The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
On Trump Tribalism and Clinton’s Sinophobia
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_52181971

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee for 2016, has something in common with Donald Trump: Sinophobia.

During a 2011 visit to Zambia, she warned about “a new colonialism in Africa.” This time, the Chinese were to blame. As Clinton sees it, the Chinese are extracting wealth from the continent by buying its raw materials. “We saw that during colonial times it [was] easy to come in, take out natural resources, pay off leaders and leave,” she griped.

Clinton was adamant. She did not want to see a European-style colonial redux in Africa.

Certainly Chinese state capitalism is not free-market capitalism. But is Chinese mercantilism not preferable to American militarism, an example of which is Libya, a north-African recipient of madam secretary’s largess? Not according to Mrs. Clinton.

As Clinton sees it (as do, no doubt, the Paul-Ryan Republicans and the Bernie Sanders socialists), the “old colonialism” saw underdeveloped nations “bilked by rich capitalist countries,” a phrase used by Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress.

According to these highly politicized, socialist, zero-sum formulations regarding colonialism, class warfare and “income inequality,” one person’s plenty is another’s poverty. The corresponding antidote invariably involves taking from one and giving to the other—from rich to poor; from North to South.

The notion, however, of a preexisting income pie from which the greedy appropriate an unfair share is itself pie-in-the-sky. Wealth, earned or “unearned,” as egalitarians term inheritance, doesn’t exist outside the individuals who create it; it is a return for desirable services, skills and resources they render to others. Labor productivity is the main determinant of wages—and wealth. People in the West produce or purchase what they consume—and much more; they don’t remove, or steal it from Third Worlders. Wrote the greatest development economist, Lord Peter Bauer, in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion: “Incomes, including those of the relatively prosperous or the owners of property, are not taken from other people. Normally they are produced by their recipient and the resources they own.”

Not unlike Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, who “dramatically increased U.S. foreign aid” (as reported approvingly in Foreign Affairs magazine); Mrs. Clinton also committed more funds to the Agency for International Development during her tenure as secretary of state.

When it comes to Africa, it’s worth noting, however, that four or five decades since decolonization; colonialism, dependency and racism no longer cut it as explanations for Africa’s persistent and pervasive underdevelopment. “Pseudo-scholars such as [the late] Edward Said and legions of liberal intellectuals have made careers out of blaming the West for problems that were endemic to many societies both before and after their experiences as European colonies,” noted Australian historian Keith Windschuttle, in a 2002 issue of American Outlook.

The truth is that colonization constituted the least tumultuous period in African history. This is fact; its enunciation is not to condone colonialism or similar, undeniably coercive, forays, only to venture, as did George Eliot in Daniel Deronda, that “to object to colonization absolutely is to object to history itself. To ask whether colonization in itself is good or bad is the same as asking whether history is a good or bad thing.”

“The decolonization process” in Africa “was substantially completed by the end of the 1960s,” notes Harrison, in the aforementioned Culture Matters. Yet half of the more than 600 million people south of the Sahara live in poverty. In at least eighteen countries life expectancy is below fifty years, and half or more of women are illiterate. In at least thirteen countries, half or more of the adult population is illiterate. Since the colonial powers decamped, economic conditions have declined across the Dark Continent. Democratic institutions have been slow or have failed to emerge.

The colonialism humbug, unhelpful in explaining and hence helping the Third World, was once “conventional wisdom that brooked no dissent.” Now, claims Harrison, it is rarely mentioned in intellectually respectable quarters. “For many, including some Africans, the statute of limitation on colonialism as an explanation for underdevelopment lapsed long ago.” “Moreover, four former colonies, two British (Hong Kong and Singapore) and two Japanese (South Korea and Taiwan) have vaulted into the First World.”

A former USAID (United States Agency for International Development) official, Harrison, also author of Underdevelopment is a State of Mind, knows of what he speaks: “Over the years, the development assistance institutions have promoted an assortment of solutions,” from land reform, to sustainable, and culturally sensitive, development. Billions of dollars later, “rapid growth, democracy and social justice” remain rare in Africa.

As the researchers cited insist, human behavior is mediated by values. Nevertheless, their cultural argument affords a circular, rather than a causal, elegance: People do what they do because they are who they are and have a history of being that way. But what precisely accounts for the unequal “civilizing potential,” as James Burnham called it, displayed by different groups?

Why have some people produced Confucian ethics (Clinton and Trump’s dreaded Chinese), or Anglo-Protestant ethics—with their mutual emphasis on graft and delayed gratification—while others have midwived Islamic and animistic values, emphasizing conformity, consensus, and control?

Why have certain patterns of thought and action come to typify certain people in the first place? Such an investigation, however, is verboten—a state-of-affairs another Harvard sociologist, Orlando Patterson, blames on “a prevailing rigid orthodoxy,” which is the preferred academic phrase for political correctness:

Culture is a symbolic system to be interpreted, understood, discussed, delineated, respected, and celebrated as the distinct product of a particular group of people, of equal worth with all other such products. But it should never be used to explain anything about the people who produced it.

Still another process that has eluded Africa is detribalization. Tribe burrows deep in Africa’s marrow and, some might contend, infects its lymphatic system in a bad way.

Historians (and certainly treacherous politicians) are in the habit of commending the West for detribalizing and condemning us for Trump-style tribalism.

ORDER IT NOW

The beginning of the English nation began with Anglo-Saxon colonizers who massacred the Britons, recounts historian Kenneth M. Newton. “The descendants of these Anglo-Saxons went on to colonize America, replacing the ‘Red Indians.’” The “bloody nature of the various colonizations in the past” notwithstanding, in the case of England, what emerged was “a distinct identity for a people descended from diverse ethnic groups that had previously tended to slaughter each other.” That nation produced Shakespeare, Newton, and George Eliot.

The American Founding Fathers were sired and philosophically inspired by the same Saxon forefathers—and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. They went on to forge a constitution that transcended their tribe, as we are constantly told by the likes of Clinton and Ryan.

Perhaps for all their continent’s “backwardness,” a concept development economists are no longer allowed to deploy, Africans are at least constitutionally more true to their nature than Westerners, who prefer to tame their tribalism and risk perishing.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Africa, Colonialism 
Hide 55 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. If the predictions of 4 to 6 billion Africans by 2100 are plausible, the the aid has worked in spades to ameliorate the topical issues. The cultural issues are the underlying reason why those 4 to 6 billion will be living in misery. In that respect, the aid is anything but merciful,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim
    Culture is an epiphenomena. The real reasons for the low level of economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa are genes.
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /imercer/on-trump-tribalism-and-clintons-sinophobia/#comment-1448862
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Realist says:

    “Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee for 2016, has something in common with Donald Trump: Sinophobia.”

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.
     
    Yes, he's better than Clinton but not a panacea. However, what more could realistically be hoped for? There are no perfect candidates who can get past the systematic corruption of liberal democracy - a system which might be better than the others on offer, but that actively selects for the best liars. Ron Paul was probably closest to a perfect candidate, and look what happened to hm.

