Saturday, September 23, 2017

Let’s Try a Little “Direct”…

To: September 23, 2017 at 7:00 AM


I am not concerned with my friend’s opinion about a white America.  I am concerned that he was confused about my opinion.  Allow me to clarify:

To set the stage, what does one mean by “white America”?  No more non-European migration?  Deporting all those from a non-European ancestry, no matter the small percentage in the blood?  Disallowing mixed marriages?  All these must occur to achieve a “white America.”

The first could be achieved relatively easily – it would require modifying the current government enforced immigration policies with a different set of government enforced immigration policies.  As there is no libertarian solution to immigration in a world of state borders, I am, at worst, ambivalent about this but could easily go for it. 

Of course, if the USG (run mostly by white people) would just stop all of the wars in countries populated by brown-skinned people – both traditional wars and drug wars – this entire problem would shrink dramatically of its own accord.

The second and third?  By force, and force of the most violent nature imaginable. 

So I am perfectly clear about how I feel about this (let’s call it bionic being direct):

In no, way, shape or form do I support such an idea.  I think those that do support such an idea out of concern for their descendants four or forty generations from now are either insane or have no idea what hell they are going to unleash on their family living today, right now, right here. 

Your choice: look your children in the eyes while holding the knife to their neck to do them in, or educate your children properly in how to become a productive and contributing member of society, a member that values and improves on the best of Western Civilization.  I know my choice.  To be clear about my choice: I am not insane.  (Put this together with the previous paragraph if my meaning isn’t clear enough for you).

Further, by far – and it isn’t even close – the most significant violators of my life and property are white males – not Jews, not Arabs, not Mexicans, not blacks (or whatever I am supposed to call them these days).  It is none of these other bogeymen that taxes 50% of my wealth and sends my sons to kill by the millions and be killed by the tens of thousands.  It is white males that have handed us the government enforced immigration that we live under today.

Like it matters to Jews that the US government bomb North Korea to hell or kill a few million Vietnamese; only a die-hard autistic Jew-hater can convolute a reason for this (and I am sure someone has, and I am sure a regular commenter to this site will point me to a book or a web site that explains the connection).

White men have done this long before anyone could find a Zionist worthy of the name – and would be doing it today even if there weren’t a Zionist anywhere to be found.  And, no, I am not saying Zionists, or the state of Israel, or many prominent Jews are blameless.  As I have asked: which Jews, by name.

But you will find more whiteys under the rocks than you will find Jews or anyone else.

Returning to a white America and the idea of racial purity: I cannot even dignify it with the label insanity; it is a ridiculous impossibility to achieve in any way other than the most diabolical violations of life ever imagined.

I have said it and I repeat: I am not for open borders; I am not for closed borders.  I am for private property owners to decide who and what is allowed on their property and who or what has access to their property.  Until property owners are free to decide this, all we are left with is government managed borders.

When I speak of the value of culture, I speak of the value of commonly accepted traditions and norms.  I speak of the civilized part of what is commonly referred to as Western Civilization. 

In a world without the government (run mostly by white males) forcing immigration (in other words, the opposite of our world today), the requirement for immigrants to fit in to such a culture – to assimilate – would force immigration to a natural level, a level that has occurred since man first walked on earth; immigration for those who know they must fit in or be excluded.

I value the civil part of Western Civilization; this is worth defending, but it can only be defended intellectually.  There is nothing civil about defending it violently – this only further destroys it. 

What’s so great about racial purity?  Many white people don’t value Western Civilization – I would rather rid my polity of these while welcoming Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.

In any case, this train of racial purity left the station on the day that the first man left his parents, saying “I wonder if I can find a wife over there,” and the guy over there said “welcome,” as he considered the possibility of this stranger as a son-in-law.

And I am happy for this.

The solution for America?  Secession.  Take the election map from last year, by county.  Let’s start with that.  There is no other peaceful solution.

In the meantime, if the kooks on the far left and the kooks on the far right want to fight it out, I have a solution that will satisfy the kooks and me: organize the next protest in an area within two miles of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  There are so relatively few of you that I think you will all fit in this space.  Bring death and destruction to everything within your path – re-enact Sherman’s march.

If you happen to catch a few liberal arts professors at every college and university while you are on your way between your hometown and DC for this showdown, I won’t complain.


How is this for a direct bionic?  Or should I bring the other guy back?

Feedback on Your Feedback

I thank those of you who took the time to respond to my request regarding how I handle the comments section.  There were many comments of “fine as is,” and I appreciate these.  Overall this is my view as well, but obviously not entirely.

I offer my thoughts to some of your other responses:

JaimeInTexas September 21, 2017 at 10:21 AM

I think that it is your circus; you chose the monkeys and acts.

I do appreciate this, yet I also appreciate that there is a community here – a community that I enjoy.  I have mentioned before: the best comment section to which I have been a party was in the early days of The Daily Bell.  The dialogue was intelligent and robust.  This began to change as Anthony Wile began to flop around on the purpose / focus of the site – even stopping all comments for a time, etc.

But perhaps the worst, for me, was how the same repetitive – and often abusive – feedbacker was allowed to continue in his manner while others were edited, or had comments blocked, etc.  (I think there was a personal relationship between Anthony and this individual.) 

So I am cautious about all of this, because I enjoy the community.  Therefore, I asked for feedback from the community on this issue. September 21, 2017 at 6:48 AM

Prohibit "anonymous", let those with a name through without moderation unless a specific individual abuses that privilege.

I have thought about this in the past.  I have so far decided against it.  On the occasion where an anonymous feedbacker is repetitively obnoxious, I tend to just ignore the comment (once I skim it for abusive / vulgar language).

Nick Badalamenti September 21, 2017 at 12:03 PM

You have to credit discussions for being honest and civil even if some were repelled by said honesty/ideas.

I agree.  What bothered me the most was that it was assumed by (or concerning to) someone that knew me pretty well that I held those same ideas.  It still bothers me – what did or didn’t I write or say to make this so?  In a subsequent email to me, he wanted to know if I favored a white America, or words to this effect.  What do others who don’t know me as well think?

You as a person, do have a tendency to think the best of people's intentions/positions when it's not clear if that's the case…

In the earliest days of BM, I was much more aggressive; I would believe the worst interpretation of a written statement and run with it.  I learned quickly that this was a dumb idea.  It is so difficult to truly convey meaning on complex subjects via the written word; it is so easy to assume we all interpret what we read in the same way.

So today I really try to take the best from the feedback, at least until the clarifying dialogue has gone back and forth enough to give me comfort – but I don’t always do this well…so when I am told that I messed up, I will often apologize.

This person you respect highly, obviously had a tremendous impact on you….

Yes, for the reason cited in my response to your first point, above.  If someone who knows me this well believes (or isn’t sure about) such a thing, what will others believe?

…the question is this: Is the owner of the blog happy with the outcome? (Not anyone else, including me)

I was, until the aforementioned belief / concern.  I was unhappy with this more than I was happy with the outcome of the dialogue.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Blockchain Jesus

Jeffrey Tucker was interviewed at the Corbett Report.  The primary topic was the blockchain.  I was sent the link to this interview by email; after listening for a few minutes I was torn between two completely irreconcilable positions:

1)      I can’t listen to this nonsense anymore
2)      I have to force myself to listen to this nonsense until the end

I ended up choosing the latter.

I will offer several of Tucker’s statements – as is my usual practice when commenting on interviews / podcasts, I will paraphrase as best as I can but do not promise perfect accuracy.

First, to understand Tucker’s reverence of the blockchain:

Blockchain is greatest technological advance ever, maybe since the printing press or papyrus.

The blockchain can eliminate the boom-bust cycle:

If we had blockchain in 2008, financial crisis would never have happened…

You see why I almost quit listening to this nonsense.

The blockchain will replace and improve upon the United Nations:

The blockchain is going to bring peace…

From my limited understanding, this next one may very well be true:

The blockchain allows us to better document our rights-claims. 

But this?

The community can observe our rights-claims.

The community can observe my rights-claims today.  Observing and respecting are two entirely different things.  Is the blockchain going to ensure that the community respects my rights-claims as well?  If not, how is the blockchain going to bring peace?

If you have been living in a house for twenty years and someone knocks on your door and says get out of here, this is my house – how are you going to fight against that claim?

I don’t know.  Do you think if I show them my blockchain it will scare them off?  Seriously, isn’t this problem pretty well solved already?

It is “embarrassing” to Tucker how the states are trying to regulate blockchain.  But, he says, this isn’t going to last.  I don’t know…I’m not so sure.  Somewhere, somehow, we will need blockchain courts to settle blockchain disputes – you know, like when the guy knocks on the door of the house you have lived in for twenty years and says it is his.

Will state adjudication mysteriously disappear?  Will congress fear the blockchain?  Just how many divisions does the blockchain have?  (More on this shortly)

A telling exchange:

Corbett offers what he says is one regularly mentioned criticism: when these systems become developed, they become tools of control, what say you?

Tucker admits this could be true enough, but…but…well, Tucker has no answer – his only answer is “the alternative is not to progress…” In the end, he says – we have to get rid of states. 

Wait a minute!  If blockchain doesn’t achieve getting rid of states, why all the messianic claims? If blockchain doesn’t achieve this, blockchain will achieve very little of what Tucker prophesizes – and certainly none of the truly important prophecies.


Two-thousand-seven-hundred years ago, Isaiah offered messianic prophecies as well – his prophecies came true seven-hundred years later.  You tell me if you think Tucker is a plagiarist (in form only , certainly not in function):

Isaiah 9: 6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

Isaiah 42:1 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will bring justice to the nations.

2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.

3 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;

4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”

Thursday, September 21, 2017

A Discussion Regarding Comments

On and off I think about the comments section to this blog.  The question of “should I moderate” I have answered with a “yes,” and continue to feel this decision is appropriate.

Somewhat more pertinent is the question of “how should I moderate”?  This is, for the most part, a mechanical question.  Thus far, my policy has been pretty simple: no profanity – to which I have occasionally, but rarely, both allowed violations and violated depending on my view of the appropriateness within the specific thread. 

I hold a slightly higher hurdle for any comments posted by “Anonymous,” although I am not sure I have ever had to flex my editorial muscle in this regard.  I have also stopped posting comments from two individuals, but the last one of these was at least a year or more ago.

Recent events, comments, and emails have caused me to consider the question: Should the way I deal with comments change?

So, this is my request of you: do you see that there is a problem in how I handle the comments section?  If so: What are your thoughts about how I should moderate and otherwise productively involve myself in the comments?

America’s Great Game

I meant to make a new nation…

-        T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1922)

I had formed a beautiful and gracious image and I saw it melting before my eyes….I did not think I could bear to see the evaporation of the dream which had guided me.

-        Gertrude Bell to King Faisal of Iraq (1922)

It was in this world made of failed British utopians such as Lawrence and Bell, those who were doing the work of the imperialists, into which America entered.

America's Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, by Hugh Wilford

This is a story of the early American Arabists, those who made the first moves into the region that was dominated by British and French colonialists, beginning, for the most part, during World War Two.  (Yes, they were initially “Arabists,” not Zionists.)

We are introduced to several characters: Kermit “Kim” Roosevelt Jr., Chief of CIA covert operations in the Middle East and grandson of Teddy; Archibald B. Roosevelt, Jr., CIA officer and also grandson of Teddy and Kim’s cousin; Miles Copeland, a friend of the cousins; a long list of American anti-Zionists; numerous Arab, Jewish, and British leaders.

When Wilford began the research for this book, he was surprised by two things: first, such a book – a comprehensive look at America’s covert actions in the Middle East – had not previously been written; second, the first Americans on the scene were favorably disposed to the Arabs and Muslims. 

We will see how comprehensive a work Wilford has achieved in the coming weeks; as to the second point, I will note a curious similarity to the British position – not in London but for those on the ground, and certainly true in Palestine: overall, the British on the ground were favorably disposed, relatively, to the Arabs.

Wilford notes the domestic Arabist, anti-Zionist citizen network covertly funded by Kim Roosevelt; the large body of published memoirs of CIA Arabists.  The stories behind these will be interesting.

So, what changed?  What happened to turn this pro-Arab, pro-Muslim view into precisely the opposite?  It is a question Wilford recognizes that he must address.  For now, he summarizes: fears of Arab nationalistic leaders and communism; western access to Middle East oil; growing support in the US for Israel (for which he mentions the “so-called Israel lobby”).

Wilford begins the story with Kim Roosevelt, who, eventually, entered Iran in July 1953 under a false name to carry out the very well-known coup that toppled Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.  But the story doesn’t begin here; it begins with Kim’s childhood: born in Buenos Aires in 1916; the exotic adventures of his grandfather Teddy; his youthful stories of his wholly imagined childhood in India; his own trips with his father, Kermit, Sr.; his friendship with Lawrence of Arabia.

Kim’s education at the Groton School for Boys and then Harvard – and it is interesting to find how important these institutions (along with Princeton) were to providing the individuals necessary to the mission of covert operations. 

Groton’s motto – “Cui servire est regnare,” or “For whom to serve is to rule” – should give some idea of the culture and ideas driven into its students daily.  From its first 1000 graduates came nine ambassadors, three senators, two governors, two secretaries of state, and one president (FDR).

After Groton and Harvard, Kim spent time on the faculty of the California Institute of Technology, in Pasadena.  He was getting the itch, however, and was interested in going to work for Colonel William “Wild Bill” Donovan, who was in the process of creating a unified strategic intelligence service.  In August 1941 – four months before Pearl Harbor – Kim joined Donovan.

Cousin Archibald also had youthful exotic experiences; he also attended Groton and Harvard; he was then offered a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, but turned this down as he intended to marry – all scholarship recipients must remain single.  He also entered the world of the colonialists, more directly, in 1942, when he found himself on a ship to capture a beachhead near Casablanca under General George S. Patton.

This “beachhead” was a part of Operation TORCH, a joint British – US invasion of North Africa.  The Soviets had been pressuring the Allies to establish a second front against the Germans.  The US military leadership was against the idea, but FDR directed them to proceed.  D-Day was set for November 8, 1942.

After he landed and a cease-fire was called, one Moroccan in particular sought Archie out: Mehdi Ben Barka.  Archie learned much of French colonialism during their time together; he didn’t like what he learned. 

Ben Barka was an interesting character: the first Moroccan Muslim to earn a degree in mathematics from an official French school; against colonialism; a revolutionary in the spirit of various revolutionary movements throughout the third world.  In 1962 he was accused of plotting to kill Moroccan King Hassan II; for this he was exiled in 1963.

Ben Barka was then “disappeared” in Paris in 1965.  The details behind this remain guarded.  For example:

Owing to requests made through the Freedom of Information Act, the United States government acknowledged in 1976 that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) possessed 1,800 documents involving Ben Barka; however, the documents were not released.

Wilford offers many examples of the treatment of the Muslims at the hands of the French – each one only increasing Archie’s disillusionment regarding America’s policy of collaborating with the French.  On the occasion of a riot in which French soldiers at best stood by (and, at worst, contributed), Archie witnessed twenty Arabs massacred.  Upon delivering a scathing report to his superiors regarding the French inactions (or actions), Archie was recalled to the United States.

The Arab world that Kim and Archie were entering was favorably disposed to Americans.  Perhaps primarily this was because they despised the French and weren’t terribly fond of the British; also because the experience with Americans prior to the covert activities of what was to become the CIA, most American involvement in the region was deemed to be beneficial: universities, hospitals, missionaries, Wilson’s Fourteen Points.

Archie saw the opportunity in North Africa for America to establish itself “as the great unselfish friend of the Moslems.”  Well, we know today that things didn’t turn out this way.


The earliest Americans on the scene grew up with fascinating tales and experiences of the exotic.  This was certainly true for the Roosevelt cousins, and it was true for many of the earliest agents and friendlies: the children of early twentieth century missionaries and university administrators, archeologists, businessmen – all who were born and raised in the region. 

Men such as these were to become instrumental in helping to develop contacts and otherwise gather intelligence while using the cover of their “official” positions.

In any case, this is to come.  And in this, the cousins would be instrumental.