Counter-Currents
1,635 words
Does war make sense?
Many racialists believe our “brothers’ wars” have had catastrophic, even suicidal, demographic consequences, and are dysgenic as well.
Others argue for war’s utility or desirability on various grounds.
I belong to the camp that doesn’t see much value in it.
War stories make for stirring, colorful telling, as do stories of other conflicts, including memorable athletic events. There is a venerable genre of sports fiction, for example. And many men are “war buffs,” fascinated by various wars, most popularly the Civil War or WW II.
But I am not a fan of warfare or the military.
Both Skeptics and Soldiers
Part of the reason is personal.
My Swedish-American grandfather and father were both rank-and-file Midwestern isolationists. Grandpa, who died ten years before I was born, was a Socialist who voted for Eugene Debs and opposed both World Wars I and II.
Philosophically, even as a young Leftist unsympathetic to Germany, I likewise harbored an isolationist view of WW II. It was the only position that made sense. This was unpopular in college, where “isolationism” was a dirty word to my professors.
But I looked upon anti-isolationism with disdain. I’ve never been swayed by wrong opinions, even if they’re universally consecrated, de rigeur, or constitute a mandated party line (today known as “political correctness”).
My father and two uncles evaded service in WW II, a conflict for which they displayed no martial enthusiasm whatsoever.
Dad was somehow classified 4-F, which was fine with him, despite the fact that he was as healthy as a horse and lived to be 92. He was a lifelong hypochondriac, though, which drove his mother-in-law (my Norwegian grandmother) nuts. Indeed, he was a pain in the neck in that regard.
I just missed the Vietnam War. My lottery number was so low I would certainly have gone, but President Nixon ended the fiasco in the nick of time. I never had the slightest desire to fight. Several of my cousins served.
Many of my ancestors were soldiers at various points in their lives. A few were professionals.
Quantitatively speaking, in my family tree in the US, Norway, and Sweden, soldiers rank a distant second to tillers of the soil, but ahead of a handful of Lutheran clergymen and theologians.
Two of my Norwegian “uncles” fought in the Union Army. One later returned to Norway, but the other was killed in the first major engagement of the Civil War, the Battle of Shiloh in Tennessee.
He died in the midst of fierce fighting at the storied “Hornet’s Nest,” where the Union forces held the line against repeated Confederate assaults for seven hours. He’s buried there in a mass, unmarked grave, the precise location of which is unknown.
Shiloh National Military Park, Monument to the 1st Battery, Minnesota Light Artillery at the Hornet’s Nest
My Swedish-American second cousin (Dad’s first cousin) told me a story about his service in Europe during WW II.
Alone, on patrol, he unexpectedly came face to face with a German soldier likewise patrolling alone. Both were armed. They stared at one another for a time, then turned and silently went their separate ways.
When the Germans invaded Norway, my grandmother sent care packages home to her family in her native, mountainous Gudbrandsdal.
In my grandfather’s region, in the southwestern part of the country near the sea, the Germans established an encampment on the shore of the lake situated on the farm which has been in our family for centuries. When my mother visited in 1980, she asked a relative there what the occupation had been like.
The only reply the woman made was that when her little boy became deathly ill they brought him to the German doctors, who saved his life.
Why Do We Fight?
I’ve occasionally asked people why they (or their children) volunteer.
I asked this question of an older cousin who served in Korea. In return I received a blank stare. Clearly, no one had ever asked the question before.
An Irish-American woman whose sons are fighting in the Middle East responded with the same blank look, before replying lamely, “To serve our country.”
I’m not certain what goes on in their heads at such times. Perhaps it’s like asking, “Why do you eat meals?” or “Why do you drink water?” At least, that’s the impression I sometimes get looking into their faces.
What remains of the white American population, clueless and disinterested, is visibly aging, dying, and being replaced by non-white immigrants. Yet its members blithely wave the red, white, and blue, send their dwindling stock of children overseas to murder and die for the Jews, and “support our troops” as “patriotically” as if their race weren’t on the verge of extinction.
Thoughtlessly volunteering for military service whenever politicians or aliens whip up a war seems to be an innate reflex for most people.
Of course, this is not always the case. The man who died at Shiloh wrote a letter home setting forth his reasons for fighting. A pious Lutheran, he opposed slavery.
Whether that was his only reason, I don’t know, but it was unquestionably a major one.
I suspect that he either came to this country intending to fight before establishing a farm on the Minnesota frontier (which is where he went), or he needed food, shelter, clothing, and money, which enlistment in the army provided.
At any rate, the first thing he did upon arrival, apart from traveling directly to the far frontier, was to enlist.
Most whites, I think, like war. (I’m not excluding other races from this charge; as Lawrence Keeley persuasively suggests, it’s probably a universal human trait.)
I assume war has always been, at one level, a major form of human entertainment, like the sporting events whites are so crazy about.
The eager majorities who fight are psychologically constructed, it seems, to think they’ll be doing the killing and others the suffering and dying. The idea appeals to them.
As long as governments provide the stamp of approval (very important for whites!), pin medals on soldiers’ chests, and reward vets with generous benefits, people will unreluctantly murder, rape, torture, and pillage. As a soldier or cop you can legally do many things criminals ordinarily do, yet win high esteem and monetary reward for it.
In peacetime, way back when, whites were decent and trustworthy enough to leave their homes empty and unlocked for hours or days on end. No one worried about it, or needed to. Nor were there numerous rapes and murders as there are today.
But declare war and equip the same people with uniforms, rifles, bombs, napalm, missiles, and drones, and whoa! Kindly Dr. Jekyll vanishes and Mr. Hyde suddenly displays his hideous face.
How long has he been lurking there, just beneath the surface?
Revolution
I’m not a pacifist, but as a natural-born anti-authoritarian and, frankly, moralist, I can think of few wars, past or present, to which I would assent. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any.
War is dumb. I’d rather read books than kill people, watch others kill, or be taxed or have my country bankrupted to pay for killing people I have no grudge against.
Because rulers are bad more often than good, revolutions are more justifiable than wars, as long as they’re virtuous. But that excludes totalitarian revolutions, beginning with the French.
I admire America’s founders and strive to learn from them, but the justifiability of their revolution is another question. It’s perhaps a matter best not examined too closely; it probably wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Today’s ruling class finds itself in an awkward position.
Not only are its core values and policies grotesquely evil and unjust, but they directly contradict the rulers’ own incessantly repeated, but totally hypocritical and moralistic, standards and laws.
“Genocide.” “Racism.” “Hate.” “Freedom of speech.” “Separation of church and state.” One could go on and on. It is so completely blatant.
“The tree of liberty,” Thomas Jefferson said, “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Sometimes, the bastards leave you no other choice.
Epilogue
It is doubtful that war can ever be successfully “outlawed” or “abolished.” It appears to be part of human nature, innate to the human species.
Therefore, “universal peace” is not an appropriate goal for statecraft or political philosophy.
That simplistic dogma, devised by conceited, irresponsible intellectuals and fantasists, attempts to do what cannot be done. Like so many other utopian dogmas it will fail, generating even greater problems, as did “the war to end all wars.”
Insistence upon “universal peace” opens the door to rigidly stratified globalist totalitarianism, a worse form of violence and tyranny.
Despite all of this, respect for simple justice and the continuous mitigation of wrongs, including the evils of warfare, are admirable objectives.
As with most matters of statecraft and political philosophy, the problem of war is best dealt with in a realistic, reformist, mitigationist fashion, absent utopian and totalitarian dogmas; the mindset of the American Revolution rather than the French or Communist revolutions.
As in Zeno’s Paradoxes, you approach ever more closely to a goal that you will never actually reach.
Also warranted is healthy skepticism concerning the justice, wisdom, desirability, and rationality of almost any specific war—past, present, or future.
Grass
By Swedish-American poet Carl Sandburg (1878-1967)
PILE the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
Shovel them under and let me work—
I am the grass; I cover all.
And pile them high at Gettysburg
And pile them high at Ypres and Verdun.
Shovel them under and let me work.
Two years, ten years, and passengers ask the conductor:
What place is this?
Where are we now?
I am the grass.
Let me work.
http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/Grass.html
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
31 comments
War is certainly not “desirable”. As horrible as it is I don’t think it can ever not be considered as an option if things get bad enough. I do think whites would have been better off if the Axis powers, more specifically Germany, had won World War II.
One thing’s for sure, by now you’d have us Krauts staring down at you from our moon bases.
I love the reading the sections in Hitler’s Table Talk when he talks about the Greater Germany of the future. The autobahns, the double decker trains etc. etc.
It depends on which whites. Germans would certainly be better off.
I would have to say that the only just (major) war fought in the West in the past 250 years would have to be the Napoleonic Wars.
Of course, smaller engagements such as the Anglo-Dutch bombardment of Algiers in 1816 can also be considered just because the ultimate aim was to protect Whites from non-white slavery.
I agree with you about many smaller engagements in history.
As for the Napoleonic Wars, what is your perspective on that? When I first read your statement yesterday, I jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that you were writing from a pro-Napoleon or pro-French point of view, which, of course, may not be (probably isn’t!) the case.
“Alone, on patrol, he unexpectedly came face to face with a German soldier likewise patrolling alone. Both were armed. They stared at one another for a time, then turned and silently went their separate ways.”
Reading this article I was struck my the profundity of this particular passage, which, I feel, perfectly encapsulates the author’s reason(s) for writing this piece.
This reminds me of the recent review of Alain de Benoist’s Beyond Human Rights. It’s inevitable that many third world countries will rise to prominence in the coming decades; America won’t be able to subdue every hostile regime that springs up or economically subjugate developing nations. When these new powers rise up they will not forgive America for its legacy of entanglement in foreign conflicts. They will use our history as a pretext for starting “just” wars over human rights abuses, tyranny, and corruption, except that this time these claims will be leveled at America itself. America will come to be considered the greatest threat to world peace and unlike the cases of nations like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, where it strains credulity to claim that these countries are the greatest threats to world peace, America will truly be guilty of the misdeeds that others accuse it of. Though it comes with the territory that any superpower, no matter how benevolent, will have some blood on its hands, Americans will find it particularly hard to justify our egregious history of wars.
I’ve experienced the same thing. There’s almost a sort of innate solipsism amongst Americans (primarily civilians) whereby wars don’t need any kind of justification to still be considered worth fighting. You could just chalk it up to civilian detachment, but there seems to be a deeper myopia. It’s as if we hardly bother to question the merits or consequences of war and most people seem to take it for granted or are easily tricked into believing that we have some stake in the wars we’re fighting.
My dad and I were talking to my aunt about Afghanistan a few weeks ago. My dad was talking about the futility of the war and asked why we should continue fighting wars when so many of our allies are pulling out after many years of fighting alongside us. My aunt (who doesn’t have a Republican bone in her body) responded defiantly that she thought other nations had an obligation to contribute to the war. The fact that the ISAF coalition has been there fighting with us every step of the way was completely lost on my aunt. Moreover, she didn’t even question whether there is really anything worth fighting for in Afghanistan; she just seems to assume that America is some virtuous lone warrior off fighting heroically around the world to secure peace.
My grandpa (a WWII vet who served as an engineer in North Africa) is the same way. He worships Israel and hates the Palestinians and would support any war in the the Middle East.
I wish that Americans would take this to heart. We have an endless will to fight foreign wars; I’d venture to say that many of those that say that they support pulling out of Afghanistan only care about the financial toll (particularly Ron Paul libertarians) rather than the efficacy of the war itself. We need to learn to see foreign wars as distractions from the subversion going on at home. The elites would fear nothing more than if Americans finally wised up to the subversion being wreaked upon the West and directed our aggression against them in a revolution.
‘And many men are “war buffs,” fascinated by various wars, most popularly the Civil War or WW II.’
As an arch-isolationist who has in the past voted for Pat Buchanan (2000) and Ron Paul (2008 & 2012 primaries), I am surprisingly one of these ‘war buffs’…
Only I like the Cold War!
No shoots fired. No one died. But there is still lots of cool military technology to be titillated by. There is an ‘Evil Empire’ that was the enemy (USSR) but still one can sort of relate to them because they were mostly racially White Russians.
“No shoots fired. No one died. But there is still lots of cool military technology to be titillated by. There is an ‘Evil Empire’ that was the enemy (USSR) but still one can sort of relate to them because they were mostly racially White Russians.”
No one died?
What about Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the various proxy wars in Africa?
I’ll admit I did like the first Gulf war when US military tech was on full display and the stealth fighter and smart bombs were revealed with the perfect set up reminiscent the cheesy action flick of the 80’s, mad dictator uses his military to crush a weaker enemy thumbing his nose at America and the international community so the US blows the shit out of his country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJH9yvGJnb0
‘No one died?
What about Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the various proxy wars in Africa?
To be clear I am really just interested in the European Theater during this time period.
Not too many Cold War buffs around that I know about!
The Cold War is a rich source for the study of intelligence agency and Communist cell activity, both of which impacted modern history greatly. Since the 1980s the intelligence agencies have submerged from public view again, despite being as active as ever.
Thinking about social forces we don’t see is extremely important for whites, but so far WNs haven’t paid much attention to this.
Illustrative of the fact that I’m not a pacifist, during the Cold War I favored rollback, not containment.
In my reply to Steven above, I also neglected to mention that I am a fan of the White armies in Russia that fought valiantly against the Jews and Reds. There were many unsung heroes in their ranks.
Long story short:
In 1947, America’s political leaders realized, with a sense of horror, that the economy was falling apart. The massive stimulus of WWII had ended, and things were starting to implode. An election was coming up in 1948, and America faced challenges with a defeated, conquered, destroyed Europe.
So, the propaganda machine went to work, and the Soviet union shifted from “Uncle Joe” to the Red Menace, the Soviet Bear.
We then formulated the Cold War to economically rebuild America by economically restructuring and rebuilding Europe – and Japan – on OUR terms.
That’s why we would bomb certain German cities to rubble, and leave others untouched. We had plans for those cities AFTER the war, as centers for economic reorganization, and development.
My moment of realizing the whole thing was a fraud began when I realized we were literally giving the Soviets wheat when their crop/distribution system failed. Starvation is the usual precursor of revolution; not merely rebellion, revolution. We were keeping them going.
The realization was enhanced when I realized there was no Soviet technology- we gave it all to them, one way or another.
Cold War?
Great for all sides to have a common external Enemy to rally the populace against, and really great marketing by all sides, especially the side that needed land mines, barbed wire, and armed guards to keep their “human resources” inside.
I wanted to say an extra word or two about Carl Sandburg’s “Grass,” originally published in his Pulitzer Prize-winning poetry collection Cornhuskers (1918).
“Grass” is a near-perfect poem, so perfect that it is impossible to articulate exactly how it works. It is an expression of pure artistry combined with mastery of craft.
As the Cummings Study Guide (linked to by editor Greg Johnson above) states, “Grass” was written in free verse. Robert Frost famously said, “Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down.” It can easily lead to poetic laziness, indiscipline, and pretentious conceit.
Yet “Grass” indisputably demonstrates that, properly employed, free verse contains enormous artistic power.
The Cummings’ site’s statement that “Grass” has a “sarcastic tone” is completely wrong. That Sandburg expresses a strong anti-war viewpoint is undeniable. But he does so objectively and impassively—the “other interpretation” referred to by the website. Indeed, that is one of the poem’s most stRiki-Eiking characteristics.
Note also the enormous casualty figures for the battles cited by Sandburg on the Cummings web page. In particular, Ypres (850,000 casualties) and Verdun (700,000 casualties).
Finally, the formatting for such a brief, free verse poem—the way it appears, visually, on the printed page—is important. Unfortunately, the Comment box, like the web page, refuses to replicate the correct formatting, which can be seen here: http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/Grass.html
Essentially, five lines are indented, giving the appropriate visual appearance intended by Sandburg.
I would argue that the Mexican American war was a “good war,” if this is not an oxymoron. Allowing for the alleged atrocities and what not, this was a war for territorial expansion between a markedly superior civilization against a markedly inferior one. A people with a far greater destiny made better use of the territory, and we should still.
Good point. The problem is that this same area is now being overrun by Mexicans.
Yes, the Bible reminds us that all flesh is grass. All these minorities could be gone in a day or two. We need only endure while it happens. The American Revolutionaries lost pretty much every battle they fought – but they won the last one. That’s all that matters.
Quite right about our motives: we are fighting for all kinds of unexamined principles and motives. The idea of fighting for ourselves has become simply incredible in the cognitive sense. All of this in complete contradiction to the wish of the Founding Fathers. That is the one of the big secrets that we’re kept in the dark about.
Well done.
Bowden didn’t spend enough time on this subject (IMO), though he held his ground on the wars of his time throughout his life, and I am better for it.
The point on our own Revolution is solid–it is “our” (for Old Stock Americans) Original Sin, just as the Constitution was a coup d’etat against the Articles of Confederation.
___
A side story, for whatever it might be worth:
My Great Uncle (from Down South, whose own Great Uncles fought against the Union) was a drafted medic into the Navy, serving in the Pacific. He was awarded a medal for performance on Okinawa–he talked about friends disintegrating next to him. He also saw Nagasaki first hand after the surrender. During my early years, he was the War Hero, the celebrated War Hero. As a ‘war skeptic’ after college–a history major who amongst other things, discovered and wrote a paper on Ernst Junger, I had breakfast with him after graduation at his home. While I would see him at a few more funeral before his own reward, this would be our last time together.
I told him that I had no plans to enlist, that, with all due respect, I don’t really believe in any of the wars.
What followed was a blessing. He told me how awful his time was, if how much he hated the Japs. How when the government contacted him for a free trip to Okinawa in 1995 for a reunion of sorts, he passed–he told me after the war he cut off all contact.
I wonder if it was because Nagasaki was the most Catholic of Japanese cities, but he told me when he arrived in Nagasaki, and saw what he had been apart of–his voice shook, conjuring the memories, and the chap was Alpha, he couldn’t put it together. A Japanese officer surrender his sword to him (which he eventually just gave away, perhaps as he lacked sons of his own.) My father and uncle, their entire lives, had never seen this side of him; he was always just the war hero. And there I was. I cannot ever go back.
He told me he’d have rather died in an invasion. Nagasaki was that bad.
The man, an unreconstructed Southron, prayed before every meal. And then I knew why.
Giving grass sentience is different, even if it sounds objective and impassive.
War is a necessary evil. We Whites are experiencing what it means to lose a war right now. Hitler wasn’t able to kill enough of the right people from ’39 to ’43, Jews won in ’45, and it has been downhill for Euro civilization ever since. I’ve seen Stalingrad described as Gotterdammerung on the Volga. Maybe it was. Our people were finally on the losing side of an important battle whereas previously our ancestors were always able to turn back the alien invaders. It shows the insidious nature of the Jew. The ancient Persians and later the Muslims invaded Europe with huge and formidable armies, but armies can be met on the battlefield. Jews are an entirely different type of adversary. Jews poison, subvert and rot your society from within, and hence a more subtle and lethal enemy.
My grandfather and all of his brothers served in WW2, and not by choice. They were Southerners minding their own business running farms until conscripted by FDR to kill their kinsmen for the benefit of Jews, the American empire, and international banking and financial interests. They weren’t told this of course. What they got was a steady diet of lies about Germany, Japan and the geopolitical situation. I wish I would have had a chance to ask him if he listened to Father Coughlin or Charles Lindberg, or had any exposure to isolationist arguments from the time. I know one of my great uncles (his brother) knew about Gerald L. K. Smith, but I never got a chance to ask that uncle exactly what they knew. It’s counter-intuitive, but I think we know more than they did about what was really going on back then.
I can’t imagine how my great grandmother must have felt having 4 sons drafted. Three were sent to Europe, one to the Pacific. They all made it back alive, but my grandfather wasn’t here to see my mother born. I don’t know what his role was, but he was in the thick of it and must have seen some horrific things. I was always a bit scared of him growing up; there was something very sad about him. Many years later, after he passed away, my grandmother told me he didn’t return the same man.
He did bring back a Luger and Nazi banner that was flying somewhere in Germany in 1945. I have them now, and they’re two of my most prized possessions.
Not too long after WW2 ended, the US government paid back my grandfather for his service to God and country by forcibly integrating the public schools with niggers. To rub salt in the wound, the government did it just as my mother and my aunts, his young daughters at the time, were starting high school. It enrages me just thinking about it.
Pre-PushButtonKilling, war had a certain virtue: it separated the strong from the weak, the courageous from the cowardly. It probably improved the race as a whole, and certainly the White Race which – do not forget – by 1900 had conquered most of the planet through superior weaponry and violent organization. Post 1900, however, a certain worm in the heart of Western Civilization set the Whites to fighting one another at precisely the time that weapons became massed, automatic, and distanced. The 20th Century World War, while endlessly fascinating – and I am among the fascinated – was a catastrophe for the West and the Whites, while a boon to the Jews, the collectivists, and the colored sub-races. Now Whites are being drowned in a Jew-inflicted Rising Tide of Color…which can only be repelled through organized violence and Civil War. War has been our downfall, yet it will also be our salvation.
Are you mad? This is precisely the reverse. War tends to kill all the valiant and strong men, generally before they have offspring, and to leave the women, old men and weaklings alive. It also kills those who refuse to surrender out of pride and honor, and leaves alive those who accept to surrender.
Even Hitler said that “war is inverted natural selection”, and that the goal should be to win them as soon as possible with minimum casualties.
The events of 42-46 nearly annihilated the German racial stock.
“The events of 42-46 nearly annihilated the German racial stock.”
Yes, there is always talk about how “psychologically devastated” Germans were after the Second European Civil War. And there is no doubt truth to it (which is why politics has any meaning). But the whole complete change in character and general weakness shown by many (not all) Germans really only comes together (for me, at least) when one considers the biological price Germany paid for being the unfortunate loser in the what may have been for the highest stakes in world history. There’s one part in the movie, Der Untergang, when Hitler mutters in a despondent tone something to the effect of, “all the best men are already gone” as he’s sitting in his bunker awaiting the inevitable. The idea that he was “thirsting for war” is one of the greatest lies ever told. Even a mildly sympathetic/honest portrayal of the man shows that he understood the biological cost of war. One wonders if our egalitarian leaders do or if they even truly care to.
“Many racialists believe our “brothers’ wars” have had catastrophic, even suicidal, demographic consequences, and are dysgenic as well.
Others argue for war’s utility or desirability on various grounds.
I belong to the camp that doesn’t see much value in it.”
It just depends. I think this is sort of an inside-out view of the world, though. We don’t stand over “war.” So, we shouldn’t decide whether we like it or not in such a way. Rather, it is a fact of life as rudimentary as any hunger or thirst simply through the inevitability of conflict of interest. That we are willing to go to such extremes to achieve certain ends is not a negative. In fact, it’s positive. It says something about human beings that is ultimately positive (or at least I think so). What makes war a negative is not the brutality of it all in and of itself, but the ends we’ve set out to achieve through such bloodshed and destruction. That’s what can turn glory into tragedy. What I am fighting for? My tribe? My blood? My culture and folkways? Or some Jew’s ability to maintain a financial strangle hold? Or some moralistic abstraction that is used as a rhetorical Trojan horse to mask true intent?
I can go along with the above sentiment in the sense that most of our wars amount to nothing more than a waste of money, resources, and good blood. But again, I’d say it’s more that we’re fighting for the wrong ends as opposed to putting a concept like “war” on trial.
This all relates to why I am so sympathetic toward Nazi Germany and even get a bit emotional watching old footage of Wehrmacht troops. They truly were fighting for something noble.
It’s hard for me to feel that way when I look at pictures of American “boys” in uniform. I see brave and noble-minded men. But I also see people who were ultimately lied to and mislead through a corrupt worldview that put power into the hands of the most corrupt and contemptible individuals like Roosevelt and even Churchill. There is no more painful would’ve, could’ve, should’ve for me to ponder than the unusually cold winter of 1941 which halted German progress toward Moscow. What a glorious war it would’ve been! If only!
Hey bro. Your dad’s first cousin is not you second cousin. He’s your first cousin once removed. Your dad’s first cousin’s son would be your second cousin. And his son would be your second cousin once removed.
I stand corrected!
The only reason for White men to fight wars is to preserve and expand White living space. Also it is highly demoralizing for White men to serve in bastardized armies alongside non-whites. The U.S military has been used in the service of the Jews for at least a hundred years.
Warrior blood is precious – too much so than to squander it needless war. That’s the paradox and one reason for our current weakness. The Nordics have been the most warlike of all and are now closest to their end. Not only in death or defeat but also in victory: how many have resisted the ultimate prize of conquest, the enemy’s women? Thus we have been defeated thru excess in all ways. Compare out flash in the pan conquests with the slow steady growth of the Chinese People. When they conquer some place, it stays conquered – because they only do so when there is need. And thus when they are ready to take possesion en masse.
No one died in Cold War?
What about spies? Would you say folks like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were casualties of Cold War?
The wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45 certainly had a devastating dysgenetic effect on the peoples of Europe.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment