Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Identity politics as divide and conquer

Clintonism is about playing the "identity politics" as a bulwark against any class or populist upheaval
that might threaten neoliberalism. 

 

News Identity politics as diversion of attention from social inequality Recommended Links Class Struggle In The USA Bait and Switch  Divide and conquer strategy
Hillary Clinton faux feminism Bill Clinton, the founder of "Vichy left" Divide and conquer strategy Predator state  Deception as an art form Neoliberal Propaganda: Journalism In the Service of the
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair The Deep State The Iron Law of Oligarchy Elite Theory Leo Strauss and the Neocons  
Obama: a yet another Neocon Mayberry Machiavellians John Dilulio letter Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism "F*ck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Fifth Column of Neoliberal Globalization
Neoliberalism as a New form of Corporatism The ability and willingness to employ savage methods Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Color revolutions   IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Powerful Few
American Exceptionalism Corporatism Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton      
Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living  From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss Big Uncle is Watching You   Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Identity politics refers to attempts to split working people and middle class in such a way that it no longer represented a threat to neoliberlim in the USA or other country. It is a variant of Divide and conquer strategy

Identity politics artificially amplifies aspects of their identity  that are different then their social status.  Examples include race, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, culture, language.

The term identity politics came into being during the latter part of the 20th century, during the Civil Rights Era, but the first king of identity politics and associated "bat and switch" of voters was Bill Clinton. He was followed by Barak Obma with him important "bat and switch" maneuvers (aka "change we can believe in").

While the term is popularly used when referring to national identity, Hillary Clinton was adept of playing gender to divide voters.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. discussed early attempt to use identity politics to split and marginalize working class and middle class in his book The Disuniting of America. Schlesinger, a strong supporter of liberal conceptions of civil rights, argues that a liberal democracy requires a common basis for culture and society to function.

In his view, basing politics on group marginalization fractures the civil polity. Schlesinger believes that nationalist and rasicl movements such as "movement for civil rights"  should aim "toward integration of marginalized groups into the mainstream culture, rather than...perpetuating that marginalization through affirmations of difference".[13]

Recently identity politics was aptly played in LGBT sphere. Such issues as gay marriage and bathroom access served as powerful destruction from more important social issue for almost 20 years. Brendan O'Neill has contrasted the politics of gay liberation and identity politics by saying "... [Peter] Tatchell also had, back in the day, was a commitment to the politics of liberation, which encouraged gays to come out and live and engage. Now, we have the politics of identity, which invites people to stay in, to look inward, to obsess over the body and the self, to surround themselves with a moral forcefield to protect their worldview—which has nothing to do with the world—from any questioning."[14] Left-wing author Owen Jones rightly claims that identity politics is directed mainly toward marginalization of the working class and as such represent a dirty political trick used now by neolibrals to stay in power: 

In the 1950s and 1960s, left-wing intellectuals who were both inspired and informed by a powerful labour movement wrote hundreds of books and articles on working-class issues. Such work would help shape the views of politicians at the very top of the Labour Party. Today, progressive intellectuals are far more interested in issues of identity. ... Of course, the struggles for the emancipation of women, gays, and ethnic minorities are exceptionally important causes. New Labour has co-opted them, passing genuinely progressive legislation on gay equality and women's rights, for example. But it is an agenda that has happily co-existed with the sidelining of the working class in politics, allowing New Labour to protect its radical flank while pressing ahead with Thatcherite policies.

— Owen Jones, Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class[15]

Emphasizing and promoting groups based on shared identity, other than class (e.g., religious identity, gender, etc ), can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues, such as class conflict in capitalist societies.

Such arguments have been expressed by a number of writers, such as Eric Hobsbawm,[16] Todd Gitlin,[17] Michael Tomasky, Richard Rorty, Sean Wilentz, Robert W. McChesney, Bart Landry, and Jim Sleeper.[18] Hobsbawm, in particular, has criticized nationalisms, and the principle of national self-determination adopted internationally after World War I, since national governments are often merely an expression of a ruling class or power, and their proliferation was a source of the wars of the 20th century. Hence Hobsbawm argues that identity politics, such as queer nationalism, Islamism, Cornish nationalism or Ulster Loyalism are just other versions of bourgeois nationalism.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Sep 23, 2018] Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF by Black Pigeon Speaks

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF Support BPS via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ✅ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: navyhato@gmail.com ✅2nd Channel- Navy Hato: ... Black Pigeon Speaks September 22, 2018 (8:02) 95,236 Views 1 Comment Reply Email This Page to Someone

Miro23 , says: September 23, 2018 at 7:19 am GMT

What a great video!!

The Democratic Socialists of America, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Britain's Jeremy Corbyn.

"I haven't abandoned the Left – the Left has abandoned me"

Mass immigration and citizenship to change the voter base.

The "victimhood" activists & their friends and sponsors – the cosmopolitan global elite.

The public desire to escape from this nightmare – with Eastern Europe following Victor Orban (who follows the wishes of Hungarian voters).

And, bad luck on the US public who wanted the same, but were tricked by the great conman Donald Trump.

[Sep 23, 2018] One can like or dislike Judge Kavanagh, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

But another running disaster is the feminists' attempt to derail nomination of Judge Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so many (and more) years ago!

Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I'd find him not guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token force. "No means no" was a totally unheard-of idea.

[Sep 23, 2018] Old, unproven, timed to ruin Kavanaugh accusations perfect example of all that's wrong with #MeToo -- RT US News

Notable quotes:
"... "re-victimization" ..."
"... "larger than normal penis" ..."
Sep 23, 2018 | www.rt.com

Old, unproven, timed to ruin: Kavanaugh accusations perfect example of all that's wrong with #MeToo Published time: 19 Sep, 2018 22:08 Edited time: 20 Sep, 2018 07:35 Get short URL Old, unproven, timed to ruin: Kavanaugh accusations perfect example of all that's wrong with #MeToo The out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary

There is no direct, or circumstantial evidence, or eyewitness statements proving that a drunk teenage Kavanaugh really pinned down Blasey Ford on the bed, and tried to rape her while covering her mouth with his hand, during a house party. In fact, other than this vivid scene, the accuser has failed to remember the dates or places or context of the events. Beyond that: as soon as the story broke, when the details were still just anonymous Beltway hearsay, for some that was enough to disqualify the nominee.

Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters

Now, if, out of the blue, I accuse a colleague of stealing my lunch sandwich, people will ask for evidence or an explanation. The burden of proof will be on me. No one will simply brand Alex from HR a thief or fire her on my word, and no one would want to work in an office where I would have such power over another human being. This is fundamental justice, developed over thousands of years in societies throughout the world. Even Elon Musk doesn't get to accuse someone of being a "pedo" without consequence.

READ MORE: Elon Musk sued by British rescue diver he called a 'pedo' and 'rapist' on Twitter

That such an obvious thing even needs to be said out loud is a testament to how far the accusations against Kavanaugh, and other #MeToo cases, stray from these principles – farcically so. Sexual assault is inherently murkier than lunchtime comestibles theft, yes, most victims have no reason to lie, but most would prefer to live in a society where a random person can't destroy someone else's life at will, even if that means that some rapists go unjailed.

Other examples: most #MeToo accusations aired on social media, the Inquisition, medieval witchcraft trials, neighbors' denunciations in Stalin's Russia.

No legal case

While reputation has always mattered, a person used to be able to clear his or her name with law. The #MeToo movement insists that even those who have been accused or convicted of no crimes can be just as guilty.

It doesn't matter that there was no police report in the Kavanaugh case, no investigation, and that the FBI has repeatedly insisted that there is nothing to investigate, despite demands from Blasey Ford's legal team.

READ MORE: Kavanaugh accuser 'not ready' to speak to Senate, wants FBI to probe sex assault claims first

Kavanaugh's only recourse is to accuse her of slander, and hope that the ensuing process doesn't bring out more unflattering claims, while knowing for sure that those who considered him guilty in the first place will likely not change their mind.

Ronan Farrow / Reuters

Other examples: Woody Allen was investigated for molesting his pre-teen daughter and no charges were filed, and was able to continue working freely for another 25 years. After his son, Ronan, became a leading #MeToo accuser, he is unable to release his already-finished film, and will receive no further funding for projects.

Accusations from decades ago

Previously, the strength of a case would grow weaker the longer ago the alleged crime was. Evidence was impossible to collect, social mores changed, people grew and reformed. The statute of limitations is a legal reflection of that.

Christine Blasey Ford in her school yearbook.

#MeToo has turned this on its head.

Charges from the distant past are harder to disprove, it is easier to paint the 1980s as a warzone of sexual abuse (just look at that Sixteen Candles ending – very "problematic") while if you squint hard enough you can picture the white-bread square Kavanaugh as a marauding party-boy.

Brett Kavanaugh, on the right, in his high school yearbook.

The result: any questionable, misinterpreted or altogether fictitious incident in your teenage years (Kavanaugh was 17 at the time of the alleged assault) will forever hang over you.

Other examples: Plenty, but equally interesting is the revisionist history even in cases where the truth was widely known at the time, such as Monica Lewinsky, an adult engaged in a consensual relationship, suddenly re-emerging as a #MeToo victim.

Timed to destroy

Yet, however, long the traumatic memories are kept private – and there is no doubt that is a genuine reaction of many victims – they seem often to emerge just at the right time.

There is of course, genuine concern about rapists taking up Supreme Court seats, but perhaps it wasn't quite necessary for the Democrats to wait until less than a week until Kavanaugh's appointment, considering the information has been in their possession since July. And then to pretend to be surprised when their motivations are being questioned.

READ MORE: Fast Times at Feinstein High: Dems ambush Brett Kavanaugh with last-minute sex assault charges

While revenge is a dish best served cold, it is also not a good look for a justice movement to appear as if its participants are waiting for the targets to become important and successful before sticking the knife in.

Other examples: Often the best time to come out of hiding is when someone is on their way down. There is no risk to being the twentieth person to accuse producer Harvey Weinstein in 2018, even if doing that two decades earlier could have helped dozens of other women.

Transparent self-interest

The mention that the accusers are motivated by money, hunger for publicity, career ambitions, personal grudges or political views is impermissible within the #MeToo conversation.

What Dianne Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters

But even if Blasey Ford is a true victim, pretending she is some neutral vessel of justice is laughable: she is a long-time Democrat donor, who has signed petitions against Trump, and wrote on her Facebook that "'a basket of deplorables' is far too generous a description" of his staff.

As is claiming that this is a purely criminal matter, not a calculated attempt by a political party to exploit a scandal for its own ends: #MeToo is a social movement weaponized for politics.

Pure motivations: Asia Argento / Reuters

Other examples: Actress Asia Argento went out with Weinstein for several years after he allegedly raped her, then garnered sympathy and attention as she described their relationship as "re-victimization" since 2017, all while reportedly arranging a confidentiality payout with an underage man she had sex with.

Social media & activists decide

Unless you have backing from the electorate and your own party (Donald Trump has both, so he stays, Al Franken had one but not the other, so he had to go) in the absence of any due process, it will be social media that decides your fate.

Are these the people who should handle justice?

The efforts to railroad Dr. Blasey Ford and rush Brett Kavanaugh's nomination through as she faces death threats are reprehensible. This process was clearly not designed to get at the truth. Dr. Blasey Ford deserves better. #StopKavanaugh

-- Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) September 19, 2018

I really take issue with the description of Kavanaugh as an "attempted rapist." It wasn't an attempted rape because he started and then decided to stop. It was an attempted rape because *she got away.*

Kavanaugh is a rapist.

-- Monica Byrne (@monicabyrne13) September 19, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh is not a mediocre man. He's an extraordinarily talented agent of radical, right-wing forces. He will dismantle the modern regulatory state with frightening efficiency.

Also, he's probably an attempted rapist.

But he's not mediocre. He's a brilliant evildoer. https://t.co/iUtpzMH6vQ

-- Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) September 18, 2018

It's also worth nothing that even men who openly treat women like shit for years are believed over their accusers. I mean, consider President Pussy Grabber.

It doesn't matter how men treat women - in a rape culture, they're always given the benefit of the doubt.

-- Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) September 17, 2018

The Kavanaugh nomination is a good reminder that in the Republican Party, there are rapists and rape apologists. There is no one vehemently opposed to rape.

-- The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) September 17, 2018
Name can never be cleared

What is the first thing anyone can tell you about Clarence Thomas, the most senior justice on the US Supreme Court? Anita Hill, "larger than normal penis" boasts, pubic hair on a Coke can.

Whereas, as Thomas before him, Kavanaugh will likely be approved, he can never wash away the image of his lunging body from the public's mind, nor will he ever be completely believed. The cost for Blasey Ford will likely be as high.

In the era of ersatz and ad hoc #MeToo justice both of their names forever linked together, and forever stained.

Igor Ogorodnev

[Sep 23, 2018] A New Martin Luther by Anatoly Karlin

Aug 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Prosvirnin is the most talented writer. Limonov has by far the most colorful personality. Dugin has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes. Krylov provided the esoteric flavoring.

And yet out of all of Russia's right-wing intellectuals , there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.

This is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the "golden mean" of the Russian nationalist memeplex.

He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.

Instead of wasting his time on ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and writes reviews about it on his website. And about 224 other books .

And this brings us to what makes Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.

This allows him to write informed and engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.

In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual , period.

Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles ( Europe's Week of Human Sacrifice ; A Cruel French Lesson ). Still, there's only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.

Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's Galactus.

We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.

***

A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective

Original: https://tsargrad.tv/articles/triumf-gendernyh-sharikovyh_79187

Translated by Fluctuarius Argenteus :

Google fires employee James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.

Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples ( OK Google ), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central House of Cards plotline.

Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.

The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled Google's Ideological Echo Chamber was circulated through the local network of Google. The author lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.

The author argues that Leftism and "diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber" within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency, with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.

In contrast to Google's buzzwords of "vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.

As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.

The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing the "diversity" policy.

The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.

What is the proposed solution?

Stop diving people into "oppressors" and "the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.

The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.

End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.

Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company's employees against the other.

Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.

Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.

The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.

The differences argued by the author are as follows:

Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.

Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men.

Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with status and

Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).

It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.

We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore".

It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".

However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".

The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.

However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.

The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.

However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.

First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the "superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.

Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.

The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.

The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.

Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it's probably for the better.

[Sep 23, 2018] songbird

Sep 23, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: August 10, 2017 at 2:25 am GMT 100 Words I like the sacrifice picture. I always thought making humorous video shorts (with a budget) of sacrifices to a diversity god would be powerful satire. But I always pictured an ancient Greek setting with oxen, and those who benefit from diversity drives eating those oxen. That or in an American setting with piles of money being first expropriated at gunpoint and then burnt and maybe inhaled. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 10, 2017 at 3:49 am GMT this has been bugging me for a long time: I think отнять и поделить is better translated as confiscate and distribute . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Diversity Heretic says: August 10, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT 100 Words Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." Read More Replies: @Logan Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. , @anonymous The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Alden says: August 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT 200 Words Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it. Read More Replies: @Sowhat


I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.
Guilty as charged...As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now... Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
5371 says: August 10, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

ineffectual intellectual
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WHAT says: August 10, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented, but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the russian nationalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 7:13 am GMT

conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.

EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? Read More Replies: @Logan A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. , @Joe Franklin


The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?
Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. , @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
jimmyriddle says: August 10, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT 200 Words "but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:

" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions."

https://diversitymemo.com/

The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM.

Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 8:25 am GMT

– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. Read More Agree: Dieter Kief Replies: @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:57 am GMT 200 Words "Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."

He said no such thing.

He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.

I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature.

That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded.

Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth.

IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." Quite right. ML got something resembling due process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Logan says: August 10, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT 300 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.

Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the space inside the box.

But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really aware a box exists. They envision a new box.

Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can expand on and implement it. Build the box.

Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types. But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.

Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing. Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.

I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left for being open to new ideas.

You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.

To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
animalogic says: August 10, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT 200 Words "and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.

"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".

"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
jim jones says: August 10, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT Credit to Vox Day:

http://imgur.com/a/BTwz3 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Greg Bacon says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT 300 Words This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Read More Agree: Seamus Padraig , anarchyst , Rurik Replies: @Fidelios Automata Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
The Alarmist says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT 100 Words

"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."

Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniil Adamov says: August 10, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT 100 Words The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article. Read More Replies: @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. , @englishmike

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)
That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here - which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT @Anonymous


– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.

– No, we don't. You're fired.

That's a fairly eloquent argument right off the bat. I agree. (Button out of work) Read More Replies: @Anonymous This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Dieter Kief says: August 10, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT 200 Words Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.

(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 10, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. Read More Replies: @iffen It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. , @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? , @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. , @dfordoom


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Agreed. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT @Dieter Kief I agree. (Button out of work) This is why we need a * highher * power to put these "masters of the universe" in their place. Google is a utility and it should be treated as such. End of story. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Zogby says: August 10, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT 200 Words This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority – is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself to fit in American society. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 10, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT 400 Words Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.

The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.

Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this.

Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.

Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question, you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you would have to get rid of human nature.

This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career.

I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".

However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.

So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
bliss_porsena says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT Don't do any more translation. Leave the original in Russian where it belongs, and summarise. Parse the nuggets of gold into bullet points. Two or three should do it. Read More Disagree: Seamus Padraig Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymouse says: August 10, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT God help the Russians if this pedestrian essay was written by their best man. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Joe Franklin says: August 10, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT 200 Words @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why?

Leftist set the ideological tone because entitled-by-law diversity people (aka leftist) are a organized super-majority of the voting populace in the US and Israel:

Feminist are federally entitled because of Male oppression
Jewish are federally entitled because of Gentile oppression
Queers are federally entitled because of Straight oppression
Muslims are federally entitled because of Christian oppression
Disabled are federally entitled because of Healthy oppression
Afro-blacks are federally entitled because of White oppression
Latinos are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Hispanics are federally entitled because of Gringo oppression
Military Veterans are federally entitled because of Militia oppression
Native Americans are federally entitled because of Paleface oppression
Asians are federally entitled because of Occidental oppression
International Socialist are federally entitled because of anti-Totalitarian oppression
Crony Capitalist are federally entitled because of Honest Businessmen oppression
Zionist are federally entitled because of Anti-Neocon oppression

Diversity people are over 95% of the US voting population and are 100% of the Israeli population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Carlo says: August 10, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT 100 Words "Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT 100 Words Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion.

We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.

We know a lot about Martin Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT @anonymous


conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
EXACTLY. The innovation and productivity of a company are disproportionately due to the conservatives who work there, yet perversely the less productive liberals set the ideological tone. Why? As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. Read More Replies: @iffen As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Joe Hide says: August 10, 2017 at 1:52 pm GMT Anatoly,
Good read. Good examples to support an emotionally spirited article. Keep writing. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT 100 Words

Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.

That could be read as just the usual conservative "antiracism". Now admittedly there certainly should be moral and ethical limits regarding those issues, one should take care not to end up at the same conclusions and deeds as the Nazis but still, in the present intellectual climate of the West bashing "Conservative naturalism" would be very misguided imo. All this talk of Burkean conservatism, tradition, religion etc. will be totally ineffectual against the progressive juggernaut.
As for that Google memo is that really important? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently.

Perfect overlap then. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
FD says: August 10, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? Read More Replies: @Fluctuarius The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.

Great! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT @Daniel Chieh As Logan noted, its not entirely true. Conservatives do indeed tend to rank lower to openness and some other useful traits. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal. As in most things, a balance is probably ideal.

Moderation in all things, save moderation. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic

That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. Read More Replies: @Anon That's not saying very much. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Ivan K. says: August 10, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT 200 Words Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Read More Replies: @iffen Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Michael Kenny says: August 10, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT 100 Words What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. Read More Disagree: JL Replies: @Anon


He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.
Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. , @Daniel Chieh This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT @Anon


this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic
That applied to Martin Luther as well. He was quite mild compared to rebels like Calvin. That's not saying very much. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 10, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT @Ivan K. Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. "

I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.

Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster "

Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs. Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.

Good point.

In that they ended up in a war of annihilation, could we say that each was served by their respective prejudices? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
WorkingClass says: August 10, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT 100 Words The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig


Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting.

He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans.

Fellow Europeans? They are not his fellow Europeans.
He is not an European and modern Europe is increasingly an extension of America, and not something independent. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT @Diversity Heretic Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult to convey in English.

I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James Damore got from Google.

"Here I stand. I can do no other." The Worms "Hier stehe ich" ("Here I stand") comment may have been a convenient shorthand for a much more long-winded speech, so Luther may not have actually uttered those words. Nevertheless, point taken. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Daniel Chieh says: August 10, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT 100 Words @Michael Kenny What strikes me is how "unrussian", and for that reason, uneuropean, Mr Kholmogorov's arguments sound. He's just repeating the arguments and the jargon of the US alt-right. For example, he unquestioningly accepts the US idea that there is something called "the West", which consists of the US and the whole of Europe except Russia, where everything is the exactly like in the US. He really needs to devote more time to getting to know his fellow Europeans. We are not very different from Russians but are very different indeed from Americans. As for Fluctuarius Argenteus, the only reason why anyone needs to conceal their real identity is that if we, the readers, knew who he really was, it would diminish, if not destroy, the credibility of the article he is presenting. This is not without historical precedent.

The notion of the Russian soul has always existed as a contrast to the rest of Europe, and to be fair, most of Europe is assimilated heavily to what their idea of America is. I know of quite a few Russians who would be annoyed if you called them "fellow Europeans." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
nickels says: August 10, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Cagey Beast says: Website August 10, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT 200 Words Seeing Orthodoxy and Martin Luther mentioned in the same place reminded me of the amusing history of early Lutheran contacts with the eastern Church:

Most Christians are not aware that in the latter part of the 16th century, early Lutheran Reformers – close colleagues and followers of Martin Luther – set in motion an eight year contact and correspondence with the (then) Ecumenical Patriarch, Jeremias II of Constantinople. The outcome might have changed the course of Christian history. Kevin Allen speaks with scholar Dr Paraskeve (Eve) Tibbs about this fascinating and largely unknown chapter in post-Reformation history.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

From Wittenberg to Antioch
September 16, 2007 Length: 32:12

A fascinating interview with Fr. Gregory Hogg, an Antiochian priest in Western Michigan. Fr. Gregory was a Missouri Synod Lutheran pastor and professor for 22 years before coming to Orthodoxy.
[...]

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/early_lutheran_orthodox_dialog_after_the_reformation

Long story short, the western reformers were too argumentative and lawyerly for the Patriarch of Constantinople to take. He essentially said "please stop writing to me". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Wally says: August 10, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT Basically the Left is in denial of science DNA. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently

So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT 100 Words Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace -- Art Read More Replies: @utu STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ , @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art STEVE BANNON WANTS FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE REGULATED LIKE UTILITIES

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/27/steve-bannon-wants-facebook-and-google-regulated-like-utilities/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
22pp22 says: August 10, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jaakko Raipala says: August 10, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT 300 Words @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard. Read More Agree: Anatoly Karlin , Johann Ricke Replies: @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fluctuarius says: August 10, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT @FD Why did you omit the original title, "Triumph of the Gender Sharikovs"? The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in a footnote. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
englishmike says: August 10, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT 200 Words @Daniil Adamov The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.

The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his - honestly somewhat surprising - current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.

(Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going to get)

That's a fair comment, and I imagine that most people commenting here would be aware of Damore's limitations as a thinker. But what he wrote, and the context in which he published it, has attracted that "surprising notoriety": he appears to have sparked different kinds of reaction in different kinds of people and inspired levels of debate beyond the limitations of his thought.

Maybe the Unz Review should consider offering him a platform from which to write a follow-up by inviting him to submit a blog, or at least to contribute as a commenter on a thread such as this one. It would enable him to take his arguments further and also to submit them to the critical responses of the commenters here – which would be more respectful and less trivial than the ones he has encountered in the Google "community".

It might also attract people to the Unz Review who have not yet benefited from the "interesting, important and controversial" perspectives available here. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT 100 Words @5371 He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly, not part of a practical movement or party.

ineffectual intellectual

What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.) base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities" field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 10, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political crisis? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Darin says: August 10, 2017 at 9:30 pm GMT @Art Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility – like the Ma Bell telephone system was regulated in the 1950's.

Google is too powerful – it should not have the cultural monopoly power it has over our society.

"The people" and their mass interests are preeminent in the hierarchy things. Like it or not – Google is a product of our culture – therefor our culture has a valid claim on its actions.

It comes down too private ownership vs. public interest. As a pure libertarian I do not like it – but as a realist, the mass interests of the people counts.

The "golden mean" must win out. A compromise must be reached.

Google's actions must be regulated.

Peace --- Art

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership? Read More Replies: @Art


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace --- Art Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art says: August 10, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT 100 Words @Darin


Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility
Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Clearly Google should acquire the status of a public utility

Why you think United States Googlemaster General would be more friendly to free speech than current Google leadership?

Darin,

The exstreams of Google Today and United States Googlemaster General will not work for us – there can be something in between. A golden mean can be reached.

The best situation would be for Googles users, to each set the policy for themselves.

This is doable. They get to choose the what algorithms they want and the viewing policy they want.

Googlemaster General must see that ALL information is collected and made available to users.

Peace -- Art Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 10, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT "Polity" should be "policy". "Diving" should be "dividing".

I stopped noticing after that.

Give the new Russian translator a break. Read his copy before posting it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Macumazahn says: August 11, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Miro23 says: August 11, 2017 at 2:43 am GMT 400 Words @Jaakko Raipala This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this.

Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.

They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter to them - they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources for their agenda.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.

This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power – some of them acting idealistically – some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2. Read More Replies: @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Jivilov says: August 11, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Seamus Padraig I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
melanf says: August 11, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT 100 Words @Miro23


Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
This did come out of the 19th Century with awful factory conditions, decadent upper classes (pre WWI) and their unexpected collapse along with the whole Belle Époque in WW1.

There was plenty of fuel for socialism with 1) a fashionable new intellectual left 2) political fluidity 3) politically bankrupt Ancien Regimes.

In my opinion fashionable radical vanguards saw the possibility of harnessing these forces to take power - some of them acting idealistically - some not. The key point was that Ancien Regimes were weakened by WW1, with a good example being Russia with its military failures and its decadent and ineffectual Czarist government.

In these unusual circumstances, the self appointed Bolshevik Radical Vanguard could exploit the disaffection of Russian soldiers in Petrograd and Lenin could unilaterally issued General Order Nº1 as the self appointed head of the Council of Soldiers and Workingmen's Deputies (ignoring the Provisional Government) with all military units ordered to remove their existing officers and elect new ones. This was coupled with promises to stop the war and give all peasant soldiers their own private farms, which predictably went down very well and wrecked army discipline.

Source: "Russia from the American Embassy" by David Rowland Francis, U.S. ambassador to Russia for 5 years from March 1916 to March 1921. https://www.amazon.com/Russia-American-Embassy-April-1916-November/dp/B00B6ZE8NI/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

Francis also went on to say, "The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90% of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."

The Bolsheviks of course used the arms against the Provisional Government, and when the elections to the Constituent Assembly eventually came at the end of November 1917, they filled the assembly hall with soldiers and rejected the result of the vote (Social Revolutionaries 20,893,743, Bolsheviks 9,023,963 out of 36,257,960 votes cast). The Bolsheviks declared that Constitutional Democrats were to be arrested and Lenin established his dictatorship.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.

The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2″) is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/

" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom... Isn,' t it obvious by now? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
dfordoom says: Website August 11, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT @Sergey Krieger So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.

Agreed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JackOH says: August 11, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT 100 Words Anatoly, thanks for introducing some Russian writers. My experience of reading outsiders who write about America is that they sometimes offer startling viewpoints that are helpful to those of us "in-country" who are too close to the subject matter.

BTW- RT used to have, or maybe still has, an American-born presenter-opinionizer, a guy from Cleveland, Ohio. I think he's an ex-pat in Russia now, and he used to offer folksy, sharply worded critiques of life in the States. I couldn't find his name, but he might be worth looking up to see if he wants to contribute. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 am GMT 100 Words @AP


So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country? You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly. Read More Replies: @Seamus Padraig

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. , @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT 100 Words @melanf


The Bolsheviks didn't spare the proletariat. All dissent was crushed and whole social "classes" were transported and mass murdered on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2.
The Bolsheviks disgusting, but this statement ("on a scale far exceeding anything the Germans did in WW2") is an obvious lie

http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
" In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment – 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below – 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion – 765 180 people". Exactly. I am tired of all this BS. We lived free lives and I have never seen armed milicioner / police officer outside of movies. Be the state clearly cared about majority that is until the top got all rotten. I'm hoping, right to vote is not sign of freedom Isn,' t it obvious by now? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT 100 Words @WorkingClass The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies. Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.

Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.

Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't conservatism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT @Wally Basically the Left is in denial of science ... DNA. Yes, it's funny, isn't it. Liberals loudly proclaim their allegiance to evolution, but only to attack Christianity. But as soon as the concept of evolution upsets their non-scientific theories of 'gender fluidity' and 'racial equality', they close their eyes, cover their ears, and stomp their little feet. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @22pp22 I've abandoned Google and gone over to Duckduckgo. They seem just as good. Yes, I've been using DuckDuckGo.com for over four years now, and no regrets. No filter bubbles either! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT @Jivilov Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. I agree. The term 'gender' is for Latin nouns, not living beings. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Seamus Padraig says: August 11, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Read More Replies: @AP Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT 100 Words "He is a realist on Soviet achievements, crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks"

Dammit. I miss the "confiscate and divide" stuff.

How are the NatBolos doing these days? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are the one that lives in echo chamber. Bolsheviks looted the country. It is the dumbest comment I have ever heard. You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country . Bolsheviks actually saved and built the country and current regime has been living from what was built by Commies ever since. I just pointed that so called left is not left. But you asked for this. You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.

Bolsheviks looted the country.

I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .

You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.

So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia

"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Read More Agree: Mr. Hack Replies: @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? , @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this... , @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. , @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig


You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia by current elites which reveals who you are amptly.
In case you haven't 'met' him already, AP is a Maidan-apologist from Western Ukraine. He apparently has no problem with the oligarchs in Kiev who are currently looting his country, and never tires of giving us all glowing reports of the fabulous economic growth that is now occurring there (at least according to Ukrstat).

So you can take his commentary on Russia with a grain of salt. Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis? Read More Replies: @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT 200 Words @AP

Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this Read More Replies: @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." , @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Igor says: August 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT Google wants to be
Ein Land
Ein Volk
Ein Führer Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT @Mr. Hack Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Read More Replies: @Mr. Hack Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.
http://tmora.org/ Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT 400 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?

I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference – unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure – in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.

There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina

Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters – Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system – were "real Communists." Read More Agree: Mr. Hack , utu Replies: @Sergey Krieger 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Read More Replies: @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. , @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. , @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. Read More Replies: @Darin East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989" numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT 200 Words @Sergey Krieger Even if it was true, having industry to build 100000 + tanks and other weapons was far more important considering what happened. Did you get receipts for those pieces of art? Might have been looted by whites. Also, you cannot build the country by just selling some art. You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right? Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay. You forget about peace of mind that came with all above mentioned. You know, good sleep without chemistry and all. There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina.anyway, not a pop from you about this...

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. Read More Replies: @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." , @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? , @AP

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. , @Andrei Martyanov

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. , @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Mr. Hack says: August 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Just curious, what museum in the US did you visit that included lots of Russian classic art? Was it perhaps 'the Museum of Russian Art' in Minneapolis?
https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection Looks interesting. The one in Minneapolis is a 3 floor renovated church devoted to Russian art. Lots of Soviet Realism on display and occasional films too. They even had an exhibition of Aleksander Bulavitsky's art on display a couple of years ago, a local Ukrainian emigre that I've mentioned to you before (his work can be seen in Kyiv too). Several years back they had an impressive collection of religious art including icons and frescoes from as far back as the 14th century, many pieces from the northeast part of Russia. A philalately exhibit of Russian stamps that I once saw there was quite impressive too. If you're in the area, I recommend that you give it a visit. A nice gift shop too.

http://tmora.org/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Fidelios Automata says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Greg Bacon This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.

It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.

It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most of the music business, letting artists--mostly rap--sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.

After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change, but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty. Agreed. Here's a place where the original author was wrong. The class struggle isn't over. Income inequality is bigger than it's ever been. Identity politics are a misdirection used by elites like Hitlery to divide us so we don't realize who the _real_ enemy is. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment." Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."
True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me–last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be? Read More Replies: @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:18 pm GMT 100 Words @iffen unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The white working class in the US did not become incompetent and un-conscientious in one generation. Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

Employment at less than a living wage is not "employment."

True, this "living wage" issue has become now America's chronic illness. Once one begins to look at the real estate dynamics, even for a good earners living in such places as Seattle, Portland (not to speak of L.A. or SF) becomes simply not affordable, forget buying anything decent. Hell, many rents are higher than actual mortgages, however insane they already are. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Looting one's own country's cultural treasures to finance a violent overthrow. Sounds familiar. I suspect that if some of these Commie apologists had been born as Sunni Arabs rather than Russians, they would be defending ISIS. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AP says: August 11, 2017 at 8:54 pm GMT 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov


The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.
Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves". If my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me--last time I checked Hermitage can give Louvre (not to speak of Prado and other lesser galleries and museums) a run for its money. How could this be?

Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".

Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise –

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. , @Darin This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930's certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin


Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations.

Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.

Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin We've been through this . :)


The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.
Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT 200 Words @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery.

Yes, they did not run out

But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it–you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s–I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"–most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"–not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning–nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev–a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this–by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. Read More Replies: @iffen what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.) , @Anonymous So how much of a hold did Jews have over the Soviet Union? There's a lot of propaganda on the Net pushing the story that they were running the show entirely. Where should I look to find the truth? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT 300 Words @Anatoly Karlin This doesn't sound right to me.

Unfortunately Angus Maddison doesn't have data for the separate Germanys, but East Germany was at less than 40% of West Germany around 1990 according to the Federal Interior Ministry.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120331_EUC844.png

Also as you yourself point out East Germany would have been more impacted by reparations to the USSR. Anatoly,

The "55-57% of west german GDP/capita by 1989″ numbers I'm using (which are the also the ones used by the Wikipedia on the GDR) come from the former East German statistician Gerhard Heske in a 2009 study. The actual study is in German so I can't read it (maybe German Reader might be interested), but his numbers have been cited by a bunch of other papers I found which were quite critical of the GDR but didn't really take issue with his numbers. The reason people disagree about the size of the GDR economy in 1989 is, I think, because they weren't a market economy and so there was no way of assigning market values to the products they produced, other than by making 'quality adjustments' which are going to somewhat of a judgment call. Heske claims his methodology uses quality adjustments that are fairly standard, though.

Your series also starts in 1991 rather than 1989. It's worth pointing out that this fairly balanced treatment of German reunification by a Polish author both cites Heske's numbers for the 1989 GDP and also claims that in 1990 the East German economy was hit by severe recession as a result of excessively fast free market reforms and collapse of the central planning mechanism, and that GDP shrank "by at least 20% compared to the previous year." Of course an assessment of the East German economy in 1991 will look worse than it did in 1989, so that accounts for part though not all of the discrepancy.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/prace_35_en_0.pdf Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 11, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT That being said, "(slightly) faster GDP growth rate than West Germany" isn't as impressive as it sounds since they were starting from a much lower base: an economy 40% as rich per capita as West Germany, with an industrial base and educated/skilled workforce, *should* be growing much faster, not slightly faster. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 11, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov


Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better.
Want to try some Kholmogorov's Math And The Beginning Of Analysis for the 10th Grade? Here is the 9th Grade Algebra (Geometry does the same but in purely geometric framework) with basic trigonometric identities, as an example. Do you need me to present to you any US math textbook for 9th grade?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yIpW5BAQdSg/V7-AEA1H8HI/AAAAAAAAAiE/djQ8BHM4Zss5P7vm81DeWZFjy6b7UENwACLcB/s1600/9th%2BGrade.jpg


The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.
Yep, neither Korolyov, nor others were awarded Nobel Prize (of course, Krush is to blame) bit when one looks at an actual fundamental and applied science Soviet contribution, one has to really start thinking. Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards. We've been through this .

The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)

It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Read More Replies: @inertial Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.) Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


So you are a socialist at heart?
No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically--it could be called as "socialist". Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin

Did you get receipts for those pieces of art?
The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it's understandable in the context of a civil war, and basically irrelevant set against their other crimes, but it happened.


Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Free education throughout school is standard in the West (and university too outside the Anglosphere). It wasn't worse than in the West, at least in the non-ideological technical subjects, but you'd have a hard case to make in arguing it was significantly better. The shares of Nobel, Fields, etc. winners paint a different story.

Soviet healthcare was okay for basics, but extremely bad for any complicated ailment (if you did not belong to the Soviet elites).

In practice, unemployment is not an issue for any minimally competent and conscientious worker in countries with reasonable labor regulations. The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Read More Replies: @German_reader There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial). , @Darin Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting , @Anatoly Karlin Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT @iffen what is most inspiring

So you are a socialist at heart?

(Not in the bad commie sense.)

So you are a socialist at heart?

No, I am economic realist, which is more mixed economy vector but for Russia specifically–it could be called as "socialist". Read More Agree: Sergey Krieger Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:04 pm GMT 100 Words

Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

LOL, sure–when Taiwan or Belgium will have a viable space programs (the list of cutting edge technologies which goes into this is colossal, not to mention educational and design schools) or will be able to produce something remotely comparable to MS-21 or SU-57, then we may talk. FYI, I work in aerospace industry so, let's put it this way–I never heard superlatives about Belgian or Taiwanese Aerospace . The "other" one? A lot. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT 100 Words @Hector_St_Clare East Germany was certainly not 'dragged down to Soviet level'. It had a higher GDP/capita growth rate than the Federal Republic every decade between 1950 and 1989, was always much richer than the soviet union and by 1989 was the 19th highest HDI country in the world. They advanced from 40% of West Germany GDP in 1950 to 55-57% of West German GDP in 1989.

That said, yes the Soviets did massively strip the country of assets between 1945-1950, and that probably did set it back for the entire course of its existence as a state, so its correct to say they dragged it down somewhat. The way you present the situation is exaggerated and misleading however. Central planning actually worked reasonably well in East Germany although probably not as well as a mixed planning/market economy would have worked. Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970′s. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Read More Replies: @Hector_St_Clare Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT 100 Words @AP


Last time I was in Sate Hermitage (among other places) I didn't notice any signs of Bolsheviks "running out" of Tsarist "cultural (art) reserves".
Yes, they did not run out. But the looting was massive, even within the Hermitage.

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

The Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings in 1930 and 1931 resulted in the departure of some of the most valuable paintings from the collection of the State Hermitage Museum in Leningrad to Western museums. Several of the paintings had been in the Hermitage Collection since its creation by Empress Catherine the Great. About 250 paintings were sold, including masterpieces by Jan van Eyck, Titian, Rembrandt, Rubens, Raphael, and other important artists. Andrew Mellon donated the twenty-one paintings he purchased from the Hermitage to the United States government in 1937, which became the nucleus of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Otherwise -

Apparently Russian treasures could be bought in American department stores in the 1930s:

https://www.hillwoodmuseum.org/russian-collection

From the 1920s, the Soviet Union had been selling off many of the art treasures it had confiscated from the church, the imperial family, and the aristocracy in an effort to fund the new government's industrialization plan. American businessman Armand Hammer and his brother Victor acquired enormous numbers of these Russian treasures and, in the early 1930s, began to sell them in American department stores and later in their New York gallery. This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930′s certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? Read More Replies: @DNC A country should be able to manufacture trains and tractors without the need to finance them through sales of priceless works of art. Only a completely bankrupt ideology would consider peddling Rembrandt for tractor parts as "reasonable and praiseworthy" Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 11, 2017 at 11:16 pm GMT @AP


Bolsheviks looted the country.
I was recently at a beautiful museum in the USA full of classic Russian art that was looted by Bolsheviks and sold for cheap to foreigners.

You cannot have what Soviet people used to have in looted country .
You had a country of mostly Europeans, poorer than all of the non-commie European ones. You did however manage to sink some places upon whom you imposed your system, such as Czechia or eastern Germany, down closer to your level. Good job.

I just pointed that so called left is not left.
So called left is not left, as 21st century is not early 20th.

You do not even mention great theft and looting of Russia
"And in America they persecute blacks." You are too predictable.

Russia was looted in the 1990s by...the flower of Soviet society, the Soviet elite and their children. "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans
You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! ;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:26 pm GMT @utu "And in America they persecute blacks."

LOL, I vaguely remember this as an old joke. But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans and nostalgists here at unz.com sometimes resembles this joke.

But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans

You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! Read More Replies: @iffen I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT 100 Words @German_reader Living standards in East Germany in the 1980s were really pretty meh compared to the west though. Most private households didn't even own a telephone, and you had to wait years to get one of those crappy Trabant cars. Housing also wasn't great from what I've heard. And that's just the material conditions, the political repression and the socially corrosive effects of the state maintaining a vast network of informers obviously weren't conducive to general wellbeing either.
It's true that quite a few East Germans later became somewhat nostalgic for the GDR era, given how badly handled the transition was and the mass unemployment of the 1990s which blighted the lives of millions of East Germans (somewhat similar in some ways to events in Russia, though obviously the situation there was much worse and more traumatic). But one shouldn't have too rosy a view of the GDR or other Eastern bloc states because of the manifest defects of today's West. East German Stasi spying on 1/3 of population was German efficiency run amok, objectively useless waste or resources. It made no difference at all for the survival of the regime.
In Czechoslovakia, next door country with comparable size population, the secret police watched about 60,000 people (i.e. VIP's and active dissidents), and it lasted about week longer than DDR. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 11, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. There's a book by McMeekin about this subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

(no idea how good it is, haven't read it myself, and McMeekin seems to be somewhat controversial). Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 11, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Sean McMeekin: History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks

https://academic.oup.com/ahr/article/116/1/246/43921/Sean-McMeekin-History-s-Greatest-Heist-The-Looting Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 11, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


But it's true the rhetoric of some USSR orphans
You have no idea what meetings in support of Angela Davis were, LOL! ;-) I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.
What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law--this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 11, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT 200 Words @iffen I don't get your point.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.

What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law–this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) Read More Replies: @iffen ? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


She, and others were American commies that were used by the Soviets. Whether they were okay with this or ignorant of it is a factual matter than lends itself to investigation.
What's not to get here? It was a joke, apart from being a commie, she was also a black activist and by the end of 1970s very many Soviets had some good info about specifically American blacks. By early to mid-1980s it was a common knowledge that blacks in US were creating problems. What is not understood here is the fact that USSR itself was becoming at that time a society which valued law--this is, of course, a separate topic, but Russian attitudes towards blacks in general is very complex, especially when one considers the fact of Russian cultural icon, Pushkin, being essentially black. So, let's not read in my post more than is in it. I just wondered if Angela Davis support meetings could have been like that:

https://youtu.be/Lrle0x_DHBM

That would have been, quoting Mike Meyers, a Communist Party;-) ? Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it Website August 12, 2017 at 12:45 am GMT 200 Words @iffen ?

?

OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore–anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it–I underscore it again, they all knew it–among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"–it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement–a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony–being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Read More LOL: Sergey Krieger Replies: @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.) , @Sergey Krieger Irony definition is very subtle. My heard hurts. I would definitely prefer to have some sense of humor to reading the said definitions. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
inertial says: August 12, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin We've been through this . :)


The more – indeed, only – relevant question: What percentage of schoolchildren could do the problems in it? (relative to counterparts in the West)
It's not like there aren't any programs for especially gifted US schoolchildren.

Somehow Russians produce a lot of state of the art technology without getting all those awards.
Not that much, and their share is declining: https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2016/country/all

Wedged between Taiwan and Belgium. Pretty sad.

Russia is legitimately strong in a few specific spheres like nuclear power and military technology. In many other spheres (e.g. pretty much the entirety of biotech) it is a minnow. Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard. Read More Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


They are not that hard.
In Soviet NON-elite schools trigonometric identities were solved very often for fun and on speed among students. However, today's (and yesterday's) entrance exams problems in Math or Physics for such institutions like MGTU, MGU or MAI, among many others, may put some MIT undergraduate students in stupor. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.) Read More Replies: @German_reader


She was a big deal.
Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her...apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. , @Anon

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

Google her name

Google
You too belong in the Goolag. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 12, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT 100 Words @inertial Skanavi was used in elite math schools but those problems are far from Skanavi. These are precisely the kind of problems we were doing in my non-elite prole school. I remember them.

What percentage of schoolchildren could solve problems like that? Great majority, after some training. They are not that hard.

They are not that hard.

In Soviet NON-elite schools trigonometric identities were solved very often for fun and on speed among students. However, today's (and yesterday's) entrance exams problems in Math or Physics for such institutions like MGTU, MGU or MAI, among many others, may put some MIT undergraduate students in stupor. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 1:15 am GMT 100 Words @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.)

She was a big deal.

Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. Read More Replies: @iffen I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60's? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 1:23 am GMT @German_reader


She was a big deal.
Also in East Germany, they made a big deal of American racism and campaigned for Davis' freedom (kind of funny for a state that just shot citizens attempting to leave). I just googled her...apparently she's still spewing her poison among German lefties and campaigning for the rights of "refugees".
The West was too soft and liberal during the Cold war, much harsher measures should have been taken against subversives. I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60′s? Read More Replies: @German_reader I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT 100 Words @iffen I have assumed that you are (were) West German. How could you know what was a big deal in E. Germany in the 60's? I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Read More Replies: @Darin Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Hector_St_Clare says: August 12, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT 100 Words @utu Life in DDR in 1970s and 1980s was pretty decent. Perhaps the highest standard of living in the Soviet Block. If people did not know that the West exist and that you can get still more goodies there they would be very happy to be like East Germany.

The planned economy worked there pretty good. It took Germans to show it. They had problems with energy supplies when USSR reduced export to Germany and had to start to use very inefficient and very polluting brown coal.

Probably Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the next in terms of socialist economy success in 1970's. Poland was always very uneven and unequal country where plan economy did not work and where private sector still existed with lots of corruption and criminal shenanigans that let some people got rich also in the state apparatus. Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Read More Replies: @utu Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Darin says: August 12, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT @German_reader I wasn't referring to personal experience (which in this case I'm much too young for anyway); but it's well-known that the East Germans in the early 1970s had a really huge solidarity campaign for Angela Davis. She visited there several times in the 1970s and 1980s, being greeted by mass rallies. Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. Read More Replies: @German_reader That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause...which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 2:23 am GMT 100 Words @Darin Of course you know that people on mass rallies were there cheering because they were brought there and told to cheer, without knowing and caring what are they cheering for. Angela Davis might fall for the charade, but you sure know better. That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. Read More Replies: @iffen But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion.

There was "authentic enthusiasm" for Davis and others like her in the US and the elite fear was authentic. She failed to bring her first love, communism, to the US, but seems happy enough toiling for the elite now. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 2:41 am GMT 200 Words @Hector_St_Clare Czechoslovakia is interesting: both halves made the transition to modern capitalism without all that much increase in inequality. Czechoslovakia was the second least economically unequal country in the world before 1989 (the GDR was lowest) and the Czech Republic is second or third least unequal country today.

Hungary was doing pretty well from 1968-1989 based on the economic growth data I've been able to find (although less well than their great years from roughly 2000-2007 or so). The graph I found barely showed any inflection around 1989 at all. Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. Read More Replies: @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
7.62mm says: August 12, 2017 at 2:49 am GMT A Goggle search of "No Such Agency" used to direct its first hit to: https://www.nsa.gov/

Your mileage may vary. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Anonymous Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 6:06 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


Yes, they did not run out
But wasn't it the point? Listen, I get it--you have some accounts to settle with Soviet Union, hey fine with me, but please do not try to convince me about all ills and good which USSR was in 1960s through 1980s--I lived there and I experienced a lot of it on very many levels. Including some about which I am still reluctant to talk much about. I do not treat seriously most of Russian "nationalist" so called "thinkers"--most of them still don't understand why people such as Prosvirnin or said Kholmogorov have very bleak political prospects in Russia. The reason being for them not knowing or realistically experiencing the Soviet period. Said Kholmogorov, despite being born in 1975, missed, as an adult, realities of Soviet period. Russia was, is and will remain this very "left"--not in LGBTQXYZ "western" meaning--nation and there are reasons for that, which are beyond the grasp of people who do not understand nor can feel continuity (preemstvennost') of the Russian history.Alexandr Zinovyev--a real thinker of the scale which dwarfs any Kholmogorovs or Solzhentsyns correctly assessed inevitable, both external and internal, Sovietization of Russia, on a completely new foundation. In fact, it is happening as I type this--by 2017 by different data from 70 to 75% of Russia's strategic industries were returned under the control of Russian State. Overwhelming majority of Russian people, including, what is most inspiring, many youngsters are loving it. Just one example. So how much of a hold did Jews have over the Soviet Union? There's a lot of propaganda on the Net pushing the story that they were running the show entirely. Where should I look to find the truth? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT @iffen Well, let's hope you get a good editor.

I know that there are a lot of Russkies here, so maybe one of them got the joke.

I was here in the US, not the USSR.

She was a big deal.

Terrorism was a small deal, in fact and actuality, but gigantic in propaganda value.

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

She makes big bucks for speaking today. (More than you or me.)

Google her name, ten or twenty hits for speaker.

Google her name

Google

You too belong in the Goolag. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
DNC says: August 12, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT @Darin This (selling of art) is no crime at all, but reasonable and praiseworthy business decision. USSR in the 1930's certainly needed tractors, locomotives, machine tools and industrial equipment more than Rembrandts. If the Tsars sold the art and jewels and invested into industrialization of the country, there would be no need for revolution.

If you want to talk about "heritage", you might have point about icons, but what makes Rembrandt and Titian "Russian heritage"? If works of art belong to country where they were created, then all Rembrandts of the world shall be returned to Netherlands. If works of art belong to all mankind, what difference it makes whether Rembrandt painting is in museum in Petersburg or Washington? A country should be able to manufacture trains and tractors without the need to finance them through sales of priceless works of art. Only a completely bankrupt ideology would consider peddling Rembrandt for tractor parts as "reasonable and praiseworthy" Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 8:33 am GMT @utu The Bolsheviks financed a huge part of their war efforts off the proceeds of Tsarist gold and cultural (art) reserves until they ran out around 1922.

Could you recommend a reading material on the subject? Thanks. Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Read More Replies: @utu Thanks. I will look it up.

Is this Игорь Бунич. Золото партии by Bunich any good? Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
JL says: August 12, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT @utu Hungary was doing well under Kadar's goulash communism. And Czechs always were doing well. They had the best industrial base, a leftover of Austro-Hungarian empire. Better than Austria. Before WWII standards of living in Bohemia and Moravia part were one of the highest in Europe.

During communism they had one of the highest rates of summer homes (dacha- often just a shack) in Europe. They have and always had the lowest religiosity in Europe.

They clearly have pretty smart and well connected to centers of power in the West political elites. They were the only country in Europe that not only avoided fighting against Hitler but also for Hitler unlike Hungary. The occupation by Germany there was the mildest because there was zero resistance. They seem to be one of the most pragmatic nations. They unlike Poles can't be manipulated by invocation of honor and other imponderabilia. They will not resits but then they may take awful revenge for the indignity they suffered by not resisting. So watch your back when they regain power as Germans have found out in 1945.

After 1989 they did not fall for neoliberalism scam that lead to deindustrialization which happened to Poland and Hungary. Hungary managed to snap out of it under Orban or at least is trying. This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Read More Replies: @Anon Novels are not history, certainly not military farces regarding the history of industrialization. , @utu Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5vHIKSlAk Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT 200 Words Leaving aside the fact that I am apparently too dense to get AM's Angela Davis joke, I want to tell my own.

In the 60's the ruling elite feared Russia, communism, socialism and black rebellion and most of all they feared that Russia would catch the wave of those movements for a long and successful ride. Angela Davis was viewed as a mortal threat by the elite because of her ideology and politics and its promotion. Governor Ronald Reagan tried to get her fired from her academic position in California. During this time she scrapped along on fellowships, internships and academic positions secured for her by fellow travelers, not to mention contributions of leftist organizations partially or wholly funded by Russia. The ruling elite made sure that everyone, and I mean everyone, knew that Angela Davis was a real threat.

Today, like an aging rock star, she scrapes along on speaker fees.

Okay, now the punch line.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah. The ruling elite no longer fears socialism. They no longer fear black rebellion, in fact, that have co-opted black rebellion and manipulate it for their own benefit and purposes.

Yet, they are still deathly afraid of Russia. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin


She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah.
https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/896235475853357060 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
iffen says: August 12, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT 100 Words @German_reader That's a good point, though I suppose at least a few of the people at the rallies did buy the official propaganda (there was a non-trivial number of true believers in the GDR).
But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause...which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion. But Angela Davis apparently believes even today that it was all entirely due to authentic enthusiasm for her cause which must be a sign of pretty stunning stupidity/delusion.

There was "authentic enthusiasm" for Davis and others like her in the US and the elite fear was authentic. She failed to bring her first love, communism, to the US, but seems happy enough toiling for the elite now. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT @iffen Leaving aside the fact that I am apparently too dense to get AM's Angela Davis joke, I want to tell my own.

In the 60's the ruling elite feared Russia, communism, socialism and black rebellion and most of all they feared that Russia would catch the wave of those movements for a long and successful ride. Angela Davis was viewed as a mortal threat by the elite because of her ideology and politics and its promotion. Governor Ronald Reagan tried to get her fired from her academic position in California. During this time she scrapped along on fellowships, internships and academic positions secured for her by fellow travelers, not to mention contributions of leftist organizations partially or wholly funded by Russia. The ruling elite made sure that everyone, and I mean everyone, knew that Angela Davis was a real threat.

Today, like an aging rock star, she scrapes along on speaker fees.

Okay, now the punch line.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah. The ruling elite no longer fears socialism. They no longer fear black rebellion, in fact, that have co-opted black rebellion and manipulate it for their own benefit and purposes.

Yet, they are still deathly afraid of Russia.

She promotes the ruling elite ideology of SJW themes like intersectionality, etc., etc., blah, blah.

hey FASCISTS

Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon Disclaimer says: August 12, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Novels are not history, certainly not military farces regarding the history of industrialization. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sowhat says: August 12, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT 100 Words @Alden Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.

If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center, close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive and legislative branches.

Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.

I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.

I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or so by native born American White men.

Guilty as charged As many immature, uneducated Whites in the sixties, I too was played like a fiddle. If I only knew then what I know now Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT 100 Words @nickels This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
There is little point arguing from a 'common sense' stance against the leftists.
This is war, not an argument.

Liberalism must be destroyed.

This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.

I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre. Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Andrei Martyanov


I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.
Nor is he an "intellectual"--ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that--ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it--it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. , @ussr andy

He even denies the concept of race.
last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin Yes, I was going to mention Sean McMeekin as well.

Apart from the book which two people here have already referenced, he recently published a history of the Russian revolution which incorporates his research on the art looting. Thanks. I will look it up.

Is this Игорь Бунич. Золото партии by Bunich any good? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Andrei Martyanov says: Website August 12, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin


This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre.

I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.

Nor is he an "intellectual"–ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that–ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it–it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. Read More Replies: @Sergey Krieger But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT 200 Words @AP


You say USSR was poorer than other European states. Do you really have a clue how much it costs in the West to pay for everything Soviet people were having as a right?
I'd been in western Europe and visited the USSR in 1990. USSR was much poorer than any western European country, the USA or Canada. It wasn't a third world country, but that's a very low bar.

Free education all level and better than in the west, kindergartens $1500 per month here, free medicine and damn good at that, free accommodation, annual month paid vacation, guaranteed job and retirement pay.
Materially speaking Soviet middle class lived liked poor Americans on medicaid, with free public housing, free need-based tuition, etc. One difference - unlike residents of American housing projects, Soviets could afford free vacations to sub-Western resorts, I'll give you that. But then middle class Soviets drove worse (or no) cars, and had worse TVs and radios then even poor Americans. There were some Soviet families even living in communal apartments.

Obviously culturally it was a different story from poor Americans. But your argument is with respect to material conditions. By that measure - in the end, performance of the USSR was pathetic for a high IQ country of white people.


There is always bad people and unfortunately their time came. However, they were as much real Communists as I am ballerina
Yeltsin who presided over the looting spree of the 1990s was elected as a full member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in March 1981. As for the looters - Berezovsky was head of a department in the Institute of Control Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Khodorkovsky was deputy head of Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) at his university, the D. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia. Gaidar was from a Soviet elite family and in the 1980s an editor of the CPSU ideological journal Communist. Potanin, another one from an elite commie family, attended the faculty of the International economic relations at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), which groomed students for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Upon graduating MGIMO in 1983, he followed in his father's footsteps and went to work for the FTO "Soyuzpromexport" with the Ministry of Foreign trade of the Soviet Union. Etc. Etc.

Sure, none of these members of the Soviet elite, the top human products of the Soviet system - were "real Communists." 1990 not the best time frankly. How is western middle class is doing now? Again, you ignored my points and continued pressing own agenda. Soviet people basically were free, provided with all things necessary for fullfilling, happy and protected life which cost them nothing, while western middle class producing outword looks of prosperity was actually I'll iving life of stress, uncertainty and unhappiness. Hence, how is western middle class doing now? Up to nostrils in debt to mantain illusion of prosperity with no room for mistake. Many are no longer middle class. 50 million in USA alone on food help. Drud and various psycho meds in use to just get sort of temporary relief. What price one would put on having what we had? I would say it is priceless. After 1985 fifth column took control of CPSU central commity and top media. What was after 1986 hardly can be called Soviet Union , same as providing lines in stores in 1991 is not representation of what we really had before government Gorbachov and his inner cycle destabilized and destroyed my country. Without Gorbachov there would be no Yeltsin who was nothing but opportunist of the worst kind. To be fair comparison should be made for Brezhnev period which was the most prosperous time Russia ever seen and things were going in right direction before unworthy people without abilities and merit took over the power. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 12, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT @JL This comment looks like it was written by someone who hasn't read The Good Soldier Svejk. Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?

Read More Replies: @German_reader Interesting...I have a negative opinion of the BBC on the whole, but sometimes they produce surprisingly frank documentaries about WW2 issues. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
German_reader says: August 12, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT @utu Actually, I read The Good Soldier Svejk several times. But what exactly in my comment does not jive with the image of Czechs you got from Svejk? How much more you now about Czechs beyond Svejk?

Is this very Svejkian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn5vHIKSlAk Interesting I have a negative opinion of the BBC on the whole, but sometimes they produce surprisingly frank documentaries about WW2 issues. Read More Agree: Dan Hayes Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 12, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT @Andrei Martyanov


I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist.
Nor is he an "intellectual"--ability to use many big words, and "knowing" Heidegger, in demagoguery is not a sign of anything other than of being extremely full of sh.t. Which is precisely the case with Dugin. Having said all that--ANY discussion on Russia's history without profound knowledge of the warfare is a waste of time. Without it--it is already Gabriel Charmes' and Jeune Ecole all over again. Averchenko has a superb (I use it often) short story The Specialist In Military Affairs. Applies here across the board (with some minor exceptions). Actually, Edik Limonov has a superb expose on Dugin. But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Read More Agree: Andrei Martyanov Replies: @Anatoly Karlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPlpRMg8TY Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 12, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT @Sergey Krieger But he got the beard! The beard you see. Just like Solzhenicin. It looks like every hack thinks that adding beard increases one's credibility. Correlation is unmistakable . Read More Replies: @Serge Krieger https://youtu.be/D1r3MDIhon8 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 12, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT @Anatoly Karlin

This guy is ok, but I still prefer the 'obscurantism' of Dugin.
I'll reveal a terrible secret to you: Dugin is not actually a nationalist. He is the Russian equivalent of a Western multiculturalist.

He even denies the concept of race.

The Alt Right's infatuation with him is utterly bizarre.

He even denies the concept of race.

last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. Read More Agree: utu Replies: @Anatoly Karlin If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Sergey Krieger says: August 13, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT @Andrei Martyanov


?
OK, let's try from the other direction. From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of irony: a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Now, anyone, I underscore--anyone who lived in the Soviet Union in 1960s and 1970s knew it--I underscore it again, they all knew it--among shortest anecdotes one of the most popular was "Communism"--it was about incongruity. Angela Davis was and is, including by association with Black Panthers movement--a black terrorist. She was NOT what she was portrayed she was in USSR. And as in this anecdote "Communism", she became a definition of irony--being a result of complete incongruity between what was expected (anticipated) to be and what she really was. In effect, USSR was supporting a terrorist, while later everyone learned that she was a terrorist. Listen, if my manuscript gets accepted for publication (there is some publisher who is "fascinated" by it, by Tuesday I hope to know ) I elaborate there on this issue. The reason you cannot understand me is precisely a complete ignorance in US on the Soviet realities of 1970s and 198os. Irony definition is very subtle. My heard hurts. I would definitely prefer to have some sense of humor to reading the said definitions. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Serge Krieger says: August 13, 2017 at 1:20 am GMT @Anatoly Karlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPlpRMg8TY Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 13, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT @ussr andy


He even denies the concept of race.
last thing Russia needs is a cold race war (not to be confused with cold war race, lol), like in America. IMO. If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. Read More Replies: @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.

I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin If you wish to worship an anti-scientific multikulti promoting nutcase who has successfully marketed himself to the dimmer Western radicals (nobody in Russia itself cares about Dugin), then be my guest, but I'm more interested in facts and reality. um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.

I'm more interested in facts and reality.

ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. Read More Replies: @ussr andy


American hang-ups
I don't know why Dugin even went there. That'd be like an American taking a stand on Russo-Chukchi internal relations.

What about Russia needs the concept of race with all the attendant baggage, rather than, say, ethnicity? , @utu I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
ussr andy says: August 13, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.


I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

American hang-ups

I don't know why Dugin even went there. That'd be like an American taking a stand on Russo-Chukchi internal relations.

What about Russia needs the concept of race with all the attendant baggage, rather than, say, ethnicity? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 14, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT 500 Words @ussr andy um I don't worship Dugin, if only for the reason I don't know much about him (he was on Red Ice and Alex Jones once, that's all I remember) and yeah, he's a bit of a self-promoter and an obscurantist.


I'm more interested in facts and reality.
ditto, but I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony. I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Read More Replies: @Anatoly Karlin Drivel. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anatoly Karlin says: Website August 14, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT @utu I think everything over and above the narrow population-genetic definition of race are American hang-ups due to America's history as a bi-racial slave-holding settler colony.

Absolutely. This is Anglo-American construct. Being white it was something Southerners talked about. This construct was foreign to normal Europeans who were not slave drivers. 19 century European immigrants to America did not have racial identity. Most of Europeans still do not have racial identity. But this will change with the influx of immigrants if the influx continues. Just as it changed for Irish, Italian and Polish ethnic neighborhoods in Northern cities when they became forcefully integrated and Blacks started moving because of various government housing programs. See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing."

Unfortunately Karlin got infected with this toxic heresy of race. Are we suppose to be learning from the slave drivers? We in cultures and countries who never practiced it? No, we do not need their racial identity constructs. The emphasis should be on the traditional ethnic and national culture and the fact some groups are not assimilable because of their incompatible cultures. Your culture is your true and the only identity. You are who you are because of your culture and not because of your race. Race does not make you into anything.

Most importantly Blacks can't assimilate not because of what is under their skin or in their head (like low IQ) but because of their skin color. Yes, it is simple like that. To assimilate you must start practicing mimicry. Mimicry is the most critical part of assimilation. That's why Jews were successful in assimilating into Western societies and cultures. They were like other, like majority or at least pretended to be and others could be fooled by it. Blacks cannot do it. Blacks can never forget they are black. And you can't forget they are black. Thus the mimicry is impossible. So there will always be otherness and separateness. Yes, it is skin deep but it is enough. And with otherness and separateness a harmonious society is not possible. The reason that Blacks are a problem in America is because they are black and not because they have low IQ. There is equally large if not larger white sub-population in the US with as low IQ like Blacks. You could call them Wiggers. But this sub-population is integrated. And Blacks cannot integrate because their skin color is black which forces them to have separate identity and sub-culture. Karlin and his mentors in Ulster Institute and Pioneer Fund can shove their IQ bs up theirs. This is not about racial IQ. It is about skin color. The bottom line is to stop letting people who are different then you into your country. America is too far gone. The birth defect of slavery won't be erased. Russia also pays or will pay for its imperial appetites when it swallowed too many other peoples. Actually she already paid for swallowing Poland in 18 century with its poison pill, the Jews that gave her the hecatomb of Bolshevik revolution from which she has never recovered. Drivel. Read More Replies: @utu Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
utu says: August 15, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin Drivel. Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Read More Replies: @sinotibetan Interesting comments. I agree with your observation. Even though it is possible that the mean IQs of different ethnic groups may indeed be different, it is the external phenotype that is one of the main determinants of "ethnic identity". Then followed by 'cultural traits' like language, customs etc. A blond Pole who learns to speak impeccable 'Queen's English' , changes his name to sound 'English' may assimilate so well that his foreign origin would probably never be suspected but for a Chinese like me, my "East Asian phenotype" gives away my foreign origin. On the other hand, if I learn Japanese ways to perfection, I might fool native Japanese I am one of them, but never can the Polish man do that.
I think the problem with many native "Western" Europeans(or rather their ruling and political elites) is that they are beholden (or perhaps envious of?) to the success of the USA as the lone superpower and its economic and technological might. More so with native 'Western' Europeans than Asians or Africans(although every nation cannot escape the ubiquitous American influence) because in their mind it was mostly 'white Americans' , kinsmen of their forefathers , who 'made' America as it is now. I think ideas like the European Union ('United States of Europe') and multiculturalism and the demonization of nationalism in Europe by the ruling elites may partially be explained by their desire to usurp American hegemony(by emulating the USA). Perhaps they actually believe losing their native identities and becoming multiethnic ( eg being 'European' regardless of ethnic origin or country of origin, European nations being reduced politically to like states within the USA) will make them rulers of a new superpower.
There is no exceptionalism for any nation...including the USA. It is a young nation in the process of (multiple) ethnogeneses, so happened it became the lone superpower and most influential nation. In the process is perhaps the ethnogenesis of a new ethnic group called 'Americans'(the melting pot/assimilation of 'whites'/ Hispanics/blacks/'Asians' in varying proportions) ...or will there be civil wars and internal strife within this group and other 'non-assimilated 'groups in future or breaking up into multiple 'nations' after internal strife..who knows?
I think the ruling elites and literati who associate American success with multiethnic society and blurring of traditional concepts of ethnic identity are making mistaken associations. The success of America is not because it is multiethnic or plural. Perhaps the reasons for America's success can be a topic of discussion - if Anatoly is keen on writing on the subject.
I think the multiculturalism and immigration of different ethnic groups into America is a recipe for ultimate internal strife and civilizational collapse in that nation as it has been throughout human history. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
treefroggy says: August 23, 2017 at 1:31 am GMT Is the fox supposed to represent to alternative browser Firefox ? If so , Firefox is just as sickeningly PC as Google , just far less competent . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
sinotibetan says: August 29, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT 500 Words @utu Drivel?

The IQ-ists like yourself underestimate the fact that separate identity formation and the persistence of this identity is not caused by IQ but by the external phenotype like a skin color. The separate racial identity groups will not dissolve into one even if there are no IQ differences between them. This is all about the external phenotype. We all heard since kindergarten that down below the skin we are all the same. The IQ-ists say it is no so, the IQ's are different but they agree with the kindergarten teacher that the skin color does not matter. But I say it does not matter whether we are the same or not under the skin. What really matters is what is on the surface not what is under the surface. What is on the surface is responsible for the separate identity creation, separate group and sub-culture creation and their persistence which leads to polarization resulting in reduced social harmony. In another words lots of problems that you do not need and that would never appeared in the society with a uniform external phenotype. Interesting comments. I agree with your observation. Even though it is possible that the mean IQs of different ethnic groups may indeed be different, it is the external phenotype that is one of the main determinants of "ethnic identity". Then followed by 'cultural traits' like language, customs etc. A blond Pole who learns to speak impeccable 'Queen's English' , changes his name to sound 'English' may assimilate so well that his foreign origin would probably never be suspected but for a Chinese like me, my "East Asian phenotype" gives away my foreign origin. On the other hand, if I learn Japanese ways to perfection, I might fool native Japanese I am one of them, but never can the Polish man do that.
I think the problem with many native "Western" Europeans(or rather their ruling and political elites) is that they are beholden (or perhaps envious of?) to the success of the USA as the lone superpower and its economic and technological might. More so with native 'Western' Europeans than Asians or Africans(although every nation cannot escape the ubiquitous American influence) because in their mind it was mostly 'white Americans' , kinsmen of their forefathers , who 'made' America as it is now. I think ideas like the European Union ('United States of Europe') and multiculturalism and the demonization of nationalism in Europe by the ruling elites may partially be explained by their desire to usurp American hegemony(by emulating the USA). Perhaps they actually believe losing their native identities and becoming multiethnic ( eg being 'European' regardless of ethnic origin or country of origin, European nations being reduced politically to like states within the USA) will make them rulers of a new superpower.
There is no exceptionalism for any nation including the USA. It is a young nation in the process of (multiple) ethnogeneses, so happened it became the lone superpower and most influential nation. In the process is perhaps the ethnogenesis of a new ethnic group called 'Americans'(the melting pot/assimilation of 'whites'/ Hispanics/blacks/'Asians' in varying proportions) or will there be civil wars and internal strife within this group and other 'non-assimilated 'groups in future or breaking up into multiple 'nations' after internal strife..who knows?
I think the ruling elites and literati who associate American success with multiethnic society and blurring of traditional concepts of ethnic identity are making mistaken associations. The success of America is not because it is multiethnic or plural. Perhaps the reasons for America's success can be a topic of discussion – if Anatoly is keen on writing on the subject.
I think the multiculturalism and immigration of different ethnic groups into America is a recipe for ultimate internal strife and civilizational collapse in that nation as it has been throughout human history.

[Sep 18, 2018] The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights. Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more under the established international rules

Sep 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kiza , Sep 17, 2018 8:33:14 AM | link

A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global hyperpower.

Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age. So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.

During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."

The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights. Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst "fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.

donkeytale , Sep 17, 2018 9:21:31 AM | link

Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.

What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when McEnroe/Connors did.

Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in America so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not American exeptionalism.

Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Americans, but by American training of the best players regardless of their origination

[Sep 18, 2018] Liberals love to lampoon the Prophet Muhammad, but hands off Serena Williams by Robert Bridge

Notable quotes:
"... "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] ..."
"... "I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too,' ..."
"... "Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?" ..."
"... "we cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court." ..."
"... "visual imperialism," ..."
"... "a black grotesque seeming natural." ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | www.rt.com

After being penalized for calling chair umpire Carlos Ramos a "thief," Williams summoned up the evil spirits of political correctness to plead her case. She was heard telling officials that many male tennis players have done "much worse" without any sort of retribution. In other words, Ramos was a cave-dwelling "sexist" put on earth to thwart the progress of womanhood.

During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] .

There were faint echoes of Oprah Winfrey's famous speech at the Golden Globes in that it was the right message delivered at exactly the wrong time and place.

Read more Steph Curry says Serena Williams showed 'grace & class' in US Open final, internet raises eyebrows

So now, America's dethroned tennis queen, playing the gender card game instead of tennis, is acting spokesperson for downtrodden women everywhere. Yet certainly Williams has heard of John McEnroe, the former American tennis star whose on-court temper tantrums are now legendary. In 1990, for example, this loudmouthed male was tossed out of the Australian Open – not just penalized – for verbally abusing the chair umpire, much like Williams did.

Since it may come off as chauvinistic for me – a burly male – to criticize Serena, perhaps it would be more appropriate to quote Martina Navratilova, 61, one of the greatest female tennis players of all time.

"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too,' Navratilova wrote in a New York Times op-ed regarding Williams' epic meltdown. "Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?"

The Czech-born American went on to comment that "we cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court."

Eureka! Navratilova – who hails from a bygone era when the vision of political correctness, 'virtue signaling' and 'social justice warriors' was just a flash in the pan – nailed it. Instead of looking to some external other to explain our life circumstances – like losing a tennis match, for example, or a presidential election (wink, wink) – people should look to themselves as the agents for proactive and positive change. Such a message, however, would quickly sink the Liberal ship, which is predicated upon the idea that the world is forever divided between oppressor and oppressed. What the Liberals fail to appreciate, however, is that they are becoming the real oppressors as they continue to sideline anybody who does not think and act exactly as they do.

Following Serena's epic meltdown, the Melbourne-based Herald Sun published a cartoon by Mark Knight that shows the American tennis star as she proceeds to stomp on her racket, mouth open and hair going straight up. It was not a flattering or subtle drawing, but given the circumstances, that should probably come as no surprise.

2015: 12 Charlie Hebdo illustrators shot dead for depiction of prophet Muhammad - thousands line streets demonstrating for freedom of sattire & humour

2018: Mark Knight draws caricature of Serena Williams - thousands shout racist & demand his removal from Twiter and the media pic.twitter.com/NDpFrbigca

-- Danny Armstrong (@DannyWArmstrong) September 12, 2018

The Liberal outrage came fast and heavy as critics slammed the caricature as racist and offensive. It would take hundreds of pages to recite them all, but as one example, CNN columnist Rebecca Wanzo labeled the cartoon as an example of – wait for it – "visual imperialism," which is manifest by "a black grotesque seeming natural."

Never mind that the behavior of Serena Williams was "grotesque," which is what inspired Knight's unflattering drawing of her in the first place. That is what is meant by a 'caricature', where the artist attempts to convey the essence of an event through imagery. Yes, sometimes brutal imagery.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013.

[Sep 17, 2018] The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights. Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more under the established international rules

Sep 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kiza , Sep 17, 2018 8:33:14 AM | link

A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global hyperpower.

Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age. So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.

During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."

The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights. Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst "fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.

donkeytale , Sep 17, 2018 9:21:31 AM | link

Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.

What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when McEnroe/Connors did.

Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in Amerikkka so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not Amerikkkan exeptionalism.

Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Amerikkkans but by Amerikkkan training of the best players regardless of their origination

[Sep 15, 2018] Another issue is that Williams deliberately puts on a tantrum and then claims the tantrum is normal emotional behaviour. On top of that, she tries to pass off this spoilt-brat outburst as characteristic of how strong, feminist women behave

Female sociopaths are very skillful in playing identity politics.
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

James lake September 10, 2018 at 10:12 pm

I agree with Martina Navratilova on Serena Williams conduct

" Navratilova went so far as to write an editorial for the New York Times in which she claimed that, in complaining post-match that Ramos would not have reacted the same way to an argumentative male player, Williams was "missing the point" and would have been better served conducting herself with "respect for the sport we love so dearly."

"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too,' " Navratilova said of Williams in her editorial. "Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?"

Serena Williams behaviour ruined the experience of victory for Naomi Osaka, if you get a chance to see film of the whole debacle with the booing crowd! She looked like the most miserable winner in ever.

Jen September 11, 2018 at 3:58 am
Another issue is that Williams deliberately puts on a tantrum and then claims the tantrum is normal emotional behaviour. On top of that, she tries to pass off this spoilt-brat outburst as characteristic of how strong, feminist women behave. All done as much to deny Osaka the joy of winning her first major championship as to attack the umpire.

And people who should know better swallow Williams' idiocy hook, line and sinker.

[Sep 15, 2018] Serena Williams Serves Tantrum, Scores for Identity Politics by David Masciotra

Very apt: "So we excuse the rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people"
I suspect nationalism or ethnocentrism were also factors, not only identity politics. Selena has ungly history of tantrum thouth and that might point to poriblems with performance enhancing drags (she did have a unexplained meltdown in Wimbledon 2014)
Notable quotes:
"... Drama and literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their application." ..."
Sep 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Serena Williams Serves Tantrum, Scores for Identity Politics So we excuse the rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people

Drama and literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their application."

Indifference to behavioral regulations and standards of practice had become common to the point of banality, Ward argued, subjecting anyone who attempted to enforce the rules to vilification.

For those who do not closely follow professional tennis, here's a review of the controversy. Serena Williams, undoubtedly one of the greatest players in the history of the game, was facing a rising superstar from Japan, Naomi Osaka. Williams is only one grand slam championship away from tying the all-time record, but has recently struggled to triumph over her younger opponents (most tennis players retire in their early to mid-thirties; Williams is 37). Osaka had already defeated Williams with ease at the Miami Open in March.

It appeared that the U.S. Open was headed for a repeat early in the match, with Osaka asserting swift dominance. Early in the first set, however, the linesman, Carlos Ramos, called a court violation on Williams' coach because he was signaling her -- an illegal activity in the sport of tennis. Rather than accept the warning, Williams unleashed a reality TV-style tirade on Ramos, excoriating him for "misreading" her coach's hand gestures and making bizarre reference to her daughter: "I never cheat I have a daughter, and I stand for what is right for her."

(Immediately following the match, in a rare and refreshing moment of honesty, Williams' coach admitted that he was signaling her the entire time, making Williams look both deceitful and foolish. Most post-match commentary has conveniently omitted the coach's confession from the record.)

After Williams lost the opening set's fifth game, she slammed her racket into the ground, causing its frame to bend. Intentional damage to a racquet is a code violation, and Ramos penalized her a point, the standard punishment for a second offense. Osaka quickly won the next game, making her the winner of the first set with a lopsided score of 6-2.

Williams then began screaming at Ramos, telling him that he was wrong to penalize her and protesting that the warning she received should not count as a violation because she was not cheating. Ramos sat silently as Williams ridiculed his performance as linesman and demanded that he apologize.

The second set advanced quickly with Osaka continuing to make fast work of Williams. During every break in play, Williams continued to badger Ramos, indicating that she would not stop until he announced over his microphone that he was sorry for what he did to her. He ignored her expressions of anger.

What Ever Happened to the Rule of Law? The Darker Implications of Trump's Vulgarity

After Osaka pulled ahead 4-3, Williams again berated Ramos for his monstrous failures as a human being. Bringing her rant to a climax, she called him a "liar" and a "thief."

To impugn the character of a linesman violates the code of conduct governing play in professional tennis. Ramos flagged her for the third time, issuing the penalty of a forfeited game, making the set score 5-3. Williams pleaded with supervising officials of the tournament -- one man, one woman -- to overturn Ramos' calls, and they refused. She then made the contemptible claim that excited countless social media users and political commentators around the country: "I've seen men get away with his all the time. Just because I'm a woman, you are going to take this away from me."

Osaka won the second set, 6-4, and in doing so, became the first Japanese champion of the U.S. Open. The audience loudly booed and jeered throughout the awards ceremony, and the commissioner of the U.S. Open disgraced herself by saying, on air and in front of the rightful champion, "This isn't the end we were looking for." Williams made an attempt to recover some dignity by instructing her vulgar fans to stop heckling, but the entire event had already transformed into an ugly American extravaganza. Most infuriating was that Osaka looked dejected, unable to enjoy her first grand slam victory.

The next day, USA Today ran an opinion piece with the headline "Sexism Cost Serena Williams Tennis Title." Many other writers and TV analysts, none of whom seemed to know anything about tennis rules or history, began reciting from the same fatuous and phony script. A few have even tried to racialize the story, though given that Osaka's father is Haitian, that narrative has failed to gain traction.

Acting as though Ramos were self-evidently a misogynist, most media mouthpieces ignored that throughout the U.S. Open, male players have been called for 86 violations and women only 22. Nine of the 10 largest fines in tennis history for on-court violations have gone to men. Ramos himself has earned the wrath of men's champions Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer for making calls they felt were too rigid and punitive.

The mob has also compared Williams' tantrum with the boorish imbecility of 1980s tennis stars John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. While it's true that both players often acted with disrespect more reminiscent of barroom drunks than professional athletes, they also benefitted from terribly lenient regulations of professional tennis. The ATP did not standardize the rules or crack down on outlandish player conduct until the late 1980s. Not coincidentally, McEnroe was ejected from the 1990 Australian Open after his fourth violation in a single match.

And yet arguing about the rules and pointing to the score of the match -- it is almost certain that Osaka would have won regardless -- feels oddly archaic. Many of Williams' desperate defenders are acting in emotional accordance with some strange, eschatological commitment to identity politics, and no amount of factual information will dissuade them. Another term my friend was fond of using was "biased apperception." The critics who call Ramos sexist without giving him the opportunity to defend himself have adopted a position and are working backwards to validate it. To pull this off, they have no choice but to excuse the rules and condemn their application. There is no debate that Williams broke three different rules, yet the lineman is sexist because he chose to apply them.

Rebecca Traister, a leading feminist writer for New York , begins her boring and predictable interpretation of the events with the following admission (which negates all the subsequent sentences in her essay):

I don't care much about the rules of tennis that Serena Williams was accused of violating at Saturday night's U.S. Open final. Those rules were written for a game and for players who were not supposed to look or express themselves or play the game as beautifully and passionately as either Serena Williams or the young woman who eventually beat her, 20-year-old Naomi Osaka, do.

Overlooking Traister's weird disparagement of every women's champion who proceeded Williams and Osaka as ugly and impassive, and her incoherent grammar (how is a game supposed to "express themselves"?), it is revealing that she prefaces her entire argument by saying that rules do not matter if the right people did not author them. The crime is not the transgression, but the enforcement.

The "excuse the rules, condemn the application" mentality is a societal sickness responsible for much that troubles our body politic.

To begin with an example that will interest those who practice identity politics, President Donald Trump has thrived on condemning those who enforce the rules. Though he regularly demonstrates a daunting pattern of dishonesty, is an unnamed co-conspirator in a criminal indictment, has seen several of his associates indicted or convicted of crimes, and continually makes a mockery of decorum and etiquette, whenever he is caught in an act of wrongdoing, his immediate response is to spit a venomous stream of clichés: "fake news," "deep state," "witch hunt."

Another example is the bailout of the big banks that followed the 2008 financial crisis. Few disagreed that the world's major financial institutions violated the rules, but the idea of accountability was suddenly radical and unthinkable.

If a connection between corporate malfeasance, presidential malpractice, and a tennis champion's childish outburst seems tenuous, consider that in all three cases the get-out-of-jail-free card is an appeal to ideology. Rules, we are asked to believe, are irrelevant, and even themselves infringements on belief systems like populism and feminism that are regarded as more important.

The self-involvement and extreme subjectivity necessary for such a destructive belief permeates into non-ideological aspects of culture. Grade inflation in higher education, as any instructor can attest, exists largely because students cannot fathom suffering consequences for lazy or mediocre work. The issuance of assignments and exams is fine, but to actually grade them according to an objective standard is evil.

America needs a serious dose of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. One should act only in such a way that one would approve of everyone else acting in a given situation.

Writing for The New York Times , retired tennis champion Martina Navratilova wisely states, "We cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with. In fact, this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court. There have been many times when I was playing that I wanted to break my racket into a thousand pieces. Then I thought about the kids watching. And I grudgingly held on to that racket."

Obvious to anyone but the willfully ignorant, this is a far better formula for a healthy society than "I don't care about the rules."

David Masciotra is the author of four books, including Mellencamp: American Troubadour (University Press of Kentucky) and Barack Obama: Invisible Man (Eyewear Publishing).

Kurt Gayle September 13, 2018 at 11:26 pm

The International Tennis Federation (ITF) released the following statement relating to umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women's final:

"Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos' decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open's decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences. It is understandable that this high profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity."

"The Grand Slam Rule Book can be found here. Player on site offences including the point penalty schedule used in this instance can be found in Article III."

ARTICLE III: PLAYER ON-SITE OFFENCES -- pages 36-48

https://www.itftennis.com/media/277968/277968.pdf

Martin Gomez, September 14, 2018 at 10:22 pm

I follow tennis and am not a feminist. There were two things the ump should have done. First, everyone knows that all players in tennis are getting coached. If ump was going to call it, he should have warned both players and coaches before the match.

Second, when Serena was mouthing off during the changeover, he should have told her: "you've made your point, one more insult and you're going to get a penalty" and then, just ignore her. If she keeps it up then you dick her.

As for Serena, she is a brand. Which is why she blew up for being caught cheating. It was more important for her to defend her image than to win the match

Kalmia, September 15, 2018 at 9:17 am

Serena Williams is not unusual in being a world-class athlete/competitor who is also a very very bad loser. Her behavior wasn't that unusual and the punishment in the game was appropriate, it should have ended with that. In my view, it's the crowd and her supporters who are the real villains here for letting their bias towards her (and identity politics) warp their sense of justice and fairness. Poor Osaka deserved much better than the booing and rash of hot takes.

Jeeves, September 15, 2018 at 4:36 pm

Rat: Williams was livid because she was getting her tutu kicked all over the court. Desperate and depraved gamesmanship was all it was.

Although you'd never know it from the terrible reporting in this article, following the game-penalty imposed by Ramos, Osaka intentionally gave Serena the next game by missing returns of Serena's serve -- I suppose hoping to calm down the woman who was her tennis idol growing up. It didn't work, though, because Serena was unappeased–and outplayed. (To top it off, the stupid TV commentators wanted to give Serena kudos for her quieting of her booing fans at the awards presentation. No-class athlete, no-class fans.)

Sisera, September 15, 2018 at 10:16 pm

@WorkingClass

Agreed & isn't it funny how in the world of many centrist 'apologist' types, fighting back against identity politics, entitlement of elites, etc. is in and of itself identity politics?

I mean it's like the grade school insult of 'I know you are but what am I'….and many (albeit not this author) say it with all the smugness and gotchaness in the world.

They adhere to identity politics and have no self awareness and hence can't recognize it.

Ivo Olavo Castro da Silva, September 16, 2018 at 12:31 am

The fact that Serena's fans and the media supported her disgusting actions only confirm their total absence of any moral standard.

Tennis Fan, September 16, 2018 at 10:05 am

In response to "Rat says…Why did the judge decide that the final was the time to start applying an otherwise-ignored rule? Sure, it would have been preferable for her to keep her cool, but it's understandable why Williams was livid."

It may be that coaches get away with coaching quite often, however, IMHO the umpire happened to actually catch the coach right in the act of coaching (and if you see the video of the supposed incident, her coach, Patrick, actually gives two head-nods in that very brief moment and to me, the head-nods acknowledge that they made eye contact-my personal opinion only).

The umpire immediately decided to call it out... Who knows, maybe in that very moment, he felt it wasn't fair for her to be getting coaching, he actually caught the coaching, and his gut instinct was to make the call on it. I don't fault the umpire one bit. Had Serena accepted the call and moved on, the entire tide of the match may have taken a different turn.

[Sep 15, 2018] The PC drones are rather mentally deficient. They respond to trigger phrases and not to concepts or principles.

Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill September 10, 2018 at 6:48 pm

As commented elsewhere, all her screeching about double standards for women are utter BS. She broke the rules while playing against another woman and not a man. The men's tennis league is utterly irrelevant since she may as well have compared her league to men's football. She failed by the standards of her league and not those of another. It was clear that she was breaking the rules of her league and she was the one that escalated the conflict. It has nothing to do with women's rights.

The PC drones are rather mentally deficient. They respond to trigger phrases and not to concepts or principles.

Jen September 10, 2018 at 6:49 pm
Australian cartoonist Mark Knight is in trouble with J K Rowling and other self-styled guardians of who may portray Serena Williams in meltdown and who may not. The offending drawing below:

[Sep 03, 2018] How identity politics poison politivcal dioscourse and divide people by Tobias Langdon

Notable quotes:
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... "Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." ..."
"... "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times ..."
"... The Jerusalem Post ..."
Sep 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The poisoning of Britain's politics

Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."

"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the highest order." ( Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October 2007 ; emphasis added)

So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a gentile society.

Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the "identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and American , Australian , French and Swedish politics too).

By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.

[Sep 03, 2018] Fourth Wave Feminism-Why No One Escapes - The American Conservative

Sep 03, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Fourth Wave Feminism:Why No One Escapes Today's outsized Femocracy is more desperate and (self) destructive than it's successful progenitors. By JOANNA WILLIAMSSeptember 4, 2018

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2F0P3pVtbsZok.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df34dbc23bcfba9c%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff3524a91d3105f4%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Ffourth-wave-feminismwhy-no-one-escapes%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.32d6c6b4cb1ed84df04e7f9705a90c47.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Ffourth-wave-feminismwhy-no-one-escapes%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Fourth%20Wave%20Feminism%3AWhy%20No%20One%20Escapes%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1536040450394&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Ffourth-wave-feminismwhy-no-one-escapes%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/u/0/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Farticles%2Ffourth-wave-feminismwhy-no-one-escapes%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en.2FiduWTITgY.O%2Fam%3DwQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCN0S2wpLbyH4iIFnsuCaz0-HLlSKg%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1536040449768&_gfid=I0_1536040449768&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=42819678

Feminism, in its second wave, women's liberation movement guise, has passed its first half century. And what a success it has been! Betty Friedan's frustrated housewife, bored with plumping pillows and making peanut butter sandwiches, is now a rarity. We might still be waiting for the first female president, but women -- specifically feminists -- are now in positions of power across the whole of society.

Yet feminism shows no sign of taking early retirement and bowing out, job done. Instead, it continues to reinvent itself. #MeToo is the cause du jour of fourth-wave feminism but, disturbingly, it seems to be taking us further from liberation and pushing us towards an increasingly illiberal and authoritarian future. It's time to take stock.

Over the past five decades, women have taken public life by storm. When it comes to education, employment, and pay, women are not just doing better than ever before -- they are often doing better than men too. For over a quarter of a century, girls have outperformed boys at school. Over 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees are awarded to women. More women than men continue to graduate school and more doctorates are awarded to women. And their successes don't stop when they leave education behind. Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in the number of women in employment and many are taking managerial and professional positions. Women now comprise just over half of those employed in management, professional, and related occupations.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-29/html/container.html

Women aren't just working more, they are being paid more. Women today earn more in total than at any other point in time and they also earn more as a proportion of men's earnings. For younger women in particular, the gender pay gap is narrowing. Between 1980 and 2012, wages for men aged 25 to 34 fell 20 percent while over the same period women's pay rose by 13 percent. Some data sets now suggest that women in their twenties earn more than men the same age. Although high-profile equal pay campaigns appear to suggest otherwise, when we compare the pay of men and women employed in the same jobs and working for the same number of hours each week, the gender pay gap all but disappears. Four out of every 10 women are now either the sole or primary family earner -- a figure which has quadrupled since 1960.

But this is not just about the lives of women: it is feminism as an ideology that has been incredibly successful. For over four decades, feminist theory has shaped people's lives. Making sense of the world through the prism of gender and seeking to root out sexual inequality is now the driving force behind much that goes on in the public sphere.

Back in 1986, in one of the first examples of new legislation explicitly backed by feminists, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. This has had a profound impact upon all aspects of employment legislation. As a result, a layer of managers and administrators, sometimes referred to as "femocrats," are employed to oversee sexual equality and manage sexual harassment complaints in workplaces and schools.

Elsewhere, the influence of feminism can be seen in the expansion of existing laws. When Title IX of the Education Amendments was passed in 1972 it was designed to protect people from discrimination based on sex in education programs that received federal funding. It was a significant -- and reasonably straightforward -- piece of legislation introduced at a time when women were underrepresented in higher education. It first began to take on greater significance following a 1977 case led by the feminist lawyer and academic Catharine MacKinnon in which a federal court found that colleges could be liable under Title IX not just for acts of discrimination but also for not responding to allegations of sexual harassment.

Not surprisingly, definitions of sexual harassment began to expand in the late 1970s. In education, the term came to encompass a "hostile environment" in which women felt uncomfortable because of their sex. By this measure, sexual harassment can occur unintentionally and with no specific target. Furthermore, a hostile environment might be created by students themselves irrespective of the actions of an institution's staff. As a result, colleges became responsible for policing the sexual behavior of their students too.

Pressing forward under the Obama administration, sexual misconduct cases on campuses were tried under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. Within these extrajudicial tribunals, students -- most often young men -- could be found guilty of sexual assault or rape and expelled following unsubstantiated allegations and with little opportunity to defend themselves. Although current Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has revoked the Obama-era guidelines that instituted these kangaroo courts, many institutions under pressure to react have expanded their zero tolerance policies, often at the expense of basic due process and fairness.

In the 1970s, radical feminists opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it individualized and deradicalized feminism. "We will not be appeased," they asserted. "Our demands can only be met by a total transformation of society, which you cannot legislate, you cannot co-opt, you cannot control."

Yet today, a feminist outlook now shapes policy, practice, and law at all levels of the government, as feminists seek to transform society through the state rather than by opposing it. Most recently this has taken form in the demand for affirmative consent, or "yes means yes," to be the standard in rape cases. This places the onus on the accused to prove they had sought and obtained consent; in other words they must prove their innocence.

This is a radical shift, yet it is being enshrined in legislation with little discussion. California and New York have passed legislation requiring colleges to adopt an affirmative consent standard in their sexual assault policies. In 2016, the American Law Institute, influential with state legislators, debated introducing an affirmative consent standard into state laws. The proposal was ultimately rejected but the fact that it was even taken seriously shows feminism's growing legal influence.

History tells us that legislation driven by feminism can have unintended consequences. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton's massive $30 billion crime bill, aimed to put 100,000 police officers on the street and funded $9.7 billion for prisons. VAWA sought more prosecutions and harsher sentences for abuse in relationships. But a more intensive law enforcement focus on minority communities, coupled with mandatory arrests of both partners on the scene of a dispute, resulted in unanticipated blowback. Police were accused of over-criminalizing minority neighborhoods; critics said women were disinclined to call the police for fear of being arrested themselves. A 2007 Harvard study suggests that mandatory arrest laws may have actually increased intimate partner homicides and, separately, women of color have described violence at the hands of the arresting police officers.

Ultimately, the crime bill merely punished; it didn't help prevent domestic abuse against women.

♦♦♦

Although all women have in some way benefited from feminism's decades-long campaign against inequality, it is clear that some -- namely middle- and upper-class college graduates -- have been more advantaged than the rest. Feminists in the 1960s argued that all women had interests in common; they shared an experience of oppression. The same can hardly be said today. An elite group of women with professional careers and high salaries has little in common with women juggling two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Yet the feminist voices that are heard most loudly continue to be those of privileged women.

High-profile feminists like Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, sell books and make headlines for criticizing family-unfriendly employment practices and the gender pay gap. Good for them! But remember that these women have incomes and lifestyles that put them in a different league from the vast majority of women -- and men. They identify more closely with the tiny proportion of male CEOs than they do with women who have jobs rather than careers, who wear uniforms rather than dry-clean-only suits to work, who have no time to hit the gym before heading to the office. Their push for "lean-in" circles appeals more to young college grads than women struggling just to put food on the table. Their vociferous feminist call to arms falls flat in Middle America -- yet we are told they speak for all women.

In 2018, feminists do walk the corridors of power. But in order to maintain their position and moral high ground they must deny the very power they command. For this reason, feminism can never admit its successes -- to do so would require its adherents to ask whether their job is done. For professional feminists, women who have forged their careers in the femocracy, admitting this not only puts their livelihoods at risk, but poses an existential threat to their sense of self. As a result, the better women's lives become, the harder feminists must work to seek out new realms of disadvantage.

The need to sustain a narrative of oppression explains the continued popularity of the #MeToo phenomenon. In October 2017, The New York Times ran a story alleging that Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make and break careers, had committed a number of serious sexual offenses. (The allegations against Weinstein mounted and he is now being charged with sexual assault and rape.) Over the following weeks and months, accusations of sexual misconduct were leveled against a host of other men in the public eye.

Such serious accusations need to be dealt with in the courts and, if found guilty, the perpetrators punished accordingly. But rather than arrests, trials, and criminal proceedings, #MeToo has gathered pace through social media. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter on October 18 and asked women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to "write 'me too' as a reply to this tweet." Thousands of women came forward to call out their own abusers or simply to add their names to a growing list of victims. #MeToo took on a life of its own; it readily lent itself to an already-established fourth-wave feminist narrative that saw women as victims of male violence and sexual entitlement.

Women in the public eye are now routinely asked about their own experiences of sexual harassment. Some have publicly named and shamed men they accuse of sexual assault or, as with the case of comedian Aziz Ansari, what can perhaps best be described as "ungentlemanly conduct." Others are more vague and suggest they have experienced sexual harassment in more general terms. What no woman can do -- at least not without instigating a barrage of criticism -- is deny that sexual harassment is a major problem today.

The success of #MeToo is less about real justice than the common experience of suffering and validation. It is a perfect social media vehicle to drive the fourth-wave agenda into another generation. Hollywood stars and baristas may have little in common but all women can lay claim to having experienced male violence and sexual harassment -- or, failing that, potentially experiencing abuse at some indeterminate point in the future. Statistics on domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are used to shore up the narrative that women, as a class, suffer at the hands of men.

But scratch the surface and often these statistics are questionable. In recent years, at the hands of femocrats, definitions of violence and sexual harassment have been expanded. On campus, all kinds of behaviors, from touching through clothes to non-consensual sex, are grouped together to prove the existence of a rape culture. When sexual harassment is redefined as unwanted behavior it can encompass anything from winking, to whistling, to staring, to catcalling. There is little objectively wrong with the action -- it is simply the fact that it is unwanted that makes it abusive. Today, we are encouraged to see violence, especially violence against women and girls, everywhere: in words that wound, personified in a boorish president, in our economic and legal systems. This is violence as metaphor rather than violence as a physical blow. Yet it is a metaphor that serves a powerful purpose -- allowing all women to share in a common experience of victimhood, and, as such, justifying the continued need for elite feminism.

Problems with #MeToo are too rarely discussed. Violence and sexual assaults do occur, but these serious crimes are trivialized by being presented as on a continuum with the metaphorical abuse. The constant reiteration that women are victims and men are violent perpetrators does not, in itself, make it true. It pits men and women against each other and, in the process, infantilizes women and makes them fearful of the world. It also masks a far more positive story: rates of domestic violence have been falling. Between 1994 and 2011, the rates of serious intimate partner violence perpetrated against women -- defined as rape, sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault -- fell 72 percent.

The consequences of entrenching in law assumptions that women are destined to become victims of male violence and harassment are dangerously authoritarian. Feminists now look not to their own resources, or to their family and friends, but to the state to protect them. Black men in particular can find themselves disproportionately targeted by feminist-backed drives for legal retribution. A 2017 report from the National Registry of Exonerations suggests that black men serving time for sexual assault are three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than white defendants who have been convicted of the same crime.

In the meantime, demands for the punishment of bad behavior are inevitable. Male catcalling in the UK and France could soon be a criminal offense. While similar bans have been unsuccessful in the U.S., there are plenty of street harassment laws at the state level that feminists could co-opt if necessary. Additionally in England, there are proposals to criminalize "upskirting" or taking a photograph up a woman's skirt. Upskirting is a vile invasion of a person's privacy. However, the majority of instances are covered under existing indecency and voyeurism laws. The proposal, as with others, is a feminist signaling device: the message is, yet again, that the world is a hostile place for women and their only course of action is to seek redress from the state.

Meanwhile, working-class women are effectively exploited as a voiceless stage presence, brought on when convenient to shore up the authority of the professional feminist. On occasion this means the livelihoods of regular women are placed in jeopardy for the greater good of the collective. Earlier this year, a group of A-list Hollywood actresses petitioned against tipping waitresses in New York restaurants, arguing it was exploitive and encouraged sexual harassment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, servers shot back that they would like to continue receiving tips, thank you very much.

♦♦♦

Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and behavior for men and women. Campaigns around "rape culture" and #MeToo police women just as much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid's Tale author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and Mail essay in January entitled "Am I a Bad Feminist?"

"In times of extremes, extremists win," she wrote. "Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated."

The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.

Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today's #MeToo movement rehabilitates the argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need "safe spaces." Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women's disadvantage thus become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women -- and men -- such as working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are overlooked.

When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the women's liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women's liberation movement. Only now it's feminism from which women need liberating.

Joanna Williams is the author of Women vs. Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars .

[Aug 08, 2018] "The Utility of White-Bashing"

Aug 08, 2018 | www.theatlantic.com

[ The Atlantic ]. More on Sarah Jeong.

"The people I've heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile people who've proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed identity as being of recognizably European descent." • Also "Asian American professional," although when you think about it, "Asia American" is a pretty problematic ascribed identity.

[Aug 07, 2018] Identity politics is a part of the ruling neoliberal class ideology

The best-case scenario looking forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated. ..."
Aug 07, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The rich have use identity wedge as a powerful tool to suppress class straggle:


Carey , August 3, 2018 at 9:58 pm

Donald Trump and the American Left, by Rob Urie:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/03/donald-trump-and-the-american-left/

Some "light bulb" moments in this article, for me anyway

Carey , August 3, 2018 at 10:51 pm

I thought this part of Urie's piece was especially good:

Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling class ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they are factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.

Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.

Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.

JBird , August 4, 2018 at 12:35 am

Bourgeois left? Would it not be more accurate to say the bourgeois liberals? Although there is a continuum, not sharp lines.

Carey , August 4, 2018 at 12:41 am

Yes, bourgeois liberals would be more accurate, and that conflation really
annoys me. Good catch.

[Aug 05, 2018] How identity politics makes the Left lose its collective identity by Tomasz Pierscionek

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
Aug 05, 2018 | www.rt.com
The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender. Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle against those who profit from their brain and muscle.

Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism - has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.

Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.

At the time of writing there are apparently over 70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA . Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping " lesbians'.

The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's wealthiest individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling. For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in any socialist society.

Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the world are more divided by class than any other factor.

It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged white cisgender male billionaire George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.

There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept.

'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics.

The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it.

Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more

Soros & the £400k Question: What constitutes 'foreign interference' in democracy? UK Labour cruising towards split over Israel-Palestine

[Jul 31, 2018] Trump Has a Grand Strategy, He Wants to Do a 'Reverse Nixon' -- Partner Russia for an Alliance against China

Jul 31, 2018 | russia-insider.com

In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States' relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could just be an accident."

Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and resurgence of Russia necessitating a new global balance .

As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China, signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians), the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period." Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."

Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.

Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for 'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.

But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.

Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.

Now, this recapitulation is useful today, because Trump's moves so far are indicative of an agenda to revert to the Eisenhower era – containment of China by forging an alliance with Russia .

Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US. Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.

Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.

The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, " Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia." Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American cooperation.

On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to Russia -- China can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the global stage due to military power:

Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total, and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is clearheaded.

On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:

China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.

Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle. And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.


Source: Indian Punchline

[Jul 16, 2018] The Racial Realignment of American Politics by Patrick McDermott

He completely misses the role of nationalism is the opposition to neoliberalism.
Jul 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

The idea that demography is political destiny is not new. Peter Brimelow and Edwin Rubenstein warned of its dangers in the pages of National Review in the 1990s. Steve Sailer later argued that Republicans would fare better by targeting white voters. The problem with these observations was not their accuracy, but their audience. The GOP establishment and donor elites had little interest in such thinking until Donald Trump's breakthrough in 2016. But what happens when Trump leaves office? Will the GOP return to its old ways, as Trump's former chief of staff Reince Priebus has predicted ? The answer is almost certainly no. The reasons have little to do with the GOP elite, however, whose views have not substantially changed. They instead have everything to do with what is happening in the other party. As Brimelow and Rubenstein recently pointed out in VDARE (and as I did at American Renaissance ), while the nation is not expected to reach majority-minority status until 2045 , the Democratic Party is already approaching that historic milestone. The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible. The developments that are unfolding before our eyes are not a fluke, but the beginning of a new political realignment in the United States that is increasingly focused on race. The Emerging Majority-Minority Party While warnings of brewing demographic trouble were being ignored by the establishment right, they received a better reception on the left. In 2004, Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote a book called The Emerging Democratic Majority that triumphantly predicted that demographic change would soon produce a "new progressive era." The theory's predictive powers waxed and waned over the years, but after Trump's 2016 election Teixeira and another coauthor, Peter Leyden, insisted that Democrats would soon sweep away an increasingly irrelevant GOP and forcibly impose their will, much as had already happened in California. These arguments have a glaring weakness, however. They assumed that Democrats would continue to draw the same level of support from white voters. Instead, many have been fleeing to the GOP. Throughout the 20 th Century, Democrats had won the presidency only by winning or keeping it close among these voters. Barack Obama was the first to break this pattern, defeating John McCain in 2008 while losing the white vote by 12 percent . Four years later he beat Mitt Romney while losing it by 20 percent . Hillary Clinton lost the white vote in 2016 by a similar 20-point margin . This loss of white support, coupled with the continued demographic change of the country, has helped push the Democratic Party toward majority-minority status. Since 1992, the white share of the Democratic presidential vote has dropped an average of about one percent per year. At its current rate, it could tip to majority-minority status by 2020. It will occur no later than 2024. The political consequences of this shift are already apparent. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with the overwhelming backing of black voters. Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in 2016 with similar black and Latino support . This year's state elections have continued the trend, with minority candidates winning Democratic gubernatorial nominations in Georgia , Texas , New Mexico , and Maryland , with another likely win in Arizona later this year. This sudden surge in minority candidates is not an indicator of increased open mindedness, but of demographic change. While the national Democratic Party is only just approaching majority-minority status, in much of the nation it is already there.

Nonwhite Polarization

While the demographic trend of the Democratic Party seems clear enough – as does its leftward drift and increased embrace of minority candidates – it is still possible to argue that the nation's politics will not divide along racial lines. The most obvious alternative is that both parties will compete for minority votes and both will experience demographic change in an increasingly multiracial nation. Could this happen? Black voters seem least likely to change. They already routinely provide Democrats with 90 percent of their votes. They are the backbone of the party, with a former president, nearly 50 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and numerous mayors in major American cities among their ranks. Given the Democratic Party's steadfast commitment to black issues such as affirmative action and Black Lives Matter, few are likely to be won over by the occasional attempts at Republican outreach . Latinos also typically support Democrats in presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin, but they have been a more serious target for Republicans, including President George W. Bush , his acolyte Karl Rove , authors of the GOP autopsy released after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and occasional writers in National Review . Some have observed that many Latinos value whiteness and are more likely to self-identify as white the longer they have been in the country. In fact, some Latinos are white , particularly those from Latin America's leadership class . Others have reported on substantial hostility that exists between Latinos and blacks that may make them more likely to see whites as natural allies. There are several problems with these arguments. The most important are persistent race-based IQ differences that will keep most mestizos (who are the bulk of Latino immigrants) trapped at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum regardless of their racial identification. Arguments that they will assimilate like their European predecessors fail to explain why racial hierarchies have persisted in their home nations for hundreds of years. These inequalities probably explain the high levels of Hispanic support for government programs that are likely to keep most of them tied to the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. Although Asians also support Democrats by a 2-to-1 margin, they seem potentially more promising . Unlike America's black and Latino populations, East Asians (such as Japanese and Chinese) have IQs that may be slightly higher than that of white Americans on average. Moreover, affirmative action policies backed by Democrats typically work to their detriment . However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower . Finally, no matter what their nationality, Asians are generally unsympathetic to whites who want to restrict nonwhite immigration. Unsurprisingly, all of these reasons have contributed to Asians moving away from the Republican Party, not toward it. Some argue that Republicans have no choice but to accept demographic change and move left to gain minority support. The GOP may well move left in ways that are acceptable to its white working class base and help it with white moderates – such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. But it will never win a bidding war with Democrats for their base of minority voters, nor would the GOP base let it try.

White Polarization

White polarization is the mirror image of nonwhite polarization and its causes are similar. Numerous scholars have cited genetics as a basis for reciprocal altruism among closely-related kin and hostility toward outsiders among humans and in the animal kingdom in general. This ethnocentrism is instinctual, present among babies , and whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface. Academics sometimes argue that positive direct contact is a promising strategy for overcoming racial differences, but research has shown that the negative effects are more powerful – something a cursory glance at crime statistics would confirm. Rampant white flight and segregation in neighborhoods , schools , and personal relationships provide the most definitive evidence on the negative influence of direct contact. Its impact on voting is also well established, particularly for whites and blacks. The shift of white Southerners away from the Democratic Party after civil rights legislation was enacted in the 1960s was almost immediate and has remained strong ever since. White flight produced similar political advantages for Republicans in suburbs across the country during this period. Their advantage has softened since then, but primarily because the suburbs have become less white , not less segregated . White voting is similarly affected by proximity to Hispanics. White flight and segregation are a constant in heavily Latino areas in both liberal and conservative states. The resulting political backlash in places like California and Arizona has been well-documented and confirmed by academic research . Support for President Trump has also been shown to be highly correlated with white identity and opposition to immigration. These trends are expected to become stronger over time. Experimental research has shown that growing white awareness of demographic change makes them more conservative , less favorably disposed to minorities, and feel greater attachment to other whites. The effects are heightened the more whites think they are threatened . The associated ideological effects are just as important. The influence of ideology is obvious in socially conservative states like North Dakota and Kansas . However, the Democrats' growing leftward tilt has become an issue even in liberal states like those in New England, many of which now regularly elect Republicans as governors . In fact, liberal Massachusetts has had just one Democratic governor in the past quarter century. The power of leftist ideology to drive whites together may reach its zenith if Democrats resume their attack on segregation in neighborhoods and schools. De facto segregation has protected white liberals from the consequences of their voting decisions for years. If Democrats are returned to power, however, they appear ready to touch this electoral third rail .

International Lessons

Further evidence of racial polarization can be found by looking abroad. Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations – everywhere and throughout history . More recently, 64 percent of all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines . Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic polarization . Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide. Race-based identity politics are just a lower form of ethnic conflict. Like ethnic conflict more generally, the strength of such politics depends on the level of ethnic diversity and corresponding racial polarization. In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role . Politics and parties that are explicitly ethnically-based usually do not appear until much later, when a nation has become more diverse and has begun to suffer extreme racial polarization. Such politics have been shown to produce substantial ethnic favoritism . Their appearance is often a prelude to civil war or partition . The United States has not reached this stage, but its future can be seen in other nations that are further down the road. One example is Brazil. While the United States will not become majority-minority until 2045, Brazil reached that milestone in 2010 . For much of the 20 th Century, Brazil viewed itself as a harmonious racial democracy and a model for the rest of the world, but this image has been tarnished in recent years. The nation's changing demographics demonstrated their power with the election of Lula da Silva in 2002 and his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, in 2010. Support for these two presidents – both members of the leftist Workers Party – was concentrated in the largely black northern half of the country, while opposition was concentrated in the mostly white south . Their victories depended on the nation's changing demographics. Once elected, they rewarded their black supporters with substantial expansions of affirmative action and a new cash transfer system, called Bolsa Família, which disproportionately benefitted Afro-Brazilians. Since then, Brazil's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse . Rousseff was impeached after a massive corruption scandal in 2016. Crime has exploded . Black activists now deride the notion of " racial democracy " and have become more militant on racial issues. An explicitly black political party has also appeared. This has corresponded with a similar backlash in the white population. The leading candidate for the presidential election this year is Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes referred to as the Trump of the Tropics . A white separatist movement called the South is My Country is drawing substantial support. Brazilians are reportedly losing faith in democracy and becoming more receptive to military rule .

Changing Our Destiny

The preponderance of the evidence – domestic, international, historical, and scientific – suggests that American politics will continue to polarize along racial and ethnic lines. At least in the short term, Republicans will benefit as white voters flee from the other party. But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?

Various elements of the GOP establishment , including the business elite and pro-immigration donors like the Koch brothers , continue to hold substantial power within the party. Reince Priebus probably echoed their views when he said , "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and a traditional platform."

Such status quo thinking ignores too much. There are numerous signs that the party is changing. Trump's popularity within his own party is the second highest among all presidents since World War II, trailing only George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Congressional Never Trumpers like Bob Corker , Jeff Flake , and Mark Sanford have been defeated or stepped aside. Prominent columnists , analysts , and at least one former GOP leader are now declaring it Trump's party.

These changes are not solely about Trump, however. There were signs of change before his arrival. Eric Cantor's primary defeat in 2014 was widely attributed to softness on immigration, which met furious grassroots opposition . Moreover, if Trump's rise were merely a one-off event, we would not be seeing the simultaneous rise of nationalist movements in Europe, which is facing its own immigration crisis .

The more likely answer is that these changes reflect something more powerful than any individual, even the president of the United States. The same survival instinct that is present in all living creatures still burns brightly within the world's European peoples. Trump was not the cause, but a consequence – and we will not go gently into the night.

Patrick McDermott ( email him ) is a political analyst in Washington, DC.


Dale , June 30, 2018 at 4:15 am GMT

If the author was famous, he would be attacked relentlessly.

Cogent analysis of the current GOP.

The centralized state model is falling apart.

Jim Christian , June 30, 2018 at 10:39 am GMT

This ethnocentrism is instinctual, observable even among babies. Whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface.

Even the most vile race-virtuosos' ethnocentric instincts boil to the surface in the flight to "good schools" for their children. The "Good schools" rationale works for them. Gets them away from the city, away from those awful Blacks. It was always diversity for thee. The closest most liberals get to diversity is the Hispanic housekeeper. Because the Blacks, you know, they steal the liquor/silver/Waterford". Heard variations of this a million times..

mark green , June 30, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
Brilliant synthesis. Excellent article. Patrick McDermott hits it out of the ballpark, noting correctly that ethnocentrism is "instinctual". So true. So obvious. And this suppressed truth is just the tip of the iceberg. America lives under 'intellectual occupation'.

But the hardening scientific facts involving race, kinship, and phenotype are testament to the hollowness of 'anti-racist' rhetoric and ideologies that dominate so much of the American landscape.

These liberal creeds pretend to repudiate (all) 'racism' and bigotry, but in political fact, they strategically target only white Americans. This makes these lofty 'values' not only disingenuous but unfair and destructive.

Highfalutin (but bogus) liberalism has come to play a diabolical role. It undermines white cohesion and white solidarity. Meanwhile, from high above, irreversible demographic changes are being orchestrated.

MacDermott correctly observes that the West's unsought ethno-racial transformation is what's behind the reinvigoration of white identity in Europe and America. This at least is good news.

Says MacDermott:

"Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations -- everywhere and throughout history. More recently, 64 percent of all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic polarization. Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide."

Very true. Very important. And while MacDermott avoids mentioning a more obvious example, the most persistent expression of this phenomena can be seen in Israel/Palestine, where allegedly 'Semitic' Jews are doing whatever it takes to keep their lesser (Semitic) cousins at arms length–in this case, in the caged ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank.

Undue and uncompromising Jewish influence in Zio-America is allowing this race-born outrage to continue. Sadly, Israeli savagery routinely receives Zio-Washington's unconditional blessing, trillion-dollar subsidy, and unflinching diplomatic cover.

But besides the disputed territory and Israel's untouchable political power, what nourishes the endless Israel/Palestine impasse?

Jewish 'exceptionalism' is one key motivator.

The Chosen people are convinced that they are born vastly superior to their Semitic cousins.

Thus, strict segregation is required for the assurance of 'Jewish (genetic) continuity'. This objective however requires steadfast cruelty since the natives are still restless and rebelling.

Supremacism means never having to say you're sorry. This is especially true since, ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs could potentially lead to increased Jewish 'outmarriage' in Israel and consequently, the gradual reduction in Israeli (Jewish) IQ and Jewish 'exceptionalism' (supremacy).

Over time, potential genetic intermingling would very possibly undermine Jewish magnificence and therefore, Jewish cohesion. This could then translate into a loss of Jewish solidarity and 'community'. It's possible.

This downturn could subsequently affect Jewish wealth and power, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Jewish community desires.

Leaders of the global Jewish community are smart enough to envision this scenario and to prevent it from happening. They use The Holocaust (and it's potential re-0currance) as an all-purpose excuse. But it's phony. Self-segregation is a sacred, ancient Jewish value. Thus the glamorization of interracial romance is directed only at the goyim, as is the message of Open Borders. Just turn on your TV. It's there constantly.

These 'liberal, democratic' messages however are never advocated in Israel, nor are they directed at young Jews via Israeli TV, news, entertainment or education.

You will never see glamorous depictions of Jewish/Arab miscegenation on Israeli television, even though black/white 'family formation' on Jewish-owned mass media in America is ubiquitous.

Hostile US elites (Jews) apparently want non-Jewish whites to become mixed, brown. This racial objective however is anathema to Jewish values. It's strictly for the goyim.

Meanwhile, whites in America are not permitted to think or hold values like Israeli Jews, or to even express similar preferences inside the civilization that they and their forefathers created. This speaks volumes about the lack of freedom in America. Yes, we live under intellectual occupation.

For many Israeli Jews (the dominant thinking goes) strict segregation–if not active warfare–is the only sure way to maintain 'hafrada' (separation) for Jews in Israel since they are surrounded by tens of millions of similar-looking but 'unexceptional' Arabs.

Unlike America, walls (and segregation) remain sacred in Israel. But not here.

It's racist!

Iberiano , June 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm GMT
In fact, some Latinos are white, particularly those from Latin America's leadership class

I think the reality is, Latinos/Hispanics simply form lines like any group would do. I am white, all my fellow Hispanic friends are white, and we consider ourselves essentially an ethnicity within Whiteness, just like Italians, or high-caste French Creoles, White Persians, Lebanese or Jordanians.

The easiest way to tell if an "ethnic" is conservative or republican (outside of obvious virtue signalers), is to ask yourself, " Is this person white ?". Other than famous actors and political types that have the luxury being "liberal" (e.g. Salma Hayek) every day Hispanics, Persians and Arabs that are white, act, do and think, like every day White Anglo-Saxons, Germanics and Nordics–for the most part (obviously IQ plays a part). Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in IQ and mindset in the particulars between a Norman and a (white-ish) Sicilian, some IQ, some cultural, but if and when a civil war comes–no one will have ANY problem knowing where they and others stand and belong.

SunBakedSuburb , June 30, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
Reince Priebus: "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and traditional platform."

And that would be U.S. hegemony and market fundamentalism? Unlikely and unattractive. U.S. military dominance starves our society and enriches the national security state and the rogue regimes in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Market fundamentalism does not take into account human frailty, and would produce widespread desperation.

What can be gleaned from Mr. McDermott's instructive article is that, like it or not, identity needs to be included in the political lexicon of working class and middle class whites. Elite whites continue to cede power to blacks and browns in politics and business as the slide into Idiocracy accelerates. This is an opportunity for disaffected whites from the Democratic Party and Republican Trump supporters to form a coalition.

densa , June 30, 2018 at 7:00 pm GMT

The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible.

When Ted Kennedy was pushing the 1965 opening of our borders to atone for racism, he made repeated assurances that we would not end up where we ended up. He said the level of immigration would remain the same, the ethnic mix would not inundate America with immigrants from any particular place or nation, that the ethnic pattern of America would not be changed, and that we wouldn't have something crazy like a million immigrants a year, certainly not poor ones who would place a burden on citizens.

When Reagan's amnesty happened, again promises where made that we could and would keep our country. Now, it looks like Brazil is our future.

Elections are already being decided by racial votes of minorities, which aren't considered racist by that half of America that eagerly anticipates our demise. What a rude surprise they are in for when they discover they are still white and will be honorary deplorables once they no longer have political power.

But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?

Ha, Derbyshire doesn't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.

Fidelios Automata , June 30, 2018 at 7:37 pm GMT
Regarding my home state of Arizona, that 66% figure is an interesting anomaly. Except for my fellow writers, most of the white folks I know are pretty conservative. Many secretly supported Trump or voted Libertarian in protest of the lousy mainstream choices. Perhaps this is a reflection of white flight from California.
obwandiyag , June 30, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
You dense "scientific" racists can't see the forest for the trees, as is always the case. The importance of this election has nothing to do with demographics. But you wouldn't know that because all you want to do is scream raceracerace all de liblong day.

No. The importance of this race is that Ocasio-Cortez is "a strikingly perfect candidate, both in policy positions and refusal to take corporate money. She fits the identity politics profile without once using identity politics virtue-signaling to cover for lousy policies. This is shattering to the Clintonista crowd, who are spinning like tops."

Grow up.

WorkingClass , June 30, 2018 at 10:46 pm GMT
Post Imperial America will balkanize. There is plenty of room for four or more new republics. At least one of them will be white.
Seamus Padraig , June 30, 2018 at 10:59 pm GMT
@Jim Christian

Exactly. Whenever liberals ask 'How are the schools?', what they really mean is, 'How black are the schools?' Their hypocrisy is nauseating.

Seamus Padraig , June 30, 2018 at 11:01 pm GMT

However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower.

Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers? Those aren't typically low-IQ professions. Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain? Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?

In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role.

Yup. That's probably why the Democratic Party traded class war for race war.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 12:44 am GMT

Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers?

The advance guard in the US was the professional elite. Not so in the UK. Subcontinentals are much closer, or even below, average there. Even here, motel owners may outnumber doctors, scientists, and computer programmers combined.

Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain?

Yes.

And it's worse in Canada.

Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?

There are a billion more people in India than in the US. Do the arithmetic.

George , July 1, 2018 at 2:57 am GMT
Extremely low turnout led to Ocasio-Cortez Victory.

On Magical Thinking VS Sober Analysis of the Ocasio-Cortez Victory in NY

https://www.blackagendareport.com/magical-thinking-vs-sober-analysis-ocasio-cortez-victory-ny

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
OK. I'll make it simple for you because your understanding doesn't extend beyond simple.

Ocasio-Cortez is a very good candidate, and, unless she is co-opted–which, 99 out of a 100 (notice my use of "statistics," I mean damned lies, you statistics-worshipers) is the chance she will be–she is a hundred times better than Crowley the Clintonite hack. Racists are really stupid. They vote against their own interests, just like all "conservatives."

blank-misgivings , July 1, 2018 at 7:02 am GMT
The author throws around 'left' and 'right' as if they transparently applied in the case of ethnic politics. I would argue that it has been the economic 'right' that has relentlessly pursued diversity of populations – quite arguably for millennia, and certainly in the last 50 years. Some sane economic leftists realize this, although they are an endangered and shrinking group.

However if it is the right that is the main mover in favor of diversity (empire preferred to nation state for the easier control of labor), I'm not sure what solutions there are. Whites voting for the Republican Party is not a long time viable solution since the owners of that party have fundamentally different interests than the white working class (as leftists have correctly pointed out over and over).

Brabantian , Website July 1, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
Quite a superbly-sourced and compellingly-argued article here from Patrick McDermott, extraordinarily well-done even by Unz standards

This article gives a very important snapshot of the USA political scene as a whole, one of the best I've read in some time

Thanks both to Mr McDermott and to Ron Unz for posting this, look forward to more from this author

jeppo , July 1, 2018 at 1:14 pm GMT
Ocasio's victory is a nightmare for the Democrats. The Leftist media is touting her as the future of the party, but her platform makes Obama look like a rightwing extremist.

- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Medicare for All
- Tuition-free public college
- Reduce prisons by 50%
- Defund ICE

But the real poison pill is her unwavering support for the Palestinians. I'm not making a value judgment on this or any other of her policies, but if the GOP can tag the next Democratic presidential candidate with Ocasio's worldview, then expect a Trumpslide in 2020.

What do the (((brains))) and (((primary funders))) behind the Democratic party think of this rising star? Here are some choice quotes from NY Jewish Week:

To some, the stunning victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an outspoken critic of Israel, over 10-term Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-Queens-Bronx), an Israel supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary is seen as another nail in the coffin of Democratic support for the Jewish state.

"If she maintains her anti-Israel stance, she will be a one-term wonder," predicted George Arzt, a New York political operative. "I don't think you can have someone with those views in New York City. If she moderates, she could win again. If she doesn't, there will be massive opposition to her -- maybe even a cross-over candidate from the Latino community with pro-Israel views."

Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he sees Ocasio-Cortez's overwhelming victory -- she won with 57.5 percent of the vote -- as "another step in the ongoing divorce proceedings between the pro-Israel community and the Democratic Party."

Jeff Wiesenfeld, a former aide to both Republican and Democratic elected officials, said he read Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter and Facebook postings and said she has voiced opinions that are "downright hostile to Israel."

After 60 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military in May while attempting to breach the fence along the Israel-Gaza border, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protestors. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore."

"We have never stepped into a situation in New York City in which a member of Congress starts out hostile to us," he added. "This is a new frontier."

"While Jewish Democrats support much of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's domestic policy agenda, we disagree with her past statement regarding Israel, as well as her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel," it added. "In the coming days and months, we hope to learn more about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's views, but at the moment, her position on Israel is not in line with our values."

http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/ocasio-cortezs-israel-views-seen-as-troubling/

What will Jewish Democrats do if the Ocasio/DSA platform becomes mainstream in the Democratic party? Join up with the anti-Trump neocons and vote for a third party? While the Republicans can win nationwide elections without Jewish money and votes, there's no evidence that the Democrats can, at least not yet.

Another factor in Ocasio's surprise victory, as so delicately pointed out by the noted political analyst Andrew Anglin, is that:

"Furthermore, people want to f*ck her."

No shit. Her good looks and likeable personality mean that she's likely in the media spotlight to stay, no matter how much the MSM (((gatekeepers))) might want to shield the general public from her, ahem, "problematic" views.

As an aside, I believe her nationwide appeal is enhanced by her complete lack of the godawful, ear-grating Nuyorican accent so commonplace among her co-ethnics. In fact she speaks with a general American accent with barely even a hint of New Yorkese. I don't know if this is part of a generalized homogenization of regional accents throughout the country, or if she affects this dialect for personal and/or political reasons. Either way, it only adds to her appeal.

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, then Donald Trump will start looking more and more like the moderate adult in the room compared to the infantile, gibsmedat, tantrum-throwers on the far left. Which is terrible news for the Clintonite, corporate bloodsucker wing of the Dems, but fantastic news for the rest of us.

Gordo , July 1, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
@mark green

You are correct.

obwandiyag , July 1, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them. You have no understanding whatsoever about the mood of the current polity.
jeppo , July 1, 2018 at 7:16 pm GMT
@obwandiyag

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.

So what you're saying is that if there's one thing Trump supporters secretly want more than anything else, it's to abolish ICE. Yeah, no.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@blank-misgivings

Leftism is concerned with power, period.

Economics is just a tool to that end. When identity looked to be more productive, they pivoted quite gracefully.

Welfare bureaucrats derive their power from the poor, not the working, and there are many more poor abroad than at home. Creating a welfare state thus creates a giant constituency for importing more poor, and poorer.

One of the credos of realism has been "There are no angels, so set the devils against one another." As pie-in-the-sky as economists can be, they're closer to the truth on this one than the pro-regulation forces, who assume, by definition, that the regulators will be angels.

Reg Cæsar , July 1, 2018 at 10:23 pm GMT
@jeppo

If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.

So what you're saying is that if there's one thing Trump supporters secretly want more than anything else, it's to abolish ICE. Yeah, no.

This might be true in the Bronx, but what about the other 3,030 or so counties in the US?

llloyd , Website July 2, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
Americans, at least Unz reviewers, lump all Hispanic speakers into one category. Does Cortez even speak Spanish, except for her ethnic purposes? More important, a Puerto Rican origin is both Creole and Roman Catholic. That puts them in a category all their own. She has no love for Israel because her background did not come under the influence of the Christian Zionist Churches. Her black origins make her atavistically side with the Palestinians.
obwandiyag , July 2, 2018 at 4:08 am GMT
You have no clue about "Trump supporters." For your information, they will vote for anyone who shakes things up. Their second choice after Trump was Sanders. These are facts. Read 'em and weep.
Mishra , July 2, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@obwandiyag

The Establishment wants to pretend that these voters don't exist. Even though they tipped the election. Along with most people (even here) they want to keep everything in neat boxes labelled Right vs Left, Rep vs Dem, etc etc. Spares them the 'vexation of thinking'.

Mishra , July 2, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT

The Democratic Party IS Tipping!

Replace "The Democratic Party" with "America" and replace "IS Tipping!" with "HAS TIPPED" and you'll be much nearer the truth.

Ron Unz , July 2, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
Actually, I have a quite contrary view of the political implications of these shifts in racial demographics. For those interested, here's a link to a long article I published a few years ago on this same exact topic:

http://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-republicans-and-the-end-of-white-america-singlepage/

[Jun 27, 2018] jack daniels

Notable quotes:
"... Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality! ..."
Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 5, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT 300 Words @John Baker How are they 'checked?'

Numerous sources give very high figures for Jews and these have tended to be memory-holed and maligned as you know what.

Consequently sources which report a low number of jews (do you know of any?) from the period are at least as suspect, and ones from a later period and embraced by Jewish scholars more so.

And one must remember that apart from the many name changes by Jews in the Old Bolshevik era (lots of name changes amongst Israel's 'founders' too) they made substantial effort to hide their jewishness, as have later sources.

One might consider the attempted Bokshevik coup in Germany a year after the Russian one.

Even wikipedia has to report that this 'Spartacus uprising' was led almost wholly by Jews. What would they have done had they won? Might the conflation of anti-nationalist communist violence and Jewish Supremacy have been what led in part to Hitler and his racial nationalists? There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his 1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least the willingness to use force to remove the burden. The democratic parties were insufficiently decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual dimension of life. Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in addition to the national need to escape from poverty.

Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality!

[Jun 27, 2018] The mechanics of identity wedge in politics

Jun 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [317] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT

@Rational

responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational
Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism) , but party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.

Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one); virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.

them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 ME 7 Me 6 I lose
divide by party D R D R D R ME 7 Me+3 3 I win

As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the outcome.

This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution intended to establish.

The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.

I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone can learn, understand and adopt.

Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a republican,it keeps the pharaoh options open.

[Jun 27, 2018] How Cynical Is the Democratic Party's Support for Identity Politics (Plus a Note on the Ocasio-Crowley Contest)

DemoRats use identity politics to achieve their goals. And if it does not suit their goals it is thrown in the garbage can as used napkin.
Also it is stupid to view candidates from the prism of identity politics: "In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society."
Notable quotes:
"... Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that other thing she said. ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QRimyfmz0MA

Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that other thing she said.

How cynical is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? To this observer, it seems impossible not to notice that those in control of the Democratic Party care about "identity politics" -- about supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ candidates, etc. -- only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that their vocal support for the underlying principles of "identity politics" is both cynical and insincere.

As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I've never seen it documented so well in one place, however, until this recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.

For example, Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 not only encouraged a vote for Clinton because men and women had a duty to support her as a woman, yet they attacked support for Sanders as specifically misogynist:

The 2016 presidential election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton's potential status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders.

In February 2016 -- at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle -- former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory Booker cheered: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" she announced.

Though Albright apologized in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did reaffirm her central point: "When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose."

At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of Sanders were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow "the boys," who, she claimed, were behind Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump won "because some dudes had mommy issues," then clarified that she was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: "I also have those moments where I'm like, 'Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake socialists and jackass mansplainers.'"

Greenwald notes in passing that no one was making the case for supporting Sanders because he would be the first Jewish president, and he doesn't expect that case to be made in 2020 should Sanders run again.

He concludes from this that "despite the inconsistencies, one of the dominant themes that emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying bigotry."

The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon

Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary Clinton includes herself on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As Greenwald notes, "Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight, white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color. Clinton herself has led the way."

The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman battle in Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa McCormick three-way contest in New Jersey, to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea Manning primary in Maryland. In all cases, the Party backed the white male candidate (or in Menendez's case, the whiter male candidate) against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not even the smoke of 2016's identity fire remains.

Which brings us to the 2018 candidacies of Cynthia Nixon and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Let's start with Cynthia Nixon, running against corrupt , anti-progressive NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo sides with Republicans to defeat progressive measures, rules with an iron hand, is white and male. Yet he's also supported and endorsed by almost every national Democrat who matters:

In New York state, Cynthia Nixon is attempting to become the first female governor, as well as the first openly LGBT governor, in the state's history. She's running against a dynastic politician-incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom the New York Times denounced this year for being "tainted" by multiple corruption scandals.

But virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male dynastic prince, Cuomo, over his female, LGBT challenger. That includes Clinton herself, who enthusiastically endorsed Cuomo last month, as well as Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand , who -- despite starting a political action committee with the explicit purpose of supporting women running for office -- also endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in March. [emphasis mine]

To make the main point again: How cynical and insincere is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? Very.

A Local Race with National Consequences: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Joe Crowley

This cynical drama is also playing out in the race between corrupt Joe Crowley , the likely next Democratic leader of the House (if he survives this election) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The same dynamic is now driving the Democratic Party primary campaign in New York's 14th Congressional District, a district that is composed of 70 percent nonwhite voters. The nine-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, is a classic dynastic machine politician . His challenger, a 28-year-old Latina woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has generated nationwide excitement for her campaign after her inspiring introduction video went viral . At a fundraising event, Crowley accused his opponent of playing identity politics, saying she was trying to make the campaign "about race."

Despite all that, virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male incumbent, and virtually none is supporting the woman of color who is challenging him. Yesterday, the very same Gillibrand who has a PAC to support female candidates and who endorsed Cuomo over Nixon announced that she was supporting Crowley over Ocasio-Cortez. [emphasis added]

Note that these are not low-profile, low-consequence races. Both are positions of enormous power -- in Nixon's case, due to the office; in Crowley's case, due to his position as the Dauphin to Nancy Pelosi's soon-to-step-down monarch.

These are races with exponentially greater consequences than usuals. And where is the Democratic Party in this? With the (corrupt) white male and against the woman, as always these days.

"Identity Politics" Is Not a Cookie-Cutter Solution to Electoral Choices

I'd like to make two additional points. First, by any intelligent standard, candidates "identities" should only be one factor only in considering support for them. Only the right wing and 2016 Clinton advocates like Madeleine Albright, quoted above, make the most simplistic argument about "identity" support -- and even then, the simplistic argument seemed to apply only to support for Clinton herself and never to other women.

For example, would even Clinton supporters have supported Carly Fiorina against a male Democrat for president? Obviously not. And Clinton herself, a former New York senator, did not support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 when Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for governor . Nor did then-Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton campaign for Zephyr Teachout in her 2016 race for the the NY-19 House seat .

Ideological concerns also drive decisions like these, as in fact they should. Fiorina would likely be too far right for Clinton to support, and Teachout too far left. This is a fair basis on which to decide. It was also a fair basis on which to decide support for Clinton as well.

The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight

A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressive involving themselves heavily in high-leverage races -- like the Bernie Sanders 2016 race, for example -- where the payoff would have been huge relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument here: " Supporting Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices ".)

The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage -- first, because he's perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees , and second because it would, to use a chess metaphor, eliminate one of the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from House leadership in a single move.

Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the House. He would be worse by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he's dangerous. He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of his colleagues into supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He also controls funding as Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC. Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally a reliable progressive voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his colleagues.

Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him from the House for the next two years, would produce a benefit to progressives far in excess of the effort involved.

Progressives, were they truly smart, would have nationalize this race from the beginning and worked tirelessly to win it. The payoff from a win like this is huge. Larry Coffield , June 26, 2018 at 5:27 am

I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.

Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it, consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing debtors.

[Jun 05, 2018] The importance of identity wedge in two party voting

Jun 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [317] Disclaimer , June 5, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT

@Rational

responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.

Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:

You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one); virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.

Here is a simple example:

no division     1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7. Voted for me 1 (myself only)                   I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (3 republican votes and myself) 4 I win

As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the outcome.

This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution intended to establish.

The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.

I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyze current events into a set of fair play rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone can learn, understand and adopt.

Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and schemes of the capitalist neocon led West. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.

[Apr 29, 2018] Immigration and identity politics

Apr 29, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:41

If you are saying that their expertise lies elsewhere, that is surely self-evident?
Crazymoomin , 24 Apr 2018 05:37

Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually crave identity politics.

I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the game, even if they don't really like the rules.

Ron Jackson -> CharlesBradlaugh , 24 Apr 2018 05:30
No sloth will make you live in poverty, unless you are actually the animal the sloth.
StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 05:28
The detail. They don't know the detail. They don't have the expertise. Which is what this article is about.

They don't know what they're talking about, even if they do know what they want.

cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 05:22
.... but see my previous post.

They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors. They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.

What more is required?

CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 05:15
are we supposed to be impressed by your middle income? Poverty is not caused by sloth.
CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 05:12
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Ron Jackson -> CharlesBradlaugh , 24 Apr 2018 05:08
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
KeyboardChimp , 24 Apr 2018 05:07
Non expert berating non experts. The Michael Massing paradox.
CharlesBradlaugh -> Ron Jackson , 24 Apr 2018 04:57
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.

You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.

Monkeybiz -> SteveofCaley , 24 Apr 2018 04:51
It's a play on the motto "One country under God". Rather clever, I thought.
Monkeybiz -> Andrew Nichols , 24 Apr 2018 04:50
Yes, there is a deep lack of context and hence dilution of meaning as a result
Monkeybiz -> Navarth , 24 Apr 2018 04:48
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 04:48
Don't think I am confusing anything.

My point was about expertise. Brexiteers have goals about which I agree with you.

My point is that they don't know about the subject, the EU, which they are using to achieve their goals.

Monkeybiz -> breitling1884 , 24 Apr 2018 04:47
Really? Were they repeated?
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:37
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL goals.

Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably) just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.

Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no part of it is accidental.

StevoT -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 04:31
Don't disagree with this. Doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.
cynical_bystander -> StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 04:12
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.

Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to discover their connections and patronage from this source.

Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any description.

Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they see.

cynical_bystander -> aurelian , 24 Apr 2018 04:06
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"? It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.

The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.

Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.

Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.

sgwnmr -> SteveofCaley , 24 Apr 2018 03:50
I guess you're of the "when I'm doubt talk gibberish" school of argument capitulation.
StevoT , 24 Apr 2018 03:17
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:

' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking about'

Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about. Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.

But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then wave away questions about their veracity.

Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.

SteveofCaley -> sgwnmr , 24 Apr 2018 02:37
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that hurts.
gilstra , 24 Apr 2018 02:29
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise. Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's annoying.
aurelian -> cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 02:03
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
cynical_bystander , 24 Apr 2018 01:21
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.

It is this.

The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.

The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.

White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently, in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings, necessarily
perceives life.

Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't COMPLETELY stupid.

RalphDemming , 24 Apr 2018 01:00
Dumb and dumber writers...

[Apr 24, 2018] Class and how they use words to hide reality

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression. ..."
"... Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten. ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @longtalldrink ..."
"... @longtalldrink ..."
"... @Lily O Lady ..."
"... @Lily O Lady ..."
"... @longtalldrink ..."
"... @lizzyh7 ..."
"... @dkmich ..."
Apr 24, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Wed, 04/18/2018 - 11:45pm

I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.

For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.

Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it. When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth. Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.

Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.

And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks about them.

Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.

When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).

The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.

a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic policy."

This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.

Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class exist only in the margins .

With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the ruling class wants .

I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.

It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really are different - they are sociopaths. They've totally and completely bought into their own righteousness, merit and virtue .

Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.

That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.

Pricknick on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 12:03am
Condescension.

That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.

Wink on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 4:11pm
And posted as a pod,

sort of, at... Patreon.com/C99
@Pricknick

That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.

thanatokephaloides on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 12:13am
the working class and the employing class have nothing in common

It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.

-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW)
source

QMS on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 8:17pm
over generalized

@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk. None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.

It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.

-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW)
source

earthling1 on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 12:18am
Their heads will look real fine

on a pike.

Meteor Man on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 12:30am
The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies

Somebody at CAP may be out of a job. I tried to find the report and came up empty. Can you provide the link? Thx.

The Aspie Corner on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 7:56am
But 'Murica is a classless society..../s

My ass. Class was a huge factor in 2016 (And still is) and working class issues were utterly ignored.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-jjrSWCgJus?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

longtalldrink on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 2:25pm
And let us not forget Occupy Wallstreet

was the continuation of the Poor People's Campaign. We are all still in dire straights.

Lily O Lady on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 11:09am
I up-voted you but

@longtalldrink @longtalldrink
that's " dire ." Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

was the continuation of the Poor People's Campaign. We are all still in dire straights.

thanatokephaloides on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 1:33pm
dyer

@Lily O Lady

I up-voted you but that's "dire." Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

A "dyer" is one who applies dyes.

"Dire" is a synonym for desperate. And it applies to our situation.

#6 #6
that's " dire ." Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

longtalldrink on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 2:21pm
Ugh

@Lily O Lady I saw that after I posted it and knew the grammar police would get me...yikes.

#6 #6
that's " dire ." Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

lizzyh7 on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 5:40pm
I just assumed it was

@longtalldrink a play on Dyer Straights...!

#6.1 I saw that after I posted it and knew the grammar police would get me...yikes.

longtalldrink on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 8:36pm
Actually

@lizzyh7 they were one of my favorite groups...so maybe subconsciously, this is what I was doing?

#6.1.2 a play on Dyer Straights...!

dkmich on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 12:37pm
So pay more taxes if you make more than 250K, BUT

pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able to transcend labels.

thanatokephaloides on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 1:42pm
paid for

@dkmich

Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you pay for yours."

Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.

Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight here.

pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able to transcend labels.

Snode on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 2:01pm
Thomas Edsall has an article

That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable housing laws. It ends up with some observations:

"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate -- to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/opinion/democrats-gentrification-citi...

Lenzabi on Thu, 04/19/2018 - 2:48pm
We Can't

We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!

[Apr 22, 2018] The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite

Highly recommended!
The quotes are from A Conversation on Race, by Paul Craig Roberts - The Unz Review
Notable quotes:
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
Apr 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Steve Gittelson , April 19, 2018 at 2:43 am GMT

PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better than Toynbee, fersher.

The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism has been stood on its head.

The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.

The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history.

Steve Gittelson , April 19, 2018 at 3:59 pm GMT

Just a bit more real truth from PCR. Carry on

All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.

History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes, Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism now practice it ten-fold.

The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.

[Mar 29, 2018] Cultural Marxism and identity politics

Mar 29, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Raoul Duke -> milgram , 28 Mar 2018 08:47

It has nothing to do with marxism. I think "cultural marxism" is used in the same context.

It's basically just a label used by right-wingers to describe all the identity politics etc that faux lefties like the neoliberal democrats engage in to distract their voters from looking at actual leftist economic policies. So instead of trying to narrow the gaps between economic classes it's focuses on giving all identities, cultures and subcultures equal worth.

If that makes sense.. My vocabulary kind of lacked the words I was looking for to try to give a good description just now.. (English being my 2nd language an all)

[Mar 27, 2018] The New York Times procures salacious details of "gray-zone sex" by Eric London

Notable quotes:
"... Business Insider ..."
Mar 01, 2018 | www.wsws.org

On February 21, the New York Times published a notice calling on college students to describe and document any sexual encounter "that may not be viewed as sexual assault but which constitutes something murkier than a bad date." The notice incldues a submission form where students can accuse individuals of having engaged in something the Times calls "gray-zone sex." The Times asks its young tipsters to include names, email addresses, phone numbers and colleges, plus text message records and photographs documenting the encounters.

The Times ' announcement, written by gender editor Jessica Bennett and Daniel Jones, reads in its entirety:

As stories of sexual misconduct continue to dominate the news, a debate has erupted over a particular kind of encounter, one that may not be viewed as sexual assault but which constitutes something murkier than a bad date.

We've seen it play out on a public stage, from the Aziz Ansari incident to The New Yorker's "Cat Person" story. So-called "gray-zone sex" has prompted impassioned conversations about -- and personal reflection on -- what constitutes consent and how we signal our desire or apprehension in the moment. This debate is especially vibrant on college campuses, where for years students and administrators have grappled with the issue.

We want to hear how you handle consent for sexual intimacy in relationships and encounters. Do you have a particular experience you find yourself thinking back to? What was said, texted or hinted at, through words or physical cues, that moved the encounter forward -- or stopped it? How did it make you feel at the time, and how do you think about it now?

The February 21 solicitation links to an article Bennett wrote on December 16, 2017 titled, "When Saying 'Yes' Is Easier Than Saying 'No,'" which sheds further light on what the Times means when it asks "what constitutes consent?" The two articles together show the provocative and witch-hunting character of the Times ' efforts to compile a database of sexual harassment allegations on college campuses across the country.

"For years," Bennett begins in the December article, "my female friends and I have spoken, with knowing nods, about a sexual interaction we call 'the place of no return.' It's a kind of sexual nuance that most women instinctively understand: the situation you thought you wanted, or maybe you actually never wanted, but somehow here you are and it's happening and you desperately want out, but you know that at this point exiting the situation would be more difficult than simply lying there and waiting for it to be over. In other words, saying yes when we really mean no."

Bennett provides two examples, one from her personal life and another from a short story published late last year in the New Yorker titled "Cat person." In both cases, the woman is interested in the man, they court one another, and they both agree to have sex. In the New Yorker story, which is also linked in the February 21 announcement, the protagonist is physically unsatisfied by her partner, who she complains is "heavy" and "bad in bed." Later, the protagonist tells all her friends a version of this encounter, "though," the author explains, "not quite the true one."

Bennett says "there are other names for this kind of sex: gray-zone sex, in reference to that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don't really want to do it but it's probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because you're kind of 'meh' about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the 'bad' refers not to the perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath Sometimes 'yes' means 'no,' simply because it is easier to go through with it than explain our way out of a situation."

"Consent" is a legal term that marks the line between noncriminal and criminal conduct. Sex without consent can, and should, lead to the filing of a complaint followed by the initiation of a criminal investigation, prosecution and, if a jury is persuaded by the evidence, conviction. It is a basic legal tenet that the accused cannot be punished by the state for acts that are not proscribed by law, and in the American system, conduct that falls in a "gray zone" by its very nature does not meet the threshold for conviction: guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But the Times 's call for young people to submit reports of "gray-zone sex" is aimed at creating a parallel system, outside the framework of the law, in which the accused have no right to privacy or to due process. As law professor Catharine MacKinnon wrote in a Times column on February 4, "#MeToo has done what the law could not."

Playing the role of prosecutors in the court of public opinion, the gender editor and her cohorts at the New York Times are creating a massive database that it can dig through to ruin the careers and lives of students and professors based on unproved accusations of sexual conduct that, in any event, is not illegal.

The aim of this reactionary campaign is both political and pecuniary.

First, the Times hopes to create a political and cultural climate in which a broad array of consensual conduct is deemed punishable, even if it does not violate any legal statute.

The Times 's appeal for accusations comes after a number of spreadsheets have surfaced where students and faculty can anonymously submit accusations of harassment or "creepy behavior" on the part of male collegues or teachers. The submissions will involve a massive invasion of privacy. Individuals, without their knowledge or consent, may be placed in a situation where their most intimate behavior is being secretly documented and forwarded to the New York Times . Texts and even photographs will be examined and leered over by the gender editor and her colleagues. It is not difficult to imagine the abuses of privacy that will flow from the Times 's efforts to procure salacious material.

There are countless legal issues involved. There are many states that outlaw the transmission of sexually explicit and lewd material over the Internet. Will the individuals who foolishly transmit the material requested by the Times be opening themselves up to prosecution? If the Times 's editors discover that one or another submission describes sexual behavior that occurred between minors, will they inform the police that they have evidence of a violation of age-of-consent laws?

If the Times receives a submission that describes a consensual sexual encounter between a student and an older faculty member or administrator, will it decide that it must inform the institution of a possible violation of institutional regulations? And what happens if and when prosecutors, having initiated investigations into "gray-zone sex," obtain supboenas, demanding that the Times turn over its files? Who can doubt that the Times will comply with court orders, regardless of the consequences for those who are caught up in the escalating witch hunt?

Second, the call for "gray-zone sex" stories is a shameless effort to make money. In early February, the Times announced a 46 percent increase in digital subscriptions over the past year, and its stock price has increased 40 percent since October, the month it published the allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Reuters wrote, "Subscriptions in the quarter also got a boost from the newspaper's coverage of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment story, helping the company post the highest-ever annual subscription revenue of $1 billion." It was also in October 2017 that the Times announced the position of "gender editor," at which point Bennett declared that gender "needs to exist throughout every section of the paper."

However, the newspaper has had trouble attracting younger readers who are more likely to turn to social media and independent websites for news. In 2017, the Times launched its own Discover section on Snapchat "with the aim of capturing younger demographics," Business Insider wrote. The Times 's campaign to broaden the #MeToo campaign to include "gray-zone sex" stories, with a focus on college campuses, is a part of its filthy business strategy.

[Mar 02, 2018] Neocon schumer plays identity politics

Mar 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , March 2, 2018 at 2:59 am GMT

Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.

Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's white

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/chuck-schumer-votes-against-s-c-judicial-nominee-because-he/article_8b9f1890-1d6b-11e8-8533-0f7cc33319a9.html

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South Carolina

Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.

Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating white men.

"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.

"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice."

South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by starting with their offices.

"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.

[Feb 08, 2018] We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus

Notable quotes:
"... We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input. ..."
Feb 08, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Daniel , February 5, 2018 at 6:57 pm

We are all victims of the pernicious 24/7 scientifically-designed propaganda apparatus. It has little to do with the victim's intelligence since almost all human opinions are formed by emotional reactions that occur even before the conscious mind registers the input.

Through critical thinking, we can overcome these emotional impulses, but only with effort, and a pre-existing skepticism of all information sources. And even still, I have no doubt that all of us who are aware of the propaganda still accept some falsehoods as true.

It could be that having former Intelligence Agency Directors as "news" presenters, and Goldman Sachs alum and Military/Industrial complex CEOs running important government agencies makes clear to some the reality that we live in an oligarchy with near-tyrannical powers. But most people seem too busy surviving and/or being diverted by the circus to notice the depths of the propaganda.

[Feb 03, 2018] Kayfabe is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as real or true, specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not staged. Kayfabe became a code word for maintaining this reality for the general public.

Feb 03, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

ruffhouse Feb 3, 2018 4:31 PM Permalink

Post-American Politics Is Kayfabe.

KAYFABE: kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true," specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or pre-determined nature of any kind.

Kayfabe has also evolved to become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect presence of the general public.

http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/10/08/post-american-politics-is-kayfabe-the-word-is-kayfabe/

[Feb 03, 2018] But What If He is Not an Idiot by John Atcheson

Notable quotes:
"... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save your ass when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. ..."
Feb 03, 2018 | www.commondreams.org

36 Comments

Trump could be playing us all. And not considering that is, well, idiotic.

Turns out, the first word a lot of people think of when it comes to President Donald Trump is this one: idiot .

The White House's handling of the Comey firing looks a lot like a clip from The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight . The Press Secretary hiding in the bushes, Trump sending virtually his entire staff under the bus with his various and rapidly shifting versions of his reasons for the firing, and his unhinged Twitter rants at the press for covering the fiasco as a fiasco.

Once again, pundits are talking about impulse control, the ADD Presidency, rank amateurism in the Oval Office, threats to Democracy -- all the stuff that they talked about in the campaign. The stuff that was supposed to doom his bid for the presidency to failure.

"It's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out."

All of this is grim stuff. We haven't seen a threat to democracy as serious as this since Watergate, so I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be addressing it.

But it's worth considering what we are not talking about as we watch this political pornography play out and also, how does the focus on Russia undercut the Democratic Party? In other words, what if this is exactly what Trump intended when he fired Comey? It's worth remembering Trump's mentor was Roy Cohn, who was a master at controlling the narrative and one of his favorite techniques was to change the subject with an in-your-face outrage of one kind or another.

Let's examine what we're not talking about, and then what the effect of the whole Russian narrative is having on the Democratic Party.

What We Aren't Talking About

Shortly before Trump tossed in the Comey Molotov Cocktail into the national living room, here's what was dominating the news:

But none of that is being discussed much any longer. And if you ran as a populist, but all your policies are benefitting the top 1%, that's exactly what you'd hope for. Yes, the few Congressional members who are brave enough to hold town meetings are still getting mugged by outraged constituents, but these meetings are not getting the kind of coverage they would have pre-Comey. And that means the Health Care Bill isn't getting the kind of serious examination it would have if the media weren't doing all Comey, all the time. Again, exactly what you'd want if you knew the guts of the legislation were so bad, that if it got out there, even the Trump bobble heads would be pissed off. So folks aren't talking about the fact that it was rushed to the floor before getting scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), before we knew what its effects were and what its ultimate cost could be, before people caught on to the fact that the state waiver provision stuck in the revised version of the bill turned it from merely a cruel piece of legislation to the cruelest piece in modern history.

Or take the budget "proposal," which was getting panned by the media and even the few Republicans left in the Senate who actually are fiscal conservatives. Hell, even Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took issue with some of the cuts. This reprise of "trickle down" and "supply side" chicanery was being almost universally ridiculed by the press and economists, and it was heavily influenced -- if not outsourced to -- the Heritage Foundation, an outfit funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers. Here again, the last thing Trump wants after running as a populist and a fiscal conservative is to get widespread coverage of just how much this plutocrat's budget resembles the stuff he railed against in his campaign.

And speaking of budgets, the media once again ignored the sanest budget proposal in Washington, The Congressional Progressive Caucus's Better Off Budget , which cuts the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years -- Trump's budget would have increased it by at least $1.4 trillion over that time period, by the way -- while creating 8.8 million new jobs. The Better Off Budget uses policies that are wildly popular with the majority of Americans to accomplish this.

Now, it must be said that the press always ignores the CPC's budget proposals, but maybe Trump was taking no chances -- after all, if anyone held them up side-by-side, Trump and the Republicans would have been unmasked as the charlatans they are.

But there's no danger of that when it's all Comey, all the time.

Much is made of the fact that Trump's popularity among those who voted for him hasn't budged, despite the fact that he's screwing them left and right with his policies. Well, these kinds of maneuvers may explain why. Look back. When the Russian stuff was first heating up big time, we suddenly just had to bomb Syria. Wagging the dog is a time-honored way to change the subject. So is firing a controversial senior public servant.

Comey, the Russians, and the Establishment Arm of the Democratic Party

If Trump isn't an idiot, then here's where his tactics are brilliant. The neoliberal elitists who control the Democratic Party have been trying to keep the focus on the Russian intervention in our election as the reason Hillary Clinton lost. The progressives in the Party have been attacking the Party's estrangement from the people and its rejection of the New Deal policies as the reason. In short, there's a battle on for the heart and soul of the Party.

Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to have about its future.

"Firing Comey, brings the whole Russian thing to the fore, and works to sidetrack the real debate the Democratic Party needs to have about its future."

Two things were working to undermine the establishment's hold on the Party until Comey's firing. First, Sanders continued to poll as the most popular politician in America. Second, people were beginning to realize that it was the content of Secretary Clinton's emails that hurt her, not the emails per se . And that content revealed the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party. To wit: the neoliberal belief in small government, the power and goodness of the market, free trade, deregulation, and fiscal austerity was simply too close to the Republican dogma to generate enough passion among progressives to get a good turnout, and Democrats need a good turnout to win elections.

But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention from the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a truly progressive agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative.

Yeah. What if he's not an idiot?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

John Atcheson John Atcheson is author of the novel, A Being Darkly Wise , and he has just completed a book on the 2016 elections titled, WTF, America? How the US Went Off the Rails and How to Get It Back On Track , available from Amazon. Follow him on Twitter @john_atcheson


notwistalemon May '17

Quote from your article:

"But now it's all Comey all the time, and the Democratic establishment is taking full advantage of that to deflect attention from the real reason they're losing at all levels of government. It appears they'd rather risk losing elections than embrace a truly progressive agenda, and Trump just reinforced their self-serving narrative."

In my opinion you are right on the mark; especially with your last paragraph. Practically all the ultra rich in the world live in the same "gated community". Their goal is to control the world's resources and somehow survive the coming mass die-off due to severe climate disruption. To them their party never ends!

drone1066 May '17
It's possible he's not stupid AND he has zero impulse control. That seems most likely. He's good at subverting the few things he does think out.

But Democrats have quintupled down on Russia. For them, it's a battle for existence. They were completely exposed, and it's going to take a lot of "Russia!" to keep that conversation about their profound corruption from taking place.

And Atcheson is also right that this party much prefers losing than giving up its donorship buffet. That's why they do nothing to correct the course to get more votes. They're relying completely on their corporate media allies to keep the illusion going. So far it's working, to the great shame of rank and file Democrats.

SkepticTank May '17
drone1066 The D-Party would rather stumble back to electoral victory on the anti-Trump effect than offer policy that might clash with the wishes of their corporate donors.

Case in point: Single Payer now back-burnered as a distraction from anti-trump hysteria.

Sad to see so many otherwise intelligent commenters here falling for the usual D-Party parlor tricks.

erisx May '17
Whether Trump's just lucky or know how to work a room is unimportant. Results matter, and the result is that the important stuff's not being discussed, and the Greatest Heist In The World continues. Lest we forget, that Heist is NOT just about the USA. There's a reason they call it 'globalization.'
natureboy May '17
Excellent assessment.

Corporate bribes, big salaries, perks and tv star jobs will have to be torn from Neoliberal Democrats' cold dead hands.

And Don, Rupert and the rest of Mammon's soldiers will soon have to deal with an Artificial Intelligence that learns in one day what it took humans 40,000 years to learn. Interesting times.

Direct Democracy

ontheres May '17
Anyone who carefully followed the primaries knows that the democratic machine used all kinds of corrupt methods to defeat Bernie Sanders. And, anyone who follows the general election knows that the election is easily rigged - especially computer voting that leaves no paper trail and cannot be audited. The hypocrisy of Russians hacking our elections when they are hacked by our own politicians, and Russians interfering with our elections when our corporate elite have no problem interfering with elections in other countries all makes me ill. Don't know how many other voters out there are like me, but sure would like to hear from them.
Somehow almost none of this get mentioned in any press, progressive or otherwise.
BWilliamson May '17
bjoldlygo Trump can't control what he himself thinks. He's been a promoter of the Trump name for 40-50 years. That is a reflex with him. That is the extent of his thinking. There are many others around him, supporting him. Praising his genius, as this article is inclined towards, is their means of exploiting his great weakness.
BWilliamson May '17
wolfess There is nothing behind the scenes. Everything is happening center stage. If you spend your time trying to see behind the scenes you're going to miss the whole show.
Olhippy May '17
ontheres No, the seething undercurrent of the discontented is rarely reported on in the "news". Only when it explodes as in Missouri riots or Occupy Wall Street takeovers, does it get coverage which is put down by government forces, either civilian or feds. The Democratic primaries were changed, back in the 70's I believe, after anti-war candidate McCarthy got the nomination nod. That's when the super delegates came about, so they had more control of things. Expect the GOP too, to change things to keep future Trumps' from getting the nod.
Wereflea May '17 1
I see Atcheson's point but I think he needs to remember that Trump is a Prince of inherited wealth. Trump may be an idiot (he really did seem more intelligent before he got elected and then we had a good look at him and listened to his sometimes unintelligible speech patterns) but he has always been in a position where he delegated authority to people who got paid to be smarter than he was, so his 'idiocy' didn't show as much.

Trump paid high priced lawyers to arrange his deals. He paid expensive consultants and investment managers and on and on and all of those people were exceptionally intelligent. He paid someone to ghost write his book for him. Trump makes the same mistakes as he was always wont to do but back then they were always covered and massaged for him by his staff! After all... he was the Prince!

The Oval Office is not quite the same as a business conference with his lawyers, assistants, bankers and etc. Thus we see Trump blurting out statements that his advisors pull him back from as soon as they get the chance . Being president means everything you say gets publicized and despite all his billions that was not the case for the Prince back when he was just a wheeler and dealer.

Trump runs without a script too often but who in his entourage will dare tell the Prince that when he speaks (without their permission first) he ends up sounding like an idiot! Trump may be feeling constrained by his need to be less reckless and impulsive.

Trump unfiltered? Yeah well maybe he really is an idiot too!

Trumps just wanna have fun!

Lrx May '17 1
Olhippy I think you need to go back and review the history of Democratic primaries. Until 1972 the candidates were largely chosen in smoke-filled back rooms. George McGovern was instrumental in largely turning the Democratic primaries over to the voters. And that is how he got the nomination. Unfortunately he only won a single state but he was the people's choice to run. I wouldn't be concerned about the superdelegates. They always go along with the candidate who got the most pledged delegates. It is unlikely they would ever do otherwise. Unless the people chose a candidate who was really off the charts like Trump. Without superdelegates the Republicans were unable to stop Trump once the RNC backed him. Given what happened to the Republicans a case can be made for the superdelegates. Parties can choose their candidates any way they want. They don't have to let the people vote. Both parties now do and for the first time that turned into a complete disaster.
Godless May '17
The Comey firing also distracted from the Kushner family peddling visas for real estate deals in China; the Pence-Koback Commission to make voter cross-checking a federal law; and Sessions reinvigorating the war on drugs and legal marijuana to strike more minority voters from the rolls. El Presidente Naranja Mentiroso only cares about playing to his base and his base loves watching Democratic heads explode. As long as his base is happy, and they are happy with his performance, the Reptilians in Congress will be afraid to move against him. I thoroughly believe that the voter suppression moves will win the Reptilians the elections in 2018 and 2020. With their control of gerrymandering for another decade and the paid-to-lose Democrats only concerned about donor money, the Reptilians have clear sailing to gain 38 governorships and the ability to rewrite the constitution in their twisted image.
skiendhiu May '17
Wereflea I agree with you on your points of Trump having smart lawyers, assistants,bankers etc. around him doing the "smart" work, I am sure he allso used other tactics, of itimidation of one kind or another , taking it to the courts, threats of financial ruin, he allso wasnt kidding when he said he "knew' the system and how it worked, ..or rather how to work it, but he didnt do that singlehanded either, and i am sure there are more than one or two politicians at different levels from municipalitys on up, in his pocket and or good graces.

But to think him not an idiot is getting to be a bit of a stretch, does he really believe that he actually came up with the phrase "prime the pump"? I knew he was an idiot years before he made fun of the disabled reporter, but that single act confirmed it for me.

Yeah "prime the pump" what is he going to lay claim to next? "four score and seven years ago" " E=mc2" or how about.."and Trump said...let there be light"... I 'll tell you who else the idiots are...and that is any one taking this guy seriouslly any longer at least in a presidentiall sense,... that is just ...idiotic in the extreme.

formerly May '17
What If He's Not an Idiot?
Anyways, most of the American people are idiots .... the dark state and the 0.1% mostly aren't idiots -- just psychopaths.
Michael_Wilk May '17
I think it's more likely that the Democrats are even more moronic than is Drumpf, which is why, as usual, they are serving only to strengthen the GOPhers while pretending they're defenders of the public. Why do you think that hundred or so Democrats are signed onto John Conyers' single-payer bill now that Drumpf is in the Oval office and the Republicans hold majorities in both houses of Congress, when they could have done so when Obama was the chief executive and their party controlled Congress including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but instead passed a bill that was modeled on the Heritage Foundation's plan? It's all so much political theater designed to distract the public from the last great plundering of the nation before it collapses in on itself.
cassandra May '17
Lrx The Republicans used rule-changing, altho not superdelegates, to derail Ron Paul. There is never just one way to subvert truth.
cassandra May '17
ontheres I'm with you. The whole Russian thing is ridiculous. And they've never been accused of actually hacking voting machines, just the DNC emails which showed how slimy the DNC is. I have read that Georgia believed someone tried to hack their voting machines and they hired a private firm to investigate. What they found was hacking was attempted the the Dept of Homeland Security.

The simple fact that, after losing in 2000 by voting manipulation and probably via voting machines in 2004, the Dems took over the House in 2007 and 2 years later the Presidency and the Senate, they never, to my knowledge, introduced any legislation to require paper trails in federal elections. As far as I'm concerned that said all one needs to know about the Dems. It would have been a simple one page piece of legislation, Ok, maybe 2 pages.

ToniWintroub May '17
Wereflea Factor in his mafia connections here and abroad. To roll around in that slime at the high level he's in requires cunning to kiss up to the really rich guys who can hurt him and whom, actually, he can hurt. Then he's learned how to survive while he manipulates. Idiot? Define the term.

Cunning. Sociopathic. Narcissistic needing his constant narcissistic supply (adorers). Blackmailer and probably blackmailed. I gotta get Barrett's biography of this POS.

Wereflea May '17
ToniWintroub I wore out years ago but it just goes on and on! Lol

Actually at this point in time I am very much engaged in this garbage since Trump is stunningly entertaining as a rightwing boob out of his element and unraveling as we speak. Trump's adventures in incompetency fascinate me. It is just week after week in a steady progression of mistakes, attempted corrections, attempts at re-correcting those corrections that make them even worse and so forth. It would make for an interesting TV show (sort of like the 'apprentice got himself fired') except that this gross and often crude person can trigger a nuclear war on a whim which puts a damper on the pleasures of watching him deconstruct in front of our eyes.

Nevertheless, it is without doubt the most unexpected presidency of my life. Watergate was a comeuppance but Trump is bizzaro world in action.

Btw... Trump inherited great wealth. He learned one big lesson in life early on. Hire competent people and they will save your ass when you make a blunder. Trump's one skill is as a promoter of Trump. He was never a big brain and up until recently, he never pretended to be.

He is rich and loves being the center of attention. However his being rich is often at the expense of others. You assume that because Trump has long had shady connections that he must be an intellect to survive the association. Not really. Trump makes sure that he is profitable for them and they have no problem with that. It isn't genius on his part. It is always having his projects go way over budget. He guarantees them the cream and they 'have an arrangement'.

Prior to becoming president, Trump's associates, advisors, lawyers and accountants kept Trump making money and that made them money.

Trump is truly like the medieval Prince who lives in a sumptuous palace but who needs his Grand Vizier to actually run things in the country. Keep your eye on Kushner who has become the architect of oligarchy by being the real deal maker (he has the intellect) that Trump only promotes (he has the ego and the big mouth)!

[Jan 13, 2018] And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn t just making itself poorer, it s literally killing itself

Notable quotes:
"... The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites. ..."
"... And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself. ..."
"... With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong" by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests". ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

On New Year's Day, the economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman issued a series of tweets in which he proclaimed as follows:

The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites.

and then, a few minutes later:

And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself.

Was I psyched to see this! With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong" by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests".

... ... ...

Let me be more explicit. We have just come through an election in which underestimating working-class conservatism in northern states proved catastrophic for Democrats. Did the pundits' repeated insistence that white working-class voters in the north were reliable Democrats play any part in this underestimation? Did the message Krugman and his colleagues hammered home for years help to distract their followers from the basic strategy of Trump_vs_deep_state?

I ask because getting that point wrong was kind of a big deal in 2016. It was a blunder from which it will take the Democratic party years to recover. And we need to get to the bottom of it.

Thomas Frank is a Guardian columnist

[Jan 09, 2018] Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility

Notable quotes:
"... Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser, Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and (undue) respectability. ..."
"... Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that benefit Israel. ..."
"... More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby. So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges. ..."
"... Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis. ..."
"... Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of treatment. And no country in the world deserves it. ..."
"... Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not to be. ..."
"... America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed. ..."
"... When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel. ..."
"... Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100% misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.) ..."
"... The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack of lies. Believe my pack of lies"! ..."
Jan 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
Mark Green , January 9, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT
Neocon power in Big Government is directly connected to neocon media access and neocon media visibility. This is why 'experts' such as Boot, Kristol, Weinstein, Cohen, Stephens, Glasser, Podhoretz, Dubowitz, etc., are not only never stepping down from their appointed roles as high media priests–they're actually failing their way into positions of tenure and (undue) respectability.

Under any other circumstance, their bulletproof status would defy logic. But because of Israel's unique place in American life, this makes perfect–though astonishing–sense. This above list of scoundrels may resemble the guest list of a Jewish wedding, but this ongoing affair will produce no honeymoon. These operatives function as soft double agents. Their devious mission is to justify US war(s) of aggression that benefit Israel.

Being a successful neocon doesn't require being right. Not at all. It's all about sending the right message. Over and over. Evidence be damned. The neocon mission is not about journalism. It's about advancing the cause: Mideast disruption and a secure Jewish state.

More importantly, Washington's impenetrable array of Zio-centric PACs, money-handlers, bundlers, fund-raisers, and billionaires want these crypto-Israeli pundits right where they are–on TV or in the your local newspaper–telling Americans how to feel and what to think. And Big Media–which happens to be in bed with these same powerful forces–needs these Zions in place to not only justify the latest Mideast confrontation, but even ones being planned. It's one big happy effort at group-think, mass deception, and military conquest. Unfortunately, it's not being presented that way.

So what lies ahead?

More subversion and more conflict. This explains why Pres. Trump has reversed course. He's caved. Once elected, Trump decided to would be suicide to try to frustrate the Israeli Lobby. So he cucked his Presidency and dumped several major campaign pledges.

The first to go was his pledge to normalize US-Russian relations ('make peace' with Russia) and after that 2) avoid unnecessary wars abroad. That's was a huge reversal. But Trump did it and few pundits have scolded him for it. The fix is in.

Candidate Trump also stated: "I don't want your [Jewish] money" to an auditorium full of wealthy Jews. Well, that's changed too. Pres. Trump is now surrounded by wealthy and powerful Israeli-firsters now, including mega-billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, who ended up feeding the Trump campaign untold millions. Sadly, Trump has totally rolled over for the Israelis.

So Trump (the President) now sees things differently. Very differently. When it comes to the Middle East, Trump has been Hillary-ized. This means there's no light between what Israel desires and what Washington is willing to deliver. The hyper-wealthy, super cohesive, extraordinarily well-positioned and diabolically cleaver Israeli lobby has Trump over a barrel. Shocking, yes. But true.

So watch Israel's roughshod expansion continue, along with the typically meek and accommodating responses from Washington.

Regarding Israel, Washington will foot their war bill, supply the arms, lend diplomatic cover and even wage war on their behalf. No country in the world receives this kind of treatment. And no country in the world deserves it.

What's worse, our 'independent' MSM will be there to sanitize Washington's pro-Israel shenanigans and basically cheer the whole bloody process on. This is where the Zio-punditry of Kristol, Cohen, Stephens, Dubowitz, and Co. come in. They soothe the nervous nellies as they gently justify the death and destruction that come with these military strikes. Media tactics include:

Don't count enemy war dead. Don't count civilian war dead. Don't count displaced refugees. Don't connect Europe's immigration crisis to Zio-Washington's destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria.

At the same time: Always praise Israeli 'restraint'. Always refer to Israel as a 'democracy'. Sneer and jeer the 'terrorist' Republic of Iran. Treat every Mideast warlord or rebellion as if it threatens the sanctity of Disneyland or even the next Superbowl. Oh my!

It's a slick, highly-coordinated, and very manipulative affair. But the magic is working. Americans are being fooled.

Ironically, US security would be improved if we simply minded our own business and did nothing in the Middle East besides pursue normal and peaceful trade policies. But that's not to be.

The reason for this phenomena is that Washington's major PACs, syndicates, heavy hitters, influence peddlers, oligarchs, and Big Money handlers (and who also have their clutches on our corrupt MSM) want more Mideast disruption.

Why? Israeli 'security'. Israeli 'survival'. Considering Israel's extraordinary military power, this might seem silly. But this is what the entrenched Israeli lobby desires. And both Parties are listening. To make matters worse, how one 'thinks' and 'talks' about Israel has unacknowledged limitations and restrictions in Big Washington as well as Big Media.

Diversity of opinion stops at Israel's doorstep. Like it or not, Zionist Israel is the Third Rail of American discourse. Watch what you say. Even the typically rancorous disputes between Democrats and Republicans gets warm and fuzzy when Israel's 'special place' in American life is raised. America's 'special relationship' with you-know-who is the quintessential red line that no establishment figure will cross. And those who do cross that line tend to fade rapidly into oblivion. This phenomena has not gone unnoticed.

So America is stuck with pro-Israel speech codes and a militantly pro-Zionist foreign policy that has caused immense cost, dislocation, suffering and destruction. It's been designed that way. And 'outsider' Trump is stuck with it. Few dare examine it.

Here's the short list of Israel's primary Enemies. Significantly, these are the countries that also get the worst press in American media:

N. Korea is even a player here. Iran and N. Korea have allegedly shared nuclear technology. This infuriates nuclear Israel.

So the Israel angle in this picture is huge. Overwhelmingly so. This is where the oligarchs, media lords, and corrupt journalists come together.

Thus, Israel's tenured Hasbara brigade in US media will remain firmly in place.

Buck Turgidson , January 9, 2018 at 11:12 am GMT
The local DC 'conservative' radio station has Bolton as a guest all the time. Same old neocon crap that we don't want any more. Bolton had his day 15 years ago and he sucked then; yet, they keep bringing him on, slobbering all over him ("Ambassador Bolton"), and letting him blather about blowing up everyone. I still see a lot of online comments about how people would love to have John Bolton as our ambassador to the UN. Good grief wise up people.
wayfarer , January 9, 2018 at 11:56 am GMT

" Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. " – Buddha

"Israel Lobby Refuses to Register as a Foreign Agent! "

Tom Welsh , January 9, 2018 at 12:08 pm GMT
'Stephens' article, entitled Finding the Way Forward on Iran sparkles with throwaway gems like "Tehran's hyperaggressive foreign policy in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal" and "Real democracies don't live in fear of their own people" and even "it's not too soon to start rethinking the way we think about Iran." Or try "A better way of describing Iran's dictatorship is as a kleptotheocracy, driven by impulses that are by turns doctrinal and venal."'

Hmmmmm . I can immediately think of another nation to which those strictures are far more applicable.

"Hyperaggressive foreign policy"
"Kleptocracy"

Sounds more like the USA, doesn't it?

As for "Real democracies don't live in fear of their own people", that's a real home run.

1. The USA is not, never has been, never will be, and was never meant to be "a real democracy". (Except by unrealistic visionaries like Jefferson).

2. The USA has been, for some decades, a plutocracy – as comprehensively proved by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

3. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty". – Thomas Jefferson

No prizes for guessing which of Jefferson's alternatives prevails today.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets.html

Greg Bacon , Website January 9, 2018 at 12:32 pm GMT
When you control the media, you control the message. That message is that America just has to keep busting up nations for the glory of Apartheid Israel.

From an April 2003 Haaretz article:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

If this insanity keeps up, America will either be destroyed by financial collapse from waging all these wars or we'll stumble into WW III and the last thing we'll see is a mushroom cloud.

Former Brit PM Tony Blair at the Chilcot inquiry:

What role did Israel play in the run-up to the Iraq war?

"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this."

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/02/iraq-war-israel-bush-saddam

annamaria , January 9, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
@Mark James

"Whether print, air, or both the Neocons want to be players. They have the friends in high –media– places to do it." – They, neocons, are devoid of dignity. This explains why none of them feels any responsibility for the mass slaughter in the Middle East -- picture Madeleine Albright near thousands of tiny corpses of Iraqi children or the piggish Kristol next to the bloody bags with shredded Syrian children. They are psychopaths, the profiteering psychopaths. There is no other way to deal with neo/ziocons but through long-term incarceration.

DESERT FOX , January 9, 2018 at 1:34 pm GMT
Those Zionist neocons are just a few of the cabal that destroyed the WTC and got away with it and every thinking American knows it.

Zionists are Satanists and are going to destroy America, please read THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION.

Jake , January 9, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
My fine tuning of this excellent article begins, and perhaps ends, with this quote: "The fact is that Iran is being targeted because Israel sees it as its prime enemy in the region and has corrupted many "opinion makers" in the U.S., to include Stephens, to hammer home that point."

The 'corruption' is not recent and is not about any one issue or series of issues. It springs from Deep Culture. It is part of the WASP worldview.

WASP culture is the direct product of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy always produces culture and politics that are pro-Jewish, pro-Semitic.

At least by the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually 100% of British Empire Elites were hardcore pro-Semitic. Most were pro-Jewish, but a large and growing minority were pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic.

The Saudis are Arabic. The Iranians are NOT Arabic; Iranians are Indo-European.

Siding with both wings of Semitic culture – Jewish and Arabic/Islamic – against an Indo-European people is exactly what WASP cultural Elites will do. It is roughly analogous to Oliver Cromwell allying with Jews to wage war against the vast majority of natives of the British Isles.

JoaoAlfaiate , January 9, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
Excellent piece. I'd just like to add that Stephens' op-ed in the NYT ought to be view like Judith Miller's misleading articles about aluminum-tubes-for-nuclear-centrifuges which appeared in the Times during the run up to the Iraq war: Preparation of the Times' readership for yet another war in the middle east, this time against Iran.
Jake , January 9, 2018 at 3:05 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

No, Saudis destroyed the World Trade Center.

But the Israelis do see the Saudis as their Middle Eastern BFF, and the US is also tightly allied with the Saudis.

Jake , January 9, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
@Bill Jones

You cannot separate that 'error' from the fact that such an act fit perfectly with WASP culture as the product of Judaizing heresy.

That is exactly what WASP culture would do.

Tammy , January 9, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@MEexpert

MEexpert says, "Look again. His has a typical Jewish face.

The score is still 6 to 1. John Bolton may bot be Jewish but he is a venom spewing neocon."

Finally someone with the courage of Justin Raimondo has guts to call spade a spade. He has taken the courage to move from the FAKE NEWS:

Why the Korean 'Crisis' Is Completely Phony

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2018/01/08/korean-crisis-completely-phony/

Ron Unz is another courageous man. I wish and pray to God, that people like Ron Unz, Philip M. Giraldi, Paul Craig Roberts, Saker and their likes to move away from FAKE NEWS too, and tell us the TRUTH.

Evil can be fought only with TRUTH ..

Your idea about an article on political Islam by either Ron Unz or Philip M. Giraldi is an excellent idea, and I am willing to help provided we keep away from sectarianism and stick to TRUTH. The war the First Caliph abu Bakr which he fought with Yemen's Muslims within six months of Prophet's demise is very important to show how the rights given by Prophet Mohammad (saws) were taken away as soon as his demise. Our aim should be to shine the light on the Prophet. This is what Yemen's war did, just to start with:

1. Prophet did away with excommuniting someone from the fold as he saw a very powerful tool in the hands of Rabbis and Preacher. Who gave them the right to remove someone from Synagogue or Church.

2. So abu Bakr came up with much stronger tool, he called all the Yemeni Muslims en masses as apostate.

3. Brought back the slavery.

4. Claimed that he the Caliph abu Bakr was appointed by Will of Allah through predestination.

5. Thus, the ideology of ISIS calling everyone kafir, kafir, kafir .. and chopping their heads.

6. Used Islam as a disguise to bring other countries in to the fold for power and mammon (money), thus bring Islam by Sword.

The list is extensive and I can go on and on. The divide / confuse / rule was used against the Muslims.

The objective of the article should be to bring TRUTH about the Prophet.

for-the-record , January 9, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMT
@Tammy

Anyone who thinks Trump is a fool is an imbecile himself/herself.

Thanks for the compliment!

sarz , January 9, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@Mark Green

Don't lose heart, Mark Green. There is a very good chance that Trump is actually with you, and that he's winning. He cannot afford to be straight at all. His strategy is to take up highly charged strands of the dominant discourse and to short circuit them. A strong play of a weak hand. He's run with the demands of Adelson, Netanyahu and Kushner regarding Jerusalem and other maximal Israeli demands. It's all in response to the worst Jews. The result is that Shias are united with Sunnis, Hamas with PLO, Iran with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The whole world against America, Israel and some specks of guano. The Iran caper is the same. The Pakistan caper even better. Trump gives the military a free hand to show what they can do in Afghanistan. Then he blows his twitter top to insult Pakistan so there will no longer be a land route. He's doing his damndest and always failing. What a clueless asshole. Yet every failure is undoing the empire, and leading to a one-state resolution in Palestine.

That's just the foreign policy part.

By the time he's finished there will be no Democrat party left as we know it, and the GOP will be transformed as well.
There will be no more Fed. No more debt based currency. A paid off national debt.
And there will be single payer medical coverage.
God willing.

Achmed E. Newman , Website January 9, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT
That was a great summary of our foreign policy situation, Mr. Giraldi. You have a lot of guts to write out all the truth that you see, as you have in all of the articles of yours I've read on unz.

I really liked this line, too:

To be sure, Iran is a very corrupt place run by people who should not be running a hot dog stand, but the same applies to the United States and Israel .

I have one question for you, Phil, and this is not hypothetical or snarky – just looking for your opinion: What do you think the neocons' attitude about the Orient is? I realize that China is on the road to kicking our ass economically , but that's the "war" we need to fight, not a military war. Then, there's N. Korea, which, in my opinion, is none of our business. Rest of the question – Trump seems to get sucked into the standard invade-the-world mode in the Far East also – do you think that is neocon-inspired, and, since that part of the world is no threat to Israel, if so, why? Would they possibly be masking their intentions by expanding the range of their invade-the-world program?

DaveE , January 9, 2018 at 3:35 pm GMT
Another fine essay, Mr. Giraldi. Thanks once again.

This morning we find a very unusual Op Ed in the JYT by David Brooks, "The Decline of Anti-Trump_vs_deep_state".

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/opinion/anti-trump-opposition.html

I don't usually read that filthy rag other than to skim the headlines, but this was just so bizarre, I couldn't resist. Brooks seems to admit that they (Jewish neocons/Bolsheviks) are losing the battle to take down Trump. He openly criticizes the media for being so obvious and self-discrediting.

Is this a total retreat for the neocons / Bolsheviks? Or is Brooks merely rallying the troops? Or simply a desperate attempt to regain credibility by telling the truth, for a change?

Or maybe he is preemptively refuting Mr. Giraldi's premise in this piece, a semi-novel tactic one might call Jewish Preemptive Vengeance getting even BEFORE the fact?

Anyway, it was downright WEIRD.

DESERT FOX , January 9, 2018 at 3:40 pm GMT

@Jake

Do some research, Israel and the U.S. deep state blew up 7 buildings at the WTC on 911 and blew up a section of the pentagram, the Saudis were the patsys , and as corrupt and evil as the Saudis are they had on part in it.

The Zionist neocons did 911 to set the Mideast wars in motion, do some research, hell every thinking American knows Israel did it.

c matt , January 9, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
@wayfarer

Considering what an absolute stranglehold they have over American politics, they may have an argument.

Art , January 9, 2018 at 4:01 pm GMT
Mr. Giraldi has gone after the real power center in America – the Jew controlled US media. Much is said about "we dumb Americans." We are not all that dumb – but we are 100% misinformed. Propaganda works. It is a fact that the human mind is susceptible to repeated lies. (It is also true, that people hate being lied too.)

Much is said about "Christian Zionists." Why is it, that NO Christian broadcast media tells the truth about Palestinian suffering? Of course, it is because of Jew media control. If Christian stations were to tell the truth, there would be a lot less Christian Zionists – they would be a small segment of Christianity.

Thanks to Mr. Giraldi and others on the internet – more and more people are listening and learning and getting mad. A base is building. Truth will out!

Think Peace -- Art

Joe Hide , January 9, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT
The more the psychotic control freaks publically expose themselves, what with social media, the internet, and disenchanted leakers in their own group the more of humanity wakes up to a great sense of absolute disgust in them. We, humanity, are gradually winning and the disgusting pyschopaths are losing.
Michael Kenny , January 9, 2018 at 4:23 pm GMT
Does Mr Giraldi really expect us to believe that the US internet is any better than the media outlets he criticizes? The whole US media scene can be summed up as "don't believe their pack of lies. Believe my pack of lies"!

[Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
May 05, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."

Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker, Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."

Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.

The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

[Dec 29, 2017] As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Notable quotes:
"... Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West. ..."
"... What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war. ..."
"... As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic. ..."
"... I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples. ..."
Dec 29, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

VietnamVet , Dec 26, 2017 3:40:43 PM | 30

Russiagate and corporate media scapegoating Putin's trolls are information operations to keep the little people misinformed. The Ukraine Putsch and the MH-17 shoot down were handled poorly by Russia. They've come back in Syria. Russian intelligence wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't surveilling the West.

Victoria Nuland's EU rant was released. Vladimir Putin preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

What got western oligarchs upset is the disclosure of the truth; the system is rigged. Obama voters in mid-America voted for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton's loss triggered a witch hunt rather than addressing the root causes of her defeat. A group of oligarchs want the upstart NY casino boss gone. The only question is what will be the collateral damage from the mob war.

NemesisCalling , Dec 26, 2017 4:39:00 PM | 36 karlof1 , Dec 26, 2017 4:42:57 PM | 37
Name of Me | Dec 26, 2017 12:13:28 PM | 2

The US Government was controlling media well before the CIA's creation. Please take a little time to learn about George Seldes whose 1929 book You Can't Print That!: The Truth Behind the News, 1918–1928 is vastly informative with original copies easy to find under $15, or even online through this link . Indeed, numerous works of his are digitized. I.F. Stone followed in Seldes's footsteps, and the website with his collected writings is here . Perhaps one of the least known episodes of US Government media manipulation was related to the atomic bomb crimes, an event nearly 100% airbrushed from history books, and of course the ongoing attempt to cover up one of the biggest crimes of all time.

My mention of media manipulation by the US Government wouldn't be complete without including the 100% blackout that was to apply to the discussions in Philadelphia that led to the 1787 Constitution -- the document that elevated the "natural aristocracy" into the catbird seat ensuring their control of the federal government until it's overthrown via revolution.

Fortunately, Madison and others kept copious notes that were eventually published long after the fate of Commoners was sealed, so we know that Aristocracy viewed its contemporary deplorables no differently than how HRC and today's 1% view them/us.

Pft , Dec 26, 2017 7:09:07 PM | 43
Americans and much of the rest of the world are the target of an immense psyop . Propaganda techniques going back to Bernay and WWI have been expanded on and perfected. Infiltration and control is lot limited to the print media and TV news stations but also , hollywood movies/TV shows , academia (history, economics, etc) , book publishing, blogs and social media. The last few bastions of truth will be eliminated with the end of net neutrality.

As former CIA Director William Casey allegedly once said: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." His error here was saying Americans were the target and not the global population as well, but at least as far as America goes I think its pretty much a thumbs up. Mission Accomplished.

Peter AU 1 , Dec 26, 2017 7:58:27 PM | 49
"We do not know what the billionaires get for their service. The CIA surely has many ways to let them gain information on their competition or to influence business regulations in foreign countries. One hand will wash the other."

Something I have often thought about. Media and social media tycoons - all could be taken down very fast if they did not toe the CIA line, though for most, it seems their work with CIA is voluntary and enthusiastic.

I guess you don't get that rich by having ethics or scruples.

[Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.

Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.

A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008, despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.

With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.

Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA. They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.

The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry anyone?

The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting! In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.

Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).

The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy, where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally "people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed" and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).

This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer.

I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.

The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies the concept of a national common culture.

What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain to invite that fate.

Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically, this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing him to pose as their champion.

The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !

Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism -- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings and the belief that only raw power has meaning.

Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore, including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.

James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at Kunstler.com .

Whine Merchant December 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

Wow – is there ever negative!
Celery , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:33 pm
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.

The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.

Merry Christmas!

Fran Macadam , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:55 pm
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
KD , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:02 am
Eat, Drink, and be Merry, you can charge it on your credit card!
Rock Stehdy , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:38 am
Hard words, but true. Kunstler is always worth reading for his common-sense wisdom.
Helmut , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:04 am
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
Liam , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:38 am
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."

Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.

Peter , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:34 am
I have some faith that the American people can recover from an excursion into unreality. I base it on my own survival to the end of this silly rant.
SteveM , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:08 am
Re: Whine Merchant, "Wow – is there ever negative!"

Can't argue with the facts

P.S. Merry Christmas.

Dave Wright , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:22 am
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.

I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.

Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.

Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."

When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.

NoahK , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:15 am
It's like somebody just got a bunch of right-wing talking points and mashed them together into one incohesive whole. This is just lazy.
Andrew Imlay , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:36 am
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia, or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights. Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry, anyone?

You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.

I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation, not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.

But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.

peter in boston , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:48 am
Love Kunstler -- and love reading him here -- but he needs a strong editor to get him to turn a formless harangue into clear essay.
Someone in the crowd , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:07 am
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.

The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.

As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative -- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.

My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.

Jon , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:10 am
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols engenders this tension, this angst.

Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.

The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call to arms.

Joe the Plutocrat , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:27 am
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."

And to whom do we hand the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately, under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?

Russia and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).

And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity, which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial, and even legal).

The scientist 880 , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:48 am
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."

Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.

Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's, much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\

It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!

Here is the direct quote;

"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant -- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners -- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)

I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100 years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obamas-howard-commencement-transcript-222931

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58cf1d9ae4b0ec9d29dcf283/amp

Adam , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:57 am
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market. In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government, just a different piece of legislation.
SteveM , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:29 pm
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.

E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.

The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)

P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.

One Guy , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
LouB , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included. You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.

Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.

tzx4 , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:57 pm
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.

If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.

Jeeves , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.

Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.

Wezz , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:44 pm
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.

Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances. Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising from birth selling illusion.

Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even capable of normal thought?

Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.

Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?

John Blade Wiederspan , says: December 21, 2017 at 4:26 pm
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three years to go.
EarlyBird , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Sheesh. Should I shoot myself now, or wait until I get home?
dvxprime , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.

The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.

Slooch , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:03 pm
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
jp , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:09 pm
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.

for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.

in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give a tired horse a rest.

c.meyer , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:30 pm
So what else is new. Too 'clever', overwritten, no new ideas. Can't anyone move beyond clichés?
Active investor , says: December 22, 2017 at 12:35 am
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic, at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.

However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:

But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies the concept of a national common culture.

The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.

Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a 'victim group.'

While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made in China).

JonF , says: December 22, 2017 at 9:52 am
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act

Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist). To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.

To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue, but you get the picture.

We have met the enemy and he was us.

kevin on the left , says: December 22, 2017 at 10:49 am
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."

Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.

[Dec 17, 2017] Identity politic is and attempt to swipe under the carpet contradictions based on money and economics power issues and replace them with something else like race, gender, age, etc.

Dec 17, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

JBird , December 16, 2017 at 5:14 pm

Yes, it can be used for that , but often the goal is to channel, and contain the thinking from or to whatever, not degrade. Using modern neoliberal economics as an example. The older 19th and early 20th century mainstream political economy were deeper, more comprehensive, and often better at explaining economics. It was also called political economy, and not just economics for that reason.

There was a real financed campaign to narrow the focus on what we call economics today. Part of that effort was to label people very narrowly as just economic beings, which is what libertarianism is, and to label economic thought outside of it as socialism/communism, which is Stalinism, which is the gulag, which is bad thought. The economists studying this were just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the idea, the worm of people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment of anything else, the inability to even see anything else.

I sometimes think some are against the masses getting any higher education because one is exposed to other ways of thinking, and believing. A student might never change their beliefs, but the mind is expanded for considering the possibilities and at looking at where others are coming from. Those mindworms are also more obvious, and less useful.

So you could be ninety year blockhead, but if you are willing to listen, to think on what you are exposed to in college, your mind is expanded and strengthen. Which is perhaps the main goal of a liberal arts education. Even a very hard college education will still have some of the same effect.

Plenue , December 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm

"The economists studying this were just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the idea, the worm of people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment of anything else, the inability to even see anything else."

So would you say identity politics is the same thing in reverse? Intelligent people looking at issues from every perspective but that of money and economics?

JBird , December 16, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Yes, as it is used now. It can be very important, but what I have against identity politics as it is done today is that it is the first and last answer to everything. Many people can see, they just think one's identity is paramount. MLK said it best when he talked about being judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Please keep in mind that the identity being used could anything. Your sex, gender, orientation, age, class, religion, anything.

Today it's skin color, tomorrow?

[Dec 03, 2017] Another Democratic party betrayal of their former voters. but what you can expect from the party of Bill Clinton?

Highly recommended!
Dec 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

SpringTexan , December 2, 2017 at 12:08 pm

And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . . .

Big River Bandido , December 2, 2017 at 3:10 pm

It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.

Kabuki theater in every respect.

jrs , December 2, 2017 at 3:18 pm

It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.

Allegorio , December 2, 2017 at 11:07 pm

Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.

"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington Examiner.

She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see through.

Expat , December 2, 2017 at 8:01 am

To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.

America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians. These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.

This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters. They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work because that is what they learned from their parents.

Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.

And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL

tony , December 2, 2017 at 9:30 am

Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from Greeks.

That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.

However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could make them very popular.

False Solace , December 2, 2017 at 5:18 pm

> a military takeover could be viable

Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to vote. Bleh.

Allegorio , December 2, 2017 at 11:20 pm

This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America loves its winners.

John Wright , December 2, 2017 at 10:45 am

There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that

"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"

Then Brooks goes on to explain

"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-over-self-interest.html

The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.

The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.

The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.

But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.

Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?

Steve , December 2, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Thanks for the great link on how sadly uninformed average Americans are! I've been looking for it for a while and great comment!

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 2, 2017 at 4:08 pm

The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions (House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.

And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.

Vatch , December 2, 2017 at 7:24 pm

he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%

I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at these web sites:

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-historical-table-17

https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-estate-tax-statistics-year-of-death-table-1

Sydney Conner , December 2, 2017 at 5:06 pm

Thanks for the succinct, accurate eloquent description of our nightmare reality.

DHG , December 2, 2017 at 8:13 pm

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/the-dark-rigidity-of-fundamentalist-rural-america-a-view-from-the-inside/

JTMcPhee , December 2, 2017 at 10:34 pm

The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive "capitalism" aka "looting."

For those who haven't encountered Maj. Gen. Butler's take on his 33 years of serving the Oligokleptocracy, here's a link: https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

A smart and honest fellow, who even declined as a "war hero" to serve as the oligarchs' figurehead in an earlier and clumsier plot to get rid of the trappings and regulation of "democracy:" The Business Plot, https://jtoddring.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/smedley-butler-and-the-business-plot/

It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening event(s)".

Jonathan Holland Becnel , December 2, 2017 at 11:51 am

Doomed?

Project Much?

While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual Policy.

IOW The Revolution Is Nigh.

2018 will be a Fn watershed.

[Oct 27, 2017] Censorship in a new clothing

Notable quotes:
"... "[T]he majority of students had no idea that algorithms were filtering the news content they saw on Facebook and Google. When asked if Facebook shows every news item, posted by organizations or people, in a users' newsfeed, only 24 percent of those surveyed were aware that Facebook prioritizes certain posts and hides others. Similarly, only a quarter of respondents said Google search results would be different for two different people entering the same search terms at the same time" ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Our Famously Free Press

"Platforms are not strategies, and they won't save news" [Mary Hamilton, Medium ]. "Seriously. If someone else's algorithm change could kill your traffic and/or your business model, then you're already dead."

"Building trust online by partnering with the International Fact Checking Network" [ Google ]. Google (and Facebook) have more money than God. How come they have to outsource this stuff? Nevertheless: "Today we're announcing a new partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at The Poynter Institute. As a nonpartisan organization, IFCN is committed to promoting excellence in fact checking and building a community of fact checkers around the world. IFCN has developed a widely accepted Code of Principles for fact check organizations. Signatories range from the Associated Press to the Washington Post, PolitiFact and Factcheck.org, to Correctiv (Germany), Aos Fatos (Brazil), and Africa Check."

"[T]he majority of students had no idea that algorithms were filtering the news content they saw on Facebook and Google. When asked if Facebook shows every news item, posted by organizations or people, in a users' newsfeed, only 24 percent of those surveyed were aware that Facebook prioritizes certain posts and hides others. Similarly, only a quarter of respondents said Google search results would be different for two different people entering the same search terms at the same time" [ The Atlantic ].

[Oct 22, 2017] John Brennan's Police State USA

Notable quotes:
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key poli