Race in California in the 1970’s

A commenter asks:

Rob, what were things like between the races in 1970s America? Were things just as PC as today or not?

I don’t know, I look back on the decade, and it looks like a fogbank of marijuana smoke and it’s hard to make things out very clearly.

I was living in an all-White part of California, and it’s like Blacks didn’t even exist. Hispanics were all Chicanos, long assimilated Mexican-Americans who acted just like White people. Asians were the same, totally assimilated and acted just like Whites.

It was like even though CA was 2

There was no grievance politics. The few Blacks just acted nice and White and tried to blend in to White society and everyone was pretty nice to them. I remember one girl who I believe was a mulatto. I went all through elementary school with her, and it was almost never mentioned, though people whispered it now and then. She just blended in to White and no one cared.

There really was little to no racism since the minorities were all just blending into White, assimilating to White and acting like White people. You’d have to be a real shitty racist to hate a White-acting minority due to their genes, and few people did.

There were not many illegals. There were a few, but there were constant raids against them, and everyone supported that, even the super-liberal Governor Jerry Brown. Mexican gangs were very rare. There were a few at my school called the Low Riders who lived in a place called Motown. My friends and I made friends with them, but no other Whites would. They were cool people, kept to themselves and did not bother anyone.

I knew three Blacks. One was a former football player, Mike Davis, who moved into some local apartments. We teenagers used to go to wild parties at his place and get stoned out of our minds. He was later accused of raping a young White girl or woman. There was a high school teacher named Mr. Matthews, a Black guy who everyone loved. He was later accused of having sex with an underage White female student. At the time, we thought those sexual abuse charges may have been racist in nature, but now that I’m a race realist, I’m not so sure.

Please follow and like us:

72 thoughts on “Race in California in the 1970’s”

  1. “I was living in an all-White part of California, and it’s like Blacks didn’t even exist. Hispanics were all Chicanos, long assimilated Mexican-Americans who acted just like White people. Asians were the same, totally assimilated and acted just like Whites.”

    That what it’s like where I live now, in 2010. No hispanics, of course. In a city of 300,00o, blacks number in the hundreds, and most of them are university students who don’t even live here. So I can’t appreciate your race dilemmas at all. When whites constitute over 99% of the local population (there is a smattering of Indians and Asians), race just doesn’t come up as an issue.

  2. It seems the 1970s were a transitional decade in so many ways, from economics, American society and culture, and foreign policy (Cold War detente). The 1970s has always fascinated me. Rob, you should do a post just about that decade.

  3. I was 14 in 1970, the year I bought my first vinyl LP (13, by The Doors, followed by The Doors’ first album). The 1970s was a great decade for popular music. Even better than the sixties, I’d say. At the end of the decade I lived in Paris and was in the Cellule St Just of the PCF. We lost the elections that year. Too much infighting on the left. Louis Althusser wrote Ce Qui Ne Peut Plus Durer Dans Le Parti Communiste Français and published it in Le Monde. I translated it. I learned to do comedy impressions of the General Secretary of the French Communist Party, Georges Marchais. He was an easy target. The Communist vote was then at close to 20%, and the PCF had 700,000 members. Now it’s about 3% in France.

    1. What a great life you had!

      Communists going from 20%-3% seems to me like they fucked up, no? Or that they lack a viable project that the majority of French people want?

      France does have a good socialist system though. It’s one of the best in all of the West if you ask me.

      1. Rob, would you agree that the 1970s was the last decent decade in modern American history? Starting from 1980, we get that neoliberal, warmongering gasbag Reagan and look where we are 30 years later!

        1. I dunno, I sure liked it, but then I was stoned most of the time, so it’s hard to say how good it really was. Was it really great, or was I just so baked I thought it was paradise. The sex was free and easy. You could live in a White town very cheaply. Wages were still high. Working class people were able to survive and live in nice White communities. Income levels were relatively equal. The Right was on the run here in California.

          Women were not insane lunatic feminists. There wasn’t even much VD around, mostly crabs. There was no HIV, and Herpes was uncommon. Radical gay politics was frowned on and most everyone was just straight. Everyone was this sort of liberal Democrat post-hippie type. Comrade Jerry Brown was our Great Leader.

        2. Weren’t the Republicans gaining ground in 1970s California?

          Not until 1978. You could see it coming. It really sucked. It started with the White Christians, Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. Assholes. It was basically blowback for all the liberalism of the previous decade or so. White suburban blowback.

        3. Reagan definitely ruined the country. He killed the New Deal. Most people I know who graduated from high school before 1980 got decent jobs and will be able to retire. The rest of us are screwed. He fooled a lot of stupid whities that black welfare queens were taking all our money, even though most of the beneficiaries were white. Then he gutted the welfare state, killed the unions (the WORST part), and a lot of the people who voted for him are now fucked because they’re out of work and there is no safety net for them. Good going, idiots.

          Have you read Mark Ames’ Going Postal? It’s excellent.

        4. Oh, and before Reagan we were the world’s industrial powerhouse. By then end of his presidency all that was over.

          I hate him.

        5. Yes, Nixon started it, but it really kicked in with Reagan.

          In fact, it began to surface in the late 70’s championed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation. Under the auspices of President Ronald Reagan, free trade “throughout the hemisphere” was borne. But truth be known, the seeds were sown long before Ronald Reagan. Richard Milhous Nixon was the first President given authority in the 1974 Fast Track Bill. It was awarded every president thereafter through 1998. Fast Track gives the President sole authority over trade negotiations. Congress, after the fact, can accept or reject the negotiation, but it cannot amend it in any way whatsoever. In effect, Fast Track effectively removes Congress from the process of world trade negotiations.

          Ronald Reagan, however, was the first to propose a free trade agreement in his 1980 presidential campaign. Proudly, The Heritage Foundation boasts its role in articulating President Reagan’s vision in no less than three dozen reports.


      2. The PCF said one thing, did another. Usual story. Althusser’s critique was spot on, but this leading Commiunist intellectual couldn’t publish in the party theoretical journal. The party was more like a fortress than a democratic organisation. Lots of people left the organisation after the 1978 debacle. So they’ve been cut down to size by French public. I still read the French CP daily, L’Humanité, when I can find it. It’s no longer in the kiosks like it used to be. Was glad to discover it in English the other day http://www.humaniteinenglish.com

        Nowadays I support the NPA – the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste. Don’t know too much about them yet though.

        French social democracy is better than the UK. My brother quit his job as captain of a tourist barge on on a French canal because of stress and depression and was drawing 1300€ (over $1500) a month on the French dole for TWO YEARS. Unbelievable! The Uk dole is around 25% of that.

  4. “At the time, we thought those sexual abuse charges may have been racist in nature, but now that I’m a race realist, I’m not so sure.”

    Look at the FBI stats on black sex crimes as compared to others, if you doubt what you’ know’. Hey maybe both of these guys were innocent… but in reality, after knowing the crime stats and logically concluding the real nature of blacks, ( as a whole of course), on sex crimes, I would doubt their innocence, too.

    1. In the case of Mark Davis, it was a date rape, not a real rape. And I’m sure that Blacks do that date rape stuff like it’s going out of style. Hell, they even do the real thing like there’s no tomorrow. I figure your average Black doesn’t even consider your regular date rape stuff to be rape, or even to be a crime.

      They have done surveys of Black and Hispanic teens, male and female, and majorities or high %’s support date rape and say that the guy has a right to do it in a number of cases.

      Mark Davis was a great guy. Really funny, always smiling, always laughing, always throwing parties. He was a former football player and he was built like the Incredible Hulk. Unbelievable body.

      With Mr. Matthews, it was consensual sex, but she was underage. Matthews was a great guy, smart Poli Sci teacher, always smiling, very friendly, always happy. I think he just lost his job and got run out of town more or less. I don’t think he went to jail. People were more reasonable about statutory rape back in those days.

  5. The rape thing sickens me.

    During the second to last year they had Halloween in the Castro District in San Francisco (before they were shut down due to shootings and stabbings by people mostly come from Oakland) I was walking with this extremely drunk friend of mine, a girl who was rather hot, when I stopped to make out with some random chick I recognized from my class. When I looked back at my friend she was puking up a storm and I had to abandon the other girl and start to walk my friend back to the Muni-tram. She started to lean into me to support herself with puke running all over costume. Well, the Munis were closed because people had been pissing in them and I ended up wandering around with her, trying to keep her from talking to people and acting too drunk. Somehow, looking for a bus or a cab, we found ourselves in a less crowded place when several large groups of black people walked up. Suddenly they started to surround her and me and, men and women alike, they started to shout at me and say that I should rape her because she deserved it for getting so fucked up. They laughed. Then a group slowed to stop and take a closer look at us and cornered us against a shop window. When I made a move the large men just said, “what you gonna do, huh?” and I stayed put. Then ugly women came up from behind thrust their fingers out and open their mouths with their gold teeth and say in raspy voice, “rape that bitch, rape her.” I feared they they were going to force me to do it. They all thought this was hilarious. All I could really do was look disgusted and try to walk on. But the men kept blocking me out. I was drunk enough to try to talk and found them laughing at my faces when I did so, such an arrogant laugh, the laugh of a bully or a torturer. Luckily, the crowd started to move. Something was going on, probably a shooting up the road (there were many that night). I got out of the shop window and into a more lighted area. Eventually we caught a ride from some nice Irish people and we all lived happily ever . . .

    The relevance is basically this. I grew up in a nice, mostly white town. This was my first major experience with large groups of black people and it wasn’t very endearing. How could the men and women alike be encouraging me to rape her? Then I heard about the ridiculous rates of rape in Africa–I mean it’s almost ubiquitous. Then I heard about a couple of white women I knew getting raped, or date-raped by black guys. I’ve never wanted to be racist, like most white liberals, but I just get pissed and can’t handle it anymore.

    1. Maybe that whole thing was a stupid rant. I’m sure everyone has their bad experiences and there’s no point dwelling on them. I’ve just never heard of anything like “group-promoted rape” before.

    2. Wow, that’s horrifying, erranter. Crowds, *shudder*.

      I admit I don’t have a lot of experience with the real lumpen types, the really ultra ghetto or trashy types. If I had, maybe I would feel differently.

      I guess I stick mostly with the proletariat, the working and lower middle class, and avoid the really lumpen and bourgeoisie.

      1. What’s interesting is that Marx himself, (although I don’t subscribe to his ideology) wrote that the lumpen were not to be trusted in the class struggle and that they would always go over to the highest bidder.

        1. Lumpens are not a revolutionary class at all. They are actually sort of contras because they are involved in all sorts of petty capitalism, selling stolen goods, pimping women, selling dope, smuggling, prostitution, organized crime, etc.

          During the 30’s and 40’s, many lumpen types went over to the fascists.

        2. Are you sure about that Rob? I’m pretty sure Herr Hitler wouldn’t tolerate such scum. Fascists were all about discipline and order.

      2. We have them around here. All it takes in one in the whole complex to ruin the whole place. There is one here who I pissed off and now he is always threatening me and threatening to fight me. He comes by my window at night and threatens me. He’s a gang member, a serious idiot, carries weapons, claims to be a pimp, traffics in prostitutes, has several knife and bullet wounds on his body. He’s no good.

        He’s 1/2 Black and 1/2 Hispanic. Horrible combination. We have some 1/2 Black 1/2 Whites here too. Really terrible too. Those mulatto types are the worst of them all. It’s like they are worse than the Whites or the Hispanics or even the Blacks. There is something terribly wrong with them.

        1. That’s got to be one of he most racist things I’ve ever read ie someone’s genetics determindistically damns them.

          And yet you get-off by blowing-off those ‘evil racists’!

          I just cannot understand you Robert – you seem too honest for your own good

  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British

    Useful source. My city is 1.4% Black. I’m surprised it’s that high. Nowhere exceeds 30%. Hackney, an inner London borough, population just over 200,000, is the highest at 29.9%.

    If you look at the ethnic break-up of Hackney, the backest London borough, the overall figure for Blacks is under 25%, so they’re counting mixed race people as black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Hackney). London is 7.5 million (Greater London 12-14 million) : 10.6 per cent of London’s population are Black, with around 5.5 per cent being Black African, 4.3 per cent as Black Caribbean and 0.8 per cent as “Other Black”.
    3.5 per cent of Londoners are of mixed race, and in the colour perception of white would count as black. That’s pushing 15%….

    40% of Londoners belong to an ethnic minority.
    New York, a city of comparable size to London, is 25% Black. Detroit is over 80% Black. How did Detroit get to be an Afro-American city?

    Leicester is one of the most ethnically mixed cities in the UK, around 30% Asian but only 5% black. 70 languages are spoken in the city. 16% of the city’s residents speak Gujarati.

    1. London can tolerate 10% Black, if they are ordinary Blacks like we have here in the states. The tipping point in a lot of US cities seems to be around ~20%, but it all depends on the type of Blacks you have. Once you get over 20% and heading up towards 30%, all bets are off and things are probably going to start to deteriorate.

      I would guess that Hackney already has problems, probably an elevated crime rate at least, with a 30% Black population of ordinary type Blacks. Is it true?

      The story of Detroit is a long one. I think the jobs started leaving, the feds ordered busing in the schools, the Whites started taking off for the suburbs, and the White population of Detroit began dropping while the Black % started rising for some reason. From 20-30% Black, things started to go downhill in a bad way, and after that, it just got progressively more and more catastrophic.

      As it got worse and worse, more and more Whites fled to the suburbs. The Black population is now very high, around 90%. Blacks will stay in a bad place like that, but the Whites are just going to leave. Also the city has experienced serious depopulation. Even wild animals are starting to come back! I think Detroit is still very dangerous though, and I would not want to go there myself, though I can usually handle myself pretty well in daytime.

    2. It’s not so much that the presence of Blacks per se is bad, but it’s more that things work better if they are more spread out. When they get concentrated, Black “culture” takes over, which has good and bad points, but IMHO, the bad points seriously suck. But then I come from middle class White boy background. Cities are probably better off with 20% or less Blacks. Small towns in the South often have very high Black populations but things are not that bad due to a good Black culture in many small Black Southern towns.

  7. Thanks. What does Lafayette think about this? He lives in London.


    Four London boroughs, population of each around 200,000.

    Westminster (inner London borough), 7.4% Black, 270.39 crimes per 1,000 people,

    Hackney (inner London borough), 29.9% Black, 141.72 crimes per 1,000 people,

    Croydon (outer London borough), 16.6% black, 96.57 crimes per 1,000 people,

    Richmond (outer London borough), 1.5% black and black of mixed race, crimes 66.03 per 1,000 people.

    Richmond is a wealthy, privileged area, with the biggest wildlife park in London, so big you forget you’re in a city. A very nice environment. Westminster is inner shitty (forgive the pun).

    City crime levels could be correlated with a) Local environmental factors b) Social inequality by borough c) Levels of social deprivation d) Ethnic mix. Maybe there are others: it’s a very complex algorithm. Certain ethnic groups gravitate to particular types of crime: I should think that could be established. White collar whites like fraud, for example…lol.

    Levels of rape in London are low, for a major city,
    as are crimes of violence. Compare crime levels of London with New York and you get the picture.

    1. Hackney has bad crime. It’s well known for having lots of crime. 5th worst in London out of 32 boroughs. However, Westminster, with a small Black population of 5%, has a wildly higher crime rate than Hackney which is 29% Black. The overwhelming majority of Westminster residents are White, but the crime is off the charts. There is something about it being an inner city district that seems to drive all the crime and whatnot.

      I don’t really care for the standard Left argument that White collar crime is a much worse problem than street crime. It’s ridiculous. When I’m walking down a dark street late at night and see a White guy in a suit in back of me, I don’t think, “Oh no, I’d better run! This guy’s going to violate a health and safety regulation at his workplace!” Fuck it, man.

      Street crime is what matters because it hits you viscerally with that fear and terror. And street crime destroys everything. A place with tons of street crime is basically just ruined. You can have lots of White collar crime (NY City, Manhattan financial district) and it’s still a very nice and safe place to move around or even live.

      1. Rob, you claimed that the lumpen took the side of the fascists in 1933-1945. Could you provide some evidence? Fascists were all about discipline and honor, and I’m pretty sure there was virtually no crime in NS Germany.

      2. Westminster is the rich, touristy part of London – the place where Big Ben, Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square, Soho etc are located.
        I’d wager most of those crimes are opportunistic pick-pocketings of tourists, public drunkeness, prostitution etc.

        1. That’s the facade, certainly. I had a look at some health stats for Westminster that show a darker picture. I suspect it’s a borough of extremes.

  8. Yeah I was teasing you with the fraud thing…fraud doesn’t hit you in the face and fraudsters are generally very bright people, just misdirected. I wouldn’t walk round Hackney after dark now, that’s a fact. I did in the early 1980s when my brother lived there. It didn’t feel like a troubled place then. I walked down a black street in Brixton
    (South London borough, lots of Caribbeans) at the time of the 1981 riots with my German girlfriend and it was scary, man. Black guys kept hitting on her and offering us drugs. The vibe was really unfriendly. Railton Road, it was.
    The locality of London I know well now is between 40% to 60% Jewish, depending on the neighbourhood, and rich. Very nice locality, close to Hampstead Heath. Local concentrations of Jews don’t correlate with crime figures. ARE YOU LISTENING, HEG, FPY3P, LAFAYETTE, KEN HOOP, AREDGUY?????

    1. We’ve never said Jews do street crime. That’s such a lame argument. White-collar crime, however, is another story. Jews are too smart and too wealthy to get involved in street crime. You should know that.

  9. Gotcha didn’t I fyp3p? I knew you’d respond, and of course it know it’s a lame argument. Aiding and abetting ethnic cleansing is defined by the ICC (International Criminal Court) as a crime against humanity, and nationalist Jews are into that. It’s more to do with nationalism than ethnicity, though.

    Financial crimes, well, I know there’s plenty of that: I’ve no figures on ethnic involvement. Everyone talks about the example of Bernard Madoff, who made madoff with $50 billion or so, as an example of Jewish criminality. Mr Atzmon expatiates on Madoff at length.

    1. Chinese are nationalistic as well, but they are ethnically cleansing the Tibetans for instance. In fact the Tibetans are becoming modernized citizens of the People’s Republic because of beneficial Han Chinese stewardship and guidance.

    2. I don’t care about Jewish financial crime. I’ll trade 5,000 Hispanics in this city for 5,000 very nice, smart, polite Jewish people. They can even move in next door and upstairs. I might even bring them matzo balls as a housewarming party.

      I’d love to live in a town full of Jews. Almost no crime to speak of. I have heard that in heavily-Jewish East Coast cities, the cops hate working there because it’s so boring and there’s nothing to do – no crime. Cops like action. Cops like crime. No crime, no fun.

      That’s why anti-Semites leave me cold. I’d much rather live in a 70% Jewish city than a 70% Hispanic or God forbid, 70% Black city. What are they going to do, sell me some porn? Kidnap me on Purim, drain my blood and make matzos out of it.

      1. Rob, that’s a strawman’s argument. Sure, you might not get murdered or robbed by a jew, but your tax dollars are going to support a foreign bandit state while america is collapsing, and if they get their way on Iran, boy, that would spark WWIII and global economic destruction.

        1. And what kind of fucking leftist are you that you condone and have no problem with financial swindling that has brought the world economy to the brink?

        2. Financial crime? Did it even exist in this latest meltdown? I thought everything they did was straight up legal? Anyway, it wasn’t financial crime that ruined the economy, it was simply unregulated capitalism. This is the way unregulated capitalism acts, everywhere and at all times. If you regulate it, you can stop a lot of this, but the capitalists own the media and usually the state, and after a while, they deregulate and blow everything up all over again.

          It’s not a Jewish thing, it’s a capitalist thing.

        3. Goldman Sachs routinely engages in shady, underhanded activity, I don’t give a fuck whether its legal or not.

        4. All the other financial firms, no matter who was involved with them, were all doing the exact same stuff. The Gentiles and Jews were all acting the same. This is what capitalists do. They’re the fucking scum of the Earth, and unless you regulate the Hell out of them, they will blow up everything from time to time.

        5. Read Ford’s “Advice to the Unemployed in the Great Depression”.

          But there is still another way, a third way, so much better than the very best charitable endeavor that it simply forbids us to be satisfied with anything less. That is the way of Self-Help.

          Nice, huh? Just pick yourself up by your bootstraps when there are no jobs anywhere. He sounds just like a Republican today.

          Oh, and he, like other capitalists, had his guards shoot workers on occasion.

      2. Fordism is dead and gone long ago. There are a few patriotic capitalists left, but not many. No matter, who they are, Jew or Gentile, they’re part of an international nationless elite and they’re all a bunch of traitors to whatever country they come from, because they have no alliance to any land, or even any people, I don’t think. They’re only allegiance is with this international corporate elite nationless rootless group.

  10. Is it true that after 1945, world Jewry lined up behind America in the Cold War? And considering the high-profile movements such as the refuseniks, how loyal were most Soviet jews to the USSR?

    1. After the founding of Israel, the Jews lined up with the West. And many of the Jews in Eastern Europe and the USSR started spying for the West. This has come out only just recently. Stalin was right to be paranoid of Soviet Jews at this time. A lot of them were spies!

      1. Considering that it was the USSR that did the most to defeat Hitler, isn’t it amazing chutzpah that the jews would turn on the USSR? Talk about being fucking ungrateful!

  11. Fyp3p…Robert is right…and you are irrational. That’s all there is to it, man. Your entire picture is skewed. The world economic crisis was not kicked off by the financial crisis: it only looks that way and it’s what the media would like us to think so we don’t focus on the structural crisis of the capitalist economy. At least you’ve learned to stop using that vile term kike. Robert must have civilised you slightly.
    You don’t present evidence for your assertions. When you’re off topic, your contributions are worthwhile, and I even start to like you, but when you’re on topic, you just come over as mentally ill. Like the anti-Communist, the anti-semite has a self-fulfilling world view, and you’re both. Double whammy, man. You can’t even distinguish Stalin’s national Communism from fascism.

      1. Because you think the Jews are the problem. After the foundation of Israel Soviet Jews all had potential dual loyalty. They became a fifth column. In a sense that happened in Iraq, too, but it’s much more complicated. Most Iraqi Jews didn’t want to leave. They had to be “encouraged” by a terror campaign. Of course Soviet Jews started to spy for the West. Israel was the Western allies’ creature, as well. You know about the Israeli Neo-nazi anti-semite problem? Neo-nazi Russian Jews engaging in anti-semitic violence and crimes in Israel. Figure that one out. I can’t.

        1. Is there anything wrong with my Cold War stance? Even taking Jews out of the equation, I believe the USSR after 1945 was on the right side of justice and history. It’s too bad Mikhail GorbaSHIT sold out his country for pennies.

  12. No, there is nothing wrong with your Cold War stance. I believe Russia was on the side of peace. All the nuclear disarmament proposals came from the USSR. In a socialist economy arms expenditure is just a burden, and detracts from socialist goals; in a capitalist economy the arms industry is a state sponsored arm of scientific innovation and a source of super-profits. Capitalism and militarism need each other. One of capitalism’s exports is war.

    If the USSR could have been saved as a Federation of Semi-Independent states, that would have been a more progressive outcome than the one we have now. The USSR was too centralised; hence the centrifugal forces that blew it apart at the end.
    I don’t know how history will judge Gorbachev, but I suspect the balance will be positive.

    Yeltsin, however, is another matter. I suspect he’s the person with whom the real betrayal lies. Taimur Rehmann pointed out – in that video I referred you to, that the economic mischief which led to the undoing of the USSR as a economy started in 1965 with the creation of enterprises that were not linked to the central plan. He reckons economic growth slowed down after that.

    1. Yeltsin was indeed scum.Virtually all Russians hate his guts. I’ve read that the Soviet economy started slowing down after 1970. I didn’t know that in 1965 such private enterprises were created? What was the purpose? Did Brezhnev approve of such a decision?

      1. I guess you can research that. I don’t know the answers. Start here with Taimur Rehman’s talk, and then see what else you can dig up. It’s the first time I’ve ever come across this assertion:
        Then I suggest you go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Revisionism. The classic anti-revisionist study is Bettelheim’s The Class Struggles in the USSR.
        I think you’ll find Hoxha an interesting figure.

        1. Actually the USSR should have been proud of its military might, and not see it just as a burden. The Soviet Union was the only country in the world that could go toe-to-toe with America, which is why the ZOG imperialists never dared start a war with the USSR.

  13. Yes and no. Soviet military expenditure was 40% of the economy, than 3 times that of the USA, which had a much bigger economy than the USSR. Hope the references help.

    1. True. But it’s not like the Russians had a choice. It was arm yourself or be prey. By the way, who do you think would’ve won a war between the 2 superpowers? I know that starting from the 1970s, the USSR catched up in the nuclear arena, and by 1980, they actually surpassed the number of nuclear missles that America had. They also had a blue water navy, formidable air force, and superior conventional ground forces, along with the Warsaw Pact nations.

  14. I think the Soviet miltary build-up nwas primarily defensive, you are right. Fpy3p…my opinion is that a Soviet-US war would have quickly gone nuclear, and nuclear wars are not winnable. We came quite close in 1982. A major nuclear exchange would have seen the destruction of the human species in a nuclear winter lasting for years. Paul Ehrlich wrote a famous study of this. Carl Sagan also.

    A conventional land war is another matter. The Soviet Union did not have technological superiority in military hardware, but its land forces were formidable and outnumbered those of the USA. One has to imagine a Soviet invasion of Alaska, and figure whether the USA would have been able to stop it without resorting to nuclear weapons. What do you think?

    1. I think USA would definitely resort to nukes if the Russians were moving into Alaska, just like the Russians would use nukes if West German forces overwhelmed East German defenses and threatened to move to Poland. Although the USSR was not technologically superior, it was certainly was not inferior in hardware. If you combine the larger numbers of troops and weapons along with technological parity starting from the 70s, USA would be looking at a REAL war, not a slaughtering campaign like Vietnam or Iraq today.

  15. But the US didn’t win the Vietnam war. Technological superiority is not the only factor.

    The US is struggling in Afghanistan. I don’t believe they’ll hold on there beyond 2015. Iraq on the other hand is a much bigger prize. Expect a 30 year occupation.

    1. I think the American Empire will go bankrupt and collapse WAY before any grandiose 30 year occupation plan gets under way.America’s debt is already 360% of its GDP, which is a record never set by any other great power in history. Dmitry Orlov also says the USSR was much better prepared for collapse than America is today, hence the Russian resurgence under patriot Putin.

  16. “I think the American Empire will go bankrupt and collapse WAY before any grandiose 30 year occupation plan gets under way.”

    That would be a desirable outcome. End of the New American Century: http://www.newamericancentury.org.
    China will be the new superpower….actually there are factors militating against that scenario happening. Have you noticed that China is now the second economic power, surpassin

    1. The egregious whitey-bashing of the Weathermen and all the other Maoist Third Worldist assholes set back race relations in this country by decades.

      This has never been openly discussed by the American left, because the guilty white liberal yuppies who dominate it are still doing it.

      They alienated working class white people then, and they just keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting it to turn out differently each time.

        1. Nearly, tulio. You’re thinking of Joe Zawinul and Wayne Shorter’s Weather Report. Jazz rock. I still listen to their stuff.

  17. Looking at footage of Woodstock 1969, hippies were overwhelmingly white. Did hippies have a racial viewpoint? I wasn’t part of it. Liked the music though, especially the Byrds and CSNY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)