    It can't be ruled out that Trump will do silly things, certainly, but on the other hand we know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come - a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job (like many US presidents before him). He appears to make a lot of foolish noise in a kind of thinking out loud process but without any evidence he is particularly likely to follow through. Yes, there's a danger he could be "captured" by the neocon types that infest Washington's foreign policy establishment, as Bush I was, but my impression is he has a lot more about him strength of personality wise than the boy George did.

    All Trump has to do to be head and shoulders above Clinton (and all the plausible Republican alternatives who ran against him for the nomination) is to have any intention whatsoever to at least try to run US foreign policy in the US national interest. For both the US nation and for most of the rest of the world that would in practice be infinitely better than what we would get from Clinton. The occasions when genuine US national interests are served by destabilising, attacking or invading other countries are actually pretty rare. To come up with reasons to do things like invading Iraq, destroying the Libyan government, destabilising Russia's core security sphere and overthrowing the Syrian government, you have to be pursuing the interests of foreign powers such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, or be in thrall to some destabilising universalist ideology such as the r2p nonsense or democratism
    .
    We can at least hope Trump is not any of the latter. If he disappoints, well it was worth a try and he will certainly be no worse than Clinton would have been, and in any case the process of him winning office will outrage and upset all the people who most need to be outraged and upset, as well as delaying the leftist packing of the Supreme Court for another term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. This misses the real point. Hillary increased American aid to countries when agents of those countries dumped tens of millions into her Clinton Foundation.

    The Clinton Foundation will become the central focus of this Presidential election and it is amazing how few Americans have any informed views about it. This is a ticking time-bomb that will blow up the Democratic party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_zyp2YUvLo

    The “morality” of the Clintons is extremely malleable depending on $$$$$$$ given to them. It is the most blatant form of racketeering that the US has ever seen. Will Obama pardon her? Wait and watch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “The truth is that colonization constituted the least tumultuous period in African history.”

    You are confusing British colonialism for European colonialism.

    The rubber harvest in Congo by the Belgians was a more tumultuous period in African history than any other in terms of numbers of people out of the general population enslaved or killed. It out does even the post-Mobutu violence inflicted onto themselves by the Congolese.

    Africans never attempted such ambitious violence to wipe out an entire ethnic group. But the Second Reich did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    So africans engage in the right kind of tribalism and violence and europeans engage in the wrong kind of tribalism and violence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    Is the following an example of how the West brings wealth and modernity to Africa and the ME?

    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it’s possible.

    This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

    All that help the USA, France, England and Germany–’old Europe’–brought to Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the Sudan and Somalia and the buggers don’t appreciate what we do for them! How ungrateful. Why, we even dropped thousands of tons of toxic waste off the coast of Somalia and still they act uppity, as if we intended to do them harm.

    Don’t they realize that carpet-bombing their cities is needed so Halliburton and others can build the future?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. How has Zimbabwe fared since the white man was thrown out of power? At least some of those fleeing the country said that they were happy they grew up under British colonialism. Whenever a non white person gets enough money they flee and move to where the white people live. There was was a zulu king who thought that blacks had ruined south africa after apartheid. Here is a link to his profile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Zwelithini_kaBhekuzulu . Most of the accusations of racism are merely tribalism. It’s ironic that many immigrants are fleeing tribalism but then engage in violence upon arrival now that they have been made safe by their refugee status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    People flee to white countries because that is where the money is. No not her reason.

    Let's not pretend that white nations have the money because whites are full of thrift and industriousness. White people have the money because bankers from white nations are fleecing the rest if the world.

    Zimbabwe is its own country now full of black people. Good for them. I see a brighter future there than multicultural UK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Randal says:

    Certainly Chinese state capitalism is not free-market capitalism. But is Chinese mercantilism not preferable to American militarism, an example of which is Libya, a north-African recipient of madam secretary’s largess? Not according to Mrs. Clinton.

    It’s certainly amusingly noticeable that at the moment Chinese “aggression” seems to involve building stuff, from islands in the seas around China to infrastructure in Africa, whereas US regime aggression involves blowing stuff up, assassinating people by missile strikes (some of whom probably are “terrorists”), and destabilising entire regions with literally stupid invasions and bombing or subversion campaigns.

    Time (and past time) for regime change in the US, I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    It’s certainly amusingly noticeable that at the moment Chinese “aggression” seems to involve building stuff…
     
    I've seen that "stuff". At those stores with "Dollar" in the name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. David says:

    Does the author write this stuff at gun point? There must be some reason she issues columns without formulating anything to say.

    This article starts with Clinton and Trump sharing a trait. Then we learn that China mercantilism is better than American militarism. Then we learn that someone doesn’t understand economics, then that things are still bad in Africa. We learn that Protestantism emphasizes graft, then how hardened murderers became The English. Gratuitous reference to Shakespeare. Finally it’s all wrapped up with an urging of Americans to follow the African example.

    The Constitution, by the way, is not what made America a great place to live. It is rather the expressed ideals of social justice inherent in the Anglo Saxon race. Anglos are what made America a great place to live.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Anglo Saxons are also the people who brought slavery to the US.

    And then once slavery was banned, Anglo Saxons decided to import the world to the US just so the Anglo Saxon could live behind the castle walls in comfort while everything outside it burned.

    Anglos made this country a great place to live, for the 1%. Don't get me started on social justice being some inherent part of Anglo identity. Absolutely absurd.
    , @lorax
    Thomas Jefferson is a shining example, very aware of his Saxon heritage; he wrote the following immortal lines of English:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

    He died on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day, July 4th 1776.
    (As did John Adams.)
    , @Bayan
    Agree largely, it is a confused article. A software can write a better one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. If they are blaming the Anglo Saxons for killing off the Britons 1500 years ago then do the Britons or whoever they are supposed to represent her a free pass or do that deserve the same fate? Do all white people deserve to be condemned or just those who had something to do with slavery?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Enough with the white victimization narrative.

    If whites would forgo their parasitic banks that prey on the rest of the world, quit interfering militarily with the rest of the world, and stop forcing western culture on everyone else no one would be blaming white people for anything.

    But besides Russians, what white nations or people have their hands clean of this? Where are the white people protesting the wars and banks in the west? Most white people are fine with this arrangement so long as they get to love in comfort and get their 4 weeks vacation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Anonymous
    "The truth is that colonization constituted the least tumultuous period in African history."

    You are confusing British colonialism for European colonialism.

    The rubber harvest in Congo by the Belgians was a more tumultuous period in African history than any other in terms of numbers of people out of the general population enslaved or killed. It out does even the post-Mobutu violence inflicted onto themselves by the Congolese.

    Africans never attempted such ambitious violence to wipe out an entire ethnic group. But the Second Reich did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_genocide

    So africans engage in the right kind of tribalism and violence and europeans engage in the wrong kind of tribalism and violence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    His argument is that tribalism and violence (tumult) was lowest during the century of European colonization. That's wrong. The century that preceded European colonization in Africa had less tumult.

    When did Africans try to destroy every last man, woman, and child of the other ethnic group? (that's a German thing) When did Africans industrialize slavery on a scale where millions were forced to deliver rubber? (only Belgians were cruel and organized enough to bull it off)

    So if you bother evaluating his actual argument you can see it's nonsense. European colonization was African violence and cruelty against each other on hyper drive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. bob sykes says:

    Bantu IQ in the 70′s; bushmen IQ in the 60′s; Pygmie IQ in the 50′s.

    Nuff said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Pygmie IQ in the 50′s."

    Well, Pygmies are little people. They don't need as much IQ as bigger people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Randal says:
    @Realist
    "Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee for 2016, has something in common with Donald Trump: Sinophobia."

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.

    Yes, he’s better than Clinton but not a panacea. However, what more could realistically be hoped for? There are no perfect candidates who can get past the systematic corruption of liberal democracy – a system which might be better than the others on offer, but that actively selects for the best liars. Ron Paul was probably closest to a perfect candidate, and look what happened to hm.

    It can’t be ruled out that Trump will do silly things, certainly, but on the other hand we know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come – a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job (like many US presidents before him). He appears to make a lot of foolish noise in a kind of thinking out loud process but without any evidence he is particularly likely to follow through. Yes, there’s a danger he could be “captured” by the neocon types that infest Washington’s foreign policy establishment, as Bush I was, but my impression is he has a lot more about him strength of personality wise than the boy George did.

    All Trump has to do to be head and shoulders above Clinton (and all the plausible Republican alternatives who ran against him for the nomination) is to have any intention whatsoever to at least try to run US foreign policy in the US national interest. For both the US nation and for most of the rest of the world that would in practice be infinitely better than what we would get from Clinton. The occasions when genuine US national interests are served by destabilising, attacking or invading other countries are actually pretty rare. To come up with reasons to do things like invading Iraq, destroying the Libyan government, destabilising Russia’s core security sphere and overthrowing the Syrian government, you have to be pursuing the interests of foreign powers such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, or be in thrall to some destabilising universalist ideology such as the r2p nonsense or democratism
    .
    We can at least hope Trump is not any of the latter. If he disappoints, well it was worth a try and he will certainly be no worse than Clinton would have been, and in any case the process of him winning office will outrage and upset all the people who most need to be outraged and upset, as well as delaying the leftist packing of the Supreme Court for another term.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    True, he's no panacea. Though decidedly not a fan of his, I will certainly allow for the possibility that he wouldn't be any worse than Clinton. Indeed, he may surprise. The one feather in his cap is that he is an outsider whereas Clinton is the quintessential Establishment Candidate (even the neocons are threatening to vote for her). Clinton's supporters cite her experience. Well, how much "experience" did Obama have? What he did have was the right color, the obligatory Ivy education and something called "charisma." Frankly, I don't know what qualifications a person needs to be a POTUS anyway. Other than the enumerated requirements (age/place of birth/residency) the Constitution is silent on that subject.
    , @Regnum Nostrum

    We know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come – a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.
     
    That qualification alone makes it more than likely that she will end up in the White House. After that all we can do is fasten our seat belts.
    , @woodNfish

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job
     
    Trump has a global company and has had to work with foreign leaders and businessman in order to create that company. In what way does he only know "very little about foreign affairs"? And what evidence do you have to support your statement?

    I think you listen to the lying LSM too much which refuses to publish anything of substance on Trump. Are you really letting the LSM to so easily lead you by the nose?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. berserker says:

    - Thank you for mentioning Bauer. You will not find him on any reading lists in academic departments. His back and forth discussions on economic development with Amartya Sen are worth reading. His books completely changed my thinking on foreign aid.
    - Among the more amusing things about decolonization is that in African colonies with Westminster constitutions, one of the first acts of political leaders was to replace the title of ‘Prime Minister’ with ‘President’. The title of PM did not appear important enough for the inflated ego of the typical African leader. In a number of African countries, one sees a strange mixture of cabinet responsibility, a directly elected President, and myriad other distortions of the Westminster constitution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. imbroglio says:

    Daniel Deronda? You are widely read and should be widely read!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @Randal

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.
     
    Yes, he's better than Clinton but not a panacea. However, what more could realistically be hoped for? There are no perfect candidates who can get past the systematic corruption of liberal democracy - a system which might be better than the others on offer, but that actively selects for the best liars. Ron Paul was probably closest to a perfect candidate, and look what happened to hm.

    It can't be ruled out that Trump will do silly things, certainly, but on the other hand we know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come - a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job (like many US presidents before him). He appears to make a lot of foolish noise in a kind of thinking out loud process but without any evidence he is particularly likely to follow through. Yes, there's a danger he could be "captured" by the neocon types that infest Washington's foreign policy establishment, as Bush I was, but my impression is he has a lot more about him strength of personality wise than the boy George did.

    All Trump has to do to be head and shoulders above Clinton (and all the plausible Republican alternatives who ran against him for the nomination) is to have any intention whatsoever to at least try to run US foreign policy in the US national interest. For both the US nation and for most of the rest of the world that would in practice be infinitely better than what we would get from Clinton. The occasions when genuine US national interests are served by destabilising, attacking or invading other countries are actually pretty rare. To come up with reasons to do things like invading Iraq, destroying the Libyan government, destabilising Russia's core security sphere and overthrowing the Syrian government, you have to be pursuing the interests of foreign powers such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, or be in thrall to some destabilising universalist ideology such as the r2p nonsense or democratism
    .
    We can at least hope Trump is not any of the latter. If he disappoints, well it was worth a try and he will certainly be no worse than Clinton would have been, and in any case the process of him winning office will outrage and upset all the people who most need to be outraged and upset, as well as delaying the leftist packing of the Supreme Court for another term.

    True, he’s no panacea. Though decidedly not a fan of his, I will certainly allow for the possibility that he wouldn’t be any worse than Clinton. Indeed, he may surprise. The one feather in his cap is that he is an outsider whereas Clinton is the quintessential Establishment Candidate (even the neocons are threatening to vote for her). Clinton’s supporters cite her experience. Well, how much “experience” did Obama have? What he did have was the right color, the obligatory Ivy education and something called “charisma.” Frankly, I don’t know what qualifications a person needs to be a POTUS anyway. Other than the enumerated requirements (age/place of birth/residency) the Constitution is silent on that subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Well, how much “experience” did Obama have? What he did have was the right color, the obligatory Ivy education and something called “charisma.”
     
    And on foreign policy, the reassuring willingness to be "guided" by the Democrat wing of exactly the kind of experts who have given us all the worst nonsenses of US foreign policy over the past two decades - Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria.....

    Frankly, I don’t know what qualifications a person needs to be a POTUS anyway. Other than the enumerated requirements (age/place of birth/residency) the Constitution is silent on that subject.
     
    Many US presidents have arrived in office with no foreign policy experience whatsoever in recent decades - that could be said of Bush II, Clinton I, Reagan and Carter. If they know how to deal with people at high levels then they can learn on the job - they do have access to billions of dollars of supposedly expert infrastructure to support them, after all, in the State Dept, all the other various advisory and executive bodies, and whoever else they decide to employ or seek advice from, money no object.

    Trump's interpersonal nous and big business experience says he will do fine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Randal

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.
     
    Yes, he's better than Clinton but not a panacea. However, what more could realistically be hoped for? There are no perfect candidates who can get past the systematic corruption of liberal democracy - a system which might be better than the others on offer, but that actively selects for the best liars. Ron Paul was probably closest to a perfect candidate, and look what happened to hm.

    It can't be ruled out that Trump will do silly things, certainly, but on the other hand we know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come - a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job (like many US presidents before him). He appears to make a lot of foolish noise in a kind of thinking out loud process but without any evidence he is particularly likely to follow through. Yes, there's a danger he could be "captured" by the neocon types that infest Washington's foreign policy establishment, as Bush I was, but my impression is he has a lot more about him strength of personality wise than the boy George did.

    All Trump has to do to be head and shoulders above Clinton (and all the plausible Republican alternatives who ran against him for the nomination) is to have any intention whatsoever to at least try to run US foreign policy in the US national interest. For both the US nation and for most of the rest of the world that would in practice be infinitely better than what we would get from Clinton. The occasions when genuine US national interests are served by destabilising, attacking or invading other countries are actually pretty rare. To come up with reasons to do things like invading Iraq, destroying the Libyan government, destabilising Russia's core security sphere and overthrowing the Syrian government, you have to be pursuing the interests of foreign powers such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, or be in thrall to some destabilising universalist ideology such as the r2p nonsense or democratism
    .
    We can at least hope Trump is not any of the latter. If he disappoints, well it was worth a try and he will certainly be no worse than Clinton would have been, and in any case the process of him winning office will outrage and upset all the people who most need to be outraged and upset, as well as delaying the leftist packing of the Supreme Court for another term.

    We know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come – a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.

    That qualification alone makes it more than likely that she will end up in the White House. After that all we can do is fasten our seat belts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @David
    Does the author write this stuff at gun point? There must be some reason she issues columns without formulating anything to say.

    This article starts with Clinton and Trump sharing a trait. Then we learn that China mercantilism is better than American militarism. Then we learn that someone doesn't understand economics, then that things are still bad in Africa. We learn that Protestantism emphasizes graft, then how hardened murderers became The English. Gratuitous reference to Shakespeare. Finally it's all wrapped up with an urging of Americans to follow the African example.

    The Constitution, by the way, is not what made America a great place to live. It is rather the expressed ideals of social justice inherent in the Anglo Saxon race. Anglos are what made America a great place to live.

    Anglo Saxons are also the people who brought slavery to the US.

    And then once slavery was banned, Anglo Saxons decided to import the world to the US just so the Anglo Saxon could live behind the castle walls in comfort while everything outside it burned.

    Anglos made this country a great place to live, for the 1%. Don’t get me started on social justice being some inherent part of Anglo identity. Absolutely absurd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Slavery existed long before the whites came to america. Whites continued the practice and then ended it. Whites didn't import anyone after that, they came of their own free will. The reason we have trouble communicating is that you don't believe that any relationship is possible except for master and slave. Free people voluntarily entering into a contractual and consensual arrangement is not possible as far as you understand things.
    , @Ace
    You raise distortion to the level of high art.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    How has Zimbabwe fared since the white man was thrown out of power? At least some of those fleeing the country said that they were happy they grew up under British colonialism. Whenever a non white person gets enough money they flee and move to where the white people live. There was was a zulu king who thought that blacks had ruined south africa after apartheid. Here is a link to his profile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Zwelithini_kaBhekuzulu . Most of the accusations of racism are merely tribalism. It's ironic that many immigrants are fleeing tribalism but then engage in violence upon arrival now that they have been made safe by their refugee status.

    People flee to white countries because that is where the money is. No not her reason.

    Let’s not pretend that white nations have the money because whites are full of thrift and industriousness. White people have the money because bankers from white nations are fleecing the rest if the world.

    Zimbabwe is its own country now full of black people. Good for them. I see a brighter future there than multicultural UK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    I'm glad you clarified that for us. Zimbabwe the garden spot. Who knew?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. lorax says:
    @David
    Does the author write this stuff at gun point? There must be some reason she issues columns without formulating anything to say.

    This article starts with Clinton and Trump sharing a trait. Then we learn that China mercantilism is better than American militarism. Then we learn that someone doesn't understand economics, then that things are still bad in Africa. We learn that Protestantism emphasizes graft, then how hardened murderers became The English. Gratuitous reference to Shakespeare. Finally it's all wrapped up with an urging of Americans to follow the African example.

    The Constitution, by the way, is not what made America a great place to live. It is rather the expressed ideals of social justice inherent in the Anglo Saxon race. Anglos are what made America a great place to live.

    Thomas Jefferson is a shining example, very aware of his Saxon heritage; he wrote the following immortal lines of English:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

    He died on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day, July 4th 1776.
    (As did John Adams.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - What did hi mean by equal, men and liberty. Certainly he meant something else than how we understand these terms. Otherwise he would not have kept slaves. Did he liberate any? Did he sell some? Did he purchase some?
    , @Ivy
    Thomas Jefferson is in select company with George Washington and John Adams to name two others among Founding Fathers objectively qualified to be President.

    http://www.nysun.com/editorials/most-qualified-for-president/89619/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    If they are blaming the Anglo Saxons for killing off the Britons 1500 years ago then do the Britons or whoever they are supposed to represent her a free pass or do that deserve the same fate? Do all white people deserve to be condemned or just those who had something to do with slavery?

    Enough with the white victimization narrative.

    If whites would forgo their parasitic banks that prey on the rest of the world, quit interfering militarily with the rest of the world, and stop forcing western culture on everyone else no one would be blaming white people for anything.

    But besides Russians, what white nations or people have their hands clean of this? Where are the white people protesting the wars and banks in the west? Most white people are fine with this arrangement so long as they get to love in comfort and get their 4 weeks vacation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    The people who own and support the central banks are either Jewish or white. The people who support auditing the federal reserve are either Jewish and or white. The people in charge of identity politics are not basing their grievances on the federal reserve system and if they were why not say so plainly? Why use a cryptic argument? The average la raza member is not smart enough to comprehend what a central banker does. Ron Paul supporters were criticized for being too white and male. I would happily go back to school and come up with a program for allowing people to set up their own credit facilities but I am just as afraid of the criminal bankers as anyone else.
    , @Erik Sieven
    if Africa would not exist Europe, USA, East Asia would be as wealthy as they are today
    , @gwynedd1
    Is this some sort of joke? Obama is in power because of a brown and female moat that would not know a the spot price of an ounce of silver within a 1000% of its value , let alone the difference between Keynes , Hayek and Irving Fisher . It is a white male opposition to the bankster class because they are the ones in the know. They may not entirely agree, but everything from MMT to a Rothbard gold standard, and anyhting in between is white male. They can't touch the bankster class because the Obama brown and female moat protects them. Holder prosecuted no one. Even Bernie only seems to attract white liberals , while blacks and Hispanics flock to bankster candidate extraordinaire Hillary. Anytime I post the virtues of a Turgot reform in the classical enlightenment , 10 white guys read it and 1 understands it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Anonymous
    Enough with the white victimization narrative.

    If whites would forgo their parasitic banks that prey on the rest of the world, quit interfering militarily with the rest of the world, and stop forcing western culture on everyone else no one would be blaming white people for anything.

    But besides Russians, what white nations or people have their hands clean of this? Where are the white people protesting the wars and banks in the west? Most white people are fine with this arrangement so long as they get to love in comfort and get their 4 weeks vacation.

    The people who own and support the central banks are either Jewish or white. The people who support auditing the federal reserve are either Jewish and or white. The people in charge of identity politics are not basing their grievances on the federal reserve system and if they were why not say so plainly? Why use a cryptic argument? The average la raza member is not smart enough to comprehend what a central banker does. Ron Paul supporters were criticized for being too white and male. I would happily go back to school and come up with a program for allowing people to set up their own credit facilities but I am just as afraid of the criminal bankers as anyone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Anonymous
    Anglo Saxons are also the people who brought slavery to the US.

    And then once slavery was banned, Anglo Saxons decided to import the world to the US just so the Anglo Saxon could live behind the castle walls in comfort while everything outside it burned.

    Anglos made this country a great place to live, for the 1%. Don't get me started on social justice being some inherent part of Anglo identity. Absolutely absurd.

    Slavery existed long before the whites came to america. Whites continued the practice and then ended it. Whites didn’t import anyone after that, they came of their own free will. The reason we have trouble communicating is that you don’t believe that any relationship is possible except for master and slave. Free people voluntarily entering into a contractual and consensual arrangement is not possible as far as you understand things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Anonymous is a troll. Don't feed it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Randal says:
    @Connecticut Famer
    True, he's no panacea. Though decidedly not a fan of his, I will certainly allow for the possibility that he wouldn't be any worse than Clinton. Indeed, he may surprise. The one feather in his cap is that he is an outsider whereas Clinton is the quintessential Establishment Candidate (even the neocons are threatening to vote for her). Clinton's supporters cite her experience. Well, how much "experience" did Obama have? What he did have was the right color, the obligatory Ivy education and something called "charisma." Frankly, I don't know what qualifications a person needs to be a POTUS anyway. Other than the enumerated requirements (age/place of birth/residency) the Constitution is silent on that subject.

    Well, how much “experience” did Obama have? What he did have was the right color, the obligatory Ivy education and something called “charisma.”

    And on foreign policy, the reassuring willingness to be “guided” by the Democrat wing of exactly the kind of experts who have given us all the worst nonsenses of US foreign policy over the past two decades – Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria…..

    Frankly, I don’t know what qualifications a person needs to be a POTUS anyway. Other than the enumerated requirements (age/place of birth/residency) the Constitution is silent on that subject.

    Many US presidents have arrived in office with no foreign policy experience whatsoever in recent decades – that could be said of Bush II, Clinton I, Reagan and Carter. If they know how to deal with people at high levels then they can learn on the job – they do have access to billions of dollars of supposedly expert infrastructure to support them, after all, in the State Dept, all the other various advisory and executive bodies, and whoever else they decide to employ or seek advice from, money no object.

    Trump’s interpersonal nous and big business experience says he will do fine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. tbraton says:
    @bob sykes
    Bantu IQ in the 70's; bushmen IQ in the 60's; Pygmie IQ in the 50's.

    Nuff said.

    “Pygmie IQ in the 50′s.”

    Well, Pygmies are little people. They don’t need as much IQ as bigger people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. utu says:
    @lorax
    Thomas Jefferson is a shining example, very aware of his Saxon heritage; he wrote the following immortal lines of English:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

    He died on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day, July 4th 1776.
    (As did John Adams.)

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” – What did hi mean by equal, men and liberty. Certainly he meant something else than how we understand these terms. Otherwise he would not have kept slaves. Did he liberate any? Did he sell some? Did he purchase some?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Anonymous
    Enough with the white victimization narrative.

    If whites would forgo their parasitic banks that prey on the rest of the world, quit interfering militarily with the rest of the world, and stop forcing western culture on everyone else no one would be blaming white people for anything.

    But besides Russians, what white nations or people have their hands clean of this? Where are the white people protesting the wars and banks in the west? Most white people are fine with this arrangement so long as they get to love in comfort and get their 4 weeks vacation.

    if Africa would not exist Europe, USA, East Asia would be as wealthy as they are today

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    So africans engage in the right kind of tribalism and violence and europeans engage in the wrong kind of tribalism and violence?

    His argument is that tribalism and violence (tumult) was lowest during the century of European colonization. That’s wrong. The century that preceded European colonization in Africa had less tumult.

    When did Africans try to destroy every last man, woman, and child of the other ethnic group? (that’s a German thing) When did Africans industrialize slavery on a scale where millions were forced to deliver rubber? (only Belgians were cruel and organized enough to bull it off)

    So if you bother evaluating his actual argument you can see it’s nonsense. European colonization was African violence and cruelty against each other on hyper drive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    All people's attempted to commit genocide against each other, the Africans were just worse at it than others. If africans fail at genocide then you blame the white man. The practice of castrating young men for sale to the arabs as eunuchs lasted for at least 10 centuries before the whites arrived. This is well documented by many non eurocentric sources including ibn khaldun. I am going to call you Zanzibar in celebration of the Indian ocean trading port that the British shut down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Bayan says:
    @David
    Does the author write this stuff at gun point? There must be some reason she issues columns without formulating anything to say.

    This article starts with Clinton and Trump sharing a trait. Then we learn that China mercantilism is better than American militarism. Then we learn that someone doesn't understand economics, then that things are still bad in Africa. We learn that Protestantism emphasizes graft, then how hardened murderers became The English. Gratuitous reference to Shakespeare. Finally it's all wrapped up with an urging of Americans to follow the African example.

    The Constitution, by the way, is not what made America a great place to live. It is rather the expressed ideals of social justice inherent in the Anglo Saxon race. Anglos are what made America a great place to live.

    Agree largely, it is a confused article. A software can write a better one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Would you have preferred another swoon over Mr. Trump?

    Worthwhile observations don't always have to be wrapped up in a dogmatic conclusion that resonates with the loyal fan base. I believe that's how and why Linh Dinh, today's other featured columnist, is (finally) being appreciated by readers of this site.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Africans are at least constitutionally more true to their nature than Westerners, who prefer to tame their tribalism and risk perishing.

    I don’t know whether Mercer endorses the HBD analysis of clannishness, but in light of the debilities of Western European (relative) non-clannishness and Middle Eastern ultra-clannishness, I wonder why HBDers don’t endorse Steve Sailer’s (and Aristotle and Ben Franklin’s) golden mean and – what Sailer hasn’t done – draw the conclusions. If we are insufficiently clannish and the Arabs excessively clannish, where does that golden mean lie? Easter Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    The right position is not always in the middle of A and B. In this case, back to excessively clannish is the way to go.

    Obviously. Foreigners go home! How cool is that?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Anonymous
    His argument is that tribalism and violence (tumult) was lowest during the century of European colonization. That's wrong. The century that preceded European colonization in Africa had less tumult.

    When did Africans try to destroy every last man, woman, and child of the other ethnic group? (that's a German thing) When did Africans industrialize slavery on a scale where millions were forced to deliver rubber? (only Belgians were cruel and organized enough to bull it off)

    So if you bother evaluating his actual argument you can see it's nonsense. European colonization was African violence and cruelty against each other on hyper drive.

    All people’s attempted to commit genocide against each other, the Africans were just worse at it than others. If africans fail at genocide then you blame the white man. The practice of castrating young men for sale to the arabs as eunuchs lasted for at least 10 centuries before the whites arrived. This is well documented by many non eurocentric sources including ibn khaldun. I am going to call you Zanzibar in celebration of the Indian ocean trading port that the British shut down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Ivy says:
    @lorax
    Thomas Jefferson is a shining example, very aware of his Saxon heritage; he wrote the following immortal lines of English:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

    He died on the 50th anniversary of Independence Day, July 4th 1776.
    (As did John Adams.)

    Thomas Jefferson is in select company with George Washington and John Adams to name two others among Founding Fathers objectively qualified to be President.

    http://www.nysun.com/editorials/most-qualified-for-president/89619/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Bayan
    Agree largely, it is a confused article. A software can write a better one.

    Would you have preferred another swoon over Mr. Trump?

    Worthwhile observations don’t always have to be wrapped up in a dogmatic conclusion that resonates with the loyal fan base. I believe that’s how and why Linh Dinh, today’s other featured columnist, is (finally) being appreciated by readers of this site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bayan
    Linh Dinh is unusual and great. Hope Mercer improves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Rap = Ebonic Plague

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @Randal

    Certainly Chinese state capitalism is not free-market capitalism. But is Chinese mercantilism not preferable to American militarism, an example of which is Libya, a north-African recipient of madam secretary’s largess? Not according to Mrs. Clinton.
     
    It's certainly amusingly noticeable that at the moment Chinese "aggression" seems to involve building stuff, from islands in the seas around China to infrastructure in Africa, whereas US regime aggression involves blowing stuff up, assassinating people by missile strikes (some of whom probably are "terrorists"), and destabilising entire regions with literally stupid invasions and bombing or subversion campaigns.

    Time (and past time) for regime change in the US, I think.

    It’s certainly amusingly noticeable that at the moment Chinese “aggression” seems to involve building stuff…

    I’ve seen that “stuff”. At those stores with “Dollar” in the name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon22
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-21/modernizing-ethiopia-opens-475-million-china-built-urban-rail

    Tekle Negash’s days of riding a battered minibus to work in Ethiopia’s capital are over. Boarding Addis Ababa’s $475-million, Chinese-built and funded Light Rail, he can slash his one-hour commute by two-thirds and still save money.


    http://www.fastcoexist.com/3050167/in-africa-chinese-developers-are-building-a-mini-china

    Though the pace and scale of Chinese influence has been criticized by some—Hillary Clinton has called it "new colonialism"—the researchers saw that the people they spoke with in Africa were generally positive about the changes, at least for now.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anon22 says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It’s certainly amusingly noticeable that at the moment Chinese “aggression” seems to involve building stuff…
     
    I've seen that "stuff". At those stores with "Dollar" in the name.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-21/modernizing-ethiopia-opens-475-million-china-built-urban-rail

    Tekle Negash’s days of riding a battered minibus to work in Ethiopia’s capital are over. Boarding Addis Ababa’s $475-million, Chinese-built and funded Light Rail, he can slash his one-hour commute by two-thirds and still save money.

    http://www.fastcoexist.com/3050167/in-africa-chinese-developers-are-building-a-mini-china

    Though the pace and scale of Chinese influence has been criticized by some—Hillary Clinton has called it “new colonialism”—the researchers saw that the people they spoke with in Africa were generally positive about the changes, at least for now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    Well there you go again… ”….

    On Trump Tribalism and Clinton’s Sinophobia
    ILANA MERCER • 34 COMMENTS • 34 NEW

    this good enough title, seems to encapsulate and embody the whole message.

    Please forgive me for inserting my unwanted 10/100ths. but, Though I find your writings quite interesting, and thought provocative, or even: worth something, which they most certainly are…totally! (the exact amount yet to be determined…haha… “/

    Now with that preface, I must go on to build and explain my comment on your worthy post/essay, in which my point will be twofold, or more in the detritus..

    Trump Tribalism… Aka white low and mid economic… aka white working class.
    vs.
    the bastards.

    Now, hold your… ”horses”, or hold your immediate impulses, now ”ladies”.

    and that would apply to you ”LADY wannabe guys.. you know who you are: (like the PeeWeeHerman that showed up on Crosstalk yesterday….sheesh/anda half!). Poor Peter Level had to host that cartoon character semblance of the guy…[ description ],

    Now enough of my typo induce digressing, and to my gaddammed point:

    I twonder if vicariously, unwittingly perhaps… that, Ilana is working for Hellary Hitlery H. f’n Roadhell bitch … (sorry, I don’t have time for better prose, at the moment.

    And do I like this complete greed oriented alternative Offer, Trump, no!

    I , frankly: don’t see nothing’, I’m a ”babe in the Woods”… but I think one thing: We might all roast in Hell, because the Psycopaths…. were allowed to predominate, On Our Watch!!

    Just a little food for thought1

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    Hey there! Dr. Unz!

    How come I don't ever see much reverb on my ... wonderful, insight laden comments... ? sheesh, I used to get some feedback at FDL, 90% from (Hillary type ) lesboes, but at least the mfr's would fire back at ya!

    respectully,
    Ed Nelson


    [" Just a little food for thought1 "].
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Clintons are guilty not of Cinophobia – this is a mistractation, and is very misleading – I recon purposely chosen to divert Americans’ attention from the real truth, and its dire consequenses for the whole world, Americans including. Their sin is a unquenching gluttony for the world dominance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Bayan says:
    @anonymous
    Would you have preferred another swoon over Mr. Trump?

    Worthwhile observations don't always have to be wrapped up in a dogmatic conclusion that resonates with the loyal fan base. I believe that's how and why Linh Dinh, today's other featured columnist, is (finally) being appreciated by readers of this site.

    Linh Dinh is unusual and great. Hope Mercer improves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @edNels


    Well there you go again… ''….

    On Trump Tribalism and Clinton’s Sinophobia
    ILANA MERCER • 34 COMMENTS • 34 NEW

    this good enough title, seems to encapsulate and embody the whole message.

    Please forgive me for inserting my unwanted 10/100ths. but, Though I find your writings quite interesting, and thought provocative, or even: worth something, which they most certainly are…totally! (the exact amount yet to be determined…haha… "/

    Now with that preface, I must go on to build and explain my comment on your worthy post/essay, in which my point will be twofold, or more in the detritus..

    Trump Tribalism… Aka white low and mid economic… aka white working class.
    vs.
    the bastards.

    Now, hold your… ''horses'', or hold your immediate impulses, now ''ladies''.

    and that would apply to you ''LADY wannabe guys.. you know who you are: (like the PeeWeeHerman that showed up on Crosstalk yesterday….sheesh/anda half!). Poor Peter Level had to host that cartoon character semblance of the guy…[ description ],

    Now enough of my typo induce digressing, and to my gaddammed point:

    I twonder if vicariously, unwittingly perhaps… that, Ilana is working for Hellary Hitlery H. f'n Roadhell bitch … (sorry, I don't have time for better prose, at the moment.

    And do I like this complete greed oriented alternative Offer, Trump, no!

    I , frankly: don't see nothing', I'm a ''babe in the Woods"… but I think one thing: We might all roast in Hell, because the Psycopaths…. were allowed to predominate, On Our Watch!!

    Just a little food for thought1

    Hey there! Dr. Unz!

    How come I don’t ever see much reverb on my … wonderful, insight laden comments… ? sheesh, I used to get some feedback at FDL, 90% from (Hillary type ) lesboes, but at least the mfr’s would fire back at ya!

    respectully,
    Ed Nelson

    [" Just a little food for thought1 "].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Dear Ms. Mercer:
    Hemingway wrote somewhere (in “A Movable Feast” ?) that the author
    is not obliged to write in the novel, or in a short story, what were the prior events in the biography of personages.
    But the author must know those events, the details of them. Otherwise the story will not get out convincing.

    In this style I humbly (who am I to give such advice ?) advise you to start writing an article with 35-word “Abstract” of future article, and with 75- to 100-word “Conclusion” for it. After that you can go ahead and write the body of the article. Finally, you can remove Abstract and Conclusion; albeit I personally would be happy to read them.
    I am sure that even without explicitly provided Abstract and Conclusion the article will be understood and received much better.
    I sincerely wish you the best in your work.
    Respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    Thanks to you for that insturction/insight sir!

    Please... with sugar on top ... give me a reverb on my stupid comment above... .

    And, (poor grammer, insuferable, and I am on the bandwaggon./that we must adhere to English!

    .... OK, I'm nothing but a stupid guy/goy.... I was once, in my ''formative years'', a proponent of the concept, that there would, and could be a Real Order, and a Real Crown, that could and what would do to make Right!!

    Most respectful
    Eddie Nels

    I would really like a reply comment... !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Dear Ms. Mercer:
    Hemingway wrote somewhere (in “A Movable Feast” ?) that the author
    is not obliged to write in the novel, or in a short story, what were the prior events in the biography of personages.
    But the author must know those events, the details of them. Otherwise the story will not get out convincing.

    In this style I humbly (who am I to give such advice ?) advise you to start writing an article with 35-word “Abstract” of future article, and with 75- to 100-word “Conclusion” for it. After that you can go ahead and write the body of the article. Finally, you can remove Abstract and Conclusion; albeit I personally would be happy to read them.
    I am sure that even without explicitly provided Abstract and Conclusion the article will be understood and received much better.
    I sincerely wish you the best in your work.
    Respectfully, I.f.f.U.

    Thanks to you for that insturction/insight sir!

    Please… with sugar on top … give me a reverb on my stupid comment above… .

    And, (poor grammer, insuferable, and I am on the bandwaggon./that we must adhere to English!

    …. OK, I’m nothing but a stupid guy/goy…. I was once, in my ”formative years”, a proponent of the concept, that there would, and could be a Real Order, and a Real Crown, that could and what would do to make Right!!

    Most respectful
    Eddie Nels

    I would really like a reply comment… !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Esteemed geoshmoe, you wrote

    and could be a Real Order,

    My answer:
    “Aber die Ordnung muß sein”
    My best to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels


    Min duetch is nictt gut, aber, Danks...

    and please don't make it sound so final, in thaat phrase: " ... My best to you... '',

    Of course I will be killed in the first ... round... What will we call that ?? when the ''powers'' really do what we knew... that they will do...

    No no, let's us not to worry too much, My Grammy, hooked me up with the powers...

    That's why I live... She hooked me up with the power elite... and that is my ''ticcket'' to ride... let me tell you how menny times I done been ''saved'' by police... by layers... by ciecumstnanc4

    I am a ''Believer'', I do know that GOD, watches over me... and that means, you too !!!!

    be nice:

    d Nelson, Petaluma. Ca/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR
    Esteemed geoshmoe, you wrote

    and could be a Real Order,
     
    My answer:
    "Aber die Ordnung muß sein"
    My best to you.

    Min duetch is nictt gut, aber, Danks…

    and please don’t make it sound so final, in thaat phrase: ” … My best to you… ”,

    Of course I will be killed in the first … round… What will we call that ?? when the ”powers” really do what we knew… that they will do…

    No no, let’s us not to worry too much, My Grammy, hooked me up with the powers…

    That’s why I live… She hooked me up with the power elite… and that is my ”ticcket” to ride… let me tell you how menny times I done been ”saved” by police… by layers… by ciecumstnanc4

    I am a ”Believer”, I do know that GOD, watches over me… and that means, you too !!!!

    be nice:

    d Nelson, Petaluma. Ca/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:

    Hi Ilana

    I like you, and respedt your intelect, (sorry , but I am old, my vision is going south, I make a lot of typos… anad if I was .. looking for a fob… etc… I would go back and correct all that crap

    However at my advanced age tje o,[eratoves are to make the gaddamed point and get tat point oit there, and so on’

    Seee what I mean?… I am too old/too drunk… and a stupid Goy … you can’t decend to respond to me…

    Eddie Nilsen

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Jim says:
    @The Alarmist
    If the predictions of 4 to 6 billion Africans by 2100 are plausible, the the aid has worked in spades to ameliorate the topical issues. The cultural issues are the underlying reason why those 4 to 6 billion will be living in misery. In that respect, the aid is anything but merciful,

    Culture is an epiphenomena. The real reasons for the low level of economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa are genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Hello, dear Jim !
    I agree with your comment.
    It only emphasizes the importance of limiting the population of Sub-Saharan Africa
    via birth control and other humane measures.
    Great Darwin's cousin was right.
    I.f.f.U.
    , @woodNfish
    The truth of your statement is how it also characterizes Black Culture in the US which denigrates its women as "ho's" and education as giving into whitey amongst its many other antisocial and negative aspects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Jim
    Culture is an epiphenomena. The real reasons for the low level of economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa are genes.

    Hello, dear Jim !
    I agree with your comment.
    It only emphasizes the importance of limiting the population of Sub-Saharan Africa
    via birth control and other humane measures.
    Great Darwin’s cousin was right.
    I.f.f.U.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. woodNfish says:
    @Jim
    Culture is an epiphenomena. The real reasons for the low level of economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa are genes.

    The truth of your statement is how it also characterizes Black Culture in the US which denigrates its women as “ho’s” and education as giving into whitey amongst its many other antisocial and negative aspects.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. woodNfish says:
    @Randal

    Yes, I am afraid many Trump fans are going to be very disappointed in his stand for US hegemony.
    He has stated more than once he will take a hard line with China, Russia and Iran. He also wants to increase our military spending.

    While Trump is a much better choice than Clinton, he is not a panacea.
     
    Yes, he's better than Clinton but not a panacea. However, what more could realistically be hoped for? There are no perfect candidates who can get past the systematic corruption of liberal democracy - a system which might be better than the others on offer, but that actively selects for the best liars. Ron Paul was probably closest to a perfect candidate, and look what happened to hm.

    It can't be ruled out that Trump will do silly things, certainly, but on the other hand we know for sure that Clinton is as bad as they come - a fully paid up r2p interventionist and Russophobe aggressor, who will back to the hilts the worst individuals in the US hierarchy and legislature.

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job (like many US presidents before him). He appears to make a lot of foolish noise in a kind of thinking out loud process but without any evidence he is particularly likely to follow through. Yes, there's a danger he could be "captured" by the neocon types that infest Washington's foreign policy establishment, as Bush I was, but my impression is he has a lot more about him strength of personality wise than the boy George did.

    All Trump has to do to be head and shoulders above Clinton (and all the plausible Republican alternatives who ran against him for the nomination) is to have any intention whatsoever to at least try to run US foreign policy in the US national interest. For both the US nation and for most of the rest of the world that would in practice be infinitely better than what we would get from Clinton. The occasions when genuine US national interests are served by destabilising, attacking or invading other countries are actually pretty rare. To come up with reasons to do things like invading Iraq, destroying the Libyan government, destabilising Russia's core security sphere and overthrowing the Syrian government, you have to be pursuing the interests of foreign powers such as Israel or Saudi Arabia, or be in thrall to some destabilising universalist ideology such as the r2p nonsense or democratism
    .
    We can at least hope Trump is not any of the latter. If he disappoints, well it was worth a try and he will certainly be no worse than Clinton would have been, and in any case the process of him winning office will outrage and upset all the people who most need to be outraged and upset, as well as delaying the leftist packing of the Supreme Court for another term.

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job

    Trump has a global company and has had to work with foreign leaders and businessman in order to create that company. In what way does he only know “very little about foreign affairs”? And what evidence do you have to support your statement?

    I think you listen to the lying LSM too much which refuses to publish anything of substance on Trump. Are you really letting the LSM to so easily lead you by the nose?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Don't misunderstand me, I would vote for Trump if I were American. But international big business deals do not provide foreign policy expertise or understanding of foreign affairs in the strategic and diplomatic sense. This is a specialist area. It's clear from a lot of what he says that he simply doesn't understand a lot of the issues. Clinton, on the other hand, undoubtedly does understand the issues (whilst being wrong), but lies about them.

    That said, it's true that the US foreign policy "experts" have proven unusually incompetent (to put it generously) recently, and also it's perfectly normal (as I noted above) for US presidents to learn foreign policy on the job, Furthermore, Trump's established expertise and experience does suggest he has the basic assets to learn to do the job perfectly well, and some fundamental attitudes that put him head and shoulders above the alternatives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. woodNfish says:
    @epochehusserl
    Slavery existed long before the whites came to america. Whites continued the practice and then ended it. Whites didn't import anyone after that, they came of their own free will. The reason we have trouble communicating is that you don't believe that any relationship is possible except for master and slave. Free people voluntarily entering into a contractual and consensual arrangement is not possible as far as you understand things.

    Anonymous is a troll. Don’t feed it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. gwynedd1 says:
    @Anonymous
    Enough with the white victimization narrative.

    If whites would forgo their parasitic banks that prey on the rest of the world, quit interfering militarily with the rest of the world, and stop forcing western culture on everyone else no one would be blaming white people for anything.

    But besides Russians, what white nations or people have their hands clean of this? Where are the white people protesting the wars and banks in the west? Most white people are fine with this arrangement so long as they get to love in comfort and get their 4 weeks vacation.

    Is this some sort of joke? Obama is in power because of a brown and female moat that would not know a the spot price of an ounce of silver within a 1000% of its value , let alone the difference between Keynes , Hayek and Irving Fisher . It is a white male opposition to the bankster class because they are the ones in the know. They may not entirely agree, but everything from MMT to a Rothbard gold standard, and anyhting in between is white male. They can’t touch the bankster class because the Obama brown and female moat protects them. Holder prosecuted no one. Even Bernie only seems to attract white liberals , while blacks and Hispanics flock to bankster candidate extraordinaire Hillary. Anytime I post the virtues of a Turgot reform in the classical enlightenment , 10 white guys read it and 1 understands it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Ace says:
    @Anonymous
    Anglo Saxons are also the people who brought slavery to the US.

    And then once slavery was banned, Anglo Saxons decided to import the world to the US just so the Anglo Saxon could live behind the castle walls in comfort while everything outside it burned.

    Anglos made this country a great place to live, for the 1%. Don't get me started on social justice being some inherent part of Anglo identity. Absolutely absurd.

    You raise distortion to the level of high art.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Ace says:
    @Anonymous
    People flee to white countries because that is where the money is. No not her reason.

    Let's not pretend that white nations have the money because whites are full of thrift and industriousness. White people have the money because bankers from white nations are fleecing the rest if the world.

    Zimbabwe is its own country now full of black people. Good for them. I see a brighter future there than multicultural UK.

    I’m glad you clarified that for us. Zimbabwe the garden spot. Who knew?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Ace says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Africans are at least constitutionally more true to their nature than Westerners, who prefer to tame their tribalism and risk perishing.
     
    I don't know whether Mercer endorses the HBD analysis of clannishness, but in light of the debilities of Western European (relative) non-clannishness and Middle Eastern ultra-clannishness, I wonder why HBDers don't endorse Steve Sailer's (and Aristotle and Ben Franklin's) golden mean and - what Sailer hasn't done - draw the conclusions. If we are insufficiently clannish and the Arabs excessively clannish, where does that golden mean lie? Easter Europe?

    The right position is not always in the middle of A and B. In this case, back to excessively clannish is the way to go.

    Obviously. Foreigners go home! How cool is that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Randal says:
    @woodNfish

    Trump, on the other hand, clearly knows very little about foreign affairs and will have to learn on the job
     
    Trump has a global company and has had to work with foreign leaders and businessman in order to create that company. In what way does he only know "very little about foreign affairs"? And what evidence do you have to support your statement?

    I think you listen to the lying LSM too much which refuses to publish anything of substance on Trump. Are you really letting the LSM to so easily lead you by the nose?

    Don’t misunderstand me, I would vote for Trump if I were American. But international big business deals do not provide foreign policy expertise or understanding of foreign affairs in the strategic and diplomatic sense. This is a specialist area. It’s clear from a lot of what he says that he simply doesn’t understand a lot of the issues. Clinton, on the other hand, undoubtedly does understand the issues (whilst being wrong), but lies about them.

    That said, it’s true that the US foreign policy “experts” have proven unusually incompetent (to put it generously) recently, and also it’s perfectly normal (as I noted above) for US presidents to learn foreign policy on the job, Furthermore, Trump’s established expertise and experience does suggest he has the basic assets to learn to do the job perfectly well, and some fundamental attitudes that put him head and shoulders above the alternatives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    While Asians have rapidly embraced the Greek mindset and learned finance and engineering to the point that they are out-performing their former colonisers, many Africans are still mired in tribalism and a pervasive belief in witchcraft. When it’s dangerous to stand out from the crowd, it’s hard to be successful.

    If the rich played by the rules, who could fault them for getting richer? But that’s not how it works. America has the best democracy money can buy, as Greg Palast put it. Lobbyists have more power than voters and the electoral system is a sham. When Corporations are pushed to make ever higher profits for their shareholders, the planet and it’s inhabitants suffer. Profits are privatised and costs and losses are nationalised. Corporations get the lion’s share of subsidies and tax cuts.

    Then there’s the Vulture Capitalists. People like Paul Singer. The ones who buy up Third World debt for pennies in the dollar and then use the courts to siphon up any cash that said Third World countries have in Western banks and any foreign aid promised to them. But Paul Singer is a generous contributor to campaign funds, so he’s allowed to continue unhindered.

    Eventually the peasants will revolt and the point one percent will get their comeuppance. Until the next group of elites arises. Empires will come and go but, “the poor will always be among you”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
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 Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation