The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
The Empire (a.k.a. the Demopublican Elite) Strikes Back
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The “response” by South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, to the Obama State of the Union address, was a prime example of what I would call the “Demopublican” Establishment at work to attack and discredit the candidate they fear the most in this year’s electoral cycle: Donald Trump.

Of course, the presidential address before Congress and Haley’s response included many more items than that. But the fact that both Obama and the South Carolina governor aimed nearly identical pointed criticism at the Donald is very significant. Indeed, on the NBC Today program the morning after the State of Union, Haley specifically mentioned him by name as the object of her ire, and of the hatred of the Republican Establishment.

Both Obama and Haley harshly criticized Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigration into the United States until, as he stated it, “we can find out what is going on.” When he first made that proposal back in earlier December, there were a flurry of articles, commentaries, and various condemnations from most of the other GOP candidates and elites. But, as happens in news cycles, over Christmas the issue seemed to disappear from the front pages of newspapers and the comments by TV pundits….until, that is, the State of the Union and this latest assault by the Demopublican Establishment.

It is widely known that the party elites in South Carolina, led by Haley, are attempting to erect a Southern firewall against Trump, should he come out of New Hampshire with a strong head of steam. Indeed, Senator Lindsey Graham, the senior senator from that state, is a zealous and virulent Trump critic. “Donald Trump is a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot,” Senator Lindsey Graham has said emphatically, joining those American leaders, left and right, in condemning him.

Haley’s unified front with Obama on the issue of Muslim immigration is one more sign that the Demopublican Establishment is willing to fight Trump to the bitter end. Interestingly, all the polls taken in South Carolina of GOP voters indicate that the Donald enjoys a huge lead over all his opposition in the Sandlapper State. So much for representing the grass roots!

Since both Obama and Haley have brought the immigration issue to the forefront again, it’s a good idea to examine the question once more in depth.

After Trump first made his proposal on December 7, the Mainstream Media launched a massive assault, terming what he proposed, variously, “un-American,” “unchristian,” or “unconstitutional.” Yet, as the succeeding debate raged, Trump and various authors were able to produce numerous examples of previous American presidents having done the same thing he advocates, including Jimmy Carter when he refused entry to Iranian nationals and required Iranian students to report to immigration offices, and then expelling some of them. Notably, there is also the example of legislative action taken by Congress–the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952–during the administration of President Harry Truman, incorporated into the federal statutes (U.S.C. Title 8, Section 1182), which gives the president the right to bar whole classes of potential entrants for a length of time that he may deem necessary:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” [emphasis added]

We can also add that during World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt, banned nationals from Japan, Germany, and Italy from entering the country. Indeed, for over forty years, until 1965, immigration into the United States was based on percentages of origin of population already here.The Immigration Act of 1924(The Johnson-Reed Act) limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia.

Certainly, these actions were and continue to be highly debated; but they were certainly constitutional and within the legal framework of American law.

Haley, Obama, and the Demopublicans scream that Trump’s proposal would violate our heritage of welcoming immigrants and the historic constitutional provisions on religious freedom that the Founders wisely implemented. But, here again, Trump is on much stronger ground than they are. What do the courts say? Let’s turn directly to a decision by the US Supreme Court, that in a ruling from 1972, Kleindienst v. Mandel, “strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster,” to quote The Wall Street Journal. While President Obama and the Obama-lite Demopublicans argue that the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment would be violated by barring Muslims from entering the U.S., “the government’s authority to set immigration policy, at least as applied to nonresident aliens, outweighs any free-speech claim an alien may wish to assert.”

Various religious leaders, including some supposed “conservatives,” have joined in attacking Trump’s position as “unchristian.” Southern Baptist Russell Moore –-who in actuality is a George Soros stalking horse—was quick to condemn Trump when he first came out with his proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration. “Anyone who cares an iota about religious liberty should denounce this reckless, demagogic rhetoric” [American Muslims accuse Donald Trump of leading ‘lynch mob’, by Daniel Burke, CNN, December 7, 2015], he declared.

But is such criticism well-grounded in American history and the Founders’ ideas on religious liberty?

The thought that swarms of Muslims would reach American shores was never a consideration on the part of the Founders. Indeed, the first war that the young United States fought (1801-1805) was with the Islamic Barbary Pirates, who had been enslaving and ransoming American sailors since before the adoption of the Constitution. The first seizure of an American merchant ship and enslavement of American seamen by the Barbary Pirates occurred in 1784, followed soon after by others. In March 1786 both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams traveled to London to negotiate with the envoy of the Barbary State of Tripoli for the release of enslaved Americans and the establishment of peace. They reported to American authorities the words of the Tripolitanian ambassador:

It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Lest we forget, scarcely one hundred years before the drafting of the federal Constitution, in 1683, the Islamic Ottoman Turks, with an army of 300,000 under the command of Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa, after ravaging and raping their way through the Balkans, had besieged Vienna, which was rescued only by the arrival of the army of King Jan Sobieski of Poland. On September 11, 1683—remember that date—Kara Mustafa vowed that he would massacre the Infidels, water his horses in the Tiber River, and transform Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris into a mosque, just as the Ottomans had done to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in the 15th century. And, failing that, he pledged that Islam would someday in the future return and conquer the West. Many citizens in Europe…and the United States…see those prophetic words coming true now. Islam has, in actuality, never stopped being at war with Christendom.

From the 8th century onwards, Islam was recognized in its orthodox formulation as expansive and totalitarian. Wherever it went, it brought submission and the sword. At Tours, at Mohacs, during the siege of Malta and at Lepanto, and twice before the gates of Vienna, Europe experienced the ravages and savage brutality of Islam.

And the First Amendment? It applies to American citizens, not to foreigners seeking to enter this country. The Founders never envisaged potentially thousands of Muslim migrants coming to America; they assumed that the new American nation would continue to be a Christian, if non-denominational, nation. More, the Constitution did not in any way bar the particular states from religious tests and restrictions. As the classic study of early American Constitutionalism, Democracy Liberty, and Property: The State Constitutional Conventions of the 1820s (Merrill Peterson, editor, 1966), summarizes it, during the first seventy-five years of the republic “the states dominated the federal system. Basic institutions such as schools and churches; basic freedoms such as the right to vote, to worship freely, to hold office, to speak one’s mind….all were state controlled.” (p. v) The Founders wanted it that way. Indeed, most states entering the original compact had religious tests and some imposed taxes for the support of established religion enshrined in their constitutions. The federal Constitution did not forbid that. The Founders knew that if they had tried to do so, the federal union would have never existed. Many of those restrictions continued well into the 19th century—North Carolina required elective office holders to be Christians until 1868. At no time during this period did the federal courts declare such laws unconstitutional.

Recently, two friends came to my house for dinner. After dinner, we watched one of the most topical and strikingly current films that has come out in recent years. Indeed, given the oppressive, even totalitarian, suppression of free inquiry in Europe these days, I have to wonder how this movie, DAY OF THE SIEGE: September 11, 1683 (an Italian-Polish production, 2012, available on Phase4Films DVD video) ever got made! I say this because in its superb historical realization, DAY OF THE SIEGE offers an unvarnished and truthful, based- on-fact, perspective on orthodox Islam, and its comprehensive, and, yes, totalitarian world-view.

The film stars F. Murray Abraham (remember him from AMADEUS?) as the Italian monk, the Blessed Marco d’Aviano, who both inspires the weak Austrian emperor and assists in cementing a coalition of Christians to defeat the forces of violent, jihadist Islam, and send them reeling back into the Balkans (where they were only finally expelled late in the 19th century). One thing the film does not do is to dismiss the essential and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. It does not–like too many Christians do today–declare that “we Muslims and Christians pray to the same god.” For such an assertion flies not only in the face of 1,300 years of history, but also of the orthodox teachings and doctrines of both the Holy Bible and the Quran.

Certainly, there are and have been many notable exceptions from Islamic orthodoxy, but they are just that: exceptions. King Abdullah of Jordan is a “moderate” and many American Muslims reject and do not partake of the zealous orthodoxy that is prescribed in the Quran. But those exceptions confirm the rule: orthodox Islam is not just a “religion,” but an all-encompassing political, cultural, and social system. In fact, those “moderates” should be, at least technically, considered as outliers from their own religion. Again, that is the point: until this country can establish a better and surer screening and verification process of those coming, as Trump demands, is it not preferable to avoid the chance of more terrorism as we have seen in San Bernardino and in Boston or on 9/11? A large majority of the American people think so.

How many of our staunch Muslim allies grant their Christian minorities full religious liberty, the same kind of liberty Muslims enjoy in the United States? How many Christian churches exist in probably our most significant “ally” in the Middle East–after Israel–Saudi Arabia?

And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”

In reality, when he made his proposal on December 7, Trump altered the national debate and tapped deeply into the public pulse, and the Demopublicans and Obama have been trying to regain the offensive ever since. On January 12 they launched a renewed, double-barreled attack not only on Trump, but on a majority of American citizens who not only feel threatened by terrorism here in the United States, but who also have begun to understand that the elites are quite willing to betray them and their interests at the drop of a hat.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump, Republican Party 
    []
  1. If Donald Trump does nothing more than put the spineless Donor Party out of its misery, he will have done his country a great service.

    Furthermore, the GOP delenda est.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    If Donald Trump does nothing more than put the spineless Donor Party out of its misery, he will have done his country a great service.
     
    BONUS: If the GOP were to go, there'd be about a 90% chance that the Democratic Party would collapse shortly thereafter, no longer having any foil to run against. Then we might--just might--see a true citizen's movement arise which would trigger a realignment of the political system for a while to come.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-empire-a-k-a-the-demopublican-elite-strikes-back/#comment-1294190
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Salvo says:

    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Thus preaches Salvo to the uneducated heathens who post on unz.com in his very SECOND post on unz.com. In his first post, back in September, he seemed to be defending the Dark Ages which succeeded the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As Steve Sailer responded back then, we should be fine by 3500 A.D. That's what I like about Steve Sailer: always willing to look at the bright side of things. In the meantime, I am going to vote for Donald Trump, since I don't think I will be around in 3500 A.D.
    , @Threecranes
    You forgot that we also engage in incestuous relations with our daughters, wear spaghetti smeared sleeveless teeshirts while yelling at the television set when an NFL ref blows a call against our team and spend every evening disassembling our rifles and fondling our ammunition when we should be fixing things around the house. The only magazines we read are Guns and Ammo and old copies of Soldier of Fortune. Our recycle bins (when they aren't full of transmission parts) are filled with Pabst Blue Ribbon cans. We eat every meal on the couch in front of the TV.
    , @Seamus Padraig
    Wow. Such bitterness. Such--what's the word I'm looking for?--hate. Did one of your Hannity-watching neighbors poison your dog, perhaps? It's just an election... settle down.
    , @mark miller
    @salvo: a thesaurus could help find more compelling adjectives to "moronically". But at least you spelled it correctly. An effective polemic should also be more focused. What you just did betrays an emotional incontinence.
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. ."

    What, hambone?
    , @Saltine
    Oooohhh!! Name calling.
    , @Anonymous
    Great .

    .
    The Birth of the Military-Industrial Complex
    America’s First Terror War
    By R. T. Naylor

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/Counterpunch-2007may01-00001

    A google search will show take the author to the article at the unz.org.

    The Brabary pircay makes a nice story to feed the collapsing existential complex of the Tea Party woven around American exceptionalism,racism,Bible, and war profit and whose only beef with the neocon was that they could not win the war the way war was supposed to be won .
  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It has become obvious to anyone who reads that both political parties are enemies of the historic American nation and its people. How did such a terrible thing come to pass?

    Yes, the usual suspects have done their part to undermine a national cohesion here and in other countries in the West. But this problem is far deeper than that I fear. The God we worship today is egalitarianism. All cultures and all peoples are equal. Period. Except Western civilization, which is evil because it is white. If you dissent in any way from these beliefs you are worse than a serial killer–you are a racist. And if you are a racist, there is no place for you in this post-modern world.

    Trump is facing an uphill fight. He is truly remarkable for having the courage to speak clearly about things that in other times would be seen as common sense. But in our day it is racist. And I doubt he can overcome the prejudice he will face from our common enemy–the elites and polite opinion.

    Read More
  4. It does not–like too many Christians do today–declare that “we Muslims and Christians pray to the same god.” For such an assertion flies not only in the face of 1,300 years of history, but also of the orthodox teachings and doctrines of both the Holy Bible and the Quran.

    That very same declaration, Dr. Cathay, is now enshrined in the loathsome Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, currently held to be the de fide teaching of the Universal Church by the man you call Pope Francis and the prelates in communion with him. Clearly the institutional structure of the Catholic Church apostatized at the Second Vatican Council and is no longer of the faith. It is time for a man of your obvious intelligence and faithfulness to begin thinking—and thinking seriously—of embracing Sedevacantism.

    Read More
  5. The good news is that the historic American nation is beginning to stir. The bad news is that we have only the internet with which to spread the revolt against the Establishment. With Trump’s charisma and money, we may be able to break through. But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. That’s a long shot. I hope we make it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. "

    That's why his selection of a running mate (assuming he secures the nomination) is so important. In looking over the field of candidates, I'm having a hard time coming up with a suitable VP choice. I believe we can strike Nikki Haley off the list.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect.
     
    A funny thing for someone named Epaminondas to say. Didn't the original finish off Sparta for good?
  6. tbraton says:
    @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    Thus preaches Salvo to the uneducated heathens who post on unz.com in his very SECOND post on unz.com. In his first post, back in September, he seemed to be defending the Dark Ages which succeeded the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As Steve Sailer responded back then, we should be fine by 3500 A.D. That’s what I like about Steve Sailer: always willing to look at the bright side of things. In the meantime, I am going to vote for Donald Trump, since I don’t think I will be around in 3500 A.D.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The Benghazi movie ’13 Hours’ is an apolitical mind-numbing sensory assault that’s barely coherent
    www.rawstory.com

    This is the epilogue to the song by Marine based on the Barbary war on Libyan piracy.



    But someone will force the information down the throat despite the blockage of the ear canal


    "As Brad Hoff of the Levant Report wrote, “historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.”

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/12/what-hillary-knew-about-libya/
  7. @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    You forgot that we also engage in incestuous relations with our daughters, wear spaghetti smeared sleeveless teeshirts while yelling at the television set when an NFL ref blows a call against our team and spend every evening disassembling our rifles and fondling our ammunition when we should be fixing things around the house. The only magazines we read are Guns and Ammo and old copies of Soldier of Fortune. Our recycle bins (when they aren’t full of transmission parts) are filled with Pabst Blue Ribbon cans. We eat every meal on the couch in front of the TV.

    Read More
  8. “…basic freedoms such as the right to vote, to worship freely, to hold office, to speak one’s mind….all were state controlled.”

    Almost. The fugitive slave statutes put severe restrictions on the states’ ability to define such things to their satisfaction. Federalism for me, not for thee, in other words.

    One thing the film does not do is to dismiss the essential and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. It does not–like too many Christians do today–declare that “we Muslims and Christians pray to the same god.”

    One hardly has to dismiss essential differences to recognize that we worship the same God, albeit in radically different ways. There is only one God, and Mohamed stole everything he said from the local Christians and Jews. (Remember, he couldn’t even read.) Who else could they possibly be worshiping?

    It’s their conception of God which is flawed. Catholics think Calvin’s is nearly as flawed, but don’t equate Presbyterians with Baal-worshipers.

    That’s why Hilaire Belloc included Mohamed’s in The Great Heresies. Heathens worship other gods, heretics twist the real One’s words.

    Trump is flawed, too. But better a flawed ally than a smooth enemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I don't see how it's not still federalism either way.
  9. @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    Wow. Such bitterness. Such–what’s the word I’m looking for?–hate. Did one of your Hannity-watching neighbors poison your dog, perhaps? It’s just an election… settle down.

    Read More
  10. @Diversity Heretic
    If Donald Trump does nothing more than put the spineless Donor Party out of its misery, he will have done his country a great service.

    Furthermore, the GOP delenda est.

    If Donald Trump does nothing more than put the spineless Donor Party out of its misery, he will have done his country a great service.

    BONUS: If the GOP were to go, there’d be about a 90% chance that the Democratic Party would collapse shortly thereafter, no longer having any foil to run against. Then we might–just might–see a true citizen’s movement arise which would trigger a realignment of the political system for a while to come.

    Read More
  11. tbraton says:
    @Epaminondas
    The good news is that the historic American nation is beginning to stir. The bad news is that we have only the internet with which to spread the revolt against the Establishment. With Trump's charisma and money, we may be able to break through. But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump's administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. That's a long shot. I hope we make it.

    “But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. ”

    That’s why his selection of a running mate (assuming he secures the nomination) is so important. In looking over the field of candidates, I’m having a hard time coming up with a suitable VP choice. I believe we can strike Nikki Haley off the list.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    Everyone overestimates the stickiness of our current conditions.

    Long before 8 years from now a tsunami of structural incompatibilities will have altered the landscape forever.

    The can has been kicked, yes, but each time it is, it gets heavier with baggage. Very soon there will be no way to kick it further, the music will stop and no one will be able to get the party going again until a long period of sobriety occurs.

    Sobriety will be the end of all this stupid crap (LGBT leapfrogging deviance, Invader-American Immivasion, endless extortion of productive whites, especially males, in favor of people too stupid to take care of themselves, etc..)

    There won't be any more money for it, and the Uncle Leviathan's credit score will have cratered.
    , @travel-lyte
    Mike Rowe. Period. Why not?
    Bill Whittle made the prediction awhile back
    that the next President would likely come from
    the celebrity class, let's go all the way
    with one of our own, in spirit and world view at least
  12. @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    @salvo: a thesaurus could help find more compelling adjectives to “moronically”. But at least you spelled it correctly. An effective polemic should also be more focused. What you just did betrays an emotional incontinence.

    Read More
  13. guest says:

    Funnily enough, I hear people arguing that a moratorium on the immigration of Syrians, for instance, is perfectly alright, but banning Muslims? No, no, no, simply not done. Why can we discriminate on the basis of national origin but not religion? Something, something, first amendment. Or maybe 14th amendment,or both. Anyway, I think they know those don’t strictly apply. Banning Muslims from coming in for any period of time just makes them feel bad, is all. That’s the level we’re arguing on.

    Read More
  14. guest says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    "...basic freedoms such as the right to vote, to worship freely, to hold office, to speak one’s mind….all were state controlled.”
     
    Almost. The fugitive slave statutes put severe restrictions on the states' ability to define such things to their satisfaction. Federalism for me, not for thee, in other words.

    One thing the film does not do is to dismiss the essential and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. It does not–like too many Christians do today–declare that “we Muslims and Christians pray to the same god.”
     
    One hardly has to dismiss essential differences to recognize that we worship the same God, albeit in radically different ways. There is only one God, and Mohamed stole everything he said from the local Christians and Jews. (Remember, he couldn't even read.) Who else could they possibly be worshiping?

    It's their conception of God which is flawed. Catholics think Calvin's is nearly as flawed, but don't equate Presbyterians with Baal-worshipers.

    That's why Hilaire Belloc included Mohamed's in The Great Heresies. Heathens worship other gods, heretics twist the real One's words.

    Trump is flawed, too. But better a flawed ally than a smooth enemy.

    I don’t see how it’s not still federalism either way.

    Read More
  15. Giuseppe says:

    I believe the Demopublican Elites react with such visceral horror to Trump’s suggestion because they wish to preserve the fiction that US intervention in the ME are not racist.

    Read More
  16. Few people recognize that history ebbs and flows, and actually follows stock markets (peace during the latter parts of big rallies, wars at or slightly after big lows.)

    The USA (and West in general) has been on a rip-roaring tear higher for 30 years. This was unprecedented in modern history, so few seem to realize how unusual our times really are.

    All this simply measures the social mood of a populace. When the mood is rising and high, politicians are teflon (think the 2nd part of Hill-Billy from Arkansas) and the public complacent.

    All that seems to be changing (finally.) The political parties have evolved into sclerotic systems of open corruption. They both need to go.

    If the stock market, which topped last MAY (!) continues to signal the road ahead is down, it won’t take much time at all before heretofore untouchable incumbent politicians will be tossed out of office so hard they experience a dead cat bounce.

    The GOP “response” (in Spanish, no less, what a translation that reads quite differently!) was in my opinion the “Let them eat cake” of the Republican Zombies.

    Read More
  17. Rehmat says:

    British veteran journalist and author, Alan Hart, wrote on December 14, 2015: “The Palestinians and Iran in particular, are fortunate that the prospect of any Republican replacing Obama in the White House are close to zero.”

    http://rehmat1.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-next-us-president/

    Read More
  18. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Here is one of the main problems of American politics.

    Jews are equally represented and served by both parties.

    Just look at the people invited to conversations with Bill Kristol.

    http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/

    It’s mostly Jewish or shabbos goy.

    Given that Jewish voters make up maybe 3% of the GOP, this is truly remarkable.

    So, why is it a problem that Jews are prominent in both Democratic Party and the GOP?

    It is because it muffles white interests.

    Suppose there were no Jews in American politics. Then the Democrats would be the party of minorities and some white Liberals. And GOP would be the party of whites that is proud to be white.
    So, all groups would be represented in American politics. Blacks and others would use the Democratic Party to push their minority interests. And whites would proudly stand for white interests in the GOP.
    The coalition of non-whites in the Democratic Party and the white base of the GOP would be open and candid about what they stand for. It would be like George Jefferson vs Archie Bunker, with everything out in the open.
    Of course, white Liberals would side with minorities in the Democratic Party, but as time goes by, they will be less and less relevant. Indeed, the Democratic Party has been losing the bulk of white voters for decades, and the GOP would have won them over if it hadn’t sold its soul to the globalists who favored wars, ‘free trade’ that hollowed out American manufacturing, and open borders that vastly increased the non-white population.

    [MORE]

    Without Jews, US politics would be non-whites(and traitor-whites) vs whites. All groups would have their say. If Democrats win, blacks and minorities would win. If GOP wins, whites will win.

    But as it happens, Jews gained control of the GOP. In order to appease Jews, GOP establishment has become allergic to white interests and white identity. If anything, it’s been pushing policies that have done most to hurt white middle class and working class, at least in the long run. In the short run, immigration helped whites by providing them with a buffer population between themselves and violent blacks. But in the long run, US is gonna be overrun with Latinos, Asians, Africans, and Muslims.

    Now, suppose all Jews were to go to the Democratic side and become blatantly anti-white. In the short term, Republicans would freak out since they would lose Jewish money and support. But in the long run, the advantage would be that whites could finally breathe freely and say their say and act in their own interests. Without Jewish oligarchs and operatives to appease and knowing that all Jews are against white conservatives, whites can finally fight back AS WHITES. They could regain their identity and ‘become who they are’.

    Democrats vs Republicans is like pro-hyphenization vs anti-hyphenization.
    All the various groups among the Democrats are into identity and noble victim-hood and virulently blame whites for all their problems or even privilege. After all, rich Jews, privileged homos, and affluent Asians also want to play ‘victim’ since it’s so fashionable to be ‘victim of the evil white male’.

    Anti-hyphenization might work IF the media, academia, and culture were to pressure ALL groups to let go of their identity and assimilate to generic Americanism. In the past, this was achieved more or less with white ethnics becoming Anglo-Americanized under anti-hyphenizing pressure. But as the Anglo-component of Americanism has faded away(except implicitly) and as PC promotes identity politics among Jews, homos, and non-whites, the anti-hyphenization of the GOP has turned into a losing game. Also, Neocon Jews who push this propositional anti-hyphenization on white gentiles are blatantly pro-identity when it comes to Jewishness, Israel, Zionism, AIPAC, ADL, and etc.

    There was a time when anti-hyphenization was an advantage to Anglo-America. It meant that various ethnic groups should favor the Anglo-American template of nationality and give up their own tribal interests. And we see Michael Corleone trying to do this in the opening of THE GODFATHER. He just wants to be a good patriotic American. He even has an Anglo-American girlfriend.

    But he regains his ethnic identity, especially after his father gets shot and when he returns to Sicily and reconnects with his roots. It’s like pilgrimage to the land of his forefathers and foremothers.

    When Anglo-Americans ruled, anti-hyphenization meant ‘become like us Anglo-Americans’. But today, it means Jews and others can play up their identity and interests while white gentiles must play theirs down, indeed even to the point where white identity has become taboo. And more alarmingly, this isn’t the case only in the US(which one must admit was politically founded on abstract principles) but in Europe itself that has long history, identity, and roots in its own territory. It’s even beginning to happen in Japan as globalist PC and pop culture are like British opium that zonks out minds all over the place. (But globalism isn’t really totally generic. It’s not about all of humanity equally melding into one. It is about the domination of Hollywood blockbusters, sleaze TV, black hip hop, and homo decadence of fad and fashion. Globalism is the domination of Jews, blacks, and homos all over the world. For this reason, some groups win out over others in globalism. Homos dominate straights, Jews dominate gentiles, and blacks dominate sexuality and jungle-feverize European women who come to see their own men as inferior and deserving of cuckoldry.)

    So, the anti-hyphenization of the GOP is dangerous to white conservatives. It’s no longer about ethnics and non-whites melting into the cultural and political pot constructed by Anglo-Americans. It is about white Americans melting away into a globalist pot that keeps adding more and more ingredients from all over the world.
    Look what Merkel’s globo-soup recipe is doing to Germany. She’s worse than the witch in Hansel and Gretel.
    And of course, if globo-PC has an enemy, it is always the native majority. In Europe, PC attacks white majorities. In South Africa, it attacks native blacks who want to keep out foreign blacks. In Asia, it attacks native yellows for ‘racism’ and ‘intolerance’. The only place where native majority power is hailed and protected is, of course, Israel… though, to be sure, there are cracks in that too because non-whites, angry whites, and some conscience-troubled Jews are pointing out that Israel and American Jews are playing a dirty game by practicing ‘nationalism for me but not for thee’.
    Globo-PC is like the Janissary system of the Ottomans. Ottomans took Christian children from Greece and elsewhere and raised them fight for Ottoman imperialism. So, Greek boy were turned into Islamo-globo-imperialism. Today, globo-empire controlled by Jews and homos recruit elites from around the world and use these collaborationist elites against their own people. US Ivy League schools and Hollywood are like recruitment and indoctrination facilities of globalism. The talented and affluent young from all over the world come to US and become brainwashed by PC globalism and become so dazzled by American riches and glamour that their only idea of The Good is to imitate the PC dogma of Harvard and Pop Culture of Hollywood and MTV.

    As long as PC promotes identity politics among non-whites, Jews, and homos, it is only natural that white conservatives should also play identity politics. It’s the only game left, especially when whites can no longer be assured of being a majority in the US… even in Europe.
    But GOP cannot do this because it is so beholden to Jews. GOP is less beholden to other non-white groups because their power is insignificant in the GOP. There are only token blacks in the GOP, so GOP doesn’t have to bend over to blacks. There are some Hispanics in the GOP, but they are not very rich or powerful. And ones like Cruz and Rubio are Cuban(and don’t connect with Mexicans) and more into serving Neocons than whites or even their own people. There are some homos, but their power relies mostly on alliance with and protection from Neocons.
    Without Jews, GOP would be a white party dominated by whites, and whites could more freely talk about white issues and even white identity. But whites in GOP must look over their shoulders at Jews.
    Jews haven’t done jack-crap for white conservatives for a long time. During the Cold War and post-60s era of lunacy and crime, Neocons did bring fresh energy to the GOP. But since the end of Cold War, neocon presence in the GOP has only served to suppress white identity and interests. Besides, whatever that the neocons cant get from GOP, they can get from the Democrats as well. Ever since Bill Clinton’s transformation of the Democrats into a globalist free trade, anti-black-crime, and urban renewal party(great for places like NY, Chicago, and SF), there has been no reason for neocons to be in the GOP. But Neocons stick around to suppress white identity and interests that might ultimately challenge Jewish power. As long as GOP sucks up to Neocons, it must silence all proud white voices. Also, the GOP is so eager to win favor from Jews that it will war-monger and whore-monger for Jews in the Middle East, Pacific, and Ukraine.
    But the thing is Jews can pretty much get the same thing from Democrats because Hillary is Shillary. Even Bernie Sanders is a staunch Zionist. And Wall Street pretty much owns most Democratic Politicians. And Jewish Hollywood and Silicon Valley have bought up US politics. But when Neocons need really rabid attack dogs, they go to the GOP whose militarist mentality has been reprogrammed to serve the Jew.
    White cucks of the GOP are like the Pawnee in LITTLE BIG MAN. According to LBM, Pawnees suck up to whites, even by killing other Indians. And cucks in the GOP will not only push for destruction of Middle East but white Russian and white supporters of Trump in the GOP because cucks suck up to Jews.

    Jews own both parties. They can make pretty much the same demands on both parties. And in both parties, voices critical of Jews are suppressed. The Paleo-cons, national cons, and Alt right that are critical of Jewish power are forced to the fringes.
    And among the Democrats, Muslims and anti-Zionist elements are at the margins. Everyone who matters is totally slavish to Jews and Israel.

    But a kind of strange dynamics exist in both parties. Jews are far more powerful and prominent in the Democratic Party, but in some ways, they feel less secure among among fellow Democrats who are increasingly non-white. While the Jewish-controlled Narrative shames whites for ‘racism’ , ‘slavery’, ‘Holocaust’, and etc, such guilt-mechanisms are hardly effective against non-whites(at least in the West). If anything, PC has been encouraging non-white identity and pride against ‘evil racist whites’ and ‘white privilege’. So far so good for Jews as Jews have marshaled non-whites against whites.
    But the problem is that non-whites often cannot tell the difference between Jews and whites. And many non-whites notice that Jews are the most privileged among whites. I mean one has to be blind not to notice this in Hollywood, Wall Street, law firms, Ivy League universities, and etc. Also, given the rightward shift of Israel politics and Netanyahu’s yahoo antics and boorishness, many non-whites have come to equate Israel and Zionism with GOP, the party of ‘evil whites’. And with all the shabbos goyim in the GOP always singing hosannas to Israel, Israel, and Israel, many non-whites think Jewish interests = western imperialism.

    Even though Jews are very powerful in terms of money and connections in the Democratic Party, they are losing thematically. Though Clinton remade the Democratic Party into a globo-elite party(that Jews love), it still pretends to be the party of the underprivileged(which Jews haven’t been for decades). But blacks are discovering they got less than Jews and homos under Obama. Blacks got lots of government jobs, but if you don’t work for the state, you don’t have much if you’re black. And browns don’t rise very high in the US. Since they don’t gain much in quality, they are appeased with quantity, i.e. more immigration.
    Jewish power and the themes of Democrats don’t go together well. Jews are so rich and powerful in the US while Democratic themes are about championing the underprivileged. So, we have Jewish Democrats vs BDS. Indeed, we even have the perverse phenom of privileged college students yapping constantly about how bad privilege is. Bastions of privilege like the Ivies make the most fuss about privilege. We have affluent Lib whites bitching about the ‘white privilege’ of ‘white trailer trash’. We have Fareed Zakarai, who’s only known privilege all his life back in India and US, writing essays about how white factory workers and dirt poor farmers were about ‘white privilege’. (Using this logic, we might as well blacks were privileged too since they got it better than American Indians.)
    Jews want the Democratic Party to serve Jewish interests but many non-whites and even white Liberals sense that the Palestinians are the real underprivileged. Also, as Israel has become so closely aligned with the GOP via the neocons, many ‘progressives’ and non-whites have lost sympathy for Israel. Also, with the internet, many more people are aware of all the bad things Jews do in West Bank. Prior to the internet, the Jewish-controlled media could block those things out.
    So, even though Jews are very powerful in the Democratic Party, they feel increasingly insecure and threatened.

    Jews are less powerful in the GOP than in the Democratic Party. And yet, in some ways, they have more influence over party affairs. This is because the prevailing theme of America has become ‘white guilt’ and white atonement’. Even the GOP is into MLK worship and apologizing for the Holocaust even though Americans had nothing to do with it. As GOP is the white party, it is also the ‘historical guilt’ party.
    PC dominates America, even the GOP. PC fills non-whites with accusatory pride while filling whites with atoning guilt.

    So, if Jews in the Democratic Party, despite all their power, feel defensive and insecure vis-a-vis non-whites, they feel morally superior to whites in the GOP who are in atonement mode. Though there are more Jewish masters in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, there are also lots of loud dogs who bark at them. Blacks don’t feel they must redeem themselves to Jews. Muslims don’t like Jews. Asians don’t feel any guilt, though, to be sure, in their eagerness to win approval from the advanced West, Asians are most likely to adopt and implement PC to show that they are just as ‘progressive’ as whites. Mexicans don’t give a crap about the Holocaustez and don’t give crap about history despite Fred Reed’s contention that Mexers are famous readers of everything from Shakespeare to texts on brain surgery.
    This may be why Jews have been promoting the homo agenda. If you can’t get non-whites on ‘racism’, at least get them on ‘homophobia’. But if BLM protests are any sign, you can’t pacify blacks for too long with this homo stuff.

    Democrats have become schizo. We have Debbie Wasserman saying that, as a Jew, she sides with her Muslim brothers and sisters against hateful white Americans. But aren’t Jews the ones who are oppressing Palestinians and the ones who steered Western foreign policy to lay waste to the Arab/Muslim world? Does anyone take that Jewess seriously when she spouts nonsense like that? And aren’t Jews at the forefront of gentrifying cities by using homo-gentrifiers and Section 8 to make cities more white/Jewish/Asian and less black? And what do Muslim-Americans get in the US? Their children are raised to worship the homo anus. Some respect for Muslims.

    Those with power can control themes, and Jews have cleverly crafted ‘progressivism’ and ‘leftism’ to favor Jewish interests. I mean there is nothing that says the homo agenda should be part of progressivism or leftism. There is nothing that says open borders should be part of the leftist program. If leftists care about the native working class, the last thing they should be doing is colluding with globo-corporations to bring in masses of scab laborers. And where in classic leftism does it say that it’s great to praise capitalist-consumerism’s promotion of slut culture, rap gangsta culture, and etc that celebrate vanity, hedonism, narcissism, egotism, and self-centered thuggery and bitchery?
    So, Jews could turn ‘leftism’ and ‘progressivism’ into whatever, just like Neocons could remold ‘conservatism’ into whatever. And of course, Jews remolded Christianity into a religion where the flock must believe Jesus would have been for ‘gay marriage’.

    Even so, there is a limit to thematic distortion. Though all ideologies are flexible and fluid to some degree, there is a breaking point. It’s like the story of Emperor Has No Clothes. At some point, the twisted logic becomes so crazy that the thing breaks.
    And we are seeing this among both Democrats and Republicans. As Democratic Party becomes more and more non-white, the conceit that rich and powerful Jews(who look white to most non-whites) are fellow ‘victims’ or ‘marginalized’ is becoming laughable. The idea that homos and now even trannies constitute the New Civil Rights and New Spirituality is becoming surreal and ludicrous. And as colleges become less white, there will be more support for stuff like BDS and more calling out to Jewish elites to make things more fair.

    GOP has been more slavish and obedient to the Jews. Some white Conservatives relish the spectacle of the Jewish crisis in the Democratic Party. Maybe just maybe the ‘coalition of the fringes’ will get out of line and push most Jews over to the GOP. White Cons pray for the political conversion of the Jews as Jews got the most money, influence, energy, and talent. But evidence has shown that Jews in the GOP make whites serve Jews(and even homos). They don’t serve whites.

    Nevertheless, the rise of Donald Trump shows that Jews in the GOP are nervous too. They thought all the Buchananites and ‘Arabists’ have been purged from the Party forever. This was the case among GOP elites. But the conservative masses are making trouble, and Jewish Neocons are beginning to feel like Stalin and Kaganovich toward the unruly Ukrainians. Stalin and Bolshies totally remade the ruling elites of Russia/Soviet Union, but the masses of Ukrainians still resisted the new system. So, they were starved into obedience, just like Neocons starved Iraqi women and children by the 100,000s in the 90s to break Iraq.
    In a way, Jews really have nothing to fear from Trump who was made by Jewish connections. Trump is totally for Israel(and me thinks that all this Trumphenom is a ploy used to Jews to see how much hardline conservatives are still in the GOP. It’s like Mao used the Hundred Flowers Campaign to see how many anti-communist and non-communist voices were still there. All those who are for Trump may be targeted in the future once Trump’s momentum fades. They will forever be stamped with Trump, a bad thing is you want to get ahead in the GOP. And Neocons will look to see who opposed Trump and who didn’t oppose him even if they didn’t support him. Those who opposed him most vociferously will be favored. It’s like in THE GODFATHER. The Corleones lay low and pretend like they’re losing to Barzini the Trumpolini. It looks like Barzini is gonna win and take everything. But it was just a trap. The Corleones had plans to take him out. And the Corleones were able to identify the collaborators of Barzini. So, Carlo and Sal Fish got killed too. But maybe I’m just being paranoid. Maybe Trump is the real thing, and the support for him is a sign of something happening that may permanently change the GOP. And that means the beginning of rise of white consciousness and white interests. And that means Neocons have lost the control of the narrative in the GOP as their points about ‘free trade’ and ‘open borders’ mean little to most white Republicans and as white gentile politicians who push the Neocon line are ridiculed as ‘cucks’.)

    Anyway, the future of America is identity politics, especially as there seems to be no end in sight to immigration. Either the GOP just folds or it survives as a white identity party.
    And only then, we can have real honest politics in the US.
    Democrats will be for non-whites and the GOP will be for whites.
    Both sides will have problems.
    While immigration will increase the number of non-whites among the Democrats, non-whites don’t see eye to eye on most things. In contrast, despite differences between social conservatives and libertarians, whites in GOP tend to be more united or organic.

    But the future of US politics won’t only be pro-identity. It will also be mixed-identity as the number of mixed-raced population continues to grow. More and more white women have kids with black men. Close to 50% of Asian-American women have children with non-Asian men. Huge numbers of Anglos and Mexicans mix in Texas and SW states.

    So far, someone like Tiger Woods and Obama has been called ‘black’ according to the traditional white American system that labeled as black anyone with a drop of black blood. But such paradigm may be replaced.
    Identity politics will be confused because US is both multi-culti and interracist.
    Multi-culturalism is anti-assimilationist. It condemns assimilationism as a white imperialist conspiracy to make non-whites surrender their cultural/historical identities and just become part of white culture and value-system. It says says each racial, national, and ethnic group should ‘celebrate’ its own heritage and identity. Non-whites groups shouldn’t abandon their own identities and heritages to just become generically ‘white’ or ‘American’. This is a leftist twist of a rightist idea. After all, rightism of any race or culture tries to maintain its identity. In a way, multi-culti stuff was a projection of Jewish neurosis on all non-white groups. Jews assimilated into America but also feared losing their identity and ethnicity to White America. After all, Jews survived for 3,500 yrs via a cultural outlook of separatism, indeed even when they lived amongst gentiles. Jews refused to assimilate into Christian faith and culture. In order to justify their own element of separatism for white Americanism, Jews spread it to other groups as well.

    But it was also the Jewish fear that unless there was something like multi-culturalism, most non-white groups may indeed join with white gentiles, and then, Jews couldn’t play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, despite Mexican resentments about gringo, Mexers really look up to Americanos. Asian women wanna have babies with white men. Whiteness is still the standard of beauty around the world. Consider the Asian-Indians who whiten their skin to look more white. Such sucking up to whiteness could mean non-whites following whites. But multi-culturalism makes non-whites see whites as the enemy and oppressor.

    On the other hand, the official doctrine of America is interracism, which is a rejection of one’s own race and surrender to the allure of the other race. As races mix, cultures mix, and cultural identity is weakened. So, interracism works undermine to multi-culturalism. After all, a person is much more likely to guard and protect his or her culture if he or she is mono-racial. Surely a 100% Pole is likely to care more about Poland and Polishness than someone who is 1/4 Polish, 1/4 black, 1/4 Mexican, and 1/4 Chinese.
    Interracism undermines cultural identity.
    Because US promotes both anti-assimilationist multi-culturalism and pro-assimilationist interracism AND because there is both an increase in angry identity politics and race-mixing(that undermines identity politics), the future of US politics will be pretty confused… like in Latin America where no one knows what they are anymore.

    Jewish neurosis shapes US politics and American-globalist power.

    We live in neurotopia ruled by a neurocracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Given that Jewish voters make up maybe 3% of the GOP, this is truly remarkable."

    Priss, I have a hard time following your math. I believe Jews comprise around 2% of the American population. It is indisputable that Jews vote anywhere from 70-90% for the Democratic Party. If that is the case, how can Jewish voters make up 3% of the GOP? 10-30% of the Jewish vote would comprise 0.2 to 0.6% of the GOP vote.
  19. Stan says:

    It is time the West defended its civilizational values. There should be a moratorium on Saudi, Turkish and Iranian government mosques in Western countries until Christians are allowed to build churches and practice their religion freely in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "It is time the West defended its civilizational values"

    This would not be an easy task considering the deep connections of the west' "deciders" to the Middle East kingdoms (see Bush' wet kisses with the Saudi princes) and the no-daylight-between relationships between the US and Israel.
    Would not it be great of Iraq, Libya, and Syria were left to their own devices and their citizens were staying home instead of running from the bombings and ruined cities and villages? The MIC profits would suffer though.
    In the same vein, the Christian heretics that took the boats to overseas to establish European colonies in the North America would had certainly preferred to stay within their culture and near their parish churches if not certain problems: "The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics."
    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

    Neither Bush the lesser (the one that heard the God' voice) nor Blair the Pious have been excommunicated for their wars that have created the waves of humanity towards the European shores (and that emptied the state coffers).
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Stan,

    If you'd care to take a squint you'd see that churches all over the so called Christian nations are for the most part empty. Why is that?

    Bishop Spong has been writing for years now that unless Christianity lets go of the illogical dogmas like virgin births, walking on water and rising from the dead and gets back to the quest for spiritual growth that the early Christians were all about then Christianity will become increasingly irrelevant to most, if indeed that hasn't already happened.

    In any case who would go to the churches in SA, Turkey and Iran, assuming they existed?

    BTW, are you aware that Iran has the largest Jewish population in the ME outside of Israel? A large percentage of Iranian Jews don't recognise or support modern Israel either.
  20. @tbraton
    "But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. "

    That's why his selection of a running mate (assuming he secures the nomination) is so important. In looking over the field of candidates, I'm having a hard time coming up with a suitable VP choice. I believe we can strike Nikki Haley off the list.

    Everyone overestimates the stickiness of our current conditions.

    Long before 8 years from now a tsunami of structural incompatibilities will have altered the landscape forever.

    The can has been kicked, yes, but each time it is, it gets heavier with baggage. Very soon there will be no way to kick it further, the music will stop and no one will be able to get the party going again until a long period of sobriety occurs.

    Sobriety will be the end of all this stupid crap (LGBT leapfrogging deviance, Invader-American Immivasion, endless extortion of productive whites, especially males, in favor of people too stupid to take care of themselves, etc..)

    There won’t be any more money for it, and the Uncle Leviathan’s credit score will have cratered.

    Read More
  21. At some point, the GOP establishment will need to face the fact that we will not be dissuaded, and embrace Trump or lose, yet another, election.
    The sooner the better. Cruz NOT BEING a “natural born citizen”, is gaining traction.
    Rubio, Bush, and the others are just more of the same, and will splinter the conservative voters.

    Read More
  22. Realist says:

    Trump is no panacea. He is just much better than all the others….which says little comfort..

    Read More
  23. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    New York Times blocks all my comments, so let me comment here.
    The issue is relevant to Cathey’s article:

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/ten-theses-on-immigration/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body#more-21501

    The Douther wrote: “Yes, the world of nations is full of arbitrary borders, invented traditions, and convenient mythologies layered atop histories of plunder and pillage.”

    [MORE]

    Those arbitrary borders were created by imperialism.

    This is why ethno-nationalism is better than ideo-nationalism(nationalism based on ideology) or imperio-nationalism(nationalism based on borderlines drawn by imperialists who didn’t give a crap about ethnic integrity).

    Imperio-nationalism is the legacy of imperialists who created boundaries only in the service of their imperialist interests. In places with weak or shallow cultural histories, it worked more or less. But it has proven poisonous in places with deeply rooted identities.

    Ideo-nationalism, a nationalism based on ideology, held together the various ethnic groups of Yugoslavia.
    But a territory held together by shared ideology is weaker than a territory held together by shared ethnicity. Indeed, even ideo-nationalism works better when accompanied by ethno-nationalism.
    Vietnamese communism works better among Vietnamese than with Cambodian communists and Laotian communists. Better that there be Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos that the French imperialist creation of Indo-China.

    Best formula is ethnicity + territory + national consciousness.

    While ideo-nationalism may work for awhile, like in the USSR, ideology is never as powerful as identity.

    Also problematic is ethno-globalism, which is what the US promotes. Globalism sounds like the world getting along together freely and happily, but not all groups are equal in the globalist power-game. Jews are far more powerful than other groups, so globalism(as led by US) has a strong ethno-content, which is why US got in so much mess in the Middle East and against Russia over Ukraine. What we have in the world is Zio-homo-globalism.

    If we are to have globalism(though I don’t want it), it has to be genuine globalism where all nations and peoples are equal. But in fact, globalism, as practiced and dominated by the US, is a form of ethno-supremacism of Jews, with homos used as proxies. Ethno-globalism, the predominant mode in today’s world, is a contradiction. Jews control much of the top institutions and industries around the world. They try to impose their interests around the world even though the Jewish component of the interest is often hidden behind ‘gay rights’, ‘diversity’, ‘tolerance’, and etc. After all, I don’t see Jews pressuring Israel to surrender its national sovereignty for globalism. I don’t even see Jews saying Israel should offer Golan Heights(stolen from Syria) as sanctuary for refugees.

    Ethno-nationalism makes the most sense because territoriality, ethnicity, and national consciousness are aligned with each other.

    Suppose we do a mind-experiment.

    Suppose there are three peoples: Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians. Suppose Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodinians are racially or ethnically different.

    Suppose we must formulate the best way for the three groups to live well.

    One proposition is to put Jewdonians in a place called Jewdonia, Moodonians in a place called Moodian, and Goodonians in a place called Goodonia.
    This would be ethno-centrism. Each people have their own homeland. Their ethnicity and territoriality would be complementary and aligned. Now, why wouldn’t this work? Sounds good.

    But let’s consider other options.

    Suppose we put Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians in one nation and tell them that they must all identify as Jewdonians. But why would Moodonians and Goodonians want to be identify as ‘Jewdonians’? Also, Jewdonians will ask why non-Jewdonians get to be recognized as ‘Jewdonians’. I mean how would Jews is Israel like it if 10 million Africans came and became ‘Jews’?
    OR, suppose this nation constructs a new supra-national identity called Loodonians. So, Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians must abandon their original ethnicity and declare themselves as Loodonians. But what is a ‘Loodonian’? As lots and lots of time pass and a new Loodonian identity is enforced, maybe this is possible, like how the new ‘American’ identity was forged. But it would be a painstaking process. Besides, the concept of ‘American’ became viable and established ONLY because the founding and developing of US was overwhelmingly Anglo-American. Americanness would not have emerged if each of the 13 colonies had been settled by very different races/cultures. Even in the American South with lots of blacks, there was the dominance of Anglo-white culture to which blacks were assimilated to. But even after centuries, we realize that it’s not so easy for races to become one thing. Even in Latin America that had much more race-mixing, there are still divisions along racial lines.

    The third option would be create two nation-states. Jewdonia and Goodonia. But no Moodonia. So, what happens to the Moodonians? Suppose half must live in Jewdonia as minorities to majority Jewdonians, and the other half must live in Goodonia as minorities of Goodonians. Moodonians would end up like Kurds following the Old Man Sykes-Picot Agreement. Some Kurds ended up in Turkey, some in Iraq, some in Syria, etc. So, how were Kurds treated by majority groups in those nations? Turks have been fighting Kurds forever. Hussein killed 100,000s of Kurds.
    And how are Palestinians doing under the rule of Zionists?

    The fourth option would be to create three nation-states, but each nation state will have equal numbers of Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians. So, each state will be diverse. Would this be better than a Jewdonia with Jewdonians, Moodonia with Moodonians, and Goodonia with Goodonians?

    I don’t think so. We saw what happened to Europe due to mixed populations. It led to WWI and then served as catalyst of WWII as such geo-political mess gave Hitler the pretext to move into other nations to protect and serve German minorities.

    And look at Israel and West Bank. Wouldn’t it be better if Israel were all Jewish and if West Bank were all Palestinian? Instead, there’s the problem of diversity in both Israel and West Bank, and therefore, both places are troubled.

    Would Japan and Philippines be better off if 1/3 of Japanese population were Filipino and 1/3 of Philippines were Japanese?

    It is so obvious that ethno-nationalism is the best formula.
    So, why does it get such a bad name?

    Because of ethno-globalism dominated by Jews. Jews see that ethno-nationalism leads to a sense of common unity and solidarity among the leaders and the led of goy nations, like in nationalist Hungary that said NO to migrants. If a nation says NO to foreign masses, it may also be wary of foreign elites. Thus, the nation becomes less penetrable and manipulate-able for Jewish ethno-globalists. Russia was much easier for Jews to penetrate when it dropped communism. As Russian nationalism had become wedded to communism, fall of communism meant fall of nationalism as well, and so, Jews saw an opening and nearly took over everything. Communism had been associated with Russian national pride since communist Russia defeated Nazi Germany and became a superpower.
    Without communism, Russia was also stripped naked of nationalism. But gradually, Russia restored a new kind of traditionalist nationalism, and Jews fear this kind even more because nationalism rooted in ethnos and terros(territoriality) is more resilient that one based on a proposition or ideology. So, Jews have been trying to destroy Russian nationalism with all means they can muster.

    Given that Jews love ethno-nationalism in Israel, they are fully cognizant of its power and validity. When that power is with Jews in Israel, Jews are all for it. But when that power is with gentiles in gentile nations, it makes it more difficult for Jews to take total control since ethno-national unity of leaders and the led will keep Jewish power at bay.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    New York Times blocks all my comments, so let me comment here.

    Unz. Publisher of last resort?
  24. @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    “Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .”

    What, hambone?

    Read More
  25. @Epaminondas
    The good news is that the historic American nation is beginning to stir. The bad news is that we have only the internet with which to spread the revolt against the Establishment. With Trump's charisma and money, we may be able to break through. But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump's administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. That's a long shot. I hope we make it.

    But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect.

    A funny thing for someone named Epaminondas to say. Didn’t the original finish off Sparta for good?

    Read More
  26. Nader warned us loud and clear about the Demopublicans in the course of the 2000 elections. Congratulations to all the people who are finally catching up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Nader was about the billionth person to catch on to that fact.
  27. annamaria says:
    @Stan
    It is time the West defended its civilizational values. There should be a moratorium on Saudi, Turkish and Iranian government mosques in Western countries until Christians are allowed to build churches and practice their religion freely in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.

    “It is time the West defended its civilizational values”

    This would not be an easy task considering the deep connections of the west’ “deciders” to the Middle East kingdoms (see Bush’ wet kisses with the Saudi princes) and the no-daylight-between relationships between the US and Israel.
    Would not it be great of Iraq, Libya, and Syria were left to their own devices and their citizens were staying home instead of running from the bombings and ruined cities and villages? The MIC profits would suffer though.
    In the same vein, the Christian heretics that took the boats to overseas to establish European colonies in the North America would had certainly preferred to stay within their culture and near their parish churches if not certain problems: “The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics.”

    https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

    Neither Bush the lesser (the one that heard the God’ voice) nor Blair the Pious have been excommunicated for their wars that have created the waves of humanity towards the European shores (and that emptied the state coffers).

    Read More
  28. @Stan
    It is time the West defended its civilizational values. There should be a moratorium on Saudi, Turkish and Iranian government mosques in Western countries until Christians are allowed to build churches and practice their religion freely in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran.

    Stan,

    If you’d care to take a squint you’d see that churches all over the so called Christian nations are for the most part empty. Why is that?

    Bishop Spong has been writing for years now that unless Christianity lets go of the illogical dogmas like virgin births, walking on water and rising from the dead and gets back to the quest for spiritual growth that the early Christians were all about then Christianity will become increasingly irrelevant to most, if indeed that hasn’t already happened.

    In any case who would go to the churches in SA, Turkey and Iran, assuming they existed?

    BTW, are you aware that Iran has the largest Jewish population in the ME outside of Israel? A large percentage of Iranian Jews don’t recognise or support modern Israel either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    What is religion without "illogical dogmas"? Philosophy? That's too boring for most people. I don't see the trinity, transubstantiation, etc. getting in the way of belief. Quite the opposite, actually. Mystery and otherworldliness are seductive. It gets in the way for people who overintellectualize, but they're just as likely to swallow nonsense in politics, ethics, and any number of other fields.

    Logical "spirituality" without dogma is what? Religion of dry groping, without much drama.
  29. Ron says:

    All the Donald needs to say is that “Israel does not allow any Muslim immigrants and Israel also built a wall to keep the illegals out”. To follow the example of the Israeli Jews should be a source of admiration by all ?

    Read More
  30. tbraton says:
    @Priss Factor
    Here is one of the main problems of American politics.

    Jews are equally represented and served by both parties.

    Just look at the people invited to conversations with Bill Kristol.

    http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/

    It's mostly Jewish or shabbos goy.

    Given that Jewish voters make up maybe 3% of the GOP, this is truly remarkable.

    So, why is it a problem that Jews are prominent in both Democratic Party and the GOP?

    It is because it muffles white interests.

    Suppose there were no Jews in American politics. Then the Democrats would be the party of minorities and some white Liberals. And GOP would be the party of whites that is proud to be white.
    So, all groups would be represented in American politics. Blacks and others would use the Democratic Party to push their minority interests. And whites would proudly stand for white interests in the GOP.
    The coalition of non-whites in the Democratic Party and the white base of the GOP would be open and candid about what they stand for. It would be like George Jefferson vs Archie Bunker, with everything out in the open.
    Of course, white Liberals would side with minorities in the Democratic Party, but as time goes by, they will be less and less relevant. Indeed, the Democratic Party has been losing the bulk of white voters for decades, and the GOP would have won them over if it hadn't sold its soul to the globalists who favored wars, 'free trade' that hollowed out American manufacturing, and open borders that vastly increased the non-white population.

    Without Jews, US politics would be non-whites(and traitor-whites) vs whites. All groups would have their say. If Democrats win, blacks and minorities would win. If GOP wins, whites will win.

    But as it happens, Jews gained control of the GOP. In order to appease Jews, GOP establishment has become allergic to white interests and white identity. If anything, it's been pushing policies that have done most to hurt white middle class and working class, at least in the long run. In the short run, immigration helped whites by providing them with a buffer population between themselves and violent blacks. But in the long run, US is gonna be overrun with Latinos, Asians, Africans, and Muslims.

    Now, suppose all Jews were to go to the Democratic side and become blatantly anti-white. In the short term, Republicans would freak out since they would lose Jewish money and support. But in the long run, the advantage would be that whites could finally breathe freely and say their say and act in their own interests. Without Jewish oligarchs and operatives to appease and knowing that all Jews are against white conservatives, whites can finally fight back AS WHITES. They could regain their identity and 'become who they are'.

    Democrats vs Republicans is like pro-hyphenization vs anti-hyphenization.
    All the various groups among the Democrats are into identity and noble victim-hood and virulently blame whites for all their problems or even privilege. After all, rich Jews, privileged homos, and affluent Asians also want to play 'victim' since it's so fashionable to be 'victim of the evil white male'.

    Anti-hyphenization might work IF the media, academia, and culture were to pressure ALL groups to let go of their identity and assimilate to generic Americanism. In the past, this was achieved more or less with white ethnics becoming Anglo-Americanized under anti-hyphenizing pressure. But as the Anglo-component of Americanism has faded away(except implicitly) and as PC promotes identity politics among Jews, homos, and non-whites, the anti-hyphenization of the GOP has turned into a losing game. Also, Neocon Jews who push this propositional anti-hyphenization on white gentiles are blatantly pro-identity when it comes to Jewishness, Israel, Zionism, AIPAC, ADL, and etc.

    There was a time when anti-hyphenization was an advantage to Anglo-America. It meant that various ethnic groups should favor the Anglo-American template of nationality and give up their own tribal interests. And we see Michael Corleone trying to do this in the opening of THE GODFATHER. He just wants to be a good patriotic American. He even has an Anglo-American girlfriend.
    https://youtu.be/r-I4VIR5yGg?t=1m33s
    But he regains his ethnic identity, especially after his father gets shot and when he returns to Sicily and reconnects with his roots. It's like pilgrimage to the land of his forefathers and foremothers.

    When Anglo-Americans ruled, anti-hyphenization meant 'become like us Anglo-Americans'. But today, it means Jews and others can play up their identity and interests while white gentiles must play theirs down, indeed even to the point where white identity has become taboo. And more alarmingly, this isn't the case only in the US(which one must admit was politically founded on abstract principles) but in Europe itself that has long history, identity, and roots in its own territory. It's even beginning to happen in Japan as globalist PC and pop culture are like British opium that zonks out minds all over the place. (But globalism isn't really totally generic. It's not about all of humanity equally melding into one. It is about the domination of Hollywood blockbusters, sleaze TV, black hip hop, and homo decadence of fad and fashion. Globalism is the domination of Jews, blacks, and homos all over the world. For this reason, some groups win out over others in globalism. Homos dominate straights, Jews dominate gentiles, and blacks dominate sexuality and jungle-feverize European women who come to see their own men as inferior and deserving of cuckoldry.)

    So, the anti-hyphenization of the GOP is dangerous to white conservatives. It's no longer about ethnics and non-whites melting into the cultural and political pot constructed by Anglo-Americans. It is about white Americans melting away into a globalist pot that keeps adding more and more ingredients from all over the world.
    Look what Merkel's globo-soup recipe is doing to Germany. She's worse than the witch in Hansel and Gretel.
    And of course, if globo-PC has an enemy, it is always the native majority. In Europe, PC attacks white majorities. In South Africa, it attacks native blacks who want to keep out foreign blacks. In Asia, it attacks native yellows for 'racism' and 'intolerance'. The only place where native majority power is hailed and protected is, of course, Israel... though, to be sure, there are cracks in that too because non-whites, angry whites, and some conscience-troubled Jews are pointing out that Israel and American Jews are playing a dirty game by practicing 'nationalism for me but not for thee'.
    Globo-PC is like the Janissary system of the Ottomans. Ottomans took Christian children from Greece and elsewhere and raised them fight for Ottoman imperialism. So, Greek boy were turned into Islamo-globo-imperialism. Today, globo-empire controlled by Jews and homos recruit elites from around the world and use these collaborationist elites against their own people. US Ivy League schools and Hollywood are like recruitment and indoctrination facilities of globalism. The talented and affluent young from all over the world come to US and become brainwashed by PC globalism and become so dazzled by American riches and glamour that their only idea of The Good is to imitate the PC dogma of Harvard and Pop Culture of Hollywood and MTV.

    As long as PC promotes identity politics among non-whites, Jews, and homos, it is only natural that white conservatives should also play identity politics. It's the only game left, especially when whites can no longer be assured of being a majority in the US... even in Europe.
    But GOP cannot do this because it is so beholden to Jews. GOP is less beholden to other non-white groups because their power is insignificant in the GOP. There are only token blacks in the GOP, so GOP doesn't have to bend over to blacks. There are some Hispanics in the GOP, but they are not very rich or powerful. And ones like Cruz and Rubio are Cuban(and don't connect with Mexicans) and more into serving Neocons than whites or even their own people. There are some homos, but their power relies mostly on alliance with and protection from Neocons.
    Without Jews, GOP would be a white party dominated by whites, and whites could more freely talk about white issues and even white identity. But whites in GOP must look over their shoulders at Jews.
    Jews haven't done jack-crap for white conservatives for a long time. During the Cold War and post-60s era of lunacy and crime, Neocons did bring fresh energy to the GOP. But since the end of Cold War, neocon presence in the GOP has only served to suppress white identity and interests. Besides, whatever that the neocons cant get from GOP, they can get from the Democrats as well. Ever since Bill Clinton's transformation of the Democrats into a globalist free trade, anti-black-crime, and urban renewal party(great for places like NY, Chicago, and SF), there has been no reason for neocons to be in the GOP. But Neocons stick around to suppress white identity and interests that might ultimately challenge Jewish power. As long as GOP sucks up to Neocons, it must silence all proud white voices. Also, the GOP is so eager to win favor from Jews that it will war-monger and whore-monger for Jews in the Middle East, Pacific, and Ukraine.
    But the thing is Jews can pretty much get the same thing from Democrats because Hillary is Shillary. Even Bernie Sanders is a staunch Zionist. And Wall Street pretty much owns most Democratic Politicians. And Jewish Hollywood and Silicon Valley have bought up US politics. But when Neocons need really rabid attack dogs, they go to the GOP whose militarist mentality has been reprogrammed to serve the Jew.
    White cucks of the GOP are like the Pawnee in LITTLE BIG MAN. According to LBM, Pawnees suck up to whites, even by killing other Indians. And cucks in the GOP will not only push for destruction of Middle East but white Russian and white supporters of Trump in the GOP because cucks suck up to Jews.
    https://youtu.be/0aCrZ8bb7EU?t=6m6s

    Jews own both parties. They can make pretty much the same demands on both parties. And in both parties, voices critical of Jews are suppressed. The Paleo-cons, national cons, and Alt right that are critical of Jewish power are forced to the fringes.
    And among the Democrats, Muslims and anti-Zionist elements are at the margins. Everyone who matters is totally slavish to Jews and Israel.

    But a kind of strange dynamics exist in both parties. Jews are far more powerful and prominent in the Democratic Party, but in some ways, they feel less secure among among fellow Democrats who are increasingly non-white. While the Jewish-controlled Narrative shames whites for 'racism' , 'slavery', 'Holocaust', and etc, such guilt-mechanisms are hardly effective against non-whites(at least in the West). If anything, PC has been encouraging non-white identity and pride against 'evil racist whites' and 'white privilege'. So far so good for Jews as Jews have marshaled non-whites against whites.
    But the problem is that non-whites often cannot tell the difference between Jews and whites. And many non-whites notice that Jews are the most privileged among whites. I mean one has to be blind not to notice this in Hollywood, Wall Street, law firms, Ivy League universities, and etc. Also, given the rightward shift of Israel politics and Netanyahu's yahoo antics and boorishness, many non-whites have come to equate Israel and Zionism with GOP, the party of 'evil whites'. And with all the shabbos goyim in the GOP always singing hosannas to Israel, Israel, and Israel, many non-whites think Jewish interests = western imperialism.

    Even though Jews are very powerful in terms of money and connections in the Democratic Party, they are losing thematically. Though Clinton remade the Democratic Party into a globo-elite party(that Jews love), it still pretends to be the party of the underprivileged(which Jews haven't been for decades). But blacks are discovering they got less than Jews and homos under Obama. Blacks got lots of government jobs, but if you don't work for the state, you don't have much if you're black. And browns don't rise very high in the US. Since they don't gain much in quality, they are appeased with quantity, i.e. more immigration.
    Jewish power and the themes of Democrats don't go together well. Jews are so rich and powerful in the US while Democratic themes are about championing the underprivileged. So, we have Jewish Democrats vs BDS. Indeed, we even have the perverse phenom of privileged college students yapping constantly about how bad privilege is. Bastions of privilege like the Ivies make the most fuss about privilege. We have affluent Lib whites bitching about the 'white privilege' of 'white trailer trash'. We have Fareed Zakarai, who's only known privilege all his life back in India and US, writing essays about how white factory workers and dirt poor farmers were about 'white privilege'. (Using this logic, we might as well blacks were privileged too since they got it better than American Indians.)
    Jews want the Democratic Party to serve Jewish interests but many non-whites and even white Liberals sense that the Palestinians are the real underprivileged. Also, as Israel has become so closely aligned with the GOP via the neocons, many 'progressives' and non-whites have lost sympathy for Israel. Also, with the internet, many more people are aware of all the bad things Jews do in West Bank. Prior to the internet, the Jewish-controlled media could block those things out.
    So, even though Jews are very powerful in the Democratic Party, they feel increasingly insecure and threatened.

    Jews are less powerful in the GOP than in the Democratic Party. And yet, in some ways, they have more influence over party affairs. This is because the prevailing theme of America has become 'white guilt' and white atonement'. Even the GOP is into MLK worship and apologizing for the Holocaust even though Americans had nothing to do with it. As GOP is the white party, it is also the 'historical guilt' party.
    PC dominates America, even the GOP. PC fills non-whites with accusatory pride while filling whites with atoning guilt.

    So, if Jews in the Democratic Party, despite all their power, feel defensive and insecure vis-a-vis non-whites, they feel morally superior to whites in the GOP who are in atonement mode. Though there are more Jewish masters in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, there are also lots of loud dogs who bark at them. Blacks don't feel they must redeem themselves to Jews. Muslims don't like Jews. Asians don't feel any guilt, though, to be sure, in their eagerness to win approval from the advanced West, Asians are most likely to adopt and implement PC to show that they are just as 'progressive' as whites. Mexicans don't give a crap about the Holocaustez and don't give crap about history despite Fred Reed's contention that Mexers are famous readers of everything from Shakespeare to texts on brain surgery.
    This may be why Jews have been promoting the homo agenda. If you can't get non-whites on 'racism', at least get them on 'homophobia'. But if BLM protests are any sign, you can't pacify blacks for too long with this homo stuff.

    Democrats have become schizo. We have Debbie Wasserman saying that, as a Jew, she sides with her Muslim brothers and sisters against hateful white Americans. But aren't Jews the ones who are oppressing Palestinians and the ones who steered Western foreign policy to lay waste to the Arab/Muslim world? Does anyone take that Jewess seriously when she spouts nonsense like that? And aren't Jews at the forefront of gentrifying cities by using homo-gentrifiers and Section 8 to make cities more white/Jewish/Asian and less black? And what do Muslim-Americans get in the US? Their children are raised to worship the homo anus. Some respect for Muslims.

    Those with power can control themes, and Jews have cleverly crafted 'progressivism' and 'leftism' to favor Jewish interests. I mean there is nothing that says the homo agenda should be part of progressivism or leftism. There is nothing that says open borders should be part of the leftist program. If leftists care about the native working class, the last thing they should be doing is colluding with globo-corporations to bring in masses of scab laborers. And where in classic leftism does it say that it's great to praise capitalist-consumerism's promotion of slut culture, rap gangsta culture, and etc that celebrate vanity, hedonism, narcissism, egotism, and self-centered thuggery and bitchery?
    So, Jews could turn 'leftism' and 'progressivism' into whatever, just like Neocons could remold 'conservatism' into whatever. And of course, Jews remolded Christianity into a religion where the flock must believe Jesus would have been for 'gay marriage'.

    Even so, there is a limit to thematic distortion. Though all ideologies are flexible and fluid to some degree, there is a breaking point. It's like the story of Emperor Has No Clothes. At some point, the twisted logic becomes so crazy that the thing breaks.
    And we are seeing this among both Democrats and Republicans. As Democratic Party becomes more and more non-white, the conceit that rich and powerful Jews(who look white to most non-whites) are fellow 'victims' or 'marginalized' is becoming laughable. The idea that homos and now even trannies constitute the New Civil Rights and New Spirituality is becoming surreal and ludicrous. And as colleges become less white, there will be more support for stuff like BDS and more calling out to Jewish elites to make things more fair.

    GOP has been more slavish and obedient to the Jews. Some white Conservatives relish the spectacle of the Jewish crisis in the Democratic Party. Maybe just maybe the 'coalition of the fringes' will get out of line and push most Jews over to the GOP. White Cons pray for the political conversion of the Jews as Jews got the most money, influence, energy, and talent. But evidence has shown that Jews in the GOP make whites serve Jews(and even homos). They don't serve whites.

    Nevertheless, the rise of Donald Trump shows that Jews in the GOP are nervous too. They thought all the Buchananites and 'Arabists' have been purged from the Party forever. This was the case among GOP elites. But the conservative masses are making trouble, and Jewish Neocons are beginning to feel like Stalin and Kaganovich toward the unruly Ukrainians. Stalin and Bolshies totally remade the ruling elites of Russia/Soviet Union, but the masses of Ukrainians still resisted the new system. So, they were starved into obedience, just like Neocons starved Iraqi women and children by the 100,000s in the 90s to break Iraq.
    In a way, Jews really have nothing to fear from Trump who was made by Jewish connections. Trump is totally for Israel(and me thinks that all this Trumphenom is a ploy used to Jews to see how much hardline conservatives are still in the GOP. It's like Mao used the Hundred Flowers Campaign to see how many anti-communist and non-communist voices were still there. All those who are for Trump may be targeted in the future once Trump's momentum fades. They will forever be stamped with Trump, a bad thing is you want to get ahead in the GOP. And Neocons will look to see who opposed Trump and who didn't oppose him even if they didn't support him. Those who opposed him most vociferously will be favored. It's like in THE GODFATHER. The Corleones lay low and pretend like they're losing to Barzini the Trumpolini. It looks like Barzini is gonna win and take everything. But it was just a trap. The Corleones had plans to take him out. And the Corleones were able to identify the collaborators of Barzini. So, Carlo and Sal Fish got killed too. But maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe Trump is the real thing, and the support for him is a sign of something happening that may permanently change the GOP. And that means the beginning of rise of white consciousness and white interests. And that means Neocons have lost the control of the narrative in the GOP as their points about 'free trade' and 'open borders' mean little to most white Republicans and as white gentile politicians who push the Neocon line are ridiculed as 'cucks'.)

    Anyway, the future of America is identity politics, especially as there seems to be no end in sight to immigration. Either the GOP just folds or it survives as a white identity party.
    And only then, we can have real honest politics in the US.
    Democrats will be for non-whites and the GOP will be for whites.
    Both sides will have problems.
    While immigration will increase the number of non-whites among the Democrats, non-whites don't see eye to eye on most things. In contrast, despite differences between social conservatives and libertarians, whites in GOP tend to be more united or organic.

    But the future of US politics won't only be pro-identity. It will also be mixed-identity as the number of mixed-raced population continues to grow. More and more white women have kids with black men. Close to 50% of Asian-American women have children with non-Asian men. Huge numbers of Anglos and Mexicans mix in Texas and SW states.

    So far, someone like Tiger Woods and Obama has been called 'black' according to the traditional white American system that labeled as black anyone with a drop of black blood. But such paradigm may be replaced.
    Identity politics will be confused because US is both multi-culti and interracist.
    Multi-culturalism is anti-assimilationist. It condemns assimilationism as a white imperialist conspiracy to make non-whites surrender their cultural/historical identities and just become part of white culture and value-system. It says says each racial, national, and ethnic group should 'celebrate' its own heritage and identity. Non-whites groups shouldn't abandon their own identities and heritages to just become generically 'white' or 'American'. This is a leftist twist of a rightist idea. After all, rightism of any race or culture tries to maintain its identity. In a way, multi-culti stuff was a projection of Jewish neurosis on all non-white groups. Jews assimilated into America but also feared losing their identity and ethnicity to White America. After all, Jews survived for 3,500 yrs via a cultural outlook of separatism, indeed even when they lived amongst gentiles. Jews refused to assimilate into Christian faith and culture. In order to justify their own element of separatism for white Americanism, Jews spread it to other groups as well.

    But it was also the Jewish fear that unless there was something like multi-culturalism, most non-white groups may indeed join with white gentiles, and then, Jews couldn't play divide-and-rule among the goyim. After all, despite Mexican resentments about gringo, Mexers really look up to Americanos. Asian women wanna have babies with white men. Whiteness is still the standard of beauty around the world. Consider the Asian-Indians who whiten their skin to look more white. Such sucking up to whiteness could mean non-whites following whites. But multi-culturalism makes non-whites see whites as the enemy and oppressor.

    On the other hand, the official doctrine of America is interracism, which is a rejection of one's own race and surrender to the allure of the other race. As races mix, cultures mix, and cultural identity is weakened. So, interracism works undermine to multi-culturalism. After all, a person is much more likely to guard and protect his or her culture if he or she is mono-racial. Surely a 100% Pole is likely to care more about Poland and Polishness than someone who is 1/4 Polish, 1/4 black, 1/4 Mexican, and 1/4 Chinese.
    Interracism undermines cultural identity.
    Because US promotes both anti-assimilationist multi-culturalism and pro-assimilationist interracism AND because there is both an increase in angry identity politics and race-mixing(that undermines identity politics), the future of US politics will be pretty confused... like in Latin America where no one knows what they are anymore.

    Jewish neurosis shapes US politics and American-globalist power.

    We live in neurotopia ruled by a neurocracy.

    “Given that Jewish voters make up maybe 3% of the GOP, this is truly remarkable.”

    Priss, I have a hard time following your math. I believe Jews comprise around 2% of the American population. It is indisputable that Jews vote anywhere from 70-90% for the Democratic Party. If that is the case, how can Jewish voters make up 3% of the GOP? 10-30% of the Jewish vote would comprise 0.2 to 0.6% of the GOP vote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob Arctor
    Then that's 0.4 to 1.2 percent of the GOP vote, as the GOP only averages around half or so of the total vote.
  31. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    This is how the Zio-Glob feels about GOP and white people.

    This is how the Zio-Glob feels about Christianity.

    Never forget. But the cuckeroos in the GOP just wanna serve the Zio-Glob.

    Their main ire is Trump and white working class instead of the Zio-Glob that gave us Obama, Kagan, Sotomayor, ‘gay marriage’, tranny worship, Wall Street oligarchism, and pornification of young girls by Disney, MTV, and Hollywood.

    Hate those who feel contempt for you.

    Read More
  32. Priss Factor [AKA "Dominique Francon Society"] says:

    Does it make sense to create a unique environment/civilization made possible by enclosure and selective inclusion/exclusion and then open it up to the universal world? Why create something unique to expose to the universal?
    The unique creation won’t survive the full brunt of the universal.

    It’s like carefully creating a garden by choosing and tending certain plants and creatures, and then opening it up to the wild. It will be taken over weed and wild animals.

    A garden is tended and maintained through enclosure and exclusivity. A garden isn’t nature. Garden is filled with natural flowers and plants and rocks and grass and stuff. And it may have some animals that won’t mess up the garden. But it is not all of nature, and it must wall off nature. Nature will swallow up the garden.

    Every civilization was built by enclosure. That’s why walls and armies were important to their maintenance. It was to keep the enemy and invaders out. Of course, a garden isn’t totally closed off. It is open to sunlight, wind, rain. Birds come and go. Its streams may be connected to rivers. So, a garden isn’t completely shut off from the outside world. But it also exists within its own realm apart from nature(and the asphalt jungle of industry). A true nation as an ethnic community is like a garden. You can’t just let it all hang loose come what may. It has to be tended and pruned and taken care of.
    It needs a gardener. Not all kinds of animals are allowed. Imagine wild hogs in a garden. It would eat up everything. Also, there must be rules. For example, you mustn’t allow people to feed pigeons cuz too many will come and shit all over the place. A national leader should be like a gardener. He should tend the garden and keep out stuff that will mess up the garden. Now, he may introduce new things into the garden if they add something, but the decision must come after much deliberation. While certain new additions may enhance the garden and make it richer, indiscriminate allowance of any number of weeds, plants, animals, and other stuff will ruin the garden.

    All nations must be gardens that choose nationalism as the basis for internationalism. Learn from the world and adopt good ideas & technologies to develop your nation. Learn from the world and trade with the world but never ever surrender your nation to the world, especially as globalism is controlled by a cabal of oligarchs and their agents, some of them unwitting, some of them unwitting.
    Same with garden. Garden takes sunlight, air, rain, etc from outside the garden. It allows birds and critters to enter and visit. But a garden cannot be maintained if it surrenders to nature.

    Garden has elements of nature. It uses plants, grass, bushes, ponds, and etc. But it is not only nature. It is a selective use of nature that closes off wild nature. Globalism is like a stampede of elephants or swarm of locusts. It respects nothing. It is a disease that might as well be called Sorositis.

    We need to think in terms of national vs global, as people like Marine Le Pen have said.
    We need to think in terms of moral vs whoral because globalism seeks to turn all women around into whores along the lines of MTV and Hollywood: minds obsessed with nothing but narcissism, egotism, hedonism, and celebritism.

    The choice is not xenophobic isolationism vs globalism. It is nationalism-as-foundation-of-internationalism vs globalism-robbing-every-nation-of-its-sovereignty-heritage-identity-values.

    Another rule. A nation should not swallow what it cannot digest. If a python tries to swallow something too big, it will explode.
    If you eat too much, your digestive system won’t be able to process it and the stuff will just rot in your gut. Western gut is rotting from too much voracious intake of migration. Especially Negroes are hard to digest. Most national stomachs have allergies to Negroes because the jivers be too wild and crazy. Many nations are understandably Blacktose Intolerant. Even so-called Libs who claim to love Negroes use gentrification, incarceration of blacks, and stop-and-frisk to control the blacks. The revival of NY as a garden city had a lot to do with tough handling of black feral dogs that, from late 60s to early 90s, ran wild and messed up the garden. Consider how people feared going to Central Park. Even people who are obsessed with black pop culture would prefer not to live in Detroit or black parts of DC.

    The West is screwy cuz PC is contradictory. On the one hand, it says all races are the same and the concept of ‘race’ is just a toxic ‘social construct’. So, no race is different from any other.
    But PC also says white people need to bring in other races because a mono-racial nation is too boring, too bland, too dull, too colorless, and etc.

    But if all races are the same and if racial differences are imaginary, why would you need different races? The other races would be just as ‘boring’ as your own race.
    If race is just a ‘social construct’, a nation that is 100% white should be no different from a nation that is 25% white, 25% black, 25% yellow, and 25% brown. After all, non-white peoples would just be white people with different skin color.

    But PC says white people must invite non-whites because a nation with only whites is deficient in the positive qualities possessed ONLY by non-whites.
    PC is just Zio-Globalist BS that keeps peddling contradictory lies with a straight face, but too many whites are either too naive, too dumb, too ignorant, or too cowardly to see it and reject it for what it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior
    So, how many different names do you post under, Priss Factory?

    Your rants make me think that you need to lay off the amphetamines. Your posts are nothing but a bunch of crystal-meth inspired drivel. Get help.

    Jack Kerouac you are not. Far from it.

    http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Altered-States-Style-Drug-Induced-379396.html
    , @Junior

    Get help.
     
    Almost forgot, here's a good place for you to start.

    http://www.na.org/
  33. @tbraton
    "Given that Jewish voters make up maybe 3% of the GOP, this is truly remarkable."

    Priss, I have a hard time following your math. I believe Jews comprise around 2% of the American population. It is indisputable that Jews vote anywhere from 70-90% for the Democratic Party. If that is the case, how can Jewish voters make up 3% of the GOP? 10-30% of the Jewish vote would comprise 0.2 to 0.6% of the GOP vote.

    Then that’s 0.4 to 1.2 percent of the GOP vote, as the GOP only averages around half or so of the total vote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Then that’s 0.4 to 1.2 percent of the GOP vote, as the GOP only averages around half or so of the total vote."

    You're right. I was doing the figuring in my head. But my main point still holds. The percentage of the GOP vote attributable to Jewish votes (0.4 to 1.2%) is much lower than the 2 to 3% of the total population, since Jews vote disproportionately for the Democrats. The only way the Jewish percentage of the GOP vote would match their proportion of the population is if the Jews also divided their vote 50-50 between the parties.
  34. Saltine says:
    @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    Oooohhh!! Name calling.

    Read More
  35. tbraton says:
    @Bob Arctor
    Then that's 0.4 to 1.2 percent of the GOP vote, as the GOP only averages around half or so of the total vote.

    “Then that’s 0.4 to 1.2 percent of the GOP vote, as the GOP only averages around half or so of the total vote.”

    You’re right. I was doing the figuring in my head. But my main point still holds. The percentage of the GOP vote attributable to Jewish votes (0.4 to 1.2%) is much lower than the 2 to 3% of the total population, since Jews vote disproportionately for the Democrats. The only way the Jewish percentage of the GOP vote would match their proportion of the population is if the Jews also divided their vote 50-50 between the parties.

    Read More
  36. utu says:

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication? But did not go far enough? And ended up here?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Junior

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?
     
    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it.

    This article is some neocon garbage hiding behind a fake mask of U.S. Nationalism. It's anti-muslim propaganda that mixes in half-truths about immigration to hide a pro-Israel agenda.

    We are not at war with Islam. Enough with the trying-to-stoke-religious-wars-for-the-benefit-of-Israel bullshit already.
  37. iffen says:
    @Priss Factor
    New York Times blocks all my comments, so let me comment here.
    The issue is relevant to Cathey's article:

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/ten-theses-on-immigration/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body#more-21501

    The Douther wrote: "Yes, the world of nations is full of arbitrary borders, invented traditions, and convenient mythologies layered atop histories of plunder and pillage."

    Those arbitrary borders were created by imperialism.

    This is why ethno-nationalism is better than ideo-nationalism(nationalism based on ideology) or imperio-nationalism(nationalism based on borderlines drawn by imperialists who didn't give a crap about ethnic integrity).

    Imperio-nationalism is the legacy of imperialists who created boundaries only in the service of their imperialist interests. In places with weak or shallow cultural histories, it worked more or less. But it has proven poisonous in places with deeply rooted identities.

    Ideo-nationalism, a nationalism based on ideology, held together the various ethnic groups of Yugoslavia.
    But a territory held together by shared ideology is weaker than a territory held together by shared ethnicity. Indeed, even ideo-nationalism works better when accompanied by ethno-nationalism.
    Vietnamese communism works better among Vietnamese than with Cambodian communists and Laotian communists. Better that there be Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos that the French imperialist creation of Indo-China.

    Best formula is ethnicity + territory + national consciousness.

    While ideo-nationalism may work for awhile, like in the USSR, ideology is never as powerful as identity.

    Also problematic is ethno-globalism, which is what the US promotes. Globalism sounds like the world getting along together freely and happily, but not all groups are equal in the globalist power-game. Jews are far more powerful than other groups, so globalism(as led by US) has a strong ethno-content, which is why US got in so much mess in the Middle East and against Russia over Ukraine. What we have in the world is Zio-homo-globalism.

    If we are to have globalism(though I don't want it), it has to be genuine globalism where all nations and peoples are equal. But in fact, globalism, as practiced and dominated by the US, is a form of ethno-supremacism of Jews, with homos used as proxies. Ethno-globalism, the predominant mode in today's world, is a contradiction. Jews control much of the top institutions and industries around the world. They try to impose their interests around the world even though the Jewish component of the interest is often hidden behind 'gay rights', 'diversity', 'tolerance', and etc. After all, I don't see Jews pressuring Israel to surrender its national sovereignty for globalism. I don't even see Jews saying Israel should offer Golan Heights(stolen from Syria) as sanctuary for refugees.

    Ethno-nationalism makes the most sense because territoriality, ethnicity, and national consciousness are aligned with each other.

    Suppose we do a mind-experiment.

    Suppose there are three peoples: Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians. Suppose Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodinians are racially or ethnically different.

    Suppose we must formulate the best way for the three groups to live well.

    One proposition is to put Jewdonians in a place called Jewdonia, Moodonians in a place called Moodian, and Goodonians in a place called Goodonia.
    This would be ethno-centrism. Each people have their own homeland. Their ethnicity and territoriality would be complementary and aligned. Now, why wouldn't this work? Sounds good.

    But let's consider other options.

    Suppose we put Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians in one nation and tell them that they must all identify as Jewdonians. But why would Moodonians and Goodonians want to be identify as 'Jewdonians'? Also, Jewdonians will ask why non-Jewdonians get to be recognized as 'Jewdonians'. I mean how would Jews is Israel like it if 10 million Africans came and became 'Jews'?
    OR, suppose this nation constructs a new supra-national identity called Loodonians. So, Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians must abandon their original ethnicity and declare themselves as Loodonians. But what is a 'Loodonian'? As lots and lots of time pass and a new Loodonian identity is enforced, maybe this is possible, like how the new 'American' identity was forged. But it would be a painstaking process. Besides, the concept of 'American' became viable and established ONLY because the founding and developing of US was overwhelmingly Anglo-American. Americanness would not have emerged if each of the 13 colonies had been settled by very different races/cultures. Even in the American South with lots of blacks, there was the dominance of Anglo-white culture to which blacks were assimilated to. But even after centuries, we realize that it's not so easy for races to become one thing. Even in Latin America that had much more race-mixing, there are still divisions along racial lines.

    The third option would be create two nation-states. Jewdonia and Goodonia. But no Moodonia. So, what happens to the Moodonians? Suppose half must live in Jewdonia as minorities to majority Jewdonians, and the other half must live in Goodonia as minorities of Goodonians. Moodonians would end up like Kurds following the Old Man Sykes-Picot Agreement. Some Kurds ended up in Turkey, some in Iraq, some in Syria, etc. So, how were Kurds treated by majority groups in those nations? Turks have been fighting Kurds forever. Hussein killed 100,000s of Kurds.
    And how are Palestinians doing under the rule of Zionists?

    The fourth option would be to create three nation-states, but each nation state will have equal numbers of Jewdonians, Moodonians, and Goodonians. So, each state will be diverse. Would this be better than a Jewdonia with Jewdonians, Moodonia with Moodonians, and Goodonia with Goodonians?

    I don't think so. We saw what happened to Europe due to mixed populations. It led to WWI and then served as catalyst of WWII as such geo-political mess gave Hitler the pretext to move into other nations to protect and serve German minorities.

    And look at Israel and West Bank. Wouldn't it be better if Israel were all Jewish and if West Bank were all Palestinian? Instead, there's the problem of diversity in both Israel and West Bank, and therefore, both places are troubled.

    Would Japan and Philippines be better off if 1/3 of Japanese population were Filipino and 1/3 of Philippines were Japanese?

    It is so obvious that ethno-nationalism is the best formula.
    So, why does it get such a bad name?

    Because of ethno-globalism dominated by Jews. Jews see that ethno-nationalism leads to a sense of common unity and solidarity among the leaders and the led of goy nations, like in nationalist Hungary that said NO to migrants. If a nation says NO to foreign masses, it may also be wary of foreign elites. Thus, the nation becomes less penetrable and manipulate-able for Jewish ethno-globalists. Russia was much easier for Jews to penetrate when it dropped communism. As Russian nationalism had become wedded to communism, fall of communism meant fall of nationalism as well, and so, Jews saw an opening and nearly took over everything. Communism had been associated with Russian national pride since communist Russia defeated Nazi Germany and became a superpower.
    Without communism, Russia was also stripped naked of nationalism. But gradually, Russia restored a new kind of traditionalist nationalism, and Jews fear this kind even more because nationalism rooted in ethnos and terros(territoriality) is more resilient that one based on a proposition or ideology. So, Jews have been trying to destroy Russian nationalism with all means they can muster.

    Given that Jews love ethno-nationalism in Israel, they are fully cognizant of its power and validity. When that power is with Jews in Israel, Jews are all for it. But when that power is with gentiles in gentile nations, it makes it more difficult for Jews to take total control since ethno-national unity of leaders and the led will keep Jewish power at bay.

    New York Times blocks all my comments, so let me comment here.

    Unz. Publisher of last resort?

    Read More
  38. @tbraton
    "But after eight years, what then? Assuming Trump’s administration is 100% successful, it must be followed up by another eight years of an administration equally as politically incorrect. "

    That's why his selection of a running mate (assuming he secures the nomination) is so important. In looking over the field of candidates, I'm having a hard time coming up with a suitable VP choice. I believe we can strike Nikki Haley off the list.

    Mike Rowe. Period. Why not?
    Bill Whittle made the prediction awhile back
    that the next President would likely come from
    the celebrity class, let’s go all the way
    with one of our own, in spirit and world view at least

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Do you really think the country is ready for an opera singer as President? Especially an opera singer who is interested in girls? There's something a bit odd there.
  39. guest says:
    @WorkingClass
    Nader warned us loud and clear about the Demopublicans in the course of the 2000 elections. Congratulations to all the people who are finally catching up.

    Nader was about the billionth person to catch on to that fact.

    Read More
  40. guest says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Stan,

    If you'd care to take a squint you'd see that churches all over the so called Christian nations are for the most part empty. Why is that?

    Bishop Spong has been writing for years now that unless Christianity lets go of the illogical dogmas like virgin births, walking on water and rising from the dead and gets back to the quest for spiritual growth that the early Christians were all about then Christianity will become increasingly irrelevant to most, if indeed that hasn't already happened.

    In any case who would go to the churches in SA, Turkey and Iran, assuming they existed?

    BTW, are you aware that Iran has the largest Jewish population in the ME outside of Israel? A large percentage of Iranian Jews don't recognise or support modern Israel either.

    What is religion without “illogical dogmas”? Philosophy? That’s too boring for most people. I don’t see the trinity, transubstantiation, etc. getting in the way of belief. Quite the opposite, actually. Mystery and otherworldliness are seductive. It gets in the way for people who overintellectualize, but they’re just as likely to swallow nonsense in politics, ethics, and any number of other fields.

    Logical “spirituality” without dogma is what? Religion of dry groping, without much drama.

    Read More
  41. tbraton says:
    @travel-lyte
    Mike Rowe. Period. Why not?
    Bill Whittle made the prediction awhile back
    that the next President would likely come from
    the celebrity class, let's go all the way
    with one of our own, in spirit and world view at least

    Do you really think the country is ready for an opera singer as President? Especially an opera singer who is interested in girls? There’s something a bit odd there.

    Read More
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Salvo
    Trump like you cherry picks out of the realities . Your moronic reading of history is the mirror image of the moronic gushing that Trump displays to educationally deprived. economically abandoned angry middle aged Viagra crunching males who beat their wives and ask their daughters to follow the example of the abstinence by the daughter of Sarah Palin. .

    Great .

    .
    The Birth of the Military-Industrial Complex
    America’s First Terror War
    By R. T. Naylor

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/Counterpunch-2007may01-00001

    A google search will show take the author to the article at the unz.org.

    The Brabary pircay makes a nice story to feed the collapsing existential complex of the Tea Party woven around American exceptionalism,racism,Bible, and war profit and whose only beef with the neocon was that they could not win the war the way war was supposed to be won .

    Read More
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @tbraton
    Thus preaches Salvo to the uneducated heathens who post on unz.com in his very SECOND post on unz.com. In his first post, back in September, he seemed to be defending the Dark Ages which succeeded the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As Steve Sailer responded back then, we should be fine by 3500 A.D. That's what I like about Steve Sailer: always willing to look at the bright side of things. In the meantime, I am going to vote for Donald Trump, since I don't think I will be around in 3500 A.D.

    The Benghazi movie ’13 Hours’ is an apolitical mind-numbing sensory assault that’s barely coherent
    http://www.rawstory.com

    This is the epilogue to the song by Marine based on the Barbary war on Libyan piracy.

    But someone will force the information down the throat despite the blockage of the ear canal

    “As Brad Hoff of the Levant Report wrote, “historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.”

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/12/what-hillary-knew-about-libya/

    Read More
  44. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @utu
    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication? But did not go far enough? And ended up here?

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?

    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it.

    This article is some neocon garbage hiding behind a fake mask of U.S. Nationalism. It’s anti-muslim propaganda that mixes in half-truths about immigration to hide a pro-Israel agenda.

    We are not at war with Islam. Enough with the trying-to-stoke-religious-wars-for-the-benefit-of-Israel bullshit already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?
     
    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it."

    I am not sure why you are both reacting that way to the instant blog. The author is defending Donald Trump from the attacks of both parties. I don't seem to recall that Donald Trump is a favorite of the neoconservatives, who are understandably upset both with Trump's opposition to immigration and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Where is the neoconservative slant that has you both upset?

    BTW you should check out Mr. Cathey's blog of August 24, 2015 "Donald Trump as America's 2016 George Wallace," in which he cites with approval Pat Buchanan warning of the GOP's secretive attempt through so-called "conservative" columnists such as George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, etc. to torpedo Trump's campaign. Since Pat Buchanan has long been one of the betes noires of the neoconservatives, I have a hard time reconciling your charges against Mr. Cathey with his published record. Please clarify your position.
  45. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @Priss Factor
    Does it make sense to create a unique environment/civilization made possible by enclosure and selective inclusion/exclusion and then open it up to the universal world? Why create something unique to expose to the universal?
    The unique creation won't survive the full brunt of the universal.

    It’s like carefully creating a garden by choosing and tending certain plants and creatures, and then opening it up to the wild. It will be taken over weed and wild animals.

    A garden is tended and maintained through enclosure and exclusivity. A garden isn’t nature. Garden is filled with natural flowers and plants and rocks and grass and stuff. And it may have some animals that won't mess up the garden. But it is not all of nature, and it must wall off nature. Nature will swallow up the garden.

    Every civilization was built by enclosure. That’s why walls and armies were important to their maintenance. It was to keep the enemy and invaders out. Of course, a garden isn’t totally closed off. It is open to sunlight, wind, rain. Birds come and go. Its streams may be connected to rivers. So, a garden isn’t completely shut off from the outside world. But it also exists within its own realm apart from nature(and the asphalt jungle of industry). A true nation as an ethnic community is like a garden. You can’t just let it all hang loose come what may. It has to be tended and pruned and taken care of.
    It needs a gardener. Not all kinds of animals are allowed. Imagine wild hogs in a garden. It would eat up everything. Also, there must be rules. For example, you mustn’t allow people to feed pigeons cuz too many will come and shit all over the place. A national leader should be like a gardener. He should tend the garden and keep out stuff that will mess up the garden. Now, he may introduce new things into the garden if they add something, but the decision must come after much deliberation. While certain new additions may enhance the garden and make it richer, indiscriminate allowance of any number of weeds, plants, animals, and other stuff will ruin the garden.

    All nations must be gardens that choose nationalism as the basis for internationalism. Learn from the world and adopt good ideas & technologies to develop your nation. Learn from the world and trade with the world but never ever surrender your nation to the world, especially as globalism is controlled by a cabal of oligarchs and their agents, some of them unwitting, some of them unwitting.
    Same with garden. Garden takes sunlight, air, rain, etc from outside the garden. It allows birds and critters to enter and visit. But a garden cannot be maintained if it surrenders to nature.

    Garden has elements of nature. It uses plants, grass, bushes, ponds, and etc. But it is not only nature. It is a selective use of nature that closes off wild nature. Globalism is like a stampede of elephants or swarm of locusts. It respects nothing. It is a disease that might as well be called Sorositis.

    We need to think in terms of national vs global, as people like Marine Le Pen have said.
    We need to think in terms of moral vs whoral because globalism seeks to turn all women around into whores along the lines of MTV and Hollywood: minds obsessed with nothing but narcissism, egotism, hedonism, and celebritism.

    The choice is not xenophobic isolationism vs globalism. It is nationalism-as-foundation-of-internationalism vs globalism-robbing-every-nation-of-its-sovereignty-heritage-identity-values.

    Another rule. A nation should not swallow what it cannot digest. If a python tries to swallow something too big, it will explode.
    If you eat too much, your digestive system won’t be able to process it and the stuff will just rot in your gut. Western gut is rotting from too much voracious intake of migration. Especially Negroes are hard to digest. Most national stomachs have allergies to Negroes because the jivers be too wild and crazy. Many nations are understandably Blacktose Intolerant. Even so-called Libs who claim to love Negroes use gentrification, incarceration of blacks, and stop-and-frisk to control the blacks. The revival of NY as a garden city had a lot to do with tough handling of black feral dogs that, from late 60s to early 90s, ran wild and messed up the garden. Consider how people feared going to Central Park. Even people who are obsessed with black pop culture would prefer not to live in Detroit or black parts of DC.

    The West is screwy cuz PC is contradictory. On the one hand, it says all races are the same and the concept of ‘race’ is just a toxic ‘social construct’. So, no race is different from any other.
    But PC also says white people need to bring in other races because a mono-racial nation is too boring, too bland, too dull, too colorless, and etc.

    But if all races are the same and if racial differences are imaginary, why would you need different races? The other races would be just as 'boring' as your own race.
    If race is just a ‘social construct’, a nation that is 100% white should be no different from a nation that is 25% white, 25% black, 25% yellow, and 25% brown. After all, non-white peoples would just be white people with different skin color.

    But PC says white people must invite non-whites because a nation with only whites is deficient in the positive qualities possessed ONLY by non-whites.
    PC is just Zio-Globalist BS that keeps peddling contradictory lies with a straight face, but too many whites are either too naive, too dumb, too ignorant, or too cowardly to see it and reject it for what it is.

    So, how many different names do you post under, Priss Factory?

    Your rants make me think that you need to lay off the amphetamines. Your posts are nothing but a bunch of crystal-meth inspired drivel. Get help.

    Jack Kerouac you are not. Far from it.

    http://www.openthesis.org/documents/Altered-States-Style-Drug-Induced-379396.html

    Read More
  46. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @Priss Factor
    Does it make sense to create a unique environment/civilization made possible by enclosure and selective inclusion/exclusion and then open it up to the universal world? Why create something unique to expose to the universal?
    The unique creation won't survive the full brunt of the universal.

    It’s like carefully creating a garden by choosing and tending certain plants and creatures, and then opening it up to the wild. It will be taken over weed and wild animals.

    A garden is tended and maintained through enclosure and exclusivity. A garden isn’t nature. Garden is filled with natural flowers and plants and rocks and grass and stuff. And it may have some animals that won't mess up the garden. But it is not all of nature, and it must wall off nature. Nature will swallow up the garden.

    Every civilization was built by enclosure. That’s why walls and armies were important to their maintenance. It was to keep the enemy and invaders out. Of course, a garden isn’t totally closed off. It is open to sunlight, wind, rain. Birds come and go. Its streams may be connected to rivers. So, a garden isn’t completely shut off from the outside world. But it also exists within its own realm apart from nature(and the asphalt jungle of industry). A true nation as an ethnic community is like a garden. You can’t just let it all hang loose come what may. It has to be tended and pruned and taken care of.
    It needs a gardener. Not all kinds of animals are allowed. Imagine wild hogs in a garden. It would eat up everything. Also, there must be rules. For example, you mustn’t allow people to feed pigeons cuz too many will come and shit all over the place. A national leader should be like a gardener. He should tend the garden and keep out stuff that will mess up the garden. Now, he may introduce new things into the garden if they add something, but the decision must come after much deliberation. While certain new additions may enhance the garden and make it richer, indiscriminate allowance of any number of weeds, plants, animals, and other stuff will ruin the garden.

    All nations must be gardens that choose nationalism as the basis for internationalism. Learn from the world and adopt good ideas & technologies to develop your nation. Learn from the world and trade with the world but never ever surrender your nation to the world, especially as globalism is controlled by a cabal of oligarchs and their agents, some of them unwitting, some of them unwitting.
    Same with garden. Garden takes sunlight, air, rain, etc from outside the garden. It allows birds and critters to enter and visit. But a garden cannot be maintained if it surrenders to nature.

    Garden has elements of nature. It uses plants, grass, bushes, ponds, and etc. But it is not only nature. It is a selective use of nature that closes off wild nature. Globalism is like a stampede of elephants or swarm of locusts. It respects nothing. It is a disease that might as well be called Sorositis.

    We need to think in terms of national vs global, as people like Marine Le Pen have said.
    We need to think in terms of moral vs whoral because globalism seeks to turn all women around into whores along the lines of MTV and Hollywood: minds obsessed with nothing but narcissism, egotism, hedonism, and celebritism.

    The choice is not xenophobic isolationism vs globalism. It is nationalism-as-foundation-of-internationalism vs globalism-robbing-every-nation-of-its-sovereignty-heritage-identity-values.

    Another rule. A nation should not swallow what it cannot digest. If a python tries to swallow something too big, it will explode.
    If you eat too much, your digestive system won’t be able to process it and the stuff will just rot in your gut. Western gut is rotting from too much voracious intake of migration. Especially Negroes are hard to digest. Most national stomachs have allergies to Negroes because the jivers be too wild and crazy. Many nations are understandably Blacktose Intolerant. Even so-called Libs who claim to love Negroes use gentrification, incarceration of blacks, and stop-and-frisk to control the blacks. The revival of NY as a garden city had a lot to do with tough handling of black feral dogs that, from late 60s to early 90s, ran wild and messed up the garden. Consider how people feared going to Central Park. Even people who are obsessed with black pop culture would prefer not to live in Detroit or black parts of DC.

    The West is screwy cuz PC is contradictory. On the one hand, it says all races are the same and the concept of ‘race’ is just a toxic ‘social construct’. So, no race is different from any other.
    But PC also says white people need to bring in other races because a mono-racial nation is too boring, too bland, too dull, too colorless, and etc.

    But if all races are the same and if racial differences are imaginary, why would you need different races? The other races would be just as 'boring' as your own race.
    If race is just a ‘social construct’, a nation that is 100% white should be no different from a nation that is 25% white, 25% black, 25% yellow, and 25% brown. After all, non-white peoples would just be white people with different skin color.

    But PC says white people must invite non-whites because a nation with only whites is deficient in the positive qualities possessed ONLY by non-whites.
    PC is just Zio-Globalist BS that keeps peddling contradictory lies with a straight face, but too many whites are either too naive, too dumb, too ignorant, or too cowardly to see it and reject it for what it is.

    Get help.

    Almost forgot, here’s a good place for you to start.

    http://www.na.org/

    Read More
  47. tbraton says:
    @Junior

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?
     
    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it.

    This article is some neocon garbage hiding behind a fake mask of U.S. Nationalism. It's anti-muslim propaganda that mixes in half-truths about immigration to hide a pro-Israel agenda.

    We are not at war with Islam. Enough with the trying-to-stoke-religious-wars-for-the-benefit-of-Israel bullshit already.

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?

    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it.”

    I am not sure why you are both reacting that way to the instant blog. The author is defending Donald Trump from the attacks of both parties. I don’t seem to recall that Donald Trump is a favorite of the neoconservatives, who are understandably upset both with Trump’s opposition to immigration and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Where is the neoconservative slant that has you both upset?

    BTW you should check out Mr. Cathey’s blog of August 24, 2015 “Donald Trump as America’s 2016 George Wallace,” in which he cites with approval Pat Buchanan warning of the GOP’s secretive attempt through so-called “conservative” columnists such as George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, etc. to torpedo Trump’s campaign. Since Pat Buchanan has long been one of the betes noires of the neoconservatives, I have a hard time reconciling your charges against Mr. Cathey with his published record. Please clarify your position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    BTW, as an addendum to my prior post, these two paragraphs from Mr. Cathey's August 24 blog blows your thesis completely out of the water and raises the very real question of what you are trying to do by posting such drivel and nonsense on unz.com:

    "But the hopes sustained by that “revolution” [i.e., speaking of the "Reagan Revolution"]—which many hoped would be realized in the Republican Party—ran aground when the GOP Establishment and its minions recovered their balance and regained control. There were far too few Jesse Helms-types who took that “revolution” seriously, and by 1989 power was securely back in the hands of the Establishment. (Indeed, there are those who argue that the Establishment never relinquished power, even under Reagan.)

    At the same time the triumph of those intellectual descendants of Leon Trotsky—the globalist, egalitarian Neoconservatives— who successfully infiltrated and finally took control of the older Conservative movement, plus the dominance by the Murdoch media, dovetailed nicely with the reaffirmation of Establishment control of the political expression of what became a denatured “conservatism,” a term that has now lost almost all of its real, historical significance."

    With "friends" like Mr. Cathey, the neoconservative movement certainly doesn't need any "enemies," that's for sure.
    , @Junior
    You have got to be kidding me, tbraton. What is it exactly that you don't understand about my quote of, "We are not at war with Islam. Enough with the trying-to-stoke-religious-wars-for-the-benefit-of-Israel bullshit already."?

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think that the purpose of this article is to defend Trump? With all its talk about "the ravages and savage brutality of Islam" all throughout the whole article and because he couches his anti-Muslim bullshit with some positive talk of Trump, that you are fooled by it? Come on, tbraton.

    This below quote is the kicker:

    And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”
     
    The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon's wet dream.

    I'm not familiar with any of the author's previous work but I have to say that based on this one, I'm disappointed. I know that you are all about Trump, tbraton, and I agree with you on ALOT of the things that you post, without a doubt, but to be perfectly honest I think that your Trump devotion is clouding your judgement on this one.
    , @Salvo
    http://time.com/4180526/what-obama-gets-wrong-about-conflict-in-the-middle-east/
    Boyd should read this piece together with Mr. Trump.
    and together should ignore the cues on Iran from the rest of the GOP or Wall Stret Journal Journal or state compliant CNN Fox news.
    Sometimes a leader is known by his or her ability to lead the sheep He is unfortunatley being led by the sheep and obviously not away from the cliff that descends into diplomatic darkness of stupidities .
    Mr Trump has lent his bovine voice to the echo chamber of the neocon who are still fuming at the Iran deal. He doesn't have to. But then ,it doesn't hurt and earns him extra mileage among the Tea Bagger ,End Timer,Evangelics ,Southern Baptists and the liberal interventionist who see only defeat and humiliation of America inherent in every possibility of some sort of diplomatic resolution of any kind of non -existent crisis that is made up by sheer propaganda by the bribed and tainted US institutions to begin with.

    Other stuff that need some correction depends on understanding of the mathematics like the number and origins of the legal and illegal immigrants ,a little bit of history of terrorism on US soil and the understanding of the harms that American endure from non -violent high crimes at the institutional level .
    Do you have it? Does the author have the guts to ask for that information ?
  48. tbraton says:
    @tbraton

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?
     
    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it."

    I am not sure why you are both reacting that way to the instant blog. The author is defending Donald Trump from the attacks of both parties. I don't seem to recall that Donald Trump is a favorite of the neoconservatives, who are understandably upset both with Trump's opposition to immigration and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Where is the neoconservative slant that has you both upset?

    BTW you should check out Mr. Cathey's blog of August 24, 2015 "Donald Trump as America's 2016 George Wallace," in which he cites with approval Pat Buchanan warning of the GOP's secretive attempt through so-called "conservative" columnists such as George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, etc. to torpedo Trump's campaign. Since Pat Buchanan has long been one of the betes noires of the neoconservatives, I have a hard time reconciling your charges against Mr. Cathey with his published record. Please clarify your position.

    BTW, as an addendum to my prior post, these two paragraphs from Mr. Cathey’s August 24 blog blows your thesis completely out of the water and raises the very real question of what you are trying to do by posting such drivel and nonsense on unz.com:

    “But the hopes sustained by that “revolution” [i.e., speaking of the "Reagan Revolution"]—which many hoped would be realized in the Republican Party—ran aground when the GOP Establishment and its minions recovered their balance and regained control. There were far too few Jesse Helms-types who took that “revolution” seriously, and by 1989 power was securely back in the hands of the Establishment. (Indeed, there are those who argue that the Establishment never relinquished power, even under Reagan.)

    At the same time the triumph of those intellectual descendants of Leon Trotsky—the globalist, egalitarian Neoconservatives— who successfully infiltrated and finally took control of the older Conservative movement, plus the dominance by the Murdoch media, dovetailed nicely with the reaffirmation of Establishment control of the political expression of what became a denatured “conservatism,” a term that has now lost almost all of its real, historical significance.”

    With “friends” like Mr. Cathey, the neoconservative movement certainly doesn’t need any “enemies,” that’s for sure.

    Read More
  49. Junior [AKA "Jr."] says:
    @tbraton

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?
     
    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it."

    I am not sure why you are both reacting that way to the instant blog. The author is defending Donald Trump from the attacks of both parties. I don't seem to recall that Donald Trump is a favorite of the neoconservatives, who are understandably upset both with Trump's opposition to immigration and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Where is the neoconservative slant that has you both upset?

    BTW you should check out Mr. Cathey's blog of August 24, 2015 "Donald Trump as America's 2016 George Wallace," in which he cites with approval Pat Buchanan warning of the GOP's secretive attempt through so-called "conservative" columnists such as George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, etc. to torpedo Trump's campaign. Since Pat Buchanan has long been one of the betes noires of the neoconservatives, I have a hard time reconciling your charges against Mr. Cathey with his published record. Please clarify your position.

    You have got to be kidding me, tbraton. What is it exactly that you don’t understand about my quote of, “We are not at war with Islam. Enough with the trying-to-stoke-religious-wars-for-the-benefit-of-Israel bullshit already.”?

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think that the purpose of this article is to defend Trump? With all its talk about “the ravages and savage brutality of Islam” all throughout the whole article and because he couches his anti-Muslim bullshit with some positive talk of Trump, that you are fooled by it? Come on, tbraton.

    This below quote is the kicker:

    And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”

    The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream.

    I’m not familiar with any of the author’s previous work but I have to say that based on this one, I’m disappointed. I know that you are all about Trump, tbraton, and I agree with you on ALOT of the things that you post, without a doubt, but to be perfectly honest I think that your Trump devotion is clouding your judgement on this one.

    Read More
    • Agree: geokat62
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream."

    My original post castigated you and poster "utu" for labeling Mr. Cathey a "neoconservative." (utu first posted that Cathey somehow was a "neoconservative," and you stated that you "agree completely" with that statement.) That's why I went to the trouble of citing Mr. Cathey's prior post and quoting language from that post that made clear his utter contempt for the "neoconservative movement." I find it very curious that your response to me contains no discussion of the "neoconservative" aspect of Mr. Cathey's piece other than this single observation:

    "The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream."

    I didn't realize that bashing and vilifying Muslims somehow makes you a "neoconservative." If that's the case, I guess I'm a "neoconservative," despite the endless posts I have made over the years (long before I started posting on unz.com in July 2015--if you have any doubt, simply Google "tbraton + neoconservative") strongly criticizing the "neoconservative movement." And, most remarkably, I'm not even Jewish, which I thought was a sine qua non of being a neoconservative.

    Mr. Cathey's blog is roughly 2100 words long, and you are upset by his next to the last paragraph consisting of 60 words (according to my count):

    And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”
     
    Mr. Cathey devotes the bulk of his blog to reviewing the history of Christian-Islamic conflicts, including references to comments by some of our Founding Fathers (do you consider Thomas Jefferson a "neoconservative"?) re their reaction to Islam before reaching that next to last paragraph dealing with Israel. I may be wrong, but I believe the only reason he cited the case of Israel was to illustrate the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the admission of Muslims, many of whom are complete supporters of Israel(to put it in the least objectionable form). He can cite their barring of Islamic immigrants as well as the building of walls as effective barriers against unwanted Muslim immigration.

    His citation of Israel as an example hardly makes him a "neoconservative." Your willingness to subscribe to such a perverted thought makes me question the bona fides of your position. I don't understand, Jr., why you are so solicitous towards the Muslims. As far as I am concerned (I was raised a Christian but stopped believing when I was 13 or 14 and have been a nonbeliever ever since, even as I have lived my life based on "Christian" or what I consider "civilized" values ever since), based on my knowledge of history, both recent and distant, I think that Islam is the most dangerous religion out there. I fail to understand how admitting more Muslims into the U.S., which was as recently as 1965 more than 90% Christian, makes the U.S. a better country. That is apart from the fact that the present population of the U.S.. 330+ million, the third highest in the world after India and China, makes the idea of the need for immigration of any sort rather ridiculous if your overriding concern is what is best for the U.S.

    BTW, in closing, you cite my preference for Trump, which I openly admit. That does raise the question which candidate, Republican or Democrat, is your preference to be our next President.
  50. Salvo says:
    @tbraton

    Was this article meant for some neoconservative publication?
     
    I agree completely, utu. I had the same reaction to it."

    I am not sure why you are both reacting that way to the instant blog. The author is defending Donald Trump from the attacks of both parties. I don't seem to recall that Donald Trump is a favorite of the neoconservatives, who are understandably upset both with Trump's opposition to immigration and his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. Where is the neoconservative slant that has you both upset?

    BTW you should check out Mr. Cathey's blog of August 24, 2015 "Donald Trump as America's 2016 George Wallace," in which he cites with approval Pat Buchanan warning of the GOP's secretive attempt through so-called "conservative" columnists such as George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, etc. to torpedo Trump's campaign. Since Pat Buchanan has long been one of the betes noires of the neoconservatives, I have a hard time reconciling your charges against Mr. Cathey with his published record. Please clarify your position.

    http://time.com/4180526/what-obama-gets-wrong-about-conflict-in-the-middle-east/

    Boyd should read this piece together with Mr. Trump.
    and together should ignore the cues on Iran from the rest of the GOP or Wall Stret Journal Journal or state compliant CNN Fox news.
    Sometimes a leader is known by his or her ability to lead the sheep He is unfortunatley being led by the sheep and obviously not away from the cliff that descends into diplomatic darkness of stupidities .
    Mr Trump has lent his bovine voice to the echo chamber of the neocon who are still fuming at the Iran deal. He doesn’t have to. But then ,it doesn’t hurt and earns him extra mileage among the Tea Bagger ,End Timer,Evangelics ,Southern Baptists and the liberal interventionist who see only defeat and humiliation of America inherent in every possibility of some sort of diplomatic resolution of any kind of non -existent crisis that is made up by sheer propaganda by the bribed and tainted US institutions to begin with.

    Other stuff that need some correction depends on understanding of the mathematics like the number and origins of the legal and illegal immigrants ,a little bit of history of terrorism on US soil and the understanding of the harms that American endure from non -violent high crimes at the institutional level .
    Do you have it? Does the author have the guts to ask for that information ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Congratulations on your third post on unz.com, Salvo. Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Day. Do you have a particular day of the year on which you celebrate the Dark Ages of Europe and honor the many barbarian invasions that took place after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    When it comes to the Iran deal, I think Donald Trump is criticizing the awfulness of the deal itself, not the general point of achieving detente with Iran. Trump does not share the neocons' belief that Iran is an Axis-of-Evil basket case of a country that cannot be dealt with rationally and for mutually beneficial ends.

    We all know why Obama did the particular Iran deal he did. Obama will take any opportunity that he can find to stick it to ordinary American people. He thinks that normal, white Americans are reflexively opposed to dealing with Iran, which alone is sufficient reason for him to do it. He also believes that by strengthening a Muslin nation, he will empower the greater Islamic hordes to eventually destroy the western world, and he wants Iranian oil on the market drive prices down and beat down America's oil industry. He just wants to hurt us; his proffered rationals are merely pretexts.

    But things are not going to go as planned. You're familiar with the Tolkienian maxim, "An evil will oft evil mars," aren't you? The fact of the matter is that most Americans would be perfectly happy with an Iran deal, as long as it was a good deal. Pat Buchanan, for instance, has long been in favor of such a thing, and nobody can accuse him of being unpatriotic.

    All Trump is saying is that he wants to redo the deal such that it doesn't stick it to American citizens or American national interests.
  51. tbraton says:
    @Salvo
    http://time.com/4180526/what-obama-gets-wrong-about-conflict-in-the-middle-east/
    Boyd should read this piece together with Mr. Trump.
    and together should ignore the cues on Iran from the rest of the GOP or Wall Stret Journal Journal or state compliant CNN Fox news.
    Sometimes a leader is known by his or her ability to lead the sheep He is unfortunatley being led by the sheep and obviously not away from the cliff that descends into diplomatic darkness of stupidities .
    Mr Trump has lent his bovine voice to the echo chamber of the neocon who are still fuming at the Iran deal. He doesn't have to. But then ,it doesn't hurt and earns him extra mileage among the Tea Bagger ,End Timer,Evangelics ,Southern Baptists and the liberal interventionist who see only defeat and humiliation of America inherent in every possibility of some sort of diplomatic resolution of any kind of non -existent crisis that is made up by sheer propaganda by the bribed and tainted US institutions to begin with.

    Other stuff that need some correction depends on understanding of the mathematics like the number and origins of the legal and illegal immigrants ,a little bit of history of terrorism on US soil and the understanding of the harms that American endure from non -violent high crimes at the institutional level .
    Do you have it? Does the author have the guts to ask for that information ?

    Congratulations on your third post on unz.com, Salvo. Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Day. Do you have a particular day of the year on which you celebrate the Dark Ages of Europe and honor the many barbarian invasions that took place after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire?

    Read More
  52. Salvo says:

    Stay on topic .

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Stay on topic ."

    How is pointing out that it was just your third post on unz.com off topic, Salvo? Ha, ha, ha. What a clueless idiot. I should say what a clueless troll.
  53. @Salvo
    http://time.com/4180526/what-obama-gets-wrong-about-conflict-in-the-middle-east/
    Boyd should read this piece together with Mr. Trump.
    and together should ignore the cues on Iran from the rest of the GOP or Wall Stret Journal Journal or state compliant CNN Fox news.
    Sometimes a leader is known by his or her ability to lead the sheep He is unfortunatley being led by the sheep and obviously not away from the cliff that descends into diplomatic darkness of stupidities .
    Mr Trump has lent his bovine voice to the echo chamber of the neocon who are still fuming at the Iran deal. He doesn't have to. But then ,it doesn't hurt and earns him extra mileage among the Tea Bagger ,End Timer,Evangelics ,Southern Baptists and the liberal interventionist who see only defeat and humiliation of America inherent in every possibility of some sort of diplomatic resolution of any kind of non -existent crisis that is made up by sheer propaganda by the bribed and tainted US institutions to begin with.

    Other stuff that need some correction depends on understanding of the mathematics like the number and origins of the legal and illegal immigrants ,a little bit of history of terrorism on US soil and the understanding of the harms that American endure from non -violent high crimes at the institutional level .
    Do you have it? Does the author have the guts to ask for that information ?

    When it comes to the Iran deal, I think Donald Trump is criticizing the awfulness of the deal itself, not the general point of achieving detente with Iran. Trump does not share the neocons’ belief that Iran is an Axis-of-Evil basket case of a country that cannot be dealt with rationally and for mutually beneficial ends.

    We all know why Obama did the particular Iran deal he did. Obama will take any opportunity that he can find to stick it to ordinary American people. He thinks that normal, white Americans are reflexively opposed to dealing with Iran, which alone is sufficient reason for him to do it. He also believes that by strengthening a Muslin nation, he will empower the greater Islamic hordes to eventually destroy the western world, and he wants Iranian oil on the market drive prices down and beat down America’s oil industry. He just wants to hurt us; his proffered rationals are merely pretexts.

    But things are not going to go as planned. You’re familiar with the Tolkienian maxim, “An evil will oft evil mars,” aren’t you? The fact of the matter is that most Americans would be perfectly happy with an Iran deal, as long as it was a good deal. Pat Buchanan, for instance, has long been in favor of such a thing, and nobody can accuse him of being unpatriotic.

    All Trump is saying is that he wants to redo the deal such that it doesn’t stick it to American citizens or American national interests.

    Read More
  54. tbraton says:

    “All Trump is saying is that he wants to redo the deal such that it doesn’t stick it to American citizens or American national interests.”

    Trump is not saying that at all. He has stated repeatedly that he will abide by the Iran deal if elected President. He is merely pulling a page out of the Ronald Reagan playbook when it came to the Panama Canal treaty. Reagan endlessly hammered that agreement before he became President, but once he became President you heard nothing further out of him with regard to the Panama Canal treaty. He certainly didn’t tear it up once he became President. Trump is doing the same thing. He is scoring political points with the rather right-wing Republican Party by criticizing the Iran deal, but once he becomes President you will not hear one more word about it.

    Read More
  55. Christian says:

    banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”

    Read More
  56. tbraton says:
    @Junior
    You have got to be kidding me, tbraton. What is it exactly that you don't understand about my quote of, "We are not at war with Islam. Enough with the trying-to-stoke-religious-wars-for-the-benefit-of-Israel bullshit already."?

    Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think that the purpose of this article is to defend Trump? With all its talk about "the ravages and savage brutality of Islam" all throughout the whole article and because he couches his anti-Muslim bullshit with some positive talk of Trump, that you are fooled by it? Come on, tbraton.

    This below quote is the kicker:

    And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”
     
    The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon's wet dream.

    I'm not familiar with any of the author's previous work but I have to say that based on this one, I'm disappointed. I know that you are all about Trump, tbraton, and I agree with you on ALOT of the things that you post, without a doubt, but to be perfectly honest I think that your Trump devotion is clouding your judgement on this one.

    “The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream.”

    My original post castigated you and poster “utu” for labeling Mr. Cathey a “neoconservative.” (utu first posted that Cathey somehow was a “neoconservative,” and you stated that you “agree completely” with that statement.) That’s why I went to the trouble of citing Mr. Cathey’s prior post and quoting language from that post that made clear his utter contempt for the “neoconservative movement.” I find it very curious that your response to me contains no discussion of the “neoconservative” aspect of Mr. Cathey’s piece other than this single observation:

    “The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream.”

    I didn’t realize that bashing and vilifying Muslims somehow makes you a “neoconservative.” If that’s the case, I guess I’m a “neoconservative,” despite the endless posts I have made over the years (long before I started posting on unz.com in July 2015–if you have any doubt, simply Google “tbraton + neoconservative”) strongly criticizing the “neoconservative movement.” And, most remarkably, I’m not even Jewish, which I thought was a sine qua non of being a neoconservative.

    Mr. Cathey’s blog is roughly 2100 words long, and you are upset by his next to the last paragraph consisting of 60 words (according to my count):

    And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”

    Mr. Cathey devotes the bulk of his blog to reviewing the history of Christian-Islamic conflicts, including references to comments by some of our Founding Fathers (do you consider Thomas Jefferson a “neoconservative”?) re their reaction to Islam before reaching that next to last paragraph dealing with Israel. I may be wrong, but I believe the only reason he cited the case of Israel was to illustrate the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the admission of Muslims, many of whom are complete supporters of Israel(to put it in the least objectionable form). He can cite their barring of Islamic immigrants as well as the building of walls as effective barriers against unwanted Muslim immigration.

    His citation of Israel as an example hardly makes him a “neoconservative.” Your willingness to subscribe to such a perverted thought makes me question the bona fides of your position. I don’t understand, Jr., why you are so solicitous towards the Muslims. As far as I am concerned (I was raised a Christian but stopped believing when I was 13 or 14 and have been a nonbeliever ever since, even as I have lived my life based on “Christian” or what I consider “civilized” values ever since), based on my knowledge of history, both recent and distant, I think that Islam is the most dangerous religion out there. I fail to understand how admitting more Muslims into the U.S., which was as recently as 1965 more than 90% Christian, makes the U.S. a better country. That is apart from the fact that the present population of the U.S.. 330+ million, the third highest in the world after India and China, makes the idea of the need for immigration of any sort rather ridiculous if your overriding concern is what is best for the U.S.

    BTW, in closing, you cite my preference for Trump, which I openly admit. That does raise the question which candidate, Republican or Democrat, is your preference to be our next President.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "was to illustrate the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the admission of Muslims, many of whom are complete supporters of Israel(to put it in the least objectionable form)."

    Obviously, I meant to say "the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the BARRING of admission of Muslims." Sorry for the poor proofreading. (Apologies for the ALL CAPS to those who have religious scruples against such use.)
  57. tbraton says:
    @tbraton
    "The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream."

    My original post castigated you and poster "utu" for labeling Mr. Cathey a "neoconservative." (utu first posted that Cathey somehow was a "neoconservative," and you stated that you "agree completely" with that statement.) That's why I went to the trouble of citing Mr. Cathey's prior post and quoting language from that post that made clear his utter contempt for the "neoconservative movement." I find it very curious that your response to me contains no discussion of the "neoconservative" aspect of Mr. Cathey's piece other than this single observation:

    "The whole purpose of this whole bullshit article is to bash and vilify Muslims and to say that Israel is right, aka a NeoCon’s wet dream."

    I didn't realize that bashing and vilifying Muslims somehow makes you a "neoconservative." If that's the case, I guess I'm a "neoconservative," despite the endless posts I have made over the years (long before I started posting on unz.com in July 2015--if you have any doubt, simply Google "tbraton + neoconservative") strongly criticizing the "neoconservative movement." And, most remarkably, I'm not even Jewish, which I thought was a sine qua non of being a neoconservative.

    Mr. Cathey's blog is roughly 2100 words long, and you are upset by his next to the last paragraph consisting of 60 words (according to my count):

    And regarding Israel, what kind of policies does it practice? In fact, Israel has implemented many of the policies that Trump wants the United States to implement. For instance, Israeli airport security officials routinely ask travelers what their religion is and often bar Muslims as a result, banning “those whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin.”
     
    Mr. Cathey devotes the bulk of his blog to reviewing the history of Christian-Islamic conflicts, including references to comments by some of our Founding Fathers (do you consider Thomas Jefferson a "neoconservative"?) re their reaction to Islam before reaching that next to last paragraph dealing with Israel. I may be wrong, but I believe the only reason he cited the case of Israel was to illustrate the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the admission of Muslims, many of whom are complete supporters of Israel(to put it in the least objectionable form). He can cite their barring of Islamic immigrants as well as the building of walls as effective barriers against unwanted Muslim immigration.

    His citation of Israel as an example hardly makes him a "neoconservative." Your willingness to subscribe to such a perverted thought makes me question the bona fides of your position. I don't understand, Jr., why you are so solicitous towards the Muslims. As far as I am concerned (I was raised a Christian but stopped believing when I was 13 or 14 and have been a nonbeliever ever since, even as I have lived my life based on "Christian" or what I consider "civilized" values ever since), based on my knowledge of history, both recent and distant, I think that Islam is the most dangerous religion out there. I fail to understand how admitting more Muslims into the U.S., which was as recently as 1965 more than 90% Christian, makes the U.S. a better country. That is apart from the fact that the present population of the U.S.. 330+ million, the third highest in the world after India and China, makes the idea of the need for immigration of any sort rather ridiculous if your overriding concern is what is best for the U.S.

    BTW, in closing, you cite my preference for Trump, which I openly admit. That does raise the question which candidate, Republican or Democrat, is your preference to be our next President.

    “was to illustrate the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the admission of Muslims, many of whom are complete supporters of Israel(to put it in the least objectionable form).”

    Obviously, I meant to say “the complete hypocrisy of those arguing against the BARRING of admission of Muslims.” Sorry for the poor proofreading. (Apologies for the ALL CAPS to those who have religious scruples against such use.)

    Read More
  58. tbraton says:
    @Salvo
    Stay on topic .

    “Stay on topic .”

    How is pointing out that it was just your third post on unz.com off topic, Salvo? Ha, ha, ha. What a clueless idiot. I should say what a clueless troll.

    Read More
  59. bunga says:

    Libertarian stand-up comic Doug Stanhope has said:

    “Nationalism does nothing but teach you to hate people you never met, and to take pride in accomplishments you had no part in.”

    http://www.antiwar.com 19th Jan 2016

    Read More
  60. […] And here’s why the ‘elite’ is so afraid of Trump, from the Unz Review link. […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored