Milton said ‘who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? ‘ – but he was wrong. I’ve seen it put to the worse time and time again. A major fraction of western universities are dominated by various kinds of lunatics – much more so than 50 years ago – and the situation is deteriorating. Sometimes the bad guys win the arguments, not least because there are a million lies for every truth, and it’s not surprising that some of those lies are more attractive. People aren’t logic machines.
Searching for truth via open debate works sometimes, on some subjects, with some people. But on many topics falsehoods prevail. In war, though, there is a systematic bias towards truth. It helps you win. A tendency, one that can often be overwhelmed by disparities in material or population, or by chance events, but is nonetheless real.
When one side is really crazy – drastically misaligned with reality – even big numerical advantages are sometimes not enough.
Being the strongest power gives you more latitude to indulge your fantasies. Women aren’t ever going to make useful Army Rangers: if we were fighting a war of survival, one in which that kind of infantry combat was key and against a foe with comparable resources, we would either shed that delusion or lose. War, serious war, keeps your head on straight [or chops it off] . That’s one reason that governments in Europe generally didn’t get as goofy as sometimes happened in China , late in a dynasty. Not for long.
The South didn’t want to use black soldiers- if they were effective, it would be a strike against their whole social theory. But winners are interested in winning, not some silly proposition.
West Hunter 
The lunatics are definitely running the universities. It is perhaps not quite as bad in Canada. For example most of the black people at Canadian universities have arrived directly from Nigeria, etc., and they seem to be polite and studious (at least at my university in western Canada). It boggles the mind to see what is going on at American universities:
https://heatst.com/culture-wars/student-mob-calls-for-firing-shrieks-at-professor-for-objecting-to-no-whites-day-of-absence/
However there is still plenty of craziness at Canadian universities. For example deciding to build for-profit condominiums in the main student parking lot, then announcing that students can park in the staff lots. The staff are advised to use a bicycle or bus since it is more “green”. The various administrators have hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses every year to fly around the world. The condominiums will probably be bought by Chinese billionaires.
This looks like very rational decision of the administrators (how rational? it depends on the size of kicback from the Chinese developers).
Interestingly I have been thinking about war and medicine as fields particularly susceptible to infiltration by woo-woo nonsense. People get superstitious about these kinds of things, in a way that they don’t with, say, math, or chemistry. You’d think necessity would make people get their heads on straight, but it generally doesn’t.
Nice thing about war is that the crazier will tend to lose, as you point out. But that doesn’t seem to lead to creeping sanity. Perhaps the mutation rate is too high to be kept in check by selection, so to speak. And how strong is that selection, anyway? In an earlier blog post you talk about how altruistic-aggressive drives that make evolutionary sense in small tribal situations stop being rewarded when those peoples agglomerate in large campaigns. Large scale war might select for having a bum leg or being a clever coward – it might burn out the people who are good for the war effort, and select for those who manage to dodge out and enjoy the peace.
If we want to make large groups select for rationality and altruism, we’ll probably have to do it artificially.
This seems like one of the crazy beliefs as well:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html
It seems to me that its main function is to put more money in the hands of the various silicon valley social media types in much the same way that the money the Australian government gave people a while back ended up with pubs and prostitutes.
Was communist Vietnam more rational than US? Was Khomeini’s Iran more rational then Hussein’s Iraq? Were the Afgan mujahideen more rational than USSR? (looking just on more recent large scale conflicts)
Army Rangers? I indeed cannot imagine situation where infantry combat skills would make difference if survival of US was at stake. In this case, nukes would be used and it does not matter whether man or woman pushes the button.
Ceteris paribus. As I made very clear.
If Army Rangers aren’t going to be of any use, they should be abolished. Not made less effective with women who can’t pass any of the tests….
Not only that but the effort to cover up the failure lead the army into committing serious ethical violations. Rot like that spreads.
Every organization that hires women who can’t cut it suffers from this rot to some degree or another.
100%
the constant lying required by PC rots everything
Women coded the space program because hardware was manly and software was dainty according to the experts of the day. Curious theory they had there.
Women do just fine.
Is it sarcasm?
You mean *black” women coded the space program. Did you learn nothing from the mandatory screenings of Hidden Figures comrade?
In my long career in computers, women were about 10% – maybe 20% tops. No way is software low class and “feminine” like typing or shorthand.
(Lots of guys my age never learned to touch type (I did) and spent decades hunting and pecking. They didn’t foresee needing the skill.)
It is only a partial exaggeration to say that I have twice destroyed my career on the naive assumption that truth would eventually win out. I read too many sports and adventure novels as a boy, perhaps. Reading actual sports and real-life adventures might have been a better instruction in reality.
yeah you gotta do it guerrilla style
My father in law made a similar comment years ago… something about how this “affirmative action bullshit” didn’t happen “back when we had real wars to win.” I figured it was just curmudgeonly nostalgia at the time. Not sure, now.
BTW, what do you think of north korea now?
I’d say that North Korea’s nukes have saved them from an existential conflict with the Anglo-Zionist Empire….
But South Korea has no problem with the West.
The North Korean regime is one of the worst in the world. That’s a very crowded field. They enrich themselves while their citizens starve. I couldn’t care less about what happens to Kim & Co.
Zionist? Yeah right, the Israelis are always ranting about nuking North Korea. They just won’t shut up. Are you crazy?
That’s an apt description of any starving country. Because in any starving country the elite has caviar and French champagne. How is North Korea different?
Because South Korea is part of the Western military alliance, actually, against North Korea. What point are you trying to make here?
At the moment, most other famines occur in African countries with no or weak government, fighting, disruption, overpopulation and so on. I don’t the leaders are enriching themselves much — there’s no wealth.
It’s true that Stalin did something similar (Ukraine) and that was just one of the numerous horrors Communism visited on the USSR. Here the leaders did enrich themselves because it wasn’t a disorganized mess like Africa. But I was excluding the USSR since I was restricting myself to the present day. Plenty of that in history, but I’m talking about now.
My point is that Kim and Communism are evil (unlike South Korea).
The first commenter said that possession of nukes had saved Kim from “Anglo-Zionists”. He seemed to think this was a reasonable thing, since presumably the “Anglo-Zionists” are real bad guys.
I was disagreeing with him strenuously. Anyone taking out Kim (without killing anyone else) is doing the right thing.
African elites get rich by taking the aid money sent to by the West.
There are many debatable points in your comment, but let me just point out that North Korea has spent the past six and a half decades in a box, and I don’t think it’s wise to open that box.
Equatorial Guinea has a higher per capita GDP (adjusted for PPP) than the European Union. Almost everyone there is desperately poor. Guess what? The country has oil, and the dictator, President-for-Life Teodoro Obiang, and his cronies, take all the oil money. There are other African countries with significant resource jackpots, and in several of them the Maximum Leader has stolen billion$..
What is Anglo-Zionism?
Modern name for British Israelite movement, or some new conspiracy theory I never yet heard about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism
Actually, it is a term used by The Saker ( https://thesaker.is ) to label the supposed US/British/Israeli empire. The Saker is an expatriate Russian living somewhere in the US whose blog is thoroughly anti-American and anti-Israeli and, surprise, pro-Russian. If you want to read a thorough trashing of American foreign policy, go there. He and his co-bloggers provide a useful antidote to the usual propaganda coming out of Washington.
A US/British/Israeli empire would be awesome! Can Japan be part of it? That would be even more awesome!
He’s half Swiss half Russian, actually. Not a Russian expat.
“anglo-zionist” is a (misleading imo) label for the central banking mafia who whatever their original ethnic roots aren’t an ethnic faction (imo) but simply very high IQ organised crime.
Since you ask, I have over the last 10-20 years gone from the standard very negative naive libertarian view to a more neutral one.
“The Marine Corps in 2013 studied how proficient females were at pullups. The results were embarrassing. A total of 55 percent of females couldn’t meet the standard of three pullups. In fact, out of 318 female Marines, the average pullups they could complete was 1.63. And 20 percent of the total who could actually achieve three pullups did so by cheating with an extra lower body motion, called “kipping.”’
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/19/marine-corps-plan-says-women-wont-have-to-do-any-pullups/
Women have less than half the upper body strength of men, and this is true even of West Point cadets.
I’m certainly not suggesting that women should fight on front lines. That’s nuts and what’s happening now is crazy.
But what would a modern war look like? Not like WW I or II, I don’t think. One hates to think.
Modern war for survival against equal enemy, as specified Mr. Cochran?
As Clausewitz said: Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.
People who do not have the strength to carry a box of 50 caliber ammo over to Ma Deuce, who do not have the strength to carry a 155mm round to the gun, who cannot carry a full infantry load out, who cannot deal with the thought that young men are dying should not be involved, even far away from the real fighting because mobility means that few places are far away from the real fighting.
You misunderstand me, or I wasn’t clear. I was thinking nuclear war and total wipe out.
But that’s extreme. No, I have no quarrel with men being in charge.
I confess to zero experience with the military. Canada has very little compared to the US.
One rarely meets military people. I don’t think I’ve ever met a veteran of overseas action (except of course, for many from WW II. From my father’s stories, it sounded terrifying).
Few people have any idea of the horror of combat.
I’ve read about it and it sounds absolutely awful. (WW I and II and the Vietnam War.). Especially WW I. Scarcely believable.
I remember accounts of the Battle of the Bulge. Men dug in overnight in foxholes close to freezing to death while listening to the screams of the dying wounded and the sound of incoming shells wondering if this is the one.
I think the real issue is having tests that are designed to be hard for men filters out those men who don’t have the mental grit to force themselves to get fit enough – and the more elite the unit the more mental toughness you need – so it’s really more about the mental toughness than the physical fitness. The fitness is just an indirect way of testing the mentality.
One day you’ll prob be able to do a genetic test that will tell you who has the mental toughness and not bother with the rest (which some women would pass even if they couldn’t do the pullups).
LOL I love it when an excuse to post this picture comes up.
Returning armies victorious or not are hazardous in the extreme to a regime. If you’re the South do you really want to be arming black people? The very best that happens you use them for human wave tactics ( à la Soviet Union) and then you’ve fought a war for your slaves only to send them all off to be killed. Worst case you’ve got a slave revolt on your hands.
It was a risk, and in those days a lot of people would have been familiar with it from reading classical history, as when the Ptolemies incorporated Egyptians into the phalanx when fighting the Seleucids, winning the war but then facing years of rebellion.
But then again, slave revolts almost always fail.
But succeeded in Haiti.
As far as I know, only such success in history. Don’t be Spartacus.
It needed political turmoil in (and occasionally active encouragement from) France.
Yep. If France had acted they could have stopped it.
They tried sending its best. They failed.
J
“They tried sending its best. They failed.”
Courtesy of Yellow Fever:
“Wanting to regain control of the lucrative sugar trade in Saint-Domingue (Hispaniola), and with an eye on regaining France’s New World empire, Napoleon sent an army under the command of his brother-in-law to Saint-Domingue to seize control after a slave revolt. The historian J. R. McNeill asserts that yellow fever accounted for about 35,000 to 45,000 casualties of these forces during the fighting.[71] Only one-third of the French troops survived for withdrawal and return to France. Napoleon gave up on the island, and in 1804, Haiti proclaimed its independence as the second republic in the Western Hemisphere.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_fever#History
Disease played a role in Haiti it would not have in the Southern US
Hookworm, introduced with African Slavery I believe, might also have caused problems for the Confederacy in several ways …
France was far, far away and was (very) busy with other things.
France was far away but led by an activist Napoleon, who sent the largest invasion fleet that ever crossed the Atlantic, some 50,000 men, to the island under the leadership of his brother-in-law Charles LeClerc. The former slaves (and some tropical parasites) exterminated them.
Mostly yellow fever.
Caused by the yellow fever virus that replicates in the lymph nodes and is spread by the female mosquito. A parasite according to Carl Zimmer’s book on parasites I am reading.
“The former slaves (and some tropical parasites) exterminated them.”
Yellow fever played the larger role:
“The historian J. R. McNeill asserts that yellow fever accounted for about 35,000 to 45,000 casualties of these forces during the fighting.[71] Only one-third of the French troops survived for withdrawal and return to France. “
Haiti had a rather large population of healthy French colonists at that time. But the expedition avoided the less mosquito infested areas out of fear of the rebels. The war was between the French military and the rebels. The French died and the rebels won, the yellow fewer was scenery, like the winds and the mountains.
In Haiti it was rebellious slaves allied to the yellow fever mosquito who triumphed. The mosquito inflicted far mor casualties in the French.
Did the Soviets try to use any of the Gulag population as combat troops?
Punishment battalions, maybe. And they pulled plenty of officers back from the Gulag into command, even high command. For example, Rokossovsky. For a while he commanded 16th army, entirely made up of shrtafbats ( penal battalions) – the legion of the damned. They defended Moscow against the main German attack in Operation Typhoon.
Slave revolts tend to fail. One that succeeded was the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan by Joshua leading a new generation born and educated after slavery. Also in Israel, military leadership was always native born sabras (Dayan, Rabin, Ariel Sharon), who were free of the “Galut” (Exile) slave mentality.
Except that neither the Exodus nor the conquest by Joshua actually happened. Both are poppycock, invented centuries after the purported events.
The Egyptians about the end of the second millennium did sometimes impose forced labor on some nomads at least for a while. Perhaps the biblical tale is based on some memory of this. Whether Joshua was an actual historical figure or not the account in the Bible of the conquest of Canaan corresponds roughly to what happened. After the destruction wrought by the Sea Peoples nomadic desert tribes took advantage of the resulting chaos to invade.
“Whether Joshua was an actual historical figure or not”
He wasn’t.
“the account in the Bible of the conquest of Canaan corresponds roughly to what happened. After the destruction wrought by the Sea Peoples nomadic desert tribes took advantage of the resulting chaos to invade.”
I recommend that you read this book:
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
Heh, Finkelstein and Silberman eh? Two fine-sounding names of unbiased writers to be sure.
They try so hard to destroy Gods people, and His word. It makes you wonder why? Who are they working for?
Read Josh McDowells ‘The New Evidence’ for another view, one not driven by evil.
I’ll try to read it.
I’ve read the McDowell book. It’s basically a slightly more presentable version of the same kinds of stuff you find online if you google “Christian apologetics.” There are religious writers out there who are careful about not writing nonsense about history. McDowell is not one of those careful writers.
Who knows. Yet the story sounds right to me: the escaped slaves lost all the battles, only the generation born and bred in freedom was able to conquer. Jews in the exile never fought back, only a new generation free of that slave mentality was able to fight and conquer.
“Except that neither the Exodus nor the conquest by Joshua actually happened. Both are poppycock, invented centuries after the purported events.”
Yep. There’s no real evidence that the Exodus ever occurred.
The details are very unlikely. However prior to the Sea Peoples the Egyptians and Hittites had the Levant divided into areas of control or client polities. We know from Egyptian records that sometimes nomad tribes were forced into labor. Some of the nomadic tribes who moved into Canaan after the Sea People destroyed the Egyptian and Hittite Empires may have escaped at one time from such conditions.
Nomadic tribes moving into the area to grab loot and land in the power vacuum following the Egyptian and Hittite collapse seems very plausible and roughly fits the Biblical narrative of invasion.
If you cut enough details out of the biblical account, and rewrite enough, you can create a semi-plausible story. The same could easily be done with all sorts of mythological accounts. For examples of the same thing being done to Greek mythology, see here: http://vridar.org/2017/05/28/are-theologians-rationalizing-myths-and-miracles-as-ancients-rationalized-their-myths/
There probably was a Greek siege of Troy. The name Roland appears in a list of Frankish warriors. The Aztec myth of coming from the far north and wandering through semi-arid badlands before finally coming into the valley of Mexico fits the linguistic evidence.
The Biblical account is not the unvarnished truth but it is unlikely to be sheer fiction.
You could be right. Maybe there’s something there. But it does require some massive alterations to the biblical version of events. For one thing, the numbers. The Bible has an army of 600,000 warriors escaping Egypt, an army larger than the Roman Empire’s at its peak. Then there’s chronology. The Bible puts the Exodus around 1500 BC, or even before 1600 depending on which version of its internal chronologies you pick. Your scenario implies a date (if I understand you right) some time after about 1175 BC. And there’s other things, too.
Oh the details are all nonsense – Moses in the bulrushes or parting the Red Sea. But it is likely that the origin of the historical Hebrews were nomadic tribes swarming into the Levant in the chaos following the collapse of the Egyptian and Hittite empires. Some of these tribes may have been conscripted into forced labor by the Egyptians. We know from Egyptian records that they sometimes did this. The Egyptians regarded the h-b-r with a mixture of fear and contempt.
So the picture in Exodus of foreign nomads conquering cities and massacring their inhabitants is probably roughly accurate. Also there was a memory of enslavement by the Egyptians.
Jim, I’m having a little trouble following what your proposed Exodus-scenario looks like. On the one hand, it sounds like you’re talking about a bunch of nomads escaping Egypt and invading Canaan in the wake of the circa 1175 Late Bronze Age collapse. On the other hand, you’re talking about Egyptian attitudes toward “h-b-r”, which I’m imagining is some kind of misspelled reference to the Apiru of the Amarna Letters, which place the Apiru in Canaan already in the fourteenth century. Meanwhile, there was some group known as “ysrỉꜣr” (most scholars think that “Israel”) in Egypt by 1209 at the latest.
I suppose it’s always possible to mix and match these events — there were some Apiru already in Canaan, some other nomad Apiru invade Canaan from Egypt later, the vagaries of time and intermarriage mix them with the ysrỉꜣr group, etc. It just all seems very speculative.
Given that events in the Bible don’t seem to have any clear, specific agreements with outside history before the ninth century or so BC, I’m tempted to see the Bible’s narrative of a fifteenth century (or earlier, depending on how you do the math) event as likely so mythological that we can’t reconstruct any solid history out of it. But it’s always possible there’s some real historical stuff that got mixed in there.
The Egyptian Empire extended well into the Levant in the latter part of the second millennium. Some of these nomadic tribes may have been conscripted into forced labor by the Egyptians and after the cessation of Egyptian rule in the Levant they would have had their freedom. This forced labor imposed on them did not necessarily mean that they were held in the Nile Valley but that they may have been enslaved in the areas of the Levant under Egyptian rule. So this could account for a traditional account of having been subjected to Egyptian oppression.
The account in the Bible of conquering cities and massacring their populations seems a very likely description of conditions after the end of Egyptian and Hittite power there. Nomads swarming in to take advantage of the vulnerability of the settled populations. This would have happened in the aftermath of the Bronze Collapse. I wouldn’t take dates derived from the Bible very seriously or numbers either.
h-b-r was a generic Egyptian name for various desert nomads not a name for a specific tribe. The latter Hebrews may have originated from a fusion of various nomadic tribes after they had become settled.
Much of what is in Exodus is fantastical but like the Iliad and the Nibelungenlied it may have some distorted relation to actual history.
“h-b-r” was a generic Egyptian name for various desert nomads not a name for a specific tribe.”
I’m pretty sure you’re confused about this one, in more than one way. Could you be thinking of ˁpr.w instead?
Exodus and Joshua confirmed as literal, accurate history
That’s a documentary which basically just points a microphone at the strange character David Rohl and believes every word he says without pointing a microphone at many of the competent people who could easily explain that Rohl is confused.
The talk about black soldiers in the Confederacy – were there really any blacks who begged to join Confederate army, or was it purely theoretical debate?
Since the Confederacy had a draft, you’re asking the wrong question.
The Confederacy did use slaves as labor battalions. No combat roles.
I don’t get what about South reference is for. South had about 1/2 of population of North and less than 1/10 of industry.
Given the way things had gone up to that point, the South could have won a political victory in the 1864 elections, if things had gone a bit better for them.
How? McClellan wanted to keep fighting the war. The best they could have hoped for was if McClellan won, then was killed in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan#The_1864_Presidential_election
Not if the Democratic party had taken the House and/or Senate. And suppose McClellan had been Pres and tried to win: he was almost magically incompetent.
There was no way for the Democrats to win that election (maybe if Frémont had stayed in) — the Republican Congress would’ve just moved Reconstruction up a few years and seated fake GOP Sens/Reps/Electors from the seceded states until they had a majority again. And McClellan would’ve been inaugurated a month before Appomattox IRL.
I suppose if the Democrats did well enough it could’ve caused mass desertion/mutiny/riots on the Union side.
In the past, if country A adopted a very bad idea which neighbouring country B conspicuously didn’t, there was a chance the people in A would learn their lesson and correct their mistake. If A was so dogmatically wedded to the bad idea that it refused to change course, at least countries C, D, and E would notice the difference between A and B, and would avoid making A’s mistake. Poland’s Liberum Veto is a good example of a very bad idea which Poland’s neighbours conspicuously avoided copying. It contributed to the country’s disappearance at the end of the 18th century.
With modern bad ideas, there’s a determination to spread them globally as far and fast as possible. That way there’ll be fewer highly visible exceptions to expose the folly. That’s the real reason the EU wants to force the Visegrád countries to take in some of the migrants Angela Merkel admitted into Germany. It would avoid the embarrassment of Germany’s immediate neighbour to the East too obviously and conspicuously avoiding a whole load of problems. You wouldn’t want people drawing conclusions.
Good example, the EU. Let’s hope the former Communist countries resist.
Yes, they were brainwashed under Communism, but apparently the Western brainwashing was (and is) even worse as a large fraction of the population appears to have gone insane. They have somehow lost collective will to survive as a society, for no apparent reason.
Over at iSteve someone just posted this video of real life butt-kicking babes of the Swedish police in action.
What’s the problem? They had him surrounded so he promised to only do a few bad things and they let him go.
As a Chicago native and still resident, I’d be happy with the Swedish police babes option, if only it would work here. Beats a body in the street, massive, tax-increasing lawsuits, and officers with the emotional burden of blood on their hands.
Sociological reality in large-scale industrial societies has a sufficiently complex relationship with “truth” that it resists being captured in simple generalizations.
The truth is often unpleasant and/or inconvenient. So making direct use of it has expenses of its own. Important truths must somehow be accommodated by the system, but not declared or stated by the system. Consider the contrast between political correctness and the assumptions actually made by social planners. Up to a point until all hell breaks loose, much of the population would rather be told comfortable lies by the authorities. But where exactly does that point occur? Nazi Germany walked bravely to its suicide, led by a small group of ambitious lunatics. A cautionary tale-
Germany is an odd case. In both world wars she had the best soldiers and for both world wars her strategies/policies were awful. And so the most cultured country in the world destroyed herself. And just in case she made a comeback, she has recently adopted a policy of actually inviting invaders in, in huge numbers. It should defy belief, but there it is.
DEARIEME WROTE:
“And just in case she made a comeback, she has recently adopted a policy of actually inviting invaders in, in huge numbers. It should defy belief, but there it is.”
Perhaps Germany has decided to destroy itself out of guilt about the Nazis. But that doesn’t explain why France is doing the same thing. France has always been odd. England is perhaps flogging itself to atone for its Empire. But the Anglo-sphere it created is like a lifeboat in a sea of shit, and people in the shittier countries are flocking to America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At this rate the Anglo lifeboats will be swamped and we will all be in up to our necks in shit.
What’s Sweden atoning for? Nothing.
Rather, from what I’ve read about motives, the elites thought Sweden was boring, like white bread.
Here were Germany, Britain and France loading up on immigrants! At that point, Germany had merely brought in Turkish guest workers, and in the 1970s, someone decided to let them stay. France ditto on guest workers plus after France pulled out of Algeria after a fight, they had to accept the Algerian Arabs who fought on their side. Britain, like you say, started letting people come from ex-colonies like Jamaica.
Swedish elites were jealous. How could they socialize and attend cocktail parties with their counterparts in these diverse nations? They were embarrassingly white bread. And so it spread…
Before the russians beat them in the great northern war, the swedes did some nasty nasty things. But they are not as recent.
Yes, I guess they should pay reparations to Germany for the Thirty Years War. The French too.
Well I can kinda get the 30ys war, but the deluge was certainly gratitiuous. Not nice. But as I said, its far back now. As long as they dont start it again, I am fine.
Swedish elite opinion was firmly that homogenity was an extremely good thing up until the sixties or so. Then Jewish, and to a lesser extent Baltic, refugees ran an intense media campaign for multi-culturalism starting in the late sixties and by 1975 the Swedish constitution was changed so that Sweden should be an explicitly multi-cultural country with far reaching rights for all minorities exceeding those of native Swedes.
I know Olof Palme spent time as a student in the US and probably there were lots of other American anti-racist influence at the time.
Stuff like this is why it is very hard for me to not be anti-semitic. Any time I start looking into what went wrong with my country a bunch of Jews pops up. Not just Jews, but a lot of them and far, far more than their population share.
This is absolutely correct and I agree with your feeling towards the jews whom have brought down our country.. Nice to see a fellow Swede here. I’ve got the impresssion that Europeans have a better undestanding of Jewish power than white americans, is this the case? And if so, why?
Multiculturalism was in the air at the time. In Canada it was Trudeau Sr who brought it in. So like sheep, elite opinion shifted. I don’t why Jews were more active in this. I don’t think they were a big factor in Canada, as there aren’t very many (at least out here in BC).
You’d think they’d have more sense than to enthuse about Muslim immigrants. But like the rest of Europe (the parts that had recent problems with Turks were then under Communism) all memory of that enemy had been forgotten. Muslims particularly dislike Jews even if they’re people of the book. That started after Mohammed had trouble with them in Medina, with ensuing violence. So it’s very old. They have to be good dhimmis.
I don’t know in which way it happend in Canada but in Sweden the case is clear. Tage Erlander who was our prime minister from 1946 to 1969 said as late as 1962, when comparing Sweden to the US: “We Swedes live in an infinitely more fortunus situation. Our countrys population is homogenous, not only in question of race but also in many other aspects.”
The debate starting “le grande réplacement” here was driven by David Scwharz (polish jew), Inga Gottfarb (swedish jew) in newspapers owned by Bonnier (jewish media family). Of course today immigrants as well as Swedes argue for immigration but jews such as Aschberg, Schulman and many more are still strikingly many since their part of the population is around 50 000.
I’ve heard the theory the Pierre Trudeau so hated the British character of Canada that he decided to destroy it by mass 3rd world immigration, and that he regretted what he had done later in his life. I have no idea if this is true,
When the 60’s race riots were going on in the USA, some Canadians were quite smug because they saw Americans as being racist and Canadians as not racist. So the smug elites decided to import blacks from Jamaica into Canada, to show the Americans how race relations were done. This proved disastrous of course,
You’re correct about smug Canadians.
It’s seems to be a leftist phenomenon. I’ve not detected it at all on right wing sites where regulars get “to know” each other after a fashion in the comments.
But I personally met numerous smug Canadians during that era. It was quite pronounced. Even then that struck me as really stupid.
The Jews being what they are, why did you listen to them? Why did you have to listen to any of them? It’s not like they can easily pass undetected in Sweden.
Swedes being what we are how could we not listen to them? We don’t really have much of a lie detection module.
Honestly though I don’t know. It’s clear Jews in Sweden were and are very disproportionate, and effective, in pushing for multi-culturalism. But it’s also clear Swedes are almost pathologically naive and now (probably not before) to a large extent actually want multi-culturalism, just without all the low-trust stuff and ethnic conflict. That’s of course impossible, but try telling a Swede that and he’ll get very angry at you. The only people who don’t fit that are aspie high iq-types who just read up on the subject and accept it and people who’ve gotten repeatedly abused.
I sort of suspect we’re simply dodos when it comes to infra-state ethnic conflict and competition and have about as good a prognosis for survival too.
White American here. To a lesser extent, we’re guilty of the same sin. I think everybody West of Poland is; perhaps there’s an exception here or there.
the banking mafia want an 85 IQ planet – just follow the money
She? Germany is the Fatherland …
I don’t see the Nazis as analogous. They were obsessed with an erroneous belief that they lost WW I because Jews “stabbed them in the back.”
In fact, they lost because Britain and then finally the US entered the war and proved more difficult to defeat than estimated. The Germans involved in starting WW I overestimated Russia and underestimated Britain. Not to mention the US.
Their belief about being “stabbed in the back” was ridiculous.
So they make a poor example. What “awkward truth” were they speaking?
I suppose you could say they were trying to calm people down by denying they lost fair and square. But they didn’t believe that themselves.
Indeed. Anyone who believes that the Balfour Declaration had anything to do with it is a holocaust denier!
I don’t think it had much effect, although the Brits were certainly hoping to get something out of it. After their big offensives in early 1918 failed, what did the Germans have left to hope for? Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were disintegrating, about to quit. All the players were staggering like old-time boxers in the 15th round: only the US was fresh. And since the US had a bigger war potential than any other power at that point..
I think they underestimated machineguns, and fast firing cannons more that Britain.
Machine guns too, I agree.
But prior to WW I, the German military high command had studied their apparent risks carefully. They were fearful of Russia, with a growing population that was industrializing. They were laying rail track and so on. On the face of it, populous Russia was a threat.
Britain was not a historical enemy of Germany. In fact, it seemed absolutely no one in Britain actually WANTED a war with Germany. It had not even crossed the minds of most. Churchill claimed he saw signs of preparation on Germany’s part (at rail yards) but he was being defensive. He certainly didn’t want to start a war with Germany.
Still, the Germans were obsessed by Britain’s large Navy and frankly jealous of all their overseas colonies.
When they took fatal plunge after Sarajevo, the Germans hoped against hope that Britain would stay out. Didn’t work out that way.
In the event, Russian fighting abilities were seriously hampered by poor leadership of the troops and all manner of shortages. The Russians just weren’t the fearful enemy they had thought.
While Britain was not powerful enough to shift the balance to a decisive defeat of Germany, they were quite capable of tipping the balance to deny Germany a quick victory. They did things like cut Germany’s underwater communication cable and far worse, instituted a blockade preventing ships getting from the Atlantic to Germany. By 1917 food shortages and hunger began to afflict the civilian population.
So although prewar plans had focussed more on Rusdia, Britain was more dangerous.
Still, a stalemate soon developed and at horrible cost to all nations involved, the war dragged on, with no resolution in sight. The entrance of the US with their large population and vast resources to the war soon brought it to an end.
Germany’s victory over France in 1870 caused a great deal of alarm in Britain. It inspired an article in Blackwood’s magazine called ‘The Battle of Dorking’ that inaugurated a tradition of writing about fictional invasions of the British Isles, mostly coming from Germany. Erskine Childers’ ‘Riddle of the Sands’ (1903), William Le Queux ‘The Invasion of 1910’ (1906), H. G. Wells ‘The War in the Air’ (1908) and many, many others. It was such a staple of British popular fiction that it was pastiched in Michael Palin’s Ripping Yarns as late as 1979 in the episode ‘Whinfrey’s Last Case’.
It was an article of faith in the Edwardian press that Britain had been infiltrated by up to 100,000 German spies and saboteurs. Alfred Harmsworth, the owner of the Daily Mail, invited his readers to report sightings of suspicious foreigners and he advertised likely invasion routes and plans. This strand of thought became more hysterical from 1908 when they believed that the Germans were building the new Dreadnought-type battleships at a faster rate than Britain.
I don’t know how on Earth you arrived at the conclusion that “war with Germany… had not even crossed the minds of most [in Britain].”
I based my comments solely on the surprise of the UK on the outbreak of WW I. I confess to not having read extensively on the earlier German invasion of France. I stand corrected in that case.
However, at least as far as the leaders of the UK go, they did not seem to think it was quite as bad as perhaps the general population thought. Perhaps I’m reading too much into the relative treatment of ambassadors. The German ambassador said he was well treated after the outbreak of war. He said people seemed sad. He was seen off with appreciation and regrets for the turn of events. I think he went to Switzerland since he clearly didn’t agree with the current German leaders.
The UK ambassador in Germany was hustled out with distinct hostility and was lucky to get out in one piece.
It’s an old lawyer’s saying that the greatest tool ever invented for the discovery of truth is cross-examination
It’s not.
Mech-suits coming in 2018 — an angry lesbian in one of these might do okay:
http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/02/socom-talos-iron-man-suit-to-begin-testing-in-2018/
yes – you’d still need some way to test mental toughness though
I’m fond of saying that post-modernism is when people learn all the age old lessons they forgot during modernism. In this case, the answer is force. The answer is always force. The academy is overrun by lunatics because they forced their way in and took over, driving off anyone who opposed them.
If you want the culture back, you have to take it, with force.
I was always amazed that nobody thought to stop this at the HR level: Provosts and Deans, mostly. Identify every position in your university that populates committees which determine who will be in the other positions, and purely populate those positions with people who wouldn’t let in a bunch of Marxist hacks.
The weirdest ones are the Catholics, I think. I go to a fairly prestigious Catholic university, and it’s nearly as overrun by communists as any other school is. You’d think that these religious/traditionalist folks would think to keep this absurdity at bay, but it isn’t so.
And I’m always left wondering “why, why would we ever even joke about hiring this guy?” Whoever is in charge of hiring around here must be an asshole. Why is that guy in his job?
The fact that it’s a committee is no excuse. Professors weren’t always this crazy. Why did the sane ones let the crazy ones in, in the first place? God, if I were a Dean when the Frankfurt School or the Boasians made landfall. McCarthy/Minutewomen mentality.
The current Pope is accused of having leftist leanings. He sure kisses up to the Muslims, unlike Benedict. And why did Benedict quit? He’s still alive, how sick could he have been? Didn’t the Cardinals like his attitude to Islam?
I freely admit that’s sheer speculation, but I’m pretty familiar with watching a big Protestant sect in Canada degenerate into complete lunatics.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-soviet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology-83634/
It’s just amazing to me. Why don’t these people try to punch back? Usage of critical theory and the class based exegesis of the New Testament was so utterly, obviously communist. Somebody farther up the line absolutely had to excommunicate those blatant traitors, but they simply didn’t. By this time the Holodomour had already happened, and the Great Leap Forward was under way; we had access to the knowledge that communism was one of the worst ideas we had ever had as a species.
Hell, maybe it’s easier to explain with Catholics than with professors. A small number of professors actually breed, but none of those priests have grandkids who will actually have to live in the cesspit being created.
I decided to check the dwindling forum of the lunatic United Church of Canada (Methodists, most Presbyterians and Congregationalists joined in 1922.).
Thought I’d see if any one had the bad taste to mention the Manchester bombing. No, of course. Some years ago, the forum told my sister she’d be banned if she didn’t stop linking to TRUE stories about Islam.
Instead there was a section on “What are you reading”? Post-9/11, I read dozens of books on Islam and it’s history. I read about the Iranian revolution and so on. I also read articles on the web.
Now one member who thinks Islam is wonderful answered the “What are you reading?” As follows:
http://www.wondercafe2.ca/index.php?threads/what-are-you-reading.583/
Some of the most ignorant people I know read a lot, but it’s all fiction.
Naturally, these cretins talk about literacy as if it were an end rather than a means.
Oh, they have them. Whether they ever see them is another matter.
And yeah, I don’t know of any serious argument that the Pope isn’t a commie.
It’s depressing for sure.
steel-making commie or gender-blender commie?
If the options are Mao or Bruce Jenner I can’t square that circle. To my knowledge he hasn’t starved anybody yet, but he has to my surprise spoken out against the whole “trans” thing. Which is hilarious, because he said “who am I to judge” regarding gay priests.
OK, I can literally speak for God, but I’m totally unqualified to determine whether it’s okay to add yourself to an unbroken chain of sex partners leading back to a monkey’s anus. Boy golly shucks, if only the Good Book had something about this, something crystal fricken’ clear like a city being blown up and a woman being turned into salt for feeling bad for them.
And like, you know, a man getting railed by another man as if he were a woman is possibly just dandy, but a man actually pretending to be a woman in public, woah there cowboy, that’s just too far.
Anyway, I’d go more with steel-making, given those two options, if not a blend of the two. He invited Gustavo Gutiérrez over at least once. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/popes-focus-on-poor-revives-scorned-theology.html
And that guy was almost assuredly associated with the KGB http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-soviet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology-83634/
When I was in university back in the early 1970s, Liberation Theology was all the rage with groups of far left priests and nuns. They could protest as well as any student!
They let the marxists in because they had an honest desire for openness. Their mistake was in thinking that it would be reciprocated. Instead the marxists paid them back by taking over and squashing any competing ideas. As the child of an academic at a major American university, i am intimately familiar with exactly how it all happened. The leftists absolutely will use political views to deny work to someone in any field. And it doesn’t have to be a conservative; they will discriminate against people who simply aren’t sufficiently leftist.
The Pope is not a Communist nor a Marxist. He is a Jesuit. He rose in the ranks when the Church was leftist, then under the fascist dictatorship in Argentina he played the generals, and after the dictatorship was defeated, he emerged clean and intact. He is Pope because he is Italian, straight and a survivor with certificates.
“he is a Jesuit”. Yeah, I bet he is. But, i’m not sure why you are replying to me; to point out that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the leftists taking over academia and the leftists (and pink mafiosos) taking over the Catholic Church?
My theory is that, during the Vietnam War, the leftist students stayed in grad school to avoid the draft. They ended up with PhDs and a core of like minded associates who then took over academic departments. Conservative students who were going on, joined the reserves, finished their degrees and left to go into careers outside academia.
As usual, Orwell said it best:
“In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality. All rulers in all ages have tried to impose a false view of the world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency.
So long as defeat meant the loss of independence, or some other result generally held to be undesirable, the precautions against defeat had to be serious.
Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an airplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions.
Moreover, to be efficient it was necessary to be able to learn from the past, which meant having a fairly accurate idea of what had happened in the past.
Newspapers and history books were, of course, always colored and biased, but falsification of the kind that is practiced today would have been impossible. War was a sure safeguard of sanity, and so far as the ruling classes were concerned it was probably the most important of all safeguards.
While wars could be won or lost, no ruling class could be completely irresponsible.”
The madness in Cambodia was ended by Vietnamese invasion. One reason why Maduro can persist in his madness is that he faces no external threat.
Maduro is a puppet. Cuba is the true ruler in Venezuela. Without Venezuela, Cuba’s economy is unsustainable.
Cuban troops are many of the snipers shooting civilians in Venezuela.
I’m curious to hear some examples of Chinese late dynastic goofiness.
“The South didn’t want to use black soldiers- if they were effective, it would be a strike against their whole social theory.”
I’d always thought the South was intellectually lazy or unimaginative for believing this. There are plenty of examples of warrior slave classes in other societies. It shouldn’t be hard to come up with some silly racial theory for why a particular segment of blacks are fit to fight, if that is one’s concern. Even the Nazis were more versatile–they had no problem allying with southern Europeans and Japanese.
“they had no problem allying with southern Europeans and Japanese…”
Although, as things turned out, they’d have been better off listening to their prejudices with regard to the former (who were mostly hapless), and never really ended up doing any useful “allying” with the latter, who might have been pretty helpful in the summer of 1941.
Perhaps the best example of a warrior slave class were the Turkish slaves in the Muslim world, they entered muslim countries as slaves and ended up becoming the masters as they took control of armies. Overall….I think history shows us it´s not wise policy to arm your slaves!
They actually weren’t great soldiers – hardly surprising, being illiterate. And someone had to do the farm work.
Would have been wiser for the South to recruit free blacks and leave the slaves alone until the last need…
Was the South’s problem really lack of soldiers? My understanding is that Confederates mobilized as many men as they could arm and supply, am I wrong?
The Union blockade was ultimately very effective.
Yes, you’re wrong. The Confederacy mustered 900,000 total men, representing virtually 100% of the available adult white males. The North fielded 2 and 1/2 million men with much lighter conscription and deep uncalled reserves. In the end numbers were as critical as anything else in southern defeat.
There were important southern generals ( Hardee and Cleburne for example) who argued early on for arming freed slaves. Lee was agnostic on the subject. But the slave owning class was more influential and Jefferson Davis was personally opposed. They actually did debate the idea extensively.
The Nazis would have defeated the USSR in short order if they had put Jewish adminstrators in charge of occupied Ukraine and Belarus and immediately given Ukrainian peasants the land to farm as private property. When it came to Jews and Slavs the Nazis displayed almost no flexibility.
“one in which that kind of infantry combat was key”
This is a very big assumption and is probably not the case. The classic problem of military planning and training is preparing to fight the last war and not the next one. Many key components of military procurement, strategy and tactics are likely to go the way of the horses of the light brigade in the next serious war.
For example, while we’ve started to use drones to fill the roles of helicopter gunships and CAS aircraft, the military hasn’t even really scratched the surface of the potential of smaller armed drones targeted at individual enemy soldiers, or guided anti-personnel weapons. And, in that environment, the competencies of today’s Army Rangers may be greatly reduced. Range extending technologies for small arms could have a similar effect.
It’s seemed to me for some time that surface warships should just be called ‘targets’. Thus: littoral target, destroyer target, aircraft carrier target, etc.
Yes, once we get to Defcon 0 I certainly wouldn’t want to be on one.
Admiral Horatio Nelson said “a ships’s a fool to fight a fort.” In the new age that is dawning the “fort” is an increasingly sophisticated range of over the horizon anti ship missiles that render a ship vulnerable to attack. The influential Admiral Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing he was asked how long he thought American air craft carriers would last in an actual war.
His response, “about 48 hours.” In 2017 we might have to adjust that number down to a couple hours.
In war games our air craft carriers get sunk really fast. Here is the link I am quoting from, it is worth reading. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8
I remember a line from Hap Arnold’s memoirs saying that if the war had gone on longer carriers would have been shown to be obsolete (don’t have it handy, someone correct me if I’m wrong). In
Chinese Views of Future WarfareChinese strategic thinkers consistently write about the importance of submarines (and even seabed military bases) in 21st century naval warfare. 48 hours…“a ships’s a fool to fight a fort.”
Nice. Perfect iambic pentameter. Was all his writing so euphonious?
Two syllables short of a pentameter, but beautiful anyway.
“Milton said ‘who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? ‘ – but he was wrong.”
Free and open debate will gradually range in on the truth if both sides are seeking the truth.
If one side are seeking to hide the truth e.g. because they want to change US immigration policy, then they cheat in some way e.g. falsify data or use violent intimidation.
I don’t consider that “free and open.”
In situations like that you need people who are prepared to butt heads and force a free and open debate – once it’s back to a level playing field then truth wins.
“Being the strongest power gives you more latitude to indulge your fantasies.” Very true, and history may eventually add to the list with respect to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consider some of the candidate fantasies: 1. Air war acrobatics and super-technologies can win the day. Yes, just as we though previously unimaginable levels of bombing in Vietnam would. 2. The never-ending historic goal of conquest over the natives of Afghanistan will finally be won by the U.S., even after we leave or cut down to a small occupying force. 3. “Thank you for your service” – All soldiers have a sacred status, whether they are combat heroes or paper pushers, and should be inculcated with an entitlement mentality with subsidies and benefits regardless of their contributions. 4. We have allies, and they see us as the good guys. Yet – in the case of the Taliban, they maintain order and they do have their traditionalist fans. 5. We are defeating ISIS. There is no chance they will rebuild, in spite of their infinite capacity for guerrilla war funded by outside sources, and their knowledge of the terrain and the players. 6. Urgency and public solidarity, a key to winning WWII, is not needed anymore. Cable news networks and Big 3 nightly news programs can ignore foreign military actions for weeks on end while talking about Congressmen, the Executive Branch, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and British former intelligence agents all investigating one another. No worries, the New York Times will mention the fighting a few times a month – of course, very few Americans read the paper. I could go on, but it will just seem like pessimism. For a lot of people, though, it’s not. If you’re part of the Military-Industrial complex (even an obscure corner of it) – the idea of a sacred military fighting a much needed war against horror-movie adversaries while garnering very little opposition from the public is a dream come true. Yes, 9-11 and occasional uncovered plots, car bombs, explosions at concerts, etc. are game changers, but in what way? Is the public thinking – let’s be ruthless and kill them all? Or -” I sure hope that doesn’t happen to me?” (Maybe I better go out less and play more X-Box).
Marxism, feminism, and Islam are all adequate demonstrations that really, really bad ideas can be really, really successful. Lies can be very profitable.
Yes the Dawn of the Age of Rationalism turned out to be a delusion.
I know this is off-topic….but I am hoping we can soon see the author of this blog commenting on this : http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/26/142448
So modern day Canaanites are living in Lebanon. Have any of the ancient Hebrew genomes been sequenced? All three major Jewish branches are said to share common Middle Eastern ancestry. It would be nice to have a confirmation that it matches the ancient genomes found in today’s Israel. (But imagine a can of worms if there is no good match!)
I’d be interested to see if anyone runs the Jewish genetic data against the Canaanite genomes. The data’s all out there. It should be doable.
Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2017/05/28) - Social Matter