Was General Patton assassinated?

– Sailer epically dominates a comment thread. If you get Sailer, the thread is really funny.

– Are mainstream conservatives beginning to understand how early 20th Century USG works?

– “What can Catholic Traditionalists, Ethno-Nationalists, and Techno-Commercialists, and assorted Particularists and non-brain-dead PUAs agree on?”

– Free Northerner on natural rights:

Contrary to popular mythology, there is no such thing as a natural right. God does not grant anyone a right to freedom, a right to life, a right to happiness, or any other such silly thing. The existence of natural rights is simply the delusion of the liberal. . . .

True rights come from responsibilities. A right to something comes from man’s earning it. He who works not, eats not.

Capitalism and the family.

– Matt Forney reviews Election.

– An argument in favor of getting married and one against getting married.

– The iWatch is gay.

53 Responses to Randoms

  1. Did you mean “early 21st Century?”

  2. josh says:

    I’m thinking about starting a blog this summer that deals with weird history and mysterious people rather than reactionary complaining. One thing I would definitely like to gather is a list of people who may have been assassinated that aren’t generally considered to have been assassinated.

  3. Scharlach says:

    Sailer is a class act when he debates outside of his home turf. I can’t find the link now, but he got trashed on some Nation or NYT thread about lead poisoning and low-IQs, but he just kept being polite and pointing readers to outside links.

    You can always tell when people aren’t reading the links he posts to his articles. They’ll come back with zingers like “anecdotes aren’t data, Steve!” even though he almost always uses data from academic, government, or MSM sources.

    • dearieme says:

      I didn’t read that thread to the end, so if someone there said this, I apologise for the repetition. I find basketball and American football rather camp. I’ve not noticed the same flavour in baseball or ice hockey.

  4. ve says:

    “True rights come from responsibilities.”

    True rights come from the largesse of the team with the most guns.

  5. Does the assassination idea have any merit? What odds would you give it Foseti?

    • Red says:

      It does. A few weeks before Patton was hit by the truck a team 4 of Soviet aircraft tried to shoot down Patton spotter plane when has was inspecting the border. They were so aggressive that one of hit a hill and exploded when Patton’s pilot went went into low level evasion tactics. It’s likely that someone from the US side fed the soviets Patton’s flight area and time to allow such an attempt.

      • Toddy Cat says:

        There’s no doubt that the Soviets wanted Patton dead. If it proves to be true that U.S. war leaders were accomplices, and helped the commies kill him, this would change a lot of minds about a lot of things. Including mine.

      • Red says:

        Toddy Cat,
        The USG method of operation is generally to set things up and then look the other way while some else does the dirty work. Perl Harbor is a good example of this.

        It’s also quite clear exactly how penetrated all levels of government was infiltrated by the Soviets. It wouldn’t take much to simply not investigate a soviet hit and allow them to bribe whoever they felt like bribing to get it done. The truck driver who hit Patton become very wealth during his tour in Germany and even his family admits that he didn’t come to his wealth through honorable means.

    • Foseti says:

      I hesitate to put a probability on it. It’s definitely a non-zero probability. It’s just so suspicious that you feel incredibly naive for believing that he died at that from an accident followed by a weird time in a failed recovery attempt.

      • dearieme says:

        “who gloried in the nickname “Old Blood and Guts””: hoots of derision from me!

      • Toddy Cat says:

        Personally, I doubt if the whole Patton thing is true – I mean, supposed deathbed revelations from alleged CIA assassins who are conveniently no longer around to answer questions have not exactly proved to be particularly trustworthy over the years. But I agree, it is possible, and if it’s true, it’s a game-changer for how we see the U.S. Government in and immediately after WWII. If it’s true, McCarthy was not only right, he considerably understated the situation.

  6. josh says:

    It important to remember that these people were absolutely nuts:

    Click to access project-artichoke-22-january-1954.pdf

    • Toddy Cat says:

      All this came to pretty much nothing, but yeah, one does get the feeling that certain sectors of the CIA needed some adult supervision.

      • josh says:

        Pretty sure I agree that it came to nothing. Just pointing out that they were nuts.

        The linked dispatch has the CIA declaring that it has the authority to set up the assassination of an American official “if necessary”. Whether they ever achieved mind-controlled hippy zombies is kind of beside the point.

  7. Toddy Cat says:

    “mind-controlled hippy zombies”

    Let’s leave the Obama Administration out of this.

  8. Vladimir says:

    To make things even more bizarrely intertwined, one of George Patton’s younger relatives was Lawrence Patton McDonald — the anti-communist and Bircher congressman who died on board the KAL007 plane, which was shot down by the Soviet air force under mysterious circumstances.

    Here’s an interesting video of McDonald shortly before his death, debating Pat Buchanan and Tom Braden:

    Whatever one makes of McDonald’s claims, it’s certainly fun to watch in action a real right-winger with a combination of balls, smarts, and a complete unwillingness to concede moral superiority to leftists — a species no longer found in politics anywhere.

  9. […] Under the Cathedral, perhaps the single greatest form of heresy is the denial blank-slate racial egalitarianism.  Nevermind that evolution and loads of data say racial egalitarianism is a fiction. This even strengthens the mindset of the believers, elevating such a belief to a religious doctrine, which means that those who poke holes in the dogma are castigated like heretics.  To the believers in the Cathedral, this is not a rational debate, it is an affront to their religious worldview — the religion being one of racial egalitarianism. […]

  10. VXXC says:

    Immigration: supervisor directed screen out success/admit lowlifes has been policy for years. Talk to Customs now ICE agents. They don’t want successful people, they want dependent.
    Success is not a criteria for the southern Hemisphere, just for instance Asians.

    I’ll take an anecdote over someone I know over 10,000,000 studies by Tyler Cowen or indeed all of academia. They’re paid to lie well and do…

  11. SOBL1 says:

    Forney has some good observations on the empty ’90s. Witherspoon’s character in Election is a great representation of the late Gen-X/GenY overachieving grrl power chicks I met in college. It’s the lack of conscience that always bothers me about those women. I always saw the ’90s as starting out good, but there’s a line where it turns bad. It’s around when rock went from alternative to limp bizkit-ish, pop got all spice girls/boy bandy and rap went to the puffy ghetto fabulous BS.

    • josh says:

      Moldbug has made a point of the crudity of early New Deal propaganda and how much more sophisticated people are today when it comes to certain kinds of propaganda. If you want to see something funny, watch PC go throught the same growing pains in the early 90s. I particularly recommend reruns of early 90s Beverly Hills 90210. Nothing is more early 90’s than Brandon Walsh bringing a homeless person to Thanksgiving.\ and how earnestly the show handled this absurdity. Well, maybe the AIDS episode.

  12. […] ensue as he keep his cool and patented sense of humor in a race meets gay meets sports story. (HT: Foseti) Where can I buy a bottle of that stuff? Does it come in the […]

  13. Bill says:

    That Marginal Revolution comment thread is disturbing — highly recommended. It’s a “right wing” blog, but the people who read it are completely insane Cultural Marxist dumb-bots.

  14. Prof. Steven Dutch’s essay on the death of Patton is worth a read: http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/ConspirThx.htm

    “Patton, like Douglas MacArthur, was an unfortunate mixture of personal courage, technical brilliance and toxic personality, and like MacArthur, a role model to three generations of mediocrities who equate pomp and nitpicking with excellence. Patton, correctly foreseeing that tensions would develop, wanted to go to war with Russia. If he had gotten his way, say in May or June, 1945, almost certainly the result would have been a catastrophic defeat. The fury of the Russians – not Stalin or the Politburo, but the Russian people – at being betrayed by their former Allies would have been unbounded. Here they’ve endured five years of slaughter at the hands of the Germans, only to be attacked by the West? World War II would have segued directly into World War III. By mid-1945, we had enough nuclear weapons to make the war dirty, not make a real difference. (And just imagine if the Russians captured one.) The Russians would have smashed their way to the Atlantic and the “Greatest Generation” would have died on the battlefield or in the Gulag.”

    • Red says:

      Prof. Steven Dutch is full of BS. Not only was the US feeding the entire Russian population but by early 1945 the Russians were completely out of manpower. There was simply no one left to send to the front.

      The Russians won WW2 while suffering 6 to 1 casualties. Loosing at anything like that rate against the Americans would have collapsed their entire army within in months of the start of combat. Considering Americans firepower superiority I think the rate would have been much worse.

      • It is worth considering exactly how the Russian casualty rate was distributed over time. That is, the two distinct phases of the Russian war (the shameful losing phase, with retreat after retreat, whole armies surrendering en masse, etc.) vs. the later victorious advance through Europe.

    • Tarl says:

      The Russians would have smashed their way to the Atlantic and the “Greatest Generation” would have died on the battlefield or in the Gulag.”

      At least they wouldn’t have gone home to sire the repulsive Boomers, heh heh heh.

    • Foseti says:

      Interesting read, but I strongly disagree about the prospects of the Russians against the allies and the Germans. If nothing else, they were incredibly dependent on supplies from the US

      • The dependence on Allied supply shipments was quite real, but arguably it was only a deciding factor while the Russians were in retreat.

