');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Unnecessary Invasion?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

      Most don’t think so, but younger, non-whites are less certain about the moral righteousness of America’s entry into World War II than older whites are. Democrats are modestly less sure than Republicans, though that’s likely accounted for entirely by non-white Democrats. This comes from a 2017 YouGov poll asking respondents if it was a mistake to send troops to fight in the second great war. “Not sure” responses, constituting 19% of the total, are excluded:

      Post-war America was, save for Israel herself, the greatest place in the history of the world for Jews. Whether it will remain that way in another seventy years is an open question, but I’m doubtful. However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews. By that point the distinction will be about as salient as the distinction between white Protestants and white Catholics is to non-whites today (or, perhaps more descriptively, between white Episcopalians and white Evangelicals today).

       
      • Tags: History, Polling, War 
      Hide 95 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
      1. However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.

        Good point, since we all vaguely look alike to “them,” but it might be better reinfoced by polling of Ashkenazi Jews’ views of US entry into the war, no?

      2. Ironic, WW2 was an absolute disaster for the white race and a massive boon for non whites, yet you still have whites being the biggest supporter.

      3. Given the 23% black disapproval, your post should have been titled ‘Hitler Yoofs.’

        • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Somebody needs to do something about the black nazi problem!
      4. Except that whites will also, increasingly, be treating Jews badly.

        Emmanuel Cellar has a lot to answer for.

      5. However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.

        It sounds like you’re imagining a setup where non-Whites are politically dominant, and “treat” refers to an overall sense: How the system, controlled by non-Whites, will relate to Whites (including Jews).

        I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. We should all know that the race war narrative is fake. We’re in an intra-White conflict. Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides. The ruling class of nonWhite countries everywhere is suspiciously much lighter skinned than the ruled. Often it is literally a different tribe.

        Now anyway though, even if this did come to pass, the real question is how will Jews react to their treatment by a non-White majority? They will use personal networking and solidarity to carve out decent if not comfortable lives in insulated communities.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power. The Amish literally do not care who wins a federal or likely even statewide election.

        • Replies: @Mitleser

        Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides.
         
        Don't count on that.

        https://twitter.com/PyotrNemets/status/1164406940312584193
        , @Thucydides
        Actually, Ashkenazi Jews will be treated worse than Whites. The POC hatred is based on envy, plus racial antagonism. Due to their success, Jews will be especially targeted.
        , @WorkingClass
        We’re in an intra-White conflict.

        Agreed.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power.

        Agreed. I suggest separation.

        If the other 49% of energy is for worrying we should worry about how we will be treated by the Matriarchy.
        , @RadicalCenter
        White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA's culture already, unless we count Ashkenazi Jews as simply "white" despite their genetics typically being at least 50% Semitic / "Middle Eastern" and perhaps 40% Italian.

        As for the prediction of white dominance over governmental and corporate power in the USA, it may continue to be largely true for some time yet in many States, but things are already changing in that regard in heavily non-white places like California.

        Cali's governor is a non-Hispanic white guy and its lieutenant governor is a woman with a Greek name, but here are the rest of the State's "constitutional officers":

        Secretary of State: Alex PADILLA - Mexican
        Attorney General: Xavier BECERRA - Mexican
        Controller: Betty YEE - Chinese
        Treasurer: Fiona MA - Chinese
        Insuranc Comm'r: Ricardo LARA - Mexican
        State Board of Ed: Tony Thurmond - African
      6. Ironic, WW2 was an absolute disaster for the white race and a massive boon for non whites, yet you still have whites being the biggest supporter.

        So much for “hu-white hu-nity”…🤨

        Peace.

        • Replies: @22pp22
        I am sometimes surprised by who was and was not given the title of top commenter. What was incisive about that comment?
      7. Linking WW2 entry with anti-white racism? And then shoehorning Jewish treatment into the conversation? This blog post is nonsensical at best.

        But let me summarize. It is another white victimization post that is exposing white people as being insufferable. Quit complaining so much white people!

        • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
        Quite to the contrary, I think the 2nd paragraph of this post, the analysis part, is one of the better of Mr. A.E.'s points. If you think about the ages of the Hispanics here, especially, the numbers aren't really very far apart, but the basic point is a good one.

        Was there not enough data to have a bar for Jews too, A.E.? I'd think it would be a very short bar - maybe it's so short that I missed it ;-}
        , @Audacious Epigone
        The graph is the point of the post.

        The clunky, often disjointed commentary is stream-of-consciousness stuff that comes to mind as it's being put together.
      8. @Not my economy

        However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.
         
        It sounds like you’re imagining a setup where non-Whites are politically dominant, and “treat” refers to an overall sense: How the system, controlled by non-Whites, will relate to Whites (including Jews).

        I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. We should all know that the race war narrative is fake. We’re in an intra-White conflict. Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides. The ruling class of nonWhite countries everywhere is suspiciously much lighter skinned than the ruled. Often it is literally a different tribe.

        Now anyway though, even if this did come to pass, the real question is how will Jews react to their treatment by a non-White majority? They will use personal networking and solidarity to carve out decent if not comfortable lives in insulated communities.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power. The Amish literally do not care who wins a federal or likely even statewide election.

        Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides.

        Don’t count on that.

      9. @Not my economy

        However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.
         
        It sounds like you’re imagining a setup where non-Whites are politically dominant, and “treat” refers to an overall sense: How the system, controlled by non-Whites, will relate to Whites (including Jews).

        I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. We should all know that the race war narrative is fake. We’re in an intra-White conflict. Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides. The ruling class of nonWhite countries everywhere is suspiciously much lighter skinned than the ruled. Often it is literally a different tribe.

        Now anyway though, even if this did come to pass, the real question is how will Jews react to their treatment by a non-White majority? They will use personal networking and solidarity to carve out decent if not comfortable lives in insulated communities.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power. The Amish literally do not care who wins a federal or likely even statewide election.

        Actually, Ashkenazi Jews will be treated worse than Whites. The POC hatred is based on envy, plus racial antagonism. Due to their success, Jews will be especially targeted.

      10. @Anonymous
        Linking WW2 entry with anti-white racism? And then shoehorning Jewish treatment into the conversation? This blog post is nonsensical at best.

        But let me summarize. It is another white victimization post that is exposing white people as being insufferable. Quit complaining so much white people!

        Quite to the contrary, I think the 2nd paragraph of this post, the analysis part, is one of the better of Mr. A.E.’s points. If you think about the ages of the Hispanics here, especially, the numbers aren’t really very far apart, but the basic point is a good one.

        Was there not enough data to have a bar for Jews too, A.E.? I’d think it would be a very short bar – maybe it’s so short that I missed it ;-}

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        No, YouGov doesn't break results out by religion.
      11. “However the future non-white majority America treats…”

        There is and will be no such thing as a “non-white majority America,” because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate. Already we are observably living in non-America. By 2024 election permanent-Dem dictatorship, it will be quite clear we are living in conquered Vichy America or post-America. Give the old lass a good rowdy wake and a decent Mass of Christian Burial, sixty days of formal mourning, and then onwards with living and with business. Which will mean some rather sobering implications.

        There will not and cannot be any stable system of Whites sharing the same country with people who hate us so intractably. 150 million-plus people, the most accomplished and well-armed of the lot, will simply not accept permanent servility status. It is too large, too talented, and too angry a population to put on a permanent leash. Non-whites are illegitimate usurpers in this country, and both they and we know it. They are not even legitimate as a Helot’sand class, let alone as a ruling class.

        Such a situation cannot and will not last. Once it becomes painfully clear that “the United States” or the idea of “America” no longer exists, the continent will simply fracture into suitable sub-component states. Some of these will be white supermajority states, and they will be the ones that Jews, bindis, blacks, mestizos and other various mystery meats will be howling like mad to sneak into. They will get the surprise of their lives when the answer is NO!, followed by sun-blotting sheets of artillery fire.

        • LOL: Corvinus
        • Replies: @Mitleser

        There is and will be no such thing as a “non-white majority America,” because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate.
         
        Doesn't matter.
        Romans did not stop calling themselves Romans even after they lost Rome, spoke Greek instead of Latin and ceased worshipping their old gods in favor of worshipping a man from Judea.
        Why would USians act differently?
        The term "United States" will endure because it is generic.
        , @WorkingClass
        Dude. You need to get out of the City. Separation doesn't have to be like that. The people we want to avoid don't care if we leave. There may be opposition from the government. But look at Virginia. Urban vs. Rural looks like a toss up to me.
        , @Anonymous
        You're ignoring geopolitics, which is a primary force in determining the maintenance of large states, especially continental, imperial ones like the US.

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.

        China, Russia, Europe, and even minor regional states like Canada and Mexico would be involved to grab territory and influence in the former USA. They'd be retarded not to, and none of the sub-component states would be able to do anything about it. This basic geopolitical logic is what promotes the maintenance of a unitary state in the US, despite demographic trends.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        There isn't much of a clamoring to get into the country's white supermajority states now, though. Excepting people moving out of California to surrounding states, most of the country's population growth is in the relatively non-white South, just from internal migration alone. The white Northeast and Appalachia are losing people the fastest.

        What seems clear to me is that the union will not last. Whatever can be done to make the coming breakup as pacific and orderly as possible should be done.
      12. I thought the same thing.

        The first thing I think of when I think of a 25% white America, is just a much wealthier and more dynamic version of a Latin American country, and with less instability and inequality.

        Anyways, the liberal narrative depends on whites being a majority and in power. It is based on redressing historical imbalances. Whites were too dominant and too unfair to other races, so we have to restore balance.

        That’s why it has moral momentum. If anti-white attitudes continued after whites were a minority, it would merely be Nazism, and would lose any moral appeal it has now.

        The liberal narrative, by its own logic, is time-bound – if after the balance they are seeking is restored it morphs into simple anti-white racism – which may happen – it will lose the moral high ground.

        I personally do not think liberal white guilt is a healthy way to address the historical imbalance of white dominance, because it is may set in motion a “cycle of abuse” – I abuse you, you abuse me back, etc.

        But its understandable where its coming from.

        • Replies: @Lars Porsena

        If anti-white attitudes continued after whites were a minority, it would merely be Nazism, and would lose any moral appeal it has now.
         
        ... to whites, which will by then be in a minority...
      13. @The Germ Theory of Disease
        "However the future non-white majority America treats..."

        There is and will be no such thing as a "non-white majority America," because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate. Already we are observably living in non-America. By 2024 election permanent-Dem dictatorship, it will be quite clear we are living in conquered Vichy America or post-America. Give the old lass a good rowdy wake and a decent Mass of Christian Burial, sixty days of formal mourning, and then onwards with living and with business. Which will mean some rather sobering implications.

        There will not and cannot be any stable system of Whites sharing the same country with people who hate us so intractably. 150 million-plus people, the most accomplished and well-armed of the lot, will simply not accept permanent servility status. It is too large, too talented, and too angry a population to put on a permanent leash. Non-whites are illegitimate usurpers in this country, and both they and we know it. They are not even legitimate as a Helot'sand class, let alone as a ruling class.

        Such a situation cannot and will not last. Once it becomes painfully clear that "the United States" or the idea of "America" no longer exists, the continent will simply fracture into suitable sub-component states. Some of these will be white supermajority states, and they will be the ones that Jews, bindis, blacks, mestizos and other various mystery meats will be howling like mad to sneak into. They will get the surprise of their lives when the answer is NO!, followed by sun-blotting sheets of artillery fire.

        There is and will be no such thing as a “non-white majority America,” because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate.

        Doesn’t matter.
        Romans did not stop calling themselves Romans even after they lost Rome, spoke Greek instead of Latin and ceased worshipping their old gods in favor of worshipping a man from Judea.
        Why would USians act differently?
        The term “United States” will endure because it is generic.

        • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
        You're thinking in the short term.

        Once upon a time, Hispania, Brittannia, Gallia, Libya, Africa, Graecia, Aegyptia, Thracia, Judaea, Asia Minor, Syria, Pannonia, Bohemia... these were all just provinces of the Roman Empire. Now they are all fully separate countries, each with its own culture and language, many with empires of their own.

        And the "United States" is a much larger entity than Rome at its peak. It will fracture, even if slower than you think. For instance, New York State fancies itself "the Empire State," and indeed it is large enough to be its own empire; and in the future, fused with parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New England and Canada, it probably will be, literally, its own empire. Bigger than France. Which was once just a province, and a backwater one, at that.
      14. I think that 23% is in relation to what we now know about the the treatment of blacks by their country in relation to to both Germans and the Japanese. The record frutratingly remains that despite being citizens, blacks, including black soldiers were treated second even to the nations enemies. This was especially true for Germans.

        Anyone familiar with that history might, if black, reconsider the consequences for their previous generations. Black troops return home to the same policies of hurdles to their access to opportunities as citizens, meanwhile the US is hiring former nazis and italian facsists and importing them them to do so. So if one’s black great grandfather of WWI and grandfather of WWII living today examined that history and could trace that dynamic — they might very conclude — there was nothing and less than nothing in it for them. The value of history is that it lends great resource in understanding what occurred and how that plays out today.

        Whatever my issues with black polity, pretending that history doesn’t matter is not one of them. There is a column up that discusses wokeness and not dating. Seems a tad silly, but what does matter is some advocate in Britain, dismisses the diversity of WWI, seemingly completely ignorant that the first casualties by the thousands were non-whites from the colonies used in the first waves of the fighting all across the front. When I learned that hundreds of thousands of nonwhite troops were in nearly all of the major battles from begining to end — I had to shift my understanding of WWI. Not because of any soft wokeness of black feeling — but based on the facts.

        I hate to state the obvious. If your society loses entire populations in a conflict defending what was reported to be in your interests as a subject of said power, but before, during and afterwards, you were denied the benefit of said loyalty —-

        Laugh— well, let’s just say — you might be a tad discombobulated about the matter, if not down right infuriated and distrustful. Your future generations might cease waiting for the promise but demand it.

        Past due bill collecting.

        • Replies: @Anon

        The record frutratingly remains that despite being citizens, blacks, including black soldiers were treated second even to the nations enemies.
         
        Really? So were the African American communities in the USA NUKED? They were firebombed, with casualties in the hundreds of thousands or millions?

        So...what does racial inequality for African Americans have anything to do with the justness of the WWII effort? Nothing. I guess you are just revealing that black people cannot support anything whites do, due to general animosity towards whites.


        I think that 23% is in relation to what we now know about the the treatment of blacks by their country in relation to to both Germans and the Japanese.
         
        That is some terrible grammar. The logic of the post is not much better.


        When I learned that hundreds of thousands of nonwhite troops were in nearly all of the major battles from begining to end — I had to shift my understanding of WWI. Not because of any soft wokeness of black feeling — but based on the facts.
         
        Well, this is not about WWI, but even so, I just read about the Indian contribution to the British forces in Europe in WWI on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I#Indian_Expeditionary_Force_A):

        "With morale low, many soldiers fled the scene of the battle and the infantry divisions were finally withdrawn to Mesopotamia in October 1915, when they were replaced by the new British divisions of Kitchener's Army...
        ...
        Of the 130,000 Indians who served in France and Belgium, almost 9,000 died."


        It seems they weren't a big deal, and they suffered low casualties. They just ran away; they were only in Europe for less than a year due to their being ineffective. The other Indians fought in East Africa and Mesopotamia, it seems. Maybe the depiction of white British people fighting Germans in Europe is not so off.
      15. “Mistake”? This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost. Literally all your excess since then owes to it.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost.
         
        The US left the Great Depression well before 12/1941.  The manufacture of material for England accelerated this, but did not create it and refusal to enter WWII (such as swatting the Japanese attack fleet before it got to Pearl) would not have stopped it.

        Literally all your excess since then owes to it.
         
        The mainland USA still would have been out of the fray and untouched after the war ended, ready to profit by selling to the war-torn nations.  But our "last man standing" status left us with some real excesses, and those excesses led more or less directly to today's multiple hangovers:

        - The baby boom, which followed the fields full of war dead and destroyed generational relations.
        - Gross consumerism to sop up all the ex-war production capabilities, followed by the hippie backlash.
        - A problematic black underclass brought up from the deep South for wartime labor and never returned.
        - The Cold War, which could have wiped us out had it gone hot.
        - Nuclear weapons in particular, which may have stayed off the scene for another decade or two.
        - A certain (((tribe))) which has been guilt-tripping us for saving their sorry butts (gratitude is for fellows, not cattle).

        We would have been much, much better off had we stayed out of WWII (and WWI FTM).
        , @dfordoom

        “Mistake”? This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost.
         
        Who cares about half a million dead? We want prosperity. Truly, the business of America is war. What a great country.
      16. @Mitleser

        There is and will be no such thing as a “non-white majority America,” because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate.
         
        Doesn't matter.
        Romans did not stop calling themselves Romans even after they lost Rome, spoke Greek instead of Latin and ceased worshipping their old gods in favor of worshipping a man from Judea.
        Why would USians act differently?
        The term "United States" will endure because it is generic.

        You’re thinking in the short term.

        Once upon a time, Hispania, Brittannia, Gallia, Libya, Africa, Graecia, Aegyptia, Thracia, Judaea, Asia Minor, Syria, Pannonia, Bohemia… these were all just provinces of the Roman Empire. Now they are all fully separate countries, each with its own culture and language, many with empires of their own.

        And the “United States” is a much larger entity than Rome at its peak. It will fracture, even if slower than you think. For instance, New York State fancies itself “the Empire State,” and indeed it is large enough to be its own empire; and in the future, fused with parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New England and Canada, it probably will be, literally, its own empire. Bigger than France. Which was once just a province, and a backwater one, at that.

      17. @WHAT
        "Mistake"? This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost. Literally all your excess since then owes to it.

        This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost.

        The US left the Great Depression well before 12/1941.  The manufacture of material for England accelerated this, but did not create it and refusal to enter WWII (such as swatting the Japanese attack fleet before it got to Pearl) would not have stopped it.

        Literally all your excess since then owes to it.

        The mainland USA still would have been out of the fray and untouched after the war ended, ready to profit by selling to the war-torn nations.  But our “last man standing” status left us with some real excesses, and those excesses led more or less directly to today’s multiple hangovers:

        – The baby boom, which followed the fields full of war dead and destroyed generational relations.
        – Gross consumerism to sop up all the ex-war production capabilities, followed by the hippie backlash.
        – A problematic black underclass brought up from the deep South for wartime labor and never returned.
        – The Cold War, which could have wiped us out had it gone hot.
        – Nuclear weapons in particular, which may have stayed off the scene for another decade or two.
        – A certain (((tribe))) which has been guilt-tripping us for saving their sorry butts (gratitude is for fellows, not cattle).

        We would have been much, much better off had we stayed out of WWII (and WWI FTM).

        • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
        • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        All of what you said is true.

        But it's more important to attack WHAT's premise: since when is it morally licit to trade the lives of 405,399 Americans, plus Private Eddie Slovik, for "economic gains"?

        WHAT, if you really mean that, then you are an abject fool and a bad person.
      18. Not sure we can really put much weight on this – after all, I doubt many of the respondents, particularly the more vibrant sort, have spent much time really pondering the pros/cons of this…and most are probably thinking of entry into the European theater versus the Asian, which had different rationales for our entry in the first place.

        Anyway, I recently have been thinking a bit about the European war and just how destructive it has been to European/American civilization in the long run. Obviously you have the massive loss of life, but I think a lot of the current madness about diversity and immigration is related to the guilt around colonialism and conquest on the part of various European powers, combined with the idiotic concept that you can make up for low birth rates by bringing in a bunch of foreigners as if they are indistinguishable from the historical people in terms of education, ability, and compatibility with the culture.

        It’s a bit different in the US, where a lot of the current mania is essentially the left still searching for a reason why the civil rights era, expansion of the social safety net and nearly unbroken political control of our largest cities has not resulted in minorities (really blacks) looking just like whites on paper from an economic and political point of view. The conclusion is that the existence of whites in a position of power is bad, thus more immigrants who are not white are needed to make us a more moral country and of course neutralize the economic and especially the political strength of this hated group. I also think some of the left wrongly assume that the Latinos who are providing an infusion of electoral firepower will always be deferential to the political interest of blacks (which are only eclipsed by those of the white elites at the top of the progressive pyramid) but my guess is that within the next dozen years or so we’ll see real friction on the left, and in a generation black voters will find themselves firmly relegated to the back seat of the Democratic coalition and wondering how they let this happen.

        • Agree: Johann Ricke
      19. Post-war America was, save for Israel herself, the greatest place in the history of the world for Jews. Whether it will remain that way in another seventy years is an open question, but I’m doubtful. However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews. By that point the distinction will be about as salient as the distinction between white Protestants and white Catholics is to non-whites today (or, perhaps more descriptively, between white Episcopalians and white Evangelicals today).

        Jew bankers and asset owners had had tremendous power in the USA since before the Civil War and a fatso Jew named Judah Benjamin was the office holder of a few cabinet positions in the Confederacy. Benjamin was a slaveholder and plantation owner and Benjamin had been a student at Yale before he screwed out of New Haven after getting sick of those Connecticut bastards.

        There was also David Yulee, who was a Jew who had extensive plantations in Florida territory and later became a US Senator from Florida and he was almost as much of a fatso Jew as Benjamin. Florida residents currently watching iguanas drop out of their trees from the cold air down there have fatso Jew Yulee and air conditioning to thank for their real estate asset bubble values. Thank the Federal Reserve Bank too!

        World War I grievously wounded the WASP ruling class in the American Empire and World War II saw the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire come to power.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class used the mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration brought on by the 1965 Immigration Act to demographically attack the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is heading for the boneyard of ruling classes and the Jew component will be disallowed from any participation whatsoever in finance and propaganda and academia and the legal system and any other areas of national life that the new political party called White Core America deems to be off limits for participation by Jews.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is currently tenuously clinging to power by using monetary policy to keep the White Core American peasants fat and happy and smug with their asset bubble gains from stocks and bonds and real estate.

        I think radical and severe political change is coming and I don’t think the JEW/WASP ruling class will be allowed to remain in the USA when it really kicks off.

        A William the Conqueror will emerge from the new political party called White Core America and a new ‘harrying of the north’ shall see mass deportations and forcible expulsions and the population of the USA will be reduced to 220 million like it was in 1978.

        Plenty of Jews will thrive in the USA controlled by White Core America but their reign of anti-White terror and anti-Christian terror is coming to an end in the USA.

        What would the GDP be in the USA if the federal government wasn’t borrowing and conjuring up a trillion dollar a year budget deficit?

        How long would the asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate last if the federal funds rate were at the normal level of 6 percent? What would happen to the asset bubbles if the Federal Reserve Bank wasn’t ballooning its balance sheet or flooding massive conjured up liquidity into the asset bubbles?

      20. Yet more evidence that Jews — particularly Ashkeanzim — behave more as an expendable biological weapon than as a self-interested ethny. Cui Bono?

      21. Some consequences of the Second World War:

        The transfer of complete economic hegemony to Wall St.

        The formation of the perpetual military industrial complex, which, through incestuous and interlocking corporate relationships, has turned into the military-industrial-financial-media complex.

        Europe was turned into a wishbone, half NATO satrap, half under the Soviet boot heel. The historical nations of Europe, for the most part, ended up losing both their sovereignty and their dignity to globohomo. Ironically, in the long run, the ones under Soviet domination would fare better in a spiritual and and cultural sense.

        The expropriation and brutalization of Palestine and the conversion of the relatively peaceful backwater Levant into a perpetual cockpit threatening the peace of the world.

        The slow dissolution of the major European colonial empires, leading to anarchy, chaos, violent revolution and bloodshed on a heretofore unimaginable scale. The positive effects of colonial order – such as maintenance of the rule of law and order were done away with and the colonial regions became the stomping grounds of the Atlanticist-Zionist transnationals. Most of Western Europe is slowly being converted into a dumping ground for third world refuse.

        It is impossible to imagine any of this having occurred had the Axis prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace.

        • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        1) Don't forget the loss of East Asia. See here: 'How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949' https://www.amazon.com/dp/1258315785/

        I think many dissidents today are aware that Japan, rough as it may have been in treating the Chinese, posed no threat to American interests, and that it was a bulwark against Soviet communism in the East. Some may also be aware that America, into the 1930s, actually had considerably greater trade with Japan than China. There were, however, some very influential and wealthy eastern American families who had interests in China - the Roosevelt's were among them. This is one reason why FDR manipulated American foreign policy to confront the Japanese Empire. But in the end this policy led to the communist takeover of China.

        And if there was one country in the world that, if it united, could challenge American hegemony, it was China! Thus my personal belief that the Communist Chinese were, along with the Jews, the only "winners" of World War Two (Russian demographics were too disastrously impacted for me to call the USSR a real victor - it was a Pyrrhic triumph).

        Of course the other reason may frankly have been that many of FDR's key cabinet associates were, in fact, Soviet spies. Please see here: 'Operation Snow' https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Snow-Soviet-Triggered-Harbor/dp/1596983221/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=operation+snow&qid=1579807412&s=books&sr=1-1

        2) World War Two also had a terrible impact on Christianity in Western Europe. With the exception of true Rosenberg-style rune coons, even pagan/secular dissidents are prepared to admit that Christianity has social benefits. Similar to the loss in morale caused by 1914-1918, the war brought a huge rise of what the Catholic and Protestants call "modernism" - the kind of religious relativism that ended up giving moral license to all sorts of dangerous and socially destructive tendencies, such as birth control/abortion, divorce, homosexualism, and so forth. World War Two was especially bad for Roman Catholicism - the Jews have very successfully used real and alleged Nazi crimes to demagogue and brow beat the Roman hierarchy into submission. This goes for other churches too, but the Jews had long longed to gain such power over their traditionally largest enemy.
        , @Kratoklastes

        The expropriation and brutalization of Palestine and the conversion of the relatively peaceful backwater Levant into a perpetual cockpit threatening the peace of the world.
         
        The British and French consciously decided - as a matter of policy - to destabilise the Levant well before WWI, and continued to do so between WWI and WWII. It was policy to do so.

        Well before WWII, T.E. Lawrence was strongly opposed to the betrayal of the Arabs by the UK/French policies in the region, and was a very high profile dissident - for which he was 'accidented' (in the same way that George Patton was accidented after WWII: fuck Patton though, for his complicity in dispersing the Bonus Army... for the same reason, fuck Macarthur).

        Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration are all the evidence you need, but it was expressed with absolute clarity in a message from Crewe to Hardinge in 1914:

        "What we want is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split into little principalities as far as possible under our suzerainty — but incapable of coordinated action against us, forming a buffer against the Powers in the West." Crewe to Hardinge, 12 November 1914, Archives of India
         
        Crewe was Secretary of State for the Colonies; Hardinge was Viceroy of India.

        It also should be borne in mind that the Sykes-Picot agreement was conducted in secret, and was not made public - not even to the Cabinet of the day, much less to the parliament or (HA!) the populace.

        It was revealed to the world by the Soviet Union 18 months later, on November 23 1917.

        The public revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreement made it clear to everybody that the French and British had every intention of breaking promises to the Arabs - especially promises about autonomy and political self-determination in post-Ottoman arrangements.

        November 1917 was also the month that the Balfour Declaration was promulgated - yet another set of promises that was incompatible with both Sykes-Picot and the prior promises to the Ikhwan and other Arabs.

        If you want to know "why they hate us"... spend a couple of days reading the history of the French and British carve-up of the region and especially about the rank dishonesty in theirdiplomatic representations.

        The Arabs were justified in hating 'us' before WWI started: if they had any sense of honour they were obliged to hate 'us' before WWI ended.

        What happened after WWII was simply the continued breach of promise to the Arab world by the West: the US took over the destabilising role previously performed by the British and French - installing and overthrowing regimes as they saw fit; assisting some Eurotrash in stealing Palestine; supporting despots and tyrants.

        If the Arab world didn't hate the West, they would be rightly denounced as the most cucked people in the history of the world.
      22. @Mr. Rational

        This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost.
         
        The US left the Great Depression well before 12/1941.  The manufacture of material for England accelerated this, but did not create it and refusal to enter WWII (such as swatting the Japanese attack fleet before it got to Pearl) would not have stopped it.

        Literally all your excess since then owes to it.
         
        The mainland USA still would have been out of the fray and untouched after the war ended, ready to profit by selling to the war-torn nations.  But our "last man standing" status left us with some real excesses, and those excesses led more or less directly to today's multiple hangovers:

        - The baby boom, which followed the fields full of war dead and destroyed generational relations.
        - Gross consumerism to sop up all the ex-war production capabilities, followed by the hippie backlash.
        - A problematic black underclass brought up from the deep South for wartime labor and never returned.
        - The Cold War, which could have wiped us out had it gone hot.
        - Nuclear weapons in particular, which may have stayed off the scene for another decade or two.
        - A certain (((tribe))) which has been guilt-tripping us for saving their sorry butts (gratitude is for fellows, not cattle).

        We would have been much, much better off had we stayed out of WWII (and WWI FTM).

        All of what you said is true.

        But it’s more important to attack WHAT’s premise: since when is it morally licit to trade the lives of 405,399 Americans, plus Private Eddie Slovik, for “economic gains”?

        WHAT, if you really mean that, then you are an abject fool and a bad person.

      23. This is really all I have to say about the so-called “good war.”

        There has never been, probably never again, will be a war that has been more deceitfully depicted.

        Many talented historians have questioned our assumptions about this war. Google them and buy their books (they’re still available on Amazon….for now):
        – Harry Elmer Barnes
        – Charles Beard
        – Percy Greaves
        – Revilo Oliver
        – William N Chamberlin
        – Bruce M. Russett
        – John Toland

        There are many others.

        But I have to say that among common people, all I’ve had to do as a dissident is share a few historical facts, and the blinders generally come off pretty easily. It’s not that hard to prove that FDR was a war-monger and a war criminal. And it’s incumbent upon all us, at a minimum, to destroy the myth that it’s ever acceptable to intentionally bomb civilians.

        • Agree: Tusk, Kratoklastes
      24. @Mulegino1
        Some consequences of the Second World War:

        The transfer of complete economic hegemony to Wall St.

        The formation of the perpetual military industrial complex, which, through incestuous and interlocking corporate relationships, has turned into the military-industrial-financial-media complex.

        Europe was turned into a wishbone, half NATO satrap, half under the Soviet boot heel. The historical nations of Europe, for the most part, ended up losing both their sovereignty and their dignity to globohomo. Ironically, in the long run, the ones under Soviet domination would fare better in a spiritual and and cultural sense.

        The expropriation and brutalization of Palestine and the conversion of the relatively peaceful backwater Levant into a perpetual cockpit threatening the peace of the world.

        The slow dissolution of the major European colonial empires, leading to anarchy, chaos, violent revolution and bloodshed on a heretofore unimaginable scale. The positive effects of colonial order - such as maintenance of the rule of law and order were done away with and the colonial regions became the stomping grounds of the Atlanticist-Zionist transnationals. Most of Western Europe is slowly being converted into a dumping ground for third world refuse.

        It is impossible to imagine any of this having occurred had the Axis prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace.

        1) Don’t forget the loss of East Asia. See here: ‘How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949’ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1258315785/

        I think many dissidents today are aware that Japan, rough as it may have been in treating the Chinese, posed no threat to American interests, and that it was a bulwark against Soviet communism in the East. Some may also be aware that America, into the 1930s, actually had considerably greater trade with Japan than China. There were, however, some very influential and wealthy eastern American families who had interests in China – the Roosevelt’s were among them. This is one reason why FDR manipulated American foreign policy to confront the Japanese Empire. But in the end this policy led to the communist takeover of China.

        And if there was one country in the world that, if it united, could challenge American hegemony, it was China! Thus my personal belief that the Communist Chinese were, along with the Jews, the only “winners” of World War Two (Russian demographics were too disastrously impacted for me to call the USSR a real victor – it was a Pyrrhic triumph).

        Of course the other reason may frankly have been that many of FDR’s key cabinet associates were, in fact, Soviet spies. Please see here: ‘Operation Snow’ https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Snow-Soviet-Triggered-Harbor/dp/1596983221/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=operation+snow&qid=1579807412&s=books&sr=1-1

        2) World War Two also had a terrible impact on Christianity in Western Europe. With the exception of true Rosenberg-style rune coons, even pagan/secular dissidents are prepared to admit that Christianity has social benefits. Similar to the loss in morale caused by 1914-1918, the war brought a huge rise of what the Catholic and Protestants call “modernism” – the kind of religious relativism that ended up giving moral license to all sorts of dangerous and socially destructive tendencies, such as birth control/abortion, divorce, homosexualism, and so forth. World War Two was especially bad for Roman Catholicism – the Jews have very successfully used real and alleged Nazi crimes to demagogue and brow beat the Roman hierarchy into submission. This goes for other churches too, but the Jews had long longed to gain such power over their traditionally largest enemy.

        • Agree: Mulegino1
      25. herr derr, at least we’re not speaking German.

        the unspeakable opinion? it would have been better if the axis accomplished most of their military goals.

        in control of continental europe and China. not having the navy or air force to seriously threaten mainland US or UK.

        instead, we’re probably all gonna be wiped out in a slow motion invasion of third worlders, because herr derr, Nazis. then China, which should be occupied by Japan, is gonna sweep over the planet, making ‘white hegemony’ look preferable. not that the locals will care. they would rather China occupy their countries ruthlessly than the British or the Americans benevolently. because they hate europeans that much.

      26. Less than a majority of adult citizens have any historical understanding of WWII. Given demographics, it’s likely a supermajority of the young are ignorant.

      27. That really depends on your definition of “mistake”. It certainly was no accident, and the U.S. government arguably achieved exactly what it set out to achieve.

        Whether or not that outcome will be judged as universally positive in the eyes of history… well, that’s a different question.

      28. The Unnecessary Invasion?

        It’s worse than unnecessary. The US entry into WWII and before that, supplying weapons to Churchill actually caused the Holocaust. Anyone wanting to read the real history of why the Holocaust occurred and how WWII turned the US from a Republic into a national security state should read Human Smoke and The Good War that Wasn’t

        To very briefly summarize the arguments in these books which contain many citations and references:

        The Nazis wanted to deport the Jews, No country, including the US would take them. The British even blocked their entry into Palestine and Madagascar.

        Churchill, with the help of the US put a starvation blockade on Germany. As a result, Germany didn’t have enough food to feed all its people so it exterminated the Jews and other undesirables rather than starve them to death. This is also why Germany invaded the USSR – to get the breadbasket of Europe, the Ukraine.

        • Replies: @Curmudgeon

        As a result, Germany didn’t have enough food to feed all its people
         
        True.

        so it exterminated the Jews and other undesirables rather than starve them to death. This is also why Germany invaded the USSR – to get the breadbasket of Europe, the Ukraine.
         
        Are you interested in buying a bridge?
      29. @Not my economy

        However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.
         
        It sounds like you’re imagining a setup where non-Whites are politically dominant, and “treat” refers to an overall sense: How the system, controlled by non-Whites, will relate to Whites (including Jews).

        I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. We should all know that the race war narrative is fake. We’re in an intra-White conflict. Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides. The ruling class of nonWhite countries everywhere is suspiciously much lighter skinned than the ruled. Often it is literally a different tribe.

        Now anyway though, even if this did come to pass, the real question is how will Jews react to their treatment by a non-White majority? They will use personal networking and solidarity to carve out decent if not comfortable lives in insulated communities.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power. The Amish literally do not care who wins a federal or likely even statewide election.

        We’re in an intra-White conflict.

        Agreed.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power.

        Agreed. I suggest separation.

        If the other 49% of energy is for worrying we should worry about how we will be treated by the Matriarchy.

      30. @The Germ Theory of Disease
        "However the future non-white majority America treats..."

        There is and will be no such thing as a "non-white majority America," because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate. Already we are observably living in non-America. By 2024 election permanent-Dem dictatorship, it will be quite clear we are living in conquered Vichy America or post-America. Give the old lass a good rowdy wake and a decent Mass of Christian Burial, sixty days of formal mourning, and then onwards with living and with business. Which will mean some rather sobering implications.

        There will not and cannot be any stable system of Whites sharing the same country with people who hate us so intractably. 150 million-plus people, the most accomplished and well-armed of the lot, will simply not accept permanent servility status. It is too large, too talented, and too angry a population to put on a permanent leash. Non-whites are illegitimate usurpers in this country, and both they and we know it. They are not even legitimate as a Helot'sand class, let alone as a ruling class.

        Such a situation cannot and will not last. Once it becomes painfully clear that "the United States" or the idea of "America" no longer exists, the continent will simply fracture into suitable sub-component states. Some of these will be white supermajority states, and they will be the ones that Jews, bindis, blacks, mestizos and other various mystery meats will be howling like mad to sneak into. They will get the surprise of their lives when the answer is NO!, followed by sun-blotting sheets of artillery fire.

        Dude. You need to get out of the City. Separation doesn’t have to be like that. The people we want to avoid don’t care if we leave. There may be opposition from the government. But look at Virginia. Urban vs. Rural looks like a toss up to me.

      31. @Not my economy

        However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.
         
        It sounds like you’re imagining a setup where non-Whites are politically dominant, and “treat” refers to an overall sense: How the system, controlled by non-Whites, will relate to Whites (including Jews).

        I don’t think it’s going to work out that way. We should all know that the race war narrative is fake. We’re in an intra-White conflict. Even as “Whites” become a minority, people with White skin will continue to control the system for all foreseeable future. Non-Whites are not going to be in control of state, corporate or culture power. They aren’t sufficiently organized or capable for the task and they also aren’t interested besides. The ruling class of nonWhite countries everywhere is suspiciously much lighter skinned than the ruled. Often it is literally a different tribe.

        Now anyway though, even if this did come to pass, the real question is how will Jews react to their treatment by a non-White majority? They will use personal networking and solidarity to carve out decent if not comfortable lives in insulated communities.

        We should be doing the same, at least 51% of the energy currently spent by the internet right on worrying about state power should be focused on building the ability to ignore state power. The Amish literally do not care who wins a federal or likely even statewide election.

        White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA’s culture already, unless we count Ashkenazi Jews as simply “white” despite their genetics typically being at least 50% Semitic / “Middle Eastern” and perhaps 40% Italian.

        As for the prediction of white dominance over governmental and corporate power in the USA, it may continue to be largely true for some time yet in many States, but things are already changing in that regard in heavily non-white places like California.

        Cali’s governor is a non-Hispanic white guy and its lieutenant governor is a woman with a Greek name, but here are the rest of the State’s “constitutional officers”:

        Secretary of State: Alex PADILLA – Mexican
        Attorney General: Xavier BECERRA – Mexican
        Controller: Betty YEE – Chinese
        Treasurer: Fiona MA – Chinese
        Insuranc Comm’r: Ricardo LARA – Mexican
        State Board of Ed: Tony Thurmond – African

        • Replies: @Kratoklastes

        despite their genetics typically being at least 50% Semitic / “Middle Eastern” and perhaps 40% Italian.
         
        You spelt "Eastern European" wrong. You're talking about Lithuanians, Poles, Moldovans, Belorussians, Ukrainians... none of whom look remotely Italian or Middle Eastern.

        The weak DNA evidence against the Khazar Hypothesis seems to stem from the fact that in US science, any result is available for a price (e.g., Elizabeth Warren finding someone to sign off on trace amounts of feath-Indian DNA).

        I guess we should just be thankful that Ta-Nehisi Coates has never bothered to pay a lab to declare that he's Scandiavian.
        , @Corvinus
        "White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA’s culture already..."

        If you really want to get technical, and focus on true Heritage Americans, WASPs are NOT in control. They lost it long ago to the hordes of Eastern/Southern Europeans. Alt Right guru Brett Stevens from the Amerika blog states it succinctly...

        Despite all of the strong rhetoric about ethnic assimilation, we still see lots of Italians, Irish, Slavs, and Jews working against WASP interests here in America. It seems far-fetched now, but in the future, tribalism will dominate even within racial groups. America worked as an ethnic Western European enclave, but cannot survive the onslaught of Southern Europeans, mixed Southern Europeans like the Irish, Mediterraneans/Semites, and Eastern Europeans. In fact, these may have to depart before we are able to separate from racial diversity as well...Diversity means lowest common denominator. The less similar the audience is internally, the more things have to be distilled to the simplest, most exaggerated, and most emotional components. As America became diverse, our formerly-elevated standards dropped to a lower level to incorporate first the ethnic diversity (Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Jews) and later the racial diversity (Africans, Asians, mixes).
         
        So this notion of "White European-Americans" falls flat on its face in light of Stevens' comment.
      32. @Mulegino1
        Some consequences of the Second World War:

        The transfer of complete economic hegemony to Wall St.

        The formation of the perpetual military industrial complex, which, through incestuous and interlocking corporate relationships, has turned into the military-industrial-financial-media complex.

        Europe was turned into a wishbone, half NATO satrap, half under the Soviet boot heel. The historical nations of Europe, for the most part, ended up losing both their sovereignty and their dignity to globohomo. Ironically, in the long run, the ones under Soviet domination would fare better in a spiritual and and cultural sense.

        The expropriation and brutalization of Palestine and the conversion of the relatively peaceful backwater Levant into a perpetual cockpit threatening the peace of the world.

        The slow dissolution of the major European colonial empires, leading to anarchy, chaos, violent revolution and bloodshed on a heretofore unimaginable scale. The positive effects of colonial order - such as maintenance of the rule of law and order were done away with and the colonial regions became the stomping grounds of the Atlanticist-Zionist transnationals. Most of Western Europe is slowly being converted into a dumping ground for third world refuse.

        It is impossible to imagine any of this having occurred had the Axis prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace.

        The expropriation and brutalization of Palestine and the conversion of the relatively peaceful backwater Levant into a perpetual cockpit threatening the peace of the world.

        The British and French consciously decided – as a matter of policy – to destabilise the Levant well before WWI, and continued to do so between WWI and WWII. It was policy to do so.

        Well before WWII, T.E. Lawrence was strongly opposed to the betrayal of the Arabs by the UK/French policies in the region, and was a very high profile dissident – for which he was ‘accidented’ (in the same way that George Patton was accidented after WWII: fuck Patton though, for his complicity in dispersing the Bonus Army… for the same reason, fuck Macarthur).

        Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration are all the evidence you need, but it was expressed with absolute clarity in a message from Crewe to Hardinge in 1914:

        What we want is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split into little principalities as far as possible under our suzerainty — but incapable of coordinated action against us, forming a buffer against the Powers in the West.” Crewe to Hardinge, 12 November 1914, Archives of India

        Crewe was Secretary of State for the Colonies; Hardinge was Viceroy of India.

        It also should be borne in mind that the Sykes-Picot agreement was conducted in secret, and was not made public – not even to the Cabinet of the day, much less to the parliament or (HA!) the populace.

        It was revealed to the world by the Soviet Union 18 months later, on November 23 1917.

        The public revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreement made it clear to everybody that the French and British had every intention of breaking promises to the Arabs – especially promises about autonomy and political self-determination in post-Ottoman arrangements.

        November 1917 was also the month that the Balfour Declaration was promulgated – yet another set of promises that was incompatible with both Sykes-Picot and the prior promises to the Ikhwan and other Arabs.

        If you want to know “why they hate us“… spend a couple of days reading the history of the French and British carve-up of the region and especially about the rank dishonesty in theirdiplomatic representations.

        The Arabs were justified in hating ‘us’ before WWI started: if they had any sense of honour they were obliged to hate ‘us’ before WWI ended.

        What happened after WWII was simply the continued breach of promise to the Arab world by the West: the US took over the destabilising role previously performed by the British and French – installing and overthrowing regimes as they saw fit; assisting some Eurotrash in stealing Palestine; supporting despots and tyrants.

        If the Arab world didn’t hate the West, they would be rightly denounced as the most cucked people in the history of the world.

        • Replies: @Curmudgeon

        assisting some Eurotrash in stealing Palestine;
         
        Have to disagree. The "Eurotrash" was the receiver of stolen goods, and they paid handsomely for it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that payment was in millions of stolen European lives and massive debt payments for ad infinitum.
      33. “The transfer of complete economic hegemony to Wall St.”

        at the end of WWI

        “The formation of the perpetual military industrial complex, which, through incestuous and interlocking corporate relationships, has turned into the military-industrial-financial-media complex.”

        in direct response to the communist threat to rule the world and to do so b y force.

        “Europe was turned into a wishbone, half NATO satrap, half under the Soviet boot heel. The historical nations of Europe, for the most part, ended up losing both their sovereignty and their dignity to globohomo. Ironically, in the long run, the ones under Soviet domination would fare better in a spiritual and and cultural sense.”

        some accuracy aside from that homosexual choice reference and no they dis not fair better spiritually, you’re projecting what might be the case now — all of Europe was hollowed when it came to religious aspects and while some held out in the christian underground — and flourished — by and large a spiritual desert.

        “The slow dissolution of the major European colonial empires, leading to anarchy, chaos, violent revolution and bloodshed on a heretofore unimaginable scale. The positive effects of colonial order – such as maintenance of the rule of law and order were done away with and the colonial regions became the stomping grounds of the Atlanticist-Zionist transnationals. Most of Western Europe is slowly being converted into a dumping ground for third world refuse.”

        Only myopia ignores the gallons of blood spilled in the name of the white man’s burden — which at the end of the day was the white man’s license to pillage, steal subjugate — which ultimately failed. It seems since time immemorial people would rather step back from an order imposed that subjugates rather than builds.

        “It is impossible to imagine any of this having occurred had the Axis prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace.”

        Case in point, if only Germany had won — because it was clear that Germany had no intention of ceasing its empire building. Nonsense. He would claim that the native Germans in the US needed rescuing.

        • Replies: @Mulegino1

        Case in point, if only Germany had won — because it was clear that Germany had no intention of ceasing its empire building. Nonsense. He would claim that the native Germans in the US needed rescuing.
         
        That is odd, since Hitler only annexed Alsace Lorraine after France had declared war on Germany, and never made any such move on South Tyrol, despite having a large German population. And these were region in close proximity of Germany.

        Hitler's ambitions on the Western Hemisphere never went beyond trade and commerce. If he had had real plans for conquest for the Americas, it would never have been necessary for British Intelligence to forge the map dividing up South America into German satellites, which William Stephenson, a.k.a. "Intrepid" dutifully had delivered to FDR so that the latter could use it for his pro-war demagoguery.
      34. @RadicalCenter
        White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA's culture already, unless we count Ashkenazi Jews as simply "white" despite their genetics typically being at least 50% Semitic / "Middle Eastern" and perhaps 40% Italian.

        As for the prediction of white dominance over governmental and corporate power in the USA, it may continue to be largely true for some time yet in many States, but things are already changing in that regard in heavily non-white places like California.

        Cali's governor is a non-Hispanic white guy and its lieutenant governor is a woman with a Greek name, but here are the rest of the State's "constitutional officers":

        Secretary of State: Alex PADILLA - Mexican
        Attorney General: Xavier BECERRA - Mexican
        Controller: Betty YEE - Chinese
        Treasurer: Fiona MA - Chinese
        Insuranc Comm'r: Ricardo LARA - Mexican
        State Board of Ed: Tony Thurmond - African

        despite their genetics typically being at least 50% Semitic / “Middle Eastern” and perhaps 40% Italian.

        You spelt “Eastern European” wrong. You’re talking about Lithuanians, Poles, Moldovans, Belorussians, Ukrainians… none of whom look remotely Italian or Middle Eastern.

        The weak DNA evidence against the Khazar Hypothesis seems to stem from the fact that in US science, any result is available for a price (e.g., Elizabeth Warren finding someone to sign off on trace amounts of feath-Indian DNA).

        I guess we should just be thankful that Ta-Nehisi Coates has never bothered to pay a lab to declare that he’s Scandiavian.

      35. “It is impossible to imagine any of this having occurred had the Axis prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace.”

        You’re correct given how Germany treated their fellow whites, its hard to imagine any of it occurring had Germany won — because clearly Germany never honored a single peace agreement save with the neitral powers that stayed out of its way.

      36. However the future majority non-white America treats white gentiles is how it will treat Ashkenazi Jews.

        Or even worse. Whites invite criticism of themselves, whereas Jews pretend it’s a sin to criticize them — which can’t help annoying people once they catch on to the game being played.

      37. @Talha

        Ironic, WW2 was an absolute disaster for the white race and a massive boon for non whites, yet you still have whites being the biggest supporter.
         
        So much for “hu-white hu-nity”...🤨

        Peace.

        I am sometimes surprised by who was and was not given the title of top commenter. What was incisive about that comment?

        • Replies: @Talha
        Solution is simple. Track all of my comments that you feel are sub-par for the next three months and then submit them (as evidence) along with a petition to have my designation removed to Mr. Unz. Since I didn't ask for it, I certainly won't rue its loss.

        Peace.
      38. @22pp22
        I am sometimes surprised by who was and was not given the title of top commenter. What was incisive about that comment?

        Solution is simple. Track all of my comments that you feel are sub-par for the next three months and then submit them (as evidence) along with a petition to have my designation removed to Mr. Unz. Since I didn’t ask for it, I certainly won’t rue its loss.

        Peace.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Solution is simple.

        Akshully not.
      39. @WHAT
        "Mistake"? This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost. Literally all your excess since then owes to it.

        “Mistake”? This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost.

        Who cares about half a million dead? We want prosperity. Truly, the business of America is war. What a great country.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        WWII is a great example of how orthogonal GDP is to actual economic well being. Supposedly the US enjoyed double-digit economic growth during our war years when people were rationing the basic staples of life and then 1946--when several million people reentered the civilian workforce, prices fell, and rationing ended--saw GDP contract.
      40. By the middle of 1941 it was looking like, as with WW1, only by going to war could America stop Germany conquering European Russia and becoming the world’s most powerful country. If Japan had entered the war against Russia, nothing could have saved it. America strategists became frantic to divert Japan by getting it to attack the US. As it happened, by December 7, 1941 Hitler had already lost the war by halting Von Bock for almost two months.

        The main effect of trying to help Russia was that the Soviet Union occupied Manchuria, captured vast quantities of Japanese arms and turned China’s most industrialized region and the Jap army weapons over to the Chinese communist party. Added to the Communist party infrastructure edge in the countryside it was all Mao needed to win. Now America faces a China that cannot be stopped becoming the most powerful state in the world without the use of military force.

        • Replies: @iffen
        America strategists became frantic to divert Japan by getting it to attack the US

        Seriously, Sean, frantic?
        , @Sean
        In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Mearsheimer said they were particularly worried by than prospect. America knew that Germany was going to attack the USSR, but the Americans were rebuffed when they tried to tell the Soviet Union this whether directly or indirectly. Here is the CIA s ex Soviet department heads talk What Stalin Knew. In the Fall of 1941 America becane sending troops to the Asian region In summer and fall 1941, the America government actually sent the so called Flying Tigers to fight the Japanese in China, which was a sign they were feverishly trying to do anything to keep the Japanese occupied. Cutting off the oil was the master stoke because it meant Japan had to invade the Dutch East Indies for the oil. That gave the Navy the whip hand and the Army's plan for a massive attack on the USSR was cancelled, while

        IN January 1941, however, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto proposed the idea of a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In essence, he overturned more than two decades of Japanese naval strategic thinking. The Japanese NGS opposed this idea for nearly nine months before yielding to Yamamoto.
         

        https://www.unz.com/article/the-case-for-pearl-harbor-revisionism/

        United States government had enacted the economic sanctions with a clear realization that this could lead to war. Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, Navy chief of war plans, had prepared a report for President Roosevelt on the probable consequences of imposing an oil embargo on Japan, which read:

        It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to an invasion of the Netherlands East Indies… An embargo on exports will have an immediate severe psychological reaction in Japan against the United States. It is almost certain to intensify the determination of those now in power to continue their present course. Furthermore, it seems certain that, if Japan should then take military measures against the British and Dutch, she would also include military action against the Philippines, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war
         

         
      41. Does Houston have a problem?

        Yes

        What is the problem?

        The elites and their handmaids, the technocratic neoliberal overclass in M. Lind’s writings, have made some very bad decisions that are detrimental to the polity as a whole and extremely detrimental to the lower middle class and down. They have failed to appreciate and anticipate cultural and economic problems of the current time. They will not change course unless they perceive that the destruction of and threats to the lower classes will ultimately harm them as well. Whether they really need us anymore is up for debate. Even if sufficient numbers in the Borg come to this realization, it is problematic whether that faction will gain control, and further, will that faction be able to fashion and implement solutions.

        What is to be done?

        We must have co-operation and organization to fight this pozzed Borg. Going at it as individuals will be like a snowflakes in a hurricane. We must learn to recognize ally and enemy alike.

        To the barricades comrades!

      42. @Talha
        Solution is simple. Track all of my comments that you feel are sub-par for the next three months and then submit them (as evidence) along with a petition to have my designation removed to Mr. Unz. Since I didn't ask for it, I certainly won't rue its loss.

        Peace.

        Solution is simple.

        Akshully not.

        • Replies: @Talha
        There’s always the “ignore” button. I’ve put that to good use. It’s really a nice feature.

        Peace.
      43. @Sean
        By the middle of 1941 it was looking like, as with WW1, only by going to war could America stop Germany conquering European Russia and becoming the world's most powerful country. If Japan had entered the war against Russia, nothing could have saved it. America strategists became frantic to divert Japan by getting it to attack the US. As it happened, by December 7, 1941 Hitler had already lost the war by halting Von Bock for almost two months.

        The main effect of trying to help Russia was that the Soviet Union occupied Manchuria, captured vast quantities of Japanese arms and turned China's most industrialized region and the Jap army weapons over to the Chinese communist party. Added to the Communist party infrastructure edge in the countryside it was all Mao needed to win. Now America faces a China that cannot be stopped becoming the most powerful state in the world without the use of military force.

        America strategists became frantic to divert Japan by getting it to attack the US

        Seriously, Sean, frantic?

      44. @iffen
        Solution is simple.

        Akshully not.

        There’s always the “ignore” button. I’ve put that to good use. It’s really a nice feature.

        Peace.

      45. @Sean
        By the middle of 1941 it was looking like, as with WW1, only by going to war could America stop Germany conquering European Russia and becoming the world's most powerful country. If Japan had entered the war against Russia, nothing could have saved it. America strategists became frantic to divert Japan by getting it to attack the US. As it happened, by December 7, 1941 Hitler had already lost the war by halting Von Bock for almost two months.

        The main effect of trying to help Russia was that the Soviet Union occupied Manchuria, captured vast quantities of Japanese arms and turned China's most industrialized region and the Jap army weapons over to the Chinese communist party. Added to the Communist party infrastructure edge in the countryside it was all Mao needed to win. Now America faces a China that cannot be stopped becoming the most powerful state in the world without the use of military force.

        In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics Mearsheimer said they were particularly worried by than prospect. America knew that Germany was going to attack the USSR, but the Americans were rebuffed when they tried to tell the Soviet Union this whether directly or indirectly. Here is the CIA s ex Soviet department heads talk What Stalin Knew. In the Fall of 1941 America becane sending troops to the Asian region In summer and fall 1941, the America government actually sent the so called Flying Tigers to fight the Japanese in China, which was a sign they were feverishly trying to do anything to keep the Japanese occupied. Cutting off the oil was the master stoke because it meant Japan had to invade the Dutch East Indies for the oil. That gave the Navy the whip hand and the Army’s plan for a massive attack on the USSR was cancelled, while

        IN January 1941, however, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto proposed the idea of a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In essence, he overturned more than two decades of Japanese naval strategic thinking. The Japanese NGS opposed this idea for nearly nine months before yielding to Yamamoto.

        https://www.unz.com/article/the-case-for-pearl-harbor-revisionism/

        United States government had enacted the economic sanctions with a clear realization that this could lead to war. Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, Navy chief of war plans, had prepared a report for President Roosevelt on the probable consequences of imposing an oil embargo on Japan, which read:

        It is generally believed that shutting off the American supply of petroleum will lead promptly to an invasion of the Netherlands East Indies… An embargo on exports will have an immediate severe psychological reaction in Japan against the United States. It is almost certain to intensify the determination of those now in power to continue their present course. Furthermore, it seems certain that, if Japan should then take military measures against the British and Dutch, she would also include military action against the Philippines, which would immediately involve us in a Pacific war

      46. @AaronB
        I thought the same thing.

        The first thing I think of when I think of a 25% white America, is just a much wealthier and more dynamic version of a Latin American country, and with less instability and inequality.

        Anyways, the liberal narrative depends on whites being a majority and in power. It is based on redressing historical imbalances. Whites were too dominant and too unfair to other races, so we have to restore balance.

        That's why it has moral momentum. If anti-white attitudes continued after whites were a minority, it would merely be Nazism, and would lose any moral appeal it has now.

        The liberal narrative, by its own logic, is time-bound - if after the balance they are seeking is restored it morphs into simple anti-white racism - which may happen - it will lose the moral high ground.

        I personally do not think liberal white guilt is a healthy way to address the historical imbalance of white dominance, because it is may set in motion a "cycle of abuse" - I abuse you, you abuse me back, etc.

        But its understandable where its coming from.

        If anti-white attitudes continued after whites were a minority, it would merely be Nazism, and would lose any moral appeal it has now.

        to whites, which will by then be in a minority…

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Well, I do think there is a kind of moral logic to the Leftist attitude toward whites that make the decent majority somewhat accept it, even if with reservations.

        It is a response to white dominance, which was very extreme.

        If whites aren't dominant anymore, I don't think the decent majority will have any sympathy for that attitude anymore. It will be plainly immoral. The language won't even make sense anymore - the terms the Left uses are predicated on white dominance.

        So certainly the decent majority of whites won't have any sympathy for the Lefts attitude anymore, and a substantial portion of other races will find it hard to defend such an attitude - however they may wish to for selfish reasons.

        I think decency and morality do kind of win out in the long run, and do appeal to the majority - Nazism and Communism were defeated in the end, slavery was ended, civil rights were given to minorities, etc.

        Immorality flourishes for a while, but in the long run seems to always get defeated. Of course, only for a while - but still.
      47. Interesting that the young have such an unfavorable opinion of the war while the 65+ set still gives it a 90% approval rating. This brings to mind the origin of the Sixties slogan “don’t trust anyone over thirty.” It was trivialized by hostile media into a narcissistic ageist manifesto, but in fact it was coined in 1965 by the radical New Left Students for a Democratic Society as a political slogan. We argued that people of that age group, because of their conditioning in their early formative years in the saturation-level jingoist propaganda of World War II, would be incapable of seeing the crimes against humanity then being perpetrated by their own government in Southeast Asia.

        I might also note in passing that the much-maligned “America First” Committee of 1940 bore a strong resemblance to the anti-Vietnam student movement of the next generation. The centers of opposition to FDR’s scheming to draw the United States into conflict with Germany were the campuses of Yale and Harvard. The intelligentsia of the generation that had come of age after the debacle of the Great War was firmly committed to refusing to allow the government to sacrifice their lives as it had their fathers’, in Washington’s relentless drive for global supremacy.

        Thousands of students demonstrated on campuses nationwide in 1940 in support of non-intervention in Europe’s latest bloody power struggle. In a powerful editorial, the Harvard Crimson newspaper stated, “we refuse to fight another balance of power war.” Future U.S. Ambassador Kingman Brewster, then chairman of the Yale Daily News, in an editorial headlined “We Stand Here”, wrote that Americans will “take our chances on this side of the Atlantic … because at least it offers a chance for the maintenance of all the things we care about in America.”

        The America Firsters honored the moral principle enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in his Second Inaugural Address, “You will do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace and prosperity”.

        • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
      48. @Lars Porsena

        If anti-white attitudes continued after whites were a minority, it would merely be Nazism, and would lose any moral appeal it has now.
         
        ... to whites, which will by then be in a minority...

        Well, I do think there is a kind of moral logic to the Leftist attitude toward whites that make the decent majority somewhat accept it, even if with reservations.

        It is a response to white dominance, which was very extreme.

        If whites aren’t dominant anymore, I don’t think the decent majority will have any sympathy for that attitude anymore. It will be plainly immoral. The language won’t even make sense anymore – the terms the Left uses are predicated on white dominance.

        So certainly the decent majority of whites won’t have any sympathy for the Lefts attitude anymore, and a substantial portion of other races will find it hard to defend such an attitude – however they may wish to for selfish reasons.

        I think decency and morality do kind of win out in the long run, and do appeal to the majority – Nazism and Communism were defeated in the end, slavery was ended, civil rights were given to minorities, etc.

        Immorality flourishes for a while, but in the long run seems to always get defeated. Of course, only for a while – but still.

        • Replies: @Colin Wright
        '... Well, I do think there is a kind of moral logic to the Leftist attitude toward whites that make the decent majority somewhat accept it, even if with reservations.

        It is a response to white dominance, which was very extreme...'

        Do you feel the same way about anti-semitism?

        If not, why not?
      49. “(or, perhaps more descriptively, between white Episcopalians and white Evangelicals today).”

        Episcopalians are more amusing prey to their feral assailants since they have a greater tendencv to make some lame-ass intellectualized case for mercy as their final words.

      50. It is good to see this subject examined here. Thanks, A.E.

        When we add that 19% “Not sure” to the total, we find a good 1/3 of those surveyed having at least questions about the wisdom of American entry into WWII. That is significant.

        After pondering the issue and reading things like Buchanan’s Unnecessary War book, I have been for some time of the opinion that my country should have stayed out of both “world” wars. My view has only been bolstered by talks with relatives in Eastern Europe whose parents and grandparents lived with the events and the results.

        By helping Stalin take half of Europe, the Americans condemned my wife’s family, and millions of other people, to communist hell for half a century and to continued poverty and corruption to this day. To those wags who might posit that a German victory would have been just as bad or worse, I say prove it. Compare Germany to what lies east of it. Hell, just compare West Germany to East Germany not long ago.

        Also, it would indeed be nice to see a category for Jews in this survey and others. Including them in the White category might be just as foolish as including Hispanics. And no, this is not an “antisemitic” comment, just one in the interest of accuracy and light.

        • Agree: anarchyst
        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        "Also, it would indeed be nice to see a category for Jews in this survey and others. Including them in the White category might be just as foolish as including Hispanics. And no, this is not an “antisemitic” comment, just one in the interest of accuracy and light."

        This is a common complaint made about AE's polls. He's too casual about the distinction between Jews and "whites". But he hears the ADL rustling around under his bed at night, so I'm not too optimistic about him getting more specific.
      51. @RationalRabbit

        The Unnecessary Invasion?
         
        It's worse than unnecessary. The US entry into WWII and before that, supplying weapons to Churchill actually caused the Holocaust. Anyone wanting to read the real history of why the Holocaust occurred and how WWII turned the US from a Republic into a national security state should read Human Smoke and The Good War that Wasn't

        To very briefly summarize the arguments in these books which contain many citations and references:

        The Nazis wanted to deport the Jews, No country, including the US would take them. The British even blocked their entry into Palestine and Madagascar.

        Churchill, with the help of the US put a starvation blockade on Germany. As a result, Germany didn't have enough food to feed all its people so it exterminated the Jews and other undesirables rather than starve them to death. This is also why Germany invaded the USSR - to get the breadbasket of Europe, the Ukraine.

        As a result, Germany didn’t have enough food to feed all its people

        True.

        so it exterminated the Jews and other undesirables rather than starve them to death. This is also why Germany invaded the USSR – to get the breadbasket of Europe, the Ukraine.

        Are you interested in buying a bridge?

      52. @Kratoklastes

        The expropriation and brutalization of Palestine and the conversion of the relatively peaceful backwater Levant into a perpetual cockpit threatening the peace of the world.
         
        The British and French consciously decided - as a matter of policy - to destabilise the Levant well before WWI, and continued to do so between WWI and WWII. It was policy to do so.

        Well before WWII, T.E. Lawrence was strongly opposed to the betrayal of the Arabs by the UK/French policies in the region, and was a very high profile dissident - for which he was 'accidented' (in the same way that George Patton was accidented after WWII: fuck Patton though, for his complicity in dispersing the Bonus Army... for the same reason, fuck Macarthur).

        Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration are all the evidence you need, but it was expressed with absolute clarity in a message from Crewe to Hardinge in 1914:

        "What we want is not a united Arabia, but a weak and disunited Arabia, split into little principalities as far as possible under our suzerainty — but incapable of coordinated action against us, forming a buffer against the Powers in the West." Crewe to Hardinge, 12 November 1914, Archives of India
         
        Crewe was Secretary of State for the Colonies; Hardinge was Viceroy of India.

        It also should be borne in mind that the Sykes-Picot agreement was conducted in secret, and was not made public - not even to the Cabinet of the day, much less to the parliament or (HA!) the populace.

        It was revealed to the world by the Soviet Union 18 months later, on November 23 1917.

        The public revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreement made it clear to everybody that the French and British had every intention of breaking promises to the Arabs - especially promises about autonomy and political self-determination in post-Ottoman arrangements.

        November 1917 was also the month that the Balfour Declaration was promulgated - yet another set of promises that was incompatible with both Sykes-Picot and the prior promises to the Ikhwan and other Arabs.

        If you want to know "why they hate us"... spend a couple of days reading the history of the French and British carve-up of the region and especially about the rank dishonesty in theirdiplomatic representations.

        The Arabs were justified in hating 'us' before WWI started: if they had any sense of honour they were obliged to hate 'us' before WWI ended.

        What happened after WWII was simply the continued breach of promise to the Arab world by the West: the US took over the destabilising role previously performed by the British and French - installing and overthrowing regimes as they saw fit; assisting some Eurotrash in stealing Palestine; supporting despots and tyrants.

        If the Arab world didn't hate the West, they would be rightly denounced as the most cucked people in the history of the world.

        assisting some Eurotrash in stealing Palestine;

        Have to disagree. The “Eurotrash” was the receiver of stolen goods, and they paid handsomely for it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that payment was in millions of stolen European lives and massive debt payments for ad infinitum.

      53. @Buzz Mohawk
        It is good to see this subject examined here. Thanks, A.E.

        When we add that 19% "Not sure" to the total, we find a good 1/3 of those surveyed having at least questions about the wisdom of American entry into WWII. That is significant.

        After pondering the issue and reading things like Buchanan's Unnecessary War book, I have been for some time of the opinion that my country should have stayed out of both "world" wars. My view has only been bolstered by talks with relatives in Eastern Europe whose parents and grandparents lived with the events and the results.

        By helping Stalin take half of Europe, the Americans condemned my wife's family, and millions of other people, to communist hell for half a century and to continued poverty and corruption to this day. To those wags who might posit that a German victory would have been just as bad or worse, I say prove it. Compare Germany to what lies east of it. Hell, just compare West Germany to East Germany not long ago.

        Also, it would indeed be nice to see a category for Jews in this survey and others. Including them in the White category might be just as foolish as including Hispanics. And no, this is not an "antisemitic" comment, just one in the interest of accuracy and light.

        “Also, it would indeed be nice to see a category for Jews in this survey and others. Including them in the White category might be just as foolish as including Hispanics. And no, this is not an “antisemitic” comment, just one in the interest of accuracy and light.”

        This is a common complaint made about AE’s polls. He’s too casual about the distinction between Jews and “whites”. But he hears the ADL rustling around under his bed at night, so I’m not too optimistic about him getting more specific.

        • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
        Surely many surveys do not even identify whether or not "White" respondents are Jewish. If they don't, then A.E. can't separate out those results. He can't be criticized for that.

        This little distinction is the cause of much confusion. Imagine if more data did clarify it: Affirmative Action could, theoretically, be used to bring back some semblance of representation of qualified White Gentiles in many fields -- fields that are currently masquerading as majority White but have in fact been made highly Jewish.

        Isn't it wonderful, for example, how we get blamed when there are "too many Whites" someplace significant, and they turn out to be mostly Jewish?
        , @Audacious Epigone
        When surveys include Jewish responses, I break them out. The GSS allows for this; YouGov (and most public polls, for that matter) does not.
      54. @MikeatMikedotMike
        "Also, it would indeed be nice to see a category for Jews in this survey and others. Including them in the White category might be just as foolish as including Hispanics. And no, this is not an “antisemitic” comment, just one in the interest of accuracy and light."

        This is a common complaint made about AE's polls. He's too casual about the distinction between Jews and "whites". But he hears the ADL rustling around under his bed at night, so I'm not too optimistic about him getting more specific.

        Surely many surveys do not even identify whether or not “White” respondents are Jewish. If they don’t, then A.E. can’t separate out those results. He can’t be criticized for that.

        This little distinction is the cause of much confusion. Imagine if more data did clarify it: Affirmative Action could, theoretically, be used to bring back some semblance of representation of qualified White Gentiles in many fields — fields that are currently masquerading as majority White but have in fact been made highly Jewish.

        Isn’t it wonderful, for example, how we get blamed when there are “too many Whites” someplace significant, and they turn out to be mostly Jewish?

        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        I am mostly in agreement.

        "Surely many surveys do not even identify whether or not “White” respondents are Jewish. If they don’t, then A.E. can’t separate out those results. He can’t be criticized for that."

        Perhaps not. Based on my experience here, AE in his own comments tends to lay much of the blame for our current predicament at the feet of rich white liberals - blame that is certainly warranted - but as your third paragraph relates, a deeper investigation into those rich white liberals reveals them to be significantly over represented by Steins and Bergs, and the usual assortment of precious metals.

        He might consider pointing out the lack of distinction in relevant polls.
      55. @EliteCommInc.
        "The transfer of complete economic hegemony to Wall St."


        at the end of WWI

        "The formation of the perpetual military industrial complex, which, through incestuous and interlocking corporate relationships, has turned into the military-industrial-financial-media complex."

        in direct response to the communist threat to rule the world and to do so b y force.

        "Europe was turned into a wishbone, half NATO satrap, half under the Soviet boot heel. The historical nations of Europe, for the most part, ended up losing both their sovereignty and their dignity to globohomo. Ironically, in the long run, the ones under Soviet domination would fare better in a spiritual and and cultural sense."


        some accuracy aside from that homosexual choice reference and no they dis not fair better spiritually, you're projecting what might be the case now --- all of Europe was hollowed when it came to religious aspects and while some held out in the christian underground -- and flourished -- by and large a spiritual desert.


        "The slow dissolution of the major European colonial empires, leading to anarchy, chaos, violent revolution and bloodshed on a heretofore unimaginable scale. The positive effects of colonial order – such as maintenance of the rule of law and order were done away with and the colonial regions became the stomping grounds of the Atlanticist-Zionist transnationals. Most of Western Europe is slowly being converted into a dumping ground for third world refuse."

        Only myopia ignores the gallons of blood spilled in the name of the white man's burden -- which at the end of the day was the white man's license to pillage, steal subjugate -- which ultimately failed. It seems since time immemorial people would rather step back from an order imposed that subjugates rather than builds.

        "It is impossible to imagine any of this having occurred had the Axis prevailed or had there been a negotiated peace."


        Case in point, if only Germany had won -- because it was clear that Germany had no intention of ceasing its empire building. Nonsense. He would claim that the native Germans in the US needed rescuing.

        Case in point, if only Germany had won — because it was clear that Germany had no intention of ceasing its empire building. Nonsense. He would claim that the native Germans in the US needed rescuing.

        That is odd, since Hitler only annexed Alsace Lorraine after France had declared war on Germany, and never made any such move on South Tyrol, despite having a large German population. And these were region in close proximity of Germany.

        Hitler’s ambitions on the Western Hemisphere never went beyond trade and commerce. If he had had real plans for conquest for the Americas, it would never have been necessary for British Intelligence to forge the map dividing up South America into German satellites, which William Stephenson, a.k.a. “Intrepid” dutifully had delivered to FDR so that the latter could use it for his pro-war demagoguery.

      56. @Buzz Mohawk
        Surely many surveys do not even identify whether or not "White" respondents are Jewish. If they don't, then A.E. can't separate out those results. He can't be criticized for that.

        This little distinction is the cause of much confusion. Imagine if more data did clarify it: Affirmative Action could, theoretically, be used to bring back some semblance of representation of qualified White Gentiles in many fields -- fields that are currently masquerading as majority White but have in fact been made highly Jewish.

        Isn't it wonderful, for example, how we get blamed when there are "too many Whites" someplace significant, and they turn out to be mostly Jewish?

        I am mostly in agreement.

        “Surely many surveys do not even identify whether or not “White” respondents are Jewish. If they don’t, then A.E. can’t separate out those results. He can’t be criticized for that.”

        Perhaps not. Based on my experience here, AE in his own comments tends to lay much of the blame for our current predicament at the feet of rich white liberals – blame that is certainly warranted – but as your third paragraph relates, a deeper investigation into those rich white liberals reveals them to be significantly over represented by Steins and Bergs, and the usual assortment of precious metals.

        He might consider pointing out the lack of distinction in relevant polls.

        • Replies: @iffen
        He might consider pointing out the lack of distinction in relevant polls.


        I don't believe that he will.

        But what do I know, one more Jew-hater might tip the balance.

        LOL
      57. Surveys during the Vietnam war showed that college educated Americans were more supportive of that war. This was due to their higher level of indoctrination (aka education) and reading more corporate newspapers. It was the same thing during World War II, with Whites being better “educated.”

        If these Americans surveyed were exposed to better information the results would be much different. Here is a short education for those victimized by American media and schooling.

        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        " This was due to their higher level of indoctrination (aka education) and reading more corporate newspapers. It was the same thing during World War II, with Whites being better “educated.”"

        I wonder if it also had to do with them (the college educated) being quite a bit less likely to actually, you know, have to go somewhere far away and get shot at.
      58. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
        @The Germ Theory of Disease
        "However the future non-white majority America treats..."

        There is and will be no such thing as a "non-white majority America," because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate. Already we are observably living in non-America. By 2024 election permanent-Dem dictatorship, it will be quite clear we are living in conquered Vichy America or post-America. Give the old lass a good rowdy wake and a decent Mass of Christian Burial, sixty days of formal mourning, and then onwards with living and with business. Which will mean some rather sobering implications.

        There will not and cannot be any stable system of Whites sharing the same country with people who hate us so intractably. 150 million-plus people, the most accomplished and well-armed of the lot, will simply not accept permanent servility status. It is too large, too talented, and too angry a population to put on a permanent leash. Non-whites are illegitimate usurpers in this country, and both they and we know it. They are not even legitimate as a Helot'sand class, let alone as a ruling class.

        Such a situation cannot and will not last. Once it becomes painfully clear that "the United States" or the idea of "America" no longer exists, the continent will simply fracture into suitable sub-component states. Some of these will be white supermajority states, and they will be the ones that Jews, bindis, blacks, mestizos and other various mystery meats will be howling like mad to sneak into. They will get the surprise of their lives when the answer is NO!, followed by sun-blotting sheets of artillery fire.

        You’re ignoring geopolitics, which is a primary force in determining the maintenance of large states, especially continental, imperial ones like the US.

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.

        China, Russia, Europe, and even minor regional states like Canada and Mexico would be involved to grab territory and influence in the former USA. They’d be retarded not to, and none of the sub-component states would be able to do anything about it. This basic geopolitical logic is what promotes the maintenance of a unitary state in the US, despite demographic trends.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.
         
        Actually it would probably lead to a series of vicious wars as the more powerful of the mini-states tried to establish regional hegemony, or tried to carve out mini-empires. And there would be endless wars over resources and over trade. And endless ideological wars. And endless attempts to destabilise each other. These wars could last for a couple of centuries.

        Genocides and ethnic cleansings are not unlikely but ideological cleansings and ideological genocides are more likely. The wars would be pretty nasty, possibly WW1 or even WW2 levels of nastiness.

        Most of the mini-states would not be truly independent. They would be forced to become dependents of the stronger states.

        Even without outside interference you could look forward to a couple of hundred years of chaos and war. Think Yugoslavia but on a much larger scale and lasting much longer.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        No one is grabbing up Europe. I don't think that's just because of American-funded NATO. Nuclear powers do not get invaded. I don't see any reason to think that won't continue to be the case after the political dissolution of the US takes place. If the breakup is peaceful and orderly, every state that emerges from the carcass of the US will have some nukes of their own.
      59. @MikeatMikedotMike
        I am mostly in agreement.

        "Surely many surveys do not even identify whether or not “White” respondents are Jewish. If they don’t, then A.E. can’t separate out those results. He can’t be criticized for that."

        Perhaps not. Based on my experience here, AE in his own comments tends to lay much of the blame for our current predicament at the feet of rich white liberals - blame that is certainly warranted - but as your third paragraph relates, a deeper investigation into those rich white liberals reveals them to be significantly over represented by Steins and Bergs, and the usual assortment of precious metals.

        He might consider pointing out the lack of distinction in relevant polls.

        He might consider pointing out the lack of distinction in relevant polls.

        I don’t believe that he will.

        But what do I know, one more Jew-hater might tip the balance.

        LOL

      60. “Surveys during the Vietnam war showed that college educated Americans were more supportive of that war.”

        The reason that people supported the Vietnam defense of South Vietnam is not really that complicated. Since the Berlin Wall, communists had been threatening to bury the west and they would do it country by country.

        This better informed you are talking about —

        I take it you mean

        “Screaming peace a chance.”

        Just a note: the only aggressors in that conflict were the North Vietnamese. Had they stopped invading south Vietnam there would have been no conflict.

        i am sure you that is what you mean by better informed.

        ————————————————

        WWII

        japan an ally of Germany attacks the US. By agreement with Germany as ally an enemy of japan is an enemy of the US . . . .

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Just a note: the only aggressors in that conflict were the North Vietnamese. Had they stopped invading south Vietnam there would have been no conflict.
         
        It was a lot more complicated than that. And the US had been meddling in Indo-China since the 50s, with disastrous results.
      61. Post-war America was, save for Israel herself, the greatest place in the history of the world for Jews.

        And in return the real Americans reaped a rich harvest of gratitude from their beneficent guests.

      62. @EliteCommInc.
        "Surveys during the Vietnam war showed that college educated Americans were more supportive of that war."


        The reason that people supported the Vietnam defense of South Vietnam is not really that complicated. Since the Berlin Wall, communists had been threatening to bury the west and they would do it country by country.

        This better informed you are talking about --

        I take it you mean

        "Screaming peace a chance."


        Just a note: the only aggressors in that conflict were the North Vietnamese. Had they stopped invading south Vietnam there would have been no conflict.


        i am sure you that is what you mean by better informed.

        ------------------------------------------------

        WWII


        japan an ally of Germany attacks the US. By agreement with Germany as ally an enemy of japan is an enemy of the US . . . .

        Just a note: the only aggressors in that conflict were the North Vietnamese. Had they stopped invading south Vietnam there would have been no conflict.

        It was a lot more complicated than that. And the US had been meddling in Indo-China since the 50s, with disastrous results.

      63. “It was a lot more complicated than that. And the US had been meddling in Indo-China since the 50s, with disastrous results.”

        . . . the US was responding to communist threats that included Asia.

        And while the politics and actions may be complicated . . . the issues not so much.

        Korea, Thailand, Laos . . . and of course the US rescuing those states from Japan. N o argument from me that the US was set about attempting make some order of the aftermath.

      64. “Hitler’s ambitions on the Western Hemisphere never went beyond trade and commerce. If he had had real plans for conquest for the Americas, it would never have been necessary for British Intelligence to forge the map dividing up South America into German satellites, which William Stephenson, a.k.a. “Intrepid” dutifully had delivered to FDR so that the latter could use it for his pro-war demagoguery.”

        He said he was done and then he after Poland. He had a peace treaty with Russia and reneged. I am familiar with all of the hopscotching about how Hitler only wanted to secure Germans. He upended the a Munich agreement.

        But nothing of his behavior indicated as much.

        i don’t have issues with the politics — but i hold no illusions, that Germany would have been satisfied with defeating Russia, france and great britain. And had they been more prudent that might have pulled the empire of empires.

        but I think we should be honest about german amvitions as demonstrated by their choices.

      65. @AaronB
        Well, I do think there is a kind of moral logic to the Leftist attitude toward whites that make the decent majority somewhat accept it, even if with reservations.

        It is a response to white dominance, which was very extreme.

        If whites aren't dominant anymore, I don't think the decent majority will have any sympathy for that attitude anymore. It will be plainly immoral. The language won't even make sense anymore - the terms the Left uses are predicated on white dominance.

        So certainly the decent majority of whites won't have any sympathy for the Lefts attitude anymore, and a substantial portion of other races will find it hard to defend such an attitude - however they may wish to for selfish reasons.

        I think decency and morality do kind of win out in the long run, and do appeal to the majority - Nazism and Communism were defeated in the end, slavery was ended, civil rights were given to minorities, etc.

        Immorality flourishes for a while, but in the long run seems to always get defeated. Of course, only for a while - but still.

        ‘… Well, I do think there is a kind of moral logic to the Leftist attitude toward whites that make the decent majority somewhat accept it, even if with reservations.

        It is a response to white dominance, which was very extreme…’

        Do you feel the same way about anti-semitism?

        If not, why not?

      66. @Anonymous
        You're ignoring geopolitics, which is a primary force in determining the maintenance of large states, especially continental, imperial ones like the US.

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.

        China, Russia, Europe, and even minor regional states like Canada and Mexico would be involved to grab territory and influence in the former USA. They'd be retarded not to, and none of the sub-component states would be able to do anything about it. This basic geopolitical logic is what promotes the maintenance of a unitary state in the US, despite demographic trends.

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.

        Actually it would probably lead to a series of vicious wars as the more powerful of the mini-states tried to establish regional hegemony, or tried to carve out mini-empires. And there would be endless wars over resources and over trade. And endless ideological wars. And endless attempts to destabilise each other. These wars could last for a couple of centuries.

        Genocides and ethnic cleansings are not unlikely but ideological cleansings and ideological genocides are more likely. The wars would be pretty nasty, possibly WW1 or even WW2 levels of nastiness.

        Most of the mini-states would not be truly independent. They would be forced to become dependents of the stronger states.

        Even without outside interference you could look forward to a couple of hundred years of chaos and war. Think Yugoslavia but on a much larger scale and lasting much longer.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Like Great Britain and Ireland today? Why the presumption that there must be war?
      67. @Carlton Meyer
        Surveys during the Vietnam war showed that college educated Americans were more supportive of that war. This was due to their higher level of indoctrination (aka education) and reading more corporate newspapers. It was the same thing during World War II, with Whites being better "educated."

        If these Americans surveyed were exposed to better information the results would be much different. Here is a short education for those victimized by American media and schooling.

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

        ” This was due to their higher level of indoctrination (aka education) and reading more corporate newspapers. It was the same thing during World War II, with Whites being better “educated.””

        I wonder if it also had to do with them (the college educated) being quite a bit less likely to actually, you know, have to go somewhere far away and get shot at.

      68. How many people who answered could explain, in their own words, what World War II was, when it happened and how it ended?
        How many of them can name the countries involved and find them at the world map?
        How many of them have it mixed with Vietnam War, Iraq War, Star Wars and Wizarding Wars?
        This poll seems to be completely worthless, even by the standards of opinion polls.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        If someone who has gone through the American public education system is unfamiliar with the basic contours of WWII, they will be entirely historically illiterate. It's treated as the central event in world history. That's not hyperbolic.
      69. For another example of knowledge of general public, see this poll.
        As we all know, holocaust is something that is taken very seriously by PTTB and holocaust education is pushed from the earliest age on everyone.
        What effect it does have?

        https://www.pewforum.org/2020/01/22/what-americans-know-about-the-holocaust/

        Most U.S. adults know what the Holocaust was and approximately when it happened, but fewer than half can correctly answer multiple-choice questions about the number of Jews who were murdered or the way Adolf Hitler came to power, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Wow. That makes things awkward. To deny that 6 million were killed is the worst thing a person can do--but that less than half the population knows that 6 million were killed, well... knowledge is good, I guess!
      70. @RadicalCenter
        White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA's culture already, unless we count Ashkenazi Jews as simply "white" despite their genetics typically being at least 50% Semitic / "Middle Eastern" and perhaps 40% Italian.

        As for the prediction of white dominance over governmental and corporate power in the USA, it may continue to be largely true for some time yet in many States, but things are already changing in that regard in heavily non-white places like California.

        Cali's governor is a non-Hispanic white guy and its lieutenant governor is a woman with a Greek name, but here are the rest of the State's "constitutional officers":

        Secretary of State: Alex PADILLA - Mexican
        Attorney General: Xavier BECERRA - Mexican
        Controller: Betty YEE - Chinese
        Treasurer: Fiona MA - Chinese
        Insuranc Comm'r: Ricardo LARA - Mexican
        State Board of Ed: Tony Thurmond - African

        “White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA’s culture already…”

        If you really want to get technical, and focus on true Heritage Americans, WASPs are NOT in control. They lost it long ago to the hordes of Eastern/Southern Europeans. Alt Right guru Brett Stevens from the Amerika blog states it succinctly…

        Despite all of the strong rhetoric about ethnic assimilation, we still see lots of Italians, Irish, Slavs, and Jews working against WASP interests here in America. It seems far-fetched now, but in the future, tribalism will dominate even within racial groups. America worked as an ethnic Western European enclave, but cannot survive the onslaught of Southern Europeans, mixed Southern Europeans like the Irish, Mediterraneans/Semites, and Eastern Europeans. In fact, these may have to depart before we are able to separate from racial diversity as well…Diversity means lowest common denominator. The less similar the audience is internally, the more things have to be distilled to the simplest, most exaggerated, and most emotional components. As America became diverse, our formerly-elevated standards dropped to a lower level to incorporate first the ethnic diversity (Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Jews) and later the racial diversity (Africans, Asians, mixes).

        So this notion of “White European-Americans” falls flat on its face in light of Stevens’ comment.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        That ship has already sailed. Most white millennials, zoomers, and alphas are European mutts.
      71. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
        @EliteCommInc.
        I think that 23% is in relation to what we now know about the the treatment of blacks by their country in relation to to both Germans and the Japanese. The record frutratingly remains that despite being citizens, blacks, including black soldiers were treated second even to the nations enemies. This was especially true for Germans.

        Anyone familiar with that history might, if black, reconsider the consequences for their previous generations. Black troops return home to the same policies of hurdles to their access to opportunities as citizens, meanwhile the US is hiring former nazis and italian facsists and importing them them to do so. So if one's black great grandfather of WWI and grandfather of WWII living today examined that history and could trace that dynamic --- they might very conclude -- there was nothing and less than nothing in it for them. The value of history is that it lends great resource in understanding what occurred and how that plays out today.

        Whatever my issues with black polity, pretending that history doesn't matter is not one of them. There is a column up that discusses wokeness and not dating. Seems a tad silly, but what does matter is some advocate in Britain, dismisses the diversity of WWI, seemingly completely ignorant that the first casualties by the thousands were non-whites from the colonies used in the first waves of the fighting all across the front. When I learned that hundreds of thousands of nonwhite troops were in nearly all of the major battles from begining to end -- I had to shift my understanding of WWI. Not because of any soft wokeness of black feeling -- but based on the facts.

        I hate to state the obvious. If your society loses entire populations in a conflict defending what was reported to be in your interests as a subject of said power, but before, during and afterwards, you were denied the benefit of said loyalty ----


        Laugh--- well, let's just say -- you might be a tad discombobulated about the matter, if not down right infuriated and distrustful. Your future generations might cease waiting for the promise but demand it.


        Past due bill collecting.

        The record frutratingly remains that despite being citizens, blacks, including black soldiers were treated second even to the nations enemies.

        Really? So were the African American communities in the USA NUKED? They were firebombed, with casualties in the hundreds of thousands or millions?

        So…what does racial inequality for African Americans have anything to do with the justness of the WWII effort? Nothing. I guess you are just revealing that black people cannot support anything whites do, due to general animosity towards whites.

        I think that 23% is in relation to what we now know about the the treatment of blacks by their country in relation to to both Germans and the Japanese.

        That is some terrible grammar. The logic of the post is not much better.

        When I learned that hundreds of thousands of nonwhite troops were in nearly all of the major battles from begining to end — I had to shift my understanding of WWI. Not because of any soft wokeness of black feeling — but based on the facts.

        Well, this is not about WWI, but even so, I just read about the Indian contribution to the British forces in Europe in WWI on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army_during_World_War_I#Indian_Expeditionary_Force_A):

        “With morale low, many soldiers fled the scene of the battle and the infantry divisions were finally withdrawn to Mesopotamia in October 1915, when they were replaced by the new British divisions of Kitchener’s Army…

        Of the 130,000 Indians who served in France and Belgium, almost 9,000 died.”

        It seems they weren’t a big deal, and they suffered low casualties. They just ran away; they were only in Europe for less than a year due to their being ineffective. The other Indians fought in East Africa and Mesopotamia, it seems. Maybe the depiction of white British people fighting Germans in Europe is not so off.

      72. @Intelligent Dasein
        Given the 23% black disapproval, your post should have been titled 'Hitler Yoofs.'

        Somebody needs to do something about the black nazi problem!

      73. @Anonymous
        Linking WW2 entry with anti-white racism? And then shoehorning Jewish treatment into the conversation? This blog post is nonsensical at best.

        But let me summarize. It is another white victimization post that is exposing white people as being insufferable. Quit complaining so much white people!

        The graph is the point of the post.

        The clunky, often disjointed commentary is stream-of-consciousness stuff that comes to mind as it’s being put together.

      74. @Achmed E. Newman
        Quite to the contrary, I think the 2nd paragraph of this post, the analysis part, is one of the better of Mr. A.E.'s points. If you think about the ages of the Hispanics here, especially, the numbers aren't really very far apart, but the basic point is a good one.

        Was there not enough data to have a bar for Jews too, A.E.? I'd think it would be a very short bar - maybe it's so short that I missed it ;-}

        No, YouGov doesn’t break results out by religion.

      75. “Really? So were the African American communities in the USA NUKED? They were firebombed, with casualties in the hundreds of thousands or millions?”

        You are way off. my comments went to why blacks of the generation in question might not have a fondness for entering WWII. that’s a fairly generic answer. And I am speculating based on what little I know.

        As for lost of tragic consequences, I think the 23% would make the case, that had their — the US would have fired bombed or dropped atomic weapons on anyone.anyone.
        ——————————

        “So…what does racial inequality for African Americans have anything to do with the justness of the WWII effort? Nothing. I guess you are just revealing that black people cannot support anything whites do, due to general animosity towards whites.”

        First, I going to correct your temperment direction — the issue i whites more than dislike for blacks. In fact blacks have eagerly signed up to fight in the causes of the US since the revolution. And no small part of that has been the extra-duty – to demonstrate their fealty to the US. Up until the 1960’s regardless of the crippling policies and practices, black citizens as ethos, strove to demonstrate their loyalty, bond and work to demonstrate just how loyal. That millions were constantly rebuffed — I can solve that for you.

        But if your grandfather served WW and worked at anyone 0f the
        POW camps and still had to sit in the back cheap seats – even to German POW’s, among other issues, having to take a backseat to whites engaged in killing one’s fellows – is tad wierd to be kind about. And that was but mild an insult. But the message is clear. You can serve the county, but your station will be less than our enemies.

        Laughing I have no idea what you are on about. I think issue is very simple. If my one’s grandchildren discovered that service in foreign wars returned one to the same illegal conditions at home, they might very well say, at least 23% — why bother helping foreigners.

        The same was concerning african troops and even said concerning a US contingent. However that comment was not about WWII. It was made in reference to a British gentleman, who thought rather ill of idea of considering WWI was anything but a white war — far from it.

        Now, about those fleeing Indians. Laughing thousands and thousands of whites French, British, Italians deserted the battlefield. But many more fought and died in those trenches and mining operations. And in the case of the Indians and Africans, you might want to dome homework as to their military prowess. Laughing the very first shots of WWII were fired by africans, if I recall correctly.

        In the case of US black troops, General John J. Pershing should have been court martialed for derilection of duty. He literally abandon the black troops in the hand of the french, which created logistical nightmares from language and tactics. Furthermore, the US literally instructed foreigners militaries, not to treat the US soldiers as equals, in fact to deny honoring valiant service. The French and the Beligians generally disregarded that instruction — but

        But if, the very few 23%, viewing the lives of their black greats and grandfathers — might very well conclude, such adventures are not worth it — on those grounds alone.

        Tho WWI response if not to WWII, nut to the larger question of foreign adventures dejustification b by the surviving sons and daughters of those vents who as families do share their legacies.
        ———————-
        “It seems they weren’t a big deal, and they suffered low casualties.”

        I encourage you to be more inquisitive about those death tolls. The Germans thought troops of color, were a huge deal and they made that known in no uncertain terms.

        ———————-

        I have no idea what you are on about. There’s a reason that these wars were called world wards. And tgere is no question what blacks serving in the US military came home after it ended. I imagine that many civil war confederates expressed similar sentiments that was passed on to their legacies — who might today say

        all that service only to return to dried up field- same as when great great grandad left it — the civil war was a . . . well, you get the point, even if that number be a mere 23% — by way of explication — I am not making that argument.

        I think I need to start repeating the refrain — about context.

        ————————
        laughing.

        The poll just noted how many it did not indicate why. I have some idea, but I make no claims that my view is a fact.
        ———-

        I appreciate your reminder to ever be mindful of the technical aspects of exposition.
        ————————

      76. “So…what does racial inequality for African Americans have anything to do with the justness of the WWII effort?”

        For returning service members — everything.

      77. @The Germ Theory of Disease
        "However the future non-white majority America treats..."

        There is and will be no such thing as a "non-white majority America," because without a white majority, there simply is no America, just real estate. Already we are observably living in non-America. By 2024 election permanent-Dem dictatorship, it will be quite clear we are living in conquered Vichy America or post-America. Give the old lass a good rowdy wake and a decent Mass of Christian Burial, sixty days of formal mourning, and then onwards with living and with business. Which will mean some rather sobering implications.

        There will not and cannot be any stable system of Whites sharing the same country with people who hate us so intractably. 150 million-plus people, the most accomplished and well-armed of the lot, will simply not accept permanent servility status. It is too large, too talented, and too angry a population to put on a permanent leash. Non-whites are illegitimate usurpers in this country, and both they and we know it. They are not even legitimate as a Helot'sand class, let alone as a ruling class.

        Such a situation cannot and will not last. Once it becomes painfully clear that "the United States" or the idea of "America" no longer exists, the continent will simply fracture into suitable sub-component states. Some of these will be white supermajority states, and they will be the ones that Jews, bindis, blacks, mestizos and other various mystery meats will be howling like mad to sneak into. They will get the surprise of their lives when the answer is NO!, followed by sun-blotting sheets of artillery fire.

        There isn’t much of a clamoring to get into the country’s white supermajority states now, though. Excepting people moving out of California to surrounding states, most of the country’s population growth is in the relatively non-white South, just from internal migration alone. The white Northeast and Appalachia are losing people the fastest.

        What seems clear to me is that the union will not last. Whatever can be done to make the coming breakup as pacific and orderly as possible should be done.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        What seems clear to me is that the union will not last.
         
        What matters is what the megacorporations and the bankers want. And what the military-industrial complex wants. To a certain extent also what powerful bureaucrats want. These are the people who actually own and control the nation. They don't want a breakup. Therefore there will be no breakup.

        What ordinary people want is entirely irrelevant. What dissident rightists (a tiny completely powerless minority) want is entirely irrelevant.

        I'd rate the chances of a breakup as being approximately zero.

        On the other hand there is a real chance the United Kingdom will break up. Scottish independence has a chance of getting some elite support. The pro-EU section of the elites (the bureaucratic/academic/media elites) might support such a move. The pro-Brexit section of the elites (the financial elites) will oppose it. When the elites are split all sorts of things can happen. The elites in the United States are united.
      78. @Audacious Epigone
        There isn't much of a clamoring to get into the country's white supermajority states now, though. Excepting people moving out of California to surrounding states, most of the country's population growth is in the relatively non-white South, just from internal migration alone. The white Northeast and Appalachia are losing people the fastest.

        What seems clear to me is that the union will not last. Whatever can be done to make the coming breakup as pacific and orderly as possible should be done.

        What seems clear to me is that the union will not last.

        What matters is what the megacorporations and the bankers want. And what the military-industrial complex wants. To a certain extent also what powerful bureaucrats want. These are the people who actually own and control the nation. They don’t want a breakup. Therefore there will be no breakup.

        What ordinary people want is entirely irrelevant. What dissident rightists (a tiny completely powerless minority) want is entirely irrelevant.

        I’d rate the chances of a breakup as being approximately zero.

        On the other hand there is a real chance the United Kingdom will break up. Scottish independence has a chance of getting some elite support. The pro-EU section of the elites (the bureaucratic/academic/media elites) might support such a move. The pro-Brexit section of the elites (the financial elites) will oppose it. When the elites are split all sorts of things can happen. The elites in the United States are united.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        They're united as long as the US dollar reigns supreme. After that, all bets are off.
      79. @dfordoom

        “Mistake”? This very entry took US out of the depression straight into prosperity for very low cost as measured in lives lost.
         
        Who cares about half a million dead? We want prosperity. Truly, the business of America is war. What a great country.

        WWII is a great example of how orthogonal GDP is to actual economic well being. Supposedly the US enjoyed double-digit economic growth during our war years when people were rationing the basic staples of life and then 1946–when several million people reentered the civilian workforce, prices fell, and rationing ended–saw GDP contract.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        WWII is a great example of how orthogonal GDP is to actual economic well being. Supposedly the US enjoyed double-digit economic growth during our war years when people were rationing the basic staples of life and then 1946–when several million people reentered the civilian workforce, prices fell, and rationing ended–saw GDP contract.
         
        Agreed. GDP is meaningless, and even GDP per capita is meaningless.

        The only way to measure economic well-being is to ask how well most people can afford the basic staples. Is decent housing affordable for most people? Can most people afford to buy, and even more importantly maintain, a car? Can people get sick without facing financial ruin? Can they pay their power bills without having to go further into debt? Can they afford to replace the washing machine if it breaks down? Can they afford to replace the hot water heater if it breaks down? Can they afford to run the air conditioning in summer when it's needed? Can they afford to keep warm in winter?

        There are people in the modern West with the latest smartphones who can't pay their electricity bills.

        When it comes to the actual economic well-being of the majority of the population modern capitalism is failing. But turn on the TV and economists and politicians will be telling you how wonderfully the GDP is going.

        I suspect that there are many countries with much lower GDP and even GDP per capita than countries like the US and Australia but whose citizens are actually better off.
      80. “What seems clear to me is that the union will not last. Whatever can be done to make the coming breakup as pacific and orderly as possible should be done.”

        I am not inclined to settle for this. And immigration and susceptibility to globalized everything is a huge problem. The core and central focus for US citizens is to have a much narrower vision. And in the nation’s capitol, its very easy to be sidetracked into what is infront as opposed to the country itself. I was hoping that this executive would stand on the core as opposed to the constant trees.

        But I think we are a long way from dissolution by peaceful means, muchless by conflict, million and millions of people love this country and are not eager to see it fracture. That is what those immigration polls tell us. That is what the election made clear.

        The people of the US desire the US to remain the US.

        even this nonsense about importing the best from other places. The US has been doing that for fifty years — no one seems to notice the consequences, a finer waterdown of the US identity, but watered down nonetheless. This executive and his contempories seem to have lost their collective minds. I love the Brits, God save the Queen — however a British conceptualization of country includes a “Brits” grasp of government — there is reason why the US doesn’t have a parliament.

        We need people with long ties and long lineages. Who are insanely nuts about who we are.

        That is not about being isolationist. whatever my issues with the country — I am not about assent to foreigners or their supporters who think they have answers.

        One has to laugh about a book that describes in detail, apparently, the cartel existence tearing southern countries asunder and demand that we import the people involved here. the best and the brightest — ohh you mean the wealthy elite selling their fellows out for a slice of cartel profits.

        Nuts!

      81. @MikeatMikedotMike
        "Also, it would indeed be nice to see a category for Jews in this survey and others. Including them in the White category might be just as foolish as including Hispanics. And no, this is not an “antisemitic” comment, just one in the interest of accuracy and light."

        This is a common complaint made about AE's polls. He's too casual about the distinction between Jews and "whites". But he hears the ADL rustling around under his bed at night, so I'm not too optimistic about him getting more specific.

        When surveys include Jewish responses, I break them out. The GSS allows for this; YouGov (and most public polls, for that matter) does not.

      82. @Anonymous
        You're ignoring geopolitics, which is a primary force in determining the maintenance of large states, especially continental, imperial ones like the US.

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.

        China, Russia, Europe, and even minor regional states like Canada and Mexico would be involved to grab territory and influence in the former USA. They'd be retarded not to, and none of the sub-component states would be able to do anything about it. This basic geopolitical logic is what promotes the maintenance of a unitary state in the US, despite demographic trends.

        No one is grabbing up Europe. I don’t think that’s just because of American-funded NATO. Nuclear powers do not get invaded. I don’t see any reason to think that won’t continue to be the case after the political dissolution of the US takes place. If the breakup is peaceful and orderly, every state that emerges from the carcass of the US will have some nukes of their own.

        • LOL: iffen
      83. @dfordoom

        A US broken into multiple states would just mean that those states and much of the territory would become vassals and playthings for powerful foreign states like China.
         
        Actually it would probably lead to a series of vicious wars as the more powerful of the mini-states tried to establish regional hegemony, or tried to carve out mini-empires. And there would be endless wars over resources and over trade. And endless ideological wars. And endless attempts to destabilise each other. These wars could last for a couple of centuries.

        Genocides and ethnic cleansings are not unlikely but ideological cleansings and ideological genocides are more likely. The wars would be pretty nasty, possibly WW1 or even WW2 levels of nastiness.

        Most of the mini-states would not be truly independent. They would be forced to become dependents of the stronger states.

        Even without outside interference you could look forward to a couple of hundred years of chaos and war. Think Yugoslavia but on a much larger scale and lasting much longer.

        Like Great Britain and Ireland today? Why the presumption that there must be war?

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Like Great Britain and Ireland today? Why the presumption that there must be war?
         
        Because the mini-states that would succeed the US would be divided by incredibly bitter ideological hatreds. Ideological hatreds that will make the Cold War look like a Sunday School picnic. The kinds of ideological hatreds that left tens of million dead in the 20th century.

        That was not the case with Britain and Ireland. There were and are no ideological differences.

        The successor mini-states that would be formed if the US broke up would be intensely ideological. The situation would be very similar to Europe in the late 30s, with each ideological group regarding the others as being so evil that they must be destroyed.
      84. @another anon
        How many people who answered could explain, in their own words, what World War II was, when it happened and how it ended?
        How many of them can name the countries involved and find them at the world map?
        How many of them have it mixed with Vietnam War, Iraq War, Star Wars and Wizarding Wars?
        This poll seems to be completely worthless, even by the standards of opinion polls.

        If someone who has gone through the American public education system is unfamiliar with the basic contours of WWII, they will be entirely historically illiterate. It’s treated as the central event in world history. That’s not hyperbolic.

        • Replies: @another anon

        If someone who has gone through the American public education system is unfamiliar with the basic contours of WWII
         
        Someone who is familiar with "basic countors of WWII" will know that US "entered" WWII when it was attacked. What option of "not entering" was there in Dec 1941? Was US supposed to surrender?

        they will be entirely historically illiterate. It’s treated as the central event in world history. That’s not hyperbolic
         
        https://medium.com/@OneYoungWorld_/32-million-american-adults-cant-read-why-literacy-is-the-key-to-growth-818996739523

        Approximately 32 million adults in the United States can’t read, according to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 50 percent of U.S. adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level.
        , @another anon
        Another example, this time from the UK. It is 15 years old, but it is improbable that public knowledge improved since then. ;-)


        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1458483/Hitler-wasnt-real-says-one-in-10-historically-challenged-Britons.html

        British people are ignorant of some of the most important events and people in this country's history, a new survey has revealed.
        One in 10 of the 2,000 adults questioned in the survey commissioned by Blenheim Palace thought that Adolf Hitler was not a real person.
      85. @another anon
        For another example of knowledge of general public, see this poll.
        As we all know, holocaust is something that is taken very seriously by PTTB and holocaust education is pushed from the earliest age on everyone.
        What effect it does have?

        https://www.pewforum.org/2020/01/22/what-americans-know-about-the-holocaust/

        Most U.S. adults know what the Holocaust was and approximately when it happened, but fewer than half can correctly answer multiple-choice questions about the number of Jews who were murdered or the way Adolf Hitler came to power, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
         
        https://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2020/01/PF_01.22.20_holocaust.knowledge-00-10.png

        Wow. That makes things awkward. To deny that 6 million were killed is the worst thing a person can do–but that less than half the population knows that 6 million were killed, well… knowledge is good, I guess!

      86. @Corvinus
        "White European-Americans are NOT in control of the USA’s culture already..."

        If you really want to get technical, and focus on true Heritage Americans, WASPs are NOT in control. They lost it long ago to the hordes of Eastern/Southern Europeans. Alt Right guru Brett Stevens from the Amerika blog states it succinctly...

        Despite all of the strong rhetoric about ethnic assimilation, we still see lots of Italians, Irish, Slavs, and Jews working against WASP interests here in America. It seems far-fetched now, but in the future, tribalism will dominate even within racial groups. America worked as an ethnic Western European enclave, but cannot survive the onslaught of Southern Europeans, mixed Southern Europeans like the Irish, Mediterraneans/Semites, and Eastern Europeans. In fact, these may have to depart before we are able to separate from racial diversity as well...Diversity means lowest common denominator. The less similar the audience is internally, the more things have to be distilled to the simplest, most exaggerated, and most emotional components. As America became diverse, our formerly-elevated standards dropped to a lower level to incorporate first the ethnic diversity (Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Irish, Jews) and later the racial diversity (Africans, Asians, mixes).
         
        So this notion of "White European-Americans" falls flat on its face in light of Stevens' comment.

        That ship has already sailed. Most white millennials, zoomers, and alphas are European mutts.

      87. @dfordoom

        What seems clear to me is that the union will not last.
         
        What matters is what the megacorporations and the bankers want. And what the military-industrial complex wants. To a certain extent also what powerful bureaucrats want. These are the people who actually own and control the nation. They don't want a breakup. Therefore there will be no breakup.

        What ordinary people want is entirely irrelevant. What dissident rightists (a tiny completely powerless minority) want is entirely irrelevant.

        I'd rate the chances of a breakup as being approximately zero.

        On the other hand there is a real chance the United Kingdom will break up. Scottish independence has a chance of getting some elite support. The pro-EU section of the elites (the bureaucratic/academic/media elites) might support such a move. The pro-Brexit section of the elites (the financial elites) will oppose it. When the elites are split all sorts of things can happen. The elites in the United States are united.

        They’re united as long as the US dollar reigns supreme. After that, all bets are off.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        They’re united as long as the US dollar reigns supreme.
         
        The US dollar is backed by the military might of the US. Any threat to the supremacy of the US dollar will be met by war. The US does not tolerate the existence of economic rivals or rival economic/financial systems.
      88. @Audacious Epigone
        If someone who has gone through the American public education system is unfamiliar with the basic contours of WWII, they will be entirely historically illiterate. It's treated as the central event in world history. That's not hyperbolic.

        If someone who has gone through the American public education system is unfamiliar with the basic contours of WWII

        Someone who is familiar with “basic countors of WWII” will know that US “entered” WWII when it was attacked. What option of “not entering” was there in Dec 1941? Was US supposed to surrender?

        they will be entirely historically illiterate. It’s treated as the central event in world history. That’s not hyperbolic

        https://medium.com/@OneYoungWorld_/32-million-american-adults-cant-read-why-literacy-is-the-key-to-growth-818996739523

        Approximately 32 million adults in the United States can’t read, according to the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that 50 percent of U.S. adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level.

      89. @Audacious Epigone
        If someone who has gone through the American public education system is unfamiliar with the basic contours of WWII, they will be entirely historically illiterate. It's treated as the central event in world history. That's not hyperbolic.

        Another example, this time from the UK. It is 15 years old, but it is improbable that public knowledge improved since then. 😉

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1458483/Hitler-wasnt-real-says-one-in-10-historically-challenged-Britons.html

        British people are ignorant of some of the most important events and people in this country’s history, a new survey has revealed.
        One in 10 of the 2,000 adults questioned in the survey commissioned by Blenheim Palace thought that Adolf Hitler was not a real person.

      90. @Audacious Epigone
        WWII is a great example of how orthogonal GDP is to actual economic well being. Supposedly the US enjoyed double-digit economic growth during our war years when people were rationing the basic staples of life and then 1946--when several million people reentered the civilian workforce, prices fell, and rationing ended--saw GDP contract.

        WWII is a great example of how orthogonal GDP is to actual economic well being. Supposedly the US enjoyed double-digit economic growth during our war years when people were rationing the basic staples of life and then 1946–when several million people reentered the civilian workforce, prices fell, and rationing ended–saw GDP contract.

        Agreed. GDP is meaningless, and even GDP per capita is meaningless.

        The only way to measure economic well-being is to ask how well most people can afford the basic staples. Is decent housing affordable for most people? Can most people afford to buy, and even more importantly maintain, a car? Can people get sick without facing financial ruin? Can they pay their power bills without having to go further into debt? Can they afford to replace the washing machine if it breaks down? Can they afford to replace the hot water heater if it breaks down? Can they afford to run the air conditioning in summer when it’s needed? Can they afford to keep warm in winter?

        There are people in the modern West with the latest smartphones who can’t pay their electricity bills.

        When it comes to the actual economic well-being of the majority of the population modern capitalism is failing. But turn on the TV and economists and politicians will be telling you how wonderfully the GDP is going.

        I suspect that there are many countries with much lower GDP and even GDP per capita than countries like the US and Australia but whose citizens are actually better off.

      91. @Audacious Epigone
        Like Great Britain and Ireland today? Why the presumption that there must be war?

        Like Great Britain and Ireland today? Why the presumption that there must be war?

        Because the mini-states that would succeed the US would be divided by incredibly bitter ideological hatreds. Ideological hatreds that will make the Cold War look like a Sunday School picnic. The kinds of ideological hatreds that left tens of million dead in the 20th century.

        That was not the case with Britain and Ireland. There were and are no ideological differences.

        The successor mini-states that would be formed if the US broke up would be intensely ideological. The situation would be very similar to Europe in the late 30s, with each ideological group regarding the others as being so evil that they must be destroyed.

        • Agree: iffen
      92. @Audacious Epigone
        They're united as long as the US dollar reigns supreme. After that, all bets are off.

        They’re united as long as the US dollar reigns supreme.

        The US dollar is backed by the military might of the US. Any threat to the supremacy of the US dollar will be met by war. The US does not tolerate the existence of economic rivals or rival economic/financial systems.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        The US dollar is backed by the military might of the US. Any threat to the supremacy of the US dollar will be met by war. The US does not tolerate the existence of economic rivals or rival economic/financial systems.
         
        Russia and China have quietly built a parallel international settlements system to get around US hegemony.  The dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered, and the US military can't do a thing about it.
      93. @dfordoom

        They’re united as long as the US dollar reigns supreme.
         
        The US dollar is backed by the military might of the US. Any threat to the supremacy of the US dollar will be met by war. The US does not tolerate the existence of economic rivals or rival economic/financial systems.

        The US dollar is backed by the military might of the US. Any threat to the supremacy of the US dollar will be met by war. The US does not tolerate the existence of economic rivals or rival economic/financial systems.

        Russia and China have quietly built a parallel international settlements system to get around US hegemony.  The dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the US military can’t do a thing about it.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Russia and China have quietly built a parallel international settlements system to get around US hegemony. The dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the US military can’t do a thing about it.
         
        So you think the US will just allow this happen? You don't think we might see determined attempts by the US to achieve regime change in China and Russia? The US has done that countless times in other places for trivial reasons. You don't think they'd do it to maintain their hegemony?
      94. @Mr. Rational

        The US dollar is backed by the military might of the US. Any threat to the supremacy of the US dollar will be met by war. The US does not tolerate the existence of economic rivals or rival economic/financial systems.
         
        Russia and China have quietly built a parallel international settlements system to get around US hegemony.  The dollar's days as the world's reserve currency are numbered, and the US military can't do a thing about it.

        Russia and China have quietly built a parallel international settlements system to get around US hegemony. The dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the US military can’t do a thing about it.

        So you think the US will just allow this happen? You don’t think we might see determined attempts by the US to achieve regime change in China and Russia? The US has done that countless times in other places for trivial reasons. You don’t think they’d do it to maintain their hegemony?

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        So you think the US will just allow this happen? You don’t think we might see determined attempts by the US to achieve regime change in China and Russia?
         
        I don't see how the CCP can be ousted, nor Putin, and any replacement regime will find the new settlements system to be to their advantage as well (as will all the Russo-Sino trading partners).  It's here to stay; that ship has sailed.
      95. @dfordoom

        Russia and China have quietly built a parallel international settlements system to get around US hegemony. The dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the US military can’t do a thing about it.
         
        So you think the US will just allow this happen? You don't think we might see determined attempts by the US to achieve regime change in China and Russia? The US has done that countless times in other places for trivial reasons. You don't think they'd do it to maintain their hegemony?

        So you think the US will just allow this happen? You don’t think we might see determined attempts by the US to achieve regime change in China and Russia?

        I don’t see how the CCP can be ousted, nor Putin, and any replacement regime will find the new settlements system to be to their advantage as well (as will all the Russo-Sino trading partners).  It’s here to stay; that ship has sailed.

      Comments are closed.

      Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS