VIM
5d ago
Should we have resisted global communism?
Communism is a completely dysfunctional, unworkable system. America could resist global communism the same way it resisted European imperialism, by providing an example of a successful alternative instead of beating the communists by copying them. Or as John Quincy Adams put it,
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence, has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
The past century of American imperial domination have proven Adams right.
VIM
5d ago
One notable factor is that hyperinflation wasn't crashing the economy before now.
Plenty of regimes have survived hyperinflation combined with large protests. Venezuela's regime is basically inferior in every aspect to that of Iran yet they had no problem squashing proportionally far larger protests more than once while enduring far worse economic conditions without much issue.
Another notable factor is the level of violence, and the size of the protests despite that violence.
It seems like the violence led to the size of the protests rapidly collapsing, considering how they seem to have tapered off before stopping entirely
VIM
6d ago
I love that you had to specify "thousands" and "on American soil" to exempt Iran and Russia killing or facilitating the deaths of thousands of Americans other places. And confusing willingness with capability.
Yes, because there is categorical difference between killing occupying soldiers in combat and killing civilians in a terrorist attack.
Ever heard of WWII? The Cold War? We stopped being isolationist a long time ago.
You're proving my point; before the Cold War America had no problems with the Middle East. From the perspective of the average American as opposed to a Lockheed executive or a lobbyist for a foreign country it has been all cost for no benefit. Isolationism produced superior results to imperialism.
VIM
6d ago
How is this any more a "serious revolution" than the last dozen Iranian protest waves that were crushed, some of which had even higher turnout than this one?
VIM
7d ago
Could you quantify these "first world standards"? Because from where I'm sitting, the Israelis killed more Gazans in the average day prior to the "ceasefire" than the Iranians killed protesters even using the highest death projections despite the Iranian population sitting between 50x and 100x that of Gaza.
VIM
7d ago
Besides the obvious previously mentioned example of Hamas, the USAF bombed Yemen relentlessly for over a year (over a decade counting the civil war) to basically no effect whatsoever, including under Trump. They failed to disable Houthi air defenses and nearly lost multiple jets including an F-35 as a result.
VIM
7d ago
Air power works on opponents who are at least moderately sophisticated and organized...
I think the way it works well is in combination with good intelligence to wage assassination campaigns against enemy leadership and important weapons systems. You can’t destroy an enemy organization, but you can degrade them and scare whoever the next guy is. I think the right way to think of it might be like a correction for a dog. If you just assassinate their top 10 guys every time they cross some line, they’ll keep filling those spots but the next 10 guys might start to think twice about being as oppositional.
I know everyone seems to have forgotten but the US tried this against the Houthis. First Biden and then Trump bombed Yemen for over a year to stop them from attacking ships or launching missiles at Israel, they blew up a bunch of Houthi leaders including the "top missile guy" yet in the end the targets were replaced and the missiles continued even as Trump basically signed a separate peace that didn't even oblige the Houthis to stop firing missiles.
My suspicion is that an extended campaign against Iran would resemble the Yemen campaign, with the exception that Iran, unlike the Houthis, have the firepower to actually kill a significant number of Americans if they're backed into a corner.
VIM
7d ago
Oh, I think Iran and Russia are just as much enemies of the American people as Al Qaeda is.
Sorry, could you remind me when Russia or Iran killed thousands of Americans on American soil? I seem to have forgotten.
Regardless, can we do the math on how many people was Assad killing? I think it was more.
Assad was fighting a civil war against hardened Salafis backed by half of the Middle East and the CIA whereas Al-Jolani is sending death squads to slaughter civilians protected by lightly armed militias to sell their families into slavery. If the death toll is even comparable it would indicate that the Al Qaeda terrorist is far worse than the secular dictator.
There's no great option here.
There is, actually; stay out of it entirely! Don't fund or provide air support for Al Qaeda!
For the overwhelming majority of American history, the US stayed out of Middle Eastern conflicts and miraculously during that time never had to fear the risk of conflict with Iran or Syria. It's only after the decision was made to support a certain new country that suddenly America found itself obligated to support head chopping Al Qaeda terrorists.
VIM
7d ago
Weird that the regime has taken the nationwide comms blackout to a new level and been gunning people down then.
Not that weird, if they were actually on the verge of overthrowing the regime then they would be the ones seizing control of communications and gunning down the IRGC instead of the reverse.
VIM
8d ago
Iran and Russia are only enemies of the American regime, Al Qaeda is an enemy of the American people.
The Al Qaeda guy is currently having ethnic and religious minorities thrown off of buildings, is that better than Assad?
VIM
8d ago
By all accounts the protests are smaller than in past years (way back in 2009 the opposition could draw out half a million people at a single march!) but much more violent. No real prospect of overthrowing the regime and I can't really think of an explanation for the way the protesters are acting except to conclude that they're being intentionally lured by Mossad to be slaughtered in order to bait Trump into doing their dirty work.
This seems to be Israel's preferred strategy under Trump: pick a fight you can't win alone, get people killed and then hope that Trump will stumble onto the escalation ladder and win the fight for you. Unlike some of their other decisions this one is at least rational since their domination of the American political system is unlikely to last much longer and they could well be faced with an indifferent if not hostile administration by 2029.
VIM
8d ago
This is famously what they thought about Syria, which is now controlled by Al Qaeda. I've yet to hear how any serious explanation for how Al Qaeda running Syria is better for America or Americans than Assad
VIM
8d ago
Syria is a case of a LACK of Western intervention, however. Assad got a ton of support from Russia and Iran, which is why he really started losing when both of those countries had to focus on more immediate problems.
The leading alternatives to Assad were Al Qaeda and ISIS. It seems patently obvious that the Western-backed forces were objectively worse in nearly every way compared to Assad unless you're a Salafist, an Erdogan fan or an Israel-prioritizer (as in, elevating the narrow interests of Israel above all other considerations).
VIM
9d ago
Given these circumstances, I now wonder a bit what Mossad is playing at.
The goal isn't to install Pahlavi, the goal is to collapse the country Libya style. Bait Iranian protesters into a hopeless slaughter after Trump said he wouldn't allow Iran to slaughter protesters as a pretense to drag Trump into it. If the goal was actually to support a revolution then loudly telegraphing their support makes no sense but if the goal is to get them killed so that Trump looks weak if he doesn't start dropping bombs then it makes perfect sense.
They're probably blowing a lot of assets in the process, but from their perspective it's better to go for broke while they still have total American support than to wait and risk an Iranian comeback under a future Tucker-like isolationist or even a Mamdani-like anti-Zionist Presidency.
If you couldn’t tell from the title of the post: I like the Jews. They’re intelligent, hardworking people who are high in conscientiousness and very low in violent crime. I believe that western society has benefited tremendously over the last several hundred years from the millions of Jewish entrepreneurs, scientists, and researchers living among us. Ashkenazi Jews have disproportionately high IQ, and everyone in a society benefits when there are more smart people in that society. Smart Jews make more money than goys, and pay more in taxes as a result. Jewish-owned businesses make lots of great middle class jobs for the rest of us.
Bari Weiss isn't the head of CBS because of her great charisma, intelligence or talent but because she's Jewish and she's willing to unconditionally do the bidding of a Jewish billionaire. Jeffrey Epstein wasn't wealthy because he was an intelligent, hardworking person high in conscientiousness (his emails make that clear enough!), he was wealthy because he had no ethical limits whatsoever. Les Wexner and Henry Ford might both be rich entrepreneurs who pay lots of taxes but the latter was unfathomably more beneficial to his society and the world at large than the former. Whether Jews are actually significantly more intelligent is debatable; some would argue Jewish overrepresentation in positions of wealth and influence actually has more to do with nepotism, corruption and a total lack of moral inhibitions.
I want to live in places with lots of Jews, and I think that you should too.
Like Berlin, 1925?
Quite frankly, I don’t really respect the opinions of the modern liberal when it comes to social issues. Once you understand HBD, liberals become obviously wrong on most every social issue, and (when it comes to immigration) they’re wrong in ways that are fundamentally undermining the ability of every western civilization to continue to exist 30 years from now. So it isn’t surprising to me to see that Antisemitism is rising on the political left - The left is “wrong about every social issue” so of course they’re wrong about hating the Jews, too.
Of course, one could just as easily say "the left is wrong about every social issue, so of course they're wrong about Hitler" and come to the exact opposite conclusion.
My criticism of Nick Fuentes starts thusly: Nick’s beliefs don’t have internal consistency. If Nick is correct that the status-quo of Western Institutions is to be extremely pro-Israel and Pro-Jewish, then why would the Jews want to destroy those western institutions?? Why would the Jews want to replace the pro-Jewish status quo with a “from the river to the sea” Pro-Palestinian one? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Moreover, Nick’s opinions about Jews make testable predictions: if you suspect that Jews are secretly hoping for a Muslim takeover in America, you could actually, you know, check the voting records. Even in heavily-democrat NYC, only 33% of Jews voted for the democratic candidate Mamdani. If Fuentes were right about Jews, this number should be much much higher.
This isn't what Fuentes actually says.
What he actually said was: Jews wanted to replace the previously (relatively) anti-Jewish Anglo-American order with a new one, only to discover that their new left wing allies apply the exact same logic to Jews, causing Jews to switch to backing the right instead. He never claimed Jews are "secretly hoping for a Muslim takeover of America", he's actually said that Jews intentionally inflame bonehead counter-jihad type politics for their own benefit. If you wanted a testable prediction, his pre-election prediction that Trump was going to be dragged into conflict with Iran would be a pretty clear example of Trump acting against his political interests on behalf of a powerful foreign lobby.
Re: Fuentes on Israel: If you look at the data since 1947, the US has in fact given more money to Israel than any other country to the tune of $300 billion (as measured on 2024 dollars) over the past 79 years. This averages to $3.8billion per year on average. That sounds like a lot, but honestly it’s small potatoes compared to our current annual defense spending of $850 billion. $3.8 billion a year so that the US can test our weapons systems in actual warzones and maintain the stability of our only ally in the Middle East seems like a worthwhile investment to me. I personally hope Israel uses that money to turn Palestine into a parking lot.
That's only counting direct subsidies. If you were to count missile interceptions (the "12 Day War" cost a quarter of the global interceptor stockpile!!!), the cost of constantly moving carrier groups to defend them, protection money for their neighbors, wars fought on their explicit behalf ("Prosperity Guardian"), wars fought on their behalf implicitly (most sandbox wars), soldiers killed by them directly (USS Liberty), soldiers killed on their explicit behalf (Beirut barracks bombings)...
For all that accumulated cost, it would have been far more cost efficient had America turned Israel into a parking lot back in 1948, then America might have some allies besides Israel. It certainly would have cost far less than $300 billion. Or, of course, America could simply stay out of the sandbox entirely, as it did for the overwhelming majority of it's existence.
These nonprofits use this money to import hundreds of thousands of people from the most dangerous, violent, and backwards countries in the world. When those room-temperature-IQ people move into your neighborhoods, they are given free cars, free food, free housing, which the “refugees” then use to commit fraud, steal, and continue to be the violent, stabby creatures that they are. Our governments are forcing the productive middle class to pay for 3rd worlders to come and rape our women, and Nick Fuentes is mad about some random $4 billion/yr going to Israel?? Who gives a shit about Israel, Nick.
Perhaps there wouldn't be so many Syrian refugees if the US didn't bomb the shit out of Syria on Israel's behalf and then put al Qaeda in charge. Perhaps fewer sub-Saharan Africans would flow through Libya into Europe if the US didn't overthrow Gaddafi for Israel's benefit and create a power vacuum. One directly leads into the other. That's why people give a shit about Israel, actually; because it destabilizes all of its neighbors as a matter of policy and leaves its "allies" (read: dupes) to pick up the mess.
The Jews helped us beat Hitler.
Correction: we helped the Jews beat Hitler. Every single Jew could have dropped dead spontaneously in 1939 and America would have still had basically the exact same capabilities to beat Hitler.
The Jews helped us beat the Soviet Union.
Pollard sold the Soviets American secrets and then was given refuge in Israel, they played both sides and could just as easily have claimed to have helped the Soviet Union beat America had it gone the other way.
The Jews can help us beat China.
In reality, the Jews sell American military secrets to China, much as they sold American secrets to the Soviets.
The Jews can help us beat Islam, too.
Correction: the Jews want "us" to fight their enemies for them, again. America doesn't need to "beat Islam", it simply needs to stay out of the sandbox and reject their migrants.
VIM
1mo ago
Not everyone he hires is ultra pro-Israel but not one dares cross the line into being anti-Israel and the one who did was famously kicked out.
If Ben Shapiro is more invested in social conservatism than Israel then why is he so much more tolerant of and willing to converse with social liberals, even the most extreme "defend trans kids" types, but he has a total firewall around hiring, debating or publicly interacting with any kind of anti-Zionist? By all indications the former is simply a fig leaf for the latter.
VIM
1mo ago
If China absolutely needed to they could drastically increase their rail and pipe infrastructure and could endure a significant decrease in living standards whereas Taiwan could not survive a total blockade in the most literal sense. Even the backwards and isolated China of the Mao era was able to survive isolation and a direct war against the US, why would you think they couldn't survive a naval blockade today?
and no, they wouldn't have "the benefit of replenishment", if the US Navy sailed into China's AShM umbrella (which reaches well beyond Taiwan) it would quickly go from the largest blue water Navy to the largest underwater Navy. Hence why the original post was about how they'd stay out of range and impose a blockade instead.
VIM
1mo ago
Or Levin and Shapiro are going to bring their people over to Democrats when their hold over Republican elites is broken, though one wonders how many geriatric followers they could actually flip.
VIM
1mo ago
China is a continental power with a direct land connection through Central Asia to some of the largest energy producers in the world and Taiwan is an island, every indication is that the timeline for the latter would be much shorter than the timeline for the former.
VIM
1mo ago
There is no need to deliberately sink the boats (although to be clear, you wouldn’t have to sink many to prevent all crossings; most people don’t want to die). You go to Libya, find the most powerful warlords on the coast (there are only a couple of major factions) and pay them $500m a year to deal with the migrant issue, payment upon results. They could use the money and will be happy to help.
That was how it worked under Gaddafi and by all accounts the Europeans have tried to replicate the old arrangement.
Except Gaddafi had an iron grip on power whereas these warlords are themselves dependent on countless smaller militias, each of which have their own independent enterprises to profit from human trafficking. Haftar can make all sorts of promises but he can't actually enforce them even in the territory he supposedly controls. Even Al-Jolani has proven to be largely impotent at disarming the militias and he doesn't have to worry about competition.
If dumping money on warlords was enough to create a state then the Taliban wouldn't have rolled over Afghanistan faster than the Marines could leave. Forget 500m, they absorbed trillions and for all intents and purposes that money may as well have been thrown into a bonfire for all the good it did.
If GDP per capita was higher in 1946 there might be a point. In Iraq there has been largely continuity of government since 2005. The Shiites dominate but that is expected given they are a majority.
In 2006 Iraq was in the midst of a bloody campaign of sectarian violence in which Sunnis were purged from most of Baghdad. Estimates for the number of refugees and casualties created by the chaos of the period ranges between six and seven figures.
And that was before ISIS!
VIM
2mo ago
Many recent migrants come from places like Eritrea, Congo, India and Somalia which, while sometimes subject to localized conflicts, people leave mainly for economic reasons. The average Somali doesn’t move to Sweden to “flee war”, they move for an easier, better and more comfortable life. The “war” framework is literally buying into the leftist idea that they are legitimate refugees.
During the entire history of global colonialism countries routinely invaded, conquered, sacked and otherwise reassembled the affairs of countless other countries (including much of the Middle East) with zero mass immigration to Europe. You can just say “no”. Dick Cheney didn’t make Sweden the “humanitarian superpower”. He didn’t make Angela Merkel say “wir schaffen das”. China doesn’t have all of Burma and Mongolia walk in because people know there’s no hope there and they will be returned.
It isn't a universal law that invading a country will create a refugee crisis but both Libya and Syria were dams holding back the tide. Gaddafi quite explicitly said as much, and it's become abundantly clear that he wasn't lying. Unless the Europeans are willing to sink migrant boats by the thousands and let them all drown then simply "saying no" is about as effective as a 5'2 woman "saying no" to a 7' felon. Furthermore, overthrowing these regimes created an enormous power vacuum that created chaos in neighboring countries too. For example, the Sahel only became a hotbed of terrorism after Gaddafi fell and his weapons were smuggled over to the local Al Qaeda affiliates.
The most expensive outlay in the War on Terror (the Iraq invasion) was a humanitarian success. Certainly there were issues (like the brief ISIS thing) and there is a good case to be made that it was a bad deal fiscally for the US (I agree with this assessment), but Iraq today is far more prosperous than it was in 2003. Dollar denominated GDP is up over 1000% (so in real terms), GDP per capita is up 4x even though oil has been in a slump since 2014 (indicating again real economic growth rather than just higher resource revenues). Baghdad is a boomtown now.
Yeah if you brush over the brutal sectarian conflict and ISIS to only look at per capita GDP then it looks great.
West Germany had higher per capita GDP in 1955 than Germany in 1935 too, are we to conclude that Hitler was a humanitarian success?
VIM
4mo ago
Germany literally ran out of fuel, as well as several major metals necessary to build tanks, airplanes, and shells. And as for Israel, they produce quite a lot of their own gear; the Merkava tank, their own small arms, quite a lot of their drones, etc.
Most of Israeli military production concerns the top of the production chain, operating under the assumption that they can import the vast majority of their other needs; Israel doesn't even produce their own bombs. Trying to compare Israeli self sufficiency with that of Nazi Germany is a good joke, though; one Israeli general estimated that they would be entirely out of supplies in under a month if they stopped getting foreign support.
Neither the hutu militias nor the einsatzgruppen (of whom there were only a few thousand at any given time) were zerglings or mindless hordes; this is not a serious analysis.
You say, after claiming all Israel needs to do to win in Gaza is to "go full Genghis Khan".
Yes, they aren't "zerglings" but they were willing to take serious casualties to achieve their goals, something the IDF clearly isn't willing to do. What's actually "not serious analysis" is pretending that Israeli morality is a greater factor in their way of warfare than Israeli cowardice and Israeli incompetence on the ground.
Extreme apples and oranges. Attempting to exterminate an ethno-religious group across an entire continent is a much different thing than attempting to destroy a single large city and kill the inhabitants - something the Nazis did do several times during WWII, most notably in Warsaw which went from a city of over a million to having only a couple thousand people left when the Soviets entered. Here, actually, the Japanese were significantly worse - they simply demolished dozens - potentially hundreds - of towns and villages, and killed all the inhabitants.
They did quite a lot of killing-on-the-spot - far more than the Israelis have done, with far fewer soldiers involved. Also, the Nazis extensively used prisoners - including jews in concentration camps - as slave labor in service of that autarkic fantasy you mentioned above.
Yes, the Nazis used Einsatzgruppen, but the Nazis discovered pretty quickly that death squads don't kill people fast enough and also leave soldiers as psychological wrecks. Hence the invention of death camps and the Final Solution. They wouldn't impose the enormous logistical strain of the camp system on themselves if the job could be done just as easily by regular soldiers shooting people on the spot.
As to how much "killing-on-the-spot" has been committed by the IDF, I have no idea how you've made an estimate because the IDF has demonstrated they're perfectly happy to storm a house and kill unarmed elderly people for sport, to triple tap a WCK convoy, to slaughter rescue workers and then bury the evidence with bulldozers. These crimes are only ever acknowledged when they're caught on camera by bystanders/victims and even those incidents have yet to see a single perpetrator sentenced to prison time. We'll only know the true extent of the crimes years after the fighting stops, just like how the death toll of the Holocaust only became apparent years later: estimates in the immediate aftermath of the war actually put the Jewish population higher in 1948 than 1938.
Also, of course the Japanese probably killed more people that way but the Japanese were courageous to a nearly suicidal degree. You'll never in a million years see Israeli soldiers charging tanks with bombs on sticks. Not a great comparison.
VIM
4mo ago
Well no, the first paragraph is providing essential context, namely that by your own standard the Jewish terrorists prior to 1947 demonstrated the exact same genocidal tendencies while the Palestinians only exhibited such tendencies reactively after a millennia of Palestinians living in peace with their Jewish neighbors.
The second asks a rhetorical question: would the Palestinians be genocidal if they weren't being dominated? So far you've yet to provide any such evidence, just bald faced assertions that an SS Sturmbannführer could as easily make about how genocidal Jews would be if the tables turned and they were allowed to dominate Germany.
It does if your objective is, as many allege, to simply depopulate an area through violence. The Rwandan genocide took a little over 3 months, during which mobs of civilians armed with blades and a few small arms killed a million people. It defies credulity that the IDF, armed with modern weapons, somehow is so incompetent at genocide as to only kill less than 10% as many over a period of time six times longer, especially when all the would-be victims are penned up in a tiny area like Gaza.
-
Israel's modern weaponry is dependent on a complex international supply chain that could be interrupted at any moment by patrons dropping their support whereas Germany was, by design, autarchic and self sufficient.
-
The IDF has nearly no tolerance for casualties, unlike the Hutus or Waffen SS. You can drop bombs or snipe people from a distance but to commit Rwanda-tier genocide you have to close in and closing in would expose Israeli fighters to a level of risk they aren't willing to take.
No, if the Israelis were actually the Nazis that so many here portray them as being, they could have just treated Gaza like the Warsaw ghetto and it would have been over inside a month.
Ironically, Nazis used this exact argument:
We executed orders very well, so I assure you if there had been an order to kill all Jews, there would be none left in Europe. Instead, there are millions of survivors. We would not have used an insecticide to do it either; Zyklon B was a fumigant that all nations used to kill lice, which cause typhus, which killed millions after the first war. The Americans called it DDT, so the Jews expect us to believe DDT was used to gas them. The Allies destroyed rail lines, bridges, roads, and airports so that no supplies could get to German cities or the camps. The prisoners got sick, withered away, and died, many times right when the Allies entered the camps. Many died even while under allied care, it took weeks to stop the outbreaks, and thousands of prisoners died. The Allies caused these deaths, although not intentionally. It was just easy to blame a policy of extermination instead of telling the truth.
General Ernst Remer 1987.
EDIT: Also they didn't "deal with the Warsaw Ghetto" by bombing it to rubble and then shooting everyone (except at the very end when people starting fighting back, and ironically those people had the best odds of survival) they transported people to concentration camps. If killing millions of people is as simple as you think then why did Hitler bother with the logistical hassle instead of just killing them on the spot like Genghis Khan?
Except the Soviet tanks couldn't even handle their neighbors and wound up bogged down in Afghanistan whereas the Chinese tanks similarly couldn't make it past Vietnam. A massive military and nukes are worthless without the massive economy to back it up; the Communists never figured out economics and were perpetually gimped in that respect. The Soviets only achieved significant conquests when they were fueled by American lend lease.
The real growth in Communism didn't come from Soviet tanks imposing it by force, it came from anti-imperialist movements adopting it pragmatically after America chose to back the European imperial powers after WW2 for some reason. Ho Chi Minh famously was a fan of the American system until they turned him away.
More options
Context Copy link