« Saturday in Paris ..... Observations by Fred | Main | Anti-Trump Recruiting? »

06 June 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

William R. Cumming

IMO Tyler represented many Texans. Oil made the modern Texas world also IMO. GCP had some interesting takes on current events. But both seemed to ground down to meaningless attacks also IMO! As my interest in SST is based on governance domestic and international, and the world-wide civil military interface both seemed to "know" they were right in their judgments.


David H.,

I agree entirely with your last sentence: the most enlightening experience that I had studying public opinion I had was trying to figure out "creationists" and other conspiracy theorists. It turns out, by usual measures, creationists are rather better informed about science and conspiracy theorists have a better understanding of politics, even if their conclusions might be "wrong." Usually, how people who get the answers "right" on such questions do what they do is not so much that they necessarily understand things better. (in fact, what science quizzes accompanying the surveys showed was that, other than yes/no answers on "do you believe world was created by God" or such, non-creationists are just as badly (or well-) informed on science facts as their creationist counterparts with similar education levels.) Rather, it is because they "trust" the "right" people, although, often, for the "wrong" reasons, while the "creationists" distrust them for the "right" reasons. An example is the biologist Richard Dawkins: his take on evolutionary biology is not the question, but the fact that he deliberately offends the religious cause the religious to distrust both him and what he advocates (e.g. evolution) while those who hold religion in low light hold up "evolution" because they like Dawkins and trust him.

The real insights, I've found, come not from whichever side X happens to be on, but by understanding how X got to that side and what keeps him/her there while taking both X and his/her understanding of the world seriously. So I learned not to pay attention to what people that I don't agree with have to say in single sentences, but I try to learn why they think what they do from multiple angles. This, unfortunately, is not a popular view: how often do we hear simpleminded declarations like "Trump is a bigot" or "Hillary Clinton is a crook"? They make it seem so obvious that they should not be trusted--yet, whether we agree with them or not, whether we like them or not, millions of people do like and support them. Are they doing it because they are dupes or bigots? Too many people, unfortunately, seem to take the easy step of doing just that. I think that's about the worst thing one can do, personally.


Why not cutting them off in each thread after the first inapropriate comment?
That will teach them (may be...) but I dunno if Typepad allows this to be done easily, may be more work.

Will Reks

I admit that I've contributed, in part, to at least one post being derailed recently. It was hard to ignore personal criticism while responding to substantive comments from other commenters here. I will do better.

I am sympathetic, even as someone that leans to the left, to many of Tyler's arguments about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration. Uncontrolled immigration combined with increasing automation and off-shoring of jobs are threats that could lower the living standards of all Americans other than the privileged elite. He has certainly pulled me closer to his side over the years and his arguments would be even stronger without the extra emotion.


"Uncontrolled immigration combined with increasing automation and off-shoring of jobs are threats that could lower the living standards of all Americans other than the privileged elite"

I would say that term "could" should be abandoned in favor of "did". Sadly, this is a reality today.

different clue


It might be just a long suspension to give Tyler and GCP time to learn to behave.



You are correct. I await their return without the personal attacks. With the Washington Post, Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo all conducting a determined campaign to assure that Hillary Clinton serves as the next war President; reasoned discourse is going fast. The forever wars, disaster capitalism and climate change guarantee that the chaos gripping the world is coming here. This has to be acknowledged in order to be prepared the best we can.


Colonel, if you remember, I am one of the few he picked on, not knowing me, he acused me of hiring illegal aliens, I don't mind, and I choose not to argue. I hope you let them back when you feel the behavior has become more fit to post comments on your site, which I know you require. Like the sauce Fred tested in entrecôte, having lots of flavors makes the meal more of an exprince than just feeding and nibbling.


Harsh but actions ultimately necessary to preserve the character and overall quality of the board,I long ago noticed Tyler mentioning 4chan's popular /pol/ forum and his assumed frequenting of it was reflected in both the views he expressed and the manner he often unfortunately chose to converse in. I see absolutely no problem with the former, it is the latter IMO which has really no place here and should not be tolerated.


I've always believed that he proprietor sets the rules. And that needs to be respected. And, some of the ad hominem exchanges reminded me of my days in union negotiations. I hope they come back with an appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this unique committee.


I was thinking of Tyler since I tend to read those who who think differently than I do in comments. Have no use for an echo chamber, though I also hope it applies to GCP.




Very insightful. It brings to mind the book Richard Sale spoke of by Ortega "The Revolt of the Masses", which is the one thing I've been trying to re-read since my trip to France. I had to take an internet vacation to have the clear mind to handle the subject. I hope to have something articulate to say about those thoughts soon.


(Sigh) Tyler and GCP need some keyboard discipline. A nice "Voxcation" would do wonders too. (Abstinence if you will, from Vox on the left and Voxday on the right; along with most of what is in-between.)


I use to enjoy setting Tyler off until he caught on to my underhanded tactics.
Someday they will both learn to argue ideas without the attached insults. Both Tyler and GCP are intelligent and have much to add to the discussions.



You sat me down in the penalty box almost a decade ago when I had first started commenting on SST.

Your e-mail advice to me after I tried to post a less-than-well-considered opinion was "don’t get swept away by your own cleverness", and I was indeed guilty of that sin.

I saved that e-mail and I re-read it periodically to remind myself that it's an honor to serve as a member of your committee of correspondence, and that this honor must be earned by civil and informed contributions to this virtual community.

Both Tyler and GCP have added many useful thoughts to the mix here, and hopefully some quality time in the penalty box will help them appreciate what you taught me many years ago.



Tidewater to All,

I think that Turcopolier is reminding all of us here that we must hold fast to the self-knowledge that has been instilled in us by our maturity and training. Both inside the dojo, and certainly on the outside as well, one must always remember one's shaolin roots!! It is only in the intense discipline and the pacifistic spirit of the Dojo Kun that one can maintain the 'Violent Calm' that is the ideal.

In the down-time I recommend to Tyler and Gulf Coast Pirate "The Challenge of Sam-Moo-Rhai to Samurai Jack." Also "Samurai Jack v the Sam-Moo-Rhai." For all American Frontier Forces, "Samurai Jack v Assassin droids." These can be found on YouTube.

Inasmuch as Tyler was the one who brought up "Genghis John" Boyd --whose Wiki entry is worth reading-- the genius who invented the OODA curve ("deeply relevant to any kind of competitive environment: business, politics, sports, even the struggle of organisms to survive"; and as I see there is an essay by a strategy writer called Robert Greene who discussed the loop in a post called "OODA and you," I recommend that as well. I am surprised to read that lawyers are now using this OODA loop. (I wonder what a judu master like Putin would say about it?)

I can't help thinking that the biography of Colonel Boyd would make a wonderful basis for an invented character--a star-ship trooper-- in a science fiction novel. Lot of good invective going on within the platoon, too, maybe? Just saying. (Thanks for the serendipitous byproduct.) Later, gators...

David Habakkuk


Trying to get my thoughts clear about all this brought me back to Trump.

Back in February, the ‘Washington Post’ published a story headlined ‘In supposed no-go zone, British Muslims, Christians say no to fanatics’. It opened: ‘When Donald Trump raised the specter of Muslim-dominated no-go zones in London, Britons from the prime minister on down responded with indignation.’ The concluding paragraph read:

‘“We’ve got two options,” said Peter Adams, who leads inter-faith efforts at St. Mary’s, the 12th-century church in Luton’s town center. “Kill each other and divide. Or get to know each other and learn to become friends.”’

(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-supposed-no-go-zone-british-muslims-christians-say-no-to-fanatics/2016/02/04/bd2bcba2-ba11-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html .)

The report is accompanied by a picture of a menacing-looking figure called Stephen Lennon, about whom it writes:

‘Lennon, however, is no ordinary young white lad: Under the alias Tommy Robinson, he’s the driving force behind a national movement that seeks to ban Muslim immigration to Britain and advocates tearing down many of the country’s mosques. Community leaders say that as much as anyone, Lennon is responsible for stoking inter-faith tensions in a town that has become synonymous in Britain with extremism – both Islamist and Islamophobic.’

Earlier, in November, the ‘Washington Post’ had published a report entitled ‘London police offer Donald Trump a reality check’, quoting a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police, the city’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, and the (Muslim) Labour politician who later won the election to succeed him, Sadiq Khan. All treated Trump’s claims with withering contempt.

(See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/08/london-police-offer-donald-trump-a-reality-check/ .)

In fact, several British tabloids quoted anonymous British police officers saying that simply to dismiss what Trump was claiming was nonsense. See, for example, a report in the ‘Mail’.

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3352406/Scotland-Yard-mocks-Trump-s-claims-London-police-terrified-Muslim-areas-officers-claim-tycoon-RIGHT.html .)

Actually more than thirty years ago I wanted to make a programme about the politics of Docklands.

My purpose would not have been to ‘take sides’. What fascinated me were the ambiguous conflicts between ‘Old Labour’ in the area, traditionally suspicious of the immigrant population which always comes into port areas, elements in that immigrant population, and the new – left-wing – Labour people who came out of the student radicalism of the ‘Seventies.

My editor complained that there wasn’t a proper ‘story’. But underneath this, I thought, lay a deep discomfort and distaste for confronting the kind of questions which such an investigation might raise.

But then, as so often, one comes up against odd paradoxes. That editor’s politics were not mine, but we were both broadly ‘centrist’.

In relation both to Docklands, and many other matters in London as in Birmingham, what I found was that the people who were most likely to tell it ‘as it was’ were either a good way to the left of me, or a good way to the right. Sometimes this was because they had their own agendas, and it served these to give accurate information to a television journalist.

At other times, however, I thought it was simply because they were interested in the world.

As to journalists, some are interested in the world, some are not. The ‘WAPO’ articles I have cited are actually of very great significance, precisely because their clear underlying intention is to defend an orthodoxy – interest in the world is conspicuous by its absence.

If you are interested in the world, as a journalist, there are in my view a number of ‘rules of thumb’.

One is – be cautious about prejudgements about who is intelligent, and who stupid. One can talk to professors from famous universities, and come away thinking – these people are charlatans. One can talk to other professors, from the same or similar universities, and recognise that one is in the presence of high intelligence and integrity.

Likewise, one can talk to ill-educated soldiers, and find oneself dealing with people who are simply stupid – but one may also learn much more from an intelligent former sergeant, or indeed a ‘mouthy grunt’, who never even made it to NCO, than one would talking to most officers.

Another ‘rule of thumb’ is that in general it is very foolish to condescend, or indeed appear to condescend, to people. Yet another is that it is not helpful if people to whom one is talking think you are a fool.

I have already gone on long enough, but I found that I somewhat different forms these principles worked well enough, not only dealing with the realities of my own country, but with those of others which I was even less well equipped to understand.

So, for example, in relation to the – fascinating – question of the role of Ahmed Chalabi in our catastrophic mishaps in Iraq, I have a lingering suspicion that the likes of Perle, Wolfowitz and the Wurmsers violated both those last two principles.

As a refugee from the collapse of the Hashemite Kingdom in Iraq, Chalabi is likely to have had to put up with a great deal of condescension.

But, at the same time, he was dealing with people who actively wanted him to tell them what they were desperate to hear – in particular, that there was some magic way in which Muslims in the Middle East could be made to accept the presence of a Jewish settler state imposed by infidel 'Crusaders' …

That in acting, in effect, as an agent-of-influence of the theocratic regime in Tehran, Chalabi could be seen as a ‘rational actor’ in the terms beloved of economists has long seemed to me plausible.

However, I am sceptical as to whether that was the whole story. And perhaps, it would help if some of the classics of American literature were taught in ‘political science’ courses. In Melville’s last published novel, ‘The Confidence Man’, a character ruminates:

‘Was the man a trickster, it must be more for the love than the lucre. Two or three dirty dollars the motive to so many nice wiles?’

(See http://www.online-literature.com/melville/confidence-man/23/ .)


I hope to see them both back as they added an interesting perspective after they have spent some time in the sin bin.
May I recommend clearing brush as a suitable punishment? Not something I would like to do in Texan summer heat, but there is something with such labor that clears the mind.


It's the Colonel's site and his rules he's right and well within his rights to demand a basic level of courtesy which in all honesty is not that difficult to achieve .

For myself I got awfully tired of the endless ad hominems and insults from Tyler and a few others but in particular Tyler - that sort of thing might work when preaching to the converted for me it just gave me lots of material to use along the lines of "do you really want to be associated with that?" and "this is what they're like do you really want a society where that sort of behaviour is commonplace?". In a way I'll miss having such easy targets but since when has shooting fish in a barrel been fun?

The same applied to GCP it just got deathly dull reading his comments although perhaps it was a case of them bringing out the worst in each other.


David H.,

Your experience with "centrists vs 'extremists'" seems to echo mine.

What I came to suspect is that the term "centrism" is a bit of lie: most "centrists" are people who are happy with the status quo more or less and are uninterested in effecting serious change. They want to keep things as they are, and as such, they are willing to wrap themselves in fantasies and untruths if necessary, until the truth stares them in their faces. Extremists, regardless of the direction they are interested in, are unhappy with the status quo for good reasons, about which they have no reason to be dishonest about. To "stress test" the status quo, you need to talk to extremists and understand why they are extremists, even if you do not share their beliefs.


I'd like to make a rhetorical statement, even though I understand that SST is Col. Lang's own and what he chooses to do is to be accepted. I didn't read the exchange between Tyler and GCP, but I know the score and I'm sure the ban was inevitable. Even then...

I disagree with the ban on Tyler because in my view Tyler is in fact at war with people like GCP and it would be fair pennance for white people who voted for Obama to watch such war unfold before their eyes even if they are aloof enough not to understand that what they are seeing is to a great extent the result of their own voting choices.

Those who have read Tyler since he started commenting know that he is very intelligent, very perceptive and writes very well. In my view he says nothing that isn't true, and his radicalization comes from the fact that he has to deal with the excesses resulting from the general anti white Obama policies in a daily basis.

Now as I see it, the same white people who voted for Obama because of his outsider appeal are coalescing behind Sanders which is, to me, in social terms, a continuation of the Obama anti white agenda (whereas Hillary is a continuation of the Obama imperial policies.) So, as I see it from my third world country, in a sense, voting for Sanders, who sits quietly in the background while fat BLM activists scream in the faces of his very white supporters, is nothing but a vote for poor whites be damned, even if the mask of fake socialism may hide its true face. In that light, I think that while all americans, and the world at large, will suffer the consequences of a Hillary presidency and thus recognize they are in the same boat, a Sanders presidency will be a further step into white dispossession and ethnic civil war.

So, I think those who voted for Obama must endure a radicalized Tyler the same way they must endure Trump, because whatever we create we must endure. I repeat, Tyler could be writing very, very thoughtfully and extensivelly about just every topic in the broad spectrum of knowledge that is SST, but at this moment he knows what is most relevant and he wants to speak out. A ban on Tyler right now is no different from denying Trump his rightful candidature. Those are voices that must be heard at last.

I also think that the only reasonable voting choice for those whites who voted for Obama is to abstain. Trump is a living reminder that you chose wrong, so it is understandable that you do not feel right voting for him, Sanders is a second kick in the face of a very enraged white stray dog (not wholly unrelated to that churchillian black dog of the picture in that dreadful post anouncing the coming end of SST) and Hillary is the best chance of cleansing this planet of the human race.

So, Tyler is true of heart, he brings to the surface the real consequences of irresponsible and widespread use affirmative action, the criminal practice that is disparate impact, the toxic ethnic activism disguised as social justice, the imbalances caused by uncontrolled immigration and all the ills that poorer white folk have to endure so people like GCP can feel morally superior while living in his almost wholly white enclave.

I would rather not be offensive, but I will to those deserving it. Tyler's voice is the voice of those of a younger generation accusing the greedy cowards who so willingly fell for ethnic manipulation disguised as progressivism of having betrayed their future for money and peace of mind.

Without further ado, I'd like to quote Malkina (I will not elaborate how this is related because I already wrote enough):

"We, of course, are another matter. It is our faintness of heart that has driven us to the edge of ruin. Perhaps you won't agree but nothing is crueler than a coward. And the slaughter to come is probably beyond our imagining."



OK. Oh, mighty one, when should I let them in back in and which? pl


Purity of certain ideas even trumps manners... got it.



Thanks for your thoughtful response.

We are faced with complex social dynamics and suppressing real feelings and circumstances under the guise of being PC is never good. It is a combination of burying one's head in the sand and playing the game of expedience. Unskilled immigrants always threatened the livelihood of the working class. Yet they shared the same sense of being used by the elites.

The sexual exploitation of young white girls by men of Pakistani descent and the lack of a will to investigate by officialdom in Rotherham and other cities speaks to both the travesty of PCness as well as the disdain by these new immigrants of their adopted land.

As you decide on Brexit in the next few weeks, I am amused at the vitriol and how the Tories are fracturing. In a recent story I read about how in France the euroskeptic sentiment is even more strong than the UK and just below Greece. France is a good example where all sides favor statism. However, Le Pen is articulating a viewpoint of loss of culture and sovereignty.

We are clearly approaching a fork in the road in the west where slowly the body politic is beginning to grasp that the elites don't care about them and the elites use the full power of their control to manufacture consent. These kinds of social environments have lead to war in the past as political leaders try to focus attention on some common enemy rather than have it be at their mendacity.

Babak Makkinejad

I agree with you.

I tired of all these manner-less, impolite people who seem to think that by the virtue of their age or class or sex or race they can be rude to others.

In UK, no one younger than 30 has any manners....and that has been the case for decades.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad