The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Roger Cohen in NYT Calls for World War 3
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

NYT op-ed columnist Roger Cohen calls for World War III:

The Suns of August
Flight 17: Ukraine’s War and Europe’s Passivity

JULY 21, 2014

Roger Cohen

LONDON — A century on from World War I, nobody wants the guns of August.

I was sort of under the impression, Roger, that that’s a good thing, seeing as how 1914 turned out and all.

Yet it must be asked if waiting years for the evasive conclusions of an official investigation into the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is better than acting now on what we already know: That the Boeing 777 with 298 people on board was shot down by a missile from a Russian-made SA-11 antiaircraft system fired from an area of eastern Ukraine controlled by Russian-backed separatists, Russian mercenaries and Russian agents.

… The shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 amounts to an act of war. It was impromptu perhaps, but still.

“Impromptu” is disingenuous, and you really shouldn’t be disingenuous when calling for the Guns of August. Nobody suddenly got an impromptu idea in their heads to shoot down a third party civilian jetliner. It was almost certainly unintended in the sense that the rocket wasn’t intended to shoot down a commercial airliner, just as the Ukraine government didn’t intend to shoot down a Russian airliner in 2001 when its forces knocked down a Siberian Airline flight full of Israelis.

The notion of “felony homicide” is more applicable. The plains of Eastern Europe are way too dangerous to mess around in.

You can always count on Eastern Europeans equipped with advanced technology to eventually screw up massively and kill a lot of innocent people. But only a few weeks ago, we were all congratulating ourselves on how much less hotheaded we are now than in June 1914. Or maybe not …

… The West has become an empty notion. The Dutch trade a lot with Russia. Europe floats along in a bubble of quasi pacifism. Better to be bullied than belligerent. Nobody wants the guns of August.

It sure sounds like Roger Cohen does.

… It won’t happen. Europe is weak. Obama’s America is about retrenchment, not resolve. Putin must be appeased. Nobody is about to call his bluff. The Putin-pacifiers have many arguments. Send forces into Ukraine and you prove the Russian argument that the West has designs on it. Besides, who wants World War III?

It sure sounds like Roger Cohen does.

The self-styled Donetsk People’s Republic stares down Mark Rutte. The deathly poppy fields of 1914 give way to the deathly sunflower fields of 2014. Dutch flowers wing around the globe, still, a thriving trade. …

Everyone wants the suns of August. Summer vacations rule. Nobody wants the guns

It sure sounds like Roger Cohen does.

— and damn the bigger guns appeasement may bring.

You know, Roger, Barbara Tuchman’s history of the beginnings of World War One, The Guns of August, wasn’t actually intended as a How To manual. When Santayana talked about the need to learn from the past, it wasn’t so we can do it all over again.

This is why I’ve been worrying about World War G for the last year. What’s the worst that hyping World War G can lead to? I mean, besides World War 3?

 
Hide 290 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Limbaugh on Monday also seemed to be calling for military action:

    The reason he doesn’t throw down the gauntlet to Putin… Well, there are two reasons. A, if he said or did anything even slightly more stringent than what he did today, then he’d have to back it up with some action, and we know he’s not gonna do that.

    I mean, if we’re not gonna take action against Benghazi, if we’re not gonna take action against Syria, we’re not gonna take action here. So he’s not gonna say anything that would automatically be followed by action or leadership. So, the power of word. Remember, these guys think their words change the world. These guys believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of speeches, when it is a world governed by the aggressive use of force — and force is gonna beat a speech every contest.

    I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises."

    Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers.
    , @Lot
    Re Limbaugh: I can accept that all men will have their vices, but Limbaugh:

    1. Goes to Haiti with a suitcase full of viagra
    2. Rips off his listeners by endorsing snake oil and overpriced (by 50% or more) gold coins
    3. Massively overeats
    4. Was such a opiate fiend that he had his maid go out with a *box* of cash to buy the hardest stuff she could get.
    5. Help get 4000 americans killed in Iraq.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Obama's tendency to "vacillate and temporize" is very bad as it allows dangerous emotions to get roiled up, while people like Cohen stir the pot.

    Obama should put a stop to this crap ASAP, by addressing legitimate concerns and pointing out that "these things happen." (google "Vincennes" and "Iranian airliner") But he won't. I can't figure him out.
  2. “Yet it must be asked if waiting years for the evasive conclusions of an official investigation into the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is better than acting now on what we already know”?

    Yes, Roger Cohen, it is better to wait until we know something. Right now we just “know”. There is a difference.

    • Replies: @Director
    It strikes me as plausible that the Ukrainian military shit the bird down. They operate the same system and are preparing for a border war with a superior air power. The Russians wouldn't have lent a system quite like that to rebel formations (captured equipment would have been a high cost) . Equally they wouldn't have directly deployed volunteer crews (capture would be a risk). Who is left? I'm sure that the Ukrainians have ringed the reb area with AA and the border with Russia is studded with Ukrainian operated SA-11. Every inch of the Rebel territory must be under permanent Satellite observation and radar observation. Where is the footage?
  3. From WIKIPEDIA, Cohen’s bio:

    Cohen was born in London to a Jewish family. His father, Sydney Cohen, a doctor, emigrated from South Africa to England in the 1950s.[3] In the late 1960s, Roger studied at Westminster School, one of Britain’s top private schools. He won a scholarship and would have entered College, the scholars’ house, but was told that a Jew could not attend College or hold his particular scholarship. Instead, he received a different scholarship.[4]

    In 1973, Cohen traveled with friends throughout the Middle East, including Iran and Afghanistan. He drove a Volkswagen Kombi named ‘Pigpen’ after the late keyboard playing frontman of the Grateful Dead.[5] He attended Balliol College, Oxford University. Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977.[6] He then left that year for Paris to teach English and to write for Paris Metro. He started working for Reuters and the agency transferred him to Brussels.[7]
    Cohen’s mother, also from South Africa (b. 1929), attempted suicide in London in 1978 and died there in 1999. She was buried in Johannesburg.[8]

    In 1983, Cohen joined The Wall Street Journal in Rome to cover the Italian economy. The Journal later transferred him to Beirut.[7] He joined The New York Times in January 1990.[6] In the summer of 1991, he co-authored with Claudio Gatti In the Eye of the Storm: The Life of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. The authors wrote the books based on information from Norman Schwarzkopf’s sister Sally, without Schwarzkopf’s help.[9]

    Cohen worked for The New York Times as its European economic correspondent, based in Paris, from January 1992 to April 1994. He then became the paper’s Balkan bureau chief, based in Zagreb, from April 1994 to June 1995. He covered the Bosnian War and the related Bosnian Genocide. His exposé of a Serb-run Bosnian concentration camp won the Burger Human Rights Award from the Overseas Press Club of America.[6]

    He wrote a retrospective book about his Balkan experiences called Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo in 1998.[10] It won a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club in 1999.[7] Cohen wrote in Hearts Grown Brutal that his coverage of the war changed him as a person, and that he considers himself lucky to still be alive.[11] He later called this period the proudest achievement in his entire journalistic career.[7]

    He returned to the paper’s Paris bureau from June 1995 to August 1998. He served as bureau chief of the Berlin bureau after September 1998. He took over as foreign editor of the paper’s American office in the direct aftermath of the September 11 attacks. His unofficial role was made formal on March 14, 2002. In his tenure, he planned and then oversaw the paper’s coverage of the War in Afghanistan.[6] During his first visit to India as an editor, he entered the country without obtaining a visa, having assumed that he would not need one. He was then stuck in diplomatic limbo for several hours. He has called this the most embarrassing moment in his career.[7]

    In 2004, he began writing a column called ‘Globalist’, which is published twice a week in The International Herald Tribune.[7] In 2005, Cohen’s third book, Soldiers and Slaves: American POWs Trapped by the Nazis’ Final Gamble, was published by Alfred A. Knopf.[1] In 2006, he became the first senior editor for The International Herald Tribune.[7]

    After columnist Nicholas D. Kristof took a temporary leave in mid-2006, Cohen took over Kristof’s position. He has written columns for the Times since then.[2]

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977": I'll bet he didn't. Odds are that he did a joint History/French degree. That's certainly available nowadays.
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/history-and-modern-languages

    "was told that a Jew could not attend College": could be, but as I get older I more and more tend to ask for independent evidence of that sort of thing. For instance, was he banned at all? If so, was he banned as a Jew, or just as a non-Anglican?

    , @quercus
    How about reading these things critically?

    from Wikipedia:

    "He won a scholarship and would have entered College, the scholars’ house, but was told that a Jew could not attend College or hold his particular scholarship. Instead, he received a different scholarship."

    What scholarship, exactly? What was the name of it? Can it be demonstrated that Jews (in the 1960s) could not attend College. If he could not hold that particular scholarship, how was he awarded it in the first place? What different scholarship DID he receive? Very suspicious stuff, all too vague.

    How does a person with a degree in French and History become an economics correspondent? Can such a person truly know what he or she is writing about? I have my doubts.
  4. On the plus side, he seems fairly level-headed regarding Iran:

    “Cohen wrote a series of articles for The New York Times in February 2009 about a trip to Iran. In his writings he expressed opposition to military action against Iran and encouraged negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic.[15] He also remarked that Iranian Jews were well treated, and said the Jewish community was “living, working and worshiping in relative tranquility.” He also described the hospitality that he received in Iran, stating that “I’m a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran.”[15] In his trip, he paid an Iranian agency $150 a day for the services of a translator, who filed a report on Cohen’s doings with the Iranian government.[16]

    His depiction of Jewish life in Iran sparked criticism from columnists and activists such as Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic Monthly[17] and Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. In his Jerusalem Post op-ed, Medoff criticized Cohen for being “misled by the existence of synagogues” and further argued that Iranian Jews “are captives of the regime, and whatever they say is carefully calibrated not to get themselves into trouble.”[18] The American Jewish Committee also criticized Cohen’s articles. Dr. Eran Lerman, director of the group’s Middle East directory, argued that “Cohen’s need to argue away an unpleasant reality thus gives rise to systematic denial”.[19]

    Roger Cohen responded on March 2, defending his observations and further elaborating that “Iran’s Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.” He also stated that “life is more difficult for them [the Jews] than for Muslims, but to suggest they [Jews] inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense.”[20] He ended with a warning:

    “ I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one—the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.[20] ”
    On March 12, Cohen accepted an invitation to meet with selected members of Los Angeles’s Iranian Jewish and Bahai community at Sinai Temple, after receiving some of their critical mail about his column.[21] Cohen defended his views and analysis on Iran and Israel to a partly hostile audience.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    • Replies: @The Dude
    Steve, didn't you write about the Iranian Jews who shuttle back and forth from LAX to Iran to tend their businesses and vacation in their Iranian motherland?

    When I read that piece, I realized that the neocons were scamming us into war with Iran.
  5. KFS says:

    Yes, I don’t think theres anything I’d put past Cohen and the other SOBs who own our politicians and media. Pat Buchanan was the only one on TV who mentioned the US shooting down an IranAir passenger airplane. But even Buchanan accepted that it was separatists who shot down the Malaysian plane although we have no evidence, just saying makes it so.

  6. And he also seems willing to criticize Isarel:

    “Cohen wrote in January 2009 that the Israel-Palestinian conflict should not be seen by the United States as just another part of the War on Terrorism. He called for the ending of Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and the ending of the blockade of the Gaza Strip. He also supported the reconciling of Hamas with Fatah after their violent split. As such, he criticized the Obama administration for its continuance of past United States policies towards Israel.[25]

    Cohen opposed Operation Cast Lead, labeling it “wretchedly named — and disastrous”.[26] He has accused Israelis of the “slaying of hundreds of Palestinian children” in the campaign.[25] In a March 8 column, Cohen stated that he had “never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions.””

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Maybe he’s just bonkers where Russia is concerned.

  7. @Harry Baldwin
    Limbaugh on Monday also seemed to be calling for military action:

    The reason he doesn't throw down the gauntlet to Putin... Well, there are two reasons. A, if he said or did anything even slightly more stringent than what he did today, then he'd have to back it up with some action, and we know he's not gonna do that.

    I mean, if we're not gonna take action against Benghazi, if we're not gonna take action against Syria, we're not gonna take action here. So he's not gonna say anything that would automatically be followed by action or leadership. So, the power of word. Remember, these guys think their words change the world. These guys believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of speeches, when it is a world governed by the aggressive use of force -- and force is gonna beat a speech every contest.


    I, for one, am a big fan of Obama's tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises.

    “I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises.”

    Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers."

    One of Eisenhower's more admirable traits as president was his ability to not get consumed by the passions of the moment and simply wait and watch.
    , @dearieme
    Remember that The Great War on Terror is only a war on terror that the US government doesn't approve of.
  8. “Iran’s Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state.”

    Saddam’s Iraq was the closest Middle Eastern match to the Third Reich. And it was our unofficial ally until that fateful day in 1991 when it turned bad, and invaded Kuwait.

  9. Priss Factor [AKA "Cloudcastler"] says:

    This is a good way to distract us from the Gazacaust that is happening right now.

    • Replies: @jon
    "This is a good way to distract us from the Gazacaust that is happening right now."

    It's also a good way to compare relative public outrage at the two acts.

    In the Ukraine, the evidence we have so far (admittedly slim):
    We know the Russian separatists did it because they bragged online about shooting down what they thought was a supply plane and then immediately removed all mention when it was discovered that it was actually a commercial flight. If true, not only did they have no intention of killing civilians but they also had no reason to believe any civilians would be killed as collateral damage.

    In Gaza, based on statements by a Wolf Blitzer interview of Netanyahu:
    Israel is targeting Hamas in areas where it knows civilians will also be killed. Most recently, this included a hit on a hospital where four died. The current death toll in Gaza is nearly twice that of the Ukraine incident, with some sources estimating about 70% of those being civilian.
  10. @Steve Sailer
    "I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises."

    Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers.

    “Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers.”

    One of Eisenhower’s more admirable traits as president was his ability to not get consumed by the passions of the moment and simply wait and watch.

    • Replies: @Anon
    This is completely false. Eisenhower routinely committed American troops to international police actions. This despite the fact that Eisenhower misguidedly supported the shift to reliance on nuclear deterent. Basically Eisenhower gutted conventional forces and then spent the last years of his administration sending what was left all across the globe.

    It is embarrassing that a broken record stay out if the Middle East paleocon like syon can say this about the author of the Eisenhower doctrine. Honestly one of the more ignorant comments I've ever read on the internet and so obviously inspired by a desire to suck up to Steve's laughable Obama'a just a golf loving WASP like Eisenhower hobby horse.
  11. iSteveFan says:

    Unless they can prove this airliner was shot down deliberately, with the knowledge that it was a civilian airliner, than I don’t understand the outrage. Things like this happen in war zones. This is why the State Department puts out travel advisories for war zones. You avoid hot spots.

    But the media is acting like this incident somehow renders the separatists’ cause invalid. They want them to end their struggle. Why? If a people believe they have a right to self determination, why would an incident such as this render it invalid? It wouldn’t. When the USAF took out a wedding party by accident in Afghanistan, it did not invalidate our mission there.

    You can always count on Eastern Europeans with advanced technology to eventually screw up massively and a lot of innocent people get killed.

    What about Americans? The highly trained crew of the Vincennes, with the modern Aegis system, shot down the Iranian Airbus. Yet I do not believe the crewman deliberately targeted a civilian plane. They really felt they were taking out an Iranian F-14.

    Modern weapons are dangerous no matter who is using them. It’s best to avoid conflict zones in the first place.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Unless they can prove this airliner was shot down deliberately, with the knowledge that it was a civilian airliner, than I don’t understand the outrage. Things like this happen in war zones.

    Indeed. We are supposed to hold Putin directly responsible but there seems to be no earthly reason why he would want the plane shot down. Thus it was a tragic error. Which means Putin/Russia cannot be held responsible to the same degree. Except somehow they can via a process which I've yet to have any of it's advocates explain for some reason.

    I've been posting this all over the place, even at the Daily Mail - lots of red arrows for me there!

    Why would Putin/Russia/rebels want a Malaysian airline shot down?

    Phase 1> Shoot down Malaysian Airliner.

    Phase 2> Vilification in the world's media.

    Phase 3> ?

    Phase 4> Russian success!

    If anyone can explain Phase 3 perhaps we might be getting somewhere.

     

    Commenting on the airliner has opened my eyes. Normally the usual suspects accuse me of being a Muslim, as of this week I'm a paid Russian troll. Apparently it's all in my syntax. Who knew?!

    Christopher Lairdriver • a day ago

    I have never seen a single one of these names on here. I come on the NP board 3 to 4 times a week. Most of you are Russian trolls. Good luck with that.

    skylow • a day ago

    Correct. You can see it in their syntax.
     

  12. Taking out Vladimir Putin has the potential to breed more terrorists in Russia, just like Iraq has become a bigger breeding ground for Islamic terrorists after taking out Saddam Hussein.

    Saddam Hussein kept those bat $hit crazy Islamic loonies in check. I read reports that Vladimir Putin actually warned the U.S about Chechen terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers being potential threats to U.S security, before the Boston bombings took place. But they did not listen to him.

    http://elitedaily.com/news/world/i-told-you-so-vladimir-putin-warned-the-u-s-of-chechen-terrorists/

    The open borders treasonous lobby in Washington D.C are bigger threats to U.S homeland security than Vladimir Putin will ever be.

    9/11 and the Boston bombings are a result of this country’s liberal immigration policies. No doubt the next big terrorist attack on U.S soil will again be committed by a vibrantly diverse group of people who practice a vibrantly diverse religion. In other words that next terrorist attack will AGAIN NOT be committed by a White Christian male.

    • Replies: @Bill
    Saddam Hussein kept those bat $hit crazy Islamic loonies in check.

    As did Mubarak. As did Assad. As did Khadaffy. As did Najibullah. At the edges of my consciousness, I think I see a pattern . . . nope, lost it.
  13. “Iranian Jews “are captives of the regime, and whatever they say is carefully calibrated not to get themselves into trouble.””

    Must be hell, as a white westerner I can’t imagine having to carefully calibrate what I say to avoid getting into trouble.

  14. I agree, a shock I know, with Buchanon that this incident does not rise to the level of an act of War, and besides Obama needs Putin’s help on Iran, in getting troops out of Afghanistan, in a lot of ways including as Buchanon noted, help against ISIS in Iraq.

    So this is not a trivial matter — Russia is too important a country.

    But we can and should call it like it was. Russian troops running the show goofed. And shot down by accident an airliner like we did.

    Putin is not Reagan. Reagan promptly apologized and paid reparations.

    What we need to do is rearm considerably, but that is a long range and strategic goal that will not be met tomorrow or next year. It will take a decade, but is worth doing.

    Also worth doing, is asking Putin to stop his trouble-making in return for a guarantee take of his oil, at a decent price — $110 a barrel. Much of what Putin does is to drive up the price of oil and I think it would be a decent swap of Russia for Saudi Arabia. Russia’s people and oligarchs are inherently status-quo and don’t sponsor Wahabbists.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    Rearm ? The USA spends more on military spending every year, it also spends more than anyone else in the world, yet it needs to rearm ?
    , @Torn and Frayed
    Putin is not Reagan. Reagan promptly apologized and paid reparations.

    No, Reagan, nor anyone in the US government ever apologized. From Wiki

    The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, but the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on the incident during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988): "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.

    Also the US only paid reparations after being sued by Iran, and the settlement happened almost eight years later:

    In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident, together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner. In total, 290 civilians on board were killed, 38 being non-Iranians and 66 being children. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time.
  15. I must say it’s great to be alive in 2014 and yet able to feel what it was like to live in 1914-18. I’m looking forward to hearing about Russians killing nuns and eating babies anytime now.

    Max Hastings, who I believe was once a real journalist, wrote this Daily Mail article:

    MAX HASTINGS: This lying brute who has to be shackled

    Which recalled this:

    Destroy this mad brute

    • Replies: @Beach
    #17 Lurker, remember in the '90s when Private Eye featured a picture of a grinning Max Hastings positioned horizontally, with the caption, "Is this the body of Hitler?" Hilarious.
  16. Let me add, the appropriate call is to demand Putin be a leader, take responsibility, apologize, and pay reparations to the relatives of the dead and the Malaysian and Dutch Goverments. This is only proper.

    It is NOT WW3. It was a mistake. It happens. Demanding Putin behave like a sensible leader and taking him to the ICJ if he does not, not as a criminal but civil matter, is the right move.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Let me add, the appropriate call is to demand Putin be a leader, take responsibility, apologize, and pay reparations to the relatives of the dead and the Malaysian and Dutch Goverments. This is only proper."

    I agree. On condition that neocons apologize for lying about WMD, the destruction on Iraq. And Obama and Sarkozy apologize for Libya. And Nuland and others of her ilk apologize for creating the mess in Ukraine.
  17. @iSteveFan
    Unless they can prove this airliner was shot down deliberately, with the knowledge that it was a civilian airliner, than I don't understand the outrage. Things like this happen in war zones. This is why the State Department puts out travel advisories for war zones. You avoid hot spots.

    But the media is acting like this incident somehow renders the separatists' cause invalid. They want them to end their struggle. Why? If a people believe they have a right to self determination, why would an incident such as this render it invalid? It wouldn't. When the USAF took out a wedding party by accident in Afghanistan, it did not invalidate our mission there.

    You can always count on Eastern Europeans with advanced technology to eventually screw up massively and a lot of innocent people get killed.

    What about Americans? The highly trained crew of the Vincennes, with the modern Aegis system, shot down the Iranian Airbus. Yet I do not believe the crewman deliberately targeted a civilian plane. They really felt they were taking out an Iranian F-14.

    Modern weapons are dangerous no matter who is using them. It's best to avoid conflict zones in the first place.

    Unless they can prove this airliner was shot down deliberately, with the knowledge that it was a civilian airliner, than I don’t understand the outrage. Things like this happen in war zones.

    Indeed. We are supposed to hold Putin directly responsible but there seems to be no earthly reason why he would want the plane shot down. Thus it was a tragic error. Which means Putin/Russia cannot be held responsible to the same degree. Except somehow they can via a process which I’ve yet to have any of it’s advocates explain for some reason.

    I’ve been posting this all over the place, even at the Daily Mail – lots of red arrows for me there!

    Why would Putin/Russia/rebels want a Malaysian airline shot down?

    Phase 1> Shoot down Malaysian Airliner.

    Phase 2> Vilification in the world’s media.

    Phase 3> ?

    Phase 4> Russian success!

    If anyone can explain Phase 3 perhaps we might be getting somewhere.

    Commenting on the airliner has opened my eyes. Normally the usual suspects accuse me of being a Muslim, as of this week I’m a paid Russian troll. Apparently it’s all in my syntax. Who knew?!

    Christopher Lairdriver • a day ago

    I have never seen a single one of these names on here. I come on the NP board 3 to 4 times a week. Most of you are Russian trolls. Good luck with that.

    skylow • a day ago

    Correct. You can see it in their syntax.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The plains of Eastern Europe are a particularly dangerous place for political operators to screw around subsidizing violence. The U.S. and Russia should have come to an agreement that they would only use bribery to compete in Ukraine and would avoid subsidizing violent overthrows of elected governments.
    , @AnAnon
    "If anyone can explain Phase 3 perhaps we might be getting somewhere. " - Twirl mustache.
  18. @Lurker
    Unless they can prove this airliner was shot down deliberately, with the knowledge that it was a civilian airliner, than I don’t understand the outrage. Things like this happen in war zones.

    Indeed. We are supposed to hold Putin directly responsible but there seems to be no earthly reason why he would want the plane shot down. Thus it was a tragic error. Which means Putin/Russia cannot be held responsible to the same degree. Except somehow they can via a process which I've yet to have any of it's advocates explain for some reason.

    I've been posting this all over the place, even at the Daily Mail - lots of red arrows for me there!

    Why would Putin/Russia/rebels want a Malaysian airline shot down?

    Phase 1> Shoot down Malaysian Airliner.

    Phase 2> Vilification in the world's media.

    Phase 3> ?

    Phase 4> Russian success!

    If anyone can explain Phase 3 perhaps we might be getting somewhere.

     

    Commenting on the airliner has opened my eyes. Normally the usual suspects accuse me of being a Muslim, as of this week I'm a paid Russian troll. Apparently it's all in my syntax. Who knew?!

    Christopher Lairdriver • a day ago

    I have never seen a single one of these names on here. I come on the NP board 3 to 4 times a week. Most of you are Russian trolls. Good luck with that.

    skylow • a day ago

    Correct. You can see it in their syntax.
     

    The plains of Eastern Europe are a particularly dangerous place for political operators to screw around subsidizing violence. The U.S. and Russia should have come to an agreement that they would only use bribery to compete in Ukraine and would avoid subsidizing violent overthrows of elected governments.

  19. Priss Factor [AKA "Cloudcastler"] says:
    @Whiskey
    Let me add, the appropriate call is to demand Putin be a leader, take responsibility, apologize, and pay reparations to the relatives of the dead and the Malaysian and Dutch Goverments. This is only proper.

    It is NOT WW3. It was a mistake. It happens. Demanding Putin behave like a sensible leader and taking him to the ICJ if he does not, not as a criminal but civil matter, is the right move.

    “Let me add, the appropriate call is to demand Putin be a leader, take responsibility, apologize, and pay reparations to the relatives of the dead and the Malaysian and Dutch Goverments. This is only proper.”

    I agree. On condition that neocons apologize for lying about WMD, the destruction on Iraq. And Obama and Sarkozy apologize for Libya. And Nuland and others of her ilk apologize for creating the mess in Ukraine.

  20. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux
    "Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers."

    One of Eisenhower's more admirable traits as president was his ability to not get consumed by the passions of the moment and simply wait and watch.

    This is completely false. Eisenhower routinely committed American troops to international police actions. This despite the fact that Eisenhower misguidedly supported the shift to reliance on nuclear deterent. Basically Eisenhower gutted conventional forces and then spent the last years of his administration sending what was left all across the globe.

    It is embarrassing that a broken record stay out if the Middle East paleocon like syon can say this about the author of the Eisenhower doctrine. Honestly one of the more ignorant comments I’ve ever read on the internet and so obviously inspired by a desire to suck up to Steve’s laughable Obama’a just a golf loving WASP like Eisenhower hobby horse.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Anon:"This is completely false."

    Which is to say, it is completely true.


    Anon:"Eisenhower routinely committed American troops to international police actions."

    Like Korea? No, wait, he inherited that one and got us out it six months into his first term. The only big deployment of troops was in Lebanon, and that was a resounding success:

    "in July 1958, he sent 15,000 Marines and soldiers to Lebanon as part of Operation Blue Bat, a non-combat peace-keeping mission to stabilize the pro-Western government and to prevent a radical revolution from sweeping over that country.[163]

    The mission proved a success and the Marines departed three months later. The deployment came in response to the urgent request of Lebanese president Camille Chamoun after sectarian violence had erupted in the country. Washington considered the military intervention successful since it brought about regional stability, weakened Soviet influence, and intimidated the Egyptian and Syrian governments, whose anti-West political position had hardened after the Suez Crisis."

    (WIKIPEDIA)


    Anon:"This despite the fact that Eisenhower misguidedly supported the shift to reliance on nuclear deterent."

    Yet the Republic endured.

    Anon:" Basically Eisenhower gutted conventional forces and then spent the last years of his administration sending what was left all across the globe."

    Like in Lebanon? The mission that was a resounding success? As for gutting conventional forces,Eisenhower was probably the last president who understood that the military always want more than they need.Of course, that is one of the benefits that come from having a general in the White House.



    Anon:"It is embarrassing that a broken record stay out if the Middle East paleocon like syon"

    Am I a paleocon?


    Anon:" can say this about the author of the Eisenhower doctrine."

    And yet Eisenhower somehow managed to keep the peace during his term in office, unlike Truman and Johnson. Goes to show that actions count for more than doctrine, I suppose.


    Anon:" Honestly one of the more ignorant comments I’ve ever read on the internet"

    You must not spend much time on the internet.

    Anon:" and so obviously inspired by a desire to suck up to Steve’s laughable Obama’a just a golf loving WASP like Eisenhower hobby horse."

    Well, I do like to think that Steve and agree on some things....
    , @Anonymous
    List out all of Eisenhower's "commitments" and you will see they were very small indeed and involved "slam dunk" mil ops with few, if any US casualties, and essentially zero risk of a more widespread engagement, e.g., Lebanon and the Dominican Republic. Eisenhower regularly avoided major confrontations with the potential for exploding into large-scale military operations despite urgings from US war hawks and belligerent allies. Examples of this latter point abound, including East Germany in '53; Vietnam in '55; and Suez and Hungary in '56. Perhaps Eisenhower's greatest mistake was allowing Gary power's last, ill-fated U2 flight. He did this only under enormous pressure from and based on false information by the CIA. Looking at the evidence, your claim is, to be minimally critical, over-stated.
  21. iSteveFan says:

    Let me add, the appropriate call is to demand Putin be a leader, take responsibility, apologize, and pay reparations to the relatives of the dead and the Malaysian and Dutch Goverments. This is only proper.

    You are jumping way ahead of the story. Why should Putin have to accept responsibility for the separatists? Second, it took the USA almost 7 years to come to an agreement on Iran Air 655. And the US did not even admit guilt. They called it a tragedy, expressed regret, but did not admit legal liability. Though they did pay the families compensation.

    Why should Putin do more than this?

  22. That last comment of mine – that was on the National Post:

    fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/20/matthew-fisher-russias-soviet-style-propaganda-machine-churning-out-mh17-conspiracy-theories

    Until we know more, if we ever do, I’m not sure the pro-Russian rebels did it, let alone Russia. I wonder if it crashed in the wrong place? Perhaps it was meant to come down in uncontested Kiev held territory and thus all the evidence discovered would have neatly pointed at Russia? Instead we have a messy scramble to direct the narrative.

    Isn’t it a bit odd that the rebels would shoot down a plane at such high altitude just as it were about to cross into Russian territory, only about 3 minutes flying time?

    Also Ive heard two totally conflicting ideas:

    (1) The plane was the only one follow that flight path in recent weeks, thus making its presence odd. (Someone set it up, sending it on that course?)

    (2) Hundreds of planes fly over every day on similar headings and heights and thus why single out this one? (Which, again, points to a set-up)

  23. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Eisenhower stabbed Britain and France in the back and then had to go whoops I guess with those two countries gone we are going to have to be the new hegemon there. The Steve’s and syon’s of the world who hate America’s ability to project power into the world might want to rethink their Eisenhower nostalgia.

    Of course the real reason most paleos like Eisenhower is precisely because he stabbed England and France in the back because that hurt Israel. But spare me you crocodile tears about the American hegemon if you are going to praise Eisenhower the man who established the blueprint for Pax Americana in the Middle East with the Eisenhower doctrine the most open ended articulation of American force projection ever made. The effective utter repudiation of Steve’s beloved Farewell Address.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    aNON:"Eisenhower stabbed Britain and France in the back and then had to go whoops I guess with those two countries gone we are going to have to be the new hegemon there."


    More like Eisenhower realized that the days of old style imperial intervention were over and that more subtle means were now needed. Not to mention the fact that British PM Anthony Eden was a classic study in drug-induced hysteria:

    "He was also prescribed Benzedrine, the wonder drug of the 1950s. Regarded then as a harmless stimulant, it belongs to the family of drugs called amphetamines, and at that time they were prescribed and used in a very casual way. Among the side effects of Benzedrine are insomnia, restlessness and mood swings, all of which Eden suffered during the Suez Crisis. His drug use is now commonly agreed to have been a part of the reason for his bad judgment while Prime Minister.[1] Eden was secretly hospitalised with a high fever, possibly as a result of his heavy medication, on 5–8 October 1956. He underwent further surgery at a New York hospital in April 1957.

    In November 2006 private papers uncovered in the Eden family archives disclosed that he had been prescribed a powerful combination of amphetamines and barbiturates called drinamyl. Better known in post-war Britain as "purple hearts", they can impair judgement, cause paranoia and even make the person taking them lose contact with reality. Drinamyl was banned in 1978."

    (WIKIPEDIA)


    Anon:" The Steve’s and syon’s of the world who hate America’s ability to project power into the world might want to rethink their Eisenhower nostalgia."

    Can't speak for Steve, but I rather like the fact that America can project its power; of course, I also think that such an ability should be used judiciously.

    Anon:"Of course the real reason most paleos like Eisenhower is precisely because he stabbed England and France"

    More like made them leave their imperial dream-world and face the cold light of day.


    Anon:"in the back because that hurt Israel."

    More like Eisenhower was the last President who understood that America's interests in the Middle East are not identical to Israel's.


    Anon:" But spare me you crocodile tears about the American hegemon if you are going to praise Eisenhower the man who established the blueprint for Pax Americana in the Middle East with the Eisenhower doctrine the most open ended articulation of American force projection ever made. The effective utter repudiation of Steve’s beloved Farewell Address."

    And yet somehow Eisenhower did not deploy troops to Vietnam, or Algeria, or Hungary, etc. Again, actions speak louder than doctrine.
  24. Lot says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Limbaugh on Monday also seemed to be calling for military action:

    The reason he doesn't throw down the gauntlet to Putin... Well, there are two reasons. A, if he said or did anything even slightly more stringent than what he did today, then he'd have to back it up with some action, and we know he's not gonna do that.

    I mean, if we're not gonna take action against Benghazi, if we're not gonna take action against Syria, we're not gonna take action here. So he's not gonna say anything that would automatically be followed by action or leadership. So, the power of word. Remember, these guys think their words change the world. These guys believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of speeches, when it is a world governed by the aggressive use of force -- and force is gonna beat a speech every contest.


    I, for one, am a big fan of Obama's tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises.

    Re Limbaugh: I can accept that all men will have their vices, but Limbaugh:

    1. Goes to Haiti with a suitcase full of viagra
    2. Rips off his listeners by endorsing snake oil and overpriced (by 50% or more) gold coins
    3. Massively overeats
    4. Was such a opiate fiend that he had his maid go out with a *box* of cash to buy the hardest stuff she could get.
    5. Help get 4000 americans killed in Iraq.

  25. eah says:

    I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that ‘rebels’ in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    And I think you have to be massively intellectually dishonest to suggest that people who advocate serious action want to start a war with Russia.

    Make no mistake: via coordinated and forceful sanctions, the West has the ability to savage Russia’s economy, further impoverishing what is, at best, a second world country.

    And that would be a good starting point.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    You have to be a pretty stupid person to think that this is a hideous atrocity, passenger planes have been shot down before, a quick google search will show that this has happen at least seven times before.
    , @Scott Locklin
    "I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that ‘rebels’ in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime."

    A hideous atrocity like the Vincennes shooting down Iran Flight 655 in Iranian airspace? Should the US have been bankrupted via "coordinated and forceful sanctions" after that incident? If not, why not, you soulless critter, you? Do you think the US should be bankrupted for supplying military arms to nasty people?

    FWIIW, the separatists have access to SAM artillery from three other sources besides the Russians. 1) the official Ukrainian military, 2) the arms depots in the Donbass region, 3) the arms factories in the Donbass. The official Ukrainian military also has such launchers in the region, which is kind of weird considering the separatists do not have an air force. Personally, I think it was probably the separatists, but holding Russian feet to the fire on an issue they have no direct involvement with is ridiculous.
    , @Bill
    one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    That's loony. It's not even the most hideous atrocity in this particular war. I'd say the Odessa massacre qualifies as the most hideous currently known atrocity in this particular war, but there is undoubtedly a whole lot of other stuff the Kiev Nazis have been up to out of sight of our vigilant press corps. So, I might change my mind.
  26. @Anon
    This is completely false. Eisenhower routinely committed American troops to international police actions. This despite the fact that Eisenhower misguidedly supported the shift to reliance on nuclear deterent. Basically Eisenhower gutted conventional forces and then spent the last years of his administration sending what was left all across the globe.

    It is embarrassing that a broken record stay out if the Middle East paleocon like syon can say this about the author of the Eisenhower doctrine. Honestly one of the more ignorant comments I've ever read on the internet and so obviously inspired by a desire to suck up to Steve's laughable Obama'a just a golf loving WASP like Eisenhower hobby horse.

    Anon:”This is completely false.”

    Which is to say, it is completely true.

    Anon:”Eisenhower routinely committed American troops to international police actions.”

    Like Korea? No, wait, he inherited that one and got us out it six months into his first term. The only big deployment of troops was in Lebanon, and that was a resounding success:

    “in July 1958, he sent 15,000 Marines and soldiers to Lebanon as part of Operation Blue Bat, a non-combat peace-keeping mission to stabilize the pro-Western government and to prevent a radical revolution from sweeping over that country.[163]

    The mission proved a success and the Marines departed three months later. The deployment came in response to the urgent request of Lebanese president Camille Chamoun after sectarian violence had erupted in the country. Washington considered the military intervention successful since it brought about regional stability, weakened Soviet influence, and intimidated the Egyptian and Syrian governments, whose anti-West political position had hardened after the Suez Crisis.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Anon:”This despite the fact that Eisenhower misguidedly supported the shift to reliance on nuclear deterent.”

    Yet the Republic endured.

    Anon:” Basically Eisenhower gutted conventional forces and then spent the last years of his administration sending what was left all across the globe.”

    Like in Lebanon? The mission that was a resounding success? As for gutting conventional forces,Eisenhower was probably the last president who understood that the military always want more than they need.Of course, that is one of the benefits that come from having a general in the White House.

    Anon:”It is embarrassing that a broken record stay out if the Middle East paleocon like syon”

    Am I a paleocon?

    Anon:” can say this about the author of the Eisenhower doctrine.”

    And yet Eisenhower somehow managed to keep the peace during his term in office, unlike Truman and Johnson. Goes to show that actions count for more than doctrine, I suppose.

    Anon:” Honestly one of the more ignorant comments I’ve ever read on the internet”

    You must not spend much time on the internet.

    Anon:” and so obviously inspired by a desire to suck up to Steve’s laughable Obama’a just a golf loving WASP like Eisenhower hobby horse.”

    Well, I do like to think that Steve and agree on some things….

  27. Where’s Steve Pinker when you need him?
    Isn’t posturing and saber rattling supposed to be so passe, you know a relict of man’s medieval past in which we are told that life was just so much more dangerous and belligerent.

  28. jon says:
    @Priss Factor
    This is a good way to distract us from the Gazacaust that is happening right now.

    “This is a good way to distract us from the Gazacaust that is happening right now.”

    It’s also a good way to compare relative public outrage at the two acts.

    In the Ukraine, the evidence we have so far (admittedly slim):
    We know the Russian separatists did it because they bragged online about shooting down what they thought was a supply plane and then immediately removed all mention when it was discovered that it was actually a commercial flight. If true, not only did they have no intention of killing civilians but they also had no reason to believe any civilians would be killed as collateral damage.

    In Gaza, based on statements by a Wolf Blitzer interview of Netanyahu:
    Israel is targeting Hamas in areas where it knows civilians will also be killed. Most recently, this included a hit on a hospital where four died. The current death toll in Gaza is nearly twice that of the Ukraine incident, with some sources estimating about 70% of those being civilian.

  29. @syonredux
    From WIKIPEDIA, Cohen's bio:

    Cohen was born in London to a Jewish family. His father, Sydney Cohen, a doctor, emigrated from South Africa to England in the 1950s.[3] In the late 1960s, Roger studied at Westminster School, one of Britain's top private schools. He won a scholarship and would have entered College, the scholars' house, but was told that a Jew could not attend College or hold his particular scholarship. Instead, he received a different scholarship.[4]

    In 1973, Cohen traveled with friends throughout the Middle East, including Iran and Afghanistan. He drove a Volkswagen Kombi named 'Pigpen' after the late keyboard playing frontman of the Grateful Dead.[5] He attended Balliol College, Oxford University. Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977.[6] He then left that year for Paris to teach English and to write for Paris Metro. He started working for Reuters and the agency transferred him to Brussels.[7]
    Cohen's mother, also from South Africa (b. 1929), attempted suicide in London in 1978 and died there in 1999. She was buried in Johannesburg.[8]



    In 1983, Cohen joined The Wall Street Journal in Rome to cover the Italian economy. The Journal later transferred him to Beirut.[7] He joined The New York Times in January 1990.[6] In the summer of 1991, he co-authored with Claudio Gatti In the Eye of the Storm: The Life of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. The authors wrote the books based on information from Norman Schwarzkopf's sister Sally, without Schwarzkopf's help.[9]

    Cohen worked for The New York Times as its European economic correspondent, based in Paris, from January 1992 to April 1994. He then became the paper's Balkan bureau chief, based in Zagreb, from April 1994 to June 1995. He covered the Bosnian War and the related Bosnian Genocide. His exposé of a Serb-run Bosnian concentration camp won the Burger Human Rights Award from the Overseas Press Club of America.[6]

    He wrote a retrospective book about his Balkan experiences called Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo in 1998.[10] It won a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club in 1999.[7] Cohen wrote in Hearts Grown Brutal that his coverage of the war changed him as a person, and that he considers himself lucky to still be alive.[11] He later called this period the proudest achievement in his entire journalistic career.[7]

    He returned to the paper's Paris bureau from June 1995 to August 1998. He served as bureau chief of the Berlin bureau after September 1998. He took over as foreign editor of the paper's American office in the direct aftermath of the September 11 attacks. His unofficial role was made formal on March 14, 2002. In his tenure, he planned and then oversaw the paper's coverage of the War in Afghanistan.[6] During his first visit to India as an editor, he entered the country without obtaining a visa, having assumed that he would not need one. He was then stuck in diplomatic limbo for several hours. He has called this the most embarrassing moment in his career.[7]

    In 2004, he began writing a column called 'Globalist', which is published twice a week in The International Herald Tribune.[7] In 2005, Cohen's third book, Soldiers and Slaves: American POWs Trapped by the Nazis' Final Gamble, was published by Alfred A. Knopf.[1] In 2006, he became the first senior editor for The International Herald Tribune.[7]

    After columnist Nicholas D. Kristof took a temporary leave in mid-2006, Cohen took over Kristof's position. He has written columns for the Times since then.[2]

    “Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977”: I’ll bet he didn’t. Odds are that he did a joint History/French degree. That’s certainly available nowadays.
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/history-and-modern-languages

    “was told that a Jew could not attend College”: could be, but as I get older I more and more tend to ask for independent evidence of that sort of thing. For instance, was he banned at all? If so, was he banned as a Jew, or just as a non-Anglican?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    dearieme:"“Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977″: I’ll bet he didn’t. Odds are that he did a joint History/French degree. That’s certainly available nowadays."

    Could be. WIKIPEDIA bios are frequently a bit vague.


    dearieme:"“was told that a Jew could not attend College”: could be, but as I get older I more and more tend to ask for independent evidence of that sort of thing. For instance, was he banned at all? If so, was he banned as a Jew, or just as a non-Anglican?"

    No idea. On the other hand, it is significant that this is the narrative that has been constructed for his WIKIPEDIA bio. True or not, someone wants this bit of info out there.
  30. I doubt not just Putin’s responsibility for the crash, but this whole narrative that he is responsible for stirring up trouble in Eastern Ukraine and arming the rebels. For one, if Putin really didn’t give a rat’s patootie about what the West thought, he would simply invade Eastern Ukraine and those two provinces would be part of Russia in a matter of days. The fact that he hasn’t gone the route of Crimea in the East should tell any logical person that the threat of sanctions does hold considerable weight. Of course, he might be thinking now that the West is going to blame him and impose harsher sanctions no matter what he does. In which case he might just say to hell with it and invade. The West is intent on cornering Putin and not offering a face-saving way out of this mess. It’s all stick and no carrot.

  31. I think it’s time to start the draft back up. I’m too old to serve but I’ve always felt that shared military service is a great way to overcome the inherent racism in our society. Russia is an evil land. Their track record on human rights (especially in regards to Hews and homosexuals) is appalling. Also , the country seems to be offensively white (while watching the Olympics I saw almost no People of Colour). The lack of diversity is a sure sign of a rotten nation. You people wanting to avoid conflict at all costs are cowards. I’m sure you were fine with raping the scary brown people in the Middle East. But killing other depraved whites? No way!

  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The missile came from the territory of Ukraine. Since the weapon was made in Russia there’s a push to fix the blame upon them. But aren’t the Israelis using American weapons in their current onslaught against the residents of Gaza? They’ve managed to slaughter close to six hundred so far. Pictures have shown the wanton killing of children and other civilians as they terrorize and collectively punish the population there. It’s become a fascist state that’s resorted to mass killing in order to send a message and control resistant populations. Perhaps Cohen should lobby for an arms blockade of Israel as well as an economic embargo. Also, these dual-citizens who would rather serve in their military than in ours should start getting looked into and possibly get their status revoked. We’ve got a greater capability for controlling events there than in Ukraine so that’s where we should expend our efforts.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    Gazans can have peace within a few minutes any time they want:

    Just. Stop. Launching. Rockets.

    Israel makes efforts to minimize casualties, and Gaza makes efforts to maximize casualties. Israel makes phone calls to Gazans' houses notifying them that an attack is imminent to destroy the rockets the Gazans have stored there. Jon Stewart is mad because he think Israel should give Gazans enough notice to move the rockets to a new location from which to attack.

    When Gazans store their rockets in schools and hospitals, they're betting on the gullibility of clueless Western leftists.
  33. I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that ‘rebels’ in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    When were you born — 2000?

    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon. Do you really think the Ukrainian separatists targeted this jet? Some ancient grudge against Malaysians and Dutch?

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    • Replies: @Matra
    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon.

    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented. This has not been proven yet and thanks to the best, or worst, efforts of the separatists in recent days we may never know. Add to that the fact that the separatists have established a government of sorts (again illegal under international law) led politically and militarily by three men ( Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and Marat Bashirov) who are citizens of the Russian state and we have an extremely serious situation. For once Whiskey is right. Unless Russia comes clean and makes amends this event ought to be a "game-changer". Unfortunately, as part of my commitment to HBD and "noticing things" I've observed that most Russians (like a few other groups I can think of) seem to reject the idea that they can ever be anything other than victims.

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.
  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    This is completely false. Eisenhower routinely committed American troops to international police actions. This despite the fact that Eisenhower misguidedly supported the shift to reliance on nuclear deterent. Basically Eisenhower gutted conventional forces and then spent the last years of his administration sending what was left all across the globe.

    It is embarrassing that a broken record stay out if the Middle East paleocon like syon can say this about the author of the Eisenhower doctrine. Honestly one of the more ignorant comments I've ever read on the internet and so obviously inspired by a desire to suck up to Steve's laughable Obama'a just a golf loving WASP like Eisenhower hobby horse.

    List out all of Eisenhower’s “commitments” and you will see they were very small indeed and involved “slam dunk” mil ops with few, if any US casualties, and essentially zero risk of a more widespread engagement, e.g., Lebanon and the Dominican Republic. Eisenhower regularly avoided major confrontations with the potential for exploding into large-scale military operations despite urgings from US war hawks and belligerent allies. Examples of this latter point abound, including East Germany in ’53; Vietnam in ’55; and Suez and Hungary in ’56. Perhaps Eisenhower’s greatest mistake was allowing Gary power’s last, ill-fated U2 flight. He did this only under enormous pressure from and based on false information by the CIA. Looking at the evidence, your claim is, to be minimally critical, over-stated.

  35. @ 7:42 am- “I’m too old to serve but…”. Yeah, that’s real convenient.
    “You people…are cowards”. That from the king of macho who is “too old to serve”.
    Parody?

  36. Codswollop.

    I have been following this whole, horrid thing—-not just the downed Malaysian airliner, but the coup d’etat instigated and funded by the USG against a democratically elected Victor Yanukovich, and the increasing series of provocations against Russia pushed by the current regime in Kiev.

    The Western media drops the subject every so often to point to something else happening. This is generally when either a) the Kiev regime is doing something truly atrocious, or b) the rebels/separatists/terrorists are having some success. My ability to read the Russian language helps.

    For the people who are sure that Russia and/or the separatists are behind it, on what do you base your opinion? Did you catch the Russian Ministry of Defence press conference yesterday? Have you seen radar information to support your view? The Russian press conference showed a concentration of Ukrainian Army ground-to-air missile launchers in the area of the shootdown. These linked units provide much greater radar range than the single Buk launcher held by the rebels.

    If the Russians are really providing highly technical military support to the rebels, why are the rebels still retreating? Why is the Ukrainian Army shelling the towns with impunity, if Russia is committed to defending the rebels? (Most of the Ukrainian army artillery units are within counterbattery fire range from Russian border defence units.) If Russia decided to swat down Ukraine, Ukraine would be swatted down, tout d’suite.

    For most of my life, the major foreign policy goal of the United States was to avoid getting into a shooting war with the Soviet Union. Today, of course, the Soviet Union is no more, but its prime successor state, the Russian Federation, still has an awful lot of nukes . . . and the means to deliver them. Maybe to the Continental US? Certainly to Europe. During the Cold War, we refused to intervene when the Russians rolled into Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland “to restore constitutional order” (i.e., suppress uprisings). Yet now we’re talking about getting into a shooting fight with the Russians?

    I could be wrong. God knows I could be wrong, but it sure looks to me like we’re the ones picking this fight, like we’re the ones poking the bear, and that Putin is displaying massive restraint by not responding. Public opinion in Russia is heavily in favor of a little counterbattery fire.

    Nobody wants the guns of August . . . except Roger Cohen, and Victoria Nuland, and, apparently, the USG.

  37. “Commenting on the airliner has opened my eyes. Normally the usual suspects accuse me of being a Muslim, as of this week I’m a paid Russian troll. Apparently it’s all in my syntax. Who knew?!”

    On the message boards for mainstream news sources (WaPo, Yahoo), I see this a LOT. Many pro-Russian commentators are accused of being “paid Russian shills” or being on Putin’s payroll. Often, the same person will make the same accusations under multiple pro-Russian comments from different posters. But strangely, I never see the reverse happen.

    A common theme on Steve’s blog is how those responsible for pushing “The Narrative” like to project their behavior onto their critics.

    Just putting 2 and 2 together, my friends.

  38. I don’t want a war with Russia, but if we had imposed economic sanctions on them earlier, they might have stopped giving arms to separatists in Ukraine, and the plane with 298 people may not have been shot down.

    Do Steve Sailer and his commenters think we should just ignore Russia’s aggression?

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    I really, truly have no problem with Russians giving arms to their kin just across a somewhat arbitrary border. I'm glad blood counts for something, somewhere.

    The US is arming fractious groups all over the Middle East for no good reason.
  39. @Beliavsky
    I don't want a war with Russia, but if we had imposed economic sanctions on them earlier, they might have stopped giving arms to separatists in Ukraine, and the plane with 298 people may not have been shot down.

    Do Steve Sailer and his commenters think we should just ignore Russia's aggression?

    I really, truly have no problem with Russians giving arms to their kin just across a somewhat arbitrary border. I’m glad blood counts for something, somewhere.

    The US is arming fractious groups all over the Middle East for no good reason.

  40. The Ukraine isn’t our business and we shouldn’t be ready to declare WWIII over what happened.

    A large portion of the blame is on the aviation administration that approved flights over a region that has active AA missile batteries that have already shot down aircraft.

    This was a avoidable tragedy.

    As for further punishing Russia, guess what? She holds the trump cards in this stupid game the West is playing. For starters Europe needs it’s NG, same with Ukraine. Put Russia into a corner and they turn off the spigot in winter. Watch Europe freeze and it’s economy die. Same with Ukraine.

    This is why Europe has been so lukewarm to Obama and the Neo-Cons.

    The U.S. cannot offer Europe any alternatives should this happen except to say “better you than me”.

    But nevertheless I fear that war will come.

  41. @dearieme
    "Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977": I'll bet he didn't. Odds are that he did a joint History/French degree. That's certainly available nowadays.
    http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/history-and-modern-languages

    "was told that a Jew could not attend College": could be, but as I get older I more and more tend to ask for independent evidence of that sort of thing. For instance, was he banned at all? If so, was he banned as a Jew, or just as a non-Anglican?

    dearieme:”“Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977″: I’ll bet he didn’t. Odds are that he did a joint History/French degree. That’s certainly available nowadays.”

    Could be. WIKIPEDIA bios are frequently a bit vague.

    dearieme:”“was told that a Jew could not attend College”: could be, but as I get older I more and more tend to ask for independent evidence of that sort of thing. For instance, was he banned at all? If so, was he banned as a Jew, or just as a non-Anglican?”

    No idea. On the other hand, it is significant that this is the narrative that has been constructed for his WIKIPEDIA bio. True or not, someone wants this bit of info out there.

  42. @syonredux
    On the plus side, he seems fairly level-headed regarding Iran:

    "Cohen wrote a series of articles for The New York Times in February 2009 about a trip to Iran. In his writings he expressed opposition to military action against Iran and encouraged negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic.[15] He also remarked that Iranian Jews were well treated, and said the Jewish community was "living, working and worshiping in relative tranquility." He also described the hospitality that he received in Iran, stating that "I’m a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran."[15] In his trip, he paid an Iranian agency $150 a day for the services of a translator, who filed a report on Cohen’s doings with the Iranian government.[16]

    His depiction of Jewish life in Iran sparked criticism from columnists and activists such as Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic Monthly[17] and Rafael Medoff, director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. In his Jerusalem Post op-ed, Medoff criticized Cohen for being “misled by the existence of synagogues” and further argued that Iranian Jews "are captives of the regime, and whatever they say is carefully calibrated not to get themselves into trouble."[18] The American Jewish Committee also criticized Cohen's articles. Dr. Eran Lerman, director of the group's Middle East directory, argued that "Cohen’s need to argue away an unpleasant reality thus gives rise to systematic denial".[19]

    Roger Cohen responded on March 2, defending his observations and further elaborating that "Iran’s Islamic Republic is no Third Reich redux. Nor is it a totalitarian state." He also stated that "life is more difficult for them [the Jews] than for Muslims, but to suggest they [Jews] inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense."[20] He ended with a warning:

    “ I return to this subject because behind the Jewish issue in Iran lies a critical one—the U.S. propensity to fixate on and demonize a country through a one-dimensional lens, with a sometimes disastrous chain of results.[20] ”
    On March 12, Cohen accepted an invitation to meet with selected members of Los Angeles's Iranian Jewish and Bahai community at Sinai Temple, after receiving some of their critical mail about his column.[21] Cohen defended his views and analysis on Iran and Israel to a partly hostile audience."

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Steve, didn’t you write about the Iranian Jews who shuttle back and forth from LAX to Iran to tend their businesses and vacation in their Iranian motherland?

    When I read that piece, I realized that the neocons were scamming us into war with Iran.

  43. @Anon
    Eisenhower stabbed Britain and France in the back and then had to go whoops I guess with those two countries gone we are going to have to be the new hegemon there. The Steve's and syon's of the world who hate America's ability to project power into the world might want to rethink their Eisenhower nostalgia.

    Of course the real reason most paleos like Eisenhower is precisely because he stabbed England and France in the back because that hurt Israel. But spare me you crocodile tears about the American hegemon if you are going to praise Eisenhower the man who established the blueprint for Pax Americana in the Middle East with the Eisenhower doctrine the most open ended articulation of American force projection ever made. The effective utter repudiation of Steve's beloved Farewell Address.

    aNON:”Eisenhower stabbed Britain and France in the back and then had to go whoops I guess with those two countries gone we are going to have to be the new hegemon there.”

    More like Eisenhower realized that the days of old style imperial intervention were over and that more subtle means were now needed. Not to mention the fact that British PM Anthony Eden was a classic study in drug-induced hysteria:

    “He was also prescribed Benzedrine, the wonder drug of the 1950s. Regarded then as a harmless stimulant, it belongs to the family of drugs called amphetamines, and at that time they were prescribed and used in a very casual way. Among the side effects of Benzedrine are insomnia, restlessness and mood swings, all of which Eden suffered during the Suez Crisis. His drug use is now commonly agreed to have been a part of the reason for his bad judgment while Prime Minister.[1] Eden was secretly hospitalised with a high fever, possibly as a result of his heavy medication, on 5–8 October 1956. He underwent further surgery at a New York hospital in April 1957.

    In November 2006 private papers uncovered in the Eden family archives disclosed that he had been prescribed a powerful combination of amphetamines and barbiturates called drinamyl. Better known in post-war Britain as “purple hearts”, they can impair judgement, cause paranoia and even make the person taking them lose contact with reality. Drinamyl was banned in 1978.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Anon:” The Steve’s and syon’s of the world who hate America’s ability to project power into the world might want to rethink their Eisenhower nostalgia.”

    Can’t speak for Steve, but I rather like the fact that America can project its power; of course, I also think that such an ability should be used judiciously.

    Anon:”Of course the real reason most paleos like Eisenhower is precisely because he stabbed England and France”

    More like made them leave their imperial dream-world and face the cold light of day.

    Anon:”in the back because that hurt Israel.”

    More like Eisenhower was the last President who understood that America’s interests in the Middle East are not identical to Israel’s.

    Anon:” But spare me you crocodile tears about the American hegemon if you are going to praise Eisenhower the man who established the blueprint for Pax Americana in the Middle East with the Eisenhower doctrine the most open ended articulation of American force projection ever made. The effective utter repudiation of Steve’s beloved Farewell Address.”

    And yet somehow Eisenhower did not deploy troops to Vietnam, or Algeria, or Hungary, etc. Again, actions speak louder than doctrine.

    • Replies: @Director
    There's something to be said for the Imperial Dreamworlds. They certainly were better than the Equal Rights nightmare of Detroit, Birmingham and ... Name any American urban area. They were certainly better than Post English London and After France Paris. Even Berlin is filling up with Brown Muck.

    The end of Empire and the Crusade for democracy were the demographic end of civilization.
  44. I’m no Obama enthusiast. But if McCain were POTUS we would probably already be sitting in nuclear rubble.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    The next president will either be Hillary or a generic Neocon type, so the nuclear rubble will become more likely.
    , @Rapparee
    That is what's most shocking to me about the way that these people are baying for blood- they seem completely ignorant of the fact that Russia still has a huge nuclear arsenal, much of it pointed at the United States. During the Cold War, when the Soviets were genuinely threatening much of the world, we somehow managed to narrowly avoid blowing up the whole planet. Now, with Russia only making trouble in the countries on her immediate borders, these maniacs want to let fly the nukes.

    Really, I think they're fantasizing about watching the boys storm the beaches like in all those WWII movies (from safe, rear-echelon positions, of course). Well, WWIII isn't going to be a replay of The Big One, as horrifying and nightmarish as that would be. It will look more like a precursor to the Apocalypse- "Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad... The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead." Frankly, I think I'd prefer to be stuck in the trenches along the Marne.
  45. I don’t want a war with Russia, but if we had imposed economic sanctions on them earlier, they might have stopped giving arms to separatists in Ukraine, and the plane with 298 people may not have been shot down.

    Or if we had not backed the violent coup which toppled the pro-Russian government in the Ukraine, that plane with 298 people would not have been shot down.

  46. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    But nevertheless I fear that war will come.

    Yes. The plan for WWIII is on schedule.

  47. roger rather likes war (or at least reporting on it/selling books about it):

    What is the proudest achievement in your working life?

    Covering the war in Bosnia and the subsequent book I wrote – Hearts Grown Brutal – about the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Living through a war in Europe was a harrowing experience in many ways, but I think that for everyone there of my pampered generation, it was also an education. In war, you see people pushed to their limits. To try to evoke that, to convey those experiences and so to impact government policy when governments are doing their best to ignore terrible things – that can be rewarding in more lasting ways than most journalism.

    source.

    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Roger and his ilk* really get off on war.

    *And no, not the Jews, but the feckless Ivy-League-show-biz-journo elite. These people really suck.
  48. I think you have to be massively intellectually dishonest to suggest that people who advocate serious action want to start a war with Russia.

    It takes massive intellectual dishonesty to suggest that what the parties involved in a war ‘want” matters in the slightest. Nobody involved in starting WWI wanted what actually happened, but in their wildest nightmares they never imagined that what actually happened could possibly occur.

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    "Nobody involved in starting WWI wanted what actually happened" - They didn't want how it turned out, they most certainly did want a war, and scoffed at the idea that it could turn into the very death filled slog that it did. The example from the American civil war, and other conflicts were there for them to see.
  49. Eisenhower committed forces for Operation Wetback (see Wikipedia) in the US. That’s good enough for me. If only we had it now.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Eisenhower committed forces for Operation Wetback (see Wikipedia) in the US. That’s good enough for me. If only we had it now."

    Another point in Ike's favor.
  50. WhatEvvs [AKA "Cookies"] says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Limbaugh on Monday also seemed to be calling for military action:

    The reason he doesn't throw down the gauntlet to Putin... Well, there are two reasons. A, if he said or did anything even slightly more stringent than what he did today, then he'd have to back it up with some action, and we know he's not gonna do that.

    I mean, if we're not gonna take action against Benghazi, if we're not gonna take action against Syria, we're not gonna take action here. So he's not gonna say anything that would automatically be followed by action or leadership. So, the power of word. Remember, these guys think their words change the world. These guys believe that this is a world governed by the aggressive use of speeches, when it is a world governed by the aggressive use of force -- and force is gonna beat a speech every contest.


    I, for one, am a big fan of Obama's tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises.

    Obama’s tendency to “vacillate and temporize” is very bad as it allows dangerous emotions to get roiled up, while people like Cohen stir the pot.

    Obama should put a stop to this crap ASAP, by addressing legitimate concerns and pointing out that “these things happen.” (google “Vincennes” and “Iranian airliner”) But he won’t. I can’t figure him out.

  51. @hbd chick
    roger rather likes war (or at least reporting on it/selling books about it):

    What is the proudest achievement in your working life?

    Covering the war in Bosnia and the subsequent book I wrote - Hearts Grown Brutal - about the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Living through a war in Europe was a harrowing experience in many ways, but I think that for everyone there of my pampered generation, it was also an education. In war, you see people pushed to their limits. To try to evoke that, to convey those experiences and so to impact government policy when governments are doing their best to ignore terrible things - that can be rewarding in more lasting ways than most journalism.


    source.

    Roger and his ilk* really get off on war.

    *And no, not the Jews, but the feckless Ivy-League-show-biz-journo elite. These people really suck.

  52. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Nobody involved in starting WWI wanted what actually happened,

    Except, perhaps, for those who benefited from it.

  53. Yes, sunflower fields indeed. Here’s a poetic reply to Mr. Cohen:
    In Ukraine’s Field

  54. @phil
    Eisenhower committed forces for Operation Wetback (see Wikipedia) in the US. That's good enough for me. If only we had it now.

    “Eisenhower committed forces for Operation Wetback (see Wikipedia) in the US. That’s good enough for me. If only we had it now.”

    Another point in Ike’s favor.

  55. @Whiskey
    I agree, a shock I know, with Buchanon that this incident does not rise to the level of an act of War, and besides Obama needs Putin's help on Iran, in getting troops out of Afghanistan, in a lot of ways including as Buchanon noted, help against ISIS in Iraq.

    So this is not a trivial matter -- Russia is too important a country.

    But we can and should call it like it was. Russian troops running the show goofed. And shot down by accident an airliner like we did.

    Putin is not Reagan. Reagan promptly apologized and paid reparations.

    What we need to do is rearm considerably, but that is a long range and strategic goal that will not be met tomorrow or next year. It will take a decade, but is worth doing.

    Also worth doing, is asking Putin to stop his trouble-making in return for a guarantee take of his oil, at a decent price -- $110 a barrel. Much of what Putin does is to drive up the price of oil and I think it would be a decent swap of Russia for Saudi Arabia. Russia's people and oligarchs are inherently status-quo and don't sponsor Wahabbists.

    Rearm ? The USA spends more on military spending every year, it also spends more than anyone else in the world, yet it needs to rearm ?

  56. “eah says:

    I think you have to be a pretty soulless person……”

    So anyone who disagrees with you has no soul? I guess we can guess what dealing with you must be like.

    “………to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that ‘rebels’ in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident),”

    And what serious action should be taken against the United States for shooting down an Iranian with as many people on board? Tell us. And that wasn’t done by ‘rebels’ – that was done by uniformed sailors of the US Navy.

    “……..one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.”

    You obviously don’t pay much attention to the world around you.

  57. @eah
    I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that 'rebels' in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    And I think you have to be massively intellectually dishonest to suggest that people who advocate serious action want to start a war with Russia.

    Make no mistake: via coordinated and forceful sanctions, the West has the ability to savage Russia's economy, further impoverishing what is, at best, a second world country.

    And that would be a good starting point.

    You have to be a pretty stupid person to think that this is a hideous atrocity, passenger planes have been shot down before, a quick google search will show that this has happen at least seven times before.

  58. “Jim says;

    I’m no Obama enthusiast. But if McCain were POTUS we would probably already be sitting in nuclear rubble.”

    Yes, as bad as Obama is, he is perhaps better than that demented, bloody-minded old fool, McCain.

  59. @Jim
    I'm no Obama enthusiast. But if McCain were POTUS we would probably already be sitting in nuclear rubble.

    The next president will either be Hillary or a generic Neocon type, so the nuclear rubble will become more likely.

  60. Of course the real reason most paleos like Eisenhower is precisely because he stabbed England and France in the back because that hurt Israel.

    The paleos like Ike because he implemented Operation Wetback. Maybe that’s another reason why the neocons are NOT big fans of Ike.

  61. The lack of diversity is a sure sign of a rotten nation.

    Lol, you’re a funny guy, Ted. I’m not sure leftoids are willing to sign on to the “the whole world is rotten except for western Europe, the US, and South Africa” thing just yet.

  62. Putin isn’t to be directly blamed for MH17 even though clearly his allies did it. It was a mistake partly created by the fact that the hillbillies of Eastern Ukraine had no idea foreigners overflew the area. Putin is to be blamed for arming the rebels though. If you think it’s because of the shared Russian blood, think again. What’s the likelyhood of him sponsoring Russian militias in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan? Nil, until those regimes want to change course away from being great friends of Russia. How they treat ethnic Russians has absolutely no bearing on this.. Also, what happened to the ethnic Russians of Chechnya? Yeah, Putin doesn’t give a damn about Russians abroad or “abroad”.

  63. After suffering through Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, Bush I’s foreign policy looks like a veritable masterclass in how to properly manage world affairs. No wonder the neocons hated him. Restraint is not in their lexicon.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    Bush the Elder was the last grown-up President.
  64. @Jim
    I'm no Obama enthusiast. But if McCain were POTUS we would probably already be sitting in nuclear rubble.

    That is what’s most shocking to me about the way that these people are baying for blood- they seem completely ignorant of the fact that Russia still has a huge nuclear arsenal, much of it pointed at the United States. During the Cold War, when the Soviets were genuinely threatening much of the world, we somehow managed to narrowly avoid blowing up the whole planet. Now, with Russia only making trouble in the countries on her immediate borders, these maniacs want to let fly the nukes.

    Really, I think they’re fantasizing about watching the boys storm the beaches like in all those WWII movies (from safe, rear-echelon positions, of course). Well, WWIII isn’t going to be a replay of The Big One, as horrifying and nightmarish as that would be. It will look more like a precursor to the Apocalypse- “Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad… The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead.” Frankly, I think I’d prefer to be stuck in the trenches along the Marne.

  65. iSteveFan says:

    Do Steve Sailer and his commenters think we should just ignore Russia’s aggression?

    For the past 20 years our side is the one that has been aggressive. From the rape of Russia to the expansion of NATO, from the bombing of Serbia to the coup in Ukraine, the US seems to be the one who is aggressive.

    I don’t know what your definition of aggression is, but as an American, the biggest aggression I have experienced since the end of the Cold War has come from above, not from Russia. The massive population replacement program going in my country has not been caused by Russia. The massive de-industrialization taking place in my country has not been caused by Russia. And the erosion of rights and freedoms, once taken for granted, have not been caused by Russia.

  66. “Nobody suddenly got an impromptu idea in their heads to shoot down a third party civilian jetliner. It was almost certainly unintended in the sense that the rocket wasn’t intended to shoot down a commercial airliner”

    You can make a civilian air liner look like a military target by flying a fighter between the air liner and the ground radar and spoofing the air liner’s IFF signal.

    https://www.noagendaplayer.com/listen/636/1-6-55

  67. iSteveFan says:

    What we need to do is rearm considerably, but that is a long range and strategic goal that will not be met tomorrow or next year. It will take a decade, but is worth doing.

    Yeah, I guess after a decade plus of burning through your equipment in unnecessary wars, you have to start thinking about replacements. I guess we still have more costs to incur from your wars.

  68. @eah
    I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that 'rebels' in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    And I think you have to be massively intellectually dishonest to suggest that people who advocate serious action want to start a war with Russia.

    Make no mistake: via coordinated and forceful sanctions, the West has the ability to savage Russia's economy, further impoverishing what is, at best, a second world country.

    And that would be a good starting point.

    “I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that ‘rebels’ in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.”

    A hideous atrocity like the Vincennes shooting down Iran Flight 655 in Iranian airspace? Should the US have been bankrupted via “coordinated and forceful sanctions” after that incident? If not, why not, you soulless critter, you? Do you think the US should be bankrupted for supplying military arms to nasty people?

    FWIIW, the separatists have access to SAM artillery from three other sources besides the Russians. 1) the official Ukrainian military, 2) the arms depots in the Donbass region, 3) the arms factories in the Donbass. The official Ukrainian military also has such launchers in the region, which is kind of weird considering the separatists do not have an air force. Personally, I think it was probably the separatists, but holding Russian feet to the fire on an issue they have no direct involvement with is ridiculous.

  69. “I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises.”

    Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Nano:"Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar."

    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people. Brazil is the country of the future.....and, sadly, always will be. India is only 74.04% literate.

    China is the only one that counts.
  70. eah said: “shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime”.

    Wow.

    Others have noted that the second clause of that is pretty overstated unless one was born after 2000. And maybe even then.

    But let’s focus on the as yet uncriticized first part of the thought. The clear implication is that even if it was an accident it was an atrocity. There IS precendent for that attitude, I am sure. But has it been generally conceded that an accident can be an atrocity, especially in the context in which one is accusing someone of a committing an atrocity?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The forecast that political violence in Ukraine was likely to turn out badly wasn't too hard to make. I didn't predict the jetliner catastrophe, but fighting in Ukraine always struck me as a foreboding thing. I can remember sending in a Taki's Magazine article at dawn that included an up-to-the-minute paragraph about "fortunately a compromise has been worked out in downtown Kiev," and then having to email Jim Goad an hour later to tell him to delete that paragraph because all hell had just broken loose in Kiev.
  71. @random observer
    eah said: "shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime".

    Wow.

    Others have noted that the second clause of that is pretty overstated unless one was born after 2000. And maybe even then.

    But let's focus on the as yet uncriticized first part of the thought. The clear implication is that even if it was an accident it was an atrocity. There IS precendent for that attitude, I am sure. But has it been generally conceded that an accident can be an atrocity, especially in the context in which one is accusing someone of a committing an atrocity?

    The forecast that political violence in Ukraine was likely to turn out badly wasn’t too hard to make. I didn’t predict the jetliner catastrophe, but fighting in Ukraine always struck me as a foreboding thing. I can remember sending in a Taki’s Magazine article at dawn that included an up-to-the-minute paragraph about “fortunately a compromise has been worked out in downtown Kiev,” and then having to email Jim Goad an hour later to tell him to delete that paragraph because all hell had just broken loose in Kiev.

  72. @nano
    "I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises."

    Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar.

    Nano:”Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar.”

    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people. Brazil is the country of the future…..and, sadly, always will be. India is only 74.04% literate.

    China is the only one that counts.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    "Nigeria with nukes and White people."

    On the other hand America will be land with Nigerians (ok also Mexicans) and nukes, and it is the future ?
    , @Hunsdon
    syon said: Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.

    Hunsdon said: ladies and gentlemen, the latest product from the Nigerian air defense industry.
    , @Director
    Nigeria with Rocket Science and an industrial economy. And blonde women who do what the husband asks.
  73. If a Ukraine SU-25 spoofed the air liner’s IFF signal then if the US satellite picked up the missile launch then the same satellite must have picked up the Su-25. (If it was hiding in the air liner’s radar shadow then it would suddenly appear on radar just at the spot where MH17 blew up).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Generally speaking, bad decisions aren't terribly complicated.
  74. @nano
    If a Ukraine SU-25 spoofed the air liner's IFF signal then if the US satellite picked up the missile launch then the same satellite must have picked up the Su-25. (If it was hiding in the air liner's radar shadow then it would suddenly appear on radar just at the spot where MH17 blew up).

    Generally speaking, bad decisions aren’t terribly complicated.

  75. @syonredux
    Nano:"Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar."

    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people. Brazil is the country of the future.....and, sadly, always will be. India is only 74.04% literate.

    China is the only one that counts.

    “Nigeria with nukes and White people.”

    On the other hand America will be land with Nigerians (ok also Mexicans) and nukes, and it is the future ?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Neutral:"On the other hand America will be land with Nigerians (ok also Mexicans) and nukes, and it is the future ?"

    Not with Mexicans (and Hondurans, and El Salvadorans, and, etc) streaming in. That's why we need to secure our borders, and forget about Russia.

  76. “Europe is weak.”

    Yes, and thank god. This is a feature, not a bug.

    NATO has done a good job keeping Germany exporting BMW’s and building green power sources.

    Russia is also weak. It now has a modest professional army. Big enough to make its neighbors think I suppose Russia also has nukes, which are nice defensive weapons when all else fails.

    Pity that we actually live in a very safe world. Our psychopathological Western European friends, France, Europe, Britain are defanged. There is zero chance our potential enemies in the middle East won’t sell us oil. ‘Why buy the cow when the milk is free’. Russia is simply trying to become a plausibly serious country with the ability to project modest power into neighboring countries.

    If there was ever an ideal time to ‘lead from behind’ or … let the other guy wring his hands — it is this. Everyone killed was Dutch. We need only be outraged in theory, from behind the Atlantic.

    If anyone really wanted to put pressure on Russia, we would simply threaten to pull the plug on NATO and let Germany fully rearm as a purely self defensive measure. That would be a come to Jesus moment for Putin.

  77. @syon

    “The BRIC is a joke…China is the only one that counts.”

    Every 1% of international trade that isn’t settled in dollars reduces the value of the dollar.

    That’s why the USUK elite are screaming for war. They have to scare Pooty into backing down over replacing the dollar.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    nano:"Every 1% of international trade that isn’t settled in dollars reduces the value of the dollar.

    That’s why the USUK elite are screaming for war. They have to scare Pooty into backing down over replacing the dollar."

    If only things were that rational.

  78. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.

    Ahhh, revealing your prejudices, I see.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Hard Line Realist:"Ahhh, revealing your prejudices, I see."


    Revealing reality. Only neocons and madmen waste time thinking about Russia. This is not 1963. I don't care what goes on in Ukraine. I care about our borders. I care about the hordes of Amerinds and Mestizos streaming in. I care about America.
  79. Make no mistake: via coordinated and forceful sanctions, the West has the ability to savage Russia’s economy, further impoverishing what is, at best, a second world country.

    LOL! thanks for the heads-up; I had no idea.

  80. @syonredux
    Nano:"Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar."

    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people. Brazil is the country of the future.....and, sadly, always will be. India is only 74.04% literate.

    China is the only one that counts.

    syon said: Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.

    Hunsdon said: ladies and gentlemen, the latest product from the Nigerian air defense industry.

  81. Who shot the plan down has not been remotely proven despite the hysterical headlines in every Western news source. Russia appears to be the only one calmly presenting evidence so far. The US said immediately “Russia did it!” (literally within minutes of the plane going down) and have yet to come up with anything better. Ukraine has been presenting evidence that, like their evidence of other Russian misdeeds, has parts that are provably fake.

    Typically the more shrill the volume the more guilty the party.

  82. @syonredux
    From WIKIPEDIA, Cohen's bio:

    Cohen was born in London to a Jewish family. His father, Sydney Cohen, a doctor, emigrated from South Africa to England in the 1950s.[3] In the late 1960s, Roger studied at Westminster School, one of Britain's top private schools. He won a scholarship and would have entered College, the scholars' house, but was told that a Jew could not attend College or hold his particular scholarship. Instead, he received a different scholarship.[4]

    In 1973, Cohen traveled with friends throughout the Middle East, including Iran and Afghanistan. He drove a Volkswagen Kombi named 'Pigpen' after the late keyboard playing frontman of the Grateful Dead.[5] He attended Balliol College, Oxford University. Cohen graduated with M.A. degrees in History and in French in 1977.[6] He then left that year for Paris to teach English and to write for Paris Metro. He started working for Reuters and the agency transferred him to Brussels.[7]
    Cohen's mother, also from South Africa (b. 1929), attempted suicide in London in 1978 and died there in 1999. She was buried in Johannesburg.[8]



    In 1983, Cohen joined The Wall Street Journal in Rome to cover the Italian economy. The Journal later transferred him to Beirut.[7] He joined The New York Times in January 1990.[6] In the summer of 1991, he co-authored with Claudio Gatti In the Eye of the Storm: The Life of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf. The authors wrote the books based on information from Norman Schwarzkopf's sister Sally, without Schwarzkopf's help.[9]

    Cohen worked for The New York Times as its European economic correspondent, based in Paris, from January 1992 to April 1994. He then became the paper's Balkan bureau chief, based in Zagreb, from April 1994 to June 1995. He covered the Bosnian War and the related Bosnian Genocide. His exposé of a Serb-run Bosnian concentration camp won the Burger Human Rights Award from the Overseas Press Club of America.[6]

    He wrote a retrospective book about his Balkan experiences called Hearts Grown Brutal: Sagas of Sarajevo in 1998.[10] It won a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club in 1999.[7] Cohen wrote in Hearts Grown Brutal that his coverage of the war changed him as a person, and that he considers himself lucky to still be alive.[11] He later called this period the proudest achievement in his entire journalistic career.[7]

    He returned to the paper's Paris bureau from June 1995 to August 1998. He served as bureau chief of the Berlin bureau after September 1998. He took over as foreign editor of the paper's American office in the direct aftermath of the September 11 attacks. His unofficial role was made formal on March 14, 2002. In his tenure, he planned and then oversaw the paper's coverage of the War in Afghanistan.[6] During his first visit to India as an editor, he entered the country without obtaining a visa, having assumed that he would not need one. He was then stuck in diplomatic limbo for several hours. He has called this the most embarrassing moment in his career.[7]

    In 2004, he began writing a column called 'Globalist', which is published twice a week in The International Herald Tribune.[7] In 2005, Cohen's third book, Soldiers and Slaves: American POWs Trapped by the Nazis' Final Gamble, was published by Alfred A. Knopf.[1] In 2006, he became the first senior editor for The International Herald Tribune.[7]

    After columnist Nicholas D. Kristof took a temporary leave in mid-2006, Cohen took over Kristof's position. He has written columns for the Times since then.[2]

    How about reading these things critically?

    from Wikipedia:

    “He won a scholarship and would have entered College, the scholars’ house, but was told that a Jew could not attend College or hold his particular scholarship. Instead, he received a different scholarship.”

    What scholarship, exactly? What was the name of it? Can it be demonstrated that Jews (in the 1960s) could not attend College. If he could not hold that particular scholarship, how was he awarded it in the first place? What different scholarship DID he receive? Very suspicious stuff, all too vague.

    How does a person with a degree in French and History become an economics correspondent? Can such a person truly know what he or she is writing about? I have my doubts.

  83. iSteveFan says:

    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.

    First, it is not BRIC, it is BRICS with the S being for South Africa. Though not a power, getting South Africa into this alliance might make inroads into Africa and help China and Russia outmaneuver the West in getting to its resources.

    Second, Russia is a not limited to resource extraction. They do have a highly developed aerospace sector, and have the talent to advance. A century ago Russia was seen as an emerging economic giant, but that whole little Bolshevik thing came along. After decades of oppression they went through another economic rape under Yeltsin. Who knows, maybe they might blossom once others stop trying to contain them.

    The US missed a chance after the Cold War to establish a pan-European alliance. We have yet to come to the realization that our real threats come from the global South.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    iSteveFan:"First, it is not BRIC, it is BRICS with the S being for South Africa."

    Yeah, South Africa, another winner.....


    iSF:" Though not a power, getting South Africa into this alliance might make inroads into Africa and help China and Russia outmaneuver the West in getting to its resources."

    Yeah, wake me when that happens.

    iSF:"Second, Russia is a not limited to resource extraction."

    They are. Look up their economic stats. The health of the Russian economy depends on the price of oil.


    iSF:" They do have a highly developed aerospace sector,"

    Which earns them how much money?


    iSF:"and have the talent to advance."

    To where?


    iSF:"A century ago Russia was seen as an emerging economic giant, but that whole little Bolshevik thing came along."

    The saddest words, what might have been....

    iSF:"After decades of oppression they went through another economic rape under Yeltsin. Who knows, maybe they might blossom once others stop trying to contain them."

    Yeah, and alien Overlords might show up and bring us the gift of zero point energy. Don't hold your breath.

    iSF:"The US missed a chance after the Cold War to establish a pan-European alliance. "

    Why would the Russians want to ally with the West?

    iSF:"We have yet to come to the realization that our real threats come from the global South."

    Only a threat because our elites allow them to be a threat.

  84. @Hard Line Realist

    Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.
     
    Ahhh, revealing your prejudices, I see.

    Hard Line Realist:”Ahhh, revealing your prejudices, I see.”

    Revealing reality. Only neocons and madmen waste time thinking about Russia. This is not 1963. I don’t care what goes on in Ukraine. I care about our borders. I care about the hordes of Amerinds and Mestizos streaming in. I care about America.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    syon said: Only neocons and madmen waste time thinking about Russia. This is not 1963. I don’t care what goes on in Ukraine.

    Hunsdon said: If the neocons and madmen weren't wasting time thinking about Russia, I'd be vastly less disturbed. However, the simple fact is that neocons and madmen ARE wasting time trying to provoke a fight with Russia. Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?
  85. @Neutral
    "Nigeria with nukes and White people."

    On the other hand America will be land with Nigerians (ok also Mexicans) and nukes, and it is the future ?

    Neutral:”On the other hand America will be land with Nigerians (ok also Mexicans) and nukes, and it is the future ?”

    Not with Mexicans (and Hondurans, and El Salvadorans, and, etc) streaming in. That’s why we need to secure our borders, and forget about Russia.

  86. @nano
    @syon

    "The BRIC is a joke...China is the only one that counts."

    Every 1% of international trade that isn't settled in dollars reduces the value of the dollar.

    That's why the USUK elite are screaming for war. They have to scare Pooty into backing down over replacing the dollar.

    nano:”Every 1% of international trade that isn’t settled in dollars reduces the value of the dollar.

    That’s why the USUK elite are screaming for war. They have to scare Pooty into backing down over replacing the dollar.”

    If only things were that rational.

  87. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    “Limbaugh on Monday also seemed to be calling for military action”

    White goyim like Limbaugh and McCain don’t have any guts to fight the Cabal — both have pretty much bent over to ‘gay marriage’ too — , so they channel their faux-toughness at Russia, which is ironically on the side of conservative nationalism.
    In some ways, Limbaugh and McCain are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. As total prisoners of the Cabal, the only way they can hide their shame is to act as if they’re serving the Cabal for their own personal reasons. It creates an illusion of free will.

  88. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    “Make no mistake: via coordinated and forceful sanctions, the West has the ability to savage Russia’s economy, further impoverishing what is, at best, a second world country.”

    This is true, but stop calling it the West. It’s really Jewish Power because, without it, there would be no bad blood between US and Russia.
    Jews have used all sorts of pressures, dirty tricks, laws, threats, and etc to destroy big business in America that won’t bend over to Jewish and homo power.
    What Jews and homos did to business culture in the US, they are now extending to EU and Russia.
    And there are plenty of fifth columnist Jews in Russia who are working with the Cabal in the US.
    We had Armand Hammers, and they have Hammerovskies.

    Russia is vulnerable because so many men around Putin are corrupt and useless and because most Russians are lazy drunken fools.
    Unless Russian turns into a kind of Prussia, it will be too divided, too lazy, and too clueless to handle situations like this.

  89. @syonredux
    Hard Line Realist:"Ahhh, revealing your prejudices, I see."


    Revealing reality. Only neocons and madmen waste time thinking about Russia. This is not 1963. I don't care what goes on in Ukraine. I care about our borders. I care about the hordes of Amerinds and Mestizos streaming in. I care about America.

    syon said: Only neocons and madmen waste time thinking about Russia. This is not 1963. I don’t care what goes on in Ukraine.

    Hunsdon said: If the neocons and madmen weren’t wasting time thinking about Russia, I’d be vastly less disturbed. However, the simple fact is that neocons and madmen ARE wasting time trying to provoke a fight with Russia. Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    hunsdon:"Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?"

    No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless. Or, to phrase it somewhat differently, Ukraine only has meaning if we try to interfere. And we should not interfere.We should let Russia do whatever they want over there.
  90. @Steve Sailer
    "I, for one, am a big fan of Obama’s tendency to vacillate and temporize when it comes to foreign crises."

    Right, a lot of things that seem like the biggest deal in the history of the world at the moment get forgotten pretty quickly. For example, a bunch of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro terrorists blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, and practically nobody remembers it today except the Castro Brothers.

    Remember that The Great War on Terror is only a war on terror that the US government doesn’t approve of.

  91. @syonredux
    After suffering through Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, Bush I's foreign policy looks like a veritable masterclass in how to properly manage world affairs. No wonder the neocons hated him. Restraint is not in their lexicon.

    Bush the Elder was the last grown-up President.

    • Replies: @enderby
    Bush the Elder was the last grown-up President
    He was the last one that had to deal with the USSR and its ICBMs. After the cold war was "won" all hell broke loose. Every president since has pushed the accelerator pedal harder to squander the advantages "our victory" gave us and wreck the nation as quickly as possible.

    We own the world! We are the world!

  92. It’s all talk, but they’re really going after Iran. Whatever it does.

  93. @Lurker
    I must say it's great to be alive in 2014 and yet able to feel what it was like to live in 1914-18. I'm looking forward to hearing about Russians killing nuns and eating babies anytime now.

    Max Hastings, who I believe was once a real journalist, wrote this Daily Mail article:

    MAX HASTINGS: This lying brute who has to be shackled

    Which recalled this:

    Destroy this mad brute

    #17 Lurker, remember in the ’90s when Private Eye featured a picture of a grinning Max Hastings positioned horizontally, with the caption, “Is this the body of Hitler?” Hilarious.

  94. @dearieme
    Bush the Elder was the last grown-up President.

    Bush the Elder was the last grown-up President
    He was the last one that had to deal with the USSR and its ICBMs. After the cold war was “won” all hell broke loose. Every president since has pushed the accelerator pedal harder to squander the advantages “our victory” gave us and wreck the nation as quickly as possible.

    We own the world! We are the world!

    • Replies: @syonredux
    enderby:"He was the last one that had to deal with the USSR and its ICBMs. After the cold war was “won” all hell broke loose. Every president since has pushed the accelerator pedal harder to squander the advantages “our victory” gave us and wreck the nation as quickly as possible.

    We own the world! We are the world!"

    The Soviets collapsed while Bush I was in office; unlike his successors, Bush I responded with prudence to the new geopolitical landscape. To cite only the most obvious example, he pursued a limited, winnable goal (forcing the Iraqis out of Kuwait) in the Gulf War.
  95. I saw and heard the MSM banging their war drums just from the tiny snippets of CNN and Fox News I caught while traveling over the weekend. The largely conservative folks I spoke to in Eastern New Mexico had no interest in another war and did not have any animosity toward Putin. They were wondering why the hell a commercial jetliner was flying above a civil war zone in the first place.

  96. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.

    More like a white Christian Mongolia.

  97. Someone else’s analysis:

    http://www.acting-man.com/?p=31876

    And from here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/u-s-government-lied-accidental-shootdown-commercial-plane-3-decades-ago.html

    The moral of the story is that all governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first.

  98. Ted said:

    “I think it’s time to start the draft back up.” and then ” I’m too old to serve ”

    Well,*I* have a son who is NOT too old, and I DON’T think it’s time to start the draft back up, so STFU, hypocrite.

  99. I wonder how many people named Cohen would fight for the United States in a fratricidal WW3 against Russia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    2, maybe 3...
  100. Sanctions, threats of military actions, et al. How far do the neo-cons/neo-libs want to push this? Till Russia starts to believe it is threatened and it’s an existential threat? At what point do the Russians say, “Screw it, they are already accusing us of terrorism and threatening us. Let’s loose 50 suitcase nukes for starters.”

  101. Like, don’t we (and everyone else) have satellites watching Russia/Ukraine? Can’t we just look at the tape to see where the thing came from? I mean, the local convenience store has security cameras to catch little fish, aren’t our supreme forces even sort of paying attention?

  102. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email

    He blames the system but not the culture of political correctness that punishes kids for having different thoughts and promotes mindless worship of stuff like MLK cult and homosexuals. Never mind TNR is part of that PC culture.

  103. Priss Factor [AKA "bogus"] says:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118747/ivy-league-schools-are-overrated-send-your-kids-elsewhere?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email

    He blames the system but not the culture of political correctness that punishes kids for having different thoughts and promotes mindless worship of stuff like MLK cult and homo saints. Never mind TNR is part of that PC culture.

    The problem is not kids craving success and status. I mean who didn’t crave such things in the past?
    The problem today is that ONLY WAY you have success and status in our PC-controlled world is through blind submission to the Narrative and Dogma. You have to watch yourself at all times lest you say something that might be construed as ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘homophobic’, ‘xenophic’, ‘reactionary’, ‘conservative’, ‘rightwinger’, ‘sexist’, ‘transphobic’, and etc. .. which means end of your career forever.

    Also, in the past, fun and play used to be just fun and play among children. Boys joined boy scouts to go camping, and girls joined girl scouts to have fun and bake cookies.
    Not everything was about having the ‘correct’ thought or attitude. Intellectual life, ideological life, and cultural life were separate. Today the ideology of PC has its tentacles everywhere.

    The PC gang have turned every TV show, every comic book, every kiddie organization, and etc into indoctrination centers where every child better THINK AND FEEL THIS WAY because, if not, he or she is a ‘bad bad hater’. In our PC nanny-state, kids are raised from cradle to think and feel ONLY IN ONE WAY, the PC way. ARCHIE ANDREWS KILLED BY A ‘HOMOPHOBE GUN NUT’ TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A SAINTLY HOMOSEXUAL SENATOR? Gimme a break!

    So, kids only know and feel one way since they’re raised to be that way from childhood. And they understand that for them to succeed in life and gain status, they must use their intelligence and skills ONLY IN THE SERVICE OF WHAT PC ALLOWS, because if they deviate from such, they will get the Stephanie Grace treatment(who was publicly attacked by a Harvard dean for her private emails). When a man as powerful as Lawrence Summers can be attacked and reviled for a mere speculation about IQ differences between men and women in math and science, is it any wonder that most smart young people understand that they better NOT rock the PC boat?

    Also, with the erosion of the middle class, many American parents and kids fear that the future is about big success or no success at all. In the past, even if you didn’t succeed big time, you could have a pretty good life in the middle. But such secure middle class life is fading, so kids figure it’s big success or big bust. Since they fear failure, they are much less likely to rock the PC boat.

    Btw, it’ all the more ironic since TNR is usually mouthpiece of PC and homomania and all that crap and have been working with the PC industry to vilify and shut down anyone who challenges the dominant Narrative and Dogma.

    If someone like Norman Mailer, Sam Peckinpah, Stanley Kubrick, and etc were born today, their minds would be filled with PC from the moment they could watch TV and read. Then, they would be told to worship MLK, Oprah, Obama, Harvey Milk, and etc. And they would be punished over and over if they dared express any view or opinion that might be politically incorrect. They’d realize that they better use their intelligence and skills ONLY IN THE MOST PC way since they will be destroyed otherwise. If Norman Mailer were a young kid today, he better not be Norman Mailer if he wants any success in college or life. He better be some PC-castrated eunuch.

    We now live in a world where a baker can be put of business because he won’t bake cakes for homo weddings. We live in a world where Chick Fil-A was banned from doing business from Chicago because its owners support true marriage.

  104. @enderby
    Bush the Elder was the last grown-up President
    He was the last one that had to deal with the USSR and its ICBMs. After the cold war was "won" all hell broke loose. Every president since has pushed the accelerator pedal harder to squander the advantages "our victory" gave us and wreck the nation as quickly as possible.

    We own the world! We are the world!

    enderby:”He was the last one that had to deal with the USSR and its ICBMs. After the cold war was “won” all hell broke loose. Every president since has pushed the accelerator pedal harder to squander the advantages “our victory” gave us and wreck the nation as quickly as possible.

    We own the world! We are the world!”

    The Soviets collapsed while Bush I was in office; unlike his successors, Bush I responded with prudence to the new geopolitical landscape. To cite only the most obvious example, he pursued a limited, winnable goal (forcing the Iraqis out of Kuwait) in the Gulf War.

  105. Priss Factor [AKA "What grade do you get if you\'re a Pygmy?"] says:
  106. WhatEvvs [AKA "Cookies"] says:

    Regardless of the meaningless arguments here, this has had a huge impact in Europe. I don’t like RC either but this may be one of those ‘which side are you on’ things that pushes a world over the edge.

    @bogus is right that TNR is being phony. It’s absolutely worth it to send your kid to an Ivy. Getting a prestigious degree can never be revoked. It’s America’s version of a courtesy title. So someone from a hotbed of Ivy Leaguers tells the rest of the world to forget it. I wonder why.

  107. The US appears to be walking it back a bit on the rhetoric.

    Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for “creating the conditions” that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Seems reasonable.
  108. @iSteveFan
    The US appears to be walking it back a bit on the rhetoric.

    Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement.

    Seems reasonable.

  109. @Hunsdon
    syon said: Only neocons and madmen waste time thinking about Russia. This is not 1963. I don’t care what goes on in Ukraine.

    Hunsdon said: If the neocons and madmen weren't wasting time thinking about Russia, I'd be vastly less disturbed. However, the simple fact is that neocons and madmen ARE wasting time trying to provoke a fight with Russia. Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?

    hunsdon:”Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?”

    No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless. Or, to phrase it somewhat differently, Ukraine only has meaning if we try to interfere. And we should not interfere.We should let Russia do whatever they want over there.

    • Replies: @FWIW
    "No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless."

    Absolutely. It is an economic black hole. The West will regret the trade pact and IMF bailout that is doomed. If we had just ignored it, it would have gone away.

    Now, it is ours to lose. And really ... there is NO interest in making the slightest economic sacrifice for Ukraine. The French are still selling Russia a warship: http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404

    So who is going to pay the cash needed to prop up their economy? The only country that cares is Russia. The idea of Ukrainian political stability during a period of IMF water boarding is madness.

    Time for the US to do a deal with Russia. Promise not to expand NATO (for the sake of the US more than Russia), let Russia chill out rebellion and get matters under control.

    Then worry about common interests like keeping Iran non nuclear, keeping Germany defanged, and keeping pressure on China.
    , @Hunsdon
    syon said: Ukraine only has meaning if we try to interfere. And we should not interfere.

    Hunsdon said: Word to the streets----as the kids used to say.
  110. @The Anti-Gnostic
    I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that ‘rebels’ in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    When were you born -- 2000?

    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon. Do you really think the Ukrainian separatists targeted this jet? Some ancient grudge against Malaysians and Dutch?

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon.

    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented. This has not been proven yet and thanks to the best, or worst, efforts of the separatists in recent days we may never know. Add to that the fact that the separatists have established a government of sorts (again illegal under international law) led politically and militarily by three men ( Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and Marat Bashirov) who are citizens of the Russian state and we have an extremely serious situation. For once Whiskey is right. Unless Russia comes clean and makes amends this event ought to be a “game-changer”. Unfortunately, as part of my commitment to HBD and “noticing things” I’ve observed that most Russians (like a few other groups I can think of) seem to reject the idea that they can ever be anything other than victims.

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Matra:"And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda."

    MMMM, well, here are a few European incidents:


    Holocaust
    Extermination of the Jews: [make link]:
    Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
    Brzezinski: 5,000,000
    Chirot: 5,100,000
    3,000,000 in death camps.
    1,300,000 massacred.
    800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
    David E. Stannard, “The Politics of Genocide Scholarship,” in Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide (1996), p. 178. By one estimate, 2.4 million of the 5.1 million victims of the Holocaust died of disease in ghettos and concentration camps.
    Rummel: 5,291,000
    Grenville: 5-6M
    Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
    MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
    Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
    Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
    P. Johnson: 5,800,000
    Wallechinsky: "nearly" 6,000,000
    Urlanis: 6M


    STALIN

    Although it's too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity:
    In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
    Britannica, "Stalinism": 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
    Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
    Daniel Chirot:
    "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
    "Highest": 40M
    Citing:
    Conquest: 20M
    Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
    Medvedev: 40M
    Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
    Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
    [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
    John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
    Kulaks: 7M
    Gulag: 12M
    Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
    Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
    Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
    Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
    AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin
    , @Hunsdon
    Matra said: And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    Hunsdon said: A hundred years ago, I'd have agreed with you. As David Mamet famously said, "Things change."
    , @Bill M
    Europe did have genocidal conflicts and regimes in the past century, so it doesn't seem that strange a comparison.
    , @Director
    I'll go out on a limb. Kiev shot the plane down. There, I said it. You have no evidence that the Russians supplied SA-11 class missiles to the rebels there. None whatsoever. The only stash in that nation are owned by Kiev. Period.
  111. @iSteveFan
    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people.


    First, it is not BRIC, it is BRICS with the S being for South Africa. Though not a power, getting South Africa into this alliance might make inroads into Africa and help China and Russia outmaneuver the West in getting to its resources.

    Second, Russia is a not limited to resource extraction. They do have a highly developed aerospace sector, and have the talent to advance. A century ago Russia was seen as an emerging economic giant, but that whole little Bolshevik thing came along. After decades of oppression they went through another economic rape under Yeltsin. Who knows, maybe they might blossom once others stop trying to contain them.

    The US missed a chance after the Cold War to establish a pan-European alliance. We have yet to come to the realization that our real threats come from the global South.

    iSteveFan:”First, it is not BRIC, it is BRICS with the S being for South Africa.”

    Yeah, South Africa, another winner…..

    iSF:” Though not a power, getting South Africa into this alliance might make inroads into Africa and help China and Russia outmaneuver the West in getting to its resources.”

    Yeah, wake me when that happens.

    iSF:”Second, Russia is a not limited to resource extraction.”

    They are. Look up their economic stats. The health of the Russian economy depends on the price of oil.

    iSF:” They do have a highly developed aerospace sector,”

    Which earns them how much money?

    iSF:”and have the talent to advance.”

    To where?

    iSF:”A century ago Russia was seen as an emerging economic giant, but that whole little Bolshevik thing came along.”

    The saddest words, what might have been….

    iSF:”After decades of oppression they went through another economic rape under Yeltsin. Who knows, maybe they might blossom once others stop trying to contain them.”

    Yeah, and alien Overlords might show up and bring us the gift of zero point energy. Don’t hold your breath.

    iSF:”The US missed a chance after the Cold War to establish a pan-European alliance. ”

    Why would the Russians want to ally with the West?

    iSF:”We have yet to come to the realization that our real threats come from the global South.”

    Only a threat because our elites allow them to be a threat.

  112. Priss Factor [AKA "Skyislander"] says: • Website

    Look, all I know is that if All-American-as-Apple-Pie Archie Andrews was willing to give his life to save a homo senator from a crazed ‘homophobic gun nut’, then all your patriotic men and women better sign up for the armed forces to fight and defeat Putin’s Russia so that homos can have a massive victory day parade down Red Square(led by Pussy Riot of course).
    I can’t think of anything more gaytriotic and gung-homo.

    Win this one for the hip-dipper.

    SERVING RYAN’S PRIVATES.

  113. Do Steve Sailer and his commenters think we should just ignore Russia’s aggression?

    I think we should picture what (we might think) the Russians would be (justified in) doing if our gov’t gave missiles to Mexican separatists, who then (probably mistakenly) shot down a Nicaraguan airliner half full of Czech passengers.

    At most, maybe a bit of saber-rattling and some diplomatic kidney-punching or grudge-holding. At least, harsh language for appearance’s sake.

    Overall, I think it’s probably best used to our advantage in negotiations, propaganda, etc., but not worth making a big deal over. It’s really not any more our business what Russia does in Ukraine than it is Russia’s business what we do in Mexico or Canada.

  114. @Matra
    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon.

    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented. This has not been proven yet and thanks to the best, or worst, efforts of the separatists in recent days we may never know. Add to that the fact that the separatists have established a government of sorts (again illegal under international law) led politically and militarily by three men ( Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and Marat Bashirov) who are citizens of the Russian state and we have an extremely serious situation. For once Whiskey is right. Unless Russia comes clean and makes amends this event ought to be a "game-changer". Unfortunately, as part of my commitment to HBD and "noticing things" I've observed that most Russians (like a few other groups I can think of) seem to reject the idea that they can ever be anything other than victims.

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    Matra:”And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.”

    MMMM, well, here are a few European incidents:

    Holocaust
    Extermination of the Jews: [make link]:
    Reitlinger, Gerald, The Final Solution (1953): between 4,194,200 and 4,851,200 (this number is accepted by Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978))
    Brzezinski: 5,000,000
    Chirot: 5,100,000
    3,000,000 in death camps.
    1,300,000 massacred.
    800,000 by dis./maln. in ghettos
    David E. Stannard, “The Politics of Genocide Scholarship,” in Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique? Perspectives on Comparative Genocide (1996), p. 178. By one estimate, 2.4 million of the 5.1 million victims of the Holocaust died of disease in ghettos and concentration camps.
    Rummel: 5,291,000
    Grenville: 5-6M
    Davies, Europe A History (1998): avg. c. 5,571,300 (puts the minimum at 4,871,000 and the maximum at 6,271,500.)
    MEDIAN: ca. 5.6M
    Nuremberg indictment: 5,700,000 (accepted by Britannica)
    Gutman, Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990): 5,596,029 to 5,860,129
    P. Johnson: 5,800,000
    Wallechinsky: “nearly” 6,000,000
    Urlanis: 6M

    STALIN

    Although it’s too early to be taking sides with absolute certainty, a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million. This would adequately account for all documented nastiness without straining credulity:
    In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum — and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
    Britannica, “Stalinism”: 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
    Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
    Daniel Chirot:
    “Lowest credible” estimate: 20M
    “Highest”: 40M
    Citing:
    Conquest: 20M
    Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M
    Medvedev: 40M
    Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
    Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
    [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who’s worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]
    John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.
    Kulaks: 7M
    Gulag: 12M
    Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)
    Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
    Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
    Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.
    AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

  115. Like, don’t we (and everyone else) have satellites watching Russia/Ukraine? Can’t we just look at the tape to see where the thing came from? I mean, the local convenience store has security cameras to catch little fish, aren’t our supreme forces even sort of paying attention?

    No. In Hollywood fantasy land, surveillance satellites have 24/7 coverage of the planet. In real life, it’s much more spotty. I don’t have even a ballpark figure for you, but it the impression I get is that any given spot is more often not being covered by a satellite than it is being covered. Satellite coverage is much more useful for observing more permanent events, like structures being built. Odds are we have no satellite imagery of the event.

  116. And it’s actually much more spotty than that, when you consider that the closer a satellite zooms in on an event, the less of the landscape it observes.

  117. [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who’s worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]

    Which requires a tendentious, if not outright deceptive, apples-to-oranges comparison; throw all or most of the deaths cased by the war in the European theater at Hitler’s feet, plus the number of civilians under his control that he had murdered (i.e., THE holocaust), while only counting the number of civilians under Stalin’s control that he had murdered. Also, the Hitler vs. Stalin question is somewhat tendentious, too, given the Reds’ 70 year reign (consider how nuts that number is; WTF lets commies reign for 70 years?). If you just count the number of civilians under its control that each regime (Nazis vs. Soviets) murdered, the count isn’t even close. The Soviets were much worse. Most of the people the Soviets butchered died before or after WWII, not during.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin.
    , @syonredux
    svigor:"Also, the Hitler vs. Stalin question is somewhat tendentious, too, given the Reds’ 70 year reign (consider how nuts that number is; WTF lets commies reign for 70 years?)"

    Winning in World War 2.
  118. @Svigor
    [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]

    Which requires a tendentious, if not outright deceptive, apples-to-oranges comparison; throw all or most of the deaths cased by the war in the European theater at Hitler's feet, plus the number of civilians under his control that he had murdered (i.e., THE holocaust), while only counting the number of civilians under Stalin's control that he had murdered. Also, the Hitler vs. Stalin question is somewhat tendentious, too, given the Reds' 70 year reign (consider how nuts that number is; WTF lets commies reign for 70 years?). If you just count the number of civilians under its control that each regime (Nazis vs. Soviets) murdered, the count isn't even close. The Soviets were much worse. Most of the people the Soviets butchered died before or after WWII, not during.

    Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin.

    • Replies: @Director
    The displacement and extermination of Native Injuns is the worst and most successful genocidal act in history. Not that I care that much either. That was a total wipe out.
  119. Has anyone ever written a book detailing just the stuff the entertainment media gets consistently wrong? It would probably take a set, encyclopedia-style.

    Satellites is a big one. What happens when you cock/rack a loaded & chambered firearm is a less pernicious one (it would be funny to have a spoof of the rack the shotgun for intimidation effect – guy racks it so many times it’s empty by the time the shooting starts. ‘Course only gun people would get the joke.). Then there’s the “you have to have a license to own a gun in this country” lie that they like to slip in on a regular basis, saw an episode of The Mentalist recently that dropped that turd into the salad bar; sorry Hollywood, California is not a country. Silencers aren’t silent. Small arms hits don’t send people flying, any more than the recoil from firing them does (Newton). Chloroform and stuff like (“stun gas”) it tends to kill you. Clubbing people over the head with hard, heavy objects tends to kill them. One-punch knockouts aren’t routine. Cops don’t put the handcuffs in front, pretty much nobody can bring them around to the front (much less chubby Mexicans), and they don’t have many links in between. You can’t break a passcode one digit at a time. Laser sights are pretty much passe. A rifle with a sight is not a “sniper rifle.”

    Maybe TV Tropes could publish it?

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Svi - I had an entire website devoted to movie mistakes of all kinds including those you mentioned. Currently it's offline but one day, if I get it running again, I'll be asking you for content.

    Thankyou.
  120. Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented.

    Europe has been under the Pax Americana since before commercial air travel got going. The US shot down an Iranian airliner minding its own business, as has been pointed out. When Europeans are off the leash, they tend to slaughter each other in very large numbers every generation or so.

    The US has provided weapons that ended up in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida and in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug lords. This is pure manufactured outrage.

    • Replies: @Matra
    The US shot down an Iranian airliner minding its own business, as has been pointed out.

    And acknowledged it on the day and its original excuses for the mistake within a few more days (maybe a week or so). But we are talking present-day Europe here not the Persian Gulf in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states. (What is Putin even trying to accomplish in 'Novorossiya' at this point? Crimea was understandable, even justifiable, but now it looks like he's winging it).

    The US has provided weapons that ended up in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida and in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug lords,

    How many passenger airlines in the West have they shot down with those weapons?

    This is pure manufactured outrage.

    I think you'll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans (including many children) who had nothing to do with their sordid affair in 'Novorossiya', then obfuscating, lying about claims of responsibility (when they thought it was a Ukrainian plane), then pushing often intelligence-insulting theories, and finally, delaying the investigation and contaminating the evidence in front of reporters without giving a damn what Europeans thought.

    Pussy Riot was an example of manufactured outrage. This is not.

  121. Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin.

    Maybe, but Soviets kicked Nazi butt in the megadeath sweepstakes. 12m in holocaust vs. 30m for the Soviets. Nazis beat the Soviets for death rate, but then, the Rwandans beat the Nazis.

    Then there’s “right-wing” totalitarianism vs. left-wing totalitarianism, wherein the commies really pull away because China, Cambodia, etc., get tallied too.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yeah, but there's the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.
  122. Make that “scope,” not “sight.”

  123. @Svigor
    Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin.

    Maybe, but Soviets kicked Nazi butt in the megadeath sweepstakes. 12m in holocaust vs. 30m for the Soviets. Nazis beat the Soviets for death rate, but then, the Rwandans beat the Nazis.

    Then there's "right-wing" totalitarianism vs. left-wing totalitarianism, wherein the commies really pull away because China, Cambodia, etc., get tallied too.

    Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.

    • Replies: @Torn and Frayed
    Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.

    True, the Soviets did wait 16 more days before they invaded Poland from the east (they had to wrap up hostilities with Japan before opening a western front) on September 17th, 1939. But the division of Poland had already been agreed in late August of 1939 in the secret protocols of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. So morally, I'm not sure how much weight we should give to the fact that the Soviets lagged for two weeks or so before they took their slice of Poland.
  124. @Paul Allen
    I wonder how many people named Cohen would fight for the United States in a fratricidal WW3 against Russia.

    2, maybe 3…

  125. @syonredux
    hunsdon:"Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?"

    No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless. Or, to phrase it somewhat differently, Ukraine only has meaning if we try to interfere. And we should not interfere.We should let Russia do whatever they want over there.

    “No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless.”

    Absolutely. It is an economic black hole. The West will regret the trade pact and IMF bailout that is doomed. If we had just ignored it, it would have gone away.

    Now, it is ours to lose. And really … there is NO interest in making the slightest economic sacrifice for Ukraine. The French are still selling Russia a warship: http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404

    So who is going to pay the cash needed to prop up their economy? The only country that cares is Russia. The idea of Ukrainian political stability during a period of IMF water boarding is madness.

    Time for the US to do a deal with Russia. Promise not to expand NATO (for the sake of the US more than Russia), let Russia chill out rebellion and get matters under control.

    Then worry about common interests like keeping Iran non nuclear, keeping Germany defanged, and keeping pressure on China.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    "keep Germany defanged."

    45% of people in Berlin under age 18 aren't even German. That's pretty defanged.


    @Syon: "Why would the Russians want to ally with the West?"

    The Russians and the West share culture. The Islamic Caliphate, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are going to swallow both the West and Russia.

    The West and the Soviets arming whichever 3rd world country the other was fighting helped destroy them both:
    -The Rhodesian Bush War
    -Vietnam
    -The Soviet War in Afghanistan
    ...

  126. @syonredux
    hunsdon:"Is it your position that we should ignore the attempt, by neocons and madmen, and the USG, to provoke conflict with Russia?"

    No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless. Or, to phrase it somewhat differently, Ukraine only has meaning if we try to interfere. And we should not interfere.We should let Russia do whatever they want over there.

    syon said: Ukraine only has meaning if we try to interfere. And we should not interfere.

    Hunsdon said: Word to the streets—-as the kids used to say.

  127. @Matra
    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon.

    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented. This has not been proven yet and thanks to the best, or worst, efforts of the separatists in recent days we may never know. Add to that the fact that the separatists have established a government of sorts (again illegal under international law) led politically and militarily by three men ( Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and Marat Bashirov) who are citizens of the Russian state and we have an extremely serious situation. For once Whiskey is right. Unless Russia comes clean and makes amends this event ought to be a "game-changer". Unfortunately, as part of my commitment to HBD and "noticing things" I've observed that most Russians (like a few other groups I can think of) seem to reject the idea that they can ever be anything other than victims.

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    Matra said: And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    Hunsdon said: A hundred years ago, I’d have agreed with you. As David Mamet famously said, “Things change.”

  128. @Svigor
    [Ironic observation: The Black Book of Communism seems to vote for Hitler as the answer to the question of who's worse, Hitler (25M) or Stalin (20M).]

    Which requires a tendentious, if not outright deceptive, apples-to-oranges comparison; throw all or most of the deaths cased by the war in the European theater at Hitler's feet, plus the number of civilians under his control that he had murdered (i.e., THE holocaust), while only counting the number of civilians under Stalin's control that he had murdered. Also, the Hitler vs. Stalin question is somewhat tendentious, too, given the Reds' 70 year reign (consider how nuts that number is; WTF lets commies reign for 70 years?). If you just count the number of civilians under its control that each regime (Nazis vs. Soviets) murdered, the count isn't even close. The Soviets were much worse. Most of the people the Soviets butchered died before or after WWII, not during.

    svigor:”Also, the Hitler vs. Stalin question is somewhat tendentious, too, given the Reds’ 70 year reign (consider how nuts that number is; WTF lets commies reign for 70 years?)”

    Winning in World War 2.

  129. And since people seem to be interested:

    WW2 death toll

    It’s the most intensively studied event of the 20th Century, so the margin of error is not quite a wide here as for most of the other wars and oppressions on this page. Most historians agree that the death toll was about 50 million (including wartime atrocities). If you don’t believe me, here’s just a sampling of the books I have on hand:
    Haywood: Atlas of World History (1997): 50M
    Keegan, J., The Second World War (1989): 50M
    Messenger, The Chronological Atlas of World War Two (1989): 50M
    The Times Concise Atlas of World History (1988): 50M
    J.M. Roberts, Twentieth Century (1999): >50M
    Urlanis: 50M
    Soldiers: 22.0M
    Civilians
    In camps, from Fascist terror: 12.0M
    From hostilites, blockade, epidemics, hunger: 14.5M
    From bombing: 1.5M
    Dictionary of Military History (1994): 41M
    Wallechinsky: 40-55M
    Kinder, The Anchor Atlas of World History (1978): 55M
    Hammond: 55M
    Guiness World Records: 56.4M (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=46252%5D
    Sivard, Ruth Leger, World Military and Social Expenditures 1986 (11th ed.): 38,351,000 (1939-45), not incl. 1.8M in Sino-Japanese War (1937-41)
    Brzezinski:
    Military: 19M
    Civilians, “actual byproduct of hostilities”: 20M
    Civilians, Sino-Japanese War: 15M
    Hitler’s murders: 17M
    TOTAL: 71M

    Rummel:
    European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
    Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000
    War-related Democides
    Hitler: 20,946,000
    Stalin: 13,053,000
    Japanese: 5,964,000
    Chinese Nationalist: 5,907,000
    Allied Bombing: 796,000
    Croatian: 655,000
    Tito: 600,000
    Romanian domestic democide: 484,000
    Chinese Communist: 250,000
    Hungarian democide in Yugoslavia: 78,000
    [TOTAL: 48,733,000]
    [TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000]
    My Estimate: 65.6 million
    AVERAGE
    The MEDIAN of these estimates is 50M.
    If we add up the country-by-country medians (of total death tolls) we get:
    LEVEL 1: 47.35M
    USSR: 20.0M
    China: 10.45M
    Poland: 5.8M
    Germany: 5.5M
    India: 2.15M
    Japan: 1.9M
    Yugoslavia: 1.55M
    LEVEL 2: ca. 3.8M
    LEVEL 3: ca. 0.25M
    TOTAL: 51.4M

    The country-by-country medians for military personnel killed in the war are:
    USSR: 10.0M
    Germany: 3.5M
    China: 2.05M
    Japan: 1.5M
    USA: 0.4M
    Romania: 0.3M
    Yugoslavia: 0.3M
    UK: 0.28M
    Italy: 0.23M
    France: 0.21M
    Hungary: 0.14M
    Poland: 0.125M
    TOTAL: 19.0M

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

  130. Some more data on Stalin’s death toll in WW2:

    Deported nationalities:
    Aleksandr Nekrich, The Punished Peoples (1978): Net population losses, 1939-59, after allowance for wartime losses.
    Chechens: 590,000
    Kalmyks: 142,000
    Ingush: 128,000
    Karachai: 124,000
    Balkars: 64,000
    [TOTAL: 1,048,000]
    Kenneth Christie, Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe: Ghosts at the Table of Democracy (2002)
    Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonians (1940-41): 85,000 deported, of which 55,000 killed or died
    Baltics executed during reconquest (1944-45): 30,000
    Postwar partisan war
    Lithuanians: 40-50,000 k.
    Latvian: 25,000
    Estonians: 15,000
    [TOTAL: 170,000 ± 5,000]
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997)
    citing Rummel: 530,000 Chechens and other Black Sea/Caucasus minorities died
    citing NKVD archives: 231,000 deaths, 1943-49
    Harff and Gurr:
    Chechens, Ingushi, Karachai, Balkars, Kalmyks: 230,000 d. (1943-57)
    Meskhierians, Crimean Tatars: 57,000 – 175,000 d. (1944-68)
    Davies: 1,000,000 Volga Germans, Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, etc.
    NewsHour: some 200,000 Chechens died during the exile (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/chechnya/history.html%5D
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226: a quarter million died during the deportation of ethnic groups.

    Enemy POWs never returned:
    Brzezinski: 1,000,000 total d. (incl. 357,000 Germans, 140,000 Poles)
    Davies: 1,000,000 d.
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): official figures released under glasnost
    Germans: 2,388,000 POWs taken, of which 356,000 died
    Hungarians, Romanians, etc.: 1,097,000 taken, of which 162,000 died
    Japanese: 600,000 taken, of which 61,855 died
    [Total: 4,085,000 taken, of which ca. 580,000 died]
    Katyn Massacre (April-May 1940):
    Dictionary of 20C World History: 14,000 Polish officers systematically killed. 4,500 bodies discovered by Germans.
    30 July 2000 Sunday Telegraph [London]: 15,000 k.
    Paul Johnson: 15,000 — a third at Katyn, the rest in Sov. conc. camps.
    Gilbert: 15,000 Polish POWs sent to 3 camps – Starobelsk, Kozelsk, Ostashkov – all killed. 4,400 from Kozelsk killed at Katyn.
    Returning Soviet POWs killed after the war:
    Harff and Gurr: 500,000 – 1,100,000 repatriated Soviet nationals killed (1943-47)
    Harper Collins: 1,000,000 POWs
    Davies: 5-6M deaths, screening of repatriates and inhabitants of ex-occupied territory
    Soviet soldiers executed:
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997)
    “latest Russian estimates put the figure as high as 158,000 sentenced to be shot.”
    “442,000 were forced to serve in penal batallions.” [These were assigned suicidally dangerous tasks, and the only way out was death or wounds, so figure maybe half dead, half crippled.]
    Gulag during the war years:
    Richard Overy, Russia’s War (1997): 2.4M sent to Gulag; 1.9M freed. “Official figures show 621,000 deaths in the Gulag” during WW2
    The Cambridge History of Russia by Dominic C. B. Lieven, Maureen Perrie, Ronald Grigor Suny, p.226: heightened mortality three quarters of a million inmates.
    Total killed by Stalin during the war years:
    Davies: 16-17,000,000 non-war-dead
    Rummel: 18,157,000 democides
    My Very Rough Estimate (based largely, but not entirely, on Overy, who seems well-informed and sensible.) In tenths of millions.
    Axis POWs: 0.6M
    Soviet Soldiers during war: 0.4M
    Gulag: 0.6M
    Black Sea/Caucasus Minorities: 0.2M
    Baltic Minorities: 0.2M
    Repatriated Soviets after the war: 1.0M
    Germans who died fleeing the advancing Red Army: 1.0M
    TOTAL: 4.0M

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm#Stalin

  131. Matthew White on the Eternal Question:

    Question: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?

    Answer: We don’t know.

    That’s probably the saddest fact of the Twentieth Century. There are so many candidates for the award of top monster that we can’t decide between them. Whether it’s Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Iosif Stalin is, quite frankly, anybody’s guess.

    For now, let’s just skip over the whole margin of error thing — reasonable people have studied the evidence and come up with wildly differing numbers. You’re free to check my sources, but for now, trust me. I’ve studied the matter at great length and decided that the most likely death toll for these three are:

    TYRANT DEATHS
    Mao 40Million
    Hitler 34M
    Stalin 20M
    Well, that certainly looks like Mao is our man, but wait. Mao’s largest crime is the Great Leap Forward, a bungled attempt to restructure the economy of China which created a famine that killed some 30M. If we confine our indictment to deliberate killings, we get this:

    TYRANT KILLINGS
    Hitler 34M
    Stalin 20M
    Mao 10M
    So it’s Hitler, right? Except that most of the deaths on his head were caused by the Second World War. Sure, he started it, but our society does not blanketly condemn the starting of wars (after all, we reserve the right to do it ourselves in a just cause), and we certainly don’t consider killing armed enemy soldiers in a fair fight to be a crime against humanity. If we therefore confine ourselves to the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants, our table rearranges itself again:

    TYRANT MURDERS
    Stalin 20M
    Hitler 15M
    Mao 10M
    This brings Stalin floating to the top. So it look like once you reduce their crimes to the unjustifiably lowest common denominator, then Stalin is worst; however, you might want to argue that dead is dead so it really doesn’t matter if you give your victims a chance to fight back. Fighting an unjust or reckless war is certainly a crime against humanity, so our numbers should go back to:

    TYRANT KILLINGS
    Hitler 34M
    Stalin 20M
    Mao 10M
    … and these are just the problems we’ll encounter if we accept my numbers without debate. If we want to use the estimates of other scholars, we can pin up to 50 million murders on Stalin, enough to push him to the top of the list regardless of definition. Or we can whittle him down to 10 million murders if we use the low end of the margin of error, and scrounge several more tens of millions for Mao, or away from him.

    So, the answer to the question of “Who is roasting on the hottest fires in Hell?” is “Well, that depends…”

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Stalin's Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.
  132. I remember reading in The Nation years ago (in a review of The Black Book Of Communism by some academic) an admission that maybe the Communists murdered more people than the Nazis did, but their motives were noble.

  133. In the interests of completeness, here are the figures for Japan in WW2:

    In China and Korea
    Nanking Massacre, 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38:
    Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
    Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
    Dict.Wars: 200,000
    Rummel: 200,000
    P. Johnson: 200-300,000
    27 Aug 2001 Newsweek, quoting Japanese textbook: “The number of dead is said to be over 100,000 and it is estimated to be over 300,000 in China.”
    Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: “perhaps as many as” 400,000
    Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
    Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
    James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
    Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
    Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
    District Court of Nanking: 300,000
    International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
    Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
    John Rabe: 50,000-60,000
    Hata Ikuhiko: 38,000-42,000

    [Median: 260,000]
    Unit 731, Manchukuo (bio-warfare center: 1937-45)
    Discovery Channel: “as many as 200,000 people — Chinese soldiers, private citizens and prisoners of war — had died” (http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/spotlight/bioterror/history/history2.html%5D
    Global Security: Up to 3,000 died in this facility. Perhaps as many 200,000 Chinese died from germ war campaign in Yunnan Province, Ningbo, and Changde. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/bw.htm%5D
    Bombing: 71,105 Chinese k. by Japanese bombing (Clodfelter)
    South East Asia and East Indies
    Bataan Death March, 1942
    Burma-Siam Railroad, worker deaths (1941-43)
    Johnson: 16,000 POWs
    Our Times, also Gilbert: 50,000 Burmese civilians and 16,000 Allied POWs
    Grenville: 100,000 Asians and 16,000 Europeans
    7 February 2002 AP: 50,000 Asian laborers and 16,000 Allied POWs
    Manila Massacre, 1944-45
    East Timor
    James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)): 70,000 died under Japanese occupation
    19 May 2002 San Gabriel Valley Tribune: “January 1942: Japan occupies the entire island. With support from the local people, Australian commandos in East Timor battle Japan. Japanese reprisals kill 60,000 civilians 13 percent of East Timor’s population.”
    Dutch East Indies: 25,000 Dutch d. out of 140,000 imprisoned (3 Feb. 1998 Agence France Presse)
    Singapore, citizens (mostly Chinese) massacred, 1942
    Japan Economic Newswire/Kyodo News Service
    16 June 2004: 50,000-100,000
    13 Aug. 1984: Report by Allies after WW2 est. 5,000 k. Families claim 40,000-50,000
    Associated Press
    30 July 1995: “The Japanese military said 6,000 were killed. Singaporeans put the death toll at 50,000.”
    12 Sept 1995: 30,000-40,000
    National Archives of Singapore: 8,600 reported. “[T]here were many more.” (http://www.s1942.org.sg/dir_defence7.htm%5D
    Grenville: 5,000
    LC: 5,000-25,000 (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sgtoc.html%5D
    [ANALYSIS: There’s no consensus. I have 5 low estimates ranging from 5,000-8,600. I have 5 high estimates ranging from 25,000-100,000. Three sources hedge their bets by offering both a low estimate and a high estimate. Two give a low estimate exclusively, and two give a high estimate exclusively.]

    TOTAL:
    Chalmers Johnson: “…the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese.” (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/john04_.html%5D
    Rummel blames the Japanese for 5,964,000 democides
    POWs: 539,000 (400,000 Chinese)
    Forced Labor: 1,010,000 (142,000 Chinese)
    Massacres: 3,608,000 (2,850,000 Chinese)
    Bombing/CB warfare: 558,000 (all Chinese)
    Imposed Famine: 250,000 (none in China)
    Rummel also estimates that General/Prime Minister Tojo Hideki was responsible for a lifetime total of 3,990,000 democides.
    Some guy on Internet (http://www.jca.apc.org/JWRC/exhibit/Index.HTM%5D
    Nanjing Massacre: 155,337 dead bodies
    Chinese official estimate: >300,000
    Japanese scholars:100-200,000
    Datong Coal Mine, China: 60,000 slave laborers killed
    Forced labor camps in Japan: 6,830 imported workers died
    Singapore: 5,000 Chinese k — another estimate: 50,000-60,000 k.
    Burma-Siam RR: 12,400 POWs + 42,000 Asian wkrs

    http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

  134. Syon, your link sites the estimates by Conquest, Maksudov, Medvedev, Brzezinski, even Solzhnitsyn. These are wild-ass guesses from 1970s and 80s and they have since been superseded by an actual research based on actual documents (by Victor Zemskov and others). The real numbers of Stalin’s victims turned out to have been much lower. E.g. according to Zemskov, Conquest’s numbers have been exaggerated by a factor of 5.

  135. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented.

    Europe has been under the Pax Americana since before commercial air travel got going. The US shot down an Iranian airliner minding its own business, as has been pointed out. When Europeans are off the leash, they tend to slaughter each other in very large numbers every generation or so.

    The US has provided weapons that ended up in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida and in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug lords. This is pure manufactured outrage.

    The US shot down an Iranian airliner minding its own business, as has been pointed out.

    And acknowledged it on the day and its original excuses for the mistake within a few more days (maybe a week or so). But we are talking present-day Europe here not the Persian Gulf in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states. (What is Putin even trying to accomplish in ‘Novorossiya’ at this point? Crimea was understandable, even justifiable, but now it looks like he’s winging it).

    The US has provided weapons that ended up in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida and in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug lords,

    How many passenger airlines in the West have they shot down with those weapons?

    This is pure manufactured outrage.

    I think you’ll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans (including many children) who had nothing to do with their sordid affair in ‘Novorossiya’, then obfuscating, lying about claims of responsibility (when they thought it was a Ukrainian plane), then pushing often intelligence-insulting theories, and finally, delaying the investigation and contaminating the evidence in front of reporters without giving a damn what Europeans thought.

    Pussy Riot was an example of manufactured outrage. This is not.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    "But we are talking present-day Europe here not the Persian Gulf in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states."

    The Iranian plane was not flying over the war zone, the Malaysian plane was. No American was ever prosecuted, nor was any demand made on Reagan to resign or face sanctions. The plane was shot down in a war zone, in case you did not know, war zones are dangerous for civilians. If you want to count the number of accidental deaths because of US drone strikes alone, they far outnumber this. ...
    , @Lurker
    I think you’ll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans (including many children)

    The manufactured part is the apportioning of blame without evidence.

    The usual suspects have been raising the stakes with this one but it's all of a piece with Pussy Riot, and killing stray dogs/cats before the Olympics. The Russians, they're baaad!

    Now we know just how ruthless and amoral Russia's enemies really are.

  136. @Svigor
    Has anyone ever written a book detailing just the stuff the entertainment media gets consistently wrong? It would probably take a set, encyclopedia-style.

    Satellites is a big one. What happens when you cock/rack a loaded & chambered firearm is a less pernicious one (it would be funny to have a spoof of the rack the shotgun for intimidation effect - guy racks it so many times it's empty by the time the shooting starts. 'Course only gun people would get the joke.). Then there's the "you have to have a license to own a gun in this country" lie that they like to slip in on a regular basis, saw an episode of The Mentalist recently that dropped that turd into the salad bar; sorry Hollywood, California is not a country. Silencers aren't silent. Small arms hits don't send people flying, any more than the recoil from firing them does (Newton). Chloroform and stuff like ("stun gas") it tends to kill you. Clubbing people over the head with hard, heavy objects tends to kill them. One-punch knockouts aren't routine. Cops don't put the handcuffs in front, pretty much nobody can bring them around to the front (much less chubby Mexicans), and they don't have many links in between. You can't break a passcode one digit at a time. Laser sights are pretty much passe. A rifle with a sight is not a "sniper rifle."

    Maybe TV Tropes could publish it?

    Svi – I had an entire website devoted to movie mistakes of all kinds including those you mentioned. Currently it’s offline but one day, if I get it running again, I’ll be asking you for content.

    Thankyou.

  137. @Whiskey
    I agree, a shock I know, with Buchanon that this incident does not rise to the level of an act of War, and besides Obama needs Putin's help on Iran, in getting troops out of Afghanistan, in a lot of ways including as Buchanon noted, help against ISIS in Iraq.

    So this is not a trivial matter -- Russia is too important a country.

    But we can and should call it like it was. Russian troops running the show goofed. And shot down by accident an airliner like we did.

    Putin is not Reagan. Reagan promptly apologized and paid reparations.

    What we need to do is rearm considerably, but that is a long range and strategic goal that will not be met tomorrow or next year. It will take a decade, but is worth doing.

    Also worth doing, is asking Putin to stop his trouble-making in return for a guarantee take of his oil, at a decent price -- $110 a barrel. Much of what Putin does is to drive up the price of oil and I think it would be a decent swap of Russia for Saudi Arabia. Russia's people and oligarchs are inherently status-quo and don't sponsor Wahabbists.

    Putin is not Reagan. Reagan promptly apologized and paid reparations.

    No, Reagan, nor anyone in the US government ever apologized. From Wiki

    The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, but the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time commented on the incident during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988): “I will never apologize for the United States — I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.

    Also the US only paid reparations after being sued by Iran, and the settlement happened almost eight years later:

    In February 1996, the United States agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident, together with other earlier claims before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner. In total, 290 civilians on board were killed, 38 being non-Iranians and 66 being children. It was not disclosed how the remaining $70 million of the settlement was apportioned, though it appears a close approximation of the value of a used A300 jet at the time.

  138. @syonredux
    Matthew White on the Eternal Question:

    Question: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?

    Answer: We don't know.

    That's probably the saddest fact of the Twentieth Century. There are so many candidates for the award of top monster that we can't decide between them. Whether it's Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Iosif Stalin is, quite frankly, anybody's guess.

    For now, let's just skip over the whole margin of error thing -- reasonable people have studied the evidence and come up with wildly differing numbers. You're free to check my sources, but for now, trust me. I've studied the matter at great length and decided that the most likely death toll for these three are:

    TYRANT DEATHS
    Mao 40Million
    Hitler 34M
    Stalin 20M
    Well, that certainly looks like Mao is our man, but wait. Mao's largest crime is the Great Leap Forward, a bungled attempt to restructure the economy of China which created a famine that killed some 30M. If we confine our indictment to deliberate killings, we get this:

    TYRANT KILLINGS
    Hitler 34M
    Stalin 20M
    Mao 10M
    So it's Hitler, right? Except that most of the deaths on his head were caused by the Second World War. Sure, he started it, but our society does not blanketly condemn the starting of wars (after all, we reserve the right to do it ourselves in a just cause), and we certainly don't consider killing armed enemy soldiers in a fair fight to be a crime against humanity. If we therefore confine ourselves to the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants, our table rearranges itself again:

    TYRANT MURDERS
    Stalin 20M
    Hitler 15M
    Mao 10M
    This brings Stalin floating to the top. So it look like once you reduce their crimes to the unjustifiably lowest common denominator, then Stalin is worst; however, you might want to argue that dead is dead so it really doesn't matter if you give your victims a chance to fight back. Fighting an unjust or reckless war is certainly a crime against humanity, so our numbers should go back to:

    TYRANT KILLINGS
    Hitler 34M
    Stalin 20M
    Mao 10M
    ... and these are just the problems we'll encounter if we accept my numbers without debate. If we want to use the estimates of other scholars, we can pin up to 50 million murders on Stalin, enough to push him to the top of the list regardless of definition. Or we can whittle him down to 10 million murders if we use the low end of the margin of error, and scrounge several more tens of millions for Mao, or away from him.

    So, the answer to the question of "Who is roasting on the hottest fires in Hell?" is "Well, that depends..."

    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

    Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.

  139. “Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.”

    They *both* invaded Poland, remember? Hitler and Stalin had a deal that Hitler decided to renege on (though there are suggestions he knew Stalin was going to backstab him, which seems credible.)

    “Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.”

    Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That’s pretty much what Mao was doing.

    Really, what you come away thinking is that both Hitler and Stalin were nasty pieces of work.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But Stalin was more opportunistic when it came to foreign policy, a vulture.
    , @syonredux
    “Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.”

    SFG:"Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That’s pretty much what Mao was doing."

    The Ukrainians were not singled out in the Great Terror.
  140. @SFG
    "Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle."

    They *both* invaded Poland, remember? Hitler and Stalin had a deal that Hitler decided to renege on (though there are suggestions he knew Stalin was going to backstab him, which seems credible.)

    "Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves."

    Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That's pretty much what Mao was doing.

    Really, what you come away thinking is that both Hitler and Stalin were nasty pieces of work.

    But Stalin was more opportunistic when it came to foreign policy, a vulture.

  141. @Steve Sailer
    Yeah, but there's the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.

    Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.

    True, the Soviets did wait 16 more days before they invaded Poland from the east (they had to wrap up hostilities with Japan before opening a western front) on September 17th, 1939. But the division of Poland had already been agreed in late August of 1939 in the secret protocols of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. So morally, I’m not sure how much weight we should give to the fact that the Soviets lagged for two weeks or so before they took their slice of Poland.

  142. @Matra
    The US shot down an Iranian airliner minding its own business, as has been pointed out.

    And acknowledged it on the day and its original excuses for the mistake within a few more days (maybe a week or so). But we are talking present-day Europe here not the Persian Gulf in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states. (What is Putin even trying to accomplish in 'Novorossiya' at this point? Crimea was understandable, even justifiable, but now it looks like he's winging it).

    The US has provided weapons that ended up in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida and in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug lords,

    How many passenger airlines in the West have they shot down with those weapons?

    This is pure manufactured outrage.

    I think you'll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans (including many children) who had nothing to do with their sordid affair in 'Novorossiya', then obfuscating, lying about claims of responsibility (when they thought it was a Ukrainian plane), then pushing often intelligence-insulting theories, and finally, delaying the investigation and contaminating the evidence in front of reporters without giving a damn what Europeans thought.

    Pussy Riot was an example of manufactured outrage. This is not.

    “But we are talking present-day Europe here not the Persian Gulf in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states.”

    The Iranian plane was not flying over the war zone, the Malaysian plane was. No American was ever prosecuted, nor was any demand made on Reagan to resign or face sanctions. The plane was shot down in a war zone, in case you did not know, war zones are dangerous for civilians. If you want to count the number of accidental deaths because of US drone strikes alone, they far outnumber this. …

  143. “Like, don’t we (and everyone else) have satellites watching Russia/Ukraine? Can’t we just look at the tape to see where the thing came from?”

    yes but that would also show things that might muddy the narrative like Ukraine air force jets in the vicinity.

    .

    “Sanctions, threats of military actions, et al. How far do the neo-cons/neo-libs want to push this?”

    The banking mafia faction just want to scare the BRICS away from replacing the dollar and will be prepared to push this to the edge of war but not actual war (except by accident). The neocon faction on the other hand are focused on countries they perceive to be Israel’s enemies which currently means Iran and Syria. As Russia is an obstacle to attacking Iran and Syria then if the neocons thought they could win a war against Russia I think they’d do it. Obama – and possibly the MIC – are the brakes.

    .

    “Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.”

    I think you could easily make a case that the Soviet concentration camps were run by a coalition of minorities against the Russian/Slav majority.

    .

    “Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin.”

    If Hitler’s successful rise to power was partly due to fear of the Soviet concentration camps then if the western powers had gone to war with the Bolsheviks in the 1930s they might have killed two birds with one stone.

    • Replies: @Director
    Soviet history up until the 1950s is quite clearly a case study in Minority Occupied Government. Georgians, Ukrainians, Jews, Balts all lording it over Russians for a time. That all went out the window as Russian nationalism was rekindled to push back the Wehrmacht.
  144. in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states.

    I must have missed this one. But, it was a busy year for me.

    How many passenger airlines in the West have they shot down with those weapons?

    This really is tripping over mouse poop. After we armed and funded al-Qaida and helped them set up shop in Afghanistan, I seem to recall something happening with passenger airlines. Oopsies.

    ISIS is bringing back crucifixions. But yes, I concede, not a single passenger airline shot down.

  145. I think a lot of the outrage here comes from the class of people who were killed. Journalists and decisionmakers can see themselves and their families in those victims, because they board airplanes for faraway locations (for conferences or vacations) all the time.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right. Back in the 1980s, airliner crashes were an obsessive subject for Time and Newsweek cover, which sold in large numbers at airports. The only reason that's less true today is because jetliners don't crash as much and the media is more splintered than back when being on the cover of Time and/or Newsweek was a big deal. I've long suggested that Frequent Flyers be added to the list of demographic groups like Soccer Moms that we think about.
  146. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    I think you’ll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans

    Well, that assumes it was the Russians. What is it was the Ukrainians?

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/no-perry-mason-moment-us-intelligence.html

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/07/ukraine-caught-in-third-major-lie-magic.html

  147. @SFG
    "Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle."

    They *both* invaded Poland, remember? Hitler and Stalin had a deal that Hitler decided to renege on (though there are suggestions he knew Stalin was going to backstab him, which seems credible.)

    "Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves."

    Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That's pretty much what Mao was doing.

    Really, what you come away thinking is that both Hitler and Stalin were nasty pieces of work.

    “Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.”

    SFG:”Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That’s pretty much what Mao was doing.”

    The Ukrainians were not singled out in the Great Terror.

    • Replies: @fnn
    Of course it was the Holodomor (1932-33) where Ukrainians were singled out. Great Terror/ Great Purge was 1937-38.
    , @Director
    The entire Bolshevik Revolution was a bit strange. If anything Stalin reigned it in. The top dogs in the Soviets were mostly Foreigns ruling over Russia btw. Georgians, Poles, Jews, Balts, Ukrainains.


    The notion that it was a Russian entity before ww2 is foolish. They had to appeal to Russian nationalism (hitherto suppressed) to beat back the Nazis.
  148. If people are curious, here are some figures for the Great Terror in 1937-38:

    “According to the declassified Soviet archives, during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day

    Several experts believe the evidence released from the Soviet archives is understated, incomplete, or unreliable.[76][77][78][79] For example, Robert Conquest claims that the probable figure for executions during the years of the Great Purge is not 681,692, but some two and a half times as high. He believes that the KGB was covering its tracks by falsifying the dates and causes of death of rehabilitated victims.[80]

    Historian Michael Ellman claims the best estimate of deaths brought about by Soviet repression during these two years ranges from 950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag, as a result of their treatment therein.”

    (WIKIPEDIA)

  149. Stalin and the Great Terror:

    Historians with archival access have confirmed that Stalin was intimately involved in the terror. Russian historian Oleg V. Khlevniuk states “…theories about the elemental, spontaneous nature of the terror, about a loss of central control over the course of mass repression, and about the role of regional leaders in initiating the terror are simply not supported by the historical record.”[82] Stalin personally directed Yezhov to torture those who were not making proper confessions. In one instance, he told Yezhov “Isn’t it time to squeeze this gentleman and force him to report on his dirty little business? Where is he: in a prison or a hotel?” In another, while reviewing one of Yezhov’s lists, he added to M. I. Baranov’s name, “beat, beat!”[83]

    In addition to authorizing torture, Stalin also signed 357 lists in 1937 and 1938 authorizing executions of some 40,000 people, and about 90% of these are confirmed to have been shot.[84] While reviewing one such list, Stalin reportedly muttered to no one in particular: “Who’s going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years time? No one. Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one.”[85] Stalin’s alleged remark may be compared with Hitler’s famous admonition to his generals in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”[86]

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    • Replies: @Lurker
    Hitler’s famous admonition to his generals in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

    Looking at Wiki it would appear there is some doubt over the veracity of this quote.
  150. @syonredux
    “Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.”

    SFG:"Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That’s pretty much what Mao was doing."

    The Ukrainians were not singled out in the Great Terror.

    Of course it was the Holodomor (1932-33) where Ukrainians were singled out. Great Terror/ Great Purge was 1937-38.

  151. @syonredux
    “Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves.”

    SFG:"Why? The Ukrainians were a potential Other, and internal purges can kill lots of people too. That’s pretty much what Mao was doing."

    The Ukrainians were not singled out in the Great Terror.

    The entire Bolshevik Revolution was a bit strange. If anything Stalin reigned it in. The top dogs in the Soviets were mostly Foreigns ruling over Russia btw. Georgians, Poles, Jews, Balts, Ukrainains.

    The notion that it was a Russian entity before ww2 is foolish. They had to appeal to Russian nationalism (hitherto suppressed) to beat back the Nazis.

  152. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    312, the number of the beast!

  153. @Steve Sailer
    Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin.

    The displacement and extermination of Native Injuns is the worst and most successful genocidal act in history. Not that I care that much either. That was a total wipe out.

  154. On the other hand, Timothy Snyder argues that there was a strong ethnic component to Stalins’s death toll. And he also argues for lower numbers:

    The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans—about 11 million—is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations.

    It turns out that, with the exception of the war years, a very large majority of people who entered the Gulag left alive. Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. The total figure for the entire Stalinist period is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit fewer. The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died.

    Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality. In early 1930, Stalin had announced his intention to “liquidate” prosperous peasants (“kulaks”) as a class so that the state could control agriculture and use capital extracted from the countryside to build industry. Tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported. Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export. The first victims of starvation were the nomads of Soviet Kazakhstan, where about 1.3 million people died. The famine spread to Soviet Russia and peaked in Soviet Ukraine. Stalin requisitioned grain in Soviet Ukraine knowing that such a policy would kill millions. Blaming Ukrainians for the failure of his own policy, he ordered a series of measures—such as sealing the borders of that Soviet republic—that ensured mass death.

    In 1937, as his vision of modernization faltered, Stalin ordered the Great Terror. Because we now have the killing orders and the death quotas, inaccessible so long as the Soviet Union existed, we now know that the number of victims was not in the millions. We also know that, as in the early 1930s, the main victims were the peasants, many of them survivors of hunger and of concentration camps. The highest Soviet authorities ordered 386,798 people shot in the “Kulak Operation” of 1937–1938. The other major “enemies” during these years were people belonging to national minorities who could be associated with states bordering the Soviet Union: some 247,157 Soviet citizens were killed by the NKVD in ethnic shooting actions.

    In the largest of these, the “Polish Operation” that began in August 1937, 111,091 people accused of espionage for Poland were shot. In all, 682,691 people were killed during the Great Terror, to which might be added a few hundred thousand more Soviet citizens shot in smaller actions. The total figure of civilians deliberately killed under Stalinism, around six million, is of course horribly high. But it is far lower than the estimates of twenty million or more made before we had access to Soviet sources. At the same time, we see that the motives of these killing actions were sometimes far more often national, or even ethnic, than we had assumed. Indeed it was Stalin, not Hitler, who initiated the first ethnic killing campaigns in interwar Europe.

    Until World War II, Stalin’s regime was by far the more murderous of the two. Nazi Germany began to kill on the Soviet scale only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in the summer of 1939 and the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland that September. About 200,000 Polish civilians were killed between 1939 and 1941, with each regime responsible for about half of those deaths. This figure includes about 50,000 Polish citizens shot by German security police and soldiers in the fall of 1939, the 21,892 Polish citizens shot by the Soviet NKVD in the Katyn massacres of spring 1940, and the 9,817 Polish citizens shot in June 1941 in a hasty NKVD operation after Hitler betrayed Stalin and Germany attacked the USSR. Under cover of the war and the occupation of Poland, the Nazi regime also killed the handicapped and others deemed unfit in a large-scale “euthanasia” program that accounts for 200,000 deaths. It was this policy that brought asphyxiation by carbon monoxide to the fore as a killing technique.

    Beyond the numbers killed remains the question of intent. Most of the Soviet killing took place in times of peace, and was related more or less distantly to an ideologically informed vision of modernization. Germany bears the chief responsibility for the war, and killed civilians almost exclusively in connection with the practice of racial imperialism. Germany invaded the Soviet Union with elaborate colonization plans. Thirty million Soviet citizens were to starve, and tens of millions more were to be shot, deported, enslaved, or assimilated.

    Such plans, though unfulfilled, provided the rationale for the bloodiest occupation in the history of the world. The Germans placed Soviet prisoners of war in starvation camps, where 2.6 million perished from hunger and another half-million (disproportionately Soviet Jews) were shot. A million Soviet citizens also starved during the siege of Leningrad. In “reprisals” for partisan actions, the Germans killed about 700,000 civilians in grotesque mass executions, most of them Belarusians and Poles. At the war’s end the Soviets killed tens of thousands of people in their own “reprisals,” especially in the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine. Some 363,000 German soldiers died in Soviet captivity.

    Hitler came to power with the intention of eliminating the Jews from Europe; the war in the east showed that this could be achieved by mass killing. Within weeks of the attack by Germany (and its Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, and other allies) on the USSR, Germans, with local help, were exterminating entire Jewish communities. By December 1941, when it appears that Hitler communicated his wish that all Jews be murdered, perhaps a million Jews were already dead in the occupied Soviet Union. Most had been shot over pits, but thousands were asphyxiated in gas vans. From 1942, carbon monoxide was used at the death factories Chełmno, Bełz˙ec, Sobibór, and Treblinka to kill Polish and some other European Jews. As the Holocaust spread to the rest of occupied Europe, other Jews were gassed by hydrogen cyanide at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

    Overall, the Germans, with much local assistance, deliberately murdered about 5.4 million Jews, roughly 2.6 million by shooting and 2.8 million by gassing (about a million at Auschwitz, 780,863 at Treblinka, 434,508 at Bełz˙ec, about 180,000 at Sobibór, 150,000 at Chełmno, 59,000 at Majdanek, and many of the rest in gas vans in occupied Serbia and the occupied Soviet Union). A few hundred thousand more Jews died during deportations to ghettos or of hunger or disease in ghettos. Another 300,000 Jews were murdered by Germany’s ally Romania. Most Holocaust victims had been Polish or Soviet citizens before the war (3.2 million and one million respectively). The Germans also killed more than a hundred thousand Roma.

    All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million. These figures are of course subject to revision, but it is very unlikely that the consensus will change again as radically as it has since the opening of Eastern European archives in the 1990s. Since the Germans killed chiefly in lands that later fell behind the Iron Curtain, access to Eastern European sources has been almost as important to our new understanding of Nazi Germany as it has been to research on the Soviet Union itself. (The Nazi regime killed approximately 165,000 German Jews.)

    [……]

    New understandings of numbers, of course, are only a part of any comparison, and in themselves pose new questions of both quantity and quality. How to count the battlefield casualties of World War II in Europe, not considered here? It was a war that Hitler wanted, and so German responsibility must predominate; but in the event it began with a German-Soviet alliance and a cooperative invasion of Poland in 1939. Somewhere near the Stalinist ledger must belong the thirty million or more Chinese starved during the Great Leap Forward, as Mao followed Stalin’s model of collectivization.* The special quality of Nazi racism is not diluted by the historical observation that Stalin’s motivations were sometimes national or ethnic. The pool of evil simply grows deeper.

    The most fundamental proximity of the two regimes, in my view, is not ideological but geographical. Given that the Nazis and the Stalinists tended to kill in the same places, in the lands between Berlin and Moscow, and given that they were, at different times, rivals, allies, and enemies, we must take seriously the possibility that some of the death and destruction wrought in the lands between was their mutual responsibility. What can we make of the fact, for example, that the lands that suffered most during the war were those occupied not once or twice but three times: by the Soviets in 1939, the Germans in 1941, and the Soviets again in 1944?

    The Holocaust began when the Germans provoked pogroms in June and July 1941, in which some 24,000 Jews were killed, on territories in Poland annexed by the Soviets less than two years before. The Nazis planned to eliminate the Jews in any case, but the prior killings by the NKVD certainly made it easier for local gentiles to justify their own participation in such campaigns. As I have written in Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (2010), where all of the major Nazi and Soviet atrocities are discussed, we see, even during the German-Soviet war, episodes of belligerent complicity in which one side killed more because provoked or in some sense aided by the other. Germans took so many Soviet prisoners of war in part because Stalin ordered his generals not to retreat. The Germans shot so many civilians in part because Soviet partisans deliberately provoked reprisals. The Germans shot more than a hundred thousand civilians in Warsaw in 1944 after the Soviets urged the locals to rise up and then declined to help them. In Stalin’s Gulag some 516,543 people died between 1941 and 1943, sentenced by the Soviets to labor, but deprived of food by the German invasion.

    Were these people victims of Stalin or of Hitler? Or both?

    (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/)

  155. @FWIW
    "No, I simply wish that we could convince the elite that Ukraine is meaningless."

    Absolutely. It is an economic black hole. The West will regret the trade pact and IMF bailout that is doomed. If we had just ignored it, it would have gone away.

    Now, it is ours to lose. And really ... there is NO interest in making the slightest economic sacrifice for Ukraine. The French are still selling Russia a warship: http://online.wsj.com/articles/hollande-defies-critics-over-warship-sale-to-russia-1406035404

    So who is going to pay the cash needed to prop up their economy? The only country that cares is Russia. The idea of Ukrainian political stability during a period of IMF water boarding is madness.

    Time for the US to do a deal with Russia. Promise not to expand NATO (for the sake of the US more than Russia), let Russia chill out rebellion and get matters under control.

    Then worry about common interests like keeping Iran non nuclear, keeping Germany defanged, and keeping pressure on China.

    “keep Germany defanged.”

    45% of people in Berlin under age 18 aren’t even German. That’s pretty defanged.

    @Syon: “Why would the Russians want to ally with the West?”

    The Russians and the West share culture. The Islamic Caliphate, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are going to swallow both the West and Russia.

    The West and the Soviets arming whichever 3rd world country the other was fighting helped destroy them both:
    -The Rhodesian Bush War
    -Vietnam
    -The Soviet War in Afghanistan

    • Replies: @Director
    The Viscount shootdowns. Two Rhodesian airliners deliberately shot down by Mugabe's Boys and armed by the Soviet Union. The high water mark of European civilization destroyed in Southern Africa.
  156. Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.

    So the Yankees were responsible for all the Civil War deaths. I might be able to buy into that.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"So the Yankees were responsible for all the Civil War deaths. I might be able to buy into that."

    The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll
  157. Lurker, you’re welcome. If I started taking notes I could give you a whole book. 🙂

  158. @Lurker
    Unless they can prove this airliner was shot down deliberately, with the knowledge that it was a civilian airliner, than I don’t understand the outrage. Things like this happen in war zones.

    Indeed. We are supposed to hold Putin directly responsible but there seems to be no earthly reason why he would want the plane shot down. Thus it was a tragic error. Which means Putin/Russia cannot be held responsible to the same degree. Except somehow they can via a process which I've yet to have any of it's advocates explain for some reason.

    I've been posting this all over the place, even at the Daily Mail - lots of red arrows for me there!

    Why would Putin/Russia/rebels want a Malaysian airline shot down?

    Phase 1> Shoot down Malaysian Airliner.

    Phase 2> Vilification in the world's media.

    Phase 3> ?

    Phase 4> Russian success!

    If anyone can explain Phase 3 perhaps we might be getting somewhere.

     

    Commenting on the airliner has opened my eyes. Normally the usual suspects accuse me of being a Muslim, as of this week I'm a paid Russian troll. Apparently it's all in my syntax. Who knew?!

    Christopher Lairdriver • a day ago

    I have never seen a single one of these names on here. I come on the NP board 3 to 4 times a week. Most of you are Russian trolls. Good luck with that.

    skylow • a day ago

    Correct. You can see it in their syntax.
     

    “If anyone can explain Phase 3 perhaps we might be getting somewhere. ” – Twirl mustache.

  159. @Greenstalk
    I think you have to be massively intellectually dishonest to suggest that people who advocate serious action want to start a war with Russia.

    It takes massive intellectual dishonesty to suggest that what the parties involved in a war 'want" matters in the slightest. Nobody involved in starting WWI wanted what actually happened, but in their wildest nightmares they never imagined that what actually happened could possibly occur.

    “Nobody involved in starting WWI wanted what actually happened” – They didn’t want how it turned out, they most certainly did want a war, and scoffed at the idea that it could turn into the very death filled slog that it did. The example from the American civil war, and other conflicts were there for them to see.

  160. For those who don’t feel like wading through Snyder’s rather lengthy article, here is his summing up:

    “All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million.”

    So, Snyder’s grand totals are:

    Hitler: over 12 million

    Stalin: approximately 9 million

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yeah, but Stalin was not the first communist dictator. It all started in 1917 (though the mass murders mostly started later in 1918 only). Are the pre-1924 numbers included?

    It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas. Let alone the fact that the famine itself was a direct result of government policies. Or if the low number does include the famine, I have an issue with it. Harrison et al (ed.) The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union 1914-45 includes a study of the 1933 famine regarding the Ukraine (and mentioning the fact that the Ukraine was far from the only area affected), and it concluded the number could be anywhere between zero and ten million depending on our assumptions about the death rate and birth rate prior to the famine. It's not known and is unknowable because the last reliable data point is 1928 and we have reasons to believe that both rates changed considerably in the meantime.

    They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it's a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number.

  161. @syonredux
    Stalin and the Great Terror:

    Historians with archival access have confirmed that Stalin was intimately involved in the terror. Russian historian Oleg V. Khlevniuk states “…theories about the elemental, spontaneous nature of the terror, about a loss of central control over the course of mass repression, and about the role of regional leaders in initiating the terror are simply not supported by the historical record.”[82] Stalin personally directed Yezhov to torture those who were not making proper confessions. In one instance, he told Yezhov "Isn’t it time to squeeze this gentleman and force him to report on his dirty little business? Where is he: in a prison or a hotel?" In another, while reviewing one of Yezhov's lists, he added to M. I. Baranov’s name, "beat, beat!"[83]

    In addition to authorizing torture, Stalin also signed 357 lists in 1937 and 1938 authorizing executions of some 40,000 people, and about 90% of these are confirmed to have been shot.[84] While reviewing one such list, Stalin reportedly muttered to no one in particular: "Who's going to remember all this riff-raff in ten or twenty years time? No one. Who remembers the names now of the boyars Ivan the Terrible got rid of? No one."[85] Stalin's alleged remark may be compared with Hitler's famous admonition to his generals in 1939: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"[86]

    (WIKIPEDIA)

    Hitler’s famous admonition to his generals in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

    Looking at Wiki it would appear there is some doubt over the veracity of this quote.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Hitler’s famous admonition to his generals in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

    "Looking at Wiki it would appear there is some doubt over the veracity of this quote."

    Yeah. For an overview of the debate:


    "The key area of contention regarding the "Armenian quote" is a reference to the Armenian Genocide, an episode during World War I in the Ottoman Empire, during which an estimated one to one-and-a-half million ethnic Armenians were killed.[13][14][15] The authenticity of the quote has become hotly contested between Turkish and Armenian political activists. The quote is now inscribed on one of the walls of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.. In 2009 International Association of Genocide Scholars used the quote in a letter to Barack Obama related to the Armenian Genocide recognition.[16] However, Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, examined the document containing the Armenian quote and rejected its use as evidence due to its doubtful origin.[17][18]

    Dr. Kevork B. Bardakjian, in a publication entitled Hitler and the Armenian Genocide, published by the Armenian-American Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation, argues that the L-3 document originates in the notes secretly taken by Wilhelm Canaris during the meeting of August 22, 1939:

    To conclude, although its author is unknown, L-3 and its unsigned counterparts 798-PS and 1014-PS originate from the notes Wilhelm Canaris took personally as Hitler spoke on 22 August 1939. ... Although not an “official” record, L-3 is a genuine document and is as sound as the other evidence submitted at Nuremberg.[19]

    Richard Albrecht (see de:Richard Albrecht), a German social researcher and political scientist,[20] published a three-volume study (2006–08) on 20th century genocides, of which volume 2 (Armenozid, "[]Armenocide") relates to the Armenian genocide, and volume 3 ("Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?" Adolf Hitlers Geheimrede am 22. August 1939) is dedicated solely to Hitler's Armenian quote. Albrecht contained the document of the original German version of the Armenian quote (the L-3 text) for the first time.[21] The book is summarized as "When discussing, and applying, all relevant features scholarly accepted as leading principles of classifying documents as authentic, the author not only works out that the L-3-document as translated and brought in a few days later at August 25th, 1939, by the US-newspaper man Louis P. Lochner (1887–1975) from Associated Press, and first published in 1942, whenever compared with any other version of Hitler's speech – above all the Nuremberg-documents 798-PS, 1014 PS, and Raeder-27, as produced by a dubious witness after realising the L-3-version, too – this version must be regarded as the one which most likely sums up and expresses what Hitler said – for what Hitler really said in his notorious second speech was only written down simultaneously during his speech by one of his auditors: Wilhelm Canaris (1887–1945), at that time chief of the military secret service within the Third Reich".[20]

    According to Margaret L. Anderson, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, "we have no reason to doubt the remark is genuine, both attack and defense obscure an obvious reality" that the Armenian Genocide has achieved "iconic status... as the apex of horrors imaginable in 1939," and that Hitler used it to persuade the German military that committing genocide excited a great deal of "talk" but no serious consequences for a nation that perpetrates genocide.[22]

    According to Stanford University historian Norman Naimark, "There is no question that Hitler and the Nazi leadership were well aware of the Armenian genocide and its relatively innocuous effect on international affairs during the Great War and after."[23]

    According to German historian Winfried Baumgart, among the documents of Hitler's speech on 22 August 1938, 1014-PS is the one that contains the original notes taken that day by Wilhelm Canaris, the head of military intelligence. Therefore, in order to Baumgart, 1014-PS, which does not contain the Armenian quote, is superior to the other documents of Hitler's speech including L-3 which is the only source of the Armenian quote. According to Christopher Browning, American historian of the Holocaust, L-3 document, which contains the Armenian quote, is an "apocalyptic" version of Hitler's speech that day which was purposefully leaked to the British in order to gain their support to Poland.[24]

    According to Alan Whiticker, several historians examining Lochner's version of Hitler's speech (the L-3 document) concluded that it was a heavily distorted version designed to arouse a reaction against Hitler in various countries." (WIKIPEDIA)


    Of course, we do have other quotes from Hitler that reference the Armenian genocide, so it does not seem out of character for him to bring it up:

    "A solution of the Jewish problem must be arrived at. If the problem can be arrived at by common sense, then so much the better all around. If not, then there are two possibilities—either a bloody conflict, or an Armenianization."
  162. @Matra
    The US shot down an Iranian airliner minding its own business, as has been pointed out.

    And acknowledged it on the day and its original excuses for the mistake within a few more days (maybe a week or so). But we are talking present-day Europe here not the Persian Gulf in 1988 with a full scale international war between two states. (What is Putin even trying to accomplish in 'Novorossiya' at this point? Crimea was understandable, even justifiable, but now it looks like he's winging it).

    The US has provided weapons that ended up in the hands of the Taliban and al Qaida and in the hands of ISIS and Mexican drug lords,

    How many passenger airlines in the West have they shot down with those weapons?

    This is pure manufactured outrage.

    I think you'll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans (including many children) who had nothing to do with their sordid affair in 'Novorossiya', then obfuscating, lying about claims of responsibility (when they thought it was a Ukrainian plane), then pushing often intelligence-insulting theories, and finally, delaying the investigation and contaminating the evidence in front of reporters without giving a damn what Europeans thought.

    Pussy Riot was an example of manufactured outrage. This is not.

    I think you’ll find there is genuine outrage at seeing the blundering Russians (be they official or unofficial) killing over 200 mostly Dutch Europeans (including many children)

    The manufactured part is the apportioning of blame without evidence.

    The usual suspects have been raising the stakes with this one but it’s all of a piece with Pussy Riot, and killing stray dogs/cats before the Olympics. The Russians, they’re baaad!

    Now we know just how ruthless and amoral Russia’s enemies really are.

  163. @syonredux
    For those who don't feel like wading through Snyder's rather lengthy article, here is his summing up:

    "All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million."

    So, Snyder's grand totals are:

    Hitler: over 12 million

    Stalin: approximately 9 million

    Yeah, but Stalin was not the first communist dictator. It all started in 1917 (though the mass murders mostly started later in 1918 only). Are the pre-1924 numbers included?

    It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas. Let alone the fact that the famine itself was a direct result of government policies. Or if the low number does include the famine, I have an issue with it. Harrison et al (ed.) The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union 1914-45 includes a study of the 1933 famine regarding the Ukraine (and mentioning the fact that the Ukraine was far from the only area affected), and it concluded the number could be anywhere between zero and ten million depending on our assumptions about the death rate and birth rate prior to the famine. It’s not known and is unknowable because the last reliable data point is 1928 and we have reasons to believe that both rates changed considerably in the meantime.

    They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it’s a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Are the pre-1924 numbers included?"

    No.

    "It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas."

    Who is excluding famine deaths? Both White and Snyder include famine in Stalin's total.

    "They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it’s a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number."

    Snyder gives total USSR famine deaths under Stalin as being more than 5 million, with deaths in Ukraine alone totaling around 3.3 million.
    , @Newdist
    I think the lesson is that building a death camp is bad, but turning an entire nation into a death camp is OK.
    , @Director
    Not to mention Kaganovich. He orchestrated the killings and died in bed in the 1990s. Stalin gets all the blame, even though he wasn't Russian.
  164. Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    :

    Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.
     
    Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S.

    Russia's corruption ranking is 133 in the world, vs. Nigeria's 139. Stand up job, guys... 6 spots ahead of Nigeria.

    My Russian-American friends are extremely glad to be in the U.S. After killing these 300 people, some of my Russian-American friends are trying to think of what they can call themselves instead of "Russians."

    , @syonredux
    reiner tor:"Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD."

    Nigeria: resource extraction economy

    Russia: resource extraction economy

    Nigeria+nukes+White people= Russia
  165. @NOTA
    I think a lot of the outrage here comes from the class of people who were killed. Journalists and decisionmakers can see themselves and their families in those victims, because they board airplanes for faraway locations (for conferences or vacations) all the time.

    Right. Back in the 1980s, airliner crashes were an obsessive subject for Time and Newsweek cover, which sold in large numbers at airports. The only reason that’s less true today is because jetliners don’t crash as much and the media is more splintered than back when being on the cover of Time and/or Newsweek was a big deal. I’ve long suggested that Frequent Flyers be added to the list of demographic groups like Soccer Moms that we think about.

  166. @reiner Tor
    Calling Russia "Nigeria with nukes" is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.

    :

    Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.

    Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S.

    Russia’s corruption ranking is 133 in the world, vs. Nigeria’s 139. Stand up job, guys… 6 spots ahead of Nigeria.

    My Russian-American friends are extremely glad to be in the U.S. After killing these 300 people, some of my Russian-American friends are trying to think of what they can call themselves instead of “Russians.”

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S."

    That figure becomes even more telling when one recalls that roughly half of all homicides in the USA are committed by Blacks.
    , @Director
    Well okay. Would you live in Lagos or St Petersberg? Enough of your inane hyperbole. Which city?
    , @reiner Tor
    Also an answer to syon.

    "Resource extraction economy" is a vague expression. What percentage of engineers in the resource extraction industries are local? Are they capable of delivering the stuff above the ground only, or also refining it, e.g. creating titanium alloys from it? Is the non-resource extraction part of the economy subsistance farming, or is it something more sophisticated? Is the UK a "resource extraction economy" under the same definition?

    While both corruption and high homicide rates are typical of Sub-Saharan Africa, these are certainly not the only defining features of it. And I would be the last one to deny that Russians (and especially many non-Russian minorities in Russia) are corrupt brutes, but they are almost as intelligent and creative as Western Europeans (as attested to by both their scientific achievements and their high culture), whereas sub-Saharan Africans are unsophisticated corrupt brutes. Not to mention the simple fact that they are much closer relatives than sub-Saharans.
  167. @reiner Tor
    Calling Russia "Nigeria with nukes" is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.

    reiner tor:”Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.”

    Nigeria: resource extraction economy

    Russia: resource extraction economy

    Nigeria+nukes+White people= Russia

  168. @reiner Tor
    Yeah, but Stalin was not the first communist dictator. It all started in 1917 (though the mass murders mostly started later in 1918 only). Are the pre-1924 numbers included?

    It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas. Let alone the fact that the famine itself was a direct result of government policies. Or if the low number does include the famine, I have an issue with it. Harrison et al (ed.) The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union 1914-45 includes a study of the 1933 famine regarding the Ukraine (and mentioning the fact that the Ukraine was far from the only area affected), and it concluded the number could be anywhere between zero and ten million depending on our assumptions about the death rate and birth rate prior to the famine. It's not known and is unknowable because the last reliable data point is 1928 and we have reasons to believe that both rates changed considerably in the meantime.

    They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it's a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number.

    “Are the pre-1924 numbers included?”

    No.

    “It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas.”

    Who is excluding famine deaths? Both White and Snyder include famine in Stalin’s total.

    “They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it’s a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number.”

    Snyder gives total USSR famine deaths under Stalin as being more than 5 million, with deaths in Ukraine alone totaling around 3.3 million.

  169. reiner tor:
    Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.

    What about calling someone an imbecile with a linguistics Ph.D. … could there be a real person who fills that bill?

  170. @reiner Tor
    Yeah, but Stalin was not the first communist dictator. It all started in 1917 (though the mass murders mostly started later in 1918 only). Are the pre-1924 numbers included?

    It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas. Let alone the fact that the famine itself was a direct result of government policies. Or if the low number does include the famine, I have an issue with it. Harrison et al (ed.) The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union 1914-45 includes a study of the 1933 famine regarding the Ukraine (and mentioning the fact that the Ukraine was far from the only area affected), and it concluded the number could be anywhere between zero and ten million depending on our assumptions about the death rate and birth rate prior to the famine. It's not known and is unknowable because the last reliable data point is 1928 and we have reasons to believe that both rates changed considerably in the meantime.

    They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it's a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number.

    I think the lesson is that building a death camp is bad, but turning an entire nation into a death camp is OK.

  171. Nearly a million Kazakhs also starved during the “Ukrainian” Famine.

  172. @Lurker
    Hitler’s famous admonition to his generals in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

    Looking at Wiki it would appear there is some doubt over the veracity of this quote.

    Hitler’s famous admonition to his generals in 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

    “Looking at Wiki it would appear there is some doubt over the veracity of this quote.”

    Yeah. For an overview of the debate:

    “The key area of contention regarding the “Armenian quote” is a reference to the Armenian Genocide, an episode during World War I in the Ottoman Empire, during which an estimated one to one-and-a-half million ethnic Armenians were killed.[13][14][15] The authenticity of the quote has become hotly contested between Turkish and Armenian political activists. The quote is now inscribed on one of the walls of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.. In 2009 International Association of Genocide Scholars used the quote in a letter to Barack Obama related to the Armenian Genocide recognition.[16] However, Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, examined the document containing the Armenian quote and rejected its use as evidence due to its doubtful origin.[17][18]

    Dr. Kevork B. Bardakjian, in a publication entitled Hitler and the Armenian Genocide, published by the Armenian-American Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation, argues that the L-3 document originates in the notes secretly taken by Wilhelm Canaris during the meeting of August 22, 1939:

    To conclude, although its author is unknown, L-3 and its unsigned counterparts 798-PS and 1014-PS originate from the notes Wilhelm Canaris took personally as Hitler spoke on 22 August 1939. … Although not an “official” record, L-3 is a genuine document and is as sound as the other evidence submitted at Nuremberg.[19]

    Richard Albrecht (see de:Richard Albrecht), a German social researcher and political scientist,[20] published a three-volume study (2006–08) on 20th century genocides, of which volume 2 (Armenozid, “[]Armenocide”) relates to the Armenian genocide, and volume 3 (“Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier?” Adolf Hitlers Geheimrede am 22. August 1939) is dedicated solely to Hitler’s Armenian quote. Albrecht contained the document of the original German version of the Armenian quote (the L-3 text) for the first time.[21] The book is summarized as “When discussing, and applying, all relevant features scholarly accepted as leading principles of classifying documents as authentic, the author not only works out that the L-3-document as translated and brought in a few days later at August 25th, 1939, by the US-newspaper man Louis P. Lochner (1887–1975) from Associated Press, and first published in 1942, whenever compared with any other version of Hitler’s speech – above all the Nuremberg-documents 798-PS, 1014 PS, and Raeder-27, as produced by a dubious witness after realising the L-3-version, too – this version must be regarded as the one which most likely sums up and expresses what Hitler said – for what Hitler really said in his notorious second speech was only written down simultaneously during his speech by one of his auditors: Wilhelm Canaris (1887–1945), at that time chief of the military secret service within the Third Reich”.[20]

    According to Margaret L. Anderson, professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley, “we have no reason to doubt the remark is genuine, both attack and defense obscure an obvious reality” that the Armenian Genocide has achieved “iconic status… as the apex of horrors imaginable in 1939,” and that Hitler used it to persuade the German military that committing genocide excited a great deal of “talk” but no serious consequences for a nation that perpetrates genocide.[22]

    According to Stanford University historian Norman Naimark, “There is no question that Hitler and the Nazi leadership were well aware of the Armenian genocide and its relatively innocuous effect on international affairs during the Great War and after.”[23]

    According to German historian Winfried Baumgart, among the documents of Hitler’s speech on 22 August 1938, 1014-PS is the one that contains the original notes taken that day by Wilhelm Canaris, the head of military intelligence. Therefore, in order to Baumgart, 1014-PS, which does not contain the Armenian quote, is superior to the other documents of Hitler’s speech including L-3 which is the only source of the Armenian quote. According to Christopher Browning, American historian of the Holocaust, L-3 document, which contains the Armenian quote, is an “apocalyptic” version of Hitler’s speech that day which was purposefully leaked to the British in order to gain their support to Poland.[24]

    According to Alan Whiticker, several historians examining Lochner’s version of Hitler’s speech (the L-3 document) concluded that it was a heavily distorted version designed to arouse a reaction against Hitler in various countries.” (WIKIPEDIA)

    Of course, we do have other quotes from Hitler that reference the Armenian genocide, so it does not seem out of character for him to bring it up:

    “A solution of the Jewish problem must be arrived at. If the problem can be arrived at by common sense, then so much the better all around. If not, then there are two possibilities—either a bloody conflict, or an Armenianization.”

  173. @Jefferson
    Taking out Vladimir Putin has the potential to breed more terrorists in Russia, just like Iraq has become a bigger breeding ground for Islamic terrorists after taking out Saddam Hussein.

    Saddam Hussein kept those bat $hit crazy Islamic loonies in check. I read reports that Vladimir Putin actually warned the U.S about Chechen terrorists like the Tsarnaev brothers being potential threats to U.S security, before the Boston bombings took place. But they did not listen to him.

    http://elitedaily.com/news/world/i-told-you-so-vladimir-putin-warned-the-u-s-of-chechen-terrorists/

    The open borders treasonous lobby in Washington D.C are bigger threats to U.S homeland security than Vladimir Putin will ever be.

    9/11 and the Boston bombings are a result of this country's liberal immigration policies. No doubt the next big terrorist attack on U.S soil will again be committed by a vibrantly diverse group of people who practice a vibrantly diverse religion. In other words that next terrorist attack will AGAIN NOT be committed by a White Christian male.

    Saddam Hussein kept those bat $hit crazy Islamic loonies in check.

    As did Mubarak. As did Assad. As did Khadaffy. As did Najibullah. At the edges of my consciousness, I think I see a pattern . . . nope, lost it.

  174. @Svigor
    Yeah, but there’s the you started it, you invaded Poland angle.

    So the Yankees were responsible for all the Civil War deaths. I might be able to buy into that.

    Svigor:”So the Yankees were responsible for all the Civil War deaths. I might be able to buy into that.”

    The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll

    • Replies: @Bill M
    Secession is Constitutional.
  175. @eah
    I think you have to be a pretty soulless person to downplay the need for serious action by the West should it be proven that 'rebels' in the Ukraine, armed with sophisticated weapons by Moscow, shot down this plane (accident or no accident), one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    And I think you have to be massively intellectually dishonest to suggest that people who advocate serious action want to start a war with Russia.

    Make no mistake: via coordinated and forceful sanctions, the West has the ability to savage Russia's economy, further impoverishing what is, at best, a second world country.

    And that would be a good starting point.

    one of the more hideous atrocities in my lifetime.

    That’s loony. It’s not even the most hideous atrocity in this particular war. I’d say the Odessa massacre qualifies as the most hideous currently known atrocity in this particular war, but there is undoubtedly a whole lot of other stuff the Kiev Nazis have been up to out of sight of our vigilant press corps. So, I might change my mind.

  176. @Matra
    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon.

    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented. This has not been proven yet and thanks to the best, or worst, efforts of the separatists in recent days we may never know. Add to that the fact that the separatists have established a government of sorts (again illegal under international law) led politically and militarily by three men ( Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and Marat Bashirov) who are citizens of the Russian state and we have an extremely serious situation. For once Whiskey is right. Unless Russia comes clean and makes amends this event ought to be a "game-changer". Unfortunately, as part of my commitment to HBD and "noticing things" I've observed that most Russians (like a few other groups I can think of) seem to reject the idea that they can ever be anything other than victims.

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    Europe did have genocidal conflicts and regimes in the past century, so it doesn’t seem that strange a comparison.

  177. @syonredux
    Svigor:"So the Yankees were responsible for all the Civil War deaths. I might be able to buy into that."

    The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll

    Secession is Constitutional.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Mike:"Secession is Constitutional."

    No, it's not.Some points to bear in mind:

    "Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the Union of the states changed significantly when the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. This action "signaled its decisive break with the Articles' regime of state sovereignty."[25] By adopting a constitution—rather than a treaty, or a compact, or an instrument of confederacy, etc.—that created a new body of government designed to be senior to the several states, and by approving the particular language and provisions of that new Constitution, the framers and voters made it clear that the fates of the individual states were (severely) changed; and that the new United States was:
    Not a "league", however firm; not a "confederacy" or a "confederation"; not a compact on among "sovereign’ states" — all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.[26]
    Patrick Henry adamantly opposed adopting the Constitution because he interpreted its language to replace the sovereignty of the individual states, including that of his own Virginia. He gave his strong voice to the anti-federalist cause in opposition to the federalists led by Madison and Hamilton. Questioning the nature of the proposed new federal government, Henry asked:
    The fate ... of America may depend on this. ... Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. ...[27]
    The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, "We the people ...". They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.


    "Amar specifically cites the example of New York's ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."[29] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."[29] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.
    Amar explains how the Constitution impacted on state sovereignty:
    In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence."

    (via WIKIPEDIA)
  178. The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll

    Ahhh, so the patriots in the 13 colonies are responsible for the death toll during the war of independence.

    I like it. A nice neat way of thinking about things.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Hard Line Realist:"Ahhh, so the patriots in the 13 colonies are responsible for the death toll during the war of independence.

    I like it. A nice neat way of thinking about things."


    To my way of thinking, yes. the Revolution was a colossal mistake and never should have happened.


    On the other hand, the Founders would have defended themselves on the basis of revolutionary resistance to tyranny.You know, no representation in Parliament, denial of the basic rights of Englishmen, etc. Needless to say, that option was not open to the South, seeing as how they had representation in Congress. Indeed, thanks to the patently undemocratic three-fifths clause, they were actually over-represented....
  179. @Bill M
    Secession is Constitutional.

    Mike:”Secession is Constitutional.”

    No, it’s not.Some points to bear in mind:

    “Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the Union of the states changed significantly when the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.”[25] By adopting a constitution—rather than a treaty, or a compact, or an instrument of confederacy, etc.—that created a new body of government designed to be senior to the several states, and by approving the particular language and provisions of that new Constitution, the framers and voters made it clear that the fates of the individual states were (severely) changed; and that the new United States was:
    Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact on among “sovereign’ states” — all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.[26]
    Patrick Henry adamantly opposed adopting the Constitution because he interpreted its language to replace the sovereignty of the individual states, including that of his own Virginia. He gave his strong voice to the anti-federalist cause in opposition to the federalists led by Madison and Hamilton. Questioning the nature of the proposed new federal government, Henry asked:
    The fate … of America may depend on this. … Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. …[27]
    The federalists acknowledged that national sovereignty would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people—indeed, regard the expression, “We the people …”. They argued, however, that Henry exaggerated the extent to which a consolidated government was being created and that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic even though their national sovereignty was ending. Tellingly, on the matter of whether states retained a right to unilaterally secede from the United States, the federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.

    “Amar specifically cites the example of New York’s ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states’ rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that “there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years.”[29] The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: “the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever” [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving “a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification.”[29] The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the “right to withdraw” language proposed by the anti-federalists.
    Amar explains how the Constitution impacted on state sovereignty:
    In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.”

    (via WIKIPEDIA)

  180. @Hard Line Realist

    The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll
     
    Ahhh, so the patriots in the 13 colonies are responsible for the death toll during the war of independence.

    I like it. A nice neat way of thinking about things.

    Hard Line Realist:”Ahhh, so the patriots in the 13 colonies are responsible for the death toll during the war of independence.

    I like it. A nice neat way of thinking about things.”

    To my way of thinking, yes. the Revolution was a colossal mistake and never should have happened.

    On the other hand, the Founders would have defended themselves on the basis of revolutionary resistance to tyranny.You know, no representation in Parliament, denial of the basic rights of Englishmen, etc. Needless to say, that option was not open to the South, seeing as how they had representation in Congress. Indeed, thanks to the patently undemocratic three-fifths clause, they were actually over-represented….

  181. Indeed, thanks to the patently undemocratic three-fifths clause, they were actually over-represented…,

    Ignoramus! I doubt you are even American if you cannot get that little bit of history correct.

  182. US intel says that there’s no direct connection between the missile attack and Russia.

    At any rate, I’m not sure what your whole point is. Russia depends on energy exports to Western Europe and has been trying to have good relations with Western Europe. You seem to be suggesting that they somehow wanted something like this to happen.

    • Replies: @Director
    The only SA-11 systems in Ukraine are owned by the Ukrainian military. All else is fiction. If the rebels managed to capture an SA-11 system the Ukrainian crew should have spiked the guns so to speak. I highly doubt the Ukrainians would have allowed a strategic weapon like that to be captured by Rebs. Over to you Kiev.
  183. HLR:”Ignoramus!”

    Ah, name calling. The last resort of the losing side in an argument.

    HLR:” I doubt you are even American if you cannot get that little bit of history correct.”

    MMMM, what’s incorrect? The three-fifths clause gave the slave-owning South more representation in Congress (and more electoral votes ) than it should have had. Now, of course, it wasn’t the worst available option. The South didn’t get to claim their slaves as full people for apportionment purposes.But it was still quite undemocratic.

    • Replies: @Director
    Not quite true. The 3/5 clause reduced Southern representation. It was a deal struck with Northern States to get the constitution ratified. Had non voting slaves been counted for representative purposes the South would have utterly dominated Federal politics.
  184. @Southfarthing
    :

    Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.
     
    Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S.

    Russia's corruption ranking is 133 in the world, vs. Nigeria's 139. Stand up job, guys... 6 spots ahead of Nigeria.

    My Russian-American friends are extremely glad to be in the U.S. After killing these 300 people, some of my Russian-American friends are trying to think of what they can call themselves instead of "Russians."

    “Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S.”

    That figure becomes even more telling when one recalls that roughly half of all homicides in the USA are committed by Blacks.

    • Replies: @Director
    A good 30% of Russia isn't ethnic Russ.
  185. @Anonymous
    The missile came from the territory of Ukraine. Since the weapon was made in Russia there's a push to fix the blame upon them. But aren't the Israelis using American weapons in their current onslaught against the residents of Gaza? They've managed to slaughter close to six hundred so far. Pictures have shown the wanton killing of children and other civilians as they terrorize and collectively punish the population there. It's become a fascist state that's resorted to mass killing in order to send a message and control resistant populations. Perhaps Cohen should lobby for an arms blockade of Israel as well as an economic embargo. Also, these dual-citizens who would rather serve in their military than in ours should start getting looked into and possibly get their status revoked. We've got a greater capability for controlling events there than in Ukraine so that's where we should expend our efforts.

    Gazans can have peace within a few minutes any time they want:

    Just. Stop. Launching. Rockets.

    Israel makes efforts to minimize casualties, and Gaza makes efforts to maximize casualties. Israel makes phone calls to Gazans’ houses notifying them that an attack is imminent to destroy the rockets the Gazans have stored there. Jon Stewart is mad because he think Israel should give Gazans enough notice to move the rockets to a new location from which to attack.

    When Gazans store their rockets in schools and hospitals, they’re betting on the gullibility of clueless Western leftists.

  186. The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll.

    Steve said invasion, so you’ve moved the goalposts. Anybody can move goalposts. Like this:

    Russia started WWII by putting its subjects to death in the thousands/millions first, thus giving rise to Hitler. No red threat, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. So, all the commie megadeaths, all the Nazi megadeaths, all the WWII megadeaths, are the Russians/commies’ fault.

    Or this:

    Russia started WWII by preparing to invade the west, thus giving rise to Hitler. No Russian invasion threat, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. So, all the commie megadeaths, all the Nazi megadeaths, all the WWII megadeaths, are the Russians/commies’ fault.

    Or this:

    The North started the war of northern aggression, by not allowing the south to peacefully secede. No war against secession, no northern invasion of the south, no deaths.

    Or this:

    The North started the war by forcing the south into a position where secession was the most desirable path, and then invading the south and burning it to the ground for pursuing its own best interests.

    Or this:

    The slave is to blame for having his feet cut off. If he hadn’t escaped, the master wouldn’t have had reason to cut his feet off.

    Or this:

    The slave is to blame for being whipped. If he hadn’t been trying to read, the master wouldn’t have had any reason to whip him.

    Et cetera.

    • Replies: @Robinson
    You should write a book, a history of the world - in reverse. Put the blame on the primordial slime.
    , @syonredux
    Svigor:"Steve said invasion, so you’ve moved the goalposts. "

    I wasn't aware that we were playing football.....


    As for moving goalposts, I took the crux of the debate to be the question of culpability. And since the South was the one who attempted to secede in order to preserve their right to own people, they bear responsibility for the carnage that followed.
  187. are the Russians/commies’ fault.

    With a big assist from the US of A, of course.

  188. “You made me invade and burn your home to the ground” is roughly equivalent to “it’s the slave’s fault he took a whipping, he shouldn’t have been uppity” in my mind.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"“You made me invade and burn your home to the ground” is roughly equivalent to “it’s the slave’s fault he took a whipping, he shouldn’t have been uppity” in my mind."



    MMMM, wealthy slave-owners who attempt to secede in order to preserve their right to own people are the moral equivalent of slaves who protest against their status as human property.....

    Excluding Confederate apologists, not many people would argue that those two things are even remotely comparable.
  189. In others’ minds, the American Revolution was only justified because King George didn’t have the resources to burn America to the ground.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"In others’ minds, the American Revolution was only justified because King George didn’t have the resources to burn America to the ground."


    Machtpolitik, eh? Well, it does have a distinguished pedigree, and it does have the advantage of reducing things to a purely empirical basis.

    On other hand, the Founders preferred to justify their actions on the denial of their rights as Englishmen.

  190. Israelis can have peace any time they want:

    Just. Stop. Stealing. Palestinian. Land.

    Just. Stop. Oppressing. Palestinians.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    Israelis can have peace any time they want...

    If Gaza stopped fighting, then there would be peace immediately. If Israel stopped fighting, they would destroyed within days. So you must mean Israel can have the peace of death any time they want.

    If we were to give the U.S. back to Native American tribes (not Central American mestizos), then it would indeed be fair for us to demand that Israel follow our example.

    But I like the U.S... I don't want to give it away! The world benefits from American science, and Israel is likewise #1 in the world per capita for both scientific papers published and startups.

  191. @Svigor
    The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll.

    Steve said invasion, so you've moved the goalposts. Anybody can move goalposts. Like this:

    Russia started WWII by putting its subjects to death in the thousands/millions first, thus giving rise to Hitler. No red threat, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. So, all the commie megadeaths, all the Nazi megadeaths, all the WWII megadeaths, are the Russians/commies' fault.

    Or this:

    Russia started WWII by preparing to invade the west, thus giving rise to Hitler. No Russian invasion threat, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. So, all the commie megadeaths, all the Nazi megadeaths, all the WWII megadeaths, are the Russians/commies' fault.

    Or this:

    The North started the war of northern aggression, by not allowing the south to peacefully secede. No war against secession, no northern invasion of the south, no deaths.

    Or this:

    The North started the war by forcing the south into a position where secession was the most desirable path, and then invading the south and burning it to the ground for pursuing its own best interests.

    Or this:

    The slave is to blame for having his feet cut off. If he hadn't escaped, the master wouldn't have had reason to cut his feet off.

    Or this:

    The slave is to blame for being whipped. If he hadn't been trying to read, the master wouldn't have had any reason to whip him.

    Et cetera.

    You should write a book, a history of the world – in reverse. Put the blame on the primordial slime.

  192. @Svigor
    Israelis can have peace any time they want:

    Just. Stop. Stealing. Palestinian. Land.

    Just. Stop. Oppressing. Palestinians.

    Israelis can have peace any time they want…

    If Gaza stopped fighting, then there would be peace immediately. If Israel stopped fighting, they would destroyed within days. So you must mean Israel can have the peace of death any time they want.

    If we were to give the U.S. back to Native American tribes (not Central American mestizos), then it would indeed be fair for us to demand that Israel follow our example.

    But I like the U.S… I don’t want to give it away! The world benefits from American science, and Israel is likewise #1 in the world per capita for both scientific papers published and startups.

  193. @syonredux
    Nano:"Yes, the neocons are desperate to start a war to stop the BRICs abandoning the dollar."

    The BRIC is a joke. Russia is a primitive, resource extraction economy. Nigeria with nukes and White people. Brazil is the country of the future.....and, sadly, always will be. India is only 74.04% literate.

    China is the only one that counts.

    Nigeria with Rocket Science and an industrial economy. And blonde women who do what the husband asks.

  194. @syonredux
    "Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S."

    That figure becomes even more telling when one recalls that roughly half of all homicides in the USA are committed by Blacks.

    A good 30% of Russia isn’t ethnic Russ.

  195. @reiner Tor
    Yeah, but Stalin was not the first communist dictator. It all started in 1917 (though the mass murders mostly started later in 1918 only). Are the pre-1924 numbers included?

    It also seems questionable to exclude hunger deaths when the government knew about the famine, deliberately prevented people from reaching population centers with food reserves, and sent them back to famine areas. Let alone the fact that the famine itself was a direct result of government policies. Or if the low number does include the famine, I have an issue with it. Harrison et al (ed.) The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union 1914-45 includes a study of the 1933 famine regarding the Ukraine (and mentioning the fact that the Ukraine was far from the only area affected), and it concluded the number could be anywhere between zero and ten million depending on our assumptions about the death rate and birth rate prior to the famine. It's not known and is unknowable because the last reliable data point is 1928 and we have reasons to believe that both rates changed considerably in the meantime.

    They conclude that the most reasonable estimate was 3-4 million for the Ukraine only, but it's a conservstive estimate, and the number could easily be double that number.

    Not to mention Kaganovich. He orchestrated the killings and died in bed in the 1990s. Stalin gets all the blame, even though he wasn’t Russian.

  196. @Southfarthing
    "keep Germany defanged."

    45% of people in Berlin under age 18 aren't even German. That's pretty defanged.


    @Syon: "Why would the Russians want to ally with the West?"

    The Russians and the West share culture. The Islamic Caliphate, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are going to swallow both the West and Russia.

    The West and the Soviets arming whichever 3rd world country the other was fighting helped destroy them both:
    -The Rhodesian Bush War
    -Vietnam
    -The Soviet War in Afghanistan
    ...

    The Viscount shootdowns. Two Rhodesian airliners deliberately shot down by Mugabe’s Boys and armed by the Soviet Union. The high water mark of European civilization destroyed in Southern Africa.

  197. @Matra
    Civilian airliners getting shot down by amped, not-terribly-bright soldiers is unfortunately not uncommon.

    Shooting down commercial airliners is extremely uncommon in Europe, or any other civilised part of the world. For a state to illegally (under international law) provide the arms used to shoot down the plane would be AFAIK completely unprecedented. This has not been proven yet and thanks to the best, or worst, efforts of the separatists in recent days we may never know. Add to that the fact that the separatists have established a government of sorts (again illegal under international law) led politically and militarily by three men ( Alexander Borodai, Igor Girkin, and Marat Bashirov) who are citizens of the Russian state and we have an extremely serious situation. For once Whiskey is right. Unless Russia comes clean and makes amends this event ought to be a "game-changer". Unfortunately, as part of my commitment to HBD and "noticing things" I've observed that most Russians (like a few other groups I can think of) seem to reject the idea that they can ever be anything other than victims.

    In my lifetime, I can recall Pol Pot and the Killing Fields, Mao and the Cultural Revolution, Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoutes, Rwanda. You have a pretty low threshold.

    And you have a warped view of the world to lump Europe in with Cambodia, China, Haiti, and Rwanda.

    I’ll go out on a limb. Kiev shot the plane down. There, I said it. You have no evidence that the Russians supplied SA-11 class missiles to the rebels there. None whatsoever. The only stash in that nation are owned by Kiev. Period.

  198. @Bill M
    @Matra

    US intel says that there's no direct connection between the missile attack and Russia.

    At any rate, I'm not sure what your whole point is. Russia depends on energy exports to Western Europe and has been trying to have good relations with Western Europe. You seem to be suggesting that they somehow wanted something like this to happen.

    The only SA-11 systems in Ukraine are owned by the Ukrainian military. All else is fiction. If the rebels managed to capture an SA-11 system the Ukrainian crew should have spiked the guns so to speak. I highly doubt the Ukrainians would have allowed a strategic weapon like that to be captured by Rebs. Over to you Kiev.

  199. @syonredux
    HLR:"Ignoramus!"

    Ah, name calling. The last resort of the losing side in an argument.


    HLR:" I doubt you are even American if you cannot get that little bit of history correct."

    MMMM, what's incorrect? The three-fifths clause gave the slave-owning South more representation in Congress (and more electoral votes ) than it should have had. Now, of course, it wasn't the worst available option. The South didn't get to claim their slaves as full people for apportionment purposes.But it was still quite undemocratic.

    Not quite true. The 3/5 clause reduced Southern representation. It was a deal struck with Northern States to get the constitution ratified. Had non voting slaves been counted for representative purposes the South would have utterly dominated Federal politics.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Director:"Not quite true. The 3/5 clause reduced Southern representation. It was a deal struck with Northern States to get the constitution ratified. Had non voting slaves been counted for representative purposes the South would have utterly dominated Federal politics."


    Yes, I know that the South wanted their slaves counted as full people for purposes of apportionment. Hence, the three-fifths clause was an anti-slavery measure. It just did not go far enough. Slaves should not have been counted at all for apportionment purposes.
  200. @nano
    "Like, don’t we (and everyone else) have satellites watching Russia/Ukraine? Can’t we just look at the tape to see where the thing came from?"

    yes but that would also show things that might muddy the narrative like Ukraine air force jets in the vicinity.

    .

    "Sanctions, threats of military actions, et al. How far do the neo-cons/neo-libs want to push this?"

    The banking mafia faction just want to scare the BRICS away from replacing the dollar and will be prepared to push this to the edge of war but not actual war (except by accident). The neocon faction on the other hand are focused on countries they perceive to be Israel's enemies which currently means Iran and Syria. As Russia is an obstacle to attacking Iran and Syria then if the neocons thought they could win a war against Russia I think they'd do it. Obama - and possibly the MIC - are the brakes.

    .

    "Stalin’s Great Terror killings are probably the strangest mass slaughter. They were the least aimed at The Other and most aimed at themselves."

    I think you could easily make a case that the Soviet concentration camps were run by a coalition of minorities against the Russian/Slav majority.

    .

    "Nah, I think the numbers add up to Hitler being worse than Stalin."

    If Hitler's successful rise to power was partly due to fear of the Soviet concentration camps then if the western powers had gone to war with the Bolsheviks in the 1930s they might have killed two birds with one stone.

    Soviet history up until the 1950s is quite clearly a case study in Minority Occupied Government. Georgians, Ukrainians, Jews, Balts all lording it over Russians for a time. That all went out the window as Russian nationalism was rekindled to push back the Wehrmacht.

  201. @syonredux
    aNON:"Eisenhower stabbed Britain and France in the back and then had to go whoops I guess with those two countries gone we are going to have to be the new hegemon there."


    More like Eisenhower realized that the days of old style imperial intervention were over and that more subtle means were now needed. Not to mention the fact that British PM Anthony Eden was a classic study in drug-induced hysteria:

    "He was also prescribed Benzedrine, the wonder drug of the 1950s. Regarded then as a harmless stimulant, it belongs to the family of drugs called amphetamines, and at that time they were prescribed and used in a very casual way. Among the side effects of Benzedrine are insomnia, restlessness and mood swings, all of which Eden suffered during the Suez Crisis. His drug use is now commonly agreed to have been a part of the reason for his bad judgment while Prime Minister.[1] Eden was secretly hospitalised with a high fever, possibly as a result of his heavy medication, on 5–8 October 1956. He underwent further surgery at a New York hospital in April 1957.

    In November 2006 private papers uncovered in the Eden family archives disclosed that he had been prescribed a powerful combination of amphetamines and barbiturates called drinamyl. Better known in post-war Britain as "purple hearts", they can impair judgement, cause paranoia and even make the person taking them lose contact with reality. Drinamyl was banned in 1978."

    (WIKIPEDIA)


    Anon:" The Steve’s and syon’s of the world who hate America’s ability to project power into the world might want to rethink their Eisenhower nostalgia."

    Can't speak for Steve, but I rather like the fact that America can project its power; of course, I also think that such an ability should be used judiciously.

    Anon:"Of course the real reason most paleos like Eisenhower is precisely because he stabbed England and France"

    More like made them leave their imperial dream-world and face the cold light of day.


    Anon:"in the back because that hurt Israel."

    More like Eisenhower was the last President who understood that America's interests in the Middle East are not identical to Israel's.


    Anon:" But spare me you crocodile tears about the American hegemon if you are going to praise Eisenhower the man who established the blueprint for Pax Americana in the Middle East with the Eisenhower doctrine the most open ended articulation of American force projection ever made. The effective utter repudiation of Steve’s beloved Farewell Address."

    And yet somehow Eisenhower did not deploy troops to Vietnam, or Algeria, or Hungary, etc. Again, actions speak louder than doctrine.

    There’s something to be said for the Imperial Dreamworlds. They certainly were better than the Equal Rights nightmare of Detroit, Birmingham and … Name any American urban area. They were certainly better than Post English London and After France Paris. Even Berlin is filling up with Brown Muck.

    The end of Empire and the Crusade for democracy were the demographic end of civilization.

  202. @Southfarthing
    :

    Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.
     
    Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S.

    Russia's corruption ranking is 133 in the world, vs. Nigeria's 139. Stand up job, guys... 6 spots ahead of Nigeria.

    My Russian-American friends are extremely glad to be in the U.S. After killing these 300 people, some of my Russian-American friends are trying to think of what they can call themselves instead of "Russians."

    Well okay. Would you live in Lagos or St Petersberg? Enough of your inane hyperbole. Which city?

  203. syon says:
    July 23, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    @Mike

    “”Mike:”Secession is Constitutional.”””

    No, it’s not.Some points to bear in mind:

    “Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the Union of the states changed significantly when the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. ”

    @Syon

    F**k Akhil Reed Amar. Nobody named “Akhil Reed Amar” is an expert on the Constitution of my country, which was founded by my ancestors – not his.

    The Constitution is the compact that binds the several states together under the laws enfoced by the federal government. It is a contract. The Federal government, through its dereliction of its duties, and through the ouright hostility it has demonstrated toward the people of this nation, has abrogated that contract.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Mr Anon:"F**k Akhil Reed Amar."

    How charming.


    Mr Anon:" Nobody named “Akhil Reed Amar” is an expert on the Constitution of my country, which was founded by my ancestors – not his."

    What a shame, then, that he understands it better than you do.

    Mr Anon:"The Constitution is the compact that binds the several states together under the laws enfoced by the federal government. It is a contract. The Federal government, through its dereliction of its duties, and through the ouright hostility it has demonstrated toward the people of this nation, has abrogated that contract."

    Strange that people like Patrick Henry didn't see it that way....
  204. @notsaying
    "Yet it must be asked if waiting years for the evasive conclusions of an official investigation into the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is better than acting now on what we already know"?

    Yes, Roger Cohen, it is better to wait until we know something. Right now we just "know". There is a difference.

    It strikes me as plausible that the Ukrainian military shit the bird down. They operate the same system and are preparing for a border war with a superior air power. The Russians wouldn’t have lent a system quite like that to rebel formations (captured equipment would have been a high cost) . Equally they wouldn’t have directly deployed volunteer crews (capture would be a risk). Who is left? I’m sure that the Ukrainians have ringed the reb area with AA and the border with Russia is studded with Ukrainian operated SA-11. Every inch of the Rebel territory must be under permanent Satellite observation and radar observation. Where is the footage?

  205. @Svigor
    "You made me invade and burn your home to the ground" is roughly equivalent to "it's the slave's fault he took a whipping, he shouldn't have been uppity" in my mind.

    Svigor:”“You made me invade and burn your home to the ground” is roughly equivalent to “it’s the slave’s fault he took a whipping, he shouldn’t have been uppity” in my mind.”

    MMMM, wealthy slave-owners who attempt to secede in order to preserve their right to own people are the moral equivalent of slaves who protest against their status as human property…..

    Excluding Confederate apologists, not many people would argue that those two things are even remotely comparable.

  206. @Svigor
    The South started the Civil War by attempting to secede. No attempt to secede, no war. Hence, the South bears the weight of responsibility for the Civil War death toll.

    Steve said invasion, so you've moved the goalposts. Anybody can move goalposts. Like this:

    Russia started WWII by putting its subjects to death in the thousands/millions first, thus giving rise to Hitler. No red threat, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. So, all the commie megadeaths, all the Nazi megadeaths, all the WWII megadeaths, are the Russians/commies' fault.

    Or this:

    Russia started WWII by preparing to invade the west, thus giving rise to Hitler. No Russian invasion threat, no Hitler, no WWII, no Holocaust. So, all the commie megadeaths, all the Nazi megadeaths, all the WWII megadeaths, are the Russians/commies' fault.

    Or this:

    The North started the war of northern aggression, by not allowing the south to peacefully secede. No war against secession, no northern invasion of the south, no deaths.

    Or this:

    The North started the war by forcing the south into a position where secession was the most desirable path, and then invading the south and burning it to the ground for pursuing its own best interests.

    Or this:

    The slave is to blame for having his feet cut off. If he hadn't escaped, the master wouldn't have had reason to cut his feet off.

    Or this:

    The slave is to blame for being whipped. If he hadn't been trying to read, the master wouldn't have had any reason to whip him.

    Et cetera.

    Svigor:”Steve said invasion, so you’ve moved the goalposts. ”

    I wasn’t aware that we were playing football…..

    As for moving goalposts, I took the crux of the debate to be the question of culpability. And since the South was the one who attempted to secede in order to preserve their right to own people, they bear responsibility for the carnage that followed.

  207. @Svigor
    In others' minds, the American Revolution was only justified because King George didn't have the resources to burn America to the ground.

    Svigor:”In others’ minds, the American Revolution was only justified because King George didn’t have the resources to burn America to the ground.”

    Machtpolitik, eh? Well, it does have a distinguished pedigree, and it does have the advantage of reducing things to a purely empirical basis.

    On other hand, the Founders preferred to justify their actions on the denial of their rights as Englishmen.

  208. On other hand, the Founders preferred to justify their actions on the denial of their rights as Englishmen.

    The Founders seceded to preserve their right to own people and practice slavery.

    If we were to give the U.S. back to Native American tribes (not Central American mestizos), then it would indeed be fair for us to demand that Israel follow our example.

    But I like the U.S… I don’t want to give it away! The world benefits from American science, and Israel is likewise #1 in the world per capita for both scientific papers published and startups.

    It’s interesting how you’ve explicitly retconned 21st century values onto the 19th and preceding centuries. This is essentially an admission that Israel is not a modern, civilized country, but a backwards, uncivilized one a few centuries behind the modern world.

    And Modern American Jewry is Israel’s BFF, so they aren’t far ahead, if at all.

    F**k Akhil Reed Amar.

    Seconded. It’s not hard to figure out: parties to a contract remain parties. They don’t somehow dissolve into a single party, especially not on the strength of arguments that do not exist in the contract.

    MMMM, wealthy slave-owners who attempt to secede in order to preserve their right to own people are the moral equivalent of slaves who protest against their status as human property…..

    Ah, I see. “Who-whom?” it is then. The right to be free is alienable for the wealthy. As for slave-owning, it was in long before the contract in question, so it provides no challenge to status, much as retconning Yankee supremacists would wish otherwise.

    As for “in order to,” the sound of a needle scratching off the vinyl plays loudly here. None of a Yankee supremacist’s business why anyone excercises his rights. The “logic” is easily turned around: wealthy, wage-slave exploiting Yankee oligarchs who invade and burn down a raft of sovereign States, in order to enslave them to Yankee oligarch will and interests, have no standing to lecture on the moral turpitude of slavery, because they’re in the process of practicing it themselves.

    Excluding Confederate apologists, not many people would argue that those two things are even remotely comparable.

    Oh, well, now that you’ve deployed the appeal to authority fallacy, my argument is devastated.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"The Founders seceded to preserve their right to own people and practice slavery."

    Yes, I know that that theory is frightfully popular with the Left, but it suffers when exposed to the plain light of day.



    Svigor:"F**k Akhil Reed Amar."

    Obscenity, eh? Well, when you've run out of argument....

    Svigor:"Seconded. It’s not hard to figure out: parties to a contract remain parties. They don’t somehow dissolve into a single party, especially not on the strength of arguments that do not exist in the contract."


    MMMM, looks like someone just can't cope with the actual debates that surrounded the adoption of the Constitution.



    Svigor:"Ah, I see. “Who-whom?” it is then. The right to be free is alienable for the wealthy."

    Well, I suppose that losing the right to own people would make a slave-owner feel less free...

    Svigor:" As for slave-owning, it was in long before the contract in question, so it provides no challenge to status, much as retconning Yankee supremacists would wish otherwise."

    On the other hand, it does establish the point rather more clearly. The South fought for the right to own people. Full stop.

    Svigor:"As for “in order to,” the sound of a needle scratching off the vinyl plays loudly here. None of a Yankee supremacist’s"

    As opposed to a Southern supremacist? Some interesting info from Macpherson on how the South dominated the federal government during the period 1789-1861:

    "During forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861, the presidents of the United States were Southerners--all of them slaveholders. The only presidents to be reelected were slaveholders. Two-thirds of the Speakers of the House, chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee, and presidents pro tem of the Senate were Southerners. At all times before 1861, a majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners....
    The dominant political party most of the time from 1800 to 1860 was the Democratic Republican Party under the Virginia dynasty of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which metamorphosed into the Democratic Party under the Tennessean Andrew Jackson. Southerners controlled this party and used that leverage to control Congress and the presidency. In 1828 and 1832 Jackson won 70 percent of the popular vote for president in the slave states and only 50 percent in the free states...

    As an example of how such leverage could translate into a Slave Power, six of the eight Supreme Court justices appointed by Jackson and his handpicked successor were Southerners, including Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the notorious Dred Scott decision and of other rulings that strengthened slavery...

    Southern politicians did not use this national power to buttress state's rights; quite the contrary. In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states. The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states. In 1850 Southerners in Congress plus a handful of Northern allies enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of national power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slaveowners, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners."


    Svigor:"business why anyone excercises his rights."

    Still missing that right to own people, eh?


    Svigor:" The “logic” is easily turned around: wealthy, wage-slave exploiting Yankee oligarchs who invade and burn down a raft of sovereign States,"

    In other words, the USA tried to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning plantation owners from succeeding in an act of treason...


    Svigor:" in order to enslave them to Yankee oligarch will and interests, have no standing to lecture on the moral turpitude of slavery, because they’re in the process of practicing it themselves."

    On the other hand, I don't recall reading about people wanting to be slaves, but I do know that a heck of a lot of slaves wanted to run away to work in factories as free men...






    Svigor:"Oh, well, now that you’ve deployed the appeal to authority fallacy, my argument is devastated."

    "Appeal to authority?" I would say that I was just pointing out how frightfully absurd it is to hear a man likening a slave-owner being deprived of his right to own people to a slave being beaten. I mean, let's just place them side by side:

    1.Slave-owner loses right to own people.

    2. Slave gets beaten by master.

    I just find it hard to lose tears for the slave owner. Of course, I've never owned people....
  209. Maybe Yankee Supremacism in these circles comes from sour grapes. Yankees in these circles must know that the South would be much better off in many ways if they’d won the war. Pretty much everything we complain about here as disastrous would not have obtained in an independent south. The vast majority of the disasters that have befallen the US have been imposed over Southern opposition, most of them by a Northern vanguard. Even today, the South would become much more conservative overnight, given independence.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing

    The vast majority of the disasters that have befallen the US have been imposed over Southern opposition
     
    Yes, the South was the only part of the country to oppose the 1965 Immigration Act.

    They knew.
    , @syonredux
    Svigor:"Maybe Yankee Supremacism in these circles comes from sour grapes. Yankees in these circles must know that the South would be much better off in many ways if they’d won the war."

    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place. Why just look at the map showing the concentration of significant figures in the USA prior to 1950 in Murray's HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (304-305). The South is a vast blank. The states of New England plus New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey alone produced 184 significant figures by 1950, whereas the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.

    And, of course, one has to add to that the moral cost that slavery imposes on the slave-owner:

    "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.

    This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. " (Thomas Jefferson"

  210. Whoops, forgot to close a tag, apparently.

  211. Director: The Russians wouldn’t have lent a system quite like that to rebel formations (captured equipment would have been a high cost) .

    Oh yes because the capture of one Buk unit by the Ukrainians would’ve been so valuable against the rebels who don’t have an air force.

    Equally they wouldn’t have directly deployed volunteer crews (capture would be a risk).

    Then the Russian state must be quaking with fear that the three Russians (not Eastern Ukrainians) leading the ‘Donetsk Peoples Republic’ will be found out! Obviously any captured Russians (Chechen and others from the Caucasus on the rebel side) will be dismissed by Moscow as volunteers and not officially state sanctioned.

    Your arguments throughout this thread boil down to stating opinions and passing them off as facts. You and others here should try discussing your theories at some of the aviation blogs (populist ones like Aviation.net aren’t too difficult for the layman) and see how far you get with people who actually know their stuff (minus the Russian propagandists, of course).

    I’m guessing the people here who believe everything Russia says in the WNist/HBD sphere are mostly Americans who don’t trust their own media (rightly so) and feel so embittered and impotent about their own country’s trajectory (understandable) that they have developed a clingy beta, maybe omega, kind of relationship to a seemingly non-PC Russia (not so understandable). Don’t hold your breath waiting for the cynical Asiatic Russians to reciprocate.

    The threads at white nationalist/HBD sites on MH17 have been as revealing about Alt Right Americans as the soccer ones here in recent weeks. They make SWPLers look like worldly freethinking non-conformists.

  212. I do find it amusing how a white American justifies the (far and away) most deadly war to white Americans in our history, a devastating and unnecessary conflict, by saying “we did it for the negroes.”

    Now there’s a way to win friends and influence people.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"I do find it amusing how a white American justifies the (far and away) most deadly war to white Americans in our history, a devastating and unnecessary conflict, by saying “we did it for the negroes.”"

    On the other hand, the South tried to justify the deadliest war in American history on the basis of their right to own people. And the South was willing to kill White people to defend that right.
  213. I wouldn’t invade and burn Rhode Island to free all of Africa.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"I wouldn’t invade and burn Rhode Island to free all of Africa."


    Nor would I. On the other hand, if Rhode Island attempted to secede....
  214. Looks like the Ukraine has problems:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/07/smells-like-lusitanian-spirit.html

    It’s going to need a real puppet givernment.

  215. @Southfarthing
    :

    Calling Russia “Nigeria with nukes” is literally like calling someone an imbecile with a nuclear physics PhD.
     
    Russia has twice the homicide rate of the U.S.

    Russia's corruption ranking is 133 in the world, vs. Nigeria's 139. Stand up job, guys... 6 spots ahead of Nigeria.

    My Russian-American friends are extremely glad to be in the U.S. After killing these 300 people, some of my Russian-American friends are trying to think of what they can call themselves instead of "Russians."

    Also an answer to syon.

    “Resource extraction economy” is a vague expression. What percentage of engineers in the resource extraction industries are local? Are they capable of delivering the stuff above the ground only, or also refining it, e.g. creating titanium alloys from it? Is the non-resource extraction part of the economy subsistance farming, or is it something more sophisticated? Is the UK a “resource extraction economy” under the same definition?

    While both corruption and high homicide rates are typical of Sub-Saharan Africa, these are certainly not the only defining features of it. And I would be the last one to deny that Russians (and especially many non-Russian minorities in Russia) are corrupt brutes, but they are almost as intelligent and creative as Western Europeans (as attested to by both their scientific achievements and their high culture), whereas sub-Saharan Africans are unsophisticated corrupt brutes. Not to mention the simple fact that they are much closer relatives than sub-Saharans.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    , @Director:

    Yes, I like Russians and other Slavs.

    I am arguing the West and Russia should stop their internecine rivalry.

  216. @Svigor
    Maybe Yankee Supremacism in these circles comes from sour grapes. Yankees in these circles must know that the South would be much better off in many ways if they'd won the war. Pretty much everything we complain about here as disastrous would not have obtained in an independent south. The vast majority of the disasters that have befallen the US have been imposed over Southern opposition, most of them by a Northern vanguard. Even today, the South would become much more conservative overnight, given independence.

    The vast majority of the disasters that have befallen the US have been imposed over Southern opposition

    Yes, the South was the only part of the country to oppose the 1965 Immigration Act.

    They knew.

  217. The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772.

    Seeing the writing on the wall, the American Colonies moved to preserve their right to own people and declared their independence in 1776. They even fought a war (an illegitimate one because slavery) to secede from Britain and preserve their right to own people.

    If they’d lost the war for independence, Britain could have burned America to the ground and claimed to be justified in doing so – according to syon.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772.

    Seeing the writing on the wall,"

    Let’s see. American Revolution starts in 1775 (Declaration in ’76)…..Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire came in 1833….58 years. Fantastically farsighted of them.Would that our current rulers looked that far ahead. Why a young South Carolina plantation owner would have been reduced to senility by the time emancipation made its British debut.


    Svigor:"the American Colonies moved to preserve their right to own people and declared their independence in 1776."

    Odd take, bearing in mind the rise of abolitionism in the Northern States:

    1777: Vermont constitution bans Slavery

    1780: Pennsylvania passes a gradual emancipation law

    1783:Massachusetts ends slavery via court decisions (cf the Somersett Case back in the UK). Here’s Chief justice William Cushing’s statement:

    “As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle, that (it is true) has been heretofore countenanced by the Province Laws formerly, but nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage — a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal — and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property — and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract …”(WIKIPEDIA)

    By 1804, anti-slavery laws had been passed in every state North of the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon line.

    Curious how the Southern slave owners were so prescient about the rise of abolitionist sentiment in the UK but were so blinkered about what was going on much closer to home….


    Svigor:" They even fought a war (an illegitimate one because slavery) to secede from Britain and preserve their right to own people."

    Except that they did not fight in the name of chattel slavery. They fought for the rights of Englishmen.

    Now, the Confederacy was a quite different matter. Here's Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. He gives us a glimpse into the Confederate mind, and it is not pretty:

    "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition."

    Be hard to phrase things more baldly. The Confederacy was predicated on the idea of slavery, not states' rights or national self-determination.The Confederacy was a despotism, pure and unalloyed


    Svigor:"If they’d lost the war for independence, Britain could have burned America to the ground and claimed to be justified in doing so – according to syon."

    How so? At no point during the Revolution was emancipation a British objective. They merely offered freedom to slaves that were owned by rebels. If the British had won the war, slavery would still have been in place. This is, of course, in contrast to the Civil War, which moved from the Emancipation Proclamation (affecting only slaves in states that were in rebellion) in 1863, to the 13th Amendment in 1865, which ended slavery throughout the Union.
  218. How many Israeli Jews have been confirmed as killed by rockets launched from Palestinian territory?

  219. @reiner Tor
    Also an answer to syon.

    "Resource extraction economy" is a vague expression. What percentage of engineers in the resource extraction industries are local? Are they capable of delivering the stuff above the ground only, or also refining it, e.g. creating titanium alloys from it? Is the non-resource extraction part of the economy subsistance farming, or is it something more sophisticated? Is the UK a "resource extraction economy" under the same definition?

    While both corruption and high homicide rates are typical of Sub-Saharan Africa, these are certainly not the only defining features of it. And I would be the last one to deny that Russians (and especially many non-Russian minorities in Russia) are corrupt brutes, but they are almost as intelligent and creative as Western Europeans (as attested to by both their scientific achievements and their high culture), whereas sub-Saharan Africans are unsophisticated corrupt brutes. Not to mention the simple fact that they are much closer relatives than sub-Saharans.

    , :

    Yes, I like Russians and other Slavs.

    I am arguing the West and Russia should stop their internecine rivalry.

  220. Yes, the South was the only part of the country to oppose the 1965 Immigration Act.

    They knew.

    Hunter Wallace (Occidental Dissent blog, inter alia) has done a lot of work enumerating the liberal crap that would never have flown in an independent south. It’s much easier to name the stuff that would have.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    “Affirmative Action”? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    “Anti-discrimination” laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    “Minority” quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Southern leaders have always been opposed to cheap labor.
  221. It’s a bit obvious to state that if Southerners in 1864 could have come forward in time and seen America today, they’d have gone back to their time and fought the Yankees to the last man. It’s a bit more germane to point out that if Yankees of the time could have done so, they’d have turned their coats and fought for the South, too.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"It’s a bit obvious to state that if Southerners in 1864 could have come forward in time and seen America today, they’d have gone back to their time and fought the Yankees to the last man."

    On the other hand, if the Southerners in 1860 had gone forward to 1865, they would have swiftly realized that the whole treason business was not worth it. And if the South in 1783 could have been vouchsafed a glimpse of 1865, some kind of gradual emancipation scheme would doubtless have emerged.



    Svigor:" It’s a bit more germane to point out that if Yankees of the time could have done so, they’d have turned their coats and fought for the South, too."

    Hard to say. The chattel slavery in the South was so vile and monstrous.
  222. anon • Disclaimer says:

    “How many Israeli Jews have been confirmed as killed by rockets launched from Palestinian territory?”

    What’s the point of this? If Mexicans started rocketing San Diego but were too dumb to build good rockets and we had a system that shot most of them down, should we not respond?

    In 2005, Sharon made Gaza Judenrein, ended the occupation there, and there was no blockade or anything like that. Gaza responded by electing Hamas, which made no secret of its intention to use Gaza as a launching ground for destroying Israel.

    • Replies: @Southfarthing
    Right, Gazans launching rockets is mostly economic warfare.

    1. Israel's Iron Dome counter-missiles are a technological marvel, but are very expensive.
    2. It drains economic productivity for Israelis to have to stop doing science so they can go to their bomb shelters in case the Iron Dome fails.

    Mexico waging economic warfare against San Diego wouldn't be tolerated.

    Latin America waging "immigration warfare" should also not be tolerated :)

  223. @anon
    "How many Israeli Jews have been confirmed as killed by rockets launched from Palestinian territory?"

    What's the point of this? If Mexicans started rocketing San Diego but were too dumb to build good rockets and we had a system that shot most of them down, should we not respond?

    In 2005, Sharon made Gaza Judenrein, ended the occupation there, and there was no blockade or anything like that. Gaza responded by electing Hamas, which made no secret of its intention to use Gaza as a launching ground for destroying Israel.

    Right, Gazans launching rockets is mostly economic warfare.

    1. Israel’s Iron Dome counter-missiles are a technological marvel, but are very expensive.
    2. It drains economic productivity for Israelis to have to stop doing science so they can go to their bomb shelters in case the Iron Dome fails.

    Mexico waging economic warfare against San Diego wouldn’t be tolerated.

    Latin America waging “immigration warfare” should also not be tolerated 🙂

  224. @Svigor
    The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772.

    Seeing the writing on the wall, the American Colonies moved to preserve their right to own people and declared their independence in 1776. They even fought a war (an illegitimate one because slavery) to secede from Britain and preserve their right to own people.

    If they'd lost the war for independence, Britain could have burned America to the ground and claimed to be justified in doing so - according to syon.

    Svigor:”The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772.

    Seeing the writing on the wall,”

    Let’s see. American Revolution starts in 1775 (Declaration in ’76)…..Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire came in 1833….58 years. Fantastically farsighted of them.Would that our current rulers looked that far ahead. Why a young South Carolina plantation owner would have been reduced to senility by the time emancipation made its British debut.

    Svigor:”the American Colonies moved to preserve their right to own people and declared their independence in 1776.”

    Odd take, bearing in mind the rise of abolitionism in the Northern States:

    1777: Vermont constitution bans Slavery

    1780: Pennsylvania passes a gradual emancipation law

    1783:Massachusetts ends slavery via court decisions (cf the Somersett Case back in the UK). Here’s Chief justice William Cushing’s statement:

    “As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle, that (it is true) has been heretofore countenanced by the Province Laws formerly, but nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage — a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government, by which the people of this Commonwealth have solemnly bound themselves, sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal — and that every subject is entitled to liberty, and to have it guarded by the laws, as well as life and property — and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct or given up by personal consent or contract …”(WIKIPEDIA)

    By 1804, anti-slavery laws had been passed in every state North of the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon line.

    Curious how the Southern slave owners were so prescient about the rise of abolitionist sentiment in the UK but were so blinkered about what was going on much closer to home….

    Svigor:” They even fought a war (an illegitimate one because slavery) to secede from Britain and preserve their right to own people.”

    Except that they did not fight in the name of chattel slavery. They fought for the rights of Englishmen.

    Now, the Confederacy was a quite different matter. Here’s Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. He gives us a glimpse into the Confederate mind, and it is not pretty:

    “The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

    Be hard to phrase things more baldly. The Confederacy was predicated on the idea of slavery, not states’ rights or national self-determination.The Confederacy was a despotism, pure and unalloyed

    Svigor:”If they’d lost the war for independence, Britain could have burned America to the ground and claimed to be justified in doing so – according to syon.”

    How so? At no point during the Revolution was emancipation a British objective. They merely offered freedom to slaves that were owned by rebels. If the British had won the war, slavery would still have been in place. This is, of course, in contrast to the Civil War, which moved from the Emancipation Proclamation (affecting only slaves in states that were in rebellion) in 1863, to the 13th Amendment in 1865, which ended slavery throughout the Union.

  225. iSteveFan says:

    “How many Israeli Jews have been confirmed as killed by rockets launched from Palestinian territory?”

    What’s the point of this?…

    It’s actually quite interesting. In the USA, there is a certain level of black-on-white crime that conservatives acknowledge, but liberals and the MSM do not. As a result the government implements policies to further integrate schools and neighborhoods despite the white flight it engenders. They dismiss this as racism and irrational fear. Many whites go to great expense to move to safe areas, while others are trapped and see their neighborhoods go bad.

    So it would be interesting to see how many Jews are victims of violent crimes in Israel as a result of the Palis. This would be both from Israeli Arabs and the Hamas rockets. Do Jews in Israel, when adjusted for their smaller population, suffer similar rates of violent crime as whites do from blacks in America? If not, then either there is not a real war directed against Jews in Israel, or whites in America are essentially under attack.

  226. @Svigor
    It's a bit obvious to state that if Southerners in 1864 could have come forward in time and seen America today, they'd have gone back to their time and fought the Yankees to the last man. It's a bit more germane to point out that if Yankees of the time could have done so, they'd have turned their coats and fought for the South, too.

    Svigor:”It’s a bit obvious to state that if Southerners in 1864 could have come forward in time and seen America today, they’d have gone back to their time and fought the Yankees to the last man.”

    On the other hand, if the Southerners in 1860 had gone forward to 1865, they would have swiftly realized that the whole treason business was not worth it. And if the South in 1783 could have been vouchsafed a glimpse of 1865, some kind of gradual emancipation scheme would doubtless have emerged.

    Svigor:” It’s a bit more germane to point out that if Yankees of the time could have done so, they’d have turned their coats and fought for the South, too.”

    Hard to say. The chattel slavery in the South was so vile and monstrous.

  227. @Svigor
    I wouldn't invade and burn Rhode Island to free all of Africa.

    Svigor:”I wouldn’t invade and burn Rhode Island to free all of Africa.”

    Nor would I. On the other hand, if Rhode Island attempted to secede….

  228. @Svigor
    I do find it amusing how a white American justifies the (far and away) most deadly war to white Americans in our history, a devastating and unnecessary conflict, by saying "we did it for the negroes."

    Now there's a way to win friends and influence people.

    Svigor:”I do find it amusing how a white American justifies the (far and away) most deadly war to white Americans in our history, a devastating and unnecessary conflict, by saying “we did it for the negroes.””

    On the other hand, the South tried to justify the deadliest war in American history on the basis of their right to own people. And the South was willing to kill White people to defend that right.

  229. @Svigor
    Maybe Yankee Supremacism in these circles comes from sour grapes. Yankees in these circles must know that the South would be much better off in many ways if they'd won the war. Pretty much everything we complain about here as disastrous would not have obtained in an independent south. The vast majority of the disasters that have befallen the US have been imposed over Southern opposition, most of them by a Northern vanguard. Even today, the South would become much more conservative overnight, given independence.

    Svigor:”Maybe Yankee Supremacism in these circles comes from sour grapes. Yankees in these circles must know that the South would be much better off in many ways if they’d won the war.”

    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place. Why just look at the map showing the concentration of significant figures in the USA prior to 1950 in Murray’s HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (304-305). The South is a vast blank. The states of New England plus New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey alone produced 184 significant figures by 1950, whereas the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.

    And, of course, one has to add to that the moral cost that slavery imposes on the slave-owner:

    “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.

    This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. ” (Thomas Jefferson”

  230. @Svigor
    On other hand, the Founders preferred to justify their actions on the denial of their rights as Englishmen.

    The Founders seceded to preserve their right to own people and practice slavery.

    If we were to give the U.S. back to Native American tribes (not Central American mestizos), then it would indeed be fair for us to demand that Israel follow our example.

    But I like the U.S… I don’t want to give it away! The world benefits from American science, and Israel is likewise #1 in the world per capita for both scientific papers published and startups.


    It's interesting how you've explicitly retconned 21st century values onto the 19th and preceding centuries. This is essentially an admission that Israel is not a modern, civilized country, but a backwards, uncivilized one a few centuries behind the modern world.

    And Modern American Jewry is Israel's BFF, so they aren't far ahead, if at all.

    F**k Akhil Reed Amar.

    Seconded. It's not hard to figure out: parties to a contract remain parties. They don't somehow dissolve into a single party, especially not on the strength of arguments that do not exist in the contract.

    MMMM, wealthy slave-owners who attempt to secede in order to preserve their right to own people are the moral equivalent of slaves who protest against their status as human property…..

    Ah, I see. "Who-whom?" it is then. The right to be free is alienable for the wealthy. As for slave-owning, it was in long before the contract in question, so it provides no challenge to status, much as retconning Yankee supremacists would wish otherwise.

    As for "in order to," the sound of a needle scratching off the vinyl plays loudly here. None of a Yankee supremacist's business why anyone excercises his rights. The "logic" is easily turned around: wealthy, wage-slave exploiting Yankee oligarchs who invade and burn down a raft of sovereign States, in order to enslave them to Yankee oligarch will and interests, have no standing to lecture on the moral turpitude of slavery, because they're in the process of practicing it themselves.

    Excluding Confederate apologists, not many people would argue that those two things are even remotely comparable.

    Oh, well, now that you've deployed the appeal to authority fallacy, my argument is devastated.

    Svigor:”The Founders seceded to preserve their right to own people and practice slavery.”

    Yes, I know that that theory is frightfully popular with the Left, but it suffers when exposed to the plain light of day.

    Svigor:”F**k Akhil Reed Amar.”

    Obscenity, eh? Well, when you’ve run out of argument….

    Svigor:”Seconded. It’s not hard to figure out: parties to a contract remain parties. They don’t somehow dissolve into a single party, especially not on the strength of arguments that do not exist in the contract.”

    MMMM, looks like someone just can’t cope with the actual debates that surrounded the adoption of the Constitution.

    Svigor:”Ah, I see. “Who-whom?” it is then. The right to be free is alienable for the wealthy.”

    Well, I suppose that losing the right to own people would make a slave-owner feel less free…

    Svigor:” As for slave-owning, it was in long before the contract in question, so it provides no challenge to status, much as retconning Yankee supremacists would wish otherwise.”

    On the other hand, it does establish the point rather more clearly. The South fought for the right to own people. Full stop.

    Svigor:”As for “in order to,” the sound of a needle scratching off the vinyl plays loudly here. None of a Yankee supremacist’s”

    As opposed to a Southern supremacist? Some interesting info from Macpherson on how the South dominated the federal government during the period 1789-1861:

    “During forty-nine of the seventy-two years from 1789 to 1861, the presidents of the United States were Southerners–all of them slaveholders. The only presidents to be reelected were slaveholders. Two-thirds of the Speakers of the House, chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee, and presidents pro tem of the Senate were Southerners. At all times before 1861, a majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners….
    The dominant political party most of the time from 1800 to 1860 was the Democratic Republican Party under the Virginia dynasty of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which metamorphosed into the Democratic Party under the Tennessean Andrew Jackson. Southerners controlled this party and used that leverage to control Congress and the presidency. In 1828 and 1832 Jackson won 70 percent of the popular vote for president in the slave states and only 50 percent in the free states…

    As an example of how such leverage could translate into a Slave Power, six of the eight Supreme Court justices appointed by Jackson and his handpicked successor were Southerners, including Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the notorious Dred Scott decision and of other rulings that strengthened slavery…

    Southern politicians did not use this national power to buttress state’s rights; quite the contrary. In the 1830s Congress imposed a gag rule to stifle antislavery petitions from Northern states. The Post Office banned antislavery literature from the mail if it was sent to Southern states. In 1850 Southerners in Congress plus a handful of Northern allies enacted a Fugitive Slave Law that was the strongest manifestation of national power thus far in American history. In the name of protecting the rights of slaveowners, it extended the long arm of federal law, enforced by marshals and the army, into Northern states to recover escaped slaves and return them to their owners.”

    Svigor:”business why anyone excercises his rights.”

    Still missing that right to own people, eh?

    Svigor:” The “logic” is easily turned around: wealthy, wage-slave exploiting Yankee oligarchs who invade and burn down a raft of sovereign States,”

    In other words, the USA tried to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning plantation owners from succeeding in an act of treason…

    Svigor:” in order to enslave them to Yankee oligarch will and interests, have no standing to lecture on the moral turpitude of slavery, because they’re in the process of practicing it themselves.”

    On the other hand, I don’t recall reading about people wanting to be slaves, but I do know that a heck of a lot of slaves wanted to run away to work in factories as free men…

    Svigor:”Oh, well, now that you’ve deployed the appeal to authority fallacy, my argument is devastated.”

    “Appeal to authority?” I would say that I was just pointing out how frightfully absurd it is to hear a man likening a slave-owner being deprived of his right to own people to a slave being beaten. I mean, let’s just place them side by side:

    1.Slave-owner loses right to own people.

    2. Slave gets beaten by master.

    I just find it hard to lose tears for the slave owner. Of course, I’ve never owned people….

  231. @Director
    Not quite true. The 3/5 clause reduced Southern representation. It was a deal struck with Northern States to get the constitution ratified. Had non voting slaves been counted for representative purposes the South would have utterly dominated Federal politics.

    Director:”Not quite true. The 3/5 clause reduced Southern representation. It was a deal struck with Northern States to get the constitution ratified. Had non voting slaves been counted for representative purposes the South would have utterly dominated Federal politics.”

    Yes, I know that the South wanted their slaves counted as full people for purposes of apportionment. Hence, the three-fifths clause was an anti-slavery measure. It just did not go far enough. Slaves should not have been counted at all for apportionment purposes.

  232. @Mr. Anon
    syon says:
    July 23, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    @Mike

    ""Mike:”Secession is Constitutional.”""

    No, it’s not.Some points to bear in mind:

    “Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the Union of the states changed significantly when the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. "

    @Syon

    F**k Akhil Reed Amar. Nobody named "Akhil Reed Amar" is an expert on the Constitution of my country, which was founded by my ancestors - not his.

    The Constitution is the compact that binds the several states together under the laws enfoced by the federal government. It is a contract. The Federal government, through its dereliction of its duties, and through the ouright hostility it has demonstrated toward the people of this nation, has abrogated that contract.

    Mr Anon:”F**k Akhil Reed Amar.”

    How charming.

    Mr Anon:” Nobody named “Akhil Reed Amar” is an expert on the Constitution of my country, which was founded by my ancestors – not his.”

    What a shame, then, that he understands it better than you do.

    Mr Anon:”The Constitution is the compact that binds the several states together under the laws enfoced by the federal government. It is a contract. The Federal government, through its dereliction of its duties, and through the ouright hostility it has demonstrated toward the people of this nation, has abrogated that contract.”

    Strange that people like Patrick Henry didn’t see it that way….

  233. @Svigor
    Yes, the South was the only part of the country to oppose the 1965 Immigration Act.

    They knew.


    Hunter Wallace (Occidental Dissent blog, inter alia) has done a lot of work enumerating the liberal crap that would never have flown in an independent south. It's much easier to name the stuff that would have.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    "Affirmative Action"? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    "Anti-discrimination" laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    "Minority" quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    Southern leaders have always been opposed to cheap labor.

  234. Let’s see. American Revolution starts in 1775 (Declaration in ’76)…..Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire came in 1833….58 years. Fantastically farsighted of them.Would that our current rulers looked that far ahead. Why a young South Carolina plantation owner would have been reduced to senility by the time emancipation made its British debut.

    The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772. Seeing the past is not prescient. The United States (Vermont, Mass, being constituent parts of it) preserved slavery long after winning the Revolution – a revolution rendered illegitimate because slavery (your criterion, not mine).

    Except that they did not fight in the name of chattel slavery. They fought for the rights of Englishmen.

    The south didn’t fight in the name of chattel slavery, either. They fought for their own freedom.

    Now, the Confederacy was a quite different matter. Here’s Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. He gives us a glimpse into the Confederate mind, and it is not pretty:

    Plenty of the Founders of the US owned slaves, and thought it was hunkey-dorey.

    Be hard to phrase things more baldly. The Confederacy was predicated on the idea of slavery

    You’re going to have to do better than a quote from a politician. That was his take on it.

    How so? At no point during the Revolution was emancipation a British objective.

    Like this: the American revolution was illegitimate because slavery. It’s okay to invade and burn a land if they illegitimately secede (because slavery). Your criterion, not mine.

    Britain outlawed slavery throughout the Empire (with a few exceptions) in 1848. That’s a good while before America finally outlawed it, meaning, the American Revolution preserved slavery in the American colonies.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772. Seeing the past is not prescient."

    Being able to predict that this meaningless gesture (the number of slaves in England and Wales was vanishingly small) would, 58 years later, lead to the end of slavery in the Empire would certainly require an impressive degree of prescience, dear fellow.

    Svigor:" The United States (Vermont, Mass, being constituent parts of it) preserved slavery long after winning the Revolution"

    Only in the degenerate South, dear fellow. Indeed, that's what the Civil War was about, getting the South to shed an evil system that they loved so dearly.


    Svigor:" – a revolution rendered illegitimate because slavery (your criterion, not mine)."

    Oh dear. We are rather thick. It's apples and oranges, dear fellow. The Crown was not fighting to end slavery during the Revolution. Tory slave-owners were free to own their "human property."Now, it would be an interesting counterfactual to imagine a world where Parliament ended slavery in, say, 1780. Then we would have had a genuine moral dilemma. But in our world, British slavery went on for decades....


    Svigor:"The south didn’t fight in the name of chattel slavery, either. They fought for their own freedom."

    But they did fight in the name of slavery, dear fellow. I've already cited Stephens' "Cornerstone" speech, so here's the Confederate Constitution:

    There are several major differences in the two constitutions in the area concerning slavery.

    Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word slavery or the term "Negro Slaves",[27] but "Person[s] held to Service or Labour"[28] which included whites in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.
    Though Article I Section 9(1) of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations the Confederate Constitution permits the CSA to import slaves from the United States and specifies Africans as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had already been illegal since 1808.[29]
    Article I Section 9(1)
    The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.[14]
    While the U.S. Constitution reads
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.[30]
    The Confederate Constitution then adds a clause that the CSA Congress has the power to prohibit the importation of slaves from any state that is a non-Confederate State.
    Article I Section 9(2)
    Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.[14]
    While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed"[30] the Confederate Constitution adds a phrase to protect slavery.
    Article I Section 9(4)
    No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[14]
    The U.S Constitution states in Article IV Section 2 that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitutions adds that a state government cannot prohibit the rights of a slave owner traveling or visiting from a different state with his or her slaves.
    Article IV Section 2(1)
    The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.[31]
    The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories (the key Constitutional debate of the 1860 election) by explicitly stating that slavery is legally protected in the territories.

    Article IV Section 3(3)
    The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states. (WIKIPEDIA)


    Svigor:"Plenty of the Founders of the US owned slaves, and thought it was hunkey-dorey."

    and plenty of them did not find it "hunkey-dorey." Here's Jefferson again on the moral cost of slavery:

    “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.

    This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. ”

    Svigor:"You’re going to have to do better than a quote from a politician. That was his take on it."

    Tough to look at the man in the mirror, eh? Well, take a gander at the Confed. Constitution...

    Svigor:"Like this: the American revolution was illegitimate because slavery."

    Getting a tad incoherent, dear fellow.


    Svigor:"It’s okay to invade and burn a land if they illegitimately secede (because slavery). Your criterion, not mine."

    MMMM, my criterion was that that revolution is justified in the face of tyranny (the Founder's defense, incidentally). And the South's only justification for secession was the right to own people...

    Svigor:"Britain outlawed slavery throughout the Empire (with a few exceptions) in 1848."
    That’s a good while before America finally outlawed it, meaning, the American Revolution preserved slavery in the American colonies."

    I'm sorry, dear fellow, but this is absurd. Britain ended slavery 72 years (using the 1848 date) after 1776.In contrast, The USA ended slavery in 1865, the year that the Civil War ended. When the actual Revolution started, slavery was legal. And it was still legal in the British Empire in 1783, after the Revolution had ended. Now,as I noted earlier, it would be an interesting counterfactual to imagine an alternate timeline where Parliament ended slavery in, say, 1780, while the Revolution was still going on. But they did not.

  235. Obscenity, eh? Well, when you’ve run out of argument….

    Lying, eh? Well, when you’ve got nothing besides “burned the village to save it…” (“A holy crusade for the negroes!” It is to laff).

    Well, I suppose that losing the right to own people would make a slave-owner feel less free…

    It was odd, how you threw that “wealthy” bit in there, when all the wealth was in the Yankee Oligarch’s hands…

    On the other hand, it does establish the point rather more clearly. The South fought for the right to own people. Full stop.

    Only to the extent that the Founders fought for the right to own people. Super-duper-full-stop-double-quitsies-no-startsies.

    Still missing that right to own people, eh?

    Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves?

    In other words, the USA tried to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning plantation owners from succeeding in an act of treason…

    To the extent that King George was trying to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning Yankees from succeeding in an act of treason, sure.

    On the other hand, I don’t recall reading about people wanting to be slaves, but I do know that a heck of a lot of slaves wanted to run away to work in factories as free men…

    Well, of course Southerners didn’t want to be slaves. That’s why they started shooting Yankees not long after they invaded.

    “Appeal to authority?” I would say that I was just pointing out how frightfully absurd it is to hear a man likening a slave-owner being deprived of his right to own people to a slave being beaten. I mean, let’s just place them side by side

    Then point out the absurdity, rather than make appeals to authority. As for frightful absurdity, I don’t think there’s anything more absurd than invading a land, waging the bloodiest war in it or your history, burning it down, occupying it for decades with a corrupt regime, in the name of freedom. “Burning the village to save it” seems perfectly apt.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"Lying, eh? Well, when you’ve got nothing besides “burned the village to save it…” (“A holy crusade for the negroes!” It is to laff)."

    War to end slavery and preserve the Union, dear fellow.


    Svigor's:"It was odd, how you threw that “wealthy” bit in there, when all the wealth was in the Yankee Oligarch’s hands…"

    MMMM, seems to me that the planter-elite was doing pretty well....



    Svigor:"Only to the extent that the Founders fought for the right to own people. Super-duper-full-stop-double-quitsies-no-startsies."

    MMM, seems that the actual Confederates disagree with you on that point:

    “The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

    Perhaps you ought to be arguing with Alexander Stephens, the Confederate VP....





    Svigor:"Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves?"

    MMMM, given the choice, I would much rather be a welfare slave than a chattel slave.



    Svigor:"To the extent that King George was trying to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning Yankees from succeeding in an act of treason, sure."

    MMMM, that would be more convincing if it weren't for the fact that Vermont banned slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania passed an emancipation act in 1780, the Quock Martin case ended slavery in Massachusetts in 1783,....






    Svigor:"Well, of course Southerners didn’t want to be slaves. That’s why they started shooting Yankees not long after they invaded."

    MMMM, I see that the Southern mind still equates the right to own people with freedom. Very Orwellian, dear fellow.



    Svigor:"Then point out the absurdity, rather than make appeals to authority."

    But's that what I did, dear fellow. My only "authority" was the great mass of Mankind.

    Svigor:"As for frightful absurdity, I don’t think there’s anything more absurd than invading a land, waging the bloodiest war in it or your history, burning it down, occupying it for decades with a corrupt regime, in the name of freedom. “Burning the village to save it” seems perfectly apt."

    I can easily top that, dear fellow. Is there anything more absurd than a group of men who are willing to kill in order to preserve their right to own people?
  236. Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves? Don’t feel too bad, here’s a list for you.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    “Affirmative Action”? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    “Anti-discrimination” laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    “Minority” quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    If the Yankees hadn’t succeeded in their invasion and in subjugating the South, none of these glorious fruits of Yankee high-mindedness would obtain there today. Think of the tragedy that was averted.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Southern leaders have always been opposed to Cheap Labor policies. Oh, wait ...
    , @syonredux
    Svigor:"Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves? Don’t feel too bad, here’s a list for you.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    “Affirmative Action”? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    “Anti-discrimination” laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    “Minority” quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    If the Yankees hadn’t succeeded in their invasion and in subjugating the South, none of these glorious fruits of Yankee high-mindedness would obtain there today. Think of the tragedy that was averted."


    MMMM, let's put them side by side:

    1. The South: killed tens of thousands of people in order to preserve their right to own people

    2. The USA: Fought to preserve the Union and end slavery.

    So, the Union was preserved and slavery was ended. Seems worthwhile to me.
  237. @Svigor
    Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves? Don't feel too bad, here's a list for you.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    “Affirmative Action”? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    “Anti-discrimination” laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    “Minority” quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    If the Yankees hadn't succeeded in their invasion and in subjugating the South, none of these glorious fruits of Yankee high-mindedness would obtain there today. Think of the tragedy that was averted.

    Southern leaders have always been opposed to Cheap Labor policies. Oh, wait …

  238. Hard to say.

    How does any of that make it hard to say? Oh, wait, it doesn’t. Absurd Yankee pride (a partial list of the glorious achievements is in a previous comment) makes it hard to say.

    I do admit to finding Yankee pride inexplicable.

  239. On the other hand, if the Southerners in 1860 had gone forward to 1865, they would have swiftly realized that the whole treason business was not worth it. And if the South in 1783 could have been vouchsafed a glimpse of 1865, some kind of gradual emancipation scheme would doubtless have emerged.

    That’s not another hand, that’s a 5 year view vs. a 150 year view. I.e., far less information. I can understand how far less information benefits your point of view, of course.

    Hard to say. The chattel slavery in the South was so vile and monstrous.

    I can understand why it’s hard for a Yankee to say the obvious. Like, “sure, it was wrong to invade the South and kill tens of thousands of white people on behalf of Yankee hegemony with “save the negro!” on their lips.” Confessions of guilt are usually hard.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"That’s not another hand, that’s a 5 year view vs. a 150 year view. I.e., far less information. I can understand how far less information benefits your point of view, of course."


    Well, short-term prophecies are always easier to imagine. After all, your Civil War era time travelers would have had to spend a vast chunk of time just adjusting to television....

    Svigor:"I can understand why it’s hard for a Yankee to say the obvious. Like, “sure, it was wrong to invade the South and kill tens of thousands of white people on behalf of Yankee hegemony with “save the negro!” on their lips.” Confessions of guilt are usually hard."

    Yes, dear fellow. I mean, just look at neo-Confederates and the obfuscating ink that they have spilled on the topic of the Civil War. The poor dears, they just can't look in the mirror and admit that their ancestors killed tens of thousands of men in order to protect their right to own people.

  240. Southern leaders have always been opposed to Cheap Labor policies. Oh, wait …

    Har-har. Hey, maybe they took a look around themselves and figured they’d learn from the past…

  241. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Maybe we should offer the Democrats the same deal they were offered back before the War of Northern Aggression (since, after all, they were the party supporting Slavery back then.)

    So, how about each illegal immigrant counts as three fifths of a voter.

  242. I just find it hard to lose tears for the slave owner. Of course, I’ve never owned people….

    Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist’s ears).

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist’s ears)."


    As opposed to the Southern imperialist ears, dear fellow?
    , @syonredux
    Svigor:"Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist’s ears)."


    As opposed to the Southern imperialist ears, dear fellow?
  243. Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place.

    So, the Yankees waged far and away the bloodiest war in American history for a barren, backward place. Actually, knowing what I do about Yankee imperialism and bloodlust, that makes perfect sense.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"So, the Yankees waged far and away the bloodiest war in American history for a barren, backward place. Actually, knowing what I do about Yankee imperialism and bloodlust, that makes perfect sense."

    The quest for national unity, dear fellow. Men will bear great burdens for what they hold dear. Even something as valueless as Alabama is still part of America.
  244. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place.

    Interesting that when writing in his own words he can’t get the English correct.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Hard to say. The South is such a barren , backward place.

    TFDOTA:"Interesting that when writing in his own words he can’t get the English correct."

    Volunteering to be my proofreader?

  245. @The most deplorable one

    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place.
     
    Interesting that when writing in his own words he can't get the English correct.

    Hard to say. The South is such a barren , backward place.

    TFDOTA:”Interesting that when writing in his own words he can’t get the English correct.”

    Volunteering to be my proofreader?

  246. @Svigor
    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place.

    So, the Yankees waged far and away the bloodiest war in American history for a barren, backward place. Actually, knowing what I do about Yankee imperialism and bloodlust, that makes perfect sense.

    Svigor:”So, the Yankees waged far and away the bloodiest war in American history for a barren, backward place. Actually, knowing what I do about Yankee imperialism and bloodlust, that makes perfect sense.”

    The quest for national unity, dear fellow. Men will bear great burdens for what they hold dear. Even something as valueless as Alabama is still part of America.

  247. @Svigor
    I just find it hard to lose tears for the slave owner. Of course, I’ve never owned people….

    Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist's ears).

    Svigor:”Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist’s ears).”

    As opposed to the Southern imperialist ears, dear fellow?

  248. @Svigor
    I just find it hard to lose tears for the slave owner. Of course, I’ve never owned people….

    Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist's ears).

    Svigor:”Better invade and kill everyone then (music to the (Yankee) imperialist’s ears).”

    As opposed to the Southern imperialist ears, dear fellow?

  249. iSteveFan says:

    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place. Why just look at the map showing the concentration of significant figures in the USA prior to 1950 in Murray’s HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (304-305). The South is a vast blank. The states of New England plus New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey alone produced 184 significant figures by 1950, whereas the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.

    The South produced Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If they never produced another figure again, that would suffice to earn them eternal regard. Washington alone is worth probably all the other significant figures combined. Outside of Cincinnatus there aren’t many guys in history who did what he did. America lucked out that we had him as our Founder. Pretty much every rebel leader ends up a tyrant.

  250. @Svigor
    On the other hand, if the Southerners in 1860 had gone forward to 1865, they would have swiftly realized that the whole treason business was not worth it. And if the South in 1783 could have been vouchsafed a glimpse of 1865, some kind of gradual emancipation scheme would doubtless have emerged.

    That's not another hand, that's a 5 year view vs. a 150 year view. I.e., far less information. I can understand how far less information benefits your point of view, of course.

    Hard to say. The chattel slavery in the South was so vile and monstrous.

    I can understand why it's hard for a Yankee to say the obvious. Like, "sure, it was wrong to invade the South and kill tens of thousands of white people on behalf of Yankee hegemony with "save the negro!" on their lips." Confessions of guilt are usually hard.

    Svigor:”That’s not another hand, that’s a 5 year view vs. a 150 year view. I.e., far less information. I can understand how far less information benefits your point of view, of course.”

    Well, short-term prophecies are always easier to imagine. After all, your Civil War era time travelers would have had to spend a vast chunk of time just adjusting to television….

    Svigor:”I can understand why it’s hard for a Yankee to say the obvious. Like, “sure, it was wrong to invade the South and kill tens of thousands of white people on behalf of Yankee hegemony with “save the negro!” on their lips.” Confessions of guilt are usually hard.”

    Yes, dear fellow. I mean, just look at neo-Confederates and the obfuscating ink that they have spilled on the topic of the Civil War. The poor dears, they just can’t look in the mirror and admit that their ancestors killed tens of thousands of men in order to protect their right to own people.

  251. @Svigor
    Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves? Don't feel too bad, here's a list for you.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    “Affirmative Action”? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    “Anti-discrimination” laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    “Minority” quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    If the Yankees hadn't succeeded in their invasion and in subjugating the South, none of these glorious fruits of Yankee high-mindedness would obtain there today. Think of the tragedy that was averted.

    Svigor:”Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves? Don’t feel too bad, here’s a list for you.

    Civil rights? Nope.
    “Affirmative Action”? Nope.
    Big welfare state? Nope.
    “Anti-discrimination” laws? Nope.
    Open borders? Nope.
    “Minority” quotas? Nope.
    Homosexual marriage? Nope.
    Forced integration? Nope.
    Anti-covenant laws? Nope.
    Black president? Nope.
    Democrat party rule? Nope.

    If the Yankees hadn’t succeeded in their invasion and in subjugating the South, none of these glorious fruits of Yankee high-mindedness would obtain there today. Think of the tragedy that was averted.”

    MMMM, let’s put them side by side:

    1. The South: killed tens of thousands of people in order to preserve their right to own people

    2. The USA: Fought to preserve the Union and end slavery.

    So, the Union was preserved and slavery was ended. Seems worthwhile to me.

  252. Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place. Why just look at the map showing the concentration of significant figures in the USA prior to 1950 in Murray’s HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (304-305). The South is a vast blank. The states of New England plus New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey alone produced 184 significant figures by 1950, whereas the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.

    Of course, the North’s White population was several times larger than the South’s, but let’s not bother putting things in perspective, right?

    Hard to say. The chattel slavery in the South was so vile and monstrous.

    And why, exactly, was chattel slavery in the North not vile and monstrous?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    ben tillman:"Of course, the North’s White population was several times larger than the South’s, but let’s not bother putting things in perspective, right?"

    Actually, no, dear fellow. To quote Murray:


    "An even more striking aspect of the map is the white space covering the American South. Although more lightly populated than the North, the American South had a substantial population throughout American history.In 1850, for example, the White population of the South was 5.6 million, compared to 8.5 million in the Northeast. In 1900 the comparison was 12.1 million to 20.6 million. By 1950, the gap had almost closed-36.9 million compared to 37.4 million.While it is understandable that the South did not have as many significant figures as the North, the magnitude of the difference goes far beyond population" (HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, 304-5).

    ben tillman:"And why, exactly, was chattel slavery in the North not vile and monstrous?"

    Oh, it was vile and monstrous, dear fellow. The difference, of course, is that the North began the process of emancipation in 1777. By 1804 anti-slavery laws had been passed in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. The South, in contrast, was closing ranks in support of its peculiar institution.

  253. JSM says:

    I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union, then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless.

    Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are.

    Yankees are batshit crazy.

    Svig, why IS it the South was prevented from leaving? If northerners really hated slavery that much, why weren’t they doing their do-goodering by stopping it in Africa, which continues to this day? There must be a real reason. What is it?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    JSM:"I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union, then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless."

    Even when your brother is a violent retard, he is still your brother, dear fellow.

    JSM:"Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are."

    As opposed to a Southern slave owner who beats his slave for trying to escape, then berates him for his laziness?

    JSM:"Yankees are batshit crazy."

    MMM, well, the Southern decision to double down on slavery during the period 1776-1860 certainly displays signs of madness...
  254. @Svigor
    Obscenity, eh? Well, when you’ve run out of argument….

    Lying, eh? Well, when you've got nothing besides "burned the village to save it..." ("A holy crusade for the negroes!" It is to laff).

    Well, I suppose that losing the right to own people would make a slave-owner feel less free…

    It was odd, how you threw that "wealthy" bit in there, when all the wealth was in the Yankee Oligarch's hands...

    On the other hand, it does establish the point rather more clearly. The South fought for the right to own people. Full stop.

    Only to the extent that the Founders fought for the right to own people. Super-duper-full-stop-double-quitsies-no-startsies.

    Still missing that right to own people, eh?

    Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves?

    In other words, the USA tried to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning plantation owners from succeeding in an act of treason…

    To the extent that King George was trying to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning Yankees from succeeding in an act of treason, sure.

    On the other hand, I don’t recall reading about people wanting to be slaves, but I do know that a heck of a lot of slaves wanted to run away to work in factories as free men…

    Well, of course Southerners didn't want to be slaves. That's why they started shooting Yankees not long after they invaded.

    “Appeal to authority?” I would say that I was just pointing out how frightfully absurd it is to hear a man likening a slave-owner being deprived of his right to own people to a slave being beaten. I mean, let’s just place them side by side

    Then point out the absurdity, rather than make appeals to authority. As for frightful absurdity, I don't think there's anything more absurd than invading a land, waging the bloodiest war in it or your history, burning it down, occupying it for decades with a corrupt regime, in the name of freedom. "Burning the village to save it" seems perfectly apt.

    Svigor:”Lying, eh? Well, when you’ve got nothing besides “burned the village to save it…” (“A holy crusade for the negroes!” It is to laff).”

    War to end slavery and preserve the Union, dear fellow.

    Svigor’s:”It was odd, how you threw that “wealthy” bit in there, when all the wealth was in the Yankee Oligarch’s hands…”

    MMMM, seems to me that the planter-elite was doing pretty well….

    Svigor:”Only to the extent that the Founders fought for the right to own people. Super-duper-full-stop-double-quitsies-no-startsies.”

    MMM, seems that the actual Confederates disagree with you on that point:

    “The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

    Perhaps you ought to be arguing with Alexander Stephens, the Confederate VP….

    Svigor:”Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves?”

    MMMM, given the choice, I would much rather be a welfare slave than a chattel slave.

    Svigor:”To the extent that King George was trying to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning Yankees from succeeding in an act of treason, sure.”

    MMMM, that would be more convincing if it weren’t for the fact that Vermont banned slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania passed an emancipation act in 1780, the Quock Martin case ended slavery in Massachusetts in 1783,….

    Svigor:”Well, of course Southerners didn’t want to be slaves. That’s why they started shooting Yankees not long after they invaded.”

    MMMM, I see that the Southern mind still equates the right to own people with freedom. Very Orwellian, dear fellow.

    Svigor:”Then point out the absurdity, rather than make appeals to authority.”

    But’s that what I did, dear fellow. My only “authority” was the great mass of Mankind.

    Svigor:”As for frightful absurdity, I don’t think there’s anything more absurd than invading a land, waging the bloodiest war in it or your history, burning it down, occupying it for decades with a corrupt regime, in the name of freedom. “Burning the village to save it” seems perfectly apt.”

    I can easily top that, dear fellow. Is there anything more absurd than a group of men who are willing to kill in order to preserve their right to own people?

    • Replies: @gcochran
    Yes, there is - a group that revolts when that right is not immediately threatened, and when the odds are against them.
  255. @syonredux
    Svigor:"Lying, eh? Well, when you’ve got nothing besides “burned the village to save it…” (“A holy crusade for the negroes!” It is to laff)."

    War to end slavery and preserve the Union, dear fellow.


    Svigor's:"It was odd, how you threw that “wealthy” bit in there, when all the wealth was in the Yankee Oligarch’s hands…"

    MMMM, seems to me that the planter-elite was doing pretty well....



    Svigor:"Only to the extent that the Founders fought for the right to own people. Super-duper-full-stop-double-quitsies-no-startsies."

    MMM, seems that the actual Confederates disagree with you on that point:

    “The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away… Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
    Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”

    Perhaps you ought to be arguing with Alexander Stephens, the Confederate VP....





    Svigor:"Still grasping for a decent-sounding justification for waging the deadliest war in American history, whites killing whites in epic numbers, so blacks could go from being chattel slaves to being welfare slaves?"

    MMMM, given the choice, I would much rather be a welfare slave than a chattel slave.



    Svigor:"To the extent that King George was trying to stop a bunch of corrupt, people-owning Yankees from succeeding in an act of treason, sure."

    MMMM, that would be more convincing if it weren't for the fact that Vermont banned slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania passed an emancipation act in 1780, the Quock Martin case ended slavery in Massachusetts in 1783,....






    Svigor:"Well, of course Southerners didn’t want to be slaves. That’s why they started shooting Yankees not long after they invaded."

    MMMM, I see that the Southern mind still equates the right to own people with freedom. Very Orwellian, dear fellow.



    Svigor:"Then point out the absurdity, rather than make appeals to authority."

    But's that what I did, dear fellow. My only "authority" was the great mass of Mankind.

    Svigor:"As for frightful absurdity, I don’t think there’s anything more absurd than invading a land, waging the bloodiest war in it or your history, burning it down, occupying it for decades with a corrupt regime, in the name of freedom. “Burning the village to save it” seems perfectly apt."

    I can easily top that, dear fellow. Is there anything more absurd than a group of men who are willing to kill in order to preserve their right to own people?

    Yes, there is – a group that revolts when that right is not immediately threatened, and when the odds are against them.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think it was predictable that the odds were getting worse and worse. Time was not on their time. If they ever wanted to try it, they should've done so even earlier. But earlier they had thought they might be able to dominate US politics for the foreseeable future.
  256. @Svigor
    Let’s see. American Revolution starts in 1775 (Declaration in ’76)…..Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire came in 1833….58 years. Fantastically farsighted of them.Would that our current rulers looked that far ahead. Why a young South Carolina plantation owner would have been reduced to senility by the time emancipation made its British debut.

    The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772. Seeing the past is not prescient. The United States (Vermont, Mass, being constituent parts of it) preserved slavery long after winning the Revolution - a revolution rendered illegitimate because slavery (your criterion, not mine).

    Except that they did not fight in the name of chattel slavery. They fought for the rights of Englishmen.

    The south didn't fight in the name of chattel slavery, either. They fought for their own freedom.

    Now, the Confederacy was a quite different matter. Here’s Alexander Stephens, the VP of the Confederacy. He gives us a glimpse into the Confederate mind, and it is not pretty:

    Plenty of the Founders of the US owned slaves, and thought it was hunkey-dorey.

    Be hard to phrase things more baldly. The Confederacy was predicated on the idea of slavery

    You're going to have to do better than a quote from a politician. That was his take on it.

    How so? At no point during the Revolution was emancipation a British objective.

    Like this: the American revolution was illegitimate because slavery. It's okay to invade and burn a land if they illegitimately secede (because slavery). Your criterion, not mine.

    Britain outlawed slavery throughout the Empire (with a few exceptions) in 1848. That's a good while before America finally outlawed it, meaning, the American Revolution preserved slavery in the American colonies.

    Svigor:”The Somersett case established de facto emancipation in England and Wales in 1772. Seeing the past is not prescient.”

    Being able to predict that this meaningless gesture (the number of slaves in England and Wales was vanishingly small) would, 58 years later, lead to the end of slavery in the Empire would certainly require an impressive degree of prescience, dear fellow.

    Svigor:” The United States (Vermont, Mass, being constituent parts of it) preserved slavery long after winning the Revolution”

    Only in the degenerate South, dear fellow. Indeed, that’s what the Civil War was about, getting the South to shed an evil system that they loved so dearly.

    Svigor:” – a revolution rendered illegitimate because slavery (your criterion, not mine).”

    Oh dear. We are rather thick. It’s apples and oranges, dear fellow. The Crown was not fighting to end slavery during the Revolution. Tory slave-owners were free to own their “human property.”Now, it would be an interesting counterfactual to imagine a world where Parliament ended slavery in, say, 1780. Then we would have had a genuine moral dilemma. But in our world, British slavery went on for decades….

    Svigor:”The south didn’t fight in the name of chattel slavery, either. They fought for their own freedom.”

    But they did fight in the name of slavery, dear fellow. I’ve already cited Stephens’ “Cornerstone” speech, so here’s the Confederate Constitution:

    There are several major differences in the two constitutions in the area concerning slavery.

    Whereas the original U.S. Constitution did not use the word slavery or the term “Negro Slaves”,[27] but “Person[s] held to Service or Labour”[28] which included whites in indentured servitude, the Confederate Constitution addresses the legality of slavery directly and by name.
    Though Article I Section 9(1) of both constitutions are quite similar in banning the importation of slaves from foreign nations the Confederate Constitution permits the CSA to import slaves from the United States and specifies Africans as the subject. The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had already been illegal since 1808.[29]
    Article I Section 9(1)
    The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.[14]
    While the U.S. Constitution reads
    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.[30]
    The Confederate Constitution then adds a clause that the CSA Congress has the power to prohibit the importation of slaves from any state that is a non-Confederate State.
    Article I Section 9(2)
    Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.[14]
    While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed”[30] the Confederate Constitution adds a phrase to protect slavery.
    Article I Section 9(4)
    No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[14]
    The U.S Constitution states in Article IV Section 2 that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” The Confederate Constitutions adds that a state government cannot prohibit the rights of a slave owner traveling or visiting from a different state with his or her slaves.
    Article IV Section 2(1)
    The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.[31]
    The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories (the key Constitutional debate of the 1860 election) by explicitly stating that slavery is legally protected in the territories.

    Article IV Section 3(3)
    The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states. (WIKIPEDIA)

    Svigor:”Plenty of the Founders of the US owned slaves, and thought it was hunkey-dorey.”

    and plenty of them did not find it “hunkey-dorey.” Here’s Jefferson again on the moral cost of slavery:

    “The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.

    This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. ”

    Svigor:”You’re going to have to do better than a quote from a politician. That was his take on it.”

    Tough to look at the man in the mirror, eh? Well, take a gander at the Confed. Constitution…

    Svigor:”Like this: the American revolution was illegitimate because slavery.”

    Getting a tad incoherent, dear fellow.

    Svigor:”It’s okay to invade and burn a land if they illegitimately secede (because slavery). Your criterion, not mine.”

    MMMM, my criterion was that that revolution is justified in the face of tyranny (the Founder’s defense, incidentally). And the South’s only justification for secession was the right to own people…

    Svigor:”Britain outlawed slavery throughout the Empire (with a few exceptions) in 1848.”
    That’s a good while before America finally outlawed it, meaning, the American Revolution preserved slavery in the American colonies.”

    I’m sorry, dear fellow, but this is absurd. Britain ended slavery 72 years (using the 1848 date) after 1776.In contrast, The USA ended slavery in 1865, the year that the Civil War ended. When the actual Revolution started, slavery was legal. And it was still legal in the British Empire in 1783, after the Revolution had ended. Now,as I noted earlier, it would be an interesting counterfactual to imagine an alternate timeline where Parliament ended slavery in, say, 1780, while the Revolution was still going on. But they did not.

  257. I tend to think Lincoln was correct. Slavery is wrong. And of course it would have been better to repatriate Blacks to Africa.

  258. @gcochran
    Yes, there is - a group that revolts when that right is not immediately threatened, and when the odds are against them.

    I think it was predictable that the odds were getting worse and worse. Time was not on their time. If they ever wanted to try it, they should’ve done so even earlier. But earlier they had thought they might be able to dominate US politics for the foreseeable future.

  259. The quest for national unity, dear fellow. Men will bear great burdens for what they hold dear. Even something as valueless as Alabama is still part of America.

    Are you the “dear boy” guy? Wouldn’t surprise me.

    Yes, Yankees fighting to hold on to the federal appendix while nearly losing their spleen (and destroying the appendix) in the process makes perfect sense. Given what I know about Yankees.

    Well, short-term prophecies are always easier to imagine. After all, your Civil War era time travelers would have had to spend a vast chunk of time just adjusting to television….

    Sure, let’s quibble over the details of an instructive hypothetical. That should be productive.

    Yes, dear fellow. I mean, just look at neo-Confederates and the obfuscating ink that they have spilled on the topic of the Civil War. The poor dears, they just can’t look in the mirror and admit that their ancestors killed tens of thousands of men in order to protect their right to own people.

    You’re fading fast, aren’t you.

    So, the Union was preserved and slavery was ended. Seems worthwhile to me.

    Yes, list of glorious achievements is glorious. Mine eyes have seen the glory…

    I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union, then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless.

    Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are.

    Yankees are batshit crazy.

    It’s really not possible to be both proud of Yankee history, and sane. They’re mutually exclusive. Pride in Yankee history approaches 1:1 with pride in the current trajectory of America. So yes, “batshit crazy” is it, in a nutshell.

    Svig, why IS it the South was prevented from leaving? If northerners really hated slavery that much, why weren’t they doing their do-goodering by stopping it in Africa, which continues to this day? There must be a real reason. What is it?

    Money & power. The usual. Plus, giving men the freedom they deserve is contagious. Giving the South their rightful dose of freedom would set a precedent and before you know it, everyone else is getting uppity. Kill one to terrorize a thousand, to encourage the others, etc. Basic slave mastering 101.

    Perhaps you ought to be arguing with Alexander Stephens, the Confederate VP….

    I already dismissed him.

    MMMM, that would be more convincing if it weren’t for the fact that Vermont banned slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania passed an emancipation act in 1780, the Quock Martin case ended slavery in Massachusetts in 1783,….

    This from the guy who says States don’t amount to much. America didn’t ban slavery. America fought a revolution to preserve it.

    But’s that what I did, dear fellow. My only “authority” was the great mass of Mankind.

    Which I pointed out as a fallacious appeal to authority.

    Yes, there is – a group that revolts when that right is not immediately threatened, and when the odds are against them.

    It’s interesting how often the winner’s history is rewritten to make the losers seem suicidal.

    Being able to predict that this meaningless gesture (the number of slaves in England and Wales was vanishingly small) would, 58 years later, lead to the end of slavery in the Empire would certainly require an impressive degree of prescience, dear fellow.

    Oh, yes, the idea that Britain might spread its laws to British territories is way out there.

    Only in the degenerate South, dear fellow. Indeed, that’s what the Civil War was about, getting the South to shed an evil system that they loved so dearly.

    Yes, Yankees are true paragons of morality. Killing tens of thousands of people to end a social institution it found reprehensible is so noble. And the negroes, such noble and worthy beneficiaries.

    Oh dear. We are rather thick.

    Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’ve taken an impossible position.

    I confess, I’ve scrolled past most of your repetitions, as I’ve largely said my piece, which still stands.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Are you the “dear boy” guy? Wouldn’t surprise me."

    I am legion, dear fellow.

    "Yes, Yankees fighting to hold on to the federal appendix while nearly losing their spleen (and destroying the appendix) in the process makes perfect sense. Given what I know about Yankees."

    Such quaint biological metaphors. In that spirit, what of the cancer of slavery, a metastasizing evil..

    "Sure, let’s quibble over the details of an instructive hypothetical. That should be productive."

    The devil is in the details, dear fellow.

    "You’re fading fast, aren’t you."

    Seldom stronger, dear fellow. Admittedly, arguing with a Neo-Confederate is not much of a challenge....

    "Yes, list of glorious achievements is glorious. Mine eyes have seen the glory…"

    Oh dear, I do hope that you are not going to go off on a binge of deranged singing...

    "I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union,"

    Evil for wanting to leave the Union out of a desire to preserve their right to own people, dear fellow.

    " then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless."

    Well, they have been a net deficit, but they are Americans.

    "Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are."

    As opposed to a slave who is beaten by his master when he attempts to escape, and is then berated for being lazy and inefficient?


    "Yankees are batshit crazy."

    MMM, one rather supposes that a study of the South from 1776 to 1860 would lead one to the opposite conclusion. After all, the South decided during that period to double down on slavery...

    "It’s really not possible to be both proud of Yankee history, and sane. They’re mutually exclusive. Pride in Yankee history approaches 1:1 with pride in the current trajectory of America. So yes, “batshit crazy” is it, in a nutshell."

    MMM, what of Southerners and their pride in the history of their peculiar region? After all, their history is defined by slavery. Hence, Southern pride equals pride in the ownership of people.Does that make Southerners mad or evil? Perhaps both?


    "Money & power. The usual. Plus, giving men the freedom they deserve is contagious. Giving the South their rightful dose of freedom would set a precedent and before you know it, everyone else is getting uppity. Kill one to terrorize a thousand, to encourage the others, etc. Basic slave mastering 101."

    Why, yes, Svigor. that rather explains the Southern mindset. Slavery, after all, was all about money and power. Money gained from the labor of slaves and the feeling of power that the master felt from seeing the people that he owned toiling for him. As for the "contagion" theory, most apt, dear fellow. Freedom was a virus that the South desperately sought to contain.

    "I already dismissed him."

    Of course you did, dear fellow. Ignoring reality is a Neo-Confederate trait.

    "This from the guy who says States don’t amount to much."

    Now, now, dear fellow. The spread of emancipation in the North was of vital importance. If your theory is true, one would have expected the South to have stayed out of the Union altogether. Surely the farsighted fellows who in 1776 predicted the coming abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833 should have been able to predict the conflict between free and slave states?

    " America didn’t ban slavery. America fought a revolution to preserve it."

    Which ignores Vermont banning slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783, ....

    "Which I pointed out as a fallacious appeal to authority."

    Is it fallacious to point out that the great mass of Mankind finds your comparison ludicrous?

    "It’s interesting how often the winner’s history is rewritten to make the losers seem suicidal."

    MMMM, the South's devotion to the right to own people as a suicidal death wish....The idea has merit.

    "Yes, Yankees are true paragons of morality. Killing tens of thousands of people to end a social institution it found reprehensible is so noble."

    As opposed to the fact that the South killed tens of thousands because they sought to preserve the right to own people.

    "And the negroes,"

    How old are you, dear fellow?

    "such noble and worthy beneficiaries."

    Are you arguing that Blacks are natural slaves, dear fellow?


    "Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’ve taken an impossible position."

    As opposed to the Neo-Conferderate position, that the right to own people is worth defending?

    "I confess, I’ve scrolled past most of your repetitions, as I’ve largely said my piece, which still stands."

    On what?

  260. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A short list of glorious Yankee achievements, which could never have obtained in the south had the Yankees not won their aggressive war on the South:

    Civil rights
    “Affirmative Action”
    Big welfare state
    “Anti-discrimination” laws
    Open borders
    “Minority” quotas
    Homosexual marriage
    Forced integration
    Anti-covenant laws
    Black president
    Democrat party rule

    But that’s just a quick and dirty list. The true list is much longer, and much more glorious. There’s nary a liberal, left-wing lunacy that has obtained since that doesn’t owe its existence in the South to the glorious victory of the righteous in 1865.

    The South, and America in general, has so much to thank the Yankees for. We all pray for the opportunity to repay the Yankees one day.

  261. May all Yankee children have the blessings of the Lord and the fondest wish of their fathers – the opportunity to engage in some righteous butchery and aggressive imperialism.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"May all Yankee children have the blessings of the Lord and the fondest wish of their fathers – the opportunity to engage in some righteous butchery and aggressive imperialism."

    MMM, after a quick perusal of the works of Calhoun, Fitzugh, and Stephens, I can imagine a Confederate benediction: May all Southern children have the blessings of the lord and the fondest wish of their fathers- the opportunity to enjoy their divinely sanctioned right to own people.
  262. Turning blacks loose on America – the Yankee’s most glorious achievement of all! He has so much to be proud of…

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"Turning blacks loose on America – the Yankee’s most glorious achievement of all! He has so much to be proud of…"

    The South's most glorious achievement, killing tens of thousands in order to defend their right to own people.
  263. MMMM, given the choice, I would much rather be a welfare slave than a chattel slave.

    MMM, and given the choice, Yankees would much rather murder someone than allow him to own slaves. Slavery’s so much worse than murder…

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"MMM, and given the choice, Yankees would much rather murder someone than allow him to own slaves. Slavery’s so much worse than murder…"

    MMMM, and given the choice, Southerners would much rather murder someone than give up their right to own people. Freedom is so much worse than murder.....
  264. Breitbart says Hamas Planned Huge Attack on Jewish New Year

    Hey, sorta like how Hitler invaded Russia because Russia planned a huge attack on Germany!

  265. You can make a civilian air liner look like a military target by flying a fighter between the air liner and the ground radar and spoofing the air liner’s IFF signal

    Civilian airliners do NOT have Identification Friend or Foe transponders.

  266. @Svigor
    MMMM, given the choice, I would much rather be a welfare slave than a chattel slave.

    MMM, and given the choice, Yankees would much rather murder someone than allow him to own slaves. Slavery's so much worse than murder...

    Svigor:”MMM, and given the choice, Yankees would much rather murder someone than allow him to own slaves. Slavery’s so much worse than murder…”

    MMMM, and given the choice, Southerners would much rather murder someone than give up their right to own people. Freedom is so much worse than murder…..

  267. @Svigor
    Turning blacks loose on America - the Yankee's most glorious achievement of all! He has so much to be proud of...

    Svigor:”Turning blacks loose on America – the Yankee’s most glorious achievement of all! He has so much to be proud of…”

    The South’s most glorious achievement, killing tens of thousands in order to defend their right to own people.

  268. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Civilian airliners do NOT have Identification Friend or Foe transponders.

    Sigh. It’s another name for transponder.

  269. @Svigor
    May all Yankee children have the blessings of the Lord and the fondest wish of their fathers - the opportunity to engage in some righteous butchery and aggressive imperialism.

    Svigor:”May all Yankee children have the blessings of the Lord and the fondest wish of their fathers – the opportunity to engage in some righteous butchery and aggressive imperialism.”

    MMM, after a quick perusal of the works of Calhoun, Fitzugh, and Stephens, I can imagine a Confederate benediction: May all Southern children have the blessings of the lord and the fondest wish of their fathers- the opportunity to enjoy their divinely sanctioned right to own people.

  270. The most deplorable one [AKA "The fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    The South’s most glorious achievement, killing tens of thousands in order to defend their right to own people.

    Congratulations, you are a shining example of the power of propaganda.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Congratulations, you are a shining example of the power of propaganda."

    Someone somewhere once said that the most effective propaganda is the truth....
  271. @Svigor
    The quest for national unity, dear fellow. Men will bear great burdens for what they hold dear. Even something as valueless as Alabama is still part of America.

    Are you the "dear boy" guy? Wouldn't surprise me.

    Yes, Yankees fighting to hold on to the federal appendix while nearly losing their spleen (and destroying the appendix) in the process makes perfect sense. Given what I know about Yankees.

    Well, short-term prophecies are always easier to imagine. After all, your Civil War era time travelers would have had to spend a vast chunk of time just adjusting to television….

    Sure, let's quibble over the details of an instructive hypothetical. That should be productive.

    Yes, dear fellow. I mean, just look at neo-Confederates and the obfuscating ink that they have spilled on the topic of the Civil War. The poor dears, they just can’t look in the mirror and admit that their ancestors killed tens of thousands of men in order to protect their right to own people.

    You're fading fast, aren't you.

    So, the Union was preserved and slavery was ended. Seems worthwhile to me.

    Yes, list of glorious achievements is glorious. Mine eyes have seen the glory...

    I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union, then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless.

    Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are.

    Yankees are batshit crazy.


    It's really not possible to be both proud of Yankee history, and sane. They're mutually exclusive. Pride in Yankee history approaches 1:1 with pride in the current trajectory of America. So yes, "batshit crazy" is it, in a nutshell.

    Svig, why IS it the South was prevented from leaving? If northerners really hated slavery that much, why weren’t they doing their do-goodering by stopping it in Africa, which continues to this day? There must be a real reason. What is it?

    Money & power. The usual. Plus, giving men the freedom they deserve is contagious. Giving the South their rightful dose of freedom would set a precedent and before you know it, everyone else is getting uppity. Kill one to terrorize a thousand, to encourage the others, etc. Basic slave mastering 101.

    Perhaps you ought to be arguing with Alexander Stephens, the Confederate VP….

    I already dismissed him.

    MMMM, that would be more convincing if it weren’t for the fact that Vermont banned slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania passed an emancipation act in 1780, the Quock Martin case ended slavery in Massachusetts in 1783,….

    This from the guy who says States don't amount to much. America didn't ban slavery. America fought a revolution to preserve it.

    But’s that what I did, dear fellow. My only “authority” was the great mass of Mankind.

    Which I pointed out as a fallacious appeal to authority.

    Yes, there is – a group that revolts when that right is not immediately threatened, and when the odds are against them.

    It's interesting how often the winner's history is rewritten to make the losers seem suicidal.

    Being able to predict that this meaningless gesture (the number of slaves in England and Wales was vanishingly small) would, 58 years later, lead to the end of slavery in the Empire would certainly require an impressive degree of prescience, dear fellow.

    Oh, yes, the idea that Britain might spread its laws to British territories is way out there.

    Only in the degenerate South, dear fellow. Indeed, that’s what the Civil War was about, getting the South to shed an evil system that they loved so dearly.

    Yes, Yankees are true paragons of morality. Killing tens of thousands of people to end a social institution it found reprehensible is so noble. And the negroes, such noble and worthy beneficiaries.

    Oh dear. We are rather thick.

    Don't be so hard on yourself. You've taken an impossible position.

    I confess, I've scrolled past most of your repetitions, as I've largely said my piece, which still stands.

    “Are you the “dear boy” guy? Wouldn’t surprise me.”

    I am legion, dear fellow.

    “Yes, Yankees fighting to hold on to the federal appendix while nearly losing their spleen (and destroying the appendix) in the process makes perfect sense. Given what I know about Yankees.”

    Such quaint biological metaphors. In that spirit, what of the cancer of slavery, a metastasizing evil..

    “Sure, let’s quibble over the details of an instructive hypothetical. That should be productive.”

    The devil is in the details, dear fellow.

    “You’re fading fast, aren’t you.”

    Seldom stronger, dear fellow. Admittedly, arguing with a Neo-Confederate is not much of a challenge….

    “Yes, list of glorious achievements is glorious. Mine eyes have seen the glory…”

    Oh dear, I do hope that you are not going to go off on a binge of deranged singing…

    “I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union,”

    Evil for wanting to leave the Union out of a desire to preserve their right to own people, dear fellow.

    ” then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless.”

    Well, they have been a net deficit, but they are Americans.

    “Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are.”

    As opposed to a slave who is beaten by his master when he attempts to escape, and is then berated for being lazy and inefficient?

    “Yankees are batshit crazy.”

    MMM, one rather supposes that a study of the South from 1776 to 1860 would lead one to the opposite conclusion. After all, the South decided during that period to double down on slavery…

    “It’s really not possible to be both proud of Yankee history, and sane. They’re mutually exclusive. Pride in Yankee history approaches 1:1 with pride in the current trajectory of America. So yes, “batshit crazy” is it, in a nutshell.”

    MMM, what of Southerners and their pride in the history of their peculiar region? After all, their history is defined by slavery. Hence, Southern pride equals pride in the ownership of people.Does that make Southerners mad or evil? Perhaps both?

    “Money & power. The usual. Plus, giving men the freedom they deserve is contagious. Giving the South their rightful dose of freedom would set a precedent and before you know it, everyone else is getting uppity. Kill one to terrorize a thousand, to encourage the others, etc. Basic slave mastering 101.”

    Why, yes, Svigor. that rather explains the Southern mindset. Slavery, after all, was all about money and power. Money gained from the labor of slaves and the feeling of power that the master felt from seeing the people that he owned toiling for him. As for the “contagion” theory, most apt, dear fellow. Freedom was a virus that the South desperately sought to contain.

    “I already dismissed him.”

    Of course you did, dear fellow. Ignoring reality is a Neo-Confederate trait.

    “This from the guy who says States don’t amount to much.”

    Now, now, dear fellow. The spread of emancipation in the North was of vital importance. If your theory is true, one would have expected the South to have stayed out of the Union altogether. Surely the farsighted fellows who in 1776 predicted the coming abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833 should have been able to predict the conflict between free and slave states?

    ” America didn’t ban slavery. America fought a revolution to preserve it.”

    Which ignores Vermont banning slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783, ….

    “Which I pointed out as a fallacious appeal to authority.”

    Is it fallacious to point out that the great mass of Mankind finds your comparison ludicrous?

    “It’s interesting how often the winner’s history is rewritten to make the losers seem suicidal.”

    MMMM, the South’s devotion to the right to own people as a suicidal death wish….The idea has merit.

    “Yes, Yankees are true paragons of morality. Killing tens of thousands of people to end a social institution it found reprehensible is so noble.”

    As opposed to the fact that the South killed tens of thousands because they sought to preserve the right to own people.

    “And the negroes,”

    How old are you, dear fellow?

    “such noble and worthy beneficiaries.”

    Are you arguing that Blacks are natural slaves, dear fellow?

    “Don’t be so hard on yourself. You’ve taken an impossible position.”

    As opposed to the Neo-Conferderate position, that the right to own people is worth defending?

    “I confess, I’ve scrolled past most of your repetitions, as I’ve largely said my piece, which still stands.”

    On what?

  272. @JSM
    I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union, then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless.

    Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are.

    Yankees are batshit crazy.

    Svig, why IS it the South was prevented from leaving? If northerners really hated slavery that much, why weren't they doing their do-goodering by stopping it in Africa, which continues to this day? There must be a real reason. What is it?

    JSM:”I just love how twits like Syon claim the South was evil for wanting to leave the union, then turns around and insults the South as stupid and backward and burdensome and useless.”

    Even when your brother is a violent retard, he is still your brother, dear fellow.

    JSM:”Very nearly identical to an abusive spouse who beats you when you want to leave and then tells you how stupid and hated you are.”

    As opposed to a Southern slave owner who beats his slave for trying to escape, then berates him for his laziness?

    JSM:”Yankees are batshit crazy.”

    MMM, well, the Southern decision to double down on slavery during the period 1776-1860 certainly displays signs of madness…

  273. MMMM, and given the choice, Southerners would much rather murder someone than give up their right to own people. Freedom is so much worse than murder…..

    That’s just it – when you invade someone’s land in an effort to deny their freedom, you’ve justified their defense of themselves regardless of what they were doing before you invaded. So all the deaths the Southerners caused in defense of their lands from Yankee invasion are on Yankee heads. All the deaths in the war of northern aggression are on the aggressors’ heads.

    This goes doubly when you aren’t invading to save lives, but something as dubious as negro freedom.

    “Let’s go kill some white southerners and burn their homes. It’s a big improvement over negro slavery.”

    The South’s most glorious achievement, killing tens of thousands in order to defend their right to own people.

    Oh yes, that’s very persuasive. “If you’d only been a good boy, I wouldn’t have whipped you. This here whippin’s your fault, son.”

    The morality and rhetoric of the torturer. You must be very proud.

    MMM, after a quick perusal of the works of Calhoun, Fitzugh, and Stephens, I can imagine a Confederate benediction: May all Southern children have the blessings of the lord and the fondest wish of their fathers- the opportunity to enjoy their divinely sanctioned right to own people.

    I know, I know, it’s no where near as bloodthirsty as the Yankee benediction. There’s no slaughter of whites, no looting and pillaging of their property, and no burning of their homes. What can I say, it’s tough to top Yankees at that stuff.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"That’s just it – when you invade someone’s land in an effort to deny their freedom, "

    Their freedom to own people, dear fellow? Their freedom to make their fellow man unfree? It's striking how Orwellian the Neo-Confederate mind is. I suppose that in the South, Freedom comes from the slavery of others....


    Svigor:"you’ve justified their defense of themselves regardless of what they were doing before you invaded."

    Hardly, dear fellow. Suppression of treason and rebellion.

    Svigor:"So all the deaths the Southerners caused in defense of their lands "

    In defense of the right to own people, dear fellow.


    Svigor:"from Yankee invasion are on Yankee heads. All the deaths in the war of northern aggression are on the aggressors’ heads."

    Other way round, dear fellow. No treason, no war. Lee and Jefferson Davis' hands are soaked in the blood of their fellow Americans.

    Svigor:"This goes doubly when you aren’t invading to save lives, but something as dubious as negro freedom."

    While fighting for "negro" slavery is not dubious?

    Svigor:"“Let’s go kill some white southerners and burn their homes. It’s a big improvement over negro slavery.”"

    MMMM, "Let's kill some White Americans; anything is better than ending slavery."

    Svigor:"Oh yes, that’s very persuasive. “If you’d only been a good boy, I wouldn’t have whipped you. This here whippin’s your fault, son.”"

    Back to the language of slavery again. It's odd how the Southern mind sees the end of slavery as something evil...

    Svigor:"The morality and rhetoric of the torturer. You must be very proud."

    Oh, dear. A Neo-Confederate apologist equating the ending of slavery with torture.....One wonders how the people who were actually being whipped felt about the matter...

    Svigor:"I know, I know, it’s no where near as bloodthirsty as the Yankee benediction."

    MMM, the beatings and whippings and rapes and mutilations that the slaves had to endure in the South....


    Svigor:" There’s no slaughter of whites,"

    Well, minus the tens of thousands of Union men who were butchered in the name of slavery....


    Svigor:"no looting and pillaging of their property,"

    MMM, well, I suppose that slave owners would look at the freeing of their slaves as theft....


    Svigor:"and no burning of their homes."

    As opposed to denying millions of chattel slaves their right to own their own homes?

  274. I am legion, dear fellow.

    Didn’t Christ turn you out into a herd of swine? Even I don’t look that far askance at Yankee ancestry…

    Seldom stronger, dear fellow.

    That, I’m inclined to believe.

    Evil for wanting to leave the Union out of a desire to preserve their right to own people, dear fellow.

    Funny thing is, I’m actually kinder to Yankee history than you are. I know it had nothing to do with freeing negroes. Seeing them as fighting a war for pure imperialism is much kinder to Yankee history than the “we killed tens of thousands of white folks, and sacrificed tens of thousands of white folks in the process, for the dubious goal of negro slavery” is. Which I suppose you (perhaps inadvertently) conceded with your response to the Rhode Island point.

    Bored with reading you again (it happens very quickly now), so I’ll leave it at that.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"Didn’t Christ turn you out into a herd of swine?"

    Surely you are not one of those Neo-Confederates who believe that Jesus had magic powers?

    Svigor:"Even I don’t look that far askance at Yankee ancestry…"

    The pig is a highly intelligent animal, dear fellow...

    Svigor:"That, I’m inclined to believe."

    You are too kind.

    Svigor:"Funny thing is, I’m actually kinder to Yankee history than you are. I know it had nothing to do with freeing negroes."

    Not initially, dear fellow. It was an incremental process. In 1861-62, preserving the Union was paramount. By 1863-64, it was increasingly understood that the Union could only be permanently restored by ending slavery.


    Svigor:"Seeing them as fighting a war for pure imperialism"

    MMMM, one can't engage in imperialism in one's one country, dear fellow. Taking the Southwest from Mexico was imperialism; keeping the traitorous South in the Union was patriotism.


    Svigor:"is much kinder to Yankee history than the “we killed tens of thousands of white folks, and sacrificed tens of thousands of white folks in the process, for the dubious goal of negro slavery” is. Which I suppose you (perhaps inadvertently) conceded with your response to the Rhode Island point."

    The Rhode Island point illustrated the fact that I would fight to keep RI in the Union; I don't care about what goes on in, say, Nigeria...

    Svigor:"Bored with reading you again (it happens very quickly now),"

    You have no idea, dear fellow, of the crushing ennui that I feel when I peruse your responses. Say what you will about Fitzhugh and Calhoun, they at least had a sense of style...

    Svigor:"so I’ll leave it at that."

    One can only hope.
  275. @ben tillman
    Hard to say. The South is such barren , backward place. Why just look at the map showing the concentration of significant figures in the USA prior to 1950 in Murray’s HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT (304-305). The South is a vast blank. The states of New England plus New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey alone produced 184 significant figures by 1950, whereas the states that made up the Confederacy only produced 24, a ratio of more than 7:1.

    Of course, the North's White population was several times larger than the South's, but let's not bother putting things in perspective, right?

    Hard to say. The chattel slavery in the South was so vile and monstrous.

    And why, exactly, was chattel slavery in the North not vile and monstrous?

    ben tillman:”Of course, the North’s White population was several times larger than the South’s, but let’s not bother putting things in perspective, right?”

    Actually, no, dear fellow. To quote Murray:

    “An even more striking aspect of the map is the white space covering the American South. Although more lightly populated than the North, the American South had a substantial population throughout American history.In 1850, for example, the White population of the South was 5.6 million, compared to 8.5 million in the Northeast. In 1900 the comparison was 12.1 million to 20.6 million. By 1950, the gap had almost closed-36.9 million compared to 37.4 million.While it is understandable that the South did not have as many significant figures as the North, the magnitude of the difference goes far beyond population” (HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, 304-5).

    ben tillman:”And why, exactly, was chattel slavery in the North not vile and monstrous?”

    Oh, it was vile and monstrous, dear fellow. The difference, of course, is that the North began the process of emancipation in 1777. By 1804 anti-slavery laws had been passed in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. The South, in contrast, was closing ranks in support of its peculiar institution.

  276. @Svigor
    MMMM, and given the choice, Southerners would much rather murder someone than give up their right to own people. Freedom is so much worse than murder…..

    That's just it - when you invade someone's land in an effort to deny their freedom, you've justified their defense of themselves regardless of what they were doing before you invaded. So all the deaths the Southerners caused in defense of their lands from Yankee invasion are on Yankee heads. All the deaths in the war of northern aggression are on the aggressors' heads.

    This goes doubly when you aren't invading to save lives, but something as dubious as negro freedom.

    "Let's go kill some white southerners and burn their homes. It's a big improvement over negro slavery."

    The South’s most glorious achievement, killing tens of thousands in order to defend their right to own people.

    Oh yes, that's very persuasive. "If you'd only been a good boy, I wouldn't have whipped you. This here whippin's your fault, son."

    The morality and rhetoric of the torturer. You must be very proud.

    MMM, after a quick perusal of the works of Calhoun, Fitzugh, and Stephens, I can imagine a Confederate benediction: May all Southern children have the blessings of the lord and the fondest wish of their fathers- the opportunity to enjoy their divinely sanctioned right to own people.

    I know, I know, it's no where near as bloodthirsty as the Yankee benediction. There's no slaughter of whites, no looting and pillaging of their property, and no burning of their homes. What can I say, it's tough to top Yankees at that stuff.

    Svigor:”That’s just it – when you invade someone’s land in an effort to deny their freedom, ”

    Their freedom to own people, dear fellow? Their freedom to make their fellow man unfree? It’s striking how Orwellian the Neo-Confederate mind is. I suppose that in the South, Freedom comes from the slavery of others….

    Svigor:”you’ve justified their defense of themselves regardless of what they were doing before you invaded.”

    Hardly, dear fellow. Suppression of treason and rebellion.

    Svigor:”So all the deaths the Southerners caused in defense of their lands ”

    In defense of the right to own people, dear fellow.

    Svigor:”from Yankee invasion are on Yankee heads. All the deaths in the war of northern aggression are on the aggressors’ heads.”

    Other way round, dear fellow. No treason, no war. Lee and Jefferson Davis’ hands are soaked in the blood of their fellow Americans.

    Svigor:”This goes doubly when you aren’t invading to save lives, but something as dubious as negro freedom.”

    While fighting for “negro” slavery is not dubious?

    Svigor:”“Let’s go kill some white southerners and burn their homes. It’s a big improvement over negro slavery.””

    MMMM, “Let’s kill some White Americans; anything is better than ending slavery.”

    Svigor:”Oh yes, that’s very persuasive. “If you’d only been a good boy, I wouldn’t have whipped you. This here whippin’s your fault, son.””

    Back to the language of slavery again. It’s odd how the Southern mind sees the end of slavery as something evil…

    Svigor:”The morality and rhetoric of the torturer. You must be very proud.”

    Oh, dear. A Neo-Confederate apologist equating the ending of slavery with torture…..One wonders how the people who were actually being whipped felt about the matter…

    Svigor:”I know, I know, it’s no where near as bloodthirsty as the Yankee benediction.”

    MMM, the beatings and whippings and rapes and mutilations that the slaves had to endure in the South….

    Svigor:” There’s no slaughter of whites,”

    Well, minus the tens of thousands of Union men who were butchered in the name of slavery….

    Svigor:”no looting and pillaging of their property,”

    MMM, well, I suppose that slave owners would look at the freeing of their slaves as theft….

    Svigor:”and no burning of their homes.”

    As opposed to denying millions of chattel slaves their right to own their own homes?

  277. MMM, well, the Southern decision to double down on slavery during the period 1776-1860 certainly displays signs of madness…

    Riiight. But fighting an aggressive war of invasion against white folks to turn blacks loose on America is the definition of sanity.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    Svigor:"Riiight. But fighting an aggressive war of invasion against white folks"

    One can't invade one's own country, dear fellow.


    Svigor:" to turn blacks loose on America is the definition of sanity.""

    And thinking that owning people is right and just is the "definition of sanity?" Strange place, the South. Going there must be like a journey through the looking glass....
  278. @Svigor
    I am legion, dear fellow.

    Didn't Christ turn you out into a herd of swine? Even I don't look that far askance at Yankee ancestry...

    Seldom stronger, dear fellow.

    That, I'm inclined to believe.

    Evil for wanting to leave the Union out of a desire to preserve their right to own people, dear fellow.

    Funny thing is, I'm actually kinder to Yankee history than you are. I know it had nothing to do with freeing negroes. Seeing them as fighting a war for pure imperialism is much kinder to Yankee history than the "we killed tens of thousands of white folks, and sacrificed tens of thousands of white folks in the process, for the dubious goal of negro slavery" is. Which I suppose you (perhaps inadvertently) conceded with your response to the Rhode Island point.

    Bored with reading you again (it happens very quickly now), so I'll leave it at that.

    Svigor:”Didn’t Christ turn you out into a herd of swine?”

    Surely you are not one of those Neo-Confederates who believe that Jesus had magic powers?

    Svigor:”Even I don’t look that far askance at Yankee ancestry…”

    The pig is a highly intelligent animal, dear fellow…

    Svigor:”That, I’m inclined to believe.”

    You are too kind.

    Svigor:”Funny thing is, I’m actually kinder to Yankee history than you are. I know it had nothing to do with freeing negroes.”

    Not initially, dear fellow. It was an incremental process. In 1861-62, preserving the Union was paramount. By 1863-64, it was increasingly understood that the Union could only be permanently restored by ending slavery.

    Svigor:”Seeing them as fighting a war for pure imperialism”

    MMMM, one can’t engage in imperialism in one’s one country, dear fellow. Taking the Southwest from Mexico was imperialism; keeping the traitorous South in the Union was patriotism.

    Svigor:”is much kinder to Yankee history than the “we killed tens of thousands of white folks, and sacrificed tens of thousands of white folks in the process, for the dubious goal of negro slavery” is. Which I suppose you (perhaps inadvertently) conceded with your response to the Rhode Island point.”

    The Rhode Island point illustrated the fact that I would fight to keep RI in the Union; I don’t care about what goes on in, say, Nigeria…

    Svigor:”Bored with reading you again (it happens very quickly now),”

    You have no idea, dear fellow, of the crushing ennui that I feel when I peruse your responses. Say what you will about Fitzhugh and Calhoun, they at least had a sense of style…

    Svigor:”so I’ll leave it at that.”

    One can only hope.

  279. Svigor:”That’s just it – when you invade someone’s land in an effort to deny their freedom, ”

    Their freedom to own people, dear fellow? Their freedom to make their fellow man unfree? It’s striking how Orwellian the Neo-Confederate mind is. I suppose that in the South, Freedom comes from the slavery of others….

    Svigor:”you’ve justified their defense of themselves regardless of what they were doing before you invaded.”

    Hardly, dear fellow. Suppression of treason and rebellion.

    Svigor:”So all the deaths the Southerners caused in defense of their lands ”

    In defense of the right to own people, dear fellow.

    Svigor:”from Yankee invasion are on Yankee heads. All the deaths in the war of northern aggression are on the aggressors’ heads.”

    Other way round, dear fellow. No treason, no war. Lee and Jefferson Davis’ hands are soaked in the blood of their fellow Americans.

    Svigor:”This goes doubly when you aren’t invading to save lives, but something as dubious as negro freedom.”

    While fighting for “negro” slavery is not dubious?

    Svigor:”“Let’s go kill some white southerners and burn their homes. It’s a big improvement over negro slavery.””

    MMMM, “Let’s kill some White Americans; anything is better than ending slavery.”

    Svigor:”Oh yes, that’s very persuasive. “If you’d only been a good boy, I wouldn’t have whipped you. This here whippin’s your fault, son.””

    Back to the language of slavery again. It’s odd how the Southern mind sees the end of slavery as something evil…

    Svigor:”The morality and rhetoric of the torturer. You must be very proud.”

    Oh, dear. A Neo-Confederate apologist equating the ending of slavery with torture…..One wonders how the people who were actually being whipped felt about the matter…

    Svigor:”I know, I know, it’s no where near as bloodthirsty as the Yankee benediction.”

    MMM, the beatings and whippings and rapes and mutilations that the slaves had to endure in the South….

    Svigor:” There’s no slaughter of whites,”

    Well, minus the tens of thousands of Union men who were butchered in the name of slavery….

    Svigor:”no looting and pillaging of their property,”

    MMM, well, I suppose that slave owners would look at the freeing of their slaves as theft….

    Svigor:”and no burning of their homes.”

    As opposed to denying millions of chattel slaves their right to own their own homes?

  280. @Svigor
    MMM, well, the Southern decision to double down on slavery during the period 1776-1860 certainly displays signs of madness…

    Riiight. But fighting an aggressive war of invasion against white folks to turn blacks loose on America is the definition of sanity.

    Svigor:”Riiight. But fighting an aggressive war of invasion against white folks”

    One can’t invade one’s own country, dear fellow.

    Svigor:” to turn blacks loose on America is the definition of sanity.””

    And thinking that owning people is right and just is the “definition of sanity?” Strange place, the South. Going there must be like a journey through the looking glass….

  281. Civilian airliners do NOT have Identification Friend or Foe transponders.

    Sigh. It’s another name for transponder.

    Sigh your sissy ass.

    No, IFF is not a generic name for avionics transponders. You’re confusing and conflating IFF with airliners’ TCAS transponders. TCAS and military IFF are different, not the same. Wikipedia has a pretty good piece on TCAS:

    Traffic Collision Avoidance System

    The geniuses on the ground who shot down the Boeing 777 probably didn’t have anything with which to ping the aircraft’s TCAS.

    That’s a stupid omission? Well, the USS Vincennes didn’t which shot down the Iranian Airbus didn’t have a TCAS system either. Peepul West and East just assumed that civilian airliners wouldn’t overfly war zones.

  282. @The most deplorable one

    The South’s most glorious achievement, killing tens of thousands in order to defend their right to own people.
     
    Congratulations, you are a shining example of the power of propaganda.

    “Congratulations, you are a shining example of the power of propaganda.”

    Someone somewhere once said that the most effective propaganda is the truth….

  283. Via West Hunter, some thoughts by Gregory Cochran on the Civil War:

    “The facts don’t have anything to do with whether an event was “justified”. The notion that slaves were to any significant degree Confederate nationalists is nonsense. The claim that blacks, to any significant degree, fought voluntarily for the Confederacy, is also false. I know all about the internal debate in the Confederacy on the subject – Patrick Cleburne, Lee, etc. It never happened.

    As for the argument that the North had to keep the South from seceding because it needed the money from the Tariff – I guess that explains why the South had no trouble financing the war, while the North went bankrupt. Except that of course it was the other way around. The North had other ways to raise money, capisce?

    Any state that casually allowed at-will secession would end up like the Holy Roman Empire, or disintegrate. Certainly the Confederacy didn’t: they used force to keep East Tennessee in, tried to get back West Virginia, sat on the hillbillies in Arkansas that wanted no part of the war, sent out troops to enforce the draft among the Germans in the Texas hill country, who were too literate to be true Southerners.

    Of course the primary motivation in the North, stronger than antislavery (although that was significant) was support for Union. People didn’t want a rival significant state on the continent, since that would of course mean repeated wars, importation of European struggles, etc – as it had before, when the French still mattered.

    The notion that the Civil War initiated an all-powerful centralized state (which I hear fairly often) is something that only an idiot or libertarian (I repeat myself) could take seriously. After the war, the average guy’s interaction with the Feds was largely confined to the Post Office. Forexample, in 1900, the Federal cut of GNP was 3% – which includes the Navy and the guerrilla war in the Philippines.

    Slaves produced more economic value than they consumed – quite a bit more. Otherwise, why would anyone have bothered to buy slaves? After the War of the Rebellion, they got to keep a good deal more of that value for themselves. Their standard of living went up. Labor income was about the same for blacks and whites, after the war. They also didn’t have that annoying thing where other people got to sell their children.

    There are myths about the Civil War generated in support of other ideological positions – like the claim that enlisted blacks made good soldiers, which Sherman, who had a certain claim to expertise, didn’t buy. But southern sympathizers have the harder job. Reminds me of a long-ago closed-list discussion in which I had to point out the chivalrous way in which the Confederate routinely executed captured black soldiers and their white officers.”

  284. Via WIKIPEDIA:

    “The Civil War sentiments of East Tennessee were among the most complex of any region in the nation. Whig support ran high in East Tennessee (especially in Knox and surrounding counties) in the years leading up to the war, as many people in the region were suspicious of the aristocratic Southern planter class that dominated the Southern Democratic party and most southern state legislatures. When Tennessee voted on a referendum calling for secession in February 1861, more than 80% of East Tennesseans voted against it, including majorities in every county except Sullivan and Meigs. In June 1861, nearly 70% of East Tennesseans voted against the Ordinance of Secession (which succeeded statewide), although along with Sullivan and Meigs, there were pro-secession majorities in Monroe, Rhea, Sequatchie, and Polk counties.[20] There were also pro-secession majorities within the cities of Knoxville and Chattanooga, although these cities’ respective counties voted decisively against secession.[19][21]
    In June 1861, the pro-Unionist East Tennessee Convention met in Greeneville, where it drafted a petition to the Tennessee state legislature demanding that East Tennessee be allowed to form a separate Union-aligned state.[20] The legislature rejected the petition, however, and Tennessee Governor Isham Harris ordered Confederate troops to occupy East Tennessee. Senator Andrew Johnson and Congressman Horace Maynard— who in spite of being from a Confederate state retained their seats in Congress— continuously pressed President Abraham Lincoln to send troops into East Tennessee, and Lincoln subsequently made the liberation of East Tennessee a top priority. Knoxville Whig editor William “Parson” Brownlow, who had been one of slavery’s most outspoken defenders, attacked secessionism with equal fervor, and embarked on a speaking tour of the Northern states to rally support for East Tennessee.[22] Union troops didn’t secure Knoxville until late 1863, however, and Chattanooga was only secured after a series of bloody campaigns late in the same year.”

    So much for the idea that the South was fighting for self-determination….

  285. As for the argument that the North had to keep the South from seceding because it needed the money from the Tariff – I guess that explains why the South had no trouble financing the war, while the North went bankrupt. Except that of course it was the other way around. The North had other ways to raise money, capisce?

    Oh, so the argument should be that the North was just greedy, not that it needed the money. I see.

    Any state that casually allowed at-will secession would end up like the Holy Roman Empire, or disintegrate. Certainly the Confederacy didn’t: they used force to keep East Tennessee in, tried to get back West Virginia, sat on the hillbillies in Arkansas that wanted no part of the war, sent out troops to enforce the draft among the Germans in the Texas hill country, who were too literate to be true Southerners.

    Any Union that followed the law might have to face negative consequences to its imperialistic urges, how awful.

    “Casual,” love that as a description of the most devastating war in American history.

    Any state that casually allowed at-will secession would end up like the Holy Roman Empire, or disintegrate. Certainly the Confederacy didn’t: they used force to keep East Tennessee in, tried to get back West Virginia, sat on the hillbillies in Arkansas that wanted no part of the war, sent out troops to enforce the draft among the Germans in the Texas hill country, who were too literate to be true Southerners.

    Is this like when liberals mock libertarians for paying taxes, instead of putting their money where their mouth is? Or when libertarians mock advocates of immigration restriction who use immigrant labor (like all of their competitors) to avoid going bankrupt? Let me check…yes, it’s exactly like that. The distinction is the same as with the Jewish butchery of Gaza; it was the Yankees who invaded and burned the South, thus justifying whatever measures the latter took to defend and free themselves, just as it is the Jews who oppress the Palestinians, thus justifying whatever measures the latter take to defend and free themselves.

    Of course the primary motivation in the North, stronger than antislavery (although that was significant) was support for Union. People didn’t want a rival significant state on the continent, since that would of course mean repeated wars, importation of European struggles, etc – as it had before, when the French still mattered.

    Hi Greg. If you’re reading this: you’re full of shit, like most Yankee imperialists. The most devastating war in American history was justified because of the threat of repeated wars. If that’s not the old “we had to burn the village to save it” horseshit, what is?

    Can’t read any more of that horseshit. If you step far enough into a pile of horseshit and there’s nothing in it but horseshit, after a while it becomes folly to imagine you’ll find a pearl.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2