        If the Western powers had been serious about conquering Russia, they would have had to join forces with Germany from the beginning. By the time Eastern Europe in Russian hands, it was rather too late. Who needs tinned beef from across the ocean when you control half a continent’s worth of agricultural output?

        This is without even considering the interesting possibility of a Russo-Japanese alliance. Or the Russian nuclear program. (By some accounts, Igor Kurchatov had a homegrown bomb design, which was – much later – proven viable. Beria insisted on using the concept stolen from America for the first production run, however.)

        And, interestingly, it is rather telling of how revolting the modern world situation is, when serious thinking people start wishing for World War 3 in retrospect.

      • The interesting question isn’t whether the Allies could have trashed Russia (probably yes, if they went all-out Hitler without asking the cost) – but what the cost would have been.

      • Red says:

        “The dependence on Allied supply shipments was quite real, but arguably it was only a deciding factor while the Russians were in retreat.”

        The factor was quite real as it freed up a huge amount of farmers to fight. Soviet farming was extremely manpower intensive. Hell, we even had to ship the Reds refined gasoline and diesel due to the lack of refining facilities with in the soviet union. There was no chance of the Red army getting passed Germany against the allies. The Red army was no joke, but it no longer had the man power to replace it’s losses nor the logistics to conquer the rest of Europe.

    • Anon says:

      It’s a worse counterfactual than most because anyone that spilled the beans or threatened to hinder the Soviets from the US in the immediate postwar era would be murdered. Patton would have had to win Civil War II before trying his hand at WWIII.

      • Red says:

        It wasn’t going to happen. Despite the propaganda about Patton being a war monger he seemed more interested in writing a book exposing Ike’s betrayal of the war effort in order to give the USSR half of Europe.

        MacArthur on the other hand just wanted to blow up Chinese ports to get the Chinese to withdraw. Mao’s own doctor confirmed that Mao planed to drop out if America strongly reacted to Chinese aggression. All the major communist powers were quite weak until the 1960s.

        Almost all the stuff written about American war mongers wanting to start WW3 was progressive propaganda cover their own asses as they handed nation after nation to the Reds.

      • Red says:

        Adding to the bit about Patton:
        After watching the Red army raping their way through eastern Europe Patton began to question if we had fought the wrong enemy. Despite the leadership of the Nazi’s being class A scumbags the average Nazi was much more civilized than the vast majority of the Russians were.

      • Tarl says:

        Despite the propaganda about Patton being a war monger he seemed more interested in writing a book exposing Ike’s betrayal of the war effort in order to give the USSR half of Europe.

        Yes and thus is why there was much more reason for the USA to whack him than the USSR.

        Despite the leadership of the Nazi’s being class A scumbags the average Nazi was much more civilized than the vast majority of the Russians were.

        Nah. The Germans behaved in Russia at least as badly as the Russians behaved in Germany – it’s just the Americans didn’t see it, they only saw the Russians getting their revenge.

  15. Among “moldbuggering” modern Russians [*], the behaviour of the Red Army marching through the conquered territories is often thought of as a marvel of saintly restraint. Considering that there still remains today on the map a country called Germany, inhabited by some number of living Germans.

    The penalty for rape and pillage in the Red Army was summary execution. And it was frequently carried out. The reality was of course more complicated (Gen. Zhukov’s pillage train, etc.) but the official policy of restraint was more than mere paper, and I find this interesting considering the fact that there was quite a score to be settled with the defeated “civilized Europeans.”

    [*] There is a vast undiscovered (to the Anglo eye) world of Russian “alt-right” thought, ranging from tedious Caesaropapist idiocy to the most exquisitely erudite Moldbuggery. I’d be rather surprised if anyone here has heard of it. Its basic foundation concept is that the same mechanisms of engineered social/cultural decay that are at work in the present-day West were used to culturally disassemble the USSR, and are still in use against its successor state. With the ultimate geopolitical objective being a “fair and international,” Brzezinskian divvying up of the planet’s “one sixths” and its natural resources.

    • Anon says:

      American alt-right types had to forsake our unqualified national pride in the Great Patriotic War a long time ago. Russian alt-righters have more fuel for pride, but they also have to accept that on some level their people were simply made useful and their national victories were partially engineered by strange power blocs that would do stuff like hand Eastern Europe to the USSR and murder Patton

      From the ’50s on nukes took center stage in the ruling class mind and communism concurrently lost its shine as a religious ideal. From then on USSR slowly became a target for dismemberment and humiliation again, in a process that accelerated over time as British and American commies with old loyalty retired, converted to New Left, or died, as a Russian alt-righter would likely think

    • Tarl says:

      The whole point of the Red Army turning a blind eye to “excesses” was to facilitate ethnic cleansing. Stalin did not want any Germans in “his” part of Germany or the part he planned to give to Poland. Rather than contend with deporting them after the war, the idea was to incentivize them to self-deport during the war. Revenge for German behavior in Russia + a solution to a possibly annoying postwar problem = WIN WIN.

  16. Toddy Cat says:

    Why any patriotic Russian would want to even remotely defend the USSR is beyond me. Communism damaged the entire world, but it damaged Russia most of all, and sacrificed the golden future that would have been Russia’s had Communism not triumphed in 1917. I understand national pride, but come on…

    • > Why any patriotic Russian would want to even remotely defend the USSR

      Let me try shedding some light on this mystery (it is only a mystery in the English-speaking world, really.)

      The culture of pre-1917 Russia was more or less deleted, and “the disk overwritten five times with walking bits.” The Earth where it stood was salted, etc. It lives on in the same place as the America of 1776. That is to say, two places: between the pages of history books; and in the diseased imaginations of cosplaying wankers. (I’m told that you can now major in “Cossack studies” in certain Russian unis.)

      The patriotic modern Russian thus has a choice between loving: 1) a culture represented entirely by cosplayers (the most influential among whom are foreign-financed and distinctly Brzezinskian, calling for “reparations” for the former colonies, in a way clearly reminiscent of the “reparations for slavery” crowd in America) or 2) the USSR, with all of the documented shenanigans thereof, but where “Stalin came into a land with only plows and left it with the atomic bomb.”

      This seems perverse to the uninitiated, but it is no more perverse than Bruce Charlton & co.’s argument in favor of a return to Christianity. I hold with Moldbug in that the 20th century wiped out traditional culture, at least in the West; and that we are stuck piecing a viable replacement together out of the rubble. That is, if thinking rationally, *all* of the high-quality rubble, not just the pre-1917 (or pre-1945) rubble.

      • Foseti says:

        I agree with much of that. But there’s no reason to accept the deletion of pre-1917 Russia. Carlyle refers to Frederick the Great’s time as the dryasdust, yet still wrote a massive biography praising Frederick.

      • Foseti,

        One can “reject the deletion,” but the modern Russian royalists tend to screw the pooch by calling for the return of the idiot dynasty which almost succeeded in permanently pissing away the nation’s sovereignty – rather than, say, a continuation of Peter the Great. One reason for this is that, like it or not, the latter hypothetical looks too much like the actual Stalin.

        It also does not help that the collapse of the USSR did not result in a free media. (What the hell is “a free media” in the real world, anyway? The New York Times, aka “The Grey Journal” per Moldbug?) The result (at least in the near term) was a continuation of Soviet-era propaganda, without skipping a beat, but *with the sign bit flipped.* So the “anti-Soviet” line is justly associated with the work of foreign stooges. Gorbachev, for instance, is widely seen as a stooge of foreign powers.

        Russians (at the least, other than the ones behind the tinted windows of a Mercedes) spit at the mention of “free market” and “privatization.” It is the duty of every intellectually-honest alt-right type to learn why this is, if he doesn’t already know.

      • Tarl says:

        The culture of pre-1917 Russia was more or less deleted, and “the disk overwritten five times with walking bits.” The Earth where it stood was salted, etc. It lives on in the same place as the America of 1776

        Never mind the America of 1776. Several Americas existed since then – 1783 to 1865, 1865 to 1933, 1933 to 1965. Those have all been wiped from the memory banks except as caricatures designed to highlight some political point that is important today.

        The American culture that existed as late as 1990 is also all but deleted these days, too. If you had asked me in January 1989, could a man like Obama be elected in 2009, I would have said, “No way in hell – not in America!” And he would not have been elected in 1989 America. Much has changed since then…

    • Tarl says:

      Why any patriotic Russian would want to even remotely defend the USSR is beyond me.

      The simple answer is WW2.

      The USSR, under Stalin, destroyed the Wehrmacht, which was bent on annihilating Russia as a people, a culture, and a power. Then Stalin conquered an empire from the Elbe to Port Arthur, turned Red China into a Soviet satellite state, and scared the shit out of the Americans. His successors might have dicked it all up, but you have to respect that achievement.

      • Popular “joke”:

        Anti-Soviet: “If only we’d surrendered to Germany, we could all be riding in Mercedes Benzes.”
        Pro-Soviet: “Yes, very true: as the seat leather.”

  17. […] Enlightenment continues. With so much to read and so little time, I point to Foseti’s randoms to help you keep pace this month. If you happen to follow news about politics, how vulgar, you might […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: