Loki is playing Hank Williams Sr.? What? I agree with Hank 3. Couldn’t they find an American to play an American icon? And preferably a Southerner.
The crisis in Iraq has dealt a major blow to consolidated government. The Kurds are now on board to partition Iraq:
The collapse of the Iraqi army in Mosul and the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) to cities seems to have strengthened the positions of those demanding independent Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. The Kurds, who support this division, declared yesterday [June 17] they don’t intend to withdraw from Kirkuk and “the disputed areas.” The Kurds emphasized they will avoid a confrontation with ISIS “except for self-defense.”
Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan wonders how much better it would have been if the Western powers had allowed the Middle East to self-organize naturally:
How much disorder, horror, fear and mutiny might have been avoided had Iraq been divided along ethnographic lines in 2003 – or, better yet, in 1920. (If you don’t like the word “ethnographic”, substitute “democratic”: it amounts to the same thing.)
Re-read that last sentence. It will be the guiding principle of politics for the 21st century.
This video of the designer of the F-15 explains just what a mess the disastrous, and disastrously expensive, F-35 has been. It’s worth watching the whole thing.
When I was first in the Air Force, I recall a lot of people talking up the new generation fighter. We weren’t going to believe what it could do, we were told. I think a lot of people were misled.
I originally accessed this video here.
Today I was eating in the lounge and the World Cup was on. It was the Netherlands vs. Australia and the Netherlands were winning 3 to 2. One of my colleagues, who is of foreign birth, walks in and sees the score and exclaims “Five goals! Wow, this is a high scoring match!” I kid you not.
I rest my case.
Freelance Russia analyst Mark Hackard is one of the few people who can make the accusation of fascism without coming off as a leftist:
Also set in historical precedent is US collaboration with fascists. Far from limited to sponsorship of Pinochet-style military governments in Latin America, it’s worth recalling that Wall Street actively financed Adolf Hitler’s rise to Weltmacht. And so today the ultra-nationalists of Ukraine enjoy Washington’s tacit support as they drive to ethnically cleanse the country’s south and east of Russians and attain a pyrrhic victory for their ideology. Since Right Sector, Svoboda and other radical parties are enraptured by the legacy of National Socialism, they would do well to remember not only its fate, but also its dialectical function. The wholesale destruction and dehumanization wrought by Nazism merely cleared the way for the triumph of international capital, which from the end of World War II has enforced its dictates through liberal political economy, cultural Marxism and American military power.
Hackard’s point is that fascists often inadvertently pave the way for Marxism.
For what little it’s worth, I don’t mind saying that my own reservations about the Ukrainian nationalist movement have had less to do with the Ukrainian experience of World War II than with said nationalists’ connection to the US government.
Let him curse my name
On these blood stained pages of misery.
Let him call me a tyrant, so cruel.
Let him curse my name. But remember the truth.
King Charles I was executed at Whitehall on January 30, 1649, at the climax of the English Civil War. “Curse My Name” is about this execution.
I’m not entirely sure what to make of controversial Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. What I am pretty sure of is that this interview refutes the claim that Russia is substantively less free than America.
Can anybody imagine Steve Sailer getting interviewed by Katie Couric? Donald Livingston by Dan Rather?
The following post is prompted by a couple of comments bellow, which were tongue-in-cheek, but I do think represent the feelings of some.
There seems to be some people who see everything through the lens of their racialism, hence a lot of them are hostile towards professional sports, and feel other whites should be as well. But doesn’t the differential performance of different races in different sports lend credence to HBD arguments?
Myself, I don’t see how a male can grow up in America, esp. the South with regard to college football, and not have at least some interest in sports. I know there are people who just aren’t wired that way, but I have always been a bit suspicious (tongue-in-cheek) of them. They generally fall into two types, “nerds” (Star Trek > football) or arty types (music, the arts, etc. > sports). There is something normative about sports fandom in America and something “odd” about not liking sports. The former groups just seems disinterested. The later group is often pompous about their lack of interest in such ruffian pursuits.
At times in the past I have tried to talk myself out of getting too emotionally invested in sports. Based on the fact that it causes your emotions to be dependent on a bunch of people you have absolutely no control over, and in the case of college football, a bunch of kids at that. I figured it would be more emotionally and physically healthy if I took up a sport myself, then that way the outcome would be in my hands. But I always go back. I’m actually less emotionally invested in college football than I used to be. I used to be a nervous wreck on the day of a big game and would pout for a couple of days if we lost. I’m not that bad now.
Just how insane and detached from reality are Neocons? Apparently, they’re sufficiently delusional to call for putting American boots on the ground in a country the US Embassy is now evacuating. And for what purpose? Why, to enforce “inclusiveness.” Sound like a worthy military goal to you? It does to Fat Freddy Kagan:
The U.S. has been pushing for an inclusive political settlement in Iraq that brings the Sunni into the government and denies ISIS popular support. The current crisis has resulted in considerable part, in fact, from Maliki’s sectarian actions and systematic exclusion of Sunnis from political power and influence.
Like all apologists for empire, Kagan is mortified at the prospect of self-determination. “Inclusion” is how proponents of Big Government justify their one-size-fits-all ideology. What people like Kagan cannot comprehend is that the people of the Middle East had little to say about the borders they have to live in, and are resorting to violence to win what has been denied them. The brutality going on now is the direct result of past interventions by those who thought they knew what was best for the people of the Middle East. Kagan thinks we haven’t done enough harm to these people, and like the kid with nothing in his tool box but a hammer, wants to intervene yet again:
Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.
In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required.
Why not? Why, it’ll only take a few regiments. It’ll be a cakewalk. Iraqi oil will pay for the invasion. And the American people will cheer on the troops once news of easy victories come rolling in. Yeah.
Fat Freddy Kagan is calling for an unwinnable fight for an impossible goal that has no popular support.
How’s that Big Three working out for you now?!
From Tony Blair’s website:
Tony Blair: However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.
My comment: In other words, US support for the Syrian rebels has ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. The Iraqi militants are also Sunni, Blair and Obama’s allies against Assad.
Tony Blair: Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.
Tony Blair: The moderate and sensible elements of the Syria Opposition should be given the support they need; Assad should know he cannot win an outright victory; and the extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted, in coordination and with the agreement of the Arab countries. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.
My comment: Assad is an enemy of al-Qaeda! He is supported by the Christians and other minorities within Syria. It is Blair and Obama who have supported the Sunni terrorists. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Assad is not Sunni.
Tony Blair: The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam and therefore the casus belli was wrong. What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them.
My comment: It remains unproven who used the WMD. Assad certainly had nothing to gain from it: The timing was worst-possible for Assad, with UN inspectors to review it.
This is another example of how Blair etc. write a false history and of how vital it is to record a true history, based on facts. While perfect objectivity is impossible, wilful propaganda is inexcusable. Blair would have us teach outright lies to future generations of children.
Tony Blair: In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.
My comment: Again, support has been given to the rebels, who are Sunni.
Tony Blair: Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.
My comment: Again, this is speculative, unfounded.
Tony Blair: I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.
My comment: 9/11 would have been prevented had US immigration policy been enforced. The hijackers were in the US illegally.
Not only is the border crisis worse today, but the US has imported Muslim refugees since then. US policy has once again made matters worse since 9/11.
Tony Blair: It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations.
My comment: Here’s an easy solution: Deport them and cease importing more!
Mike Adams is a professor at UNC – Wilmington. Here is a link to some of his columns. I meant to cover this when he initially won his suit, but I didn’t get around to it. Now the University System of North Carolina has to pay his legal fees as well.
I had read some of this guy’s columns. I don’t know if he is a mainstream conservative or some other type of conservative, but I remember when I read his stuff and saw where he worked, I thought to myself “I bet he gets a hard time at work.” Little did I know there was a lawsuit going on. Good for him, and the University got what it deserved.
Reaction to the situation in Iraq is breaking down two ways on my FaceBook feed. Either it’s Obama’s fault for withdrawing the troops too early, or it’s Bush’s fault for invading in the first place. Here is what I posted:
If you think the original invasion of Iraq was a good idea, then you will believe that the current mess means we left too soon. If you think the original invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, then you will see the current mess as evidence that you were right all along. I’m very firmly in the latter group, but I think we should all be able to agree that the people who said the war would be a “cakewalk” and that we would be greeted as liberators were deluded ideologues. So perhaps we should stop listening to them.
He’s a serial plagiarist according to the New Republic. Of course the lefties are rushing to his defense, but the case seems pretty clear to me. It couldn’t happen to a better guy as Hedges is notoriously arrogant and obnoxious, something that comes across in the article.
I’m fascinated by stories about writers who just make things up, but I really don’t get this kind of thing. I’m sure I read things and absorb general ideas which I then later express without some sort of vague attribution, but we all do that. Blatantly hijacking paragraphs has never occurred to me. It seems so foolish and so unnecessary. When I read about this sort of thing, it always makes me think that the writer was either too busy (or lazy) or lacks confidence in their writing ability.
Addendum: BTW, since Hedges is an anti-Establishment liberal, I’m sure I agree with him on a lot of things, like opposition to the military and security state, opposition to big banks and crony capitalism, etc., but there are some far leftists that I often agree with, like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, etc., that strike me as pleasant people. Hedges comes off as an arrogant bully.
Rep. Duncan, along with Rep. Walter Jones, are just about the only two* national level elected Republicans who are willing to proclaim the non-interventionist message. Neither have perfect voting records from my standpoint, but Duncan has paleo ties and is, as best as I recall, also solid against trade deals. Could Duncan perhaps revive the old paleo Buchananite coalition?
*Justin Amash is perhaps another one, but I don’t really hear him speak much on foreign policy unless I’m missing something. He’s good on the security state though.
The text of the speech is available here.
This is a must watch. I’m not sure if this is a recent angle, but it was just posted recently. The funny thing is that at first the crowd is booing, but eventually quiets down. I suspect they know what she is saying is true.
File this under the credit where credit is due file. And the where have I been lately file.
Jason Richwine is my Facebook friend. Recently he posted an article he had written that appeared at NRO. I was surprised. Today he posted another one. I was even more surprised, so I did a little exploring. Turns out, this isn’t a new development. He has actually been actively publishing stuff there since last year. I’m surprised by this given the way NRO threw Derb under the bus, but NRO deserves credit for risking the heat publishing Richwine could draw.
This is a thing of sheer beauty! And surprisingly it’s from the usually pro-cosmopolitanism Wall Street Journal. Regarding American Soccer fans the author writes:
My biggest gripe is that all of this feels like an elaborate affectation.
Instead of watching the game in the time-honored way of American sports fans—by thrusting a giant foam finger in the air, say, or devouring a large plate of Buffalo wings—your soccer fanatics have taken to aping the behavior of our fans from across the pond.
The scarves thing is an obvious example, but it’s far from the only one. There’s the self-conscious use of terms like “pitch,” “match” and “kit,” the songs lifted directly from English soccer stadiums, and even the appropriation of terrace couture.
On a recent weekend, I went to a bar to watch the UEFA Champions League final and found myself stationed next to a soccer fan wearing a replica Arsenal jersey, a team scarf around his neck and a pair of Dr. Martens lace-ups. He looked like he he’d been born and raised along the Holloway Road. In fact, he was from Virginia.
The whole thing seemed to be less an expression of genuine fandom and more like an elaborate piece of performance art. Didn’t we fight a war so you guys wouldn’t have to take cues on how to behave from London?
It should come as no surprise that the situation is particularly heinous in New York City. This is a town where artisanal toast is now a thing. So of course there’s a peculiar species of fan here whose passion for soccer seems to be less about 22 men chasing a ball up and down a field and more about its intellectual and cosmopolitan qualities.
Never mind that no other sport is so linked to the working class. For these fans, rooting for an English soccer team is a highbrow pursuit and a mark of sophistication, like going to a Wes Anderson movie or owning a New Yorker subscription.
I love it. The Republicans have lost their Majority Leader because he supported amnesty. Hey, Republicans, think there’s a message in this somewhere? Huh?
It couldn’t have happened to a better sell-out. Here are the sweet details of Cantor’s major loss:
In one of the biggest political upsets in recent memory, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election on Tuesday to a political unknown who focused his campaign on Cantor’s support for a path to citizenship for the children of immigrants.
Randolph-Macon College economics professor Dave Brat won the Republican primary in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District. Brat had 56 percent of the vote to Cantor’s 44 percent when the Associated Press called the race just after 8 p.m.
See those numbers? This wasn’t even close. It demonstrates how powerful the anti-amnesty sentiment really is. Instead of blowing $60 million to win over imaginary conservative minority groups, the Republicans should spend that money standing up for border security and the rule of law. That is, if they WANT to win.
Good grief! It didn’t take long for this to get ugly.
Rod Dreher has been following the story about the bodies buried outside a Catholic orphanage in Ireland from the start. Here, Tom Paitak criticizes him for uncritically accepting the story which is now falling apart. Rod Dreher replies here, and it’s not pretty.
He calls Piatak “a stringer for a turgid Midwestern monthly.” First of all, I didn’t know there was any more than the standard Chronicles vs. TAC and staunch Catholic vs. ex-Catholic bad blood between them, but there must be. Dreher seems to have taken personally Piatak’s criticism of TAC over the gay marriage issue. I didn’t know Dreher was so defensive of TAC because Dreher was on the other side of that issue anyway, and TAC well deserved that criticism. Also, I didn’t know that Dreher was hostile to Chronicles per se rather than just disinterested. What’s that about? Is there some bad blood there I don’t recall? I know it was widely suggested that Dreher’s Crunchy Conservatism was just paleo light, but did that ever play out in the pages of Chronicles?
Dreher is taking some heat in the comments. I have made two comments. The second one has not been approved at the time of this post.