroying native culture, good and bad. English culture is very anti-homosexual. The first buggery laws date back to the 16th century. The latter-day tolerance is entirely a function of top-down force, as it is in the US.

    • Replies: @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    Perhaps you shouldn't judge the book without having read it, since if you had you would know it contains a direct refutation of what you wrote. Well, if you prefer trashy gossip from a superannuated twink, no accounting for taste, I guess.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

  166. @Tim Howells
    @syonredux

    Yes, Friedman's quote makes little sense, unless you view the USA as the direct successor to the British Empire. Mackinder's "World Island" paper goes back to 1904, which is 1.11 centuries ago, so under this assumption Friedman is technically in the clear. Mackinder was a confounder of the London School of Economics that was funded by the Fabian Society, which is a front group for the Cecil Rhodes secret society that Quigley talks about. Rhodes actually talked about moving the center of power of the Empire to the USA and explicitly said that he would be OK with that, if it brought us back into the fold. I think that the Friedman quote indicates that he really does view the USA this way.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Yes, Friedman’s quote makes little sense, unless you view the USA as the direct successor to the British Empire. Mackinder’s “World Island” paper goes back to 1904, which is 1.11 centuries ago, so under this assumption Friedman is technically in the clear.

    Then he needs to write more clearly, use words like British-American Empire, etc

    Even then, his assumptions are rather silly.Britain’s historic rival was France, not Germany (cf, for example, the period stretching from The War of the Spanish Succession to Waterloo ).Germany only began to emerge as an imperial rival to Britain after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    @syonredux

    To understand what Friedman is talking about you really have to go back to Mackinder's theory. Wikipedia has a good discussion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History#The_World-Island_and_the_Heartland

    For example the whole structure of the Great Game in Eurasia plays into this in addition to the competition with Germany which is more recent as you say. The competition with Germany is the key to understanding the modern world obviously, since this motivated the two World Wars, and the aftermath of the Second World War, which still haunts us.

    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  167. @anonymous-antimarxist
    @syonredux

    Blacks have Asabiyya???

    Really???

    Ask yourself who bankrolls many of these AA and for that matter Latino astroturfed identity and "civil rights" organizations.

    For a hint:
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/06/jews-and-the-civil-rights-movement/


    I will admit that to a degree upper middle class blacks(ie the far right segment of the Black bell curve) at one time had some control over the direction of their community and were sincerely attempting steer it towards White(European) social norms. But those days are long over.

    Face it. 60's and 70's aspirational Motown is long dead and gone, dysfunctional, degenerate "Hip Hop" now rules!!!

    And it is hard to think of anything more corrosive to build functioning black communities than the "Hip Hop" world view.

    And just as with the pornography industry what people played a vastly disproportionate role in the pushing "Hip Hop" towards mass acceptance and empathizing its worse elements???

    To the degree that Blacks and for that matter Latinos have " Asabiyya", it is because TWMNBN have spent billions and billions convincing that they are better off "Voting for a Living" than "Working for a Living".

    Other than that. by all other indicators, intact married families and functioning neighborhoods for instance. their communities are in free fall.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Jim Don Bob

    anonymous-antimarxist said,”I will admit that to a degree upper middle class blacks(ie the far right segment of the Black bell curve) at one time had some control over the direction of their community and were sincerely attempting steer it towards White(European) social norms. But those days are long over. ”

    Right. The “good’ blacks kept the “bad” blacks in line because in the days of segregated housing they all lived in the same neighborhood. That all went away in the 70s and 80s and the “good” blacks got the hell out as fast as they could. See Prince Georges County Maryland for example.

  168. @WhatEvvs
    @syonredux

    Jackson also adopted an Indian boy:

    http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/children/

    Jackson was among the most fascinating American presidents. That he is being expunged from the American national consciousness is something only a Quigley could explain.

    Replies: @syonredux

    Jackson also adopted an Indian boy:

    http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/children/

    Yeah, I read about that when I was an undergrad (cf The Revolutionary Age of Andrew Jackson)

    Jackson was among the most fascinating American presidents. That he is being expunged from the American national consciousness is something only a Quigley could explain.

    It’s quite easy to understand.Jackson is seen as being one of the prime movers behind universal White male suffrage, and the liberal consensus has now come to the conclusion that that was a really, really bad thing.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @syonredux

    It's not the suffrage, it's expelling the Amerinds (as others have said), and (this is more subtle) representing the South against the ex-Puritan Federalists of New England.

    Replies: @syonredux

  169. Y’all who enjoy Carroll Quigley (and Big Picture stuff generally) might also enjoy a guy named Damon Vrabel. He’s a West Point/Harvard Biz School guy who was appalled by what he learned about how the world really works and who, for a few years, worked as a journalist trying to get the word out. (I believe he was a fan of Quigley’s, btw.) Did some amazing stuff, including a couple of video series. I found his video lectures jaw-dropping and mind-blowing. Here’s one of them:

    Here’s the other:

    Great stuff, IMHO.

    As far as I can tell, after about five years he quit, in despair at the idea that getting the word out was ever going to make a difference.

    As for “Carroll,” let’s not forget Carroll Ballard, the super-talented director of films like “The Black Stallion” and “Fly Away Home.”

    • Replies: @anon
    @Paleo Retiree

    Good stuff.


    As far as I can tell, after about five years he quit, in despair at the idea that getting the word out was ever going to make a difference.
     
    I think the only way to protect any nation from the banking mafia long-term is to increase average IQ.

    Which by extension makes it the last thing the banking mafia want.

  170. @Svigor

    Corporations can become too powerful, but it’s nearly always when they are in league with government(s) (i.e. crony capitalism): e.g. United Fruit in Latin America, the old AT&T monopoly, the health insurance companies under Obamacare.
     
    This.

    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.
     
    Too true. Blacks have had engrained the idea that playing a role is where the money's at. This doesn't counter almost every other variable, which all point toward low black solidarity.

    Merkel grew up in the East and knows the “benefits” of hitching your economy to Russia’s. East Germany tried that for 40 years and their combined resources produced such wonders as the Trabant and the Berlin Wall. I’m sure she is as eager as Putin for a rerun. Read the linked article – South Stream has already been cancelled and I wouldn’t bet the farm that this one will be built either. And even if it is, this does not exactly signal a new Hitler-Stalin Pact.
     
    Seems rather tendentious, for a variety of obvious reasons.

    Defined as hating the White Man and all his works, yes.
     
    It's born of envy.

    They don’t need it.Their community is organized around taking stuff from White People.
     
    That's the most profitable enterprise available to blacks.

    On the other hand, as TN Coates demonstrates, what really angers Blacks is when Black Bodies are assaulted by non-Black bodies….
     
    Because that's where the money is.

    People tend to forget that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-described Socialist.
     
    The day I was mature enough to understand the PoI was the day I began to dislike it. "Indivisible" sounded way too much like tyranny. Like what an abusive husband calls his marriage. Not long after, I started faking it. I figured one thing I didn't have to do was take an oath I didn't believe in. When I discovered the author was a socialist, I wasn't surprised.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Not to mention that the PofA used to be recite with the Nazi arm salute:

    before that guy with the mustache coopted its symbolism. He was also into that “one nation” thing.

    Despite that, I think you are reading too much into “indivisible” – it is just there to remind us which side won the Civil War.

    “Under God” was a later addition, to remind us about how we differed from the Soviets, whose constitution also promised “liberty and justice for all” (but not under God).

    So, you can see, the Pledge is as much about who we are NOT as who we are. We are defined by our enemies and our enemies change so the Pledge and the ritual around it changes too. We are not Confederates, we are not Communists (anymore). We are not Nazis (anymore).

  171. @syonredux
    @WhatEvvs


    Jackson also adopted an Indian boy:

    http://thehermitage.com/learn/andrew-jackson/family/children/
     
    Yeah, I read about that when I was an undergrad (cf The Revolutionary Age of Andrew Jackson)

    Jackson was among the most fascinating American presidents. That he is being expunged from the American national consciousness is something only a Quigley could explain.
     
    It's quite easy to understand.Jackson is seen as being one of the prime movers behind universal White male suffrage, and the liberal consensus has now come to the conclusion that that was a really, really bad thing.

    Replies: @SFG

    It’s not the suffrage, it’s expelling the Amerinds (as others have said), and (this is more subtle) representing the South against the ex-Puritan Federalists of New England.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @SFG


    It’s not the suffrage, it’s expelling the Amerinds (as others have said), and (this is more subtle) representing the South against the ex-Puritan Federalists of New England.
     
    The expulsion of the Amerinds is a factor, sure.

    But liberal opinion has shifted on universal White male suffrage.Historians used to view it (cf Arthur Schlesinger, etc) as an important step on the path to truly universal suffrage (i.e., suffrage for everyone: women, Blacks, etc).Nowadays, liberals see universal White male suffrage as an illiberal concept, Herrenvolk democracy.Indeed, I've attended numerous conferences where it has been argued that class-based restrictions on voting (property qualifications, etc) are preferable to the racialized system that emerged out of Jacksonian Democracy.
  172. @Hibernian
    @Buffalo Joe

    Jackson was also a slaveholder.

    Replies: @syonredux, @Buffalo Joe

    Hiberian, If they can prove he was homophobic and misogynistic they can petition to disinter him and ban the mention of his name. But lots of blacks with that last name, and as a first name. What to do?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Buffalo Joe

    Perhaps Rev. Jesse will proclaim the name Jackson to be holy forevermore.

  173. @SFG
    @syonredux

    It's not the suffrage, it's expelling the Amerinds (as others have said), and (this is more subtle) representing the South against the ex-Puritan Federalists of New England.

    Replies: @syonredux

    It’s not the suffrage, it’s expelling the Amerinds (as others have said), and (this is more subtle) representing the South against the ex-Puritan Federalists of New England.

    The expulsion of the Amerinds is a factor, sure.

    But liberal opinion has shifted on universal White male suffrage.Historians used to view it (cf Arthur Schlesinger, etc) as an important step on the path to truly universal suffrage (i.e., suffrage for everyone: women, Blacks, etc).Nowadays, liberals see universal White male suffrage as an illiberal concept, Herrenvolk democracy.Indeed, I’ve attended numerous conferences where it has been argued that class-based restrictions on voting (property qualifications, etc) are preferable to the racialized system that emerged out of Jacksonian Democracy.

  174. @SFG
    @Romanian

    Of course, that's because a lot of our history was forgotten and dead after the Middle Ages. The Chinese enjoyed going back over their thousands of years of history until Mao or so. Now they're mostly into money.

    As for becoming a Nazi...whatever. Read everyone you can. It is true that you have to accept a proposition as true before you can evaluate it, so there is the risk of slow ideological corruption, but you can always read your favorites to immunize yourself. And always consider the possibility that everything you know is wrong.

    I think it was Lewis who said you should read old and new books, because the old ones treat certain questions the new ones totally ignore, and vice versa. Read everything you have time for. At a minimum, try to read a right-wing and a left-wing news source every day.

    Replies: @Romanian

    Good advice, but a bit hard to do in practice, especially since I also have my own country’s madness to interest myself in. And a job. And a life to live, if I should convince someone to pop out those >2.1 European kids everybody hectors me about. I think the high threshold to proper understanding of policy and politics is part of the problem in allowing people to view their long-term interest and their reality. Too much noise, misinformation, mood affiliation, legacy baggage, social posturing etc. It’s easier when a good enough variant is already accepted knowledge and you can hitch your ideological cart to that. I have to say that, as an outsider, I think I might be getting a better picture of what’s happening in the US than the average person immersed in it and its very local politics.

    [MORE]

    I have a former Professor and work mate (he gave me my first job as a financial & macro journalist during my Uni days) who is a hardcore libertarian, the Academic kind, whose salary is paid for by the state. He is awfully open to debating his positions and very lucid about some of the contradictions and the likelihood that his ideology reflects his own personality and weltanschauung. He keeps letting me publicly contradict him and his mates in the publications he edits. Sort of like Ron Unz with no money. But what he told me one day was a shocker – that he is aware that, had he been born earlier, and raised as a Communist apparatchik, he would have made a formidable Inquisitor, a real Torquemada and Savonarola. I guess some of us are born soldiers for the cause.

    I sometimes think that my own ideology and the vast rightward shift it has suffered in these past few months can be attributed not only to new information, but to changes in my brain chemistry and life phase (more testosterone, an incipient preoccupation with family, status and legacy, community loyalty, abandonment of economic reductionism etc). Everyone has to negotiate with himself as to what kind of exceptions would he accept from his standards or principles, and in that grey area between axiom/hard position and political position, there are a million factors that affect us. Steve Sailer should do an article on how life stages affect political views. It’s odd that I was never a bra burner before this. Must have been a late bloomer.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Romanian

    You're soon to be a dad? Congratulations!

    Going right when you get family is an old, time-honored thing.

    I should add testosterone *falls* when you become a dad, BTW.

  175. @syonredux
    @Tim Howells


    Yes, Friedman’s quote makes little sense, unless you view the USA as the direct successor to the British Empire. Mackinder’s “World Island” paper goes back to 1904, which is 1.11 centuries ago, so under this assumption Friedman is technically in the clear.
     
    Then he needs to write more clearly, use words like British-American Empire, etc

    Even then, his assumptions are rather silly.Britain's historic rival was France, not Germany (cf, for example, the period stretching from The War of the Spanish Succession to Waterloo ).Germany only began to emerge as an imperial rival to Britain after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-71

    Replies: @Tim Howells

    To understand what Friedman is talking about you really have to go back to Mackinder’s theory. Wikipedia has a good discussion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History#The_World-Island_and_the_Heartland

    For example the whole structure of the Great Game in Eurasia plays into this in addition to the competition with Germany which is more recent as you say. The competition with Germany is the key to understanding the modern world obviously, since this motivated the two World Wars, and the aftermath of the Second World War, which still haunts us.

    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Tim Howells


    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

     

    Mackinder was the Ptolemy of geopolitics-- very smart, but also very wrong. Maybe he explains ISIS, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I don't see how.

    What's the land-power equivalent to sea-based empires like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands?

    Replies: @jimbojones

  176. To understand what Friedman is talking about you really have to go back to Mackinder’s theory. Wikipedia has a good discussion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History#The_World-Island_and_the_Heartland

    For example the whole structure of the Great Game in Eurasia plays into this in addition to the competition with Germany which is more recent as you say. The competition with Germany is the key to understanding the modern world obviously, since this motivated the two World Wars, and the aftermath of the Second World War, which still haunts us.

    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

    I understand perfectly the ideological underpinnings of what he is saying.I’m simply noting that the ugly facts work against it.

  177. @WhatEvvs
    @5371

    Pakenham wrote a stodgy establishment history. The real deal:

    http://www.amazon.com/Closet-Queens-Century-British-Politicians/dp/1408704129


    Michael Bloch's publishers did well to get Matthew Parris to give his imprimatur to this book. It could easily have been a sleazy parade of salacious innuendo, but Bloch is a scrupulous historian who wrote an excellent biography of Jeremy Thorpe and has now looked at around 50 more politicians of the last century who led similarly double lives. This is a serious historical subject ... Bloch shows that there was a far more extensive network of covert homosexuality than has hitherto been recognised, and there is no longer any need for reticence in admitting it -- John Campbell Independent The tales of secret love affairs and repressed emotions of some of Britain's past and (slightly) present MPs are told with an aborbing and gossipy literary tone, shining a light on some fascinating characters ... The cunning required to avoid being caught ... seems to have played a significant role in the successful careers outlined in Closet Queens ... The book gives a fascinating insight into the political times in which these men operated, and also outlines the staggering battle gay people have had to wage in order to gain acceptance and equality ... As well as a high calibre work of modern political history, it serves as a timely reminder of the difficulties endured by gay people in the all-too-recent past -- Charlotte Henry Independent on Sunday

    A hugely entertaining book ... In my experience, homosexuals have a gift for seeing homosexuality everywhere, yet after reading Michael Bloch's survey I am retrospectively more persuaded ... Bloch juggles the skills of lock-picker, outrageous gossip and historian. The result is unflaggingly absorbing -- Nicholas Shakespeare Daily Telegraph

    Bloch is the ideal author of this survey of closeted politicians, having published an excellent biography of Jeremy Thorpe, a gay man destroyed by his risk-taking ... It would be easy for this sort of study to be sensationalist, but Bloch ... makes it clear when he is reporting rumour and doesn't whip up scandal from thin air -- Patrick Kidd The Times

    Michael Bloch has written an entertaining account of the sex lives of some of Britain's most prominent and colourful politicians. What is surprising is that there were rather more secretly gay MPs than anyone imagined -- Chris Mullin Observer

     

    All this has been obvious for many years, open secrets. And it all fits in with what Quigley is trying to elucidate: that corporate capitalism is destroying native culture, good and bad. English culture is very anti-homosexual. The first buggery laws date back to the 16th century. The latter-day tolerance is entirely a function of top-down force, as it is in the US.

    Replies: @5371

    Perhaps you shouldn’t judge the book without having read it, since if you had you would know it contains a direct refutation of what you wrote. Well, if you prefer trashy gossip from a superannuated twink, no accounting for taste, I guess.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    @5371

    I haven't read the book yet, it's on order. But the author places Milner firmly in a homoerotic milieu. I've read so much about the British Empire/Oxbridge/Bloomsbury that I had to stop because I thought I would turn gay by default. Anyone who denies the homoerotic aspect of the British upper classes and by extension the Empire is really a fool.

    Interesting you should know the word twink. Do you partake?

    Replies: @5371

  178. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @map
    @anon

    European societies are wealthy and powerful because their institutions enable high trust among nuclear families. Thus, levels of cooperation are high.

    However, clannish subgroups can undermine high trust societies by conning those naive enough to trust them.

    Replies: @anon

    Yes, but they can also out-compete within a specific niche e.g. barber shops, ice cream sellers etc without conning anyone simply because they co-operate well at the clan scale.

    For example if you have wannabe shopkeepers from one population competing on a nuclear family basis against wannabe shopkeepers from another population who are competing as an alliance of nuclear families then the latter win (mainly because they pool capital and labor).

    At the same time people who co-operate well at the clan level but not at the national scale get out-competed at the national level by the first type.

    Using a military analogy it’s like if one population always fights in units of either ten or a thousand while a second population always fights in groups of a hundred – the latter always wins one set of fights but always loses the second type.

  179. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Paleo Retiree
    Y'all who enjoy Carroll Quigley (and Big Picture stuff generally) might also enjoy a guy named Damon Vrabel. He's a West Point/Harvard Biz School guy who was appalled by what he learned about how the world really works and who, for a few years, worked as a journalist trying to get the word out. (I believe he was a fan of Quigley's, btw.) Did some amazing stuff, including a couple of video series. I found his video lectures jaw-dropping and mind-blowing. Here's one of them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96c2wXcNA7A

    Here's the other:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_yh4-Zi92Q

    Great stuff, IMHO.

    As far as I can tell, after about five years he quit, in despair at the idea that getting the word out was ever going to make a difference.

    As for "Carroll," let's not forget Carroll Ballard, the super-talented director of films like "The Black Stallion" and "Fly Away Home."

    Replies: @anon

    Good stuff.

    As far as I can tell, after about five years he quit, in despair at the idea that getting the word out was ever going to make a difference.

    I think the only way to protect any nation from the banking mafia long-term is to increase average IQ.

    Which by extension makes it the last thing the banking mafia want.

  180. @syonredux
    @Jay


    You are confusing group-based predatory behavior with self-sacrifice. There is precious little of the latter in Black Americans.
     
    They don't need it.Their community is organized around taking stuff from White People

    Replies: @Chuck

    Blacks are organized? Good one.

  181. @jack o'fire

    What the Parsi and Jain do now is similar to what Meyer Rothschild did about 1800.
    One son to Paris one son to London another one to Vienna or Berlin.
    The brothers had strong confidence in each other.

  182. @Tim Howells
    @syonredux

    To understand what Friedman is talking about you really have to go back to Mackinder's theory. Wikipedia has a good discussion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History#The_World-Island_and_the_Heartland

    For example the whole structure of the Great Game in Eurasia plays into this in addition to the competition with Germany which is more recent as you say. The competition with Germany is the key to understanding the modern world obviously, since this motivated the two World Wars, and the aftermath of the Second World War, which still haunts us.

    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

    Mackinder was the Ptolemy of geopolitics– very smart, but also very wrong. Maybe he explains ISIS, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I don’t see how.

    What’s the land-power equivalent to sea-based empires like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands?

    • Replies: @jimbojones
    @Reg Cæsar

    "What’s the land-power equivalent to sea-based empires like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands?"
    Mongols?

  183. @Reg Cæsar
    @Tim Howells


    Friedman was speaking and not writing, but what he says is crystal clear if you are familiar with Mackinder.

     

    Mackinder was the Ptolemy of geopolitics-- very smart, but also very wrong. Maybe he explains ISIS, but the Trans-Pacific Partnership? I don't see how.

    What's the land-power equivalent to sea-based empires like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands?

    Replies: @jimbojones

    “What’s the land-power equivalent to sea-based empires like Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands?”
    Mongols?

  184. Mackinder was no doubt wrong about many things, but he remains extremely influential to say the least. Brzezinski ‘s “The Grand Chessboard” (1997) was really just a minor update of “The Geographical Pivot of History”, and Brzezinski ‘s book spells out US geopolitical strategy post 2001 in some detail.

  185. I bought and read Tragedy and Hope some years ago when I read Vox Day say in an interview that it was the best book he’d ever read. The final chapter is called Tragedy and Hope: The Future in Perspective. The 2nd section of that chapter is called “The United States and the Middle Class Crisis”, and it is brilliant. If I may quote a section (pgs 1263-64):

    “From this has emerged an almost total breakdown of communication between the teen-agers and their parents’ generation. Generally the adolescents do not tell their parents their most acute problems; they do not appeal to parents or adults but to each other for help in facing such problems (except where emotionally starved girls appeal to men teachers) ; and, when any effort is made to talk across the gap between the generations, words may pass but communication does not. Behind this protective barrier a new teen-age culture has grown up. Its chief characteristic is rejection of parental values and of middle-class culture.

    In many ways this new culture is like that of African tribes: its taste in music and the dance, its emphasis on sex play, its increasingly scanty clothing, its emphasis on group solidarity, the high value it puts on interpersonal relations (especially talking and social drinking), its almost total rejection of future preference and its constant efforts to free itself from the tyranny of time. Teen-age solidarity and sociality and especially the solidarity of their groups and subgroups are amazingly African in attitudes, as they gather nightly, or at least on weekends, to drink “cokes”, talk interminably in the midst of throbbing music, preferably in semidarkness, with couples drifting off for sex play in the corners as a kind of social diversion, and a complete emancipation from time.

    Usually they have their own language, with vocabulary and constructions so strange that parents find them almost incomprehensible. This Africanization of American society is gradually spreading with the passing years to higher age levels in our culture and is having profound and damaging effects on the transfer of middle-class values to the higher generation. A myriad of symbolic acts, over the last twenty years, have served to demonstrate the solidarity of teen culture and its rejection of middle-class values. Many of these involve dress and “dating customs”, both major issues in the Adolescent-Parental Cold War.”
    ====================================================

    The book was published in 1966, and Quigley thought it was bad then. It’s like he saw a beast as a toddler and knew what he’d become. If you don’t read any other part of the book, read that section of the last chapter.

  186. @syonredux
    @Reg Cæsar


    Paul Kersey at SBPDL is fond of pointing out that “liberal” government seems to work pretty good in places like Portland and Austin but not Baltimore and Detroit.

    If you enjoy being pushed around by smug progressives, yes. If you’d just as soon keep unmarried couples from your B&B, not so much.
     
    I dunno; if forced to chose between living in Portland/Austin or living in Baltimore/Detroit, I'd pick Portland/Austin.In a heartbeat.

    Smug White progressives are a lot more tolerable than Blacks.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Many of the latter are better co-workers, neighbors, etc., than many of the former.

  187. @Buffalo Joe
    @Hibernian

    Hiberian, If they can prove he was homophobic and misogynistic they can petition to disinter him and ban the mention of his name. But lots of blacks with that last name, and as a first name. What to do?

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Perhaps Rev. Jesse will proclaim the name Jackson to be holy forevermore.

  188. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    Perhaps you shouldn't judge the book without having read it, since if you had you would know it contains a direct refutation of what you wrote. Well, if you prefer trashy gossip from a superannuated twink, no accounting for taste, I guess.

    Replies: @WhatEvvs

    I haven’t read the book yet, it’s on order. But the author places Milner firmly in a homoerotic milieu. I’ve read so much about the British Empire/Oxbridge/Bloomsbury that I had to stop because I thought I would turn gay by default. Anyone who denies the homoerotic aspect of the British upper classes and by extension the Empire is really a fool.

    Interesting you should know the word twink. Do you partake?

    • Replies: @5371
    @WhatEvvs

    No, I was referring to Pakenham's book. I suspect I know considerably more about Greek love among English nobs than you do ( how I know it I will leave to your fervid imagination). But I don't like bullshit, and I'm afraid your remarks about Milner fall into that category.

  189. Another good article by Quigley is his Oscar Iden Lecture series. These are his last public lectures.(1976)

    http://www.carrollquigley.net/lectures/Oscar_Iden_Lectures_Introduction.htm

    The last in one particular is quite excellent

    The State of Individuals from 1776 to 1976

    In that lecture he details the socio-political disasters occurring within the U.S. He was quite prescient. It’s worth going over several times.

  190. @German_reader
    @Working Class Englishman

    Could you elaborate on that? My father's English and regards the destruction of the grammar school system as a crime, it's one of the reasons he hates Labour. What's your view?

    Replies: @PatrickH

    If no one else steps up to address your questions, perhaps this might help. The English grammar schools were originally set up in the Middle Ages to provide instruction for young people of the towns in which they were located, and the surrounding countryside. They were paid for by the city/town fathers but I think sometimes charged fees. Their purpose was to provide an education for boys (sometimes girls too) of the “middling” rank of society, whose parents did not want to educate them for the Church and did not have the money for one of the “public” schools that also began at around the same time. Even poorer boys, those whose parents could not afford to pay any fees or to support a child who was not working, could obtain scholarships to attend.

    The schools taught (Latin) grammar (hence grammar school), mathematics, and other academic subjects. Although many who attended them had no intention of going to university, education at a grammar school made this possible, especially when universities came to be less oriented towards producing clergymen, giving their pupils a chance to enter the “Establishment”. Although the education offered at grammar schools was usually excellent (so I’ve read), the social gap between them and public schools like Eton or Westminster, or private boarding schools, was significant. Thus grammar schools were resented by the very poor and looked down on by the well-off.

    The resentment felt by labour supporters towards grammar schools was powerful enough that once the Labour government came into power again after WWII (first time round they lacked the muscle), they set to work to undo the schools and create a system of “comprehensives” that would discourage social distinction between working poor and middle class. So they set to work creating a system in which academic subjects (though not Latin? not sure) were taught alongside typing etc., like some North American high schools. These schools did not require an entrance exam and charged no fees.

    Middle-class intellectuals who supported Labour but did not ordinarily send their own children to grammar schools cheered this on, while the rich, of course, were equally immune to any such social experiments. The idea was to reduce social distinctions between classes, but some people argue that the new schools achieved the opposite effect. Really bright working-class children had nowhere to go to get away from peers who were uninterested in academic success, while middle-class parents removed their children into private schools if they could, or moved where they could get them into whatever grammar schools were not converted by successive Labour governments into comprehensives.

    Your father may be right about Labour having started this trend towards getting rid of grammar schools, but I have read that Margaret Thatcher, far from trying to stop it, accelerated it.

  191. @Romanian
    @SFG

    Good advice, but a bit hard to do in practice, especially since I also have my own country's madness to interest myself in. And a job. And a life to live, if I should convince someone to pop out those >2.1 European kids everybody hectors me about. I think the high threshold to proper understanding of policy and politics is part of the problem in allowing people to view their long-term interest and their reality. Too much noise, misinformation, mood affiliation, legacy baggage, social posturing etc. It's easier when a good enough variant is already accepted knowledge and you can hitch your ideological cart to that. I have to say that, as an outsider, I think I might be getting a better picture of what's happening in the US than the average person immersed in it and its very local politics.

    I have a former Professor and work mate (he gave me my first job as a financial & macro journalist during my Uni days) who is a hardcore libertarian, the Academic kind, whose salary is paid for by the state. He is awfully open to debating his positions and very lucid about some of the contradictions and the likelihood that his ideology reflects his own personality and weltanschauung. He keeps letting me publicly contradict him and his mates in the publications he edits. Sort of like Ron Unz with no money. But what he told me one day was a shocker - that he is aware that, had he been born earlier, and raised as a Communist apparatchik, he would have made a formidable Inquisitor, a real Torquemada and Savonarola. I guess some of us are born soldiers for the cause.

    I sometimes think that my own ideology and the vast rightward shift it has suffered in these past few months can be attributed not only to new information, but to changes in my brain chemistry and life phase (more testosterone, an incipient preoccupation with family, status and legacy, community loyalty, abandonment of economic reductionism etc). Everyone has to negotiate with himself as to what kind of exceptions would he accept from his standards or principles, and in that grey area between axiom/hard position and political position, there are a million factors that affect us. Steve Sailer should do an article on how life stages affect political views. It's odd that I was never a bra burner before this. Must have been a late bloomer.

    Replies: @SFG

    You’re soon to be a dad? Congratulations!

    Going right when you get family is an old, time-honored thing.

    I should add testosterone *falls* when you become a dad, BTW.

  192. @Whiskey
    @Luke Lea

    This is not true, for example Bruges had enormous wealth in the 1200s, a period of tremendous Western isolation from the rest of the world and Muslim dominance of the Med. Just look at all the fantastic and hideously expensive cathedrals built in the place at the time. Western wealth was built on first, textiles particularly wool, along with the moldboard plow allowing much more intensive agriculture in the thick sod of North West Europe. Then came manufacturing, first with water and wind power, then steam. A place like the Low Countries was far more wealthy and able to fight off the Spanish domination through their wealth, from native industries and trade compared to all that Spanish silver and gold mined in Mexico and Peru.

    As for what happened in the West, it is self-evidently a group of inter-married people of Utopian Culture seizing power in inter-mixed Corporations, Government, Media, NGOs, etc. all essentially the same thing: ATT is the US Government is the Ford Foundation is PBS is ABC/Disney is Goldman Sachs.

    BUT ... tremendous power has been given to various self-organized communities: Muslims demand and get the Empire State Building lit up in Green for Eid, various groveling before Muslims after the latest terror attack by them. Blacks dominate completely whenever and wherever they encounter Whites, Asians, even Hispanics. Government and Media and Corporations bend over backwards for them: Amazon pulled the Confederate Flag as did Ebay, Stone Mountain is going to be demolished by the State of Georgia, Democrats junked Jefferson and Jackson from celebratory dinners, and the demolishing of Washington and Jefferson from Mount Rushmore and the demolishing of their Washington DC monuments is next. As is changing Washington to "Black City" or something.

    In any encounter between Bill Gates and say, Tehnsi Coates, Coates has the most social power and dominance. The vacuum created by the elite, intermarried governing class destruction of old (White) social orders has created powerful non-White and hostile to Whites identity groups: gays, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics who pretty much get whatever they want.

    How long this can go on is an open question. Probably not very long -- it seems a temporary condition based on real but declining White demographic superiority. As soon as Whites are near minority my guess is White Identity politics will come back with a vengeance. Trump is merely the stormy petrel of that movement.

    Replies: @anowow

    @whiskey
    “In any encounter between Bill Gates and say, Tehnsi Coates, Coates has the most social power and dominance. ”

    You really do see Gates, Bloomberg et al as tragic victims. Your myopic focus on race and the sexual politics of race, causes you, like many other whites, to give way too much agency and power to the Coates of the world.

    All it takes is for people to start calling them out, and surviving socially and financially, and the game is up. But the point is, Gates et al don’t want the game to be up. Their Yankee forebears were playing this same game of favoring their black clients against Southerners and ethnics back when Coates et al’s great-grandfathers were down in Carolina doin’ whatever it is was they did.

    And lets not even mention the tribe’s role in this. No, whiskey won’t go there, will ya bubala.

  193. @WhatEvvs
    @5371

    I haven't read the book yet, it's on order. But the author places Milner firmly in a homoerotic milieu. I've read so much about the British Empire/Oxbridge/Bloomsbury that I had to stop because I thought I would turn gay by default. Anyone who denies the homoerotic aspect of the British upper classes and by extension the Empire is really a fool.

    Interesting you should know the word twink. Do you partake?

    Replies: @5371

    No, I was referring to Pakenham’s book. I suspect I know considerably more about Greek love among English nobs than you do ( how I know it I will leave to your fervid imagination). But I don’t like bullshit, and I’m afraid your remarks about Milner fall into that category.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS