Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:

Profile Fields

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Science and Mathematics; Philosophy; History; Politics;

Recent Profile Visitors

2,237 profile views

Doug1943's Achievements



  1. I don't believe the progressives have embraced China. China is too nakedly capitalist, too nakedly un-PC -- look what they're doing to their own Muslims, putting them into concentration camps, A lot of people on the Right have a very over-simplified view of the people on the Left. It's basically how we were taught to think when we were read nursery tales, and then Hollywood just carried on: there are Good Guys, pure, unselfish, brave. In the old TV movies they always were clean-shaven and if they were cowboys, they wore nicely-pressed silk suits and their revolvers were plated with silver. Then there were the Bad Guys: pure evil, and cowards to boot. They did evil because they wanted to do evil and knew they were doing evil We're out of nursery school now, and we should shake off all the Hollywood indoctrination. People on the Left ... from mild liberals through 'Progressives', all the way out to the Revolutionary Communist Party, believe that they are fighting for a better world -- one in which there will be no unemployment, no environmental degradation, no racism, no sexism, no XYZ-phobia. They genuinely believe this. Of course, their political beliefs are not the sole sum of their beliefs, and their attiudes, motivations, drives. Some of them are personally ambitious, some are dishonest in ways that their comrades would recognize as dishonest, some are cowardly, some are mean-spirited. And probably all of them have little bits of these, and other negative features, in their personalities. But then, so do we. I call it the inevitable outcome of Darwinian natural selection; Christians call it 'Original Sin'. Same thing, basically. To fight them, we should recognize and acknowledge any good traits that they show. For instance, a member of the American Communist Party could exhibit great bravery in fighting the Japanese during WWII .... someone who would probably have been a liberal, who was in correspondence with Noam Chomsky, who had grave doubts about our intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, could exhibit the highest qualities of a human being. Now, progressives have learned that the real fracture line in America is race. The big corporations, who are international and who have not an ounce of American patriotism in their souls (which they don't have anyway), are perfectly happy to accommodate these people: the 'woke' corporation, firing its employees who don't hold progressive views, and keen to bring in illegal immigrants whose cheap labor they can exploit, is the hallmark of our age. It's true that, so far as I can see, a lot of the Lefties on this forum are not really high quality people. They're probably ignorant kids, who have not read a book in their lives. But we need not emulate them.
  2. Well, we will have to disagree here. Although I think you mean by "Communism" things like votes for women, equal rights for Blacks, free speech, social security, trade unions ... in which case, then Robert Welch of the John Birch Society was right: Eisenhower was a "conscious agent of the Communist conspriacy". However, consider another view: if you look at the history of the growth of capitalism in the West, it's not a pretty picture. No human history is, of course, going right back to our hominid ancestors. About the middle of the 19th Century, a movement arose (there were precursors but not important ones) which said, "The problem is, the means of production and distribution are all owned by a small class of people, who run them for their own profit. What we need is for the productive forces to be owned by everyone. And that can only be done through the state." So this movement had the goal of turning all productive property -- farms, factories, shops -- into government property, with what was produced being set out by a plan. The most consistent of these people were the Marxists. They existed pretty much only in Europe in any numbers -- not yet in the Third World, and not in the US ... although the Socialist Party did get 6& of the vote in 1912. They were mass electoral parties in Europe, and were growing in strength in several places, especially Germany, until World War I came alng. This split the socialist movement -- they had all pledged to oppose their own government in case of war, but in fact they all supported it. But the Left wing of this movement didn't go along with the patriotic turn, and in Russia, in 1917, they came to power. Then the socialist movement split formally, with the left wing leaving to form the Communist Parties. They rejected the 'peaceful, electoral' road to socialism -- not on principle, but because they didn't think it would work. Like the socialists, they -- after going through a decade or more of ultra-left sectarianism -- began to fight for reforms under capitalims. This was true after 1935, when Stalin realized the hardline attitude of the Communists -- in Germany, before Hitler, they had called the Socialists the 'main enemy' -- had led to disaster. So from about 1936 on, the CP pursued what they called "the Popular Front". They had always fought for trade unions, for Black rights, etc ... but had done so in a sectarian way. Now they embraced liberals, built 'front groups' for liberals to join (which were always led by the CP). It worked a treat. And when the USSR and the US fought on the same side against Hitler, they could pretend to be genuine patriots, and their numbers grew. At that time, many liberals were happy to co operate with the CP, who were very dedicated, and did all the heavy lifting in their joint organizations. But after WWII as over, and the Cold War began, liberals fled from them. Many liberals had never been in favor of the one-party state, and in general were in favor of reforming capitalism, not overthrowing it. (As they are today.) So, my point is, liberals and Communists often favor the same things: an anti-lynching bill, for instance, or unemployment insurance, or a minimum wage. But the Communists believe that these reforms are ultimately vulnerable, if capitalism itself is not overthrown. Liberals don't believe this. Now we have 'progressives', with whom I'm not so familiar. I think they stand between old-fashioned liberals, and outright communists, in their attitude to capitalism ... but that's just a guess. Maybe the progressives on this forum could enlighten us. But from what I see, the 'progressives' are entirely hand-in-hand with the big corporations. And, unlike the old Communists and socialists, they have contempt for the American working class. They mainly appear to be spoiled snotty brats, who look down on conservatives as their social inferiors. Anyway, they are very successfully destroying the key things that hold a country together -- in particular, patriotism (which is, incidentally, the only real anti-racism). I believe that if they have a few more years to work, and then the US hits some big shocks -- as when we face our inevitable decline from World Number One, as China succeeds us -- and then maybe a big depression --- we are in for trouble. But at the moment, we are in our Weimar Republic phase.
  3. On my friend. I don't now if he is still alive. After being released from prison, he resigned from the Communist Party, as many people were doing at that time, not because of the Smith Act persecutions, but because of two events that took place in 1956: Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" to the 20th Congress of the CPSU which denounced Stalin [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Cult_of_Personality_and_Its_Consequences ] -- it was distributed to the Communist Party Central Committees of the East European satellite statees -- still supposed to be secret -- but one of them was a CIA agent, and it got out to the world. This caused great consternation in the CP's around the world -- people who had spent 20 or 30 years of their lives, often under dangerous circumstances, believing that everything said about Stalin and the USSR was a capitalist lie -- were devastated. And then... a few months later .. came the Hungarian Revolution, a popular anti-Communist uprising, drowned in blood by the Russians. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956]. We must remember that Communists were not evil children of Satan. Many, among the rank and file especially, were very decent people, who thought they were fighting for a better world. They were terribly misguided, of course. And when the truth was presented to them from a source they could not question -- what the lawyers call "testimony against interest" -- they left the Party in droves. My friend was one of them. He later joined the Trotskyists and stayed there for a few years, but by the late 60s had become more or less a conventional liberal. I don't know what he would think about the current degeneration of the non-Communist Left on the civil liberties issue. (The Communist Left in all its manifestations, has always been against civil liberties.) On how far the Right went: Well, in some ways you're right. The issues of the day were basically perceived loyalty to America. The non-Communist Left was slightly less nationalistic than the Right, but ... if you were a liberal, had not signed any Communist petitions fitteen years earlier, would sign a loyalty oath ... you could keep your job. (There was some informal persecution of liberals, for sure. Where I grew up, in Houston, Texas, in the 1950s, if you wrote a letter to the editor favoring school integration, and signed your real name, and if certain Rightwingers could find your name in the phone book -- you would be rung up every fifteen minutes, around the clock ... they had a group of people organized for that: one would ring at midnight, another at 12.15, etc. My parents had the engine of their car ruined when someone dropped woodscrews into the gas tank -- they had an anti war sticker on the car. ) At that time, the 'dissidents' -- the Communists and their sympathyzers -- were a tiny minority, extremely isolated. The overwhelming majority of Americans, liberals and conservatives alike, rejected them. Liberals in Congress, including the furthest-left one, like Hubert Humphrey, had no problem in voting to outright outlaw the CP. (In fact, Humphrey actually sponsored the bill in the Senate. It passed unanimously, but is so obviously so unConstitutional that it has never been enforced.) Then ... the academy, the arts, the journalism profession -- the "cultural apparatus" -- was largely tolerant of liberals and non-CP lefties. People like C. Wright Mills could continue to teach. Now, the big corporations, the universities, etc. bow to the PC Left, and purge their conservatives. However, we're about half the population. So we won't -- we can't -- just keep our heads down. This means ongoing hatefilled struggle. The recent killings we have seen as AntiFa and BurnLootMurder try to destroy the country are just a precursor of what may be coming. As for violence: several CP leaders were violently attacked in prison, to which they had been sent by the Smith Act in 1949. One of them, Bob Thompson, probably died early because of those injuries. His biography is interesting: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Thompson ] But the best known example of rightwing violence was the concert(s) at Peekskill, New York. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peekskill_riots ] The Wiki article is laughably biased, by the way, obviously written by a hard-core CP sympathyzer. The riots were not "anti-Semitic" or "anti African American", but anti-Communist. The CP always tried to claim that attacks on it were motivated by racism and anti-Semitism, instead of hatred of them because they were the advance guard of the Red Army. Anyway, effectively, the Left and the Right have switched sides on this issue. It's going to be interesting to see what these people do when they have the power, as I fear they will after 3 November. We will need to learn the techniques of operating in an authoritarian society, and plan to rectify things as the country unravels under their rule (Think San Francisco writ large.)
  4. Here is why this is such an acrimonious debate and why neither side really cares about playing "by the rules". From the conservative side, it appears that liberals have moved a LONG way from being the more pro-civil liberties, anti-government supervision of beliefs, side. Sixty-five years ago, conservatives would have approved of, say, outlawing the Communist Party. (And so would all the liberals in Congress, but not the rank and file of the liberal movement.) They would have approved of loyalty oaths for college professors. (And so did many elected liberals, but not the rank and file.) Now, things have reversed. If you, as a devout Christian, cannot bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, liberals are happy to bankrupt you, perhaps even put you in prison. A college professor who holds non -politically correct views on, say, biological differences in cognitiion and behavior between males and females (biological males and females), or the same for the different sub-species of the human race -- that college professor will be in danger of being sacked, or of being attacked physically if he gives a talk on his views. So the Left and the Right have changed positions on the issue of freedom of thought and speech. (Please note: the Right was NO BETTER than the current-day Left, in the middle of the century.) Now .. in those days, the Supreme Court was a defender of our civil liberties. A friend of mine was in prison in Boston in 1957, awaiting trial under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the US government by force and violence -- he was on the National Committee of the Communist Party -- when the Supreme Court overturned that part of the Smith Act, in the famous Yates decision. But today, if the Left gain a majority on the court, our liberties will be in danger. So ideas about fighting fair go out the window, just as they did when we fought the Nazis: bomb their children, shoot down their Red Cross planes trying to rescue their pilots in the English Channel ... all was justified. And no doubt that is how the Left feel about us conservatives: no rule needs to be followed. No free speech for us. So ... it's a battle to the death. Which has only begun.
  5. I got six months in military prison and a 2/3 reduction in pay, when I was in the Army. In fact, my icon is my mugshot.
  6. Anyone who is interested in this nomination, ought to look at this guy's take on it: https://www.twilightpatriot.com/2020/09/ I think he's pretty interesting, with some unconventional views ... and I'd be interested in everyone's take on him.
  7. Yes, this used to be true. But beware of linear extrapolation: the view that the future will be like the past. [By the way, for patriots viewing ... a test: the boys at each end of this group are doing something wrong with respect to their weapons ... the ones in the middle have got it right. What is it?]
  8. Whoa ... talk about giving hostages to fortune! As for dealing with rioters and looters .... this needs to be undertaken in a sober, serious, systematic and above all legal way. Patriots should not rely on being able to deal with whatever is coming, by themselves. We must organize. Come to CivilianDefenseForce dot Org to see what some of us are doing.
  9. I must respectfully disagree. Of course we should repudiate all who seek to divide our country along the lines of race or religion. But we should do that, regardless of what the Democrats do. In fact, just between you and me, I hope they do exactly the opposite: I hope they come out and say, "AntiFa and BLM are mighty fine people, and if we get elected, we'll do everything we can to encourage their growth." Also ... and this is really just a technical argument and not one I'd want to get into at length -- AntiFa and the KKK are not moral equivalents. In the ranks of AntiFa there must be idealistic young people, who genuinely believe that the people they are throwing bricks and Molotov cocktails at -- you and me, if the occasion presented itself -- are genuine neo-Nazis. They've been brainwashed by the MSM, and their professors at college. We need to reach them, and explain to them what genuine conservatives believe, and also try to counter this really poisonous idea that has now gripped the whole Left, even liberals: that America somehow is, uniquely among the nations of the world, supremely evil and racist, institutionally so. It's the most absurd idea you can imagine. Here's a true story: yesterday an acquaintance of mine dropped in for morning coffee, along with his wife and small daughter. I had forgotten they were coming, so it was a scramble to straighten up the kitchen. But we had a nice conversation, lasting a couple of hours. In the course of it, they revealed how much they liked Donald Trump, did not like BLM, and above all, loved -- that was their word -- America. [I am an American, but live in the UK]. They didn't say this to please me, as they didn't know what I believe about Trump (and in any case, I'm very critical of him). Now here's the interesting thing: they are both Ethiopian. How I wish I could sit some of the dunder-heads of AntiFa down with these people, and let them explain to them what the world is really like -- how openly racist most Third World countries are, towards their own racial/tribal/religious minorities.
  10. Really, this is advice for all genuine (not temporary, instrumental) patriots. But the intersection of the sets 'Loves America' and 'Is a serious Leftist' is pretty sparse, if not empty. First, some quick background: no one knows the future, but we tend to think it won't be very different from the past and present. That's because, on a day to day basis, it isn't. Today will be pretty much like yesterday, and tomorrow will be pretty much like today. But beware the fallacy of linear progression! So... looking at the profound changes in America -- how many of its elite youth have swallowed, or been fed, the Marxist Kool-aid; plus demographic changes -- and then looking at the recent AntiFa/BLM riots and assaults on government, (and on our cultural heritage) -- we must be prepared for a very different future. I hope it doesn't happen -- if it does it will be the tragedy of the century -- but ... it is not impossible that we could see the equivalent of civil war in America. If this happens -- or even if there is widespread social disorder, of the sort we've seen in Portland and Seattle -- then we must be prepared. Therefore, every patriot should do the following: (1) If you don't own one, or its equivalent, already: buy an AR15 (while you can). The AR15 is the most common 'battle rifle' in America and there is a big advantage in having a standard weapon. An AR15 (shop around) plus a dozen magazines, plus 2000 rounds of ammunition (in reserve, not used up at the firing range) will set you back about a thousand bucks, maybe a bit more. If you're affluent, get two or three, because if you ever need to use yours in anger, you'll want to be able to arm your less foresightful friends, relatives, neighbors as well. And if you've got the money, get a handgun and concealed carry permit. (2) Learn some useful skills. At a minimum, get on to the Red Cross and take a first aid course. These will not cover everything you need to know, since armed combat produces injuries that car accidents and falls don't, but it's a start. [You won't learn how to deal with a sucking chest wound, for example.] FEMA sometimes offers courses that are useful, mainly centered around natural disasters, but a war is much like a natural disaster. (Theoretically you need to be working for the government in some capacity, I believe, to do one of these courses, but apparently they don't check.) (3) Join a local militia. Come to the group I work with, CivilianDefenseForce dot org, and locate one of our units near you. If we're not your cup of tea, or we don't have a group near you, PM me and I'll give you a couple of links that will allow you to find a more 'orthodox' militia group. But if you do go for the latter, be choosey. Avoid the ones which just like to dress up in soldier costumes and run around in the woods on weekends, and pose for scary photographs to impress their girlsfriends and frighten liberals. A serious unit will be engaged in community outreach work, will be training its people in all the necessary back-up skills that the front-line guys with rifles need, and will -- I hate to use this word -- be trying to be as 'inclusive and diverse' as possible. (4) Finally, and I know only the most serious people will even consider this: If you have not yet done your military service, and are under 35, enlist in the National Guard. Learn the art of war from the professionals. And ... if the SHTF, we'll want a lot of patriots inside the military. (If patriots, in a future conflict, find themselves counterposed to the official American military, we will be toast. Don't kid yourself.) Twenty years ago, enlisting in the Guard was not a good idea: you might well find yourself walking down a dark alley, or along a dark goat path, in Absurdistan, hoping that an IED was not in your future, as part of the American effort to bring their warring tribes liberal democracy, Lesbian Outreach Centers, Coca-Cola, etc. But I think we've learned from that madness and won't do it again -- well, probably not, even if the Democrats get back in power. So go on. Bad times may be coming. Be prepared for them.
  11. I hope they win it. How would liberals feel, if they held a peaceful demonstration in favor of, let's say, reproductive rights (ie the right to abortion), and the mainstream media said, "A group of anti-American communists and pro-Islamic state traitors demonstrated today...." It's this sort of naked partisanship and dishonest that has made half of America no longer trust what used to be seen as relatively neutral news sources.
  12. Why do you think this? I would vote for Trump, so according to you, that makes me, by definition, a 'racist'. And the 5% or so of Blacks who voted for Trump and will again are, by your definition, 'racists'. But surely by 'racist' you mean more than 'someone who votes for Trump'. Surely you mean some who, even if they did not vote for some reason, holds a set of ideas, or exhibits a collection of behaviors, that would also allow you to say, "That's a racist." So ... why do you think that everyone who votes for Trump, even if in every other respect, does not exhibit racist behavior, is still a racist?
  13. This report is probably talking about individual acts of terrorism, and in that case, given recent (last four decades) history, it wouldn't be wrong. However, I believe that there is a much more dangerous threat, which is the opening up of the racial fracture lines in America. The broad mass of white people in America, including the Republican base, are not in any substantial sense racists. They do not see the world as 'my race' vs others. But that could change. If the Left succeeds in making 'race' the defining issue, with whites seen as guilty no matter what they really believe, say, or do .. then we might see the Balkanization of the US. This would be a tragedy of historic proportions. What patriots must do, is to push hard for the idea of One America, made up of all races, colors, creeds, united by our love of our country. This is the only real 'anti-racism'. And on the Right we have to take the threat of the white supremacists seriously, and work to counter them: to provide a patriotic alternative to their ideas, and to show young whites that we can fight and defeat the Left, purely on grounds of patriotism.
  14. Could someone who believes that the Proud Boys are white surpremacists, give me some evidence to support that claim? Some links, perhaps?
  • Create New...