Indefinite suspension for cause.

I have decided to suspend both "Gulf Coast Pirate" and "Tyler" indefinitely for ad hominem attacks and shrill remarks unsuitable to SST.  pl

This entry was posted in Ukraine Crisis. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to Indefinite suspension for cause.

  1. Ishmael Zechariah says:

    Colonel Lang,
    I am sorry to see Tyler go.
    Ishmael Zechariah

  2. YT says:

    Poor Tyler…
    Col. sir, is it possible for me to have his email address?

  3. steve says:

    I hope it is not permanent. While I disagree with almost everything he says I think he truly does care about the country and has some sense of integrity and consistency.

  4. turcopolier says:

    Which one? pl

  5. I am sorry to see Tyler go.
    While I disagree with a lot of what he says, on some matters – like the absolutely imperative need to control mass immigration, alike in the United States and Europe – I completely agree with him. And I also like him.
    To anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, it is has been clear for years that a kind of ‘white backlash’ has been brewing, on both sides of the Atlantic. It would have greatly helped us all if the general response of élites had not been characterised by an ugly combination of myopia, condescension and evasiveness.

  6. Colonel says:

    I was wondering when you would lock Tyler’s heels. I hope he’ll learn to control his anger and be permitted to return. (as well as GCP). Tyler’s obviously a well read and intelligent young soldier. Although I seldom agree with him ( I fail to understand his romance with the buffoon Trump) when you sift through his messages and filter out the personal attacks he has interesting points to make.
    Old Gun Pilot

  7. Jack says:

    I’m not questioning your decision. I recognize your even-handedness and rationale to maintain decorum at SST.
    However, as we’ve seen with the straw poll some months back, the majority of SST correspondents tend to lean rather left. Tyler’s viewpoint IMO is an important one. We could all of course request a toning down of the heat but as I see it we are going through a passionate period of politics in the west. Witness the vitriol of the campaign for the Presidency in Austria and the recent campaign for Mayor in Rome and the Brexit campaign in the UK. The Borg is going all out to maintain the status quo. Those of us opposed to the supremacy of the Borg are inherently disadvantaged. And in particular those of us opposed to the continued growth in big and bigger government interfering in more and more aspects of our lives are truly in the minority. I hope you will reconsider and allow both GCP and Tyler to share their perspectives.

  8. rjj says:

    was getting flashbacks:
    kids in the back seat of a car on an interminably long sunday drive – expecting apoplectic driver with a bad case of the stares to start with wild backhand swats from the front seat.

  9. Daniel Nicolas says:

    Perhaps they will plead their case for reinstatement at a later date. Sometimes good minds can become blind for a time, but often see the light later.

  10. turcopolier says:

    I will let them sit in the penalty box for a while to cool off. pl

  11. LG says:

    Thank you. I like them both, Tyler in particular.

  12. Jack and others,
    They have not been summarily executed, just suspended. They know the rules. They took their chances. I’m sure neither of them have lost the will to live over this. Don’t worry. We will ALL get this.
    Yes, this is pretty damned sarcastic for me.

  13. The Sheep Look Up says:

    Is this because of the ((( ))) echo effect?

  14. Joe100 says:

    I have found Tyler’s substantive input quite valuable – specifics on police and border security situations and issues, etc. (including gun recommendations). This is insight and perspective that is absent in my “community” (pretty lefty) outside of SST.
    Tyler’s tone has clearly and unfortunately gotten pretty shrill of late – I hope he can return to his former quite valuable self after a “time out”.
    In my work area over the past three decades (far from foreign affairs) the only hope I can see for real domestic progress is to elect a President not linked to either political party establishment (like Trump). I have found that similar “deep states” (with some minor variations) blocking productive work exist on both sides of my issues.

  15. turcopolier says:

    It is because of a general lack of civility. What can I say? I am old and old fashioned. pl

  16. Robb says:

    No argument from me, the comments and discussion were becoming unreadable.

  17. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Same here, and that sentiment applies to both Tyler and GCP. They have their blinders (but so do almost all of us) that drive us nuts when we don’t agree with their worldview, but it is also fairly obvious why they think what they do.

  18. All,
    I learnt, long ago, as a generalist television current affairs producer, that if you want to understand how the world works, you need both the ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ views.
    And one of the views one most needs is that of the ‘intelligent worm’.
    Do not think that is condescension, it isn’t.
    If you want to understand contemporary British politics, you need, among other things, to understand what happened in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.
    (See .)
    If one had wanted to make a programme about this before the scandal broke, it would have been necessary to talk to people who had been there, on the ground, and wanted to understand what had happened and tell others about it.
    In my experience, the question of whether people have the experience that enables them to know the truth, and the desire to tell it, has only a distant connection to their professed political beliefs.
    Indeed, in dealing with ‘grassroots’ British politics, I commonly found that people way to the ‘right’ of me, or way to the ‘left’ of me, were much more useful than those who shared my, broadly centrist, political beliefs.
    Anyone who thinks that the people who are to be trusted are those who share, or profess to share, their own view of the world, is a moron.

  19. Bobo says:

    I can only applaud your patience in corralling those two as they can be a little out there at times though they do add to the conversation. I can only wait to see Tyler experience and write future articles on the level of Fred’s travels but then that only comes over time.
    I’m attempting to get my older grandkids to regularly read this blog for educational purposes so before you let them back tell them to knock this pseudo-sexual crap off as I do not want my daughter berating me for bringing S&M sites to the children.

  20. Jack says:

    “Anyone who thinks that the people who are to be trusted are those who share, or profess to share, their own view of the world, is a moron.”
    Would you care to elaborate?

  21. Medicine Man says:

    Not that you need my encouragement, Col., but I think you made the right decision. A few years back you commented, in the wake of a shooting I believe, that the only way for people to productively discuss topics of passionate disagreement was with as much deliberate dispassion as possible. It was as true a statement as any I’ve heard.
    While I largely agree with your other commenters that Tyler’s PoV is important and that he has some interesting things to say — I know that I’ve read some of his passages with great interest — I’m not going to claim that I particularly like him nor am I going to plead for his reinstatement. On the contrary, I think you should have a three-strikes rule on your blog, perhaps measured retroactively, and those who persistently decide to disregard your instructions on how to behave on SST get shown the door permanently. I don’t think Tyler would be the only one, but he would certainly be at the front of the column of exiles.

  22. fanto says:

    thank you for decisive action. I am old fashioned as well and have low tolerance for rambling.

  23. 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.

  24. kao_hsien_chih says:

    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.

  25. jld says:

    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.

  26. Will Reks says:

    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.

  27. SmoothieX12 says:

    “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.

  28. different clue says:

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

  29. VietnamVet says:

    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.

  30. Kooshy says:

    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.

  31. Serge says:

    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.

  32. BabelFish says:

    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.

  33. steve says:

    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.

  34. Fred says:

    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.

  35. Fred says:

    (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.)

  36. optimax says:

    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.

  37. Cieran says:

    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.

  38. Tidewater says:

    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…

  39. Jack,
    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 .)
    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 .)
    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 .)
    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 .)

  40. FkDahl says:

    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.

  41. Dubhaltach says:

    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.

  42. kao_hsien_chih says:

    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.

  43. Anonymous says:

    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.”

  44. turcopolier says:

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

  45. ked says:

    Purity of certain ideas even trumps manners… got it.

  46. Jack says:

    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.

  47. Babak Makkinejad says:

    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.

  48. Babak Makkinejad says:

    That is fine but can either of these gentlemen (one would hope) agree to refrain from ad hominem attacks as a condition of reinstatement?
    Some expression of contrition perhaps?

  49. turcopolier says:

    Pete Deer
    “you’ve compared the conversation of this committee of correspondence to being invited into your house.” I have not said that. Others here have said that. pl

  50. Daniel says:

    Pat Lang
    Thanks for enforcing this. I am one reader who would frequently cringe at those attacks, and appreciate your bringing renewed order into the house. The discussion here is valuable, maybe unique on the internet, so should not be allowed to decay.

  51. elkern says:

    Having been on the receiving end of Tyler’s venom too often, all I can say is “good riddance”. No other contributor to this Committee of Correspondence uses personal abuse so regularly. I abandoned all attempts at reasoned discourse with him years ago.
    As the kids would write, DFTT.
    IIRC, this is not the first time Tyler has earned a time-out. Col Lang, do you have a three-strikes-you’re-out policy?

  52. Pete Deer,
    I’m the one who made the analogy about being in ColonelLang’s living room. I did that three years ago. The colonel would never be so pompous as to do that. As an outsider, I chose to revel in that particular act of pomposity. But I stand by what I said.

  53. LeeG says:

    Thanks, Tyler’s personal attacks were going off the rails

  54. jld says:

    I find it a bit strange that so many Tyler bashers are showing late to the party while earliest comments were somehow balanced.

  55. K says:

    “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.”
    My sense of Tyler is that he is an ordinary white-skinned English-only Texan: a relatively recent immigrant from another part of the country whose family moved there because of the oil and real-estate boom in the 80s (and thus lack any actual roots in the land or culture), completely lacking any understanding, appreciation, or knowledge of history (whether locally, nationally, or globally), dismissive of how violent oppression affects communities and individuals, radicalized by years of right-wing lies from the “Whites Only” social/political circles in that region, in denial about how abusive “Whites Only” political/economic/legal/enforcement policies have empowered him relative to colored people, obstinately hostile to any scientific evidence that doesn’t support views that would maintain and expand his relative empowerment and privilege to colored people, embittered that his empowerment relative to colored people is slowly being eroded as his economic inequality relative to white elites is steadily magnified, prone to blaming colored people (especially Spanish speakers)for his steadily expanding poverty relative to white elites, and largely lacking any grip at all on how fundamental economic and legal causes-and-effects work – mostly because he can’t conceive of anyone who isn’t white as deserving the same respect and value he gives to other white people.
    And i say that as a white-skinned Texan whose ancestors lived in that region for thousands of years: i’ve met his sort many, many times. They are abundant in that region, and represent most of what most people in the world despise about Texas.
    I can personally testify that nearly all of what he says about “immigrants” (read: Spanish or Spanish-English speakers, but before “Mexicans” there were always others: Vietnamese, “Blacks”, etc) is categorically false and inaccurate. I have worked closely with such people and they have always been among the most diligent, cooperative, and skilled people i have known; but of course they are the original inhabitants of that land (Tejas, originally – not Texas), they are Catholic, they speak a different language, they have close ties to the land and indigenous peoples, and they generally maintain close ties to their extended family, so that makes them seem quite threatening to protestant white people whose blue-collar parents moved down to Texas as they fled the fading Rust Belt back during the 80s and 90s.

  56. turcopolier says:

    “My sense of Tyler is that he is an ordinary white-skinned English-only Texan: a relatively recent immigrant from another part of the country whose family moved there because of the oil and real-estate boom in the 80s (and thus lack any actual roots in the land or culture), completely lacking any understanding, appreciation, or knowledge of history (whether locally, nationally, or globally), dismissive of how violent oppression affects communities and individuals, radicalized by years of right-wing lies from the “Whites Only” social/political circles in that region, in denial about how abusive “Whites Only”” From what I know of Tyler I think you have mischaracterized him and I am going to let him out of the penalty box at least temporarily so that he can respond to your description of him. pl

  57. Fred, kao_hsien_chih, Jack,
    The caravan is moving on, but I have been pondering your comments (a lot to think about.)
    The reference to Ortega’s work made me think again about an interesting man called Christopher Lasch, who published in 1995 a book entitled ‘The Revolt of the Elites.’ I have not read it, any more than Ortega, but did read an earlier book he wrote entitled ‘The True and Only Heaven: Progress and Its Critics.’
    From a piece on Lasch which appeared in March 2013 on a British site called ‘Spiked-Online.’
    “Before his tragic death from cancer (at the young age of 61), Lasch worked on The Revolt of the Elites. Here he elaborated on prior arguments, with a focus on an angle that had preoccupied him his entire career: the exposure of elitism. He particularly called out liberals, saying that their condescension towards the values of ‘Middle America’ created a space for Republicans to appear on the side of the masses. Liberalism had ‘no particularly solid and rooted constituency outside of the rootless professional class’ and lacked a vision of society, he said. That meant ‘the ascendancy of the new class rests not on its secure command of an intellectual and political tradition, but on its imagined superiority to the average unenlightened American bigot’. Lasch argued that today’s liberal elites have ‘the vices of the aristocracy without its virtues’.”
    (See .)
    As so often, writers do not need to be, as it were, swallowed whole.
    However, I do think that Lasch hit quite a large number of nails on the head. Among other things, ‘the vices of the aristocracy without its virtues’ seems to me an absolutely apt description of, among other, Bill and Hilary Clinton, and Tony and Cherie Blair.
    An interesting puzzle is why figures like David Cameron, George Osborne, and Boris Johnson, whose backgrounds are much closer to being ‘aristocratic’, are so similar to the Clintons and Blairs.
    Another point which I think Lasch brings out is that while the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ work some of the time, at other times they really can obfuscate and stop people talking to each other.
    In particular, when it comes to the ‘invade the world, invite the world’ approach, which in my view is at the heart of our current problems, this is really not a simple left-right issue. Moreover, contrary to what the Clintons may think, the belief that ‘multiculturalism’ has run amuck is emphatically not restricted to a kind of bigoted ‘underclass’ which is ultimately politically insignificant.
    Precisely because of that, I think a great deal of what Tyler says – among other things, his blunt descriptions of the realities of control, or lack of it, on the border with Mexico – should be of interest to very many people who would violently disagree with him on many things.
    I think that more people would be in a position to learn from what he has to say if he sometimes kept his temper, and the ‘hooligan streak’ which I actually rather like, under better control.

  58. optimax says:

    Tyler does not even live in Texas. Your premise is off by two states.

  59. elkern says:

    jld –
    I didn’t want to waste time rehashing my experience with Tyler’s lack of manners, so I held off on commenting. But I was dismayed to see so many voices here supporting him (comments dated before mine ran roughly 2-to-1 supporting him, by my count). Anonymous’s post (which I read as “it’s OK for Tyler to talk nasty because I agree with him”) pushed me over the edge.
    Democracy cannot survive without some mutual respect among citizens, and Tyler’s posts have rarely exhibited any respect for those of us with different perspective. No other commenter here has a similar record of personal attacks.
    Like several commenters above, I come here for different perspectives on what’s happening in our world (as well as cutting-edge info on foreign policy). Modern technology (Internet, 900-channel cable TV) has led too many people to gather info only from sources which reinforce their ideas, and converse only with people who share their perspective. That’s a dead end.
    I heartily embrace TTG’s formula for civility here (“Col Lang’s living room”).
    Maybe I’m just an old prude.

  60. K says:

    I thought you might. 😉 I’m curious to hear what he has to say, as well.
    I do hope both you and he note that most of what i talked about was “Whites Only rhetoric” – and his faith in that.
    The color of his skin and his linguistic capabilities are a relatively small part of my estimation of him. Growing up in Texas, i met quite a few “Whites Only” Spanish speakers and former slaves, as well.
    They are complicit, by no means independent, and my comments about their awareness of history would be either much more cutting, or doubled – depending on their personal circumstances

  61. K says:

    For my part, Tyler and I have had a tense relationship for many years. Lately, i do give him credit: i have felt his opinions and observations have matured, somewhat, but i have also resented in him what i perceive – perhaps wrongly – to be a sense of “I served in the military, so i deserve a louder voice regardless of the issue.”
    I have certainly discovered in him that particularly British affliction, the profound disgust with anyone who claims to live or have rights “from the land” but is not from Britain – and that is something i will not ever compromise upon.
    There are many, many, many men and women in Texas who believe that, and many of those are in the police force. They will challenge you with that sort of talk while holding a firearm at their side, as they bicker with you over the sorts of vegetation growing along the lot-lines.
    I respect people who have served in the military, but I also expect them to respect those of us who did not approve nor promote the wars they fought in. I know that’s very, very difficult for young soldiers, but that doesn’t make it any easier to deal with their inclination to use battlefield rhetoric against people they perceive as public opponents.
    Lastly, i check this blog when i can. When i have free time and choose to read the news, it is a daily (or hourly, if the conversation is good) destination.
    I have not had much free time, lately. I was slow to catch the news.

  62. Tyler says:

    What the hell are you talking about? I’m an East Coaster who moved to Arizona, to begin with. The rest of your analysis is so ridiculous and rote it sounds like you got it off a HuffPaint article generator.
    Here’s the thing with your pop psycho-analysis BS: It reveals the inability of you and the rest of the (((Fifth Columnists))) here to think outside your paradigm. You can’t visualize why someone might think different than what you do, because your spun sugar narrative can’t handle things like “IQ is genetic” or “Men are born men and women are born women” so you invent these models that only exist inside your head like “race is a social construct” or “genderbread man” (google it). Cute little sound bites that allow you to moral signal to other white goodthinkers that you are a goodthinker and oh so virtuous.
    With your basic inability to grasp facts exposed, the rest of your essay – based off of Magic Dirt theory that never seems to exist reality, is exposed as a fraud. Maybe you’re a Texan? Maybe you’re even white? I don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were another self flagellating white who gets off on his racial masochism.
    However reality doesn’t care about your moral signaling BS and all the outliers you try to hold up and shout “See! See!” when all one has to do is 1) look at what is happening across the nation and 2) see how white goodthinkers like yourself ACT vs. What you say (self segregating yourself in ultra white/Asian zip codes while claiming you love minorities). This is why Emperor Trump (PBUH)continues to rise and your desperation is more apparent as we get closer to November.
    The thing is I am always right in regards to you and the rest of the leftist idiots on here (elkern, dubaltach, ulenspiegel GCP, edward amenes, laura, nancy k, will reks, OTHERS) who constantly spew the same prog talking points over and over again and are immune to the concentrated facts I have to lay at your feet while I watch you dig yourself into the sand further so you don’t commit crime think.
    When I mock you and your ilk as you all so richly deserve, its because I am tired of having to listen to your idiotic drivel, having to scroll past the tiresome nonsense you claim to believe while you live an entirely different way, your worldview so twisted you can’t even say men should stay out of women’s bathrooms. When I see elkern and dubaltach cry about me being mean, it is absolutely glorious because it further reinforces my worldview that they are mental midgets who have nothing to discuss because they can’t even handle my rhetoric, let alone engage in the dialectic about world spanning issues. Even with my splenic venting, people still appreciate what I say because they know I speak from a place of knowledge. These two (and others!) could leave tomorrow, never come back and the only thing people would notice would that the quality of commentary has improved drastically
    I’ll take my time in the penalty box because its worth it so you know absolutely how low I think of you prog cucks whenever I have to waste my time scrolling past your babble to read the words of intellectual GIANTS like Habakkuk, Brenner , Ali, and all the rest who I see striding across this landscape like Titans and am so fortunate to learn from. I’d no sooner go after them like I do some of you then I would attack a tank with a rock because they are men who speak with authority, while you leftist shills are nothing but meat that can make words.
    “Anonymous” above has it dead to rights correct. We are indeed at war with each other, I’m just open about it.
    Okay, back to the Island of Misfit Toys with me. Thank you Colonel Lang for the opportunity to engage once again.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Col Lang, I plead you allow Tyler one comment per post, free of constraints, so he is not tempted to answer to all the points that distress him, but focus on some important matter.
    I disagree with your characterization of Tyler regarding the “right-wing lies”, because he has a very similar viewpoint to mine and I’m a brazilian, that is, someone who comes from a country that liberal America aspires to become, and I come from a completelly different worldview.
    As for GCP, the right thing to do is to be magnanimous and impartial. Even handed, I’d say. I mean let us hang him from his pair of scrawny hands, let him dry an make a rug out of his piratic skin. As he is an agitator, what about banning him from posts about internal american affairs and watch him squirm?
    Oh, let them be gentlemen and agree to speak one comment per post for a while, but not ban. Let the belonging to the Most Noble Order of The Banned be something the likes of LeaNder and me could bragg about and, you know, mumble about, mumble about, mumble about… You keep Tyler and GCP, we keep our lamentation rights!

  64. Anonymous says:

    By the gods!!! I don’t know how, but I missed the quotes in your comment, Col. Lang! Apologies. It was complete misfire.

  65. Babak Makkinejad says:

    During the period of exile and contrition, you may find reading this site informative – if not amusing:

  66. turcopolier says:

    I am going to let both of them out and then wait to see what happens. pl

  67. Fred says:

    You met former slaves? Where were they from since there aren’t any 150 year old people alive on this planet.

  68. K,
    Perhaps you can now tell us where you come from, and where you have lived.
    You invented a biography for Tyler which, as quite a few of us could have told you, had no relation to reality.
    And you now tell us that:
    “I have certainly discovered in him that particularly British affliction, the profound disgust with anyone who claims to live or have rights “from the land” but is not from Britain – and that is something i will not ever compromise upon.”
    I must ask you – what is your experience of Britain? Are you British by origin? Were you born here? If now, when and where have you lived here?
    Actually, as someone who is of mixed Welsh, English and Scottish ethnic origin, Southern English by upbringing, and, in a way, Anglo-Jewish by culture, I could discourse to you for a long time about the complexities of this country.
    What you would find – here as elsewhere – is incredible diversity.
    And certainly, one strand you will find is xenophobia.
    However, if you think that xenophobia is distinctively British, I have to ask: what planet are you living on?
    As it happens, both my wife’s parents and my father come from ‘port’ cultures: East End London in her case, Barry in South Glamorgan in mine.
    Such a background takes people different ways. In both our cases, it means that we instinctively like immigrants, when they are people who want to settle here, and assimilate.
    But, by the same token, I also have no difficulty whatsoever understanding the kind of anger which Tyler has so regularly expressed.
    Certainly in this country, this is not simply a product of the kind of ‘nativist’ xenopobia to which you refer.
    Going back to Enoch Powell’s time, it has a very great deal to do with a – very well justified – sense on the part of large elements of the indigenous population that crucial parts of what are actually ‘native’ élites have a complete disregard for their interests and a complete contempt for their culture.
    Ironically, if you want a better understanding of Britain, I would recommend to you a piece recently posted by Philip Giraldi, under the title ‘The Bill and Hillary Show’.
    (See .)
    It is the peculiar combination of condescension and a comprehensive reluctance to grasp that ‘multiculturalism’ really does have problems displayed by people like the Clintons and the Blairs which is largely responsible for the kind of shambles in which we now find ourselves.
    My own view – but I am twice Tyler’s age – is that it would be much better if he expressed himself more temperately.
    In part this is precisely because what he can report, out of direct experience, both in relation to what is actually happening along the border with Mexico, and as a sometime ‘mouthy grunt’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, might then find a wider audience.
    But if one wants to defuse the angers which have been building up, insofar as that is possible, one needs first of all to grasp the long history that lies behind them.

  69. Will Reks says:

    You should correct yourself of the notion that Americans, liberal or not, want the United States to be anything like Brazil, a third world nation with first world pretensions. Good luck with the Olympics and do invest in a good mosquito net.

  70. Tyler says:

    Took them a while to come out from behind the bed and under their covers before they turned on the lights to make sure the big scary commenter wasn’t going to wedgie them.

  71. ked says:

    what an engaging concept, “I am always right in regards to you and the rest of the leftist idiots…” … passe, worse… boring.

  72. Tyler says:

    This is what I mean by inability to even rhetoric correctly.
    Your womanly snark ain’t hiding the fact you have no argument to prove me wrong.

  73. Tyler says:

    You flatter yourself. All I know you as is another vanilla midget who fades into the background with the rest of the white noise progressive posters here.
    You guys have had different names through the years but the braying is the same.

  74. Tyler says:

    (((Will Reks))),
    Whether or not you progressives intend it, Brazil is what you’re going to end up with if you keep on attempting to make America into a 3rd World bazaar.

  75. K says:

    My ancestors are former slaves.
    Anyone who knows any black person in the US knows a person who was – almost certainly – descended from a former slave.

  76. Will Reks says:

    Welcome back, pal. I’ll be fine, either way, in my gated community that I share with other self-hating whites. I should thank you for your recommendations, from some time ago, on which weapon to buy for home defense. Who knows, maybe we’ll run into each other some day.

  77. Medicine Man says:

    Mr. Habakkuk:
    There has been more than once when I’ve wished I could lock the Davos crowd in a room with Tyler. They should collectively get a good look at who will be oiling the guillotine should they fail to re-calibrate their sense of civic responsibility. I find Tyler pretty hard to take, but have listened to his ranting from time to time because I understand that he is reacting to the real consequences of unrestrained internationalism. The upper class in particular is drunk on this stuff because they really don’t feel the consequences of any of it — in fact, they often benefit.

  78. Mark Logan says:

    Perhaps just being a guest in his house is not enough for some. For those I would embellish with “ his living room after he has served us a standing rib roast dinner with all the trimmings with a selection of four desserts.”
    IOW…”Take it outside boys.”

  79. ked says:

    While others are challenged grammering.
    Tyler is so self-absorbed he seems to believe what he says registers… that people give a damn about what he has to say when he deigns to engage with lesser humanity. There’s no point, nor learning, nor pleasure in argument of his sort. And if he can’t figure that out, he might not have other things figured.

  80. Jack says:

    Bravo David!
    Your point of a “..very well justified – sense on the part of large elements of the indigenous population that crucial parts of what are actually ‘native’ élites have a complete disregard for their interests and a complete contempt for their culture.” is a very important one. I’d like to add that as the Archdruid noted what we really have is a class conflict not necessarily an issue around race and ethnicity, although they are more easily latched on to. In conversing with some of my childhood friends who are of Hispanic ethnicity but fully assimilated multi-generational Americans, about the protesters waving Mexican flags at a Trump political event, they deeply resented it and were concerned that any backlash would question their loyalty when for generations they have known no other country or culture. It’s these longstanding communities that suffer when there is an inevitable backlash to the PCness of the elites.
    Another point you make of the “..combination of condescension and a comprehensive reluctance to grasp that ‘multiculturalism’ really does have problems” by the likes of the Clintons and Blairs is hugely important. As you note the “old money” had a better sense than the current crop of “noveau riche” gaining political power who don’t have a sense of history. Their narcissism is so intense that they have a huge sense of entitlement and belief that they are so far superior to everyone else.
    IMO, there is another trend which is growth of statism in the west which leads to ever more concentration of power by government that then gets exploited by the elites to further strengthen their monopolies. There is this great fallacy that increased governmental control will be the bulwark to the oligarchy when as we have seen through the actions of the Clintons and Blairs its just the opposite. Where are the modern day Jeffersons and Bastiats?

  81. Tyler says:

    Mr. Habakkuk,
    I am reminded of a scene from LA Confidential involving Bud White and Dudley Smith interrogating a suspect. Smith has White beat the suspect right off the bat and says it’s to “make you more amenable to listening to what I have to say.”
    I feel like we have the same roles,

  82. elkern says:

    It’s working great, so far, eh?

  83. optimax says:

    So what! I can’t stand people who use the suffering of their ancestors for personal gain anymore than a person who uses their ancestors elitist status for their feelings of social superiority. Credibility is earned not inherited.

  84. Anonymous says:

    A final apology, Col. Lang. I had this short window of time in the afternoon where I wanted to make an emergency comment on Tyler. I was expecting a cold thread and found there were more things there already than I had time to read. Besides, the pages weren’t loading accordingly and somehow I missed the quotes (I seldom do that and I wonder if you were editting your comment, or if I need to start using glasses) couldn’t understand what I read, found a related target (“right wing lies”) and fired anyway, before my time window closed.

  85. Tyler says:

    Yet from this thread alone, it’s obvious that is not even remotely true. You could never post after this and no one would notice or care.
    Progs always lie. Progs always project. Progs always double down.

  86. Tyler says:

    “Teacher! Teacher! I’m telling!”

  87. Tyler says:

    Are you threatening me?

  88. Tyler says:

    I gotta admit old man you were damn good at getting me spinning up.

  89. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Tyler wrote: ‘ We are indeed at war with each other, I’m just open about it.’
    Colonel, is this now acceptable? Do YOU think we are at war with each other? Will all of us who have to defend ourselves in this war be given the same freedom as Tyler to defend ourselves and disparage others? From my time on this board that hasn’t been the case. I get in trouble all the time because I fight back against him. I can’t for the life of me understand why you let him get away with his nonsense.
    Going to feed my dragons (saw your Game of Thrones reference) and prepare for war.

  90. Will Reks says:

    No, it was a joke. But, if you’re ever in Wisconsin I’ll buy you a beer and you can update me on the status of the wall.

  91. Tyler says:

    You flatter me, and I hope we both get our wish.

  92. turcopolier says:

    I see. Not content with fighting with Tyler you want to fight with me as well. I think you should leave and not return. pl

  93. Fred says:

    My ancestors freed the slaves, this Juneteenth maybe you should say thank you to them. I voted for a black man (twice) who was never a slave though maybe his ancestors were back in Kenya, they certainly weren’t slaves here. I myself, however, am also a direct dependent of Spartacus, who if you recall, was a slave. Let me know what you think the Italians owe me in reparations.

  94. Fred says:

    Thank you for the insights. ” Lasch argued that today’s liberal elites have ‘the vices of the aristocracy without its virtues’.”” I think this is very well put. I am also reminded of the insights found in “Europe’s Epitaph” Arnaud de Borchgrave from almost a decade ago:

  95. Tyler says:

    I think you can see how it could be construed that way.
    But regardless I’ll be happy to drink your Leinenkugel. You can’t be all bad up there if you can do that right and deep fried cheese curds to hear me invent new ways of saying “The wall is YUGE”.

  96. Tyler says:

    I made the 1100 club, so there is that.

  97. Medicine Man says:

    I don’t really mean to flatter you. If you look up thread, you’ll see that I suggested that you, GCP, and anyone else with a chip on their shoulder should be shown the door. Frankly you scare the shit out of me. I am actually quite liberal myself and it often seems like you be more than pleased to see me kneeling in a driveway with a gun to the back of my head.

  98. Tyler says:

    You were white five minutes ago. I doubt you’re talking about Irish slaves, or the slaves that were taken by the Ottomans and the Barbary Pirates.
    lmbo keep your lies straight.

  99. LeaNder says:

    Anonymous, I wouldn’t like to see Tyler chained like that. Even worse then a time-out, it feels.
    Highly pleased you mentioned me, even noticed my masochist bi-polarity. Bragging and mumbling. It’s simple: a mental midget, bragging to hide this: “IQ is genetic”.
    Highly pleased at least you mentioned me. I suffered deeply, when I realized Tyler did not include me in his list of the enemy above. The bragger in me deeply craved to be listed, of course. Rivulets of tears streaming down on my keyboard.
    A birdie out there just told me: A warrior does not throw the gauntlet on a mental midget. That helps! And of course your attention is balm on my soul.
    Besides, I didn’t notice any of the verbal duels discussed here. I must have been either mumbling or bragging at the time. 😉

  100. optimax says:

    I never f**k with people I think are not mentally and emotionally equal to the task. Otherwise there is no fun in it.

  101. rjj says:

    big scary commenter

  102. Fred says:

    As long as you are talking guillotines the Davos crowd should take a good long look at where their bodyguards come from.

  103. Tyler says:

    How you meant it and I took it are two different animals.
    A little fear is good. Its the beginning of wisdom. You understand what this globalist one world nonsense is going to lead to.
    For what its worth, I can’t remember you giving me cause to add you to any liquidation list.

  104. jld says:

    LOL, you’re way too optimistic.
    My take is that they found it their duty to counter balance the crimethink of not sufficient unanimity for your demise.

  105. ked says:

    Two things strike me;
    – he speaks easily for his idea of the collective, &
    – he must have the last word (watch this space…).
    Now, that’s a model for equanimity.

  106. Tyler says:

    Lmbo “heh I’ll have the last word by saying he has to have the last word” you aren’t the psychological master you think you are
    By collective you mean “thousands of years of Western tradition that led to putting a man on the moon” then yes

  107. Tyler says:

    I like thinking that Soros paid trolls are that tweaked about me they have to coordinate to SILENCE THE DISCORD.

  108. Tyler says:

    scary yet handsome commenter
    good catch tia

  109. rjj says:

    misfired the post – then heeded (for a change) an attack of better judgment.

Comments are closed.