← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 2073 | Posts: 103 | Started: 2002-08-12
2002-08-12 17:12 | User Profile
I`m pleased to announce that one of the members of this board, [color=BLUE]Edward Gibbon,[/color] recently had his article Remembering American Wars, published in the summer issue of the Occidental Quarterly. Here is the link to the index for the article along with the opening paragraphs.
Congratulations on your success, Edward. -S
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html[/url]
=================================
Remembering American Wars 'Politically Correct' Myths of Military Service
Richard Earley Much of what Americans believe about the causes of war, national conflicts, and wartime casualties, is shaped by popular myths. The entertainment industry, mass media and mass-market publishers feed Americans a continual psychosomatic diet of fictionalized propaganda by directors such as Steven Spielberg and Oliver Stone that regularly passes as fact. Americans have been a profoundly a historical and anti-intellectual people with a deep distrust of those who remember anything more than what was on television, on the movie screen or a sports score. Yet, we continue to have an abiding conviction that we are the chosen people of the modern age and everybody wants to be just like us._ The consequences of World War II from which we emerged relatively unscathed and as a superpower, which we did not merit, have largely been played out.
Many Americans persist in believing that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor_was a treachery unequalled in the annals of mankind._ Yet when China, Russia, France, Great Britain and the United States convened to form the United Nations shortly after World War II, their great common bond was being attacked without warning by Japan within the preceding half century._ From the sinking of the Chinese troop ship, Kow Shing,_in 18941 to December 7, 1941, the knights of Bushido had not bothered to declare war before assaulting the five nations forming the Security Council of the United Nations.
The Japanese sneak attack at Port Arthur against Russia in 1904 brought respectful compliments from American cultural icons such as Teddy Roosevelt_and the New York Times._ On February 13, 1904 the New York Times berated the Czar of Russia: "the point that the Japanese violated international law in going to war without a formal declaration would be of no importance if the Czar had not dignified it in raising it to the Russian people" and added "the practice of initiating war by formal declaration has gone out".2_Rough Rider Teddy wrote his son on how pleased he was by Japan's stunning duplicity at Port Arthur.3_ His sense of fair play was not affronted._ While December 7, 1941 is still remembered as a day of infamy in America, no historical sense exists among most Americans that other nations have suffered similar faithless hostility._ We continue to reject the lessons of history, not only our own, but especially other's, as a guide to human interaction._ Americans have preferred to rely on manifest nobility and being blessed by a kindly Providence to divine human actions.
For most of human history the balance of world power has resided in the Orient, most specifically China._ Perceptive observers have noted a swing back to Asia and wonder why Americans do not comment on it._ In their most debilitated state the Chinese have disputed the American claim of manifest destiny._ Americans have insulted the Chinese repeatedly and never realized it.
In 1995 when Japanese Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama_visited Peking he was met by an accusation in the People's Daily, the newspaper of the Chinese government, that 35 million Chinese died due to Japanese depravity.4_ Within days the New York Times had an article written by their Tokyo correspondent, Pulitzer Prize winner and current op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristof, that credited only 10 million Chinese dying due to Japanese butchery.5 As was said in Vietnam, Mr. Kristof "disappeared" 25 million people. Who would want to quibble over dead Chinese?_ It must be noted this number was over four times the alleged number of Jews that were killed by the Nazis, which occurred during the same memorialized period as the Holocaust, to the exclusion of other atrocities and by most of the rest of the world as World War II._ To challenge the death of one Jew is to be labeled an anti-Semite unworthy of debate, yet not a single letter was published concerning the missing 25 million._ When it comes wartime atrocities, the New York Times considers some victims more important than others.
In May 1938, six months after the Nanking massacre, when the Japanese slaughtered 300,000 Chinese, Mao Tse Tung told Evans Carlson_of the United States Marines that the U.S. had provided Japan with over half of the war materials she had purchased abroad._ This news stunned Carlson, and he had to reconsider much of the bombast he had uttered in support of American policy._ Mao explained to Carlson that people were sometimes so blinded by the glitter of gold that they fail to see their country or themselves accurately. 6_ As a means of comparison the number of Chinese killed at Nanking was three times the number of American combat dead in what we consider 45 months of hard fighting in the Pacific in World War II.
On November 25, 1941, FDR, Secretaries Hull, Knox and Stimson, General Marshall, and Admiral Stark agonized over maneuvering the Japanese into firing the first shot without too much danger to Americans._ Some 4 days previous, Secretary of War Henry Stimson brusquely observed in his diary that the Japanese had killed some 700 Chinese with poison gas at Ichang._ Stimson manifested no concern for their lives, but expressed anxiety over Americans in the Philippines.7
The recent movie Pearl Harbor sharply illustrated American hypocrisy and economic ethics._ Endings and scenes have been modified so as not to offend Japanese sensibilities or potential profits from Japan._ Chinese psychic needs were forgotten or never considered._ The Doolittle Raid is presented as mighty America's answer to upstart Japan._ In the days preceding the raid, Chiang Kai Shek had received reports the Japanese were massing troops at Hangchow in preparation for a march against Chuchow, the intended landing spot for Doolittle's planes._ Chiang objected to the use of the Chuchow airfield as he felt using Chuchow would provoke Japanese barbarity._ FDR placed American domestic considerations above Chinese lives and ordered the bombing.
After the Doolittle_raid, the Japanese commander was given orders to prevent the bombing of the Japanese homeland by use of bases in China._ The Japanese dispatched troops to the area and started to destroy all military targets._ Murder, rape, and plunder became the every day conduct of the attacking Japanese forces._ After the initial reports, Chiang fired off a bitter cable to Washington:
Japanese troops attacked the coastal areas of China where many of the American flyers had landed._ These Japanese troops slaughtered every man, woman and child in those areas - let me repeat - these Japanese troops slaughtered every man, woman and child in those areas, reproducing on a wholesale scale the horrors which the world had seen at Lidice, but about which the people have been uninformed in these instances.
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html]More...[/url]
2002-08-15 15:34 | User Profile
12 August 2002
Elite American Political Leaderships in the 19th and 20th Centuries.
from: [url=http://faem.com/maguire/eliteams.htm]http://faem.com/maguire/eliteams.htm[/url]
Mr. Earley develops an important theme in his article "Remembering American Wars"
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html[/url] This is that American political elites are increasingly constituted by those who actively shirk military combat service. Nor is this phenomenon confined to the 'Democratic' party. The modern Republican Party appears increasingly indistinguishable in this aspect. The second Bush president, Vice President Quayle, the entire House Republican leadership and Rush Limbaugh fit right into the general trend despite their loudly maintained psuedo-patriotism.
While Harvard and Yale symbolize the growing trend toward non-veteran and non-serving elites these groups did not achieve their political prominence until the 20th Century. The precise mechanism and times that elevated them to that dominance seems worth studying.
When we compare American political elites in the 19th and 20th Centuries we see they describe two different countries. We'll take the Presidency as symbolic of both centuries and review the occupants. This survey will illustrate the enourmous changes that began sweeping over "America" and its ruling class at the beginning of the 20th Century.
19th Century (plus Washington).
George Washington: Fought in French and Indian War. Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.
John Adams: lawyer, Revolutionary politician and Revolutionary diplomat to France. He was born in 1735 and long in the tooth come 1776 given no previous military experience to fit him for service as a higher officer.
Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary War politician and wartime governor of Virginia. No significant military service.
James Madison: Revolutionary politician. No known military service. Commander-in-Chief during War of 1812 and thus responsible for numerous military disasters, including the failure of the Canadian Campaign and the Burning of Washington.
James Monroe: fought in Continental Army under Washington. Became Secretary of War in 1814 under Madison after the Madison Administrations initial military disasters.
John Quincy Adams. Witnessed Battle of Bunker Hill in person at age 7. No other known military service.
Andrew Jackson: Fought in Revolutionary War in the South Carolina militia at age 13. Major General of Tennessee Militia. Extensive experience as a militia commander in frontier campaigns against Indian nations. Major General of US Army and commander of US forces at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. In this battle he defeated British regiments and commanders that had previously won the Peninsular Campaign and the Battle of Waterloo during the Napoleonic Wars.
Martin Van Buren. No known military service. First American President born after the Revolution.
William Henry Harrison. Professional soldier. Fought at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 against combined Indian Confederacy as aide-de-camp to General Anthony Wayne. Subsequently Territorial Governor of Indiana, in which office he led other fights against Indian uprisings. Appointed Brigadier General in the U.S. Army during the War of 1812. Reconquered Detroit and defeated combined British-Indian force at the Battle of the Thames River in Ontario, killing Tecumseh in the process.
John Tyler. No known military service. Approved annexation of Texas in March, 1845 shortly before leaving office. After his tenure he retired from politics but reentered public life in 1861 to urge Virginia into seccession. Elected to Confederate Congress in 1861.
James K. Polk. No known military service. Commander-in-Chief during Mexican War of 1845-46.
Zachary Taylor. Career U.S. Army officer for 40 years. Extensive frontier experience in numerous Indian wars. US commander at Battles of Monterrey and Buena Vista during the Mexican War.
James Buchanan. No military service. Only U.S. President who never married (attention sodomite lobby, this might be your boy). As President from 1857- March 1861 Buchanan's inherent weakness as a political leader did much to facilitate the outbreak of the 1861-65 war.
Abraham Lincoln. Militia captain and infantry company commander in the Blackhawk War. Commander-in-Chief of federal forces in the 1861-65 war.
Ulysses S. Grant. Graduate of West Point. Served in Mexican War. Commanded Union forces in the west until 1864. Overall commanding general of the federal army from 1864-65.
Rutherford B. Hayes. Fought in federal forces in 1861-65 war, wounded in action, promoted to brevet Major General.
James A. Garfield. Fought in 1861-65 war, rising to Major General of Volunteers.
Chester A. Arthur. Served as Quartermaster-General of the State of New York during 1861-65 war. Combat service unknown.
Grover Cleveland. Called for federal military service in 1863 but paid a substitute to serve. Later a frequent opponent of disability pensions for 1861-65 war veterans. As President the draft dodger Cleveland deployed U.S. Army troops against striking Pullman Company employees. This was against the express wishes of the Governor of Illinois, who was a war veteran. The parallels between this man and William Jefferson Clinton are striking.
Benjamin Harrison. Served in the 1861-65 War. Raised 70th Indiana Regiment and served as regimental commander thereafter. Promoted to Brigadier General by General Sherman during the Atlanta campaign in 1864.
William McKinley. Enlisted in federal army in 1861 as a private, aged 17. Discharged in 1865 as a brevet major of Volunteers. Commander-in-Chief during the Spanish-American War of 1898.
19th Century Presidential military service.
with war service: 12 (60%)
without war service: 8 (40%)
Observations.
Ten of the twelve 19th Century Presidential military veterans saw extensive frontline combat service as senior leaders. The two exceptions were Chester A. Arthur and possibly Abraham Lincoln. President Arthur was essentially a national guard supply officer. President Lincoln's Blackhawk War task force was composed of a militia company commanded by him (per election of the militiamen) and a regular army company commanded by Zachary Taylor, with the combined 'battalion' commanded by Taylor. This force did engage in combat 'operations' although it didn't make contact other than finding some scalped whites.
All twelve veterans came from the 'Army'. None ever served in the Navy. Of the eight non-veterans three (Adams, Jefferson and Madison) were major Revolutionary political leaders at a time when such leadership was a capital crime against the King of England. It is probable the Revolutionary generations viewed this as requiring comparable courage and roughly equivalent to actual battlefield command. Certainly the price of defeat would be identical
A notable feature are the senior leadership positions all of the 'military' Presidents served in. Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor and Grant are reasonably described as 'Theatre Commanders' comparable to Eisenhower. This means that as generals they played decisive roles in shaping the outcome of campaigns on large fronts and hence shaped the outcomes of American wars. These were the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the war of 1861-65. Four others served as lower ranking generals during the 1861-65 war. President McKinley rose from 17 year old private to 21 year old major during the 1861-65 war. Even the lowest ranking 'military' President, Abraham Lincoln, was an actual battlefield commander leading a company of infantry.
These 19th Century American 'military' Presidents were representative of the previous experience of American statesmen in the 19th Century. It was routine for Congressmen, Senators and Governors to have seen previous war service as colonels commanding regiments or as generals in command of larger forces and entire campaigns. 'Major General' Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine Regiment is typical. As a colonel he commanded at Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg, was wounded six times during the war and subsequently promoted to Major General. He later served four terms as Governor of Maine. 'General' (later Texas Governor) Sam Houston, 'Colonel' (extensive service during the Creek Indian War and later Congressman) Davy Crockett, Confederate Major General of Cavalry Joe Wheeler (later U.S. Congressman and still later U.S. Army Brigadier General in Cuba in 1898) and literally hundreds of others could be cited. The vast majority of these real combat leaders and subsequent statesmen started or entirely served in the 'Militia' that modern Judeo-Marxists would have us believe either didn't exist or didn't play a significant role in American wars. (see end note).
20th Century Presidents
Theodore R. Roosevelt. 'Assistant' and effective Secretary of the Navy during the naval build-up from 1895-98. Executive officer and later commander of the "Rough Rider" regiment of U.S. Volunteer Cavalry in Cuba. Volunteered to raise a division during the First War to Kill White People but was refused by Woodrow Wilson.
William H. Taft. No military service.
Woodrow Wilson. No military service. Academic. Led America into the First War to Kill White People under the slogans "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and "War to end war." He did this after campaigning on the plank "he kept us out of the war". First American President to openly break with the policy of non-intervention in overseas wars and with the Monroe Doctrine.
Warren G. Harding. No military service.
Calvin Coolidge. No military service.
Herbert Hoover. No military service but as a civilian mining engineer participated in the defense of the European enclave at Tientsin during the Chinese Boxer Rebellion.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt. No military service. Served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during FWATKWP. First U.S. President to grant diplomatic recognition and trade privileges to the U.S.S.R. Entered into a conspiracy with Winston S. Churchill to bring the U.S.A. into the Second War To Kill White People while publicly campaigning in 1940 on a platform of "Peace".
Harry S. Truman. Served as a captain and battery commander in field artillery in France during the First War To Kill White People. President during closing phase of European SWATKWP in 1945. Presided over the first 3 years of the Korean War from 1950-1953.
Dwight David Eisenhower. Professional U.S. Army officer. Graduated from West Point in 1915 where he was nicknamed "the Swedish Jew". Remained in continental United States during the First War To Kill White People. Served in various staff positions thereafter. No direct combat experience at any rank. Aide-de-camp to General Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines from 1935 to 1940. Hand-picked by General Marshall to command OPERATION TORCH in 1942 during the Second War To Kill White People. Surprised in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. As Supreme Commander was responsible for hundreds of thousands of atrocities and deaths against surrendering white German troops, as well as "Operation Keelhaul" to return anti-communist East Europeans to the control of Stalin and his Jewish murderers Lavrenti Beria (NKVD boss) and Lazar Kaganovich. Conducted private negotiations with Iosef Stalin to the latter's advantage concerning areas of occupation in post-war Europe. Eisenhower's conduct as Allied Commander-In-Chief has been subjected to scathing criticism, the ultimate coming from his former boss, General MacArthur: "He let his subordinate generals fight the war for him. They were good and covered up for him. Meanwhile he drank tea with Queens and Prime Ministers. Right up Ike's alley."
John Fitzgerald Kennedy. U.S. Navy officer in the South Pacific during SWATKWP. His P.T. Boat 109 was rammed and sunk at night by a Japanese destroyer in "The Slot" in the Solomon Islands.
Lyndon Baines Johnson. Congressman at the beginning of SWATKWP. Johnson's service as a US Navy officer was a political fraud concocted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. LBJ's 'combat' consisted of two rides through the eastern edge of the SW Pacific Theater in a C-47 cargo plane. After this he returned to his Congressional office on Capitol Hill. Committed US ground combat troops to Vietnam in 1965 after campaigning for election in 1964 on a promise not to do so.
Richard Milhous Nixon. Joined US Navy in June, 1942. Served in non-combatant administrative positions in the Solomon Islands until 1944, when he transferred back to the continental US. Transferred to the Naval Reserve in 1946 and to the Retired Reserve in 1966. Presided over the last six years of the Vietnam War.
Gerald Ford. Lieutenant-Commander in the US Navy during SWATKWP. Served as a sea officer on the light aircraft carrier USS Monterrey and earned nine battle stars for for operations in the Gilbert Islands, Bismark Archipelego, Marshal Islands, Asiatic and Pacific carrier raids, Hollandia, Marianas, Western Carolines, Western New Guinea, and the Leyte Operation.
James Earl Carter. Graduated from the US Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1946. Served 7 years from 1946 to 1953, principally as a submarine officer. No combat service. As Commander-in-Chief Carter attempted to control a Special Forces operation to free American hostages in Iran by radio from his White House office in 1980. Suspected of having given Saddam Hussein a "Green Light" to invade Iran in 1980.
Ronald Reagan. Movie actor. During SWATKWP he served in the US Army making training films. As Commander-in-Chief Reagan lost 243 Marines in 1983 who were blown up huddled together in one building at the Beirut Airport in Lebanon. These Marines had been deployed as part of diplomatic maneuvering following the Zionist invasion of Lebanon in 1982. This invasion was commanded by Ariel Sharon as Defense Minister. Among other events Sharon's invasion featured the carpet bombing of Beirut in which 18,000 civilian Lebanese were killed with US provided cluster bombs and the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chantilla refugee camps. Authorized OPERATION URGENT FURY to occupy Grenada, rescue American medical students at an off-shore medical college and install a new government in the island. According to Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky Reagan was deceived by the Zionist-Israeli Mossad intelligence agency into bombing Libyan dictator Moammar Khaddafi for terrorist acts he didn't commit. Committed US Special Operations aviation forces to the Persian Gulf in general support of Kuwait and Iraq in 1987 during the subsidiary 'Tanker War' campaign of the Iran-Iraq War.
George Herbert Walker Bush. Served as a U.S. Navy combat naval aviator in the Pacific during the SWATKWP. Flew 58 combat missions. As Commander-in-Chief ordered OPERATION JUST CAUSE to remove Panamanian dictator and drug dealer Manuel Noreiga from power. Commander-in-Chief during the Gulf War in 1991.
William Jefferson Clinton. Clinton's overall record is similar to Grover Cleveland's. A known draft evader during the Vietnam War. As President he expanded US military commitments in Somalia while simultaneously denying the US ground commander requested armor vehicle support. Ordered military intervention in Haitia, Bosnia, a miniature cruise missile campaign against Iraq, the Kosovo intervention and cruise missile strikes against al-Qaida targets in the Sudan and Afghanistan.
20th Century Presidential military service.
with military service (excluding LBJ's politically faked 'service' record): 9 (56%)
without military service: 7 (43%)
Superficially the percentage of Presidential military service in the 20th Century is statistically identical to the 19th Century. This is 60% vs either 56% or 62%. But this superficial statistic disguises a vast qualitative change in the nature of prior Presidential military service.
Of the 20th Century 'military' Presidents, only Eisenhower can in any way be described as a 'high commander'. After Eisenhower there weren't even any other combat generals. This already stands out compared to five 'major' and four other 19th Century Presidential combat generals.
The 'accomplishment gap' between Eisenhower and the next highest ranking President during combat, Theodore Roosevelt, is striking. T.R. Roosevelt served for a few months as a Colonel of U.S. Volunteers in Cuba in 1898. After Roosevelt comes Artillery Captain Harry S. Truman. President Kennedy's wartime command experience comprised commanding small P.T. Boats (#'s 109 and 59) for seven months in 1943 as a Navy lieutenant - equal to an Army or Marine captain. President Ford was a subordinate ship's (not flight) officer on an aircraft carrier. Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan were non-combatants. President Bush was a combat pilot but without significant command responsibilities. Clinton was a draft dodger. After Eishehower all subsequent Presidents served only as very junior officers during wartime. None exercised any significant battlefield leadership responsibilities. Even T.R. Roosevelt and Truman's military positions during war compare very poorly to the 19th Century Presidential average.
This decline in average Presidential military attainment is mirrored and magnified in the Congressional, Senatorial and Governor classes. The amount of prior military service existing in the Congress is now so low it constitutes a serious barrier to creating sound military policy. Even 'Admiral' John McCain does not break the 'low combat rank' rule. McCain's wartime service was as a pilot of an individual aircraft. His subsequent flag rank promotion was a recognition of his seven arduous years as a prisoner of war. He was never an admiral in an important combat command.
Nor can the disappearance of high officers from subsequent political posts be ascribed solely to the shift towards a 'professional military' away from the combined federal-state military/militia system. The vast majority of colonels and below retire in their early 40s. Even most generals retire by the early 50s. Thus the shift away from the militia system to standing mercenary forces can't be entirely blamed. Following SWATKWP and Korea there were plenty of experienced National Guard battalion and regimental commanders. Yet these also failed to rise as a group in the post-war political class.
Presidents at the outset of major wars (excluding Indian campaigns):
Another significant finding of this review is the experience Presidents who presided over the start and/or conduct of major wars brought to their service as "Commander In Chief" and the conduct and results of those wars.
War of 1812: James Madison, non-veteran.
Mexican War: Tyler/Polk, both non-veterans.
1861-65 War; Buchanan (non-veteran) and Lincoln (least experienced of all 19th Century 'military' Presidents).
Spanish American War of 1898: McKinley. Four year 1861-65 war veteran.
First War to Kill White People: Wilson, non-veteran.
Second War to Kill White People: F.D. Roosevelt, non-veteran.
Korean War: Truman, FWATKWP Army veteran
Vietnam: Lyndon Baines Johnson: fraudulent SWATKWP record.
Grenada-Lebanon: Reagan, uniformed Army actor.
Panama/Gulf War: Bush I, combat pilot veteran.
The three bloodiest American wars, invariably described as grand 'moral crusades' by hordes of non-veteran Judeo-Marxist academics, were the wars of 1861-65, FWATKWP and SWATKWP. All were initiated by Presidents with no combat experience, counting Buchanan's vast contribution to the conditions facing Lincoln when he finally assumed office in March, 1861. The next most miserable American experience, the Vietnam War, was also shaped by a President without any true military experience, his fraudulently constructed service record to the contrary.
Of the four significant wars presided over by combat veterans (1898, Korea, Panama and the Gulf), three were short, sharp, decisive and low cost in terms of US casualties. They were also principally conducted by standing professional forces. The remaining conflict, Korea, remains an anomaly in the American experience and seems a type of war not likely to be repeated.
These results are also consistent. 'Military' Presidents appear to have a marked tendency to shape policy in such a way as to avoid military conflicts. When these do arise they shape the subsequent operations to be as brief, as low-casualty and as decisive as possible. Non-veteran Presidents appear to have both far less fear of war and also far less aptitude for waging it. That is, it's something they don't know and thus fear much less. This permits them to allow political trends and talk to drift in directions leading towards large scale conflicts. 'Words', which they know well, appear more important than military consequences, of which they are largely ingorant. Once engaged they are equally clueless as to how to wage war. This undoubtedly results from their lack of personal experience and hence knowledge of the real qualities necessary in subordinate high commanders for effective command. Consequently their selection of subordinate 'Theatre' commanders tends to be poor. Non-veteran Franklin Roosevelt was notorious for his preference for non-combat experienced generals such as Marshall and Eisenhower for the top positions.
Should Hillary Rodham Clinton or another woman ever attain the Presidency we can confidently forecast the outbreak of another large American war and also a far vaster defeat than Vietnam. The subsequent defeat may be so large as to entail partial conquest of American territory or even a break-up of the 'U.S.A.' as an integrated political state. Both Brit-ZOG under Margaret Thatcher and ZOG-Israel under Golda Meir immediately wandered into major military embarrassments. In the case of a superpower the 'embarrassment' is likely to be far larger.
19th vs 20th Century.
The most striking development has been the increasing isolation of all high American commanders from any share in subsequent political power. After considering the actual level of military service of 19th vs 20th Century Presidents we see the political participation of senior American military leaders proportionally declined in direct proportion as the 'military-industrial complex' and the permanent War State grew.
In the 19th Century most American military commanders could be truly described as "citizen-soldiers". Except for the 1861-65 war all 19th Century wars were fought either to defend or expand the United States of America. This was true of the War of 1812, the Mexican War. Then there was the fairly continuous 'Frontier Campaign' fought against the Indian nations and comprising thousands of engagements in dozens of different campaigns. No American war in the 20th Century can be fairly described as either a war of defense or of territorial conquest.
In summary, there is no comparison between the American political establishments of the 19th and 20th Centuries. The two centuries' elites are clearly the leaders of essentially different countries. The only modern nation with a political elite that compares to the 19th Century American elite is the Zionist State. Here the comparison is nearly exact. Both 19th Century America and 20th Century Israel possessed political leaderships whose early careers were founded on military service to the larger community. The Israeli comparison to America's first 60 years is even more striking. In both cases all the early non-veteran senior statesman were major leaders in the stuggle to establish the state.
More important is what factors have caused the general 20th Century purge of 'strong' leadership from the American political classes? It was certainly not a shortage of combat experienced senior American military commanders in the 20th Century. The vast mobilizations of FWATKWP, SWATKWP, Korea and Vietnam generated these in far larger numbers than all previous American wars. I can see three major changes between 19th and 20th Century America that fueled this shift.
As Mr. Earley has extensively shown, Jews in America have not carried anywhere near their share of the war-fighting burden. But until the late 1890s their numbers were also under 200,000 in America. After that time vast numbers began arriving. Politically Jews are overwhelmingly Marxist in outlook (or the Jew Mordechai Levy a/k/a Karl Marx was overwhelmingly Jewish in outlook). As a block Jews have inhabited the Democratic Party for a century with occasional side excursions into Communism or the Greens Party. The small number of Jews in the GOP are there contingent only upon exercising power and implementing pro-Zionist policies. They insist on leading but bring few Jewish votes. While Jews as group in their own state insist on strong national leadership (like 19th Century white America) they demonstrably favor 'weak' leaders when voting among other peoples. It's irrelevant whether this preference arises from 'instinct' (i.e. genes and 'culture') or from conscious calculation ('evil intent') designed to make to secure their own advantage.
This may have been a factor. Much work remains to be done to show this has in fact been a significant factor. Female franchise certainly hasn't impeded the rise of a strong military-political leadership class in Israel proper. Nor has a female preference for 'weak' leaders (if it exists) led to fewer American wars. Voter preferences in 1940 were 80% isolationist. Since this included female voters we can regard this hypothesis as being largely unproven.
As has been well-remarked, non-whites prefer to be ruled by their own people. And as Mr. Earley has shown, they haven't carried their share of the military burden. Certainly their political tendency is also towards favoring 'weak' leadership when the choice is among white politicans. For instance, negroes overwhelmingly favored the 'First Negro President' (and draft-dodger) William Jefferson Clinton to junior combat infantry officer Robert Dole.
It is true that the combat-shirking elites identified by Mr. Earley have come to dominate American society. It is equally true to observe that these degenerates have done so in close political alliance with the above three groups.
"Maguire"
(note: 20th Century-written American military history of the 19th Century American military experience is most charitably described as worthless garbage. The worst of the ivory tower scribblers is U.S. Army 'court' historian Russell F. Weigley and his periodic editions of "History of the U.S. Army". In a long career this university academic has entirely failed to grasp the complementary natures of the 19th Century 'Regular Army' and 'Militia'. The small 19th Century 'Regular Army' was designed for three missions:
Train a corps of professional high commanders/military engineers, beginning at West Point. Subsequent general and President Zachary Taylor's command of the combined Taylor-Lincoln Blackhawk War task force is one of the innumerable examples of this professional leadership/militia soldier policy in practice. The lengthy Seminole Wars are another. The Mexican War was largely fought by militia units under Regular Army commanders. Almost every senior commander in 1861-65 on both sides was a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the small pre-war 'Regular Army' .
Maintain a small peacetime 'covering' force for Indian contigencies and as minimum garrisons and gunnery cadres for the coastal forts pending war reinforcement by Militia main bodies. The small federal detachment at Fort Sumter at Charleston in 1861 was a typical example of such a coastal fort garrison security and gunnery cadre.
Provide the industrial base to produce military equipment for the nation-in-arms. This manufacture was done at federal arsenals such as Watervliet, Springfield and Harper's Ferry. Incidentally, this last arsenal was Miscegenationist Abolitionist John Brown's target. Contemporary accounts of the 1861 mobilization invariably focus on both shortages and 'obsolesence'. These are inevitable when armies of millions are being raised and always comprise the early history of all large wars. But there were in fact millions of muskets and thousands of cannon immediately available. For half a century most federal arsenal production had been delivered directly to the states' militia, as any casual survey of 19th Century U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps archives will demonstrate to lazy and dishonest academics. This sort of military industrial policy was vital in an essentially agrarian country.
From 1792 until 1916 it was conscious federal military policy to mobilize the 'Main Body' from the militia in any military contingency. This policy prevailed from the Militia Act of 1792 through the Mexican Border Crisis of 1916. Weigley's practice in his histories of trying to oppose Regular Army and Militia in a competing dialectic is so far from the reality that his books should be gathered up and pulped. Countless mediocre scribes inhabiting university libraries have blindly copied his outline. This competition between 'professional' and 'citizen' soldier bodies did not emerge until the early 20th Century and the 'military reforms' authored by T.R. Roosevelt, Elihu Root and other prime movers of the Federal Reserve Act. These 'reforms' (beginning in the late 1890s) all consisted of constantly trying to expand the Regular Army combat units, endlessly trying to reduce and eliminate the state 'Militia' and also to substitute professional officers and even sergeants for militia leaders at the lowest possible levels. The ultimate reason for this was a Constitutional ambiguity over whether Militia could be deployed outside the borders. So long as this prohibition was maintained Militia could only fight in wars of defense or territorial conquest. The expansion of the Regular Army and discontinuance of the militia system is what made substantial intervention in FWATKWP, SWATKWP, Korea and Vietnam possible. While these have been of vast benefit to Jewish, Communist and Zionist interests, no benefit to American white people has yet been observed from this 'innovation'.)
2002-08-15 16:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Aug 15 2002, 15:34 **12 August 2002
Elite American Political Leaderships in the 19th and 20th Centuries.
from: [url=http://faem.com/maguire/eliteams.htm]http://faem.com/maguire/eliteams.htm[/url]
Mr. Earley develops an important theme in his article "Remembering American Wars"
[url=http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html[/url] This is that American political elites are increasingly constituted by those who actively shirk military combat service. Nor is this phenomenon confined to the 'Democratic' party. The modern Republican Party appears increasingly indistinguishable in this aspect. The second Bush president, Vice President Quayle, the entire House Republican leadership and Rush Limbaugh fit right into the general trend despite their loudly maintained psuedo-patriotism.
While Harvard and Yale symbolize the growing trend toward non-veteran and non-serving elites these groups did not achieve their political prominence until the 20th Century. The precise mechanism and times that elevated them to that dominance seems worth studying.
When we compare American political elites in the 19th and 20th Centuries we see they describe two different countries. We'll take the Presidency as symbolic of both centuries and review the occupants. This survey will illustrate the enourmous changes that began sweeping over "America" and its ruling class at the beginning of the 20th Century.
**
Thanks for this succinct summary. Early's article seemed to me, while interesting, lengthy enough to merit his OD moniker.
2002-08-15 16:29 | User Profile
Thanks for this succinct summary. Early's article seemed to me, while interesting, lengthy enough to merit his OD moniker.
I'd assumed people might like to see how others are reviewing the article. :)
2002-08-15 17:40 | User Profile
QUOTE (FWI Aug 15 2002, 10:09)
** Thanks for this succinct summary. Early's article seemed to me, while interesting, lengthy enough to merit his OD moniker. **
I am gratified that young Americans will spend time and effort in reading and learning something that is demanding and edifying. There is hope for America yet. I know that my reading Mr. Gibbonââ¬â¢s work of more than 200 years previous gave many precious insights into the human condition. I only hope that what I wrote did the same ââ¬â to a lesser degree of course.
FWI can learn even more by buying the book.
2003-06-05 04:54 | User Profile
edward gibbon,
Thanks for a great article!
2003-10-01 21:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leland Gaunt]The first article was anti-japanese and full of stereotypes. Japanese atrocety-numbers are just as much inflated as those of their other axis allies. accepting official figures from a communist regime is also highly dubious. [QUOTE]let me repeat - these Japanese troops slaughtered every man, woman and child in those areas, reproducing on a wholesale scale the horrors which the world had seen at Lidice, but about which the people have been uninformed in these instances. [/QUOTE] Ohhhhh Lidice! Of course we can't miss that, can we? I'm also unaware that the czech rural police shot every "man, [B]woman and child[/B] in Lidice.[/QUOTE]The quote was from the headquarters of Chiang Kai Shek, a man not known for being a communist. I am sure Mao's reaction would would have been much the same.
The great slaughter during the period termed the holocaust was not of Ukrainians, Russians, Germans or Jews, but of Chinese. I am sure your knowledge is limited to the obvious taunts and very little else. You should try to broaden your base of knowledge. You are a vicious little ignoramous. To lessen your tension and frustration I advise sticking both hands in your shorts and pummel your groin. After some time the ache will dull, and I am positive you will enjoy it. Then you should try it on some of your friends. They will be delighted with your new tricks.
2003-10-19 17:08 | User Profile
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ~ Ambrose Bierce
2003-10-20 18:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin][COLOR=Red]EG - You are a very thin-skinned wannabe-historian.[/COLOR] Questioning the traditional Anglo-American depiction of enemies as savages won't necessarily blacken you in the hearts of the Chinese masses you're so concerned about. As wartime stats are your thing, consider how many fewer Americans would've died if Japan, instead of "the Allies", had continued to control east Asia. [/QUOTE]I have never made a claim to be an "academic" historian. I wrote on things that interested me and pointed to grave flaws in the American recall of world events. I detest young tough talking punks. I deeply regret the influx of those infatuated with Hitler and the Japanese into this forum, but I can do nothing.
Leland Gaunt wrote:[QUOTE]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted by Leland Gaunt The first article was anti-japanese and full of stereotypes. Japanese atrocety-numbers are just as much inflated as those of their other axis allies. accepting official figures from a communist regime is also highly dubious. Quote:
[COLOR=Navy]The quote was from the headquarters of Chiang Kai Shek, a man not known for being a communist. I am sure Mao's reaction would would have been much the same.[/COLOR]
The great slaughter during the period termed the holocaust was not of Ukrainians, Russians, Germans or Jews, but of Chinese. I am sure your knowledge is limited to the obvious taunts and very little else. You should try to broaden your base of knowledge. You are a vicious little ignoramous. To lessen your tension and frustration I advise sticking both hands in your shorts and pummel your groin. After some time the ache will dull, and I am positive you will enjoy it. Then you should try it on some of your friends. They will be delighted with your new tricks.[/QUOTE]The below exchange did occur between you and me. You with your idiocy were up for public view as were my penetrating responses and insights.[QUOTE] On a previous thread this interchange took place: [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?p=13825&highlight=ruffin#post13825[/url] Mr. edward gibbon,
Are you suggesting that the American leaders who decided to bomb Japan were more concerned about American lives in 1945 than when they purposely provoked Japan into attacking the United States in 1941?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] Forgotten has been the sequence of declarations of war. Perhaps this will surprise some:
What many have chosen to forget was that the United States did not declare war on Germany after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but that the Germany of Hitler first declared war on the America of Franklin Roosevelt. The United States did reciprocate this act. This simple, but frequently overlooked, fact somewhat tarnished the cherished tenets that the Japanese attack just woke the sleeping giant of America, and henceforth, aroused Americans arose and proceeded to put the world right. Even more frequently overlooked has been that the Italy of Mussolini declared war on the United States.
The United States did not have to provoke Japan into attacking us. They had been planning for such a day since we seized Hawaii in the late 19th century. I would bet much money that Harry Truman, the only 20th century president to have seen ground combat, did value American lives much more than FDR and Stimson.
On another post you wrote this inanity in response to Ed Toner: [Quote][COLOR=Navy]Originally posted by Ed Toner@Apr 5 2003, 06:25 Remember, the Axis included the Japs.
No thanks. [/COLOR]
At least the Japs don't consciously seek to destroy their own people. And when encircled and poked with a stick by Rooseveltian Jews, in their own sphere of influence, they do what self respecting people do, fight back. Mercenary Amerikans otoh, have so little understanding of the principle of minding their own business that they have actually become Jewish.
The Japs had honour, and Amerikans can't allow that. [COLOR=Red]**[The honor of Japs included butchering of prisoners, slaughter of innocent men, women and children on a scale Americans cannot begin to understand.][/COLOR][/B][/Quote]
Another idiocy: [QUOTE]As much as I respect the Japanese, I've never understood the attraction of Americans to Asian women. And I couldn't distinguish between the different national types, I don't think, in appearance anyway. In inherited culture, there's no comparison though. The Japs are to the rest of Asia what Germans are to the west. Except that they don't delude themselves into disintegration.[/QUOTE] Further idiocy: [QUOTE]You'd think the world would hate Japan instead of the United States, wouldn't you? Personally, I don't believe the Jewish sounding they-drained-their-blood-and-ate-their-livers stories, even though atrocities have been committed by just about all during wartime (except by the CSA :th: ). Beheading soldiers? Sure. It doesn't compare with the mass slaughter of civilians though, and the United States holds the record for it (I think). I believe they refer to their doctrine as "total war".[/QUOTE]You like Japs: [QUOTE]I've been looking at that photo of the beheading and I question its authenticity on several counts. The angle the photo is taken from seems an unlikely one even for a proud savage. The focus is on the blindfolded prisoner rather than on the proud executing comrade of the photographer, as if to empathize with the prisoner. The range, unless GI Jap had a zoom lens with him, is too close. The prisoner is barely leaning forward while the Jap looks like he's poised to come straight down. The sunlight that the prisoner has his back to is lighting up faces in the crowd that are turned away from it. And lastly, the photo is invaluable, but not for the Japs.[/QUOTE] I replied:[QUOTE]The Russians killed far more Japanese when they invaded Manchuria at the end of World War II than we did at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Chinese merely claimed they held Japan responsible for the deaths of 35 million Chinese. This number dwarfs any number that could be cited by Ruffin.
I am curious why Ruffin brought up the massacre at My Lai when the North Vietnamese butchery at Hue during Tet in 1968 was 10 times as great.
Previously I have written many times on why the United States was justified in dropping the atomic bomb, most definitely to save American lives. Likewise I have many times before compared the great massacre at Hue to My Lai. With Ruffin I must have wasted my time. [/QUOTE] Ruffin wrote:[QUOTE]Unfortunately, their vivisection of live prisoners is not a fairy tale. Don't confuse it with the possibly fraudulent cannibal stories. They used Chinese, Russians, Americans, British--just about anyone that fell into their bloody, sadistic hands. [/QUOTE]Ruffin writes and believes Americans are bad guys: [QUOTE]As I said, I don't believe it. But I can't disprove it. American susceptibility to war prop aside, I don't think the Japanese tend toward savagery. I know that plenty of Americans do. They'll kill anybody they're told to instead of holding their own leaders accountable for the enemies they've piled up. [/QUOTE] From my book on the Russo-Japanese War:[QUOTE]One of the more striking photographs of that war was one that appeared in the March 12, 1904 issue of Harper's Weekly. A condemned Oriental prisoner was shown kneeling above a freshly dug grave awaiting his beheading by the military executioner shown swinging his sword just prior to impact at the back of the neck. The caption on the photograph succinctly explained this procedure as the Japanese method of executing prisoners of war. No explanation was given for this punishment. These same brutal beheadings were repeated at the start of the Second World War on American prisoners in the Philippines and occasioned far different responses by the American public.
The civilized world was getting a lesson in Asiatic warfare, and it was far more savage than they were accustomed to. The beheading of Chinese deserters and the slaughter of non-combatants by Japanese were as natural to Asiatic warfare as marches. When Hideyoshi's warriors invaded Korea some three hundred years earlier, they created as proof of their military prowess a huge pile of human ears which they had sliced off the heads of both prisoners and the dead. Some 38,000 pairs of ears were suitably pickled and stored in the Mimizuka in Kyoto as proof of their ferocity and their valor. Only in recent times has this exhibit of Japanese gallantry been closed to the public. Generations of Japanese students had been inspired by verification of martial prowess of their ancestors. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Hundreds of thousands of American and British servicemen survived the war thanks to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thatââ¬â¢s justification enough for me. [/QUOTE] Ruffin replies: [QUOTE]By August, 1945 Germany had already been defeated and Japan was beaten back to the home islands, militarily exhausted. Invasion wasn't even required for an end to that war. IOW, you can thank American politicians for starting it, ending it as savagely as possible, and for the intermediate deaths of all of those American and British servicemen, including those who died at Pearl Harbor. [/QUOTE]I wrote in my book: [QUOTE]After Iwo Jima the next step for the American military was the invasion of Okinawa prior to landing on the home islands of Japan. American military force historically has relied on firepower superiority to gain battlefield objectives with little consideration to maneuver and other soldiering skills. In May and June of 1945 during the battle of Okinawa American forces had an advantage which may never have had an equal. Early in the fighting the entire island of Okinawa with a length of sixty miles and most land within two miles of the ocean was bombarded by six battleships, six cruisers, and eight destroyers. Afterwards American forces on the ground had the fire support of twenty-seven artillery battalions. Against these 342 pieces the Japanese had virtually no retaliatory power. Yet the Japanese had dug so deeply and so well, they were able to repel initial American attacks. When the inevitable occurred, the Japanese had lost about 100,000 men, and American forces had suffered almost 45,000 casualties. The Okinawans who survived have referred to this onslaught as the typhoon of steel. Among the dead the Marines lost over 3,000, and the Navy suffered its worst losses of the war with close to 5,000 dead and more than 5,000 wounded. Navy losses could almost all be attributed to the use of kamikaze aircraft by the Japanese. Almost forgotten in recounting the invasion was that 4 out of 5 British fast carriers supporting American troops invading Okinawa had taken hits by kamikazes. Unlike American carriers with wooden decks, the British had steel decks which a text described as "kamikaze proof". One sensed the British did not care to press their luck. The history of World War II used at West Point concluded that few veterans of Okinawa would have wanted to attack the Japanese on their home islands after experiencing kamikazes attacks and using huge flamethrowers on Japanese holed up in caves. More of the same "might have been too much".
Such has been the character of the American media of today that attempts to explain the battle conditions which would have resulted in an attempted invasion of Japan bring jeers, smirks, and snide remarks about American integrity. Boys and girls of the American media have patterned themselves on the local television news format of inane laughing and talk as if they were the proud custodians of American heritage. They are Sam Donaldsons in waiting.
Over fifty years later in 1991 in Tokyo Doctor Hakudo Nagatomi was recalling his first day in China in 1937. Doctor Nagatomi rode in a truck carrying Chinese prisoners along a path through the mass of many thousands of dead bodies with wild dogs gnawing on the flesh. After stopping the truck and unloading the prisoners, an officer proposed a test of courage and unsheathed his sword. After spitting on the sword the honorable servant of the Emperor with a mighty swing severed the head of a boy cowering beside them. The good doctor remembered the body slumping forward with blood spurting in two streams from the neck. So inspired the doctor took the proffered sword from his compatriot and proved his courage by executing twenty Chinese civilians. The doctor confessed to feeling proud for Japan and his being Japanese. In addition to beheading people Doctor Nagatomi starved people to death, burned them, and buried them alive, over 200 in all. In a Buddhist inspired effort to redeem and cleanse his soul Doctor Nagatomi made a video to document the atrocities in China. A quaint practice of Japanese soldiers in Nanking of bayoneting babies and while still alive tossing them into pots of boiling water received some mention. How the killing of infants showed courage was not explained.
In 1994 almost a half-century after the war ended, Shigeto Nagano, then Japanese Justice Minister, pronounced the massacre of Chinese at Nanking a fabrication. Mr. Nagano stated he had been in Nanking in 1941 and had seen no evidence of the massacre. After outraged protest by Asians Mr. Nagano recanted and admitted the slaughter as an "undeniable fact". Mr. Nagano in his previous career had retired in 1980 as Chief of Staff of the Japanese Army. This disregard for Asian sensitivities and historical facts has long been characteristic of the Japanese ruling class. They have long maintained the main thrust of Japanese expansion into Asia was to free Asia from Western imperialism. They have long forgotten their atrocities.
Interestingly, in this era cannibalism did resurge during the massive internal upheavals in China. During World War II captured American airmen were cut up and eaten by the Japanese. One Japanese Admiral had reserved the liver of a captured American airman.
[COLOR=Red]I would like to ask Ruffin about the last time he was in a fight, and if he ever felt such danger that he may not live. Many on this forum seem to have an idea that they and their ideas will triumph solely by their virtue[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]Once again: Ruffin wrote: [QUOTE]This paragraph has nothing to do with the comparison of brutalities committed by the US and Japan, and we weren't trying to determine where or when the biggest massacres have occurred on planet Earth. I've attempted to explain why instances of Japanese brutality against American combatants and prisoners don't compare to American A-bombing of entire Japanese cities, and why it is unbecoming for a nation to provoke another into firing the first shot and then whine about "war crimes". [/QUOTE] In a tribal way I responded:[QUOTE]It does compare, but not in the way you perceive. They butchered men of my tribe. Their punishment (reward?) was to die.[/QUOTE][COLOR=Red][B]What tribe do you belong to[/B]?[/COLOR]
I wrote:[QUOTE]I am curious why Ruffin brought up the massacre at My Lai when the North Vietnamese butchery at Hue during Tet in 1968 was 10 times as great. [/QUOTE] Ruffin replied: [QUOTE]It was easier to find a picture of My Lai because it is more well known, and I wished to offer a picture of American brutality that even a TV watcher might grasp, even though it's still probably not as dramatic as a beheading. [/QUOTE] I condescended to reply this moron:[QUOTE]I ask that you please not get your sense of history from television. You will become an utter moron. You most certainly should be aware of what I write. You will not insult people with your lack of knowledge. [/QUOTE] Ruffin wrote:[QUOTE] Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but you do admit that by May, 1945 Japan, while "well dug in" in parts of the Pacific, was no longer an imperial threat to the US, right? It's the safe recapture of American prisoners held by the Japs that you're insisting necessitated a bombing of Japanese cities in August?[/QUOTE] I answered: [QUOTE]George Catlett Marshall and others had something to say: General George Marshall in an internal memorandum agonized over the fate of the Allied prisoners and wanted to warn the Japanese, not only as a nation, but as a race, that their fate would depend on their ability "to progress beyond their original barbaric instincts". When the Japanese did torture and execute captured Allied airmen, Representative Sikes of Florida spoke of the cold horror gripping American hearts. Mr. Sikes wanted to defeat the "criminal Jap nation" by bringing them to their knees. Then he wanted to throw them out of the family of nations. In May and June of 1945 after the surrender of the Germans eight captured B-29 crewmen were used in vivisection experiments in Japan by Professor Ishiyama, director of external medicine at Kyushu Imperial University. In one experiment Ishiyama extracted a prisoner's lungs and placed them in a surgical pan. Then he made an incision in the lung artery allowing blood to flow into the thorax killing the victim. In another Ishiyama removed ribs from a prisoner and stopped blood flow by holding a large artery by the heart so the resulting death could be timed. In a third incisions were made into the skull of a prisoner, and a knife was inserted to cause death. These ghastly operations were hardly unique and were repeated many, many times over on Chinese.
A comparison between the German and Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners showed some marked differences. Of 235,473 United States and United Kingdom soldiers captured by Germany and Italy only 9,348, some 4 percent, died in captivity. Among the 132,134 Anglo-American prisoners of war held by the Japanese some 35,756 did not survive. This death rate was 27 percent. For the 25,697 men of the American Army captured in May 1942 some 10,957, or over 40 percent, died. After the war had ended, and the Americans had started to occupy Japan, an American who had been a prisoner of the Japanese complained Americans were too soft in their occupation policy, and the Japanese deserved to be occupied by the Chinese and the Russians. [/QUOTE]I gave some friendly advice: [QUOTE]You seem overly sensitive to concerns for other people. Please do yourself a favor - start taking boxing or karate lessons?[/QUOTE]You are one and the same as your friend Justin Raimando with your concerns for the Japanese. Is your boyfriend of Japanese ethnic stock?
If the Japanese were able to take over China and use the Chinese as soldiers in their cause, this country would have discovered very soon how really nasty people can be. If you can take your head out of a manga, please consult some serious books on war in the Pacific and Europe. You have an IQ worthy of one who watches MTV. You should limit your posting solely to Leland Gaunt, who has an intelligence and interest to match you.
2003-10-20 20:03 | User Profile
If the Japanese were able to take over China and use the Chinese as soldiers in their cause, this country would have discovered very soon how really nasty people can be.
Best as I can decipher, the above quote is the closest thing to a point you might be trying to make, and I think it's the essense of your mentality. IF, IF, IF. Echoes of Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and George Bush. "IF we don't destroy (fill in the blank), they'll take over the world." It's a very worn-out ideology, accompanied by the standard name-calling and smearing of anyone who questions it.
Good luck in your endeavors, however spooky.
2003-10-20 20:23 | User Profile
So Edward, what exactly is your position on what form of military the US should have? I believe I asked you this in our first(and I believe only) debate about nationalism and military service, but you never replied.
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=49403&postcount=16[/url]
Basically you talked about how Americans don't rally around the flag during war, although you quoted from your book about WW2 when I said Americans would be more willing to fight if America's real interests were threatened(ie if America was actually under massive invasion).
Then you wrote off me quoting Jefferson by saying that Jefferson never served in the military. To which I replied that Jefferson may not have served, but many who actually did serve advocated what he proposed. Since we're on the topic of high-ranking commanders, I noted the German general Scharnhorst among others.
2003-10-20 20:41 | User Profile
I oughta know better than to try and play peacemaker here, but....here goes.
Ruffin, you seem to mistake EG's cataloguing of Japanese aggression & brutality with a stance that denies/refutes Japan's civilization;
EG, you're livid because Ruffin's insistence on emphasizing the order and seeming serenity of Japanese culture denies/refutes their extreme ethnocentrism and history of inhumane brutality that Western societies consider beyond the pale.
Each of you have valid points. What Ruffin doesn't know, or won't acknowledge, is the intrinsic viciousness - make that casual viciousness - of Japanese culture. Because Hiroshima has become THE photo-op atrocity and fulcrum by which all modern morality-in-wartime is measured by, the Japanese got a 50-year free pass as the world deliberately ignored not only their longhistory of brutal aggression in Asia, but their truly sickening and inhumane treatment of captured enemy combatants. If you don't trust the Chinese, Koreans or Filipinos to accurately describe it for you, then ask the British. It was behavior informed by a cultural belief that no one but the Japanese deserved the status of human beings. If Tokyo had the Bomb and we didn't, not only would most of the West be craters today, but there would be precious little handwringing on their behalf over the death and devastation wrought by their technology....certainly nothing comparable to the western crises of conscience over Hiroshima & Nagasaki. You can find reminders of this in everyday Japanese culture today: they absolutely [B]love[/B] their snuff films and extreme-torture 'entertainments'. It's part of who and what they [I]are[/I].
On the other hand, Edward - though I cannot find it at the moment - you once posted some comment that said, roughly, that you admired the English for once having the will and resolve to export their value system to conquered territory and populations as a natural byproduct of military victory (my apologies if I'm misquoting you) - and such ruthlessness not only doesn't preclude the simultaneous existence of a high culture and civilization...it [I]reflects them[/I]. By the same token, Japan's barbaric ruthlessness and xenophobia in no way offsets or negates their own attainment of a high culture and civilization, one based on tradition and honor - although that tradition and honor was reserved exclusively for their fellows, and devil take the gaijin hindmost.
I have a ton of respect for your work and the erudition that informs it, EG, but I often wonder if you wouldn't help your own cause more by [I]counting to ten [/I] before returning fire with a full battery salvo. After all, most of the people who take issue with you are [I]misinformed [/I] rather than innately malicious...and would benefit the most from reading your book. It obviously goes against your grain, but if you could persuade a few of your opponents to READ [B]War, Money and American Memory[/B] before engaging you in battle, you'd 'win' more of these fracases - and more importantly, serve the greater good by getting a little bit more of the truth out there.
2003-10-20 21:00 | User Profile
il ragno's becoming a peacemaker is a clear sign this board is in trouble.
2003-10-20 21:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]So Edward, what exactly is your position on what form of military the US should have? I believe I asked you this in our first(and I believe only) debate about nationalism and military service, but you never replied.
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=49403&postcount=16[/url][/QUOTE]I will quote the great master Adam Smith, not generally known for his political and moral views. I find nothing below to make me change my mind about his wisdom.
[QUOTE]A thoroughgoing Scot, Smith, declared war the noblest of all arts.[1] The civilization of any country can only be perpetuated, or preserved, for any considerable period of time by a standing army.[2] Defense is much more important than opulence, and Smith regarded the Navigation Act protecting British shipping, as perhaps the wisest of commercial regulations.[3] A coward, a man incapable of either defending or of revenging himself, lacks one of the most essential parts of the character of a man.[4] Smith paused to comment on the gross ignorance and stupidity that in a civilized society seems to benumb the inferior ranks of people. Their lack of intellectual development made them, if possible, even more contemptible than the coward. [5]
[1] Adam Smith, **[I]The Wealth of Nations[/I][[/B], p697 (Volumes I and II, Liberty Press, 1976)
[2] ibid, 706[3]
[3] ibid, p464-5ibid, p706
[4] ibid, p787
[5] ibid, p788[/QUOTE]The great problem facing America today is the loss of courage as a virtue, most certainly among the affluent. I have grave doubts if a multicultural America could find the strength to fend off tough challenges. I feel regardless of how things work out in the Middle East that China will make a grab for power. If Japan had the power, she would have made the lunge. This is the way of the world.
One of the great problems facing this country is the wealthy elites (I do not like using this word to describe these cretins) have no sense of patriotism nor any sense of obligation to the lower or lower-middle class whites. Instead they deem a Brazilian-like future preferable for their cause. They will sacrifice others for their gain. Their children, as ever, will escape danger, but others will not. Standards of military equipment will deteriorate. The armies we have battled in Iraq (twice), Haiti, Panama and Granada are not the Reichswehr. I think the Chinese probably now possess every military secret we have excepting those not that important.
In no manner do I endorse Jorge Bushââ¬â¢s foray into the Middle East, but I am a realist above everything. With the dollar going down in value and the price of oil increasing in Euros the United States will be hard pressed to pay for necessary imports. We will have to steal oil or suffer internal anarchy. The class I represent is leaderless on the national scene. Both parties are alike at the top. There is no leadership from Church Bishops or clergy. Universal military service may be a way to prepare for a controlled movement to assert discontent. If we leave military service to minorities, they soon will discover that power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
A resurgence of manly qualities at the top would greatly assist, but failing that, those at the lower end must make the effort. Many on this forum hide behind anonymity and write warlike prose, but I have doubts if many would be willing to expose themselves. I find no shame for despising the Leland Gaunts and the Ruffins, who if they are to be believed, live for the day when they will demonstrate their martial prowess.
2003-10-20 21:02 | User Profile
I know, I know; I'm scared [I]too[/I].
2003-10-20 21:38 | User Profile
IR - I don't think there's more brutality in Japanese culture than in any other, least of all western. Check the respective crime stats (even before integration) or the maps of military conquests. If the Japs treated the Chinese or anyone else inhumanely, it's their affair, and I not only reject but see as part of our undoing the notion that it's our place to correct that. Someday these crusades will be brought back to us, as they have again and again to the Jews who genetically can't mind their own business. There's an important but blurred difference between heroism and idiocy, and that's whether one is fighting for one's own interests or not. I don't think Americans have fought wars for their own interests, save possibly the American revolution and, definately, the Confederate defense of their homelands. EG likes to pick on Jefferson because he didn't serve. He ignores the advisements of General Washington that were the foundation of the neutrality of the US. Both men knew that the political elite are always the main threat to our independence and that foreign crusades are a sign of the loss of that independence, NOT a badge of honor.
I admire the Japanese mainly for their sense of honor, and I think it's revealing that many Americans not only don't appreciate it but haven't the foggiest idea of what it is. It sure as hell can't be defined largely by service in the United States military, no matter the personal honor of many who did serve.
Thanks for mediating here btw. When are you going to write something new for VNN?
2003-10-20 23:03 | User Profile
Soon, soon! (By the way....are you "DW" over there - or is that Hugh Lincoln?)
2003-10-20 23:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]I will quote the great master Adam Smith, not generally known for his political and moral views. I find nothing below to make me change my mind about his wisdom. [/QUOTE]
So basically you believe in a professional standing army as opposed to universal military service?
2003-10-21 00:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Soon, soon! (By the way....are you "DW" over there - or is that Hugh Lincoln?)[/QUOTE]
heh heh, I guess I'll have to go reread some DW in the archives now, but it ain't me.
2003-10-21 01:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ~ Ambrose Bierce[/QUOTE]
:clap: So true!
2003-10-21 01:44 | User Profile
EG - I admit that previously I only scanned your latest post. Upon closer examination,
I think your notion that opposition to American wars is cowardice is no different than the Horowitzim calling it traitorous. With all of your research into the declining participation of the elites in these foreign forays, hasn't it occurred to you that they know full well that the United States isn't threatened and that these wars are just power grabs... power grabs that aren't even shared with the citizenry.... a citizenry they constantly work to destroy? Do you think they'd participate if they really felt threatened? Just maybe?
Tell me, who do you think is more cowardly, the man who resists the denigration of his people by a disloyal elite and refuses to send his sons to fight for such scum, or the man who bombs---oops, I mean, liberates, the world, at 30,000 feet, from nations that don't even have the ability to defend themselves, let alone threaten the US, but who offers his daughters to negroes lest he be thought a racist? One of these men will tell you that he intends to stick by Israel no matter what, even though that "partnership" doesn't benefit his people at all. You'll find him at Freak Republic. He'll tell you that leaving the American union was traitorous and justified the death of a half million of his former countrymen, but his opinion of the Soviet union and its iron curtain was something quite different. He'll tell you how evil the Hitler-of-the-month is but he wouldn't be caught dead reading anything he's not supposed to, so how does he know it?
Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.
The elites may hate me but I guarantee you they have nothing but contempt for the men who thirst to die in some foreign war for the benefit of that very elite that trusts him with a gun only on foreign soil.
2003-10-21 20:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]IR - I don't think there's more brutality in Japanese culture than in any other, least of all western...I admire the Japanese mainly for their sense of honor, and I think it's revealing that many Americans not only don't appreciate it but haven't the foggiest idea of what it is. It sure as hell can't be defined largely by service in the United States military, no matter the personal honor of many who did serve.[/QUOTE]The macabre tale of the 47 masterless samurai, [I]Chushingura[/I], is devoid of qualities that any sane man should be proud of. Your remark about service in the American army was [I][B]moronic[/B][/I].
2003-10-21 20:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]So basically you believe in a professional standing army as opposed to universal military service?[/QUOTE]I wrote more than 500 pages explaining what I think and believe. I will not reduce my answers for people who ask such low grade questions.
2003-10-21 20:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]EG - I admit that previously I only scanned your latest post. Upon closer examination, [B][I]I think your notion that opposition to American wars is cowardice is no different than the Horowitzim calling it traitorous[/I][/B]. With all of your research into the declining participation of the elites in these foreign forays, hasn't it occurred to you that they know full well that the United States isn't threatened and that these wars are just power grabs... power grabs that aren't even shared with the citizenry.... a citizenry they constantly work to destroy? Do you think they'd participate if they really felt threatened? Just maybe?
Tell me, who do you think is more cowardly, the man who resists the denigration of his people by a disloyal elite and refuses to send his sons to fight for such scum, or the man who bombs---oops, I mean, liberates, the world, at 30,000 feet, from nations that don't even have the ability to defend themselves, let alone threaten the US, but who offers his daughters to negroes lest he be thought a racist? One of these men will tell you that he intends to stick by Israel no matter what, even though that "partnership" doesn't benefit his people at all. You'll find him at Freak Republic. He'll tell you that leaving the American union was traitorous and justified the death of a half million of his former countrymen, but his opinion of the Soviet union and its iron curtain was something quite different. He'll tell you how evil the Hitler-of-the-month is but he wouldn't be caught dead reading anything he's not supposed to, so how does he know it?
Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.
The elites may hate me but I guarantee you they have nothing but contempt for the men who thirst to die in some foreign war for the benefit of that very elite that trusts him with a gun only on foreign soil.[/QUOTE]All wars are fought over power and money. Most Americans are not very brave or willing to stand and fight, excepting those with the Southern heritage for the most part. Most Americans just look for reasons not to fight. You will find them in all situations.
I do not even visit Free Republic. I have commented many times previous on my contempt for the self-described elite.
2003-10-21 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]I wrote more than 500 pages explaining what I think and believe. I will not reduce my answers for people who ask such low grade questions.[/QUOTE]
The F*ck was that for? I asked a simple question and you act like a jackass!
Frankly from your writings you seem to contradict yourself. Sometimes you're heading in the direction of support for universal service and other times you're heading more in the direction of a professional army. I was simply trying to sort out what it was you really believed. Sorry for wanting to know more about your beliefs asshole! Wrote 500 pages and yet you can't answer a simple question? Sounds like your book would be of better use as toliet paper!
2003-10-21 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]il ragno's becoming a peacemaker is a clear sign this board is in trouble.[/QUOTE] LOL, time to bring the accordion out.
2003-10-23 03:35 | User Profile
I simply asked you to clarify your views on the military service issue and you replied with a very rude remark. That was highly uncalled for Edward. I simply asked what your views were on either a professional force or universal service and you went on talking about how the US should take over the Middle East oil. Ok? I didn't ask you about your views on Middle East oil. I didn't understand what you were getting at and asked very simply to reclarify your views and you replied with this ** I wrote more than 500 pages explaining what I think and believe. I will not reduce my answers for people who ask such low grade questions.**
What was that for? Like I said, that was totally uncalled for, considering the fact I asked you in a polite manner! And your more recent remark proves you're as much an immature punk as anybody else on this forum, so drop the arrogant attitude "I'm better than everybody else because I wrote a 500page book". Yeah so do did Marx and nobody can understand what the hell he wrote!
2003-10-23 22:37 | User Profile
**perun, ruffin, gaunt[/B]
All three of you are scumbags who cast a shadow over this forum. Lurkers identify you three would-be thugs with many who comment intelligently and are disturbed by your presence. None of you can read intelligently. If you could, you would not ask such stupid questions. If you are nazis or nazi wannabes, I ask that you take your childish tirades elsewhere.
[QUOTE=perun1201]I simply asked you to clarify your views on the military service issue and you replied with a very rude remark. That was highly uncalled for Edward. [COLOR=Blue]I simply asked what your views were on either a professional force or universal service and you went on talking about how the US should take over the Middle East oil. Ok? I didn't ask you about your views on Middle East oil.[/COLOR] I didn't understand what you were getting at and asked very simply to reclarify your views and you replied with this ** I wrote more than 500 pages explaining what I think and believe. I will not reduce my answers for people who ask such low grade questions.**
What was that for? Like I said, that was totally uncalled for, considering the fact I asked you in a polite manner! And your more recent remark proves you're as much an immature punk as anybody else on this forum, so drop the arrogant attitude "I'm better than everybody else because I wrote a 500page book". Yeah so do did Marx and nobody can understand what the hell he wrote![/QUOTE]I wrote 500 pages on American history. A number here have read my book and confided they found it informative. You and your cohorts know very little and would have to be taken by the hand to understand. I will not do that.
2003-10-24 00:33 | User Profile
>>>I wrote 500 pages on American history. A number here have read my book and confided they found it informative. You and your cohorts know very little and would have to be taken by the hand to understand. I will not do that.
Interesting. Perhaps you can tell us the name of the institution at which you became an accredited historian?
***>>>All three of you are scumbags who cast a shadow over this forum. Lurkers identify you three would-be thugs with many who comment intelligently and are disturbed by your presence. None of you can read intelligently. If you could, you would not ask such stupid questions. If you are nazis or nazi wannabes, I ask that you take your childish tirades elsewhere. ***
A lovely, childish, ad hominem tirade you have here.
2003-10-24 00:51 | User Profile
***>>>The civilized world was getting a lesson in Asiatic warfare, and it was far more savage than they were accustomed to. ***
Is France, in your view, part of this civilized world?
2003-10-24 01:23 | User Profile
>>>I detest young tough talking punks. I deeply regret the influx of those infatuated with Hitler and the Japanese into this forum, but I can do nothing.
I detest the old windbags known collectively today as the so-called "Greatest Generation." What precisely is so "great" about the "Greatest Generation" again? Perhaps you can remind me. I actually cannot decide which generation is more worthless, you old farts and your sucking up to the Jews that gave us Israel or your beatnik children with their stupid equality theories who are creating a third world America. The America we live in today; it is the country the last two generations have collectively immiserated in their utter irresponsibility.
2003-10-24 02:32 | User Profile
***>>>Can you say the same for the American lost generations? For what did they fought for? ***
I suppose this would depend on the particular war. Lets see. In the War Between the States, the Yanks supposedly fought to "preserve the union" and "abolish slavery." In other words, the Yanks fought to niggerize the South, and abolish whatever was left of culture in America. In that war, the Yanks, the self-righteous as always, determined that Southerners were the evil-doers(TM) who had to be destroyed. They came to the same conclusion about the Germans several generations later. Not content with wiping out culture in America, these arrogant buffoons preceded to wipe out Europe and impose the decrepit democratic/equality ideology upon Europe as well. The result has been the same typical amalgamation and bastardization we see throughout the remains of the South today.
>>>For their folk, good real and earth-based values? Maybe they were good people, but they didnt fought for a good cause on the long run.
All one has to do is open one's eyes and look at the "values" these people bring to all the areas they liberate(TM), all the disgusting pornography now flowing into Iraq is a good example. They taught the Germans to hate their own people just as they remind Southerners how evil they are for enslaving the Negroes to this day. In short - they are self-righteous moralizing hypocritical fanatics they have always been.
>>>The scum of mankind, traitors of their folk and all good moral which ever existed.
Yes, this is how Liberty(TM) always ends, in total social disintegration and decadence. As for the last generation, words cannot express my contempt for what these people have done to this country. They are the first generation (perhaps the second when you think about it) in American history to leave to their children a world that is worse than they one they inherited.
2003-10-24 03:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]In the (Civil) war, the Yanks, the self-righteous as always, determined that Southerners were the evil-doers(TM) who had to be destroyed. They came to the same conclusion about the Germans several generations later. Not content with wiping out culture in America, these arrogant buffoons preceded to wipe out Europe and impose the decrepit democratic/equality ideology upon Europe as well. [/QUOTE]
Crocodile tears from someone whose signature posits that this "mankind" you wring your hands over doesn't even EXIST!
There's little question that Gibbon hurts his own cause by responding to you guys with his extreme-venom scatter gun. That kindof utter contempt reflects badly on him....but believe it or not, his book collects and catalogues important data, though you may not appreciate his tone or his conclusions (which is certainly your prerogative). Moreover, it's just about the only place you're likely to [I]find [/I] such data. Somehow, though, I doubt he's gonna sell too many copies on this particular thread. It's also too bad he lumps Ruffin in with the Euro cabal here - Ruffin's not a part of that and a good man besides.
As for that "Euro" cabal, you guys are mostly full of it. Fade's linkage of 1860s Americans with the 1940s & 2000-era Americans is idiotic. I have a real problem with people who sneeringly denigrate generations long past - especially given that most of us were 'converted' to the Hard Right at some point after adolescence. It's okay for [I]you [/I] to have once held squishy liberal or wrongheaded sentiments, but you won't cut the tiniest bit of slack for people who died before you were born and had no firsthand evidence of the failures of liberalism and multiculturalism all around them to shake them back to their senses. [I]Do as I say, not as I do [/I] is still alive and well, it seems. You guys' posts are getting to be like your hey-looka-me Mural icons: gaudy eyesores.
2003-10-24 04:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]....but believe it or not, his book collects and catalogues important data, though you may not appreciate his tone or his conclusions (which is certainly your prerogative). Moreover, it's just about the only place you're likely to [I]find [/I] such data. Somehow, though, I doubt he's gonna sell too many copies on this particular thread...[/QUOTE]
Don't speak too soon on that, Rags. George and I (who both own copies of Gibbons' book and appreciate it) noted that interest in it shot UP when the Birdman was running his mouth about it. A famous Tribe says it like this: There's no such thing as bad publicity. Whether Birdman's lunacy did the book any actual good as a marketing device I know not.
I do know that this drivel about The Greatest Generation is an homage to ignorance. No generation is self-named. Somebody (WHHOOO--WeeeeOOOO) makes these names up to sell stuff. Whether it was the Flaming Youth of the 1920s, Hippies of the 60s or The Greatest in between, it's all made up to sell a picture to the boobs. The picture is supposed to sell stuff, not be accurate, so look beyond it and find the truth.
(Hippie & Beatnik were coined by Time, Inc. Flaming Youth was brought to you by the movie studios of the Roaring 20s. The Greatest Generation was nothing more than a bit of the same, coined to sell books. Ignore the hype in all cases and get to know some real people.)
2003-10-24 06:18 | User Profile
I doubt Earley feels "real contempt" for those who fight and die on [I]any [/I] side; that's sort of his [I]point[/I].
[I]Keyboard kommandants[/I], however, are probably another matter.
2003-10-24 06:35 | User Profile
Glad you threw "probably" in there. Some of us asdljkommandos don't confine our activities to the Internet. Matter of fact, if you knew who I was you'd probably sh*t.
And Dick's living up to his name. Or down and out.. of Viagra.
2003-10-24 06:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Matter of fact, if you knew who I was you'd probably sh*t. [/QUOTE]
Well,you can't leave it at [I]that[/I], for Christ's sake! I'll bite - who ARE you?
2003-10-24 06:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Well,you can't leave it at [I]that[/I], for Christ's sake! I'll bite - who ARE you?[/QUOTE]
I don't want you to sh*t here - wouldn't be sanitary, sorry. You wouldn't believe me if I told you anyway - with [I]damn[/I] good reason.
2003-10-24 15:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I knew it. The contempt for Europe and our cultural achievements is clearly visible. "European" and "Cabal" (Cabal is jewish, thus setting Europeans with Jews on the same level).[/QUOTE]
Don't put yourself up on a pedestal. The "Euro Cabal" is [B]you, Braun, Perun, Agrippa[/B], and your specific buddies on this board. Europe has genuine cultural achievements to be proud of - you four don't (unless you think fetishizing a Max von Sydow movie in an online icon is crowding Goethe and Dostoeyvsky off the shelf somehow).
Your own achievements - besides isolating American war atrocities while stamping your foot and insisting Germany, Russia & Japan have nothing but clean hands - are restricted to blaming every evil known to man on the United States. Prior to the Civil War, no white man had ever wronged another, ever.
Yeah, that's believable.
As for equating Europeans with Jews, it's not that far-fetched. You certainly dance to Hyman's tune with greater readiness than any other continent on Earth.
[I]We're[/I] robbing oil -what do [B]you [/B] folks gain by jailing your kinsmen for saying 'Jew' in an unduly-respectful tone of voice? Brownie points in Tel Aviv?
2003-10-24 16:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE]WHO FORCED MY KINSMEN TO MAKE THIS LAWS? WHO BROUGHT THE LIBERALS AND JEWISH BACK?[/QUOTE]
If you don't have the will and the wherewithal to risk [I]some[/I]thing for your own self-determination, you have no credibility in telling anyone else how to run their lives or their country. The mark of a tough guy is not how loud they talk, or how hard they hit, but how they respond to being hit [I]back[/I].
You lot squeal for an arbitrator every time someone responds in kind to you. End of story.
2003-10-24 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Yes - thats how they are. If you tell them the truth, they start to spitt and scratch and turn into irate rabid dogs. [/QUOTE]
Is this a joke?
90% (if not more!) of this board's membership has been squarely opposed to Bush, his Zionist handlers and their dirty little war [I]long before [/I] you showed up here, Leland. You are nobody's 'conscience' - and as a broadsheet delivering the latest news, you're a day late and a deutschmark short.
It's not as if any of this is beyond your ken, either. For Chrissakes, it's all [B]archived [/B] here on this board! What pisses you off is that we did to [I]your [/I] country what you were looking forward to do to [I]Poland[/I]. (You never had a prayer of doing it to the USSR, however - for which you can thank The Little Colonel and his habit of consulting the Zodiac before crafting his military strategy.)
And even there you're screwed, because [I]I myself [/I] began a thread, way back when, condemning Eisenhower for his barbaric treatment of the defeated German people.
But I challenge you to explain to me how your own capitulation to Zionist elements within your own sphere somehow renders you more morally pure than any other nationin the West. You don't even have a LePen, a Fortuyn or a Berlusconi to hang youtrhopes on. And your response to this has been to ball up your fists and play The Outraged Victim.
How someone who claims to be rabidly right-wing can take so easly to Victim Politics is one that, frankly, eludes me.
"Our fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but [B]in ourselves[/B]." Until you understand and acknowledge that, I'm afraid people like you are doomed to howl into a vacuum. Other than that, good luck on your two-pronged campaign of following up your plea of "The Evil Empire of America has brought untold suffering on the peoples of Europe" with a cheery "....[I]and remember to vote for Hitler, you verminous untermensch!"[/I]
2003-10-24 18:15 | User Profile
QUOTE=il ragno [/QUOTE]
So busy writing long ranting insults you can't even get your historical facts correct? Hitler was a Corporal in the Imperial German Army. Also theres no historical evidence that Hitler ever consulted a zodiac or an astrologer, in fact he often condemned such pratices as idiotic.
And if you want to criticise Hitler's abilities as a military commander, you might want to read about his role in planning the assault of the Belgian Fort Eben Emael during the 1940 campaign. Hitler's role was very influential in devising the plan for one of the most famous and successful special forces operations in history!
You should read William H. McRaven's "Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare: Theory and Practice", for he talks about Hitler's role in that operation's planning. [url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891416005/002-4750324-8080021?v=glance[/url]
:blow:
2003-10-24 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE]So busy writing long ranting insults you can't even get your historical facts correct? Hitler was a Corporal in the Imperial German Army[/QUOTE]
You're correct, it was my error.
Hey, I [I]bemoan [/I] Hitler's taking the war away from his qualified generals! A brilliant statesman and charismatic leader does not translate into a competent militaty tactician. A lot of global angst would've been eliminated before it occurred had Germany been able to tromp Soviet Russia under an iron boot. Even Patton had the right idea; strike while the iron is hot.
I'm glad, Perun, to see you share this desire. What the heck, you weren't anywhere near Russia anyway. No skin off your nose, plus you'd have gotten a special Victim of America patch of your very own to proudly wear!
Nice to see you guys leaping on typos and meaningless errors while ducking the main points,btw. I've come to expect no less for you guys.
PS: I hear more Americans were killed today in Iraq - will there be cake, door prizes and noisemakers, or just high-fives all around?
2003-10-24 19:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Oh, coming again with the poor Poles? And what would you know of what we had in store for them?[/QUOTE]
What "we"? I assume [I]the German army [/I] would have set up hospitals and daycare centers (since only Americans commit atrocities). But [B]you[/B] personally, Leland? That one's [I]easy[/I]. I can see you showing up after the smoke clears to kick the wounded....once you determined they were in no condition to hit you [I]back[/I], of course.
[QUOTE]I wish you idiots would finaly make up your mind on which side you are. [/QUOTE]
After you figure out that nobody [I]but[/I] you sees you as in any way representative of German culture or civilization, you'll know what side I'm on.
[QUOTE]Maybe that has something to do with the over 70.000 US-occupation troops, the orwellian laws, the different secret-security-forces and task-forces which have been established to surpress nationalism, over half a century of reeducation, a mongrelized and "diverse" population - all thanks to - yes - USA. And what do you arrogant fool know about the german national movement? [/QUOTE]
Well, I know that without the USA that [I]wall [/I] would still be standing! Why don't you post some of these echt-Germanc sentiments of yours on an echt-Germanic website? Simple. You're tough enough to spew venom only where you're safe from recrimination, but not tough enough to do time for them.
PS: here's your cue to blame the US for Germany's hate-crime laws. You're King Kong, except when it comes to the mess your own country's in. Then it's scapegoat time, as usual. Better to bitch, though, than to actively resist.....isn't it?
2003-10-24 19:57 | User Profile
***>>>Well, I know that without the USA that wall would still be standing! ***
ROFL actually Stalin offered to reunify Germany in the 1950s but the Yanks threw a tantrum. The Soviets WITHDREW from Austria by the way.
In March 1952, in response to negotiations between the GFR and France about the creation and nature of a European Defence Community, Stalin sent a note that stated, “in return for the abandonment of the West German rearmament process, he proposed a united neutral, unoccupied Germany.”[7] This policy pursued by Stalin was a desperate attempt to avoid the absorption of the GFR into a western military alliance, and was a good indicator that the USSR no longer viewed Germany as an enemy, but as a trusted partner in the creation of “a ring of socialist brother states”.[8] The American and British defence plans were too developed for a serious consideration of this option, while debate between the western powers about the order of elections and the signing of a peace treaty ensured that a compromise would prove impossible. The USSR proposed that “the German governments would set up a provisional all-German government to supervise the free elections, and a reunited Germany would not belong to any alliance system”*; the enforcement of neutrality was rejected by the west, as they had plans to incorporate the GFR into the new military alliance of NATO.[9] *
[url]http://www.angelfire.com/tv/jarbury/essay/germany.html[/url]
>>>Why don't you post some of these echt-Germanc sentiments of yours on an echt-Germanic website? Simple. You're tough enough to spew venom only where you're safe from recrimination, but not tough enough to do time for them. PS: here's your cue to blame the US for Germany's hate-crime laws. You're King Kong, except when it comes to the mess your own country's in. Then it's scapegoat time, as usual. Better to bitch, though, than to actively resist.....isn't it?
LOL scapegoating? Yes, America has nothing whatsoever to do with the disgusting GFR that exists today.
*The Allies did not seek merely to punish the leadership of the National Socialist regime, but to purge all elements of national socialism from public life. One phase of the denazification process dealt with lower-level personnel connected with the Naz i regime. Their pasts were reviewed to determine if the parts they had played in the regime were sufficiently grievous to warrant their exclusion from roles in a new Germany's politics or government. Germans with experience in government and not involved in the Nazi regime were needed to cooperate with occupation authorities in the administration of the zones.
The process of denazification was carried out diversely in the various zones. The most elaborate procedures were instituted in the United States zone, where investigated individuals were required to complete highly detailed questionnaires concerning t heir personal histories and to appear at hearings before panels of German adjudicators. In the British and French zones, denazification was pursued with less vigor because the authorities thought it more important to reestablish a functioning bureaucracy in their sectors.*
[url]http://www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/germany/germany37.html[/url]
2003-10-24 20:25 | User Profile
My God, what was I thinking? Yes of [I]course [/I] the USSR was the last best hope of human freedom.
Why, you're not even 'free' to go on an American website to pillory the US! Hell, I'm typing this from my cell in the gulag [I]right now[/I]! No wonder Ernst Zundel's last known words were "please, [I]please[/I], return me to the Fatherland at once!"
Well, fellas, once the States fall under complete and total Zionist domination, we will all be looking breathlessly to Germany to strike the first blow for global liberation. Once you're through 'liberating' the Poles, that is.
2003-10-24 20:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]My God, what was I thinking? Yes of [I]course [/I] the USSR was the last best hope of human freedom.
"Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier than live on a diet of Hamburgers in Brooklyn" Alain de Benoist
"Russia may steal a nation's liberty, America steals its soul." Otto Remer
Why, you're not even 'free' to go on an American website to pillory the US! Hell, I'm typing this from my cell in the gulag [I]right now[/I]! No wonder Ernst Zundel's last known words were "please, [I]please[/I], return me to the Fatherland at once!"
:lol: Yes the typical American attitude that they're the most free-loving country in the world! They believe this to the point of claiming that American ZOG is still the most freedom-loving country in the world.
Well, fellas, once the States fall under complete and total Zionist domination, we will all be looking breathlessly to Germany to strike the first blow for global liberation. Once you're through 'liberating' the Poles, that is.
At least Germany would actually bring its troops home, wheras the Americans are still maintaining bases in England from World War 2! Man, Washington must be totally afraid of Hitler returning from the dead! :lol:
Even Pat Buchanan was on MSNBC complaining why is that the Soviets brought their troops home yet America has not. What's the point of keeping American boys in Europe anymore? As Fade himself said, the Soviets withdrew from Austria in the 1950's, where the hell as America withdrew from anywhere? Ok Somalia but only after they forced you out! Good call Fade, may the South rise again! SLAVA YUG!(Glory to the South!)
2003-10-24 20:51 | User Profile
Ducking the issue. You are HERE...on THIS forum...located in AMERICA...saying whatever the f**k you please, about any topic you please, with no need to shutter your window and lock your door first. The only recrimination you face is disapproval from your fellow posters here. And as it turns out, your idea of 'freedom' is 'freedom from any dissent from my views'. Man, any kind of opposition - no matter how inconsequential -has you crying foul. You're pathetic.
Naw, that's "bullshit" freedom. Being arrested for attempting to do the exact same thing in your own homeland....[I]that's the stuff![/I]
Gaunt, you're like something that's stuck to the bottom ofmy shoe after walking through a public lavatory. Deer ticks like you are [I]exactly [/I] the type of examples that are brandished to exarcebate Ernst Zundel's troubles.
[I]Are you reading me loud and clear? [/I] ZOG points to blowhards like [B]you [/B] to 'justify' tormenting Ernst Zundel, and alarmist goyishe cattle the world over - in righteous loathing at the idea of [I]people like you [/I] - rubberstamp the deportation orders.
You can howl at the moon in high dudgeon all you like, but that ain't gonna make it any less true.
Perun, you're in your early 20s. Get yourself [I]laid[/I], for Christ's sake. It'll improve your outlook a [I]whole[/I] lot.
2003-10-24 21:05 | User Profile
>>>My God, what was I thinking? Yes of course the USSR was the last best hope of human freedom. Why, you're not even 'free' to go on an American website to pillory the US! Hell, I'm typing this from my cell in the gulag right now! No wonder Ernst Zundel's last known words were "please, please, return me to the Fatherland at once!"
Are you suggesting we are free to say anything we want here? Should we put this no censorship idea of yours to the test?
>>>Well, fellas, once the States fall under complete and total Zionist domination, we will all be looking breathlessly to Germany to strike the first blow for global liberation. Once you're through 'liberating' the Poles, that is.
Of course, we have the good ol' United States of America to thank for the Plus Liberated(TM) Germany we all know and and love today.
2003-10-24 21:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=FadeTheButcher]Of course, we have the good ol' United States of America to thank for the Plus Liberated(TM) Germany we all know and and love today.[/QUOTE]
Fade, I am one generation removed from Carbon Hill, Alabama with most all of my relatives on my father's side still living in and around there and Jasper. The fact that you would side with an embittered, sour Kraut like Gaunt over and above your own nationalistic-minded countrymen is repugnant and a disgrace to the great state of Alabama. You do great dishonor to the man featured in your signature and Southrons everywhere.
2003-10-24 21:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Are you suggesting we are free to say anything we want here? Should we put this no censorship idea of yours to the test?[/QUOTE]
You are free within whatever parameters for profanity that Tex has set (OD [I]is[/I], after all, private property). Uhh, I should ask first- are you guys [I]cool [/I] with the concept of 'private property'? Or is that another manifestation of "MacDonald's, MTV, Playboy, Budweiser, fashion magazines, Rap music" that Perun cites? I dunno, 'freedom' seems to mean 'freedom to agree with me wholeheartedly' to you guys, so I just want to get our terms clear here.
Do you imagine- if you [I]weren't [/I] free to say what you wish - that this thread would be on its [U]fifth [/U] bandwidth page already?
2003-10-24 21:43 | User Profile
>>>Fade, I am one generation removed from Carbon Hill, Alabama with most all of my relatives on my father's side still living in and around there and Jasper. The fact that you would side with an embittered, sour Kraut like Gaunt over and above your own nationalistic-minded countrymen is repugnant and a disgrace to the great state of Alabama. You do great dishonor to the man featured in your signature and Southrons everywhere.
ROFL just what kind of "nationalism" is this Tex? Is this the kind of "nationalist" government that sends its troops - sorry heroes - into Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama to force white kids to go to school with Negroes at gunpoint? What is "nationalism" in your view? It is waving a meaningless flag made in Taiwan with a bunch of braindead idiots at FR? Is it sucking up to the Jews and Negroes and bending over backwards to defend the people that hate and despise everything about us? Are these the people we should go out and serve in your view, as E.G. would have it? Are the Negroes who want to destroy Southern culture somehow Southerners, somehow our people? LOL and I am the one who "dishonours" Southrons everywhere, by refusing to stand proper and salute the people who have so humiliated and degraded us year in and year out? Is Gaunt supposed to be happy about FRG, that disgusting mongrelized tyranny forced upon Germany by America? Am I supposed to be ethusiastic about the cultureless, decadent, niggerized "New South" imposed upon us by America?
2003-10-24 21:50 | User Profile
Maybe a time-out is called for so that we can [I]all [/I] get our bearings. During that time-out Gaunt, Fade, Perun, etc can do extensive archive searches and locate [U]one specific example [/U] wherein I (or [I]any [/I] regular here) endorsed,or presently endorse:
1} the Bush administration
2} the War Against Terrorism
3} ZOG and Jewish influence in Western government
4} victor's justice in Germany
5} MTV
because, fellas, if you can't, then you are all standing on a cake of rapidly melting ice.
What you are demanding is that YOU be allowed to evince a fierce nationalism while the rest of us hang our heads in shame before the Teutonic supermen who are Our Natural Superiors. And when it's pointed out that - for a race of Supermen - you seem wholly inept at taking control of your OWN HOMELANDS, and that none of you will book passage home to publicly agitate for such nationalism (let alone shoulder a musket for it)- you shriek in PMS outrage that that's cruelly unfair, given that it wouldn't be EASY TO DO.
You're a Simpsons fan, Gaunt....remember this exchange?
"I thought I told you kids to mow the lawn!"
"You did. It was hard, so we quit."
"Whaaat?"
"[I]Hard work made us quit.[/I]"
2003-10-24 21:55 | User Profile
>>>You are free within whatever parameters for profanity that Tex has set (OD is, after all, private property). Uhh, I should ask first- are you guys cool with the concept of 'private property'?
Private property is not sovereign property. Am I cool with Jews monopolizing control of our natural resources, infesting our media and using it for their own purposes, and so forth? Of course not. I am first and foremost NOT a universalist. I see no reason why ALL individuals should be able to acquire private property.
***>>>Or is that another manifestation of "MacDonald's, MTV, Playboy, Budweiser, fashion magazines, Rap music" that Perun cites? ***
One manifestation of it.
>>>I dunno, 'freedom' seems to mean 'freedom to agree with me wholeheartedly' to you guys, so I just want to get our terms clear here.
LOL first of all, there is no such thing whatsoever as a "free" government anywhere, that being, if we understand freedom to be an absence of the initation of force. If you live within a state, you live within the context of political power. This political power determines how market participants interact with one another by encoding its values in legislation.
>>>Do you imagine- if you weren't free to say what you wish - that this thread would be on its fifth bandwidth page already?
This argument presupposes we have been free to say what we wish, which is not the case, for we have obviously restrained ourselves to an extent to prevent censorship.
2003-10-24 22:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Private property is not sovereign property. [/QUOTE]
Then perhaps you might be better served starting your own message board. Though I doubt you'd be as tolerant as Tex is in allowing dissenting viewpoints a crack at the podium. I dunno...call it a hunch.
[QUOTE]LOL first of all, there is no such thing whatsoever as a "free" government anywhere, that being, if we understand freedom to be an absence of the initation of force. If you live within a state, you live within the context of political power.[/QUOTE]
Well, [I]boo-fu**ing-hoo[/I], friend; I guess you're [U]never[/U] getting that pony you wanted for Christmas!
2003-10-24 22:05 | User Profile
***>>>What you are demanding is that YOU be allowed to evince a fierce nationalism while the rest of us hang our heads in shame before the Teutonic supermen who are Our Natural Superiors. ***
That is a nice bullshit straw man argument il ragno. I call things as I see them and this has nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism. I criticize America because, believe it or not, America is OFTEN WRONG. When my own people have been wrong, I have not restrained myself in criticizing them either, as I have demonstrated in numerous threads here. What is this bullshit of yours about "Teutonic supermen who are Our Natural Superiors"? Where have either me or Leland made that argument anywhere? Nowhere, of course, you simply pulled that one right out of thin air. Ruffin was also thrown into this "Euro cabal" and he is not even a European. I do not live in Europe either, but regardless, E.G.'s rudeness and homoerotica is what started this dispute.
***>>>And when it's pointed out that - for a race of Supermen - you seem wholly inept at taking control of your OWN HOMELANDS, and that none of you will book passage home to publicly agitate for such nationalism (let alone shoulder a musket for it)- you shriek in PMS outrage that that's cruelly unfair, given that it wouldn't be EASY TO DO. ***
Tell us il ragno, who was it that destroyed both the Confederacy and National Socialist Germany? What type of regimes did this occupying power put in place as opposed to the ones that had come before it?
2003-10-24 22:09 | User Profile
>>>Then perhaps you might be better served starting your own message board. Though I doubt you'd be as tolerant as Tex is in allowing dissenting viewpoints a crack at the podium. I dunno...call it a hunch.
ROFL I actually own my own messageboard by the way, but you knew that right? As for dissenting viewpoints, we even gave the Communists a forum of their own.
>>>Well, boo-fu*ing-hoo, friend; I guess you're never getting that pony you wanted for Christmas!*
Tell us il ragno, for I am curious, what type of society do you and the paleos here actually want?
2003-10-24 22:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I criticize America because, believe it or not, America is OFTEN WRONG.[/QUOTE] Agreed 100%.
[QUOTE]Tell us il ragno, who was it that destroyed both the Confederacy and National Socialist Germany? [/QUOTE] You can't be [I]serious[/I]. I mean, I've heard of The Eternal Jew....but this is [I]ridiculous[/I]!
2003-10-24 22:12 | User Profile
>>>You can't be serious. I mean, I've heard of The Eternal Jew....but this is ridiculous!
If you are not interested in answering my question simply do not press the reply button next time.
2003-10-24 22:19 | User Profile
Your question was - to be kind - moronic. 1865 and 1945 are not analogous to the extent your paranoia is convinced it is.
2003-10-24 22:24 | User Profile
>>>Your question was - to be kind - moronic. 1865 and 1945 are not analogous to the extent your paranoia is convinced it is.
I don't suppose it necessary to waste any more of my time with ad hominem. My point has been made here. And yes, once again, for the record. . .
"Tell us il ragno, for I am curious, what type of society do you and the paleos here actually want?"
2003-10-24 22:41 | User Profile
A society based upon four sadly-forgotten words: [I]don't tread on me.[/I]
And I'm fully aware that we have been our [I]own[/I] worst enemies for quite some time, or I wouldn't be on this board. But by the yardstick used by Gaunt and yourself...why should I care in the least what happens to Germany? Of course, that's the yardstick Sharon favors, too.
But at least you guys are united against a common foe on this thread. A month or two back, you couldn't keep these nitwits from [I]each other's [/I] throats. I presume that - once you rhetorically bring the US to its knees - you can then resume ripping each other to shreds.
If [I]that's[/I] your version of white and/or European unity, I'll stick with our yahoo hegemony. After all, as Perun has told me many a time, European nations slaughtering each other is the most sacred right of all, inviolate and granted by God.
Neither Gaunt, Perun, Agrippa nor yourself have proferred any workable vision of a white future worth serious contemplation. The same-old same-old self-destruction, itz. No thanks.
Stick to bashing "McDonalds" and "Budweiser". It's what you're best at.
2003-10-24 22:53 | User Profile
>>>A society based upon four sadly-forgotten words: don't tread on me.
Quite comprehensive.
***>>>And I'm fully aware that we have been our own worst enemies for quite some time, or I wouldn't be on this board. ***
What in your view has made us our own worst enemies?
***>>>But by the yardstick used by Gaunt and yourself...why should I care in the least what happens to Germany? Of course, that's the yardstick Sharon favors, too. ***
LOL and you call us the nationalists.
>>>But at least you guys are united against a common foe on this thread. A month or two back, you couldn't keep these nitwits from each other's throats.
What are you talking about?
>>>I presume that - once you rhetorically bring the US to its knees - you can then resume ripping each other to shreds.
The U.S. will bring itself to its knees eventually.
***>>>If that's your version of white and/or European unity, I'll stick with our yahoo hegemony. ***
America is a hegemonic power?
>>>After all, as Perun has told me many a time, European nations slaughtering each other is the most sacred right of all, inviolate and granted by God.
Why are internal European border disputes my business as a Southerner?
>>>Neither Gaunt, Perun, Agrippa nor yourself have proferred any workable vision of a white future worth serious contemplation. The same-old same-old self-destruction, itz. No thanks.
LOL where have I put forth "the same-old self-destruction" again?
>>>Stick to bashing "McDonalds" and "Budweiser". It's what you're best at.
I suppose that is better than mindlessly waving a worthless flag made in foreign country.
2003-10-24 23:24 | User Profile
>>>If I were drafted, I would be fighting two wars propagandized and run by Jewish neocons, alongside negro and mestizo soldiers. Please tell me what would be so "honorable" or "patriotic" about standing alongside simian "fellow American soldiers" while killing Serbs for William Kristol and Comrade Sandalio.
Even worse, imagine being ordered by the U.S. Government as a soldier to invade a state, depose its government, and destroy its educational system and thus the lives of millions of unborn white children in the name of "integration" - all for the arrogant Negro who hates and despises everything about your race and your culture.
Why again should we actually desire to strengthen the U.S. military? Why should we actually want to serve, to load the gun that is pointed at our head by people who hate us?
>>>The problem is, these are not uniquely American afflictions.
I have never suggested otherwise.
2003-10-25 00:46 | User Profile
AY, you are playing Leland Gaunt/Fade the Butcher's shell-game here.
[QUOTE]Let us suppose there were a draft during the Balkans War or the Gulf Wars. At no point did I regard either Iraq or Serbia to be my enemies nor America's enemies [/QUOTE]
For about the 10, 000th time- [B]no one here ever said they were or endorsed those NWO misadventures![/B]
The little game being played here is as follows: either you agree wholeheartedly with Gaunt/Fade or you "hate Europe". That anybody could be lulled into falling for this idiocy is disheartening. Here was my original quote that pissed everybody off.
[QUOTE]There's little question that Gibbon hurts his own cause by responding to you guys with his extreme-venom scatter gun. That kindof utter contempt reflects badly on him....but believe it or not, his book collects and catalogues important data, though you may not appreciate his tone or his conclusions (which is certainly your prerogative). Moreover, it's just about the only place you're likely to find such data. Somehow, though, I doubt he's gonna sell too many copies on this particular thread. It's also too bad he lumps Ruffin in with the Euro cabal here - Ruffin's not a part of that and a good man besides.
As for that "Euro" cabal, you guys are mostly full of it. Fade's linkage of 1860s Americans with the 1940s & 2000-era Americans is idiotic. I have a real problem with people who sneeringly denigrate generations long past - especially given that most of us were 'converted' to the Hard Right at some point after adolescence. It's okay for you to have once held squishy liberal or wrongheaded sentiments, but you won't cut the tiniest bit of slack for people who died before you were born and had no firsthand evidence of the failures of liberalism and multiculturalism all around them to shake them back to their senses. Do as I say, not as I do is still alive and well, it seems. You guys' posts are getting to be like your hey-looka-me Mural icons: gaudy eyesores.[/QUOTE]
The second paragraph was in response to some silly-ass posturing that all prior generations (save for a few select 19th century Germanic ones, I suppose) were morally & intellectually worthless and weak, and I stand by it. There is nothing so ridiculous as a 25-year old Simpsons fan with an ISP account sneering in superior disdain at a generation long past that did not have the benefit of 21st-century hindsight. Apparently, Monday-morning quarterbacking is not a wholly-American phenomenon.
"If you don't second my drivel, you hate Europe and all she stands for" is the tack being taken here. Again, search the archives and you will find these "European patriots" merrily contemplating an idealized future in which they can resume carrying on centuries-old blood feuds and murdering each other. Point this out to them....and you're a "Jewish puppet".
You don't want to take up arms for a corrupt Zionized regime? Fine. Neither do I. But these buffoons clap their hands with glee at every dead American they can cut and paste from wire services and NEVER NEVER NEVER point a finger at their own countrymen who have eagerly sold out their countries the same as our elites have. Neither do they evince the slightest eagerness to take up any patria-based cause, 'lost' or otherwise. They are happy to hold court and fulminate and demand that [I]others [/I] itemize their plans for Western renewal. At which point they sniff the air disdainfully and harumph, "Insufficient."
But they're quick to bash 2003 America by comparing it to "the Europe of Rembrandt, Beethoven, or Goethe". And surprise, surprise! They inevitably find America wanting.
Well, [B]no sh*t, Sherlock! [/B] Like I need a quarter-mile of bandwidth to figure [I]that [/I] one out.
2003-10-25 01:15 | User Profile
The Bolsheviks in their quest for power spent a lot of effort on trying to demoralize the Russian Army in WWI and calling on them to desert and come back to plow the fields and live with their families. Kicking the chair under ZOG will require the Americans to stop associating ZOG and ZOG military with their country (= their people).
2003-10-25 01:34 | User Profile
AntiYuppie:
The problem is, these are not uniquely American afflictions. In case people haven't noticed, Europe today is not the Europe of Rembrandt, Beethoven, or Goethe. It is the Europe of techno music that makes Gangster Rap sound like Schubert, hideous daubings by avant-garde "expressive artists" who are as repulsive as their counterparts in Greenwich village, and quasi-pornographic films at the Cannes film festivals that make some of our prime time rubbish seem thoughtful and civilized by comparison. Making a comparison of 21st century American pop culture with 19th century European high culture is a complete non-starter.
Europeans may be as corruptible as Americans but they have had this trash imposed on them as a result of AmeriJewish rule. They were headed in a very different direction under the Germans. This ought to be acknowleged whenever the present degeneracy of Europe is mentioned. Americans otoh embraced it!
Even non-Jewish semites, among others, are targeted, by America, for cultural destruction. Porn TV in a Moslem country? Made in USA! The difference being that Euros have now grown up knowing little else whereas the Moslems are still in defense mode.
2003-10-25 01:35 | User Profile
***>>>The little game being played here is as follows: either you agree wholeheartedly with Gaunt/Fade or you "hate Europe". ***
This is so typical of il ragno - to invent the arguments of those he is arguing with out of thin air and thus proceed to attack a straw man.
What is your problem again with America as it stands?
"If that's your version of white and/or European unity, I'll stick with our yahoo hegemony.**"
>>>You don't want to take up arms for a corrupt Zionized regime? Fine. Neither do I. But these buffoons clap their hands with glee at every dead American they can cut and paste from wire services and NEVER NEVER NEVER point a finger at their own countrymen who have eagerly sold out their countries the same as our elites have.
Are you suggesting that Leland is some sort of fan of the FGR, that I am some sort of fan of our buffoon governor Bob Riley? There is an important difference here which il ragno is of course ignoring. Did anyone impose the government of America upon Americans? Was America ever conquered like Germany or the Confederacy?
>>>Neither do they evince the slightest eagerness to take up any patria-based cause, 'lost' or otherwise.
What is there to be patriotic about il ragno? What is there, at this point, to defend anyway? Give us an example of a "patria-based cause."
>>>They are happy to hold court and fulminate and demand that others itemize their plans for Western renewal. At which point they sniff the air disdainfully and harumph, "Insufficient."
Only a strong authoritarian government is capable of dealing with the race problem and the Jew problem before it gets so out of control nothing can be done about it. And yes, individualism is insufficient at this point. And yes, if we are to solve these two problems, presupposing any of you actually want to do anything about them, it will be necessary to substantially curtain personal liberty for quite some time. Normal luxuries and standards do not apply in exceptions - in emergencies - when our very civilization is at risk of being submerged.
2003-10-25 01:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]What is there to be patriotic about il ragno? [/QUOTE] Well, obviously the US isn't [I]worth [/I] saving (sacasm button - where's the damn [I]sarcasm button[/I]?); but I was referring to Europe, specifically Germany.
[QUOTE]Only a strong authoritarian government is capable of dealing with the race problem and the Jew problem before it gets so out of control nothing can be done about it. [/QUOTE] If you are referring to some variant of race-based nationalsocialism, I agree. But as I pointed out to Mr Ostergard in a different thread...[B]you're selling something[/B], man! And - distasteful though it may seem - that requires [B]salesmanship[/B]! You are never - NEVER! - going to sway meaningful numbers of Americans to your side by wallowing in [I]schadenfreude [/I] over the death of America, or of Americans.
You would think this is simplicity itself, but it keeps eluding you guys. There's not an iota of content in any of your posts - however much dark truth is contained in them - that would or could conceivably awaken and [I]inspire [/I] your kinsmen. It's crankery, pure and simple, and it is the hallmark of the Beautiful Loser, warm in his cocoon of righteous martyrdom.
You could, for example, derive from Earley's book a plethora of documentation that [I]supports [/I] your positions,but you lot are having too much fun play-acting at being the Dark Princes of Cantankerousness. Lot of good that'll do you; snorting "told you so!" when Civil War 2 is burning down the landscape around you.
It's not that there's zero worth in what you're saying, it's that you haven't grasped that you CAN'T GIVE IT AWAY because no one will [I]want it[/I]. You have to package it with tinsel and SELL it to people you have prepped to feel they NEED to buy it. Like it or not,this is how it is, and not all your pithy Nietzsche epigrams are going to change that.
2003-10-25 01:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Gaunt if I were close to you, you would have no problem sticking your finger up your anus. I would have shoved your head up to your neck so you could kiss your bowels. [/QUOTE]
Oh great, we get to hear more of Edward's perverted sex fantasies!
2003-10-25 02:03 | User Profile
"The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, ..."
Edward Gibbon ...The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire
2003-10-25 02:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Ducking the issue. You are HERE...on THIS forum...located in AMERICA...saying whatever the f**k you please, about any topic you please, with no need to shutter your window and lock your door first. The only recrimination you face is disapproval from your fellow posters here. And as it turns out, your idea of 'freedom' is 'freedom from any dissent from my views'. Man, any kind of opposition - no matter how inconsequential -has you crying foul. You're pathetic.
:lol: excuse me but you're the one whose getting all :taz: just because somebody tells it how it is in America. And I'm hardly alone in this!
"The American male doesn't mature until he has exhausted all other possibilities." Wilfred Sheed, US writer, Office Politics, 1967
Perun, you're in your early 20s. Get yourself [I]laid[/I], for Christ's sake. It'll improve your outlook a [I]whole[/I] lot.[/QUOTE]
Because I follow the advice of Walt Whitman
"The Americans, like the English, probably make love worse than any other race." Walt Whitman, US poet
:lol:
2003-10-25 02:19 | User Profile
***>>>Well, obviously the US isn't worth saving (sacasm button - where's the damn sarcasm button?); but I was referring to Europe, specifically Germany. ***
Once again, what is there to be patriotic about the America we live in today?
***>>>If you are referring to some variant of race-based nationalsocialism, I agree. ***
I do not consider myself to be a National Socialist, although something similar to that is needed yes, something more authoritarian. I am first and foremost not a universalist and not an ideologue.
>>>But as I pointed out to Mr Ostergard in a different thread...you're selling something, man!
That was an observation il ragno. It was not a prescription. If you were actually familiar with political theory you would be acquainted with the difference between the two.
***>>> And - distasteful though it may seem - that requires salesmanship! You are never - NEVER! - going to sway meaningful numbers of Americans to your side by wallowing in schadenfreude over the death of America, or of Americans. ***
Where did I ever suggest I wanted to save America?
***>>>You would think this is simplicity itself, but it keeps eluding you guys. ***
You would think that by now il ragno would have discovered the fallacy in inventing the arguments of others and thus proceeding to attack them.
***>>>There's not an iota of content in any of your posts - however much dark truth is contained in them - that would or could conceivably awaken and inspire your kinsmen. ***
Your argument presupposes that I desire to awaken and inspire Americans. Perhaps il ragno is simply once again projecting his own views onto others.
***>>>It's crankery, pure and simple, and it is the hallmark of the Beautiful Loser, warm in his cocoon of righteous martyrdom. ***
il ragno pulls more sophistry out of thin air by suggesting that I somehow desire to be a martyr.
>>>You could, for example, derive from Earley's book a plethora of documentation that supports your positions,but you lot are having too much fun play-acting at being the Dark Princes of Cantankerousness.
I have better things to do than read about sperm-covered fingers and homoerotic anal foreplay.
>>>Lot of good that'll do you; snorting "told you so!" when Civil War 2 is burning down the landscape around you.
What is so undesirable about that?
>>>It's not that there's zero worth in what you're saying, it's that you haven't grasped that you CAN'T GIVE IT AWAY because no one will want it. You have to package it with tinsel and SELL it to people you have prepped to feel they NEED to buy it. Like it or not,this is how it is, and not all your pithy Nietzsche epigrams are going to change that.
LOL if you had read any of my posts you would have certainly discovered by now that I do not consider myself to be a liberal, that I am totally uninterested in telling majorities of voters what they want to hear to make them feel warm and fuzzy inside. I am a theorist. I am not a demagogue. I describe what exists, what is, not what sounds pretty.
[url]http://www.vonbluvens.com/razor4.jpg[/url]
This is actually the best idea I have seen so far.
2003-10-25 02:26 | User Profile
I see. Another 'universalist theorist' gazing disinterestedly down on we groundlings from a puffy pink cloud. I should've known, but I gave it a shot regardless.
You're correct; none of what may or may not transpire in this country, or in the West, is ever going to affect you in the least. I never realized The New Hardness referred to the area of the [I]head[/I] exclusively, but you learn something every day.
[QUOTE]"The Americans, like the English, probably make love worse than any other race."[/QUOTE] Way to go, quoting a homosexual. But he might have a point, considering [B]you're [/B] a fourth-generation American.
2003-10-25 02:40 | User Profile
Hey Il Rango, here's a little history lesson about why Americans should show a little more gratitude towards Mother Russia.
During the American Revolution in 1775, the British made an attempt to hire 30,000 Russian mercenaries to fight with the British Army in America. The Empress Catherine the Great rejected the offer and instead showed her sympathies to the American cause. She even hinted at the possibility of entering the war on America's side!
Yet when word first came to the American colonies about the possibility of these Russian mercenaries coming to fight them, the American leadership literally :dung: their pants!
At the same time, a Russian, Fedor Karzhavin, at his own expense, outfitted three ships with military supplies for George Washington's army.
Not only that, during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, America was having trouble doing trade with the continent. This was because both the British and French navies kept ceasing American ships and conscripting American sailors into their navies. This eventually caused Jefferson to pratically have a general hatred for almost all of Europe.
Well, that is except for at least one county, Russia. Czar Alexander I used his influence with the British to convince them to leave American ships bound for Russia alone. In other words, Russia was probally the only major European power at the time that respected the rights American sailors on the seas. This caused Jefferson to have a deep admiration for the Czar claiming that Russia was America's only friend in Europe. As a token of friendship, the Czar even gave a bust of the president himself to Jefferson.
So Russia both aided America's fight for freedom and was the only major European power to show any respect for the soverignity of the new nation. Shame you hardly ever hear about this among Americans nowadays, just about how we're dumbass drunks!
2003-10-25 02:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Way to go, quoting a homosexual. But he might have a point, considering [B]you're [/B] a fourth-generation American.[/QUOTE]
Oh so you insult your own people just to try to get at me. How mature! :lol:
2003-10-25 02:46 | User Profile
***>>>I see. Another 'universalist theorist' gazing disinterestedly down on we groundlings from a puffy pink cloud. I should've known, but I gave it a shot regardless. ***
"I am first and foremost not a universalist and not an ideologue."
-- FadeTheButcher
"You would think that by now il ragno would have discovered the fallacy in inventing the arguments of others and thus proceeding to attack them."
-- FadeTheButcher
>>>You're correct; none of what may or may not transpire in this country, or in the West, is ever going to affect you in the least. I never realized The New Hardness referred to the area of the head exclusively, but you learn something every day.
Tell us il ragno, what you have personally done to lead us out of this situation. Posting on an internet messageboard does not count.
2003-10-25 02:52 | User Profile
Seems to suffice for YOU, Fade. Shit, you've got a whole nother website to haunt when you're tired of this one, right?
Let's hear YOUR prescription for a change. Oh, yeah...I keep forgetting you're a "universalist theorist". "Let a scowl be your umbrella" is as deep as it gets for you.
Perun, Whitman [I]was [/I] a flamer. Nobody put a gun to your head demanding you quote him as a sex expert. On the other hand, it underscores your need for actual physical contact with a live female - rather than waiting for a mail-order bride to land on your doorstep and fulfill your existence.
2003-10-25 03:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Perun, Whitman [I]was [/I] a flamer. Nobody put a gun to your head demanding you quote him as a sex expert. On the other hand, it underscores your need for actual physical contact with a live female - rather than waiting for a mail-order bride to land on your doorstep and fulfill your existence.[/QUOTE]
:lol: Unlike most Americans these days, I determine my masculinity by traditional chivalric virtues rather than by how many women I sleep with. If I have to be a celibate in order to maintain those chivalric virtues, then so be it!
Il Rango is now dropping to a new low by glorifying MTV like values as a way to to get me pissed. Go ahead, make fun of my penis size, it only proves you're an immature spoiled brat!
** "Look, we're Americans: optimistic, addicted to the quick fix, constantly on the hunt for the new and exotic. It's much easier for us to accept a guy with a big white beard hawking his own custom blend of saw palmetto and squirrel dandruff that it is to hear a real doctor telling us to lay off the Big Macs, and get off our fat asses and take a walk every decade or so." - Dennis Miller**
2003-10-25 03:14 | User Profile
>>>Seems to suffice for YOU, Fade. Shit, you've got a whole nother website to haunt when you're tired of this one, right?
Bitter are we?
***>>>Let's hear YOUR prescription for a change. ***
Learn to read.
This is actually the best idea I have seen so far.
>>>Oh, yeah...I keep forgetting you're a "universalist theorist". "Let a scowl be your umbrella" is as deep as it gets for you.
:rollseyes:
"I am first and foremost not a universalist and not an ideologue."
-- FadeTheButcher
"You would think that by now il ragno would have discovered the fallacy in inventing the arguments of others and thus proceeding to attack them."
-- FadeTheButcher
2003-10-25 03:19 | User Profile
>>>Il Rango is now dropping to a new low by glorifying MTV like values as a way to to get me pissed.
Yeah really. When I first came here I was impressed by the quality of discussion going on. In between this puerility. . .
" On the other hand, it underscores your need for actual physical contact with a live female - rather than waiting for a mail-order bride to land on your doorstep and fulfill your existence."
. . . and E.G.'s disturbing homoerotica about sperm-covered fingers and anal foreplay I have begun to change my mind.
2003-10-25 03:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Il Rango is now dropping to a new low by glorifying MTV like values as a way to to get me pissed. Go ahead, make fun of my penis size, it only proves you're an immature spoiled brat![/QUOTE]
Nahh, I'm just razzin' you. I'm actually getting a little punchdrunk from six or seven pages of this nonsense. And frankly I'd much rather you quote Whitman, a bonafide poet,thanDennis ('the French suck') Miller.
Fade, likewise. There's only so much of this circle-jerk give and take I can participate in before I grow bored and distracted. The thing about these internet battles is that all parties can dig in their heels and keep the acrimony going [I]forever [/I] if they so choose. I wasn't even sure there if it was [I]you [/I] with the website or Gaunt by the time I posted that...this thread is becoming a blur of mural icons and tit-for-tat, harsher-than-thou blowhardry by this juncture. I assume your entire point in being here is to establish once and for all that nobody is going to out-grimace you or otherwise one-up you. I dunno, but whatever this began as, I'm well and truly [I]bored [/I] with it now.
You are now free to crow in 'triumph' if you so choose. Whatever; I'm getting some sleep.
2003-10-25 03:36 | User Profile
Yeah il Rango, whose the one who pretty much kept this crap going for so long? You're probally just quitting because me, Leland, and Fade refuted everyone of your "arguments"(more like pathetic child-like insults). You haven't even made any attempts at intellectual dialog, all you've done is make stupid knee-jerk remarks and then cry when somebody responses likewise. So yes, go to bed and cry your woes away. "Boohoo, the bad ol' Euro cabal is saying bad things about me." :crybaby:
2003-10-25 09:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Fade, likewise. There's only so much of this circle-jerk give and take I can participate in before I grow bored and distracted. The thing about these internet battles is that all parties can dig in their heels and keep the acrimony going [I]forever [/I] if they so choose. I wasn't even sure there if it was [I]you [/I] with the website or Gaunt by the time I posted that...this thread is becoming a blur of mural icons and tit-for-tat, harsher-than-thou blowhardry by this juncture. I assume your entire point in being here is to establish once and for all that nobody is going to out-grimace you or otherwise one-up you. I dunno, but whatever this began as, I'm well and truly [I]bored [/I] with it now.You are now free to crow in 'triumph' if you so choose. Whatever; I'm getting some sleep.[/QUOTE]
Transaltion:
ââ¬ÅFade has exposed me as the ignorant, shallow, glib buffoon that I am, therefore, it's time for me haul ass out of here, before I further embarrass myself.ââ¬Â
Tell me now, Il Ragno, my Sicilian little friend, how does it feel to be so utterly intellectually dominated (Iââ¬â¢ll admit that in your particular case the task isnââ¬â¢t too onerous)?
Question: have you ever had anything worthwhile to say on this, or any other, board, besides the cheap, empty and worthless smart-ass one-liners ââ¬â your trademark?
Let me tell you a little secret: the reason Germany is the Orwellian, bastardized dunghill that it is today is in large measure due to what the American occupying forces did following the total destruction of Germany (re-read fadeââ¬â¢s post on the so-called ââ¬Ådenazificationââ¬Â of Germany). Itââ¬â¢s nice to see that your historical knowledge of post-WW II events in Europe is extensive enough to grasp that simple fact.
Who wrote the post-WW II "German" constitution? Please, tell me?
Who installed an American-puppet regime in Germany?
Who introduced new curriculums of education in Germany with the purpose to have Germans hate themselves, their country and everything German? Germans have been fed this bilge for the last 60 years.
Who still keep tens of thousands of troops in Germany? Why are Americans still there ââ¬â 14 years after the end of the Cold War - in such large numbers? The Russians have left, why not the Americans?
Who introduced anti-free speech laws in Germany, if not the said America-puppet regime? And laws against the possibility of a political renewal along folkish lines?
And please donââ¬â¢t tell me that ââ¬Åthe greatest American generationââ¬Â somehow didnââ¬â¢t know what they were doing, or what the desired total annihilation of Germany meant for Europe and the world! What naiveté! The Judeo-Saxon powers got exactly what they wanted. What the allies denied AH, they gave Stalin. Britain and France allegedly declared war on Germany in order to safeguard Polish national sovereignty, but at the end of the war Poland and half of Europe were in Soviet hands, some victory.
One last point, itââ¬â¢s a well-established fact that FDR lied the US into war (see for e.g. WW II historian John Toland) (after campaigning on an isolationist platform), and it was the US policy in Asia that provoked Japan to initiate Pearl Harbor (Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the attack, but decided to leave the navy there, so that he could then claim the high moral ground while dragging the US into a war when 80 percent of the population was opposed to any US involvement).
Finally, if you style yourself as a WN you cannot be an American Nationalist (and Iââ¬â¢ve seen quite a bit of mindless American flag-humping -- interspersed with anti-European sentiments, btw, perun and ruffin aren't European, as far as I know we're a small handful on OD, but maybe even that's too many for you -- in those posts of yours) at the same time. That is, if the goal of WN is the creation of a separate homeland for Euros, and those of Euro descent, presently living in what is now known as the ZOG/USA. See [url]http://home.ddc.net/ygg/wn/wn-06.htm[/url]
So what are you: a WN or an American Nationalist? Do you know?
2003-10-25 15:58 | User Profile
I was [I]wondering [/I] when this particular little weasel was going to make his appearance. And he doesn't disappoint....it's [I]after [/I] the clash of steel has subsided, when there are dead and wounded strewn about, whose shoes and jewelry he may now safely remove.
Braun, I am not Sicilian....so sorry to let you down. And if by 'intellectual superiors' you refer to the New Hardness posturing exhibited by the others in this thread (I don't even count scuttling camp-followers like you in the head count), I'm sorry, but self-satisfied nihilism and praying-for-gotterdammerung don't cut it [I]either[/I].
As for the rest of your drool, while I understand perfectly what has taken place after the war in Germany has been [U]imposed upon her[/U], as I've clearly stated in - ohhhh, I dunno, about a thousand prior posts or so - I don't really understand why you guys object so strenuously. After all, you worship strength and ruthlessness; you would have no problem imposing victors' justice on any territory [I]you [/I] might have conquered; you simply weren't strong or ruthless enough to [I]do [/I] so, and had it done [B]to [/B] you instead. As a moral and intellectual 'weakling', [I]I [/I] might regret that turn of events, but for YOU lot to do so is ...now what's the term for it? Hypocrisy? Sour grapes? Crying for Mommy to intercede?
Let's just say you, Fade, Perun, Gaunt, etc, exhibit the most extreme characteristics of the [I]worse-is-better, let-the-world-burn-to-a-cinder[/I] mindset yet seen on this forum. You demand to see everyone else's schematic drawings for world conquest, while your own consist of [I]buy bullets and await the Apocalypse[/I]. (Not a bad strategy at that, but hardly a Five Year Plan.)
Fade makes comments like "I actually own my own messageboard by the way, but you knew that, right?" (well, actually [I]no[/I] - how would I?), and then follows with "Posting on an internet messageboard does not count" (agreed...but why brag that you run one then? By my math, you spend twice as much time as anyone else here in the pursuit of fruitless bigdoming, in that case.)
Gaunt offers much moral outrage, stropping his barber's razor while waiting for 'his' chance at revenge with not so much as a clue that defeated peoples are by necessity [I]beggars and not choosers[/I]...but like most of this cadre, he isn't really interested in much but rhetorical attacks on Poles (and me now as well, of course.) Tex has taken the thread down, but we didn't hear too much Ragno-bashing from Gaunt when I took his side and brutally excoriated Polish Noble for his excessive and disgusting Teuton-baiting a few weeks ago.
Perun I hold the [I]least [/I] rancor for. He's young, he seems to have genuine ideals, and he reminds me of the American kid in BREAKING AWAY who identifies so closely with the Italian racing team he momentarily forgets not only that he [I]is [/I] American, but that the Italians will never see him as one of them because he simply [I]isn't[/I]. Perhaps a visit to the Mother Country would provide him that rude awakening he seems not to know is inevitable.
Braun and Agrippa both exhibit the type of boorish rudeness common to guests who crudely insult their hosts. It's one thing to visit an American forum to take American policies to task.....that's why OD is [I]here[/I],after all. But instead they follow Gaunt's lead by offering LOLs and metaphoric toasts to every dead American they can find...and then they exhibit Margaret Dumont-like shock and horror when that kind of excess rubs people the wrong way, and sniff the air at such base 'anti-European sentiment'.
These posters ALL egotistically confuse their own inflated self-importance with a thousand years of genuine European culture and accomplishment. Buddy, you might share a homeland with Mozart, Schiller and von Clausewitz but that's [I]all [/I] the commonality you have with them....those are coat-tails you're too far below to [I]ever[/I] hope of latching onto.
What puzzles me further is your stated pride in not giving a f**k whether or not you alienate more people than you attract with these posts. (Fade: "Your argument presupposes that I desire to awaken and inspire Americans") Well, if that's the case then what do you care how well or poorly your arguments are received [I]here[/I]? (The answer is: it's a pose. If Fade was not interested in some sort of feedback, and potentially influencing and inspiring others, he would neither post here nor run a board of his own. Nobody sits down to write except in an attempt to reach, and affect, others.)
Notice, for a moment, the utter disdain these folks show for "one liners". Grim, jut-jawed humorlessness is their exclusive stock-in-trade. And I guess if I had to codify my objection to the Gang of Four or Five it would not be on the basic thrust of their positions (which I mostly [I]agree [/I] with them on) but the cancerous, forum-killing TONE they relentlessly take. Tex pointed out the other day that OD's "Alexas are dropping like a stone with no end in sight" - I submit to you that the growing prevalence here of Gaunt, Braun, Fade, and Perun is the hydra-headed reason [B]why [/B] this is so. And that - confronted with this tone - I have found myself, quite uncharacteristically, responding in kind. I used to think Edward Gibbon had way too short a fuse but I'm beginning to understand now [B]why [/B] he responds the way he does. It saves time.
2003-10-25 16:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]. Perun I hold the [I]least [/I] rancor for. He's young, he seems to have genuine ideals, and he reminds me of the American kid in BREAKING AWAY who identifies so closely with the Italian racing team he momentarily forgets not only that he [I]is [/I] American, but that the Italians will never see him as one of them because he simply [I]isn't[/I]. Perhaps a visit to the Mother Country would provide him that rude awakening he seems not to know is inevitable.
:lol: Unlike you, I have been to Mother Russia three times and I've recieved nothing but praise for my efforts to keep alive my family's ethnic heritage. People I meet here in America from the old country also have respect for my ethnic pride. So once again your cheap shots have fallen short.
** "One can live outside of Russia and still have it in one's heart." --Maria Tsvetaeva, emigre Russian poet**
2003-10-25 16:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Oh so now you support EG's perverted sexual fetish of sticking sperm-covered fingers up your butt? [/QUOTE]
Oh grow the hell up already and stop spitting up on your damn pinafore. Granted, EG's particular choice of imagery was odd, but it was intended to tell you guys to piss off in no uncertain terms. Not a [B]thing [/B] wrong with that.
And what the heck are you still doing in the States then? You hate it here, you hate your countrymen, you despise all things American of any era. You certainly aren't here to get an education, such - I assume - is your loathing for the available quality of schooling. Perhaps you are here to save money to go 'home' with; or to avail yourself of our bankrupt health-care system. As far as I'm concerned, you're on par with a Mexican. [I]They [/I] despise us too.... while clinging like barnacles for dear life to [I]this[/I] side of the border.
2003-10-25 16:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Oh grow the hell up already and stop spitting up on your damn pinafore.
Look whose f*cking talking here?
And what the heck are you still doing in the States then? You hate it here, you hate your countrymen, you despise all things American. You certainly aren't here to get an education, such - I assume - is your loathing for available quality of the schooling. Perhaps you are here to save money to go 'home' with, or to availyourself of our bankrupt health-care system. As far as I'm concerned, you're on par with a Mexican. [I]They [/I] despise us too.... while clinging like barnacles for dear life to [I]this[/I] side of the border.[/QUOTE]
** Question: "If you find so much that is unworthy of reverence in the United States, why do you live here?" Mencken: "Why do men go to zoos?" - H. L. Mencken**
I could tell you why I'm still here in America, but frankly I don't believe your feeble little brain would be able to understand it. And as far as Russians being on par with Mexicans, at least Russians learn English before coming to America. Another stupid knee-jerk reply. Aren't you capable of saying anything remotely intelligent?
2003-10-25 16:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE]....nobody said that it is a good thing to see white Americans dying.... [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [I]ME/ [/I] PS: I hear more Americans were killed today in Iraq - will there be cake, door prizes and noisemakers, or just high-fives all around?
[I]GAUNT/ [/I] All that and more! The cake will have a picture of a RPG on it! [/QUOTE]
Any other questions?
2003-10-25 17:00 | User Profile
Yeah, nice Mencken quote. But [I]he[/I] had nowhere else to go.
So why DO you remain here?
2003-10-25 19:15 | User Profile
I went away for 24 hours and expected a few postings, but after more than 50 replies and 700 views later, I find I stirred a few things up. Some scum got banned, but their presence detracted severely from the objective of converting those undecided. I will answer some who objected. [B] Fade the Butcher[/B][QUOTE]>>>My war was in Vietnam. People like Fade alwaysfind ways to avoid serving.
LOL serve what? Remind me. What precisely is there to "defend" again? Why the hell would I want to "serve" in a mongrelized army with Negro and Hispanic mercenaries to fight wars for Jews and oligarchs? Once again you would not conduct yourself honorably under any conditions.
[B]Fade the Butcher[/B][QUOTE]>>>Once again somebody with your ability to taunt is probably a physical coward and would run if physically confronted - just like Gaunt.
[COLOR=Blue]*ROFL I am 6'3, 260+ pounds. I run three miles a day and work out for at least two hours a day - everyday. I am more than confident that I could put down the average whigger mercenary in the U.S. Army.[/COLOR][/I]
At all times you are capable of lying. Those in the infantry in Iraq are overwhelmingly white.
LOL so what? It does not matter if they are white, if they are yellow, if they are black, if they brown, or if they are green if they are working to DEFEND a government which SERVES our ENEMIES, which protects those who despise us, which uses its armed forces to oppress white racialists as was the case in Arkansas in 1957, in Mississippi in 1962, and Alabama in 1963. The only thing a white American racialist can accomplish by serving in the U.S. military today is to increase the power of those who DESPISE us.[/QUOTE]You and your tag team partner, [B]White Shadow[/B], would have a hard time standing up to a good girls tag team. I am sure both, if not the same person, derive much ego satisfaction by lying and pretense. The muscle you should exercise is between your ears.
[B]Anti-Yuppie[/B][QUOTE]I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, but a couple of important issues have been raised in between the Leo-style name-calling and scatology.
While I greatly respect Mr. Earley for his exposure of Jewish lies and cowardice (both in his book and on this forum), [COLOR=Red]I cannot agree with his view that military service per se makes one a more honorable or brave man. Let us suppose there were a draft during the Balkans War or the Gulf Wars.[/COLOR] At no point did I regard either Iraq or Serbia to be my enemies nor America's enemies (in the latter case, Serbia was probably the most pro-American ex-Communist nation with the exception of Poland). If I were drafted, I would be fighting two wars propagandized and run by Jewish neocons, alongside negro and mestizo soldiers. Please tell me what would be so "honorable" or "patriotic" about standing alongside simian "fellow American soldiers" while killing Serbs for William Kristol and Comrade Sandalio.
[COLOR=Red]Just to make where I stand clear, my point was addressed specifically to Mr. Earley's implication that a man who avoids military service is intrinsically cowardly or dishonorable.[/COLOR] My examples of Gulf Wars I-II and the Balkans fiasco were simply cases in point where avoiding service would be the honorable thing to do, even if it meant being a draft-dodger.[/quoTE]I believe that how a man conducts himself, honorably or dishonorably, when his fellow citizens are asked to expose themselves to the chance of dying, reveals much of his character. All wars will not fit everyone's definition of being worthy of their participation. Just look at the Jews. What I have in mind is that at all times wars are fought over power and money and that the conditions are always set by the rich and powerful. This obviously is not a simple question. The only legitimate national interest we have in the Middle East is oil. We are going in to either steal it or adjust prices so we can afford to buy it. (I believe we will have some eyes opened when our dollar continues to fall.) We will be thieves, but the alternative of anarchy may be much worse. Excepting worthies of this forum very few will be prepared to defend Western civilization.
[B]Ruffin[/B][QUOTE]The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, ..."
Edward Gibbon ...The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire[/QUOTE]You only quote Gibbon. I have read him. Do yourself a favor and buy my book. You will then start to win arguments.
Many thanks to the illustrious [B]il ragno[/B] for carrying the debate against these unrepentant morons. We will be better off without their presence. The Nazi element will always be repugnant to many.
2003-10-25 20:45 | User Profile
Perun, I admittedly lost it at a few points and lowered myself to a level of discourse uncharacteristic for me. The [I]failing [/I] was mine: but the [I]disgrace [/I] is yours, and your buddies'.
PS, I post my honest beliefs and devil take the hindmost. You may take issue with them, and I can (and do) make errors occasionally, but when I say "I'm bored now, and tired, and going to sleep", that's the honest truth.
Your response: "You're probally just quitting because me, Leland, and Fade refuted everyone of your "arguments"(more like pathetic child-like insults). So yes, go to bed and cry your woes away" is indicative of your petulance, boorishness and bad breeding. Y'know, just in the event that the Great Collapse Of Nations [I]doesn't [/I] arrive in time to crown you King Of The Pig People, you might want to learn and work on a little graciousness and humility. And should you choose to vacate The Great Satan forever for the bosom of Mother Russia, absolutely no one will be barring your way up the gangplank.
EG, I should've taken a cue from you and withdrawn early from this pointless fracas. I started out this thread intimating that if some of these tuffer-than-thou geniuses were to READ your book, they'd be armed with actual info instead of repellent slogans. But now I wonder if the maxim about [I]no arguing with a closed mind [/I] isn't true after all.
2003-10-25 20:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]
Your response: "You're probally just quitting because me, Leland, and Fade refuted everyone of your "arguments"(more like pathetic child-like insults). So yes, go to bed and cry your woes away" is indicative of your petulance, boorishness and bad breeding.
Well that was a response to your rude remarks. If you actually met me in the real world you would honestly think I was among the most humble and polite niceguy you ever met.
Y'know, just in the event that the Great Collapse Of Nations [I]doesn't [/I] arrive in time to crown you King Of The Pig People, you might want to learn and work on a little graciousness and humility.
Again if you ever met me in the real world you would think I have those things down already(which I do).
2003-10-25 23:21 | User Profile
eg:
You only quote Gibbon. I have read him. Do yourself a favor and buy my book. You will then start to win arguments.
I've read Edward Gibbon and you're not in the same league. You're a foul-mouthed, arrogant know-it-all who should stick to amassing statistics and leave the interpretations to someone without tunnel vision.
What kind of a jerk re-enters a debate after he knows his opponent has been banned and cannot reply? No wonder we disagree about where honor resides (hint: it ain't in military service, it's in behaviour, individual and national).
You're a good example of why Europe suffers degeneracy under the thumb of Jew-worshipping America.
2003-10-26 06:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, but a couple of important issues have been raised in between the Leo-style name-calling and scatology.
While I greatly respect Mr. Earley for his exposure of Jewish lies and cowardice (both in his book and on this forum), I cannot agree with his view that military service per se makes one a more honorable or brave man. Let us suppose there were a draft during the Balkans War or the Gulf Wars. At no point did I regard either Iraq or Serbia to be my enemies nor America's enemies (in the latter case, Serbia was probably the most pro-American ex-Communist nation with the exception of Poland). If I were drafted, I would be fighting two wars propagandized and run by Jewish neocons, alongside negro and mestizo soldiers. Please tell me what would be so "honorable" or "patriotic" about standing alongside simian "fellow American soldiers" while killing Serbs for William Kristol and Comrade Sandalio.
As for the European vs. American conflict, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Anybody who follows my posts knows that I despise "Sitcoms, Hollywood, MTV, MacDonalds, Nike etc." as much as anybody here, if not more. The problem is, these are not uniquely American afflictions. In case people haven't noticed, Europe today is not the Europe of Rembrandt, Beethoven, or Goethe. It is the Europe of techno music that makes Gangster Rap sound like Schubert, hideous daubings by avant-garde "expressive artists" who are as repulsive as their counterparts in Greenwich village, and quasi-pornographic films at the Cannes film festivals that make some of our prime time rubbish seem thoughtful and civilized by comparison. Making a comparison of 21st century American pop culture with 19th century European high culture is a complete non-starter.[/QUOTE] Yuppie, I agree with your post.. I served in the ARMY as an M.P. and the U.S. Coast Guard as a B.M. Third Class and was injured after 25 months and left. My dear Mother's Father died while plowing behing two mule's in N.C. in the spring of 1939, he had Pluiresy and was found when he did not come to dinner. Mother was only 10 years old with 8 sibling's and one on way, it was hard times. My youngest Uncle lost three toes to Frost bite in Korea, because of our fighting the Bolsheviks who came in to office with F.D.R. and he made U.S. the first Country to regonize the Murder criminal state of the U.S.S.R. as a Nation with Molatov invited to the White House.. I love George Washington to A.P. Hill and I say the banned were NOT the Leo type's from the old S.F.F. forum.. I think the posters got toooo personal and lost sight of the FACT we have been underimined as a Nation for at least 90 years since the Christmas Eve sneak attack afteer Charles Lindbergh Sr. went home along with the Majority of the Congress, back when THEY represented U.S. not other countries and liar's. [url]www.ussliberty.org[/url].. THIS IS THE MEN'S account who were THERE! And this show's the how lie is still on stage. I was still on ACTIVE duty when our country was on RED Alert in 1973 and passes were cancelled, and NONE of U.S. knew the fact's of the LIBERTY then.. Just as most do not know the truth of the our Marine's in Lebannon in 83. We live in a time when wanting Secure Border's make you and enemy of the STATE... The banning of the poster's I think was wrong. Yes, I did not read all their post, but just this thread. I can only decern they stated opionion's and if I am correct the banned did no threaten, or start ANAL talk, which I DO NOT engage in... I recently joined, perhaps the owner of the site will start fresh, let be a debate of idea's and Ideals... Smedley Butler.... WAR IS A RACKET.....
2003-10-26 06:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I'll probably regret getting involved in this thread, but a couple of important issues have been raised in between the Leo-style name-calling and scatology.
While I greatly respect Mr. Earley for his exposure of Jewish lies and cowardice (both in his book and on this forum), I cannot agree with his view that military service per se makes one a more honorable or brave man. Let us suppose there were a draft during the Balkans War or the Gulf Wars. At no point did I regard either Iraq or Serbia to be my enemies nor America's enemies (in the latter case, Serbia was probably the most pro-American ex-Communist nation with the exception of Poland). If I were drafted, I would be fighting two wars propagandized and run by Jewish neocons, alongside negro and mestizo soldiers. Please tell me what would be so "honorable" or "patriotic" about standing alongside simian "fellow American soldiers" while killing Serbs for William Kristol and Comrade Sandalio.
As for the European vs. American conflict, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Anybody who follows my posts knows that I despise "Sitcoms, Hollywood, MTV, MacDonalds, Nike etc." as much as anybody here, if not more. The problem is, these are not uniquely American afflictions. In case people haven't noticed, Europe today is not the Europe of Rembrandt, Beethoven, or Goethe. It is the Europe of techno music that makes Gangster Rap sound like Schubert, hideous daubings by avant-garde "expressive artists" who are as repulsive as their counterparts in Greenwich village, and quasi-pornographic films at the Cannes film festivals that make some of our prime time rubbish seem thoughtful and civilized by comparison. Making a comparison of 21st century American pop culture with 19th century European high culture is a complete non-starter.[/QUOTE] Yuppie, I agree with your post.. I served in the ARMY as an M.P. and the U.S. Coast Guard as a B.M. Third Class and was injured after 25 months and left. My dear Mother's Father died while plowing behing two mule's in N.C. in the spring of 1939, he had Pluiresy and was found when he did not come to dinner. Mother was only 10 years old with 8 sibling's and one on way, it was hard times. My youngest Uncle lost three toes to Frost bite in Korea, because of our fighting the Bolsheviks who came in to office with F.D.R. and he made U.S. the first Country to regonize the Murder criminal state of the U.S.S.R. as a Nation with Molatov invited to the White House.. I love George Washington to A.P. Hill and I say the banned were NOT the Leo type's from the old S.F.F. forum.. I think the posters got toooo personal and lost sight of the FACT we have been underimined as a Nation for at least 90 years since the Christmas Eve sneak attack afteer Charles Lindbergh Sr. went home along with the Majority of the Congress, back when THEY represented U.S. not other countries and liar's. [url]www.ussliberty.org[/url].. THIS IS THE MEN'S account who were THERE! And this show's the how lie is still on stage. I was still on ACTIVE duty when our country was on RED Alert in 1973 and passes were cancelled, and NONE of U.S. knew the fact's of the LIBERTY then.. Just as most do not know the truth of the our Marine's in Lebannon in 83. We live in a time when wanting Secure Border's make you and enemy of the STATE... The banning of the poster's I think was wrong. Yes, I did not read all their post, but just this thread. I can only decern they stated opionion's and if I am correct the banned did no threaten, or start ANAL talk, which I DO NOT engage in... I recently joined, perhaps the owner of the site will start fresh, let be a debate of idea's and Ideals... Smedley Butler.... WAR IS A RACKET, stated Smedley, and I say at least for U.S. the last 100 years of U.S. war's have been against OUR interests. Herbert Hoover, Charles Lindbergh, Huey P. Long and many other good men have been smeared by our Alien hateful pro non white invasion, and in that spirit, it is sad to see the banning's on this site..
2003-10-26 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Smedley Butler]... I think the posters got toooo personal and lost sight of the FACT we have been underimined as a Nation for at least 90 years since the Christmas Eve sneak attack afteer Charles Lindbergh Sr. went home along with the Majority of the Congress, back when THEY represented U.S. not other countries and liar's...[/QUOTE]
Okay, I skipped a day too... but Smedley Butler has it right here.
A nation's vital interests are hijacked and how do we, the few, transmit this fact to our fellows? On this board we've seen frustration turn to foam-at-the-mouth potty talk and personal slurs. Do not be outraged. The situation is not natural and there is no "right" way to deal with it.
We've seen the attempt of Al Linder at VNN to break through the bubble of the propasphere with shock-talk and rough humor. Some of us were actually suspicious of his recklessness -- now word is coming through about what it cost him. Perhaps it will cost him more.
We've seen FAEM, a fiesty little site, go off because of one death which however regrettable shows only how truly feeble the "resistance" is. The old Socialist Internationale would be amazed: A hundred deaths per cell was OK by them.
And we've seen discussions here, even about simple stuff like European women, descend to mudfights in a matter of a half-dozen posts.
Smedley is right: We have been undermined and we're acting the part of helots too busy distrusting each other to notice the hoplites are better-armed and wise to our weaknesses. At least be aware of this.
2003-10-26 18:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ruffin]eg:[COLOR=Red]I've read Edward Gibbon and you're not in the same league[/COLOR]. You're a foul-mouthed, arrogant know-it-all who should stick to amassing statistics and leave the interpretations to someone without tunnel vision.
[COLOR=Red]What kind of a jerk re-enters a debate after he knows his opponent has been banned and cannot reply?[/COLOR] No wonder we disagree about where honor resides (hint: it ain't in military service, it's in behaviour, individual and national).
[COLOR=Red]You're a good example of why Europe suffers degeneracy under the thumb of Jew-worshipping America[/COLOR].[/QUOTE]I have not capitalized my name in deference to the master. But who is in the same league?
I did not enter the debate with the previous post, but was in it for the entire time. I answered sneering remarks that had been posted since my previous post.
I have done far more to take the recall of events of the 20th century out of the hands of Jews than anybody on this forum - I suspect. You and your foul-mouthed gutless 3 friends will have to go back to reading [I]My Weekly Reader [/I] for your information. You will tell yourself anything to justify your big mouth and lack of courage.
2003-12-25 14:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]QUOTE (FWI Aug 15 2002, 10:09)
I am gratified that young Americans will spend time and effort in reading and learning something that is demanding and edifying. There is hope for America yet. I know that my reading Mr. Gibbonââ¬â¢s work of more than 200 years previous gave many precious insights into the human condition. I only hope that what I wrote did the same ââ¬â to a lesser degree of course.
FWI can learn even more by buying the book.[/QUOTE]
Please accept my heartiest congratulations on your success.
I know that this is a radioactive thread, but as I was reading it I wanted to say that always enjoy your posts and find them uniformly informative.
Keep up the good work!
And Merry Christmas!!!!!
Walter
PS - I'm buying your book.
2003-12-26 22:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Please accept my heartiest congratulations on your success.
I know that this is a radioactive thread, but as I was reading it I wanted to say that always enjoy your posts and find them uniformly informative.
Keep up the good work!
And Merry Christmas!!!!!
Walter
PS - I'm buying your book.[/QUOTE]It was not radioactive to me. First I had to deal with the lying [COLOR=Yellow]Yellow Polichinello[/COLOR], who would not, or could not, identify with truth if his life depended on it.
Others such as perun, Fade the Butcher, Ruffin and friends simply are not mature. They believe screaming, crying and pouting will carry the day. We will have to vacate our forum and confront the enemy on the field. Facts will then be needed to prevail.
2003-12-28 03:26 | User Profile
Right, Smedley Butler.
Thomas Fleming (the Chronicle's one) once said that the Vietnam era in America was like a low level civil war. It's essentially a correct observation. There has never been a verbal cease fire between the doves and hawks.
Smedley's observation also prompted me to remember the class nature of the homefront "troubles". College guys were deferred from the draft at an early and crucial phase of the war. They were deeply contempuous, for the most part, of the non-college boys who went in their place. Ivy League war protesters referred to the M-16 rifles as an "idiot sticks" and openly mocked the guys who had no choice but to go to Indochina and use them.
This aspect of the Vietnam era has never gotten the attention it deserves, perhaps because entitities like TV networks are often run by non-veteran college boys who really don't grasp the point that class warfare in America only goes from up to down. Too bad. Americans who believe they live in a "classless society" would find the truth fairly unsettling.
2003-12-29 12:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ragnar]Right, Smedley Butler.
Thomas Fleming (the Chronicle's one) once said that the Vietnam era in America was like a low level civil war. It's essentially a correct observation. There has never been a verbal cease fire between the doves and hawks.
Smedley's observation also prompted me to remember the class nature of the homefront "troubles". College guys were deferred from the draft at an early and crucial phase of the war. They were deeply contempuous, for the most part, of the non-college boys who went in their place. Ivy League war protesters referred to the M-16 rifles as an "idiot sticks" and openly mocked the guys who had no choice but to go to Indochina and use them.
This aspect of the Vietnam era has never gotten the attention it deserves, perhaps because entitities like TV networks are often run by non-veteran college boys who really don't grasp the point that class warfare in America only goes from up to down. Too bad. Americans who believe they live in a "classless society" would find the truth fairly unsettling.[/QUOTE]
Good point about the Vietnam War's legacy.
I think that it will be remembered by future historians as the sea change event. It was the first time that America faced a foreign enemy and found itself disunited. It's the first time American soldiers came home from the front and were spit upon and reviled. The things that were said then cannot now be taken back. That jinn is out of the bottle, and can't be put back in.
No American soldier can ever now feel that he can go to war and be sure of the backing of the American public. He'll always be faced with the possibility of ridicule and discrimination.
Once those basic social contracts are broken, society itself is broken beyond repair. The thing can't be fixed - we can only bring the old thing down and build a new one in its place.
Happy New Year!
Walter
2003-12-31 06:50 | User Profile
Walter,
Once those basic social contracts are broken, society itself is broken beyond repair. The thing can't be fixed - we can only bring the old thing down and build a new one in its place.
Without a doubt. What you wrote and what Ragnar wrote about what I call reverse class hatred is the truth.
Happy New Year!
Same to you and everyone else here.