Germany Abolishes Itself (What Else Is New?)

22 10 2016


That which many of you have seen by now.

While some of this is about what the headline suggests it is, some of it is about internal white flight.  Which I know you’re all familiar with, many of you personally and directly.

But I think the German nation is just plain star-crossed.  A handful of years ago, in AR, back in the old pre-Disqus days, on a thread about Germany, someone wrote this comment which I thought was so good that I saved:

German nationalism was actually strong historically and the failure of the German-speaking peoples to be properly ensconced in one state at an earlier time is a great tragedy for European history. For many generations there had been a saying among German speakers that wherever the German language was spoken there lived Germany. Why didn’t German unification come then at an earlier date? 1) The land beyond the Rhine was never part of the Roman Empire. Because of the disaster at the Teutoburger Wald Forest, the Romans stopped at the Rhine. This meant that there were none of the Roman roads or bridges running through Germany as was the case for France, England and other countries. The lack of Roman roads was a major fact in not tying German lands together. Unlike the Gauls and the Celts the Germans never got the benefits of several centuries of Roman civilization. 2) The Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther basically created a north-south sectarian schism across the German-speaking areas of Europe. In contrast France just kicked out it Huguenots, while England became very largely Protestant. 3) The Thirty Years war. This horror show was basically fought out all across the German-speaking lands. It set back German civilization by at least 100 years. Maybe 200. It also created in German political subconsciousness a strong desire for a strong leader to avoid what Hitler called “a return to the chaos of the small states”. 4) France. France did everything in it’s power to keep the German speaking regions of Europe divided and weak. Between 1675 and 1813 France invaded German lands no fewer then 14 times, on average once every decade. The 1870 Franco-Prussian war was basically caused by French unwillingness to see the emergence of a unified German state. France LOST this war, which it started, then spent the next 43 years crying about Alsace-Lorraine. 5) The United States. This is the law of unintended consequences. The existence of America acted as a pressure valve where ambitious energetic Germans could go to escape the political morass in German-Europe. After the failure of the 1848 rebellion to create a German democracy about 2,000,000 Germans left for the U.S. 6) The many small states. The princes and politicians didn’t want to lose power in their little statelets by subsuming into a larger entity for the common good of all Germans. They put their narrow political interests ahead of the national and genetic interests of all Germans. Sound familiar?

Number five sounds familiar, as a majority of my DNA is its several generations removed consequences.

I have a few minor disagreements with this:  Martin Luther didn’t create the north-south religious schism, he just exposed it, because the fundamental cause of it was the seemingly slight differences between Nordic and Alpine peoples.  Even though major stuff can break out over dime-thin differentials.  And Germany-to-America migration didn’t start in 1848, it started way earlier, in 1722.

Even after successful German unification, one of its big hurdles was Britain, that growing German power drew London’s ire, because London always wanted no one single continental power to be that mighty.  (Ironically, London probably helped German unification happen because the history of the previous handful of decades and few centuries was that London feared France being the mighty continental unipower, and propped up German and Italian unification to stick to to Paris.)  And now in the current year, as a long-track ideological overreaction to the united German state’s biggest clusterfuck, the irresponsible territorial aggrandizement of its most noted head of state, massive immigration of hostile non-whites is driving Germans out of cities and out of the country.

But if all these dime-thin marginal factors had turned slightly in the other direction, Germany would be far more powerful and dynamic than it is today.

RIP, Al Smith Dinner

21 10 2016


The bitch couldn’t even make a joke about herself.

Even the obsessive insecure whiny narcissist that calls himself Baraq Obama was able to kick lots of good self-deprecating jokes at this shindig in 2012 and 2008.

On top of that, she tried to hook Al Smith’s Catholicism to her sex.  She tried to make us think that there was a yuge wave of anti-Catholic contempt that was solely responsible for denying Smith the Presidency.  First off, I don’t think either the outgoing incumbent President, Calvin Coolidge, nor the Republican nominee, Herbert Hoover, ever said a word about Smith’s Catholicism, or even countenanced it as a sub rosa campaign tactic.  Second, the outcome of that election was a foregone conclusion even if Smith would have been a Protestant.

As far as Trump being booed, that’s a non-issue, and entirely a function of interborough cultural politics in New York.  Trump could own every non-public piece of real estate in Manhattan and be worth trillions, and it wouldn’t matter one whit to Manhattan’s elite — To them, Trump was, is and will always be an outer borough untermensch.

Nina Burleigh Redux

4 10 2016

Manhattan; Brooklyn; Washington


New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says that the momentum behind the women’s movement took a hit during President Bill Clinton’s scandal-plagued years in the White House.

“Feminism sort of died in that period,” Dowd told Yahoo News Global Anchor Katie Couric on Monday. “Because the feminists had to come along with Bill Clinton’s retrogressive behavior with women in order to protect the progressive policies for women that Bill Clinton had as president.”

It’s just a fancy way of the more blunt way that Nina Burleigh put it in 1998 to Howard Kurtz in the WaPo:

I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.

You know, I was alive in 1998, and for the previous years of the Clinton Presidency.  Not only was I alive, I was coherent and well paying attention; Clinton was first inaugurated just a few months before my 16th birthday, and the Burleigh quote was a few months after my 21st.  And you know, I don’t remember any acute or any actual threat to legal aborticide during that time period that B.J. swooped down wearing his SuperCigar cape and heroically beat back.  I was just as WTF Nina when I first read the story with that quote as I am now.

The only conceivable substantive way that there was a “threat” to legal aborticide was that Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court early in his administration, and the guess is that if George H.W. Bush had won re-election and been the one filling those seats, that the Federal judicial politics of the aborticide issue would have had a way different history from 1994 to the present.  But I doubt it.  The other way to explain this is that social issue leftists are a paranoid lot; they think that everyone is out to get them and deprive them of their “rights,” and will latch on to the flimsiest and most ridiculous evidence to justify their mindset.

Put this all together, and what Couric, Dowd and Burleigh mean by “progressive policies for women” means nothing more than a Democrat being President.

Need a Historian

12 09 2016

Your Blogmeister’s Desk

All the news about HRC has made us think of FDR and the obvious analogy.

There is a myth that even through his Presidency that next to nobody knew that he was suffering from polio and was wheelchair-bound for it, and that the lack of public knowledge was the result of a media’s gentlemen’s agreement, a conspiracy of self-censorship.  It is my reading of the history that even during his Presidency, almost everyone who was literate on current events knew that he was a polio patient, it’s just that what was covered up was the severity of his case, and that he was in a wheelchair; most people thought he somehow recovered from his initial sickness from before he became Governor of New York, such that he was at least bipedally functional, even if not spry.  Also, I understand that the reason for the successful cover-up of the wheelchair was more so Secret Service muscle rather than media perfidy.

At some point, after his death, the whole truth came out.  What I need a historian for is to tell me when, and how, and the circumstances.  I know that the truth was fully understood by 1976, because when George Wallace ran for President that year openly from a wheelchair, and got flack for it, he compared himself to FDR.  So, it had to be some time after 1945 but before 1976.

Any Truth to This?

11 06 2016



The source.

If there is any truth to this, then it proves that what is true in 2016 was just as true in 1969:  Social justice warriorism, as it is called now, is a diversion, a distraction.

Shocking Discovery. Because Science.

10 06 2016

Carr Square

Archaeologists are already doing digs on the future NGA site, and they’re finding evidence that white people used to live in that area a very long time ago.  So long ago that it took archaeologists to remind us of this lost history.  Otherwise, it’s not in the conscious memories of today’s living breathing St. Louisans.

St. Louis is old enough for archaeology just on its white/European history.

“America First”

28 04 2016


And neocons be like:

ZOMG NAZI~!!!!!1

Never mind the fact that the 1930s/40s America First Committee and the opposition to American entry into WWII pre-Pearl Harbor were mostly motivated by ole fashioned principled isolationism/neutralitarianism that had been standard American fare since George Washington’s Presidential farewell address.  Even those who thought that the Jews were a major factor in trying to get us into the war, like Charles Lindbergh, never said that it was all the fault of the Jews; their contention that it was a tag team of disparate interests that the Jews, the British and FDR personally had.  At that, just bringing up the Jews even in the limited liability sense is what got Lindbergh tossed out of the AFC leadership bag and baggage.

Also never mind the fact that the America First Committee and the movement it represented was the most successful anti-war movement in the last hundred